Blogcritics: Comments on So much stupidity... so little time

Comment by Solo

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:11:16 EDT

Why, thank you Dr. Albright!<img>
I couldn't be more flattered, as I thought my post read more muddled like an Alanis Morrisette song. I feel like I am on the right path with my personal hero - Nietzsche, after reading your response. I'll be sure to avail myself of your services should the manic-depressives of the world and I decide to unite on a global scale and require instructions on how "village idiots com[e] together to form a congregation". The more the merrier, right?
<img>

Comment by dietdoc

Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:06:14 EDT

Solo writes: DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD!!! UNTIE!!! Reply: More to the point: manic-depressives of the world, unite! Cheers, Ron

Comment by Solo

Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:31:05 EDT

Oh my gawd! Religious half-wits... you're exhausting. You try to give your personification of a lie clout and expect to be taken seriously? Idiots! Do not address Atheism until you twits can agree on which of you is right. And to the moron who posted: If you don't believe the Bible, don't quote it. It takes a 'special' person to believe the Bible. I don't ride yellow buses with a hydrolic arm/lift full of slobbering, screaming, victims of your god's "love", but I'll venture to quote your silly little book and shred you and anyone else that wants to go toe-to-toe with this fag and "school you" on how to wield the "power" of the Bible ...or should I say "empowerment" of the Bible? Mark 11:12-21 (or just 11:12,13,14,20&21 if you have a low tolerance to filth and want to read what is only necessary) THEN read Matthew 21:18-21. Two accounts of the same story, where one of which, obviously, is just another example of Man's tendency to exaggerate 'the truth', or a con perpetrated by a con artist: Jesus Christ. This tragic little collection of writings reads more like a gay guy's black book than anything else. Jesus' tricks, hehe. Those of you who speak more than one language, particularly those raised in bi-racial unions of naturally contradicting cultures, have an understanding of how translations may be able to convey messages, while losing the essences and textures associated in the sequencing of specific words to express varying degrees of intensity and ranges of emotion, not to mention unspoken-but-naturally-assumed-associations to the respective culture. How you disgusting Bible thumpers dare to preach to anyone, or even outside of your church, let alone on the world wide web is beyond me. You truly have lost your minds. You don't even have the decency to learn the original language in which the Bible was scripted; not even as a sign of respect to your god. Pathetic. Here's a little history lesson, boys & girls (Yes, girls my attend my class, even though they were intended to be property. Voiceless seed-vessels for breeding and light slave duties, they are no more, as god has change the text of his righteous book to embrace world change and Man's progress, huh? Uh, no. Not quite. It appears very much to be true that manuscripts of the New Testament scriptures have been passed down from believing generation (of village idiots coming together to form a congregation) to believing generation (of inbred idiot villagers), thus copies wore out and had to be recopied. In the time from 600 CE (No longer BC and AD, but rather BCE for Before Common Era and CE for Common Era, by the way) and 800 CE this was a bit of a b!tc# to do by hand - remember, no printers 1,200 years ago. Then there were those near-sighted copyists who were hard of hearing and took dictation for manuscripts according to what they thought they heard, not what was signed (as in sign language) to them, not to mention those who felt the compulsion to correct what they thought was poor grammar on their own initiative. Clever little male secretaries... so smart! I wonder if they were molesting little boys back then too? Hmmm... Anyway, as a result, not all manuscripts of the "New Testament" were of the same value and it was some of those erroneous manuscripts that served as the "master" copy for others. Educate yourself. What would be my motivation to make this up? Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? Uh uh. Too speculative for you? Interesting... you can defy the Bible's word and lie about it, create your own versions of it, interpret this evil rag as you will, but a more recent account of translation activity, and some of you would question it? Fine. Time for the real lessons... the ones you can wrap your little minds around: 1 - god gave His very words to man in the form of scripture by direct inspiration. Timothy II 3:16 states clearly that god gave its word in the form of written scripture to mankind by inspiration. Peter II 1:20-21 says the holy casper moved holy men of god to speak many of the words that became scripture. The first purpose for the inspiration of the scriptures was they be "PROFITABLE for doctrine" Timothy II 3:17) so believers could discern truth from error. Too tough? Apply lesson one, here, to the Fig Tree Debacle (Your lesson above on empowerment, dummy. The one that you should already be quite familiar with, even before reading this post.) 2 - god promised to preserve this word in pure, written form for all generations. The following verses attest to the nature and extent of god's preservation of his word: Kings II 10:10; Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 19:7, Psalms 33:11, Psalms 100:5, Psalms 119:89, Psalms 119:140, Psalms 119:152, Psalms 119:160; Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35; Luke 16:17; John 10:35; Peter 1:23, Peter 1:25. All these promises your god made and now look... ALL KINDS OF VERSIONS. That's pretty smart. Yeah, your dumb @$$ could've avoided a lot of this had he just printed the stupid books himself in the first place, huh? I guess he really is responsible for the retarded. It's THAT or he's just plain *EVIL* and hateful. Why allow the rest of the world in its entirety to suffer eternal damnation for being victims of circumstance? A product of our childhoods, as many of us are? (This one is just for the Mormons: Do I get to go to 'ghetto heaven' or whatever lame @$$ thing you call it, or am I elligible for 'lower-middle-class heaven'? OH! That's right, I go to hell because after all, before I passed through the veil of forgetfulness, or the veil of never-never-remember on my way to the Neverland Ranch, I CHOSE MY PARENTS. So it is all my fault. I knew I should have chosen that terrified teen-ager who would've got me with that coathanger on her parents bathroom floor, shortly before she hemorrhaged to death. Shucks! I could have had a free ticket to Salt Lake Heaven, Diva=heaven-of-all-heavens-ever!) In any event, your god is sick and cruel and if I am to embrace your god once more, very, VERY briefly, let me say this to him/them/whatever: I LOATHE you and everything you've done to my people. Out of pure spite and disdain for you and your disgusting weaknesses and unforgiveable cryptic inabilities, with absolute certainty, I fully accept the maddening, incomparable torture and infinitely, intense torment of the eternal firey pits of hell rather than be tainted by your company furthermore. I don't even care to know WHY anymore. you are an evil ABOMINATION. you are nothing. And no longer taking leave of my senses, I'll have you know that you do, in fact, believe in nothing. The difference between the statement, above, and what some may view as my self-sentencing, above the aforementioned statement, is this: The statement is my truth. It allows me peace, which is a state of being forever 'a little sad' at the very best. I get fragments of happiness, but they are not real. As for the latter, it's what ultimately led to the clear-thinking state of mind that has made it possible for me to come to terms with the broken spirit and soul of a young man in agony that escaped a horrific childhood and an adolescense of suffering that even animals shouldn't have to endure, desperately (beyond belief, with so much FAITH) reaching out for god to save me. To save my soul. Then I realized the truth - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS god, PEOPLE. god IS FOR SMALL-MINDED PEOPLE THAT KNOW NOTHING OF SUFFERING. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVED IN god THEN YOU WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING, NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCE. DOING THE WRONG THINGS FOR THE RIGHT REASONS MAKE IT ALL WRONG; JUST AS, DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE WRONG REASON MAKES IT WRONG. Mankind's mental abilities are impressive. We can justify anything... even murder. We can have a set of contradicting testaments that oppose scientific fact/evidence and that fly in the face of COMMANDMENTS printed in the very testaments themselves and still 'humanity' justifies its disobedience because its archaic nature no longer suits them. Women are property that are supposed to shut their gawd damn mouths and keep their opinions to themselves until their husbands either tell them what their opinion is, or until the husband beats their opinion out of them. That's it, really. The Bible tells me so... Slavery is legal and god condones it. The Bible tells me so... god HATES shrimp, crab, lobster and all other shellfish and HATES people who eat it. The Bible tells me so... This piss poor, stupid, @$$backwards, primitive book of blasphemy tells me a lot of horse$#!t. Wake up folks! Don't be afraid of death. You aren't dishonoring your loved ones by embracing the truth. That they are just a memory for you to cherish until you die too. That is how it works. Or do you really think there's a hampster cage full of your dead and buried rodents waiting for you in heaven? All of your Thanksgiving Turkeys longing to be reunited, as well? PLEASE! You're hurting us. You're hurting those of us that are exhausted of watching carry on like this... don't you see the difference between "US". Us, being those who embrace human evolution. If you're reading this online, don't you owe it to your fellow man... to me? to look up the ideas of others and out of respect embrace it, even if it is to dispute it? There is so much evidence that is SCREAMING to be noticed, but you select against it. Please. One of you. Be brave. I can take any of you down with my knowledge of the Bible. It's atrocious, this book. This is like a crime scene, where everyone is claiming to be eye witnesses, but none of you saw the actually crime. Religion. Can you step outside of yourselves just long enough to conduct an investigation? Look at all of the evidence, ALL OF IT, and see if that leads you to more, deliberate and then render a verdict. If it turns out to be the same as the view you have now, then you are all that much more knowledgeable to cull more sheep to your herd. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Riddle me this: What lived MILLIONS of years ago, a mathematical impossibility according to the Bible, that has left evidence for us to find today? Huh? Stop living in ignorance, people. We've got a wealth of information at our fingertips. Educate yourselves. As a human being in pain... brothers, sisters... I'm far from perfect. Possibly the farthest from it, but I've tried religion. Various. I searched and searched for a god that doesn't exist. If you won't even consider it, perhaps you will consider what it's like to be me and how I see the world: -All these conflicting religious groups each thinking themselves right. -No gods interacting with their children as they allegedly once did. -Behaviors resemble those of creatures in the animal kingdom. -Man plays god with cloned sheep and homosexual fruitflies. -The world is NOT flat, there is no Tooth Fairy, select groups are immune to the deadliest of viruses, a 40-year study on foxes by Belyaev produce startling results, hybridization (i.e. Ligers = Lions + Tigers. Look up Ligers and read up on their psyche/behavior and interview some bi-racial friends unaware of your experiment), ask youself how so many of you GOOD, GOOD, LOVING and caring people can have it all so wrong? Jews - Nah, he's not the Messiah. Jehovah's Witnesses - Mmmm, he's the son of god, but not magical or anything... that's dumb. Muslims - Y'all are wrong. *scoff* Buddism - I hope I come back as a cockroach in my next life, so I can be of the only species to survive these humans. Christians - I KNOW he's there because I feel it in my soul. Amen! The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints - We believe like you Christians, but George Lucas left us these other stories of the series... errr... I mean, but we've got god making us look absolutely ridiculous to the rest of the world - laughing stocks, in fact - because he'd rather drive away our kin, instead of allowing us global harmony with the golden plates that glow in the dark bestowing prophecy that a man who can take it upon himself to santion polygamy, having spent the earlier part of adulthood and a crystal gazer (that's right, a fortune teller), he just contributed to the confusion. (My apologies to my Mormon family members being linked to this article, but you always were the $#!ttiest backwards little group of the family when you've each dealt with me, or crossed my path, even as a small, unknowing, little faggot. Thank you for contributing to the rise of an overly sensitive boy constantly getting devastated for being himself into the simple man I am today. Much love.) ...and in closing I will call for the support of the viewers most confused by this post: DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD!!! UNTIE!!!

Comment by markbrandt

Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:02:00 EDT

I read about half way through and gave up....but here's my comment on George W. being a Christian. I'm a Christian. I go to Church, go to a Christian school, and do my best to act Christ-like (though I fail constantly). So you know all that about me and you'd probably expect me to be a nice Conservative kid who believes everything Bush says is true and everything Clinton said was a lie. No...I question what both of them say. I'm a moderate as far as political spectrum. I believe in saving lives and showing love. If showing love means helping those in poverty with gov't money, then so be it. Saving lives means no Death Penalty or Abortion. There are other examples too. I believe I'm going to heaven and sadly others are not, but that doesn't mean that I look down on them and refuse to respect them. So this was off topic, but oh well.

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:57:48 EDT

You want an example? Example of hot air: you quoting Ex. 20:16 If you don't believe the Bible, don't quote it.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:29:48 EDT

Eric, Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Fleming, that you are as militaristic, arrogant, narrow-minded, and bigoted as those whom you rail against?
Evidence*. Jeff, It is amazing how you can expect open-mindedness, and yet not practice it.
Evidence*. *Evidence comes in many forms. Quotes are always good. There are also logical proofs, anecdotes, comparisons & contrasts, all kinds of stuff. Evidence helps to support accusations, so they don't sit there, impotently, depending on themselves. For example, if you accuse someone of claiming you are "not entitled" to your opinion, a quote supporting this accusation would be helpful. Or, if you accuse someone of being "militaristic, arrogant, narrow-minded and bigoted," an example of these characteristics being displayed by the accused would let the accused (and others) know how you arrived at those conclusions. Otherwise, it's just hot air, and could even be a violation of Exodus 20:16.

Comment by Brandon

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:48:47 EDT

Jeff, you are hardcore ;) Grace is freely given....

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:37:15 EDT

Well said Eric. Mr. Flemming, My foot is not in my mouth, I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. I am also entitled to think my opinion is right, as are you. It is amazing how you can expect open-mindedness, and yet not practice it.

Comment by Eric

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:26:35 EDT

A little irony to start the morning off right: Did it ever occur to you, Mr. Fleming, that you are as militaristic, arrogant, narrow-minded, and bigoted as those whom you rail against? Actually, I find you quite fascinating in your apparently oblivious state of self-contradiction.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:50:50 EDT

Andrew, You wrote:

There is a world of difference between a racist and the christian belief of salvation. Racists are filled with hate. A real christian is a person full of love.

I don't see the logic here. A white racist can believe all of his life that he is superior to, say, black people, without ever expressing hatred for them. He can believe he is possessed of many fine qualities, including a certain destiny, without hating those who are not similarly blessed. The white racist can even feel a kind of patronizing, condescending, paternalistic love for the unfortunate black people. And you know what? That would look an awful lot like the "love" certain Christians have for those poor, unfortunate souls who are damned. Slack, Thanks for the support, Doctor. Amber, You said that you understood Jeff Petermann to be saying this:

If you are not a Christian, then your standard for living is not the Bible, it's something else.

I have to say that, while I appreciate the effort to minimize the offensiveness of what Jeff said, I think you misunderstood him. He didn't say non-Christians have "something else" as a moral compass, he said non-Christians have nothing as a moral compass. I can't see how one can take any other interpretation away from this:

If you are not saved, this post is not for you. You don't have, in your heart, a guiding determiner between what is right and wrong.

While I would like to think this wording was a mistake, and I would accept that it was if Jeff claimed it was, the fact is that Jeff hasn't repudiated it. Five people commented on that statement after Jeff posted it, most of them taking issue with what it said. Now was Jeff's first chance to correct it, to say something like, "Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say that. I understand that non-Christians have their own guiding determiners for what is right and wrong." Jeff's response?

Again, you all have proved my point. Thanks.

He's had many more chances to correct the original statement. He has declined. In fact, he said, "Everything I said above I stand by." He allowed that he may have expressed himself with "a little bit of anger." He said that "in a way" he was sorry to have "offended" anyone (not quite the same as saying he didn't mean exactly what he said). And he said, "...all I was trying to say was that people who are not beleivers, while they can do good things and make right choices, have no reason to do so..." I think it is kind of you, Amber, to try to minimize what Jeff said. But as far as I can tell, you're wrong--he meant it.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 23:01:39 EDT

Eric: Actually, I'm quite enjoying Brian's argument, and I think he brings plenty to the table in terms of wit and authenticity in buttressing it. Re: an earlier quote of Jeff's: "the God that I have given my life to serving, is a God of love." It would Really Really Nice if more evangelicals could learn that "love" is meaningless, and even poisonous, without a little thing called respect.

Comment by Patrick Sweet

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:25:04 EDT

You're right Andrew...I was pointing out the fact that every man has the ability to discern right from wrong, and Christians are just as likely to take the wrong path as anyone else.

Comment by Eric

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:47:05 EDT

Mr. Fleming: Even if Jeff is wrong (and he is), I'm not sure your being an asshole is the best way to go about pointing it out; it's not very becoming, and it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Comment by Andrew Campbell

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:10:50 EDT

Pat: Are you really going to claim any religion innocent of horrible "crimes against humanity? There is not one race, one religion, one nation who's hands are not bloody. Not one. Wicked people have always used God and religion to control and harm humanity. Why these people are not called the devil's children and given proper credit is beyond me. People prefer to say, "It must be God!" and shake their fists at heaven and hate the true believer who wished nothing but the best for people. Andrew

Comment by Patrick Sweet

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:43:43 EDT

This is ridiculous. You try and hide behind a fake modesty, but you tell the majority of the world's population that they have no moral guiding light? Some of the most moral people I've known in my life have been atheist, Jewish and Buddist. Some of the most flagrant violations of the most basic moral codes have been commited by...CHRISTIANS. Segregation, abuse, genocide, all commited by Christians over the course of the last 2000 years. Now let's talk about cursing. I'm a Christian, and a writer, and I use curse words. Why? Because a lot of my characters aren't Christian per say. I don't write for the Christian market, because the Christian market makes me feel like Jesus at the temple looking at the money changers. It pisses me off, and I want to flip tables and break the very things that people use to profit in the name of God. And these products are usually a poor emulation of things availible in the secular market. Curse words, Jeff, aren't nearly as dangerous as people. People with an agenda. I don't know what your agenda is. But I'm sure it'll do more damage than the word FUCK. And by the way, when you deal with the underground music scene, you have to remember, you're dealing with teenagers who are still grappling with the idea of who they are as a sentient, independent being. If you, at 19 knew who you were, and where you were going, fair play to you, sir. But most of us don't have any clue. And if we rebel a little bit, than that's good, because faith without questioning is a very feeble faith.

Comment by Andrew Campbell

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:53:06 EDT

Brian: There is a world of difference between a racist and the christian belief of salvation. Racists are filled with hate. A real christian is a person full of love. Christians do not think they are above anyone. They are in love with the Living God and persue that relationship. It is true that they also believe they are avoiding the wrath of God. For some christians the pain that knowing a loved one is missing out on a great encounter with God and facing a horrible doom is too much. They press hard on their loved ones and drive them away. The overly ambitious christian does not understand that it is God himself who saves and no one else. Some people filled with hate get the strange idea that God has given them permission and even a call to hate. This of course is never true. If you are a hater you may be (and most likely are) a racist. You cannot be a person of God and a person of hate at the same time. So if anyone thinks God wants you to kill or harm abortion clinic workers, lumberjacks or any one else, you are wrong. Cussing and swearing, and any other action (sin or not) must be evaluated in the light of its impact on those around the event. Does it bring people closer to loving the Living God or not? No amount of intellect can get around this. Its the simple truth. As for leaders, everybody believes in something, even if it is nothing. You don't get to be president by being a ho hum person. I loved Ronny Raygun, slick as Billy tough like George, more believable than both. I don't know what he believes in. Andrew

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:53:58 EDT

It is very hard to agree with the thought of Christians thinking of themselves as superior because they are going to heaven and the rest of the world is damned. It would be one thing if it were something that Christians did that would get them there. It is not. The only thing that you have to do is make a choice. Follow Christ, or don't follow Christ. I am not better than you because I have made the choice to follow Christ--I am just redeemed, meaning that because I made that choice, my sins are washed away by Christ's death on the cross. It is nothing I do--it is what Christ has done, thus rendering me incapable of thinking myself any better than you or anyone else. I have never understood why a simple choice to follow Christ can be so distorted into such a perplex moral problem. It is so easy, and yet some make it so difficult.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:43:49 EDT

I can understand that. Few of us are comfortable having people in authority over us with completely different worldviews.
Sorry, Phillip. You missed the mark here. A Buddhist would have a completely different world view. An African would likely have a different world view. Those people wouldn't necessarily scare me. I am not made uncomfortable by authority figures with "different" world views. You evaded what I wrote--and quite obviously, too. In the "quote" of my statement, you conveniently cut it off right at the actual meat of the statement: I personally am not comfortable with a President who clearly believes that he belongs to a special group of people who are going to Heaven, and everyone else is damned.
You can be comfortable with that if you like. Apparently you are. But it is clearly not the "difference" of this world view that I expressed a discomfort with. It is the SUPERIORITY of this world view. As I wrote: I worry, frankly, about the kind of personality that could form this point of view. It seems to me to require great insensitivity and arrogance, as well as a lack of (or suspension of) intellectual rigor.
It is those elements of Bush's apparent world view that disturb me, not merely the "difference." While I believe that there is nothing in this world that distinguishes me from you (only in the next), a racist believes that there is.
There's little real difference here. You believe you are saved. You believe I am "lost" or "damned." You don't believe this in the "next" world. You believe it right now. Therefore, you believe that, in a way, you are superior to me. And in a significant way, too--that whole eternal life thing. President Bush doesn't have the power to stop Graham from traveling or speaking.
You ducked the question. The question was, Why doesn't he ask Graham not to do that. He and Graham are friends. They're close. George W. Bush is allowed to ask his friends not to cause trouble in the Middle East. He hasn't. He is also allowed to make public statements. He could distance himself from Graham's activities and say he doesn't approve. He hasn't. "It's a free country" is not a get-out-of-moral-obligation-free card. President Bush has criticized plenty of people in his official capacity. Why not Graham? Answer: He must approve. You have a better answer? Jeff, If I have offended anyone, in a way I am sorry.
In a way, I accept your apology. By "in a way," I mean I accept it in the non-apology, Trent-Lott-style spirit in which it was intended. Oh, and to clear up the moral compass thing, all I was trying to say was that people who are not believers, while they can do good things and make right choices, have no reason to do so...
Boy, that foot just won't stay out of your mouth, will it?

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:49:51 EDT

Brian - I promised I wouldn't respond any more to this post, then forgot and responded to you. Sorry. I've decided to reinterpret that earlier statement to mean that I wouldn't respond to Jeff's post, but this will truly be my final post on this entire page. 8^) 1. I personally am not comfortable with a President who... I can understand that. Few of us are comfortable having people in authority over us with completely different worldviews. That discomfort? I suspect it is a lot of what drove the virulently anti-Clinton people during his tenure. People argue issues, but they really dislike people based on personal views and things having little to do with the issues at hand. Generally. The basic distinction I would make for you is based only on how I view life. How that is similar to or different from how the President views life, I don't really know. But if you met me and we hung out together, you'd probably like me, just like the variety of people I hang around with now, Christians, Buddhists, athiests, and so on. And yet I still believed that at the end of time, I'll be better off. The thing is, that's later. Life is now. In this life, I live. I'm responsible to God only for how I live and what I do, not for you or what you do or how you live or the choices you make. It is my hope that I can live in a way that causes the people around me to respect me and therefore be a witness as Christ directed Christians to be. I don't feel a burning need to proselytize people en masse, and I don't see much Biblical support for the concept. I live my life, you live yours, and maybe one day you'll ask me what's up. Or you won't. Frankly, the way I struggle through life is pretty much no different from the way anybody else does, so it isn't like I'm super-Christian or anything. I keep on, and don't even pretend to have all of the easy answers to all of life's problems. How is this different from a KKK member? I submit that a nasty racist believes in something here and now, and that is must therefore affect his actions. While I believe that there is nothing in this world that distinguishes me from you (only in the next), a racist believes that there is. Now and here, he believes himself to be superior to whatever race he's particular upset about. It's this separation of present-tense and future-tense that distinguishes - or should distinguish - Christians from many other groups who hold themselves in higher esteem. This is also how "a feeling rooted this deeply could possibly not 'affect his work.'" I don't think I've got too warped of a personality, but maybe I'm missing it. I don't consider myself insensitive. And though I'm prone to arrogance, it's ironically usually related to my intellectual capacity and the intellectual rigor with which I approach all of life. 2. You write, "Since his actions don't seem to be those of a man trying to engineer some sort of mystical showdown at Armageddon, yes." I don't get it. What would those actions look like. I'm a preterist (a theological term to describe those of us who believe that the majority of events described in Revelation are past-tense, not future events as described in Left Behind), so I'm probably not the best person to ask about how the final battle at Armageddon is suppose to work. It certainly would (hypothetically, if it wasn't an unbiblical notion to begin with) involve direct battle between Israel and her neighbors, something President Bush seems to be going to great pains to avoid. Amazingly, Prime Minister Sharon is playing along, which means that he's either got a much more clever plan than I can figure out or he's not quite as blood-thirsty as I've suspected. What else would it look like? Heck, I don't know. Like I said, it's a farce. I'll say this: even within dispensational theology as I remember it from back when I cared, the events at the end of time are initiated by God, not man, and all of the chaos follows the sudden disappearance of two billion people from the face of the earth. Er, except that people who track dispensational theology tend to be much more selective and discount, for example, the entire Roman Catholic church as non-Christian, so I guess it would be less than one billion. Maybe much less. I don't know - it's all so unbiblical I don't really care. [From a Middle-Eastern Moslem] If your President believes we are spiritually inferior to him, how can we trust him? For the same reason that people here can trust him. America is a pluralistic society, not because the men who established didn't believe in God, but because they recognized that even good men disagree on issues and important issue like this are best left out of the hands of those with the power to enforce their own views on others. Though President Bush is a Christian, he has supported people of all faiths and worked hard to ensure that others under his authority do the same, including calling for all Americans to treat all Arab people in America with respect. That there is disagreement with regard to his administration's mistreatment of certain people who happen to be Arab or Moslem, that is unrelated to their religion, or linked only incidentally as it relates to security risks. While I disagree with the choices of his administration, I am free to do so, and you will be free to do so as well, in most cases for the first time in your lives. (Allowing for the translation between protesting a foreign government and your own, of course.) [From a Middle-Eastern Moslem] If your President is not trying to export Christianity to our region, why does he let the evangelical minister closest to him come here and proselytize? Why doesn't he at least ask Graham, Will you please not do that? Again, America is a pluralistic and free society. President Bush doesn't have the power to stop Graham from traveling or speaking. He also hasn't stopped Moslem Imams or Clerics from speaking or proseltyizing. In an ideal world, you would be able to hear all of the opposing points of view we hear here in America and make your own informed choice, rather than hearing only one story and having no choice at all. Speaking frankly, many people still choose to refuse to listen to opposing points of view, but that is again their right. They are free to choose not to listen if they don't wish to, as you are or will soon be able to. This assumes, of course, that you live in one of the Arab countries that has some level of freedom. For all I know, President Bush might have asked Graham not to visit (thought I doubt it). That doesn't mean Graham had to follow that advice. Here in America, leaders cannot issue death sentences at will. They have to subvert the justice system first! Oops, sorry, a little joke. Brian - I think that full and directly addresses your questions. I don't really wish to play the "moral compass" game, though Amber may have done a reasonable job of settling things down. I will say this: one favorite modern philosopher of mine (Francis Schaeffer) stated once that no matter what moral system one choose or devises, he will always eventually violate it or act contrary to it. It is in the nature of man to do so. I would add to that that Christianity is the same way, and while I view Jeff as a brother because I don't put myself in a position to discount his own claim to faith, there is no question in my mind that he violated several basic points of the Christian faith quite publicly, with embarrassing results. So everybody has "a" moral guide. Romans explains a little bit of why this is so, or you can choose to view it as a social construct brought on by the random firing of neurons as a method of survival. It doesn't matter to me how you view it. As long you stick within the rules set down by most societies within Western civilization, we'll get along just fine. And I'm out - peace! P.S. I'll go with Andrew on the no-dispensations thing, though I still refer to my earlier-linked article to "defend" coarse language, as a non-sin at least. And cheers to the uglyamerican, though I skimmed a few of Jeff's posts on his own site and found nothing particular objectionable. Note that it is a group site, so you might have read posts by other people. And I might have missed one. 8^)

Comment by uglyamerican

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:39:03 EDT

It's okay to post snarky, ugly, and derisive things on your website, as long as the cd you're listening to at the time doesn't have any dirty words on it.

Comment by Andrew

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:06:46 EDT

Hang in there Jeff. I agreed with your post. It looks like a lot of people thought you were calling them stupid and they felt like the shoe fit. To be a Christian is to put the love for God as the most important thing in your life. To know him and walk with him is the greatest experience. This journey, when walked in true love brings about changes in a person. They do things, or don't do things to please their God, not out of obligation. Anyone who has been in love, true love, understands this. If swearing offends your wife, girlfriend, hubby . . . you don't do it around them if you love them. Why, because you love them and you want to make them happy. If a person still swears around there loved one I am sure you hurt your relationship and quite honestly you are a bit of a jerk. Now in some circles I am sure "jerk" is a swear. Thankfully God no longer requires pefection from me. That should irk a few nonbelievers who think I am using my "get out of hell free card". God knows what's good for me and what's good for others. Most of his laws are not that unreasonable. Don't kill people, don't sleep with a person's wife, lie or steal just to name a few. Oh yeah, and don't use coarse language. Don't confuse what gets you to heaven with what builds up other people, and what spreads love. I hope someone comes up with a good argument on how swearing brings people to know Jesus, or promotes world peace. - - - - - - - - - - - Now regarding dispensations. There are none. The God of the OT is the same as the NT and they behave very much the same. The OT is about God and his mercy. Man turns from God, God pursues man. Throughout the OT God forgives and gives second and third and fourth chances. God knows a man's heart though. If it is black and will never change . . . nothing good can come of it for that person. Oh yeah, dispensations. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. For God, that meant past, present and future. It gave Jesus, who showed up from time to time in the Old Testament the right to forgive sins and accept faith. - - - - - - - - I love the Bible. It's a great book that continues to be proven historically accurate through historical discovery. It's been mocked for hundreds of years as talking about fictional places, now known to exist. It has been laughed at for talking about kings that could not have lived that are now known to have ruled. What is it that upsets people about the Bible anyway? Andrew

Comment by Amber

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:41:41 EDT

Yeah Jeff. While your post did get me a little riled at first, I hear what you're saying. For everyone that misunderstood Jeff about the "no moral director of right and wrong" comment or whatever it was, I understand that he was trying to say this: ��Christians have a set standard to which they hold their lives: The Bible. � If you are not a Christian, then your standard for living is not the Bible, it's something else. Therefore, you may not understand the reasoning behind his argument, or you may misinterpret it as something else (as many of you did). I think if that had been worded a little differently he would have been less of a turnoff for people. But it was a valiant effort, Jeff. Oh, and I kind of felt a little convicted for laughing at it, but that little heaven/God scenario was truly a riot. God prolly smirked at you too. Hahaha. Laters.

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:38:44 EDT

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that this has brought on. If I have offended anyone, in a way I am sorry. I will end my portion of this post by saying that the God that I have given my life to serving, is a God of love. He loves everyone and sent His Son to die for everyone. He is also a just God. He has provided a simple plan to beat eternal damnation, acceptance of His Son. It is a simple yes or not type of an answer that can, unfortunately cost you eternity. We can, for now, agree to disagree, but I urge all of you, no matter how you grew up or what bad experiences you have had, to read John 3:16. Think about the verse, and then think about how easy a descision to choose Christ really is. I have n othing against any of you, and contrary to popular opinion I am not a bigot, I love people, I just also have a very stron argumentative side. Oh, and th clear up the moral compass thing, all I was trying to say was that people who are not beleivers, while they can do good things and make right choices, have no reason to do so, and quite frankly I should not hold them to the same accountability level that I would someone who professes the name of Christ. I too no plenty of good people, non-christians in fact, who make good choices all of the time. I also no lots of Christians who make bad choices. I tend to come down alot harder on the Christians who make bad choices than I do the non-Christians who make bad choices. Please email me with any questions about how I stand, I would be more than happy to talk further about this.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 01:04:18 EDT

Brian, you seemed to want me to answer your questions directly and yet, all you could come up with was a "funny" little story about meeting God in heaven. How about you answer my question directly instead of avoiding it?
Your question: If you are wrong, and their is a God, and we will have to face Him in a final judgement, what do you think the worst outcome of that scenario would be?
My answer: Eternal damnation. Believe me, I know. I was instructed in the risk of eternal damnation for years, by people who sounded quite a lot like you. I made a decision not to be ruled by fear a long time ago, and it made me a better person, I think. To each his own. Let me echo San(ford) on the whole Christ thing. While I no longer believe in the hocus-pocus part of religion, Jesus Christ remains a hero of mine. I put him up there with Charles Darwin and Dr. King. Like Sanford, I get personally offended when someone uses Christ's name to support a bigoted world view. It's akin to using King's name to support violence. It stinks.

Comment by esmith

Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:34:19 EDT

You're welcome for the Louvre. I'm sorry you always screw it up. If you need any more help with spelling feel free to email me. I'm not much too look at and I'm not real smart and I'm afraid not very witty. I don't write too well or have a lot of opinions like Kathleen Parker or Ann Coulter or Maureen Dowd. But oh spelling. Oh my.