Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities??? by SoupCatcher

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Round 1: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25454

Thank you. You have no idea how much I appreciate this. Hopefully, everyone else will respond in this thread to posts from the previous thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I do want to respond to your post. There's a lot there and I won't have much time until tonight so this is more in the way of a placeholder.

Take your time.

This thread is destroying my days. Between work and this thread, I get nothing else done. I have to leave shortly, myself. Where has the time gone?

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Re: soupcatcher. Actually, I trimmed my beard down to a goatee more than a year ago. So I guess you could say I've been engaging in false advertising

Same here. I use "cartoon" as I used to have a comic strip on the web (hobby, no pay). However, I ended it two years ago this month (perhaps, last month by the time you read this), so the name doesn't exactly apply at the present, either.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
As far as Dobson goes, I grew up listening to Focus on the Family. I don't know how many Dobson books my parents own but it's a lot. As I've mentioned in another thread, we even listened to a tape of Dobson for sex ed in sixth grade. So I'm quite familiar with the Dr.

Okay. That's fair. If you're getting it from the horse's mouth and you still don't like it, that's legitimate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I hope you are wrong on this issue. I don't see any viable concerted effort to eliminate church and state separations. There are obviously some who would like to see that, but I don't think they have any real ability to impact actual change to do so. If they did, believe me, there would be many conservatives such as myself right by your side opposing such measures.

Do you have examples of such efforts coming to successful fruition in recent years?

Theres the Christian schools that teach radical Christianity in the US, and prepare their students to win debates and so on with the stated purpose of turning out the next presidents of the US. Radical Christian organisations that are playing the long game to litterally take over the US government.

What happens next? I imagine the US becomes a Christian Theocracy and Cartoon gets it's life long dream of leading a violent inquisition against the non-believers.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:09 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Popping in for a minute to say how awesome this discussion is (and how nice it is to just be a lurker

). Oh, and Storymark, thanks for reading my mind:

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
(...stuff posted by antimason...)

Reading your stuff tips me more towards atheism every time I read it.

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote - Vote Firefly!

(by Kelai)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I see the bias in my life everyday. I see it in our local schools, in our local newspapers, I see it on TV, on the radio. I see it here in this forum. People can deny it all they want. It exists, and anyone with eyes to see can tell as much. Unfortunately, I don't have a search engine in my brain where I can instantly recall every bit of information I've observed or heard in my life-time (complete with footnotes), or I'd be able to produce more examples than could fill this forum.

What do you mean by bias? That people, schools, businesses, and government don't express religious sentiment. Or that they discourage its expression? Or is it more overt: that you feel personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on? Or that you feel YOUR religion is targeted more than others for negative response?

Quote:
A child reading from the Bible in a classroom, however, is not Congress establishing a religion. A teacher reading from the Bible in a classroom, likewise is is not Congress establishing a religion. Prohibiting a child or a teacher from reading the Bible in a classroom is, however, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". ..Yes, the government should not sanction a religion -- any religion. Yes, the government should not prohibit the free exercise, thereof.

Is THAT what you mean by bias? Then what about reading the Koran out loud in class? The Torah? The Vedas? Or reading The End of Faith out loud? It seems to me that in fairness you'd need to give equal time to all religions, and anti-religions, and that classroom time would be taken up by anti/ religious readings instead of actual... er... teaching.

To get back to an older topic:

Quote:
Okay, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement about "other texts just as old with contradictory statements"

Not a Biblical scholar, but here's a hypothetical example: There are a number of writings that survived to this day. Some of them may be tallies of taxes, transcriptions of the Gnostics, census records, laws, etc. I think it would be fair to say that almost none of them make any mention of Jesus. Some of them might provide indirect evidence that Jesus never existed- for example, failure to mention his name in a census where you might expect it, or failure to mention his name in court records. Some of them might mention his name but disagree with his divinity, or tell a very different story of his life or message. The fact that you have selected a single "lineage" of books means that they will be mostly self-consistent (altho there are disagreements even between the various disciples versions). But you might not find corroborating evidence for the existance of a "historical" Jesus in non Biblical sources.

One of the interesting things is that nobody doubts the existance of a man named Mohammed, or that he started a religion. His life and work - although laced with questionably fantastic stories - is fact. If we're going just on documentary reliability, Islam seems the way to go.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What do you mean by bias? That people, schools, businesses, and government don't express religious sentiment. Or that they discourage its expression? Or is it more overt: that you feel personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on? Or that you feel YOUR religion is targeted more than others for negative response?

Hi.

Firstly, as I explained in the first part of this thread, I don't expect anyone else to conform to my beliefs. People are free to believe (or not believe) as they choose. People are also free to tell you they'd rather not discuss it, and (as I also said previously) that's that. (In actuality, I rarely bring it up. Anything I usually say is in response to something someone else has said.)

I never (or very rarely) feel "personally ridiculed, excluded, picked on", (even if it is specifically directed at me) as I know it comes with the terrority (see my previous post), and is to be expected.

I do often get irritated, however, when the government (usually someone in the judiciary) shows an obvious bias against something done by a Christian, which it would've permitted by a non-Christian. I don't like hypocrisy. If something's allowed for one, it should be allowed for the other. If something is prohibited for one, it should be prohibited for the other.

Yes, I do believe Christianity (at least at the present, in the U.S.) is targeted more in this respect than anything else. And why you're hearing about it more in the past 15 (or so) years than previously, is because (as I also said previously) Christians sat by for decades and did nothing while this double-standard was being applied. Now, apparently, some are tired of the double-standard, and are desirious of an fair standard.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is THAT what you mean by bias? Then what about reading the Koran out loud in class? The Torah? The Vedas? Or reading The End of Faith out loud? It seems to me that in fairness you'd need to give equal time to all religions, and anti-religions, and that classroom time would be taken up by anti/ religious readings instead of actual... er... teaching.

I seem to be repeating myself here, but, yes.

As I said previously, if something's allowed for one, it should be allowed for the other. If something is prohibited for one, it should be prohibited for the other.

I see no reason why anything shouldn't be allowed to be read in class if the student wants to read it, and it's applicable to the course. (BTW, I'm not condoning people reading from the Bible, Koran, or The Book of Monkey for personal devotions in a class, but as related to the study or some assignment where they can choose their own subject matter. Personal devotions should be allowed in public settings on their own time, but not during class.)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not a Biblical scholar, but here's a hypothetical example: There are a number of writings that survived to this day. Some of them may be tallies of taxes, transcriptions of the Gnostics, census records, laws, etc. I think it would be fair to say that almost none of them make any mention of Jesus. Some of them might provide indirect evidence that Jesus never existed- for example, failure to mention his name in a census where you might expect it, or failure to mention his name in court records. Some of them might mention his name but disagree with his divinity, or tell a very different story of his life or message. The fact that you have selected a single "lineage" of books means that they will be mostly self-consistent (altho there are disagreements even between the various disciples versions). But you might not find corroborating evidence for the existance of a "historical" Jesus in non Biblical sources.

I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy. If they kept lists of all executions, one might expect to find Jesus mentioned. But, I'm aware of no such records ever being kept by the Romans, much less in Judea during that period. And even if such records did exist, (as you know) most day-to-day things from that period just did not survive. We're fortunate to have what we do have, considering everything that's gone down in the last 2000 years.

As to mentioning Jesus after the fact -- why? The only ones who would bother to do that would be those who believed Him to be God. Why would non-believers mention Jesus in a document 200 years after His crucifixion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Heya, yah, breakin a thread up helps dialup users, and preserves interest in the discussion, I think, one can always link past references if needful.

I'm mostly just watching this one - but I will chime in with one bit.

Part of the reason for specific hostility against christians is their own fault, a lot of em really are pushy and annoying - and in our country here, there's not quite as many folk who've been annoyed by someone pushing some other religion at them, as there are folks who've been annoyed by someone pushing christianty at em, thus you're logically going to face the retaliation of such annoyed folk rather more often than any other belief system will.

Makes sense, yes?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:10 PM

SOUPCATCHER

cartoon,

Taking things piecemeal...

The House bill I brought up: The part that I have a problem with is not what is referenced in the title of the bill. Politicians love to use titles that are unassailable (clean skies act, no child left behind, stuff like that). It's the part about limiting establishment clause cases to rich people. That's the part I don't like. Right now, if you win an establishment clause case you can recoup your attorney fees from the loser of the case. In other words, if you are on the right side of the Constitution you have nothing to worry about. This bill would eliminate that provision. The underlying message, "We know these are lawsuits that we're going to lose. So we better make it harder to bring these types of lawsuits." It's not the statue lawsuits that I'm worried about. Those are ticky tack. But, in a stated effort to get rid of the ticky tack (and I don't buy that stated goal for a second), the bill's sponsors will make it exponentially harder to go after serious violations. What if an average citizen encounters a clear violation of the establishment clause but does not have the funds to challenge it?

As far as my personal belief in terms of all this. I am not offended by seeing the word God on a statue. I wouldn't be offended if you placed a statue of Jesus right next to the Statue of Liberty pointing and giving the thumbs up. I would not be offended by seeing a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on top of the California State Capitol building. I would not be offended if we placed statues of Buddha on the right side of a judge in a courtroom. But I don't see the need for any of these. What I do believe is that anyone who needs to have their beliefs enshrined in stone and given preferential treatment by the government is probably a bit on the lame side of things. But that's just me. When it comes to spirituality, I don't feel the need to constantly remind everyone of what I believe. And I don't feel the need for my government to also believe what I believe and publically make that statement.

Bouncing some more.

Quote:
Do you think that the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in front of a court house qualifies as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? If so, why?
- cartoon

I think it sends an exclusive message.

Quote:
I've attended large Christian assemblies and gatherings of every kind over the past 20 years (since I've been a believer), and I have yet to meet one believer who wants to force their beliefs on anyone else.
- cartoon

Well, we've been living in different neighborhoods. We got a lot of people coming door to door where I grew up trying to sell religion. It got to the point where I could pretty much guess the denomination before they opened their mouth. That's just not my style. I'm more of a, "knowing people by their fruits," kind of person. Living your life as an example and, if someone ever asks, then sharing with them. But not starting out with the hard sell. Which is what I see from the evangelical movement.

Quote:
The reason it seems like evangelicals are making a stink about the hypocrisy is because for decades evangelicals sat by and did nothing. They allowed this inequity to take hold, and said nothing. Now that it's blaring in our faces, and we're protesting the unfair, hypocritical treatment we're receiving, those who disagree with us are accusing us of trying to get "our way". Respectfully, that's nonsense. We just want a fair slate. Is that too much to ask for?
- cartoon

To me, it's more like a pendulum. The founding fathers laid things out. Then religious groups started chipping away. And chipping away. And made inroads quite a ways. Think Sunday blue laws. Then other groups started removing those inroads. It's a back and forth. It's just as important to have people constantly making sure there is no preference as to have people constantly making sure they can practice their own religion without fear.

Because that's what it's about at the end of the day. Americans should not feel like they're less of a citizen because they're not Christian.

And if you think I'm over-worrying ask yourself whether or not Jefferson could be elected President today with his beliefs. I don't think he would be. I don't think anyone who is not a Christian stands a chance in hell of being elected President in this country. And even within Christianity, there's squabbles. We had a hard enough time with JFK (even though it was before my time some of my relatives still talked about how a Roman Catholic couldn't be loyal to this country because they owed allegiance to the Pope). You want to see the shit hit the fan? Well you will if Mitt Romney is nominated for President. In polling, the only group trusted less than Mormons were atheists.

So hopefully that sheds a little more light on where I'm coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:23 PM

not sure where this came from, but it's where I wanta go:

Quote:

Do you think that the posting of the "Ten Commandments" in front of a court house qualifies as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion? If so, why?

It offends ME. If you wanta post Selected Commandments From Moses, that's OK. " Thou shalt not kill."" Thou shall not steal."" Thou shall not bear false witness." Even the one about " Thou shall not commit adultery" might be relevant. But the minute you post the one about " Thou shall have no other God before me", you've stepped over the line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 4:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

With reagard to reading from the Bible out loud... there is no coursework that I know in elementary school, and very few in junior high, high school, and college where reading from ANY religious text is a viable part of the curriculum. World history in junior/ high school maybe. Philosophy and religious studies in college. But in general, the oppty is nil. So it seems a small point.

Quote:
I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy....

...performing miracles and possibly fomenting the rebellion that they were worried about. Again, not an expert, but my understanding of the times is that there was heightened Messianic fervor, and that the outlook of some Jews was that the Messiah would deliver them from Roman rule, which the Romans were aware of.

The point you keep evading, though, is the one about Mohammed. You have your religious texts, they have theirs which has the same lineage but of more certain provenance. So why pick yours and not theirs?

There is BTW a case in point where a Congressman refuses to swear on the Bible but wants to swear on the Koran instead, and the right wing is in a complete huff about it. Most Congressmen don't swear on ANY book (altho the oath does inlcude "so help me God"). IMHO there should be NO religious reference in the ceremony, but if you're going to include one religion you have to include all.

Yay or nay?

Quote:
It offends ME. If you wanta post Selected Commandments From Moses, that's OK. " Thou shalt not kill."" Thou shall not steal."" Thou shall not bear false witness." Even the one about " Thou shall not commit adultery" might be relevant. But the minute you post the one about " Thou shall have no other God before me", you've stepped over the line.

Newoldbrowncoat- Me too. If you're going to post anything in a Courthouse, wouldn't the Bill of Rights be more appropriate?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Theres the Christian schools that teach radical Christianity in the US, and prepare their students to win debates and so on with the stated purpose of turning out the next presidents of the US. Radical Christian organisations that are playing the long game to litterally take over the US government.

What happens next? I imagine the US becomes a Christian Theocracy and Cartoon gets it's life long dream of leading a violent inquisition against the non-believers.

Citizen:

I've seen stories about such groups and they are not a serious threat...YET! I think the vast majority of americans see such things as absolutely abhorent and would reject such "revolutionary" attempts quite vehemently. So rest easy, the United States of Christ is not likely for many generations, and we both know how much can change in that amount of time.

*Edited to clean up quotes, etc..
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
The House bill I brought up: The part that I have a problem with is not what is referenced in the title of the bill. Politicians love to use titles that are unassailable (clean skies act, no child left behind, stuff like that). It's the part about limiting establishment clause cases to rich people. That's the part I don't like. Right now, if you win an establishment clause case you can recoup your attorney fees from the loser of the case. In other words, if you are on the right side of the Constitution you have nothing to worry about. This bill would eliminate that provision. The underlying message, "We know these are lawsuits that we're going to lose. So we better make it harder to bring these types of lawsuits." It's not the statue lawsuits that I'm worried about. Those are ticky tack. But, in a stated effort to get rid of the ticky tack (and I don't buy that stated goal for a second), the bill's sponsors will make it exponentially harder to go after serious violations. What if an average citizen encounters a clear violation of the establishment clause but does not have the
funds to challenge it?

Soup:

I share some of you concerns here, but I think it's a little more complicated than a plaintiff not having the means to file suit and conservative politicians wanting to make sure they cannot. Specifically, you stated

Quote:
"We know these are lawsuits that we're going to lose. So we better make it harder to bring these types of lawsuits."

in characterizing possible defendants that are facing establishment clause legislation. I think that's an inherently unfair characterization. The very threat of the possibility of having to pay exorbitant attorney's fees has been enough to squelch legal action. Not because the defendant has a weak case, but because the legal decision is not an utter certainty. If the defendant does not have the financial means to pay a plaintiff's attorney fees should they prevail, they may take the easier way out and acquiesce to the plaintiff's demands eventhough they believe they are in the right. Settling is often easier and cheaper than going to court as any insurance company lawyer can attest to. Here is a link to the American Legion's statement in support of the bill which I think states this arguement fairly well:

http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listrelease
s&content=pr_press_release&id=289

For balance, here is also the ACLU's statment regarding the bill proposed:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26254prs20060726.html

I think both statements have some merit and suspect this has more to do with "exorbitant attorney's fees" than anything. Why are they so exorbitant? I know, that's a whole new can of worms worthy of a whole new thread. Regardless, there must be some happy medium where defendant's aren't intimidated with the prospect of paying a plaintiff's exorbitant attorney's fees and where the defendants should rightly be compelled to take responsibility for their actions which infringe on a plaintiff's constitiutional rights.

Thankfully, the bill isn't law yet and the Senate has to hash it out before it becomes law, maybe they can find that medium.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Well, we've been living in different neighborhoods. We got a lot of people coming door to door where I grew up trying to sell religion. It got to the point where I could pretty much guess the denomination before they opened their mouth. That's just not my style. I'm more of a, "knowing people by their fruits," kind of person. Living your life as an example and, if someone ever asks, then sharing with them. But not starting out with the hard sell. Which is what I see from the evangelical movement.

Soup:

I agree with your approach to lead by example, and I have also had some folks come to my door trying to "sell" me their religion. One question though, Cartoon has stated that evangelicals are not interested in forcing others to believe as they do. How is going door to door to deliver an informational message forcing you to believe as they do? I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door. While I find it annoying to be bothered with this kind of thing, I don't feel as if they are forcing me in any way. I am not required to listen to them and they have no means to compel me to do so.

*Edited for spelling and grammar

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 6:55 AM

EVILMIKE

Quote:
Part of the reason for specific hostility against christians is their own fault, a lot of em really are pushy and annoying - and in our country here, there's not quite as many folk who've been annoyed by someone pushing some other religion at them, as there are folks who've been annoyed by someone pushing christianty at em, thus you're logically going to face the retaliation of such annoyed folk rather more often than any other belief system will.

Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 7:51 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

There is BTW a case in point where a Congressman refuses to swear on the Bible but wants to swear on the Koran instead, and the right wing is in a complete huff about it. Most Congressmen don't swear on ANY book (altho the oath does inlcude "so help me God").

And the BEST part about that whole sideshow?

Quote:
Matthew 5:33-37 -- 33 ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one. (NRSV)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
It offends ME. If you wanta post Selected Commandments From Moses, that's OK. " Thou shalt not kill."" Thou shall not steal."" Thou shall not bear false witness." Even the one about " Thou shall not commit adultery" might be relevant. But the minute you post the one about " Thou shall have no other God before me", you've stepped over the line.
Newoldbrowncoat- Me too. If you're going to post anything in a Courthouse, wouldn't the Bill of Rights be more appropriate?

Hadn't ever thought of that, but yer right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 8:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?

I really don't see "discrimination" specifically against xtians so much as general restrictions against ALL religious expression. It's just that xtians are so used to being the unquestioned norm that they view any restriction as discrimination.

I got into dog doo on another forum because it prohibited political and religious expression, but some of the participants couldn't grasp that "God bless America" fell into both categories.

They thought I was "un-American" when I objected, and then they felt "picked on" when I pressed my point. But I would have said the same if someone had said "Allah give strength to our soldiers".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 8:16 AM

from Razza'a post, looks like you use it as a signiture line:

Quote:

"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

That explains a disturbing trend- library budgets keep getting cut, and hours shortened.
There's a branch library ACROSS THE STREET from my apartment. It's open 4 days a week, 25 hours a week. mostly from 10:30 AM 'till 5:00 PM, which is great scheduling for working folks or even school kids. The Main Library downtown is now going to re-open on Sundays-- it usedta be open 8 hours every Sunday, some years ago. It'll now be open 5 hours on Sunday, but now Closed all day Monday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 8:45 AM

NewOldBrownCoat:

Yes, it is a disturbing trend to see library budgets cut year after year. Ironically, it is a reflection of the democracy it seeks to uphold. The fact is that there are a lot of people who simply see no value in libraries and find them a drain on the public coffers. They view them as obsolete, no longer necessary, or just another useless social program. I'm a public librarian, so I'm a little biased, but they are so much more than just a warehouse of books. In my opinion, professional librarians haven't been very good at adapting to the new information age in recent times, but that is changing! As the role of the library changes, so will the perception of it's value in our society and the cradle will continue to rock.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 9:02 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
The fact is that there are a lot of people who simply see no value in libraries and find them a drain on the public coffers.

I voted against the library levy because I see it as a long term benefit to me to cut down on competition for my job by denying easy access to the information I used to get were I am today.

I also want to end busing for public schools, raise college tuition, and bring back debtor's prison.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 1:56 PM

Hey, all. I will attempt to respond to all queries directed at me by sometime tomorrow. I have fallen way behind around here because I've spent all of my time over the past three days in these two threads.

When I get a chance, (if I ever catch up around the house), I'll get back in here. In the meantime, though, sorry. I hope this thread isn't 90 posts long when I next check back.

Thanks for the patience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 6:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA

MIKE

Quote:
Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?

Huh ? I was just pointing out that the reason most non religious folks bash at christians specifically was that on average, they've been annoyed more often by that belief than any other, simply due to its size and prominence in our society, is all.

RAZZA

Quote:
I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door.

Lucky you.
I've had to resort to threats, and in a few rare cases, violence, in order to make them leave, and upon continued annoyance - followed up an extremely hostile visit to their 'place of business' to make them STOP coming here.

As far as coercion goes, the Blue Laws, many of which are still in existence, are designed to force non-christians to in essence, practice a christian belief on sunday, whether they like it or not - if i wanna go grocery shopping, buy some beer and have a BBQ on sunday, that's my business, and any LAW preventing me from doing so at the behest of someone elses religion is an intolerable assault, in my opinion.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 1, 2006 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Part of the reason for specific hostility against christians is their own fault, a lot of em really are pushy and annoying

Hi. Well, "pushy and annoying" people should first be politely informed that you are not interested (as with telemarketers). Should they persist with further "pushy and annoying" behavior, they should be ignored. But, being hostile toward them? I have disagree there.

Unfortunately, I have known believers who act this way -- not many, though -- and none at all in the last decade or so. They're usually recently saved (or young -- under thirty), and eager to spread the good news. They don't realize that most people don't want to hear it. However, the vast majority of believers I've known over the years do not conduct themselves in this manner. Most of the believers I know (like myself) generally wait for the other person to indicate an interest of some sort before saying anything at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
As far as my personal belief in terms of all this. I am not offended by seeing the word God on a statue. I wouldn't be offended if you placed a statue of Jesus right next to the Statue of Liberty pointing and giving the thumbs up.

Well, I didn't mean "religious" statues, but regular, civic statues (erected by the local, state or federal government) -- you know, an artillery piece, a memorial, something like that -- with some sort of inscription on it -- which may include a brief quote from scripture, or a simple mention of "God", etc.

There are actually people who get all bent out of shape about such things, and believe that this is somehow "Congress establishing a religion."

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
But I don't see the need for any of these. What I do believe is that anyone who needs to have their beliefs enshrined in stone and given preferential treatment by the government is probably a bit on the lame side of things.

We're in full agreement on this.

As a matter of fact, God (as indicated multitudinously throughout the Scripture -- both Old and New Testaments) frowns upon this sort of thing -- you know, the no "graven images" thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
Well, we've been living in different neighborhoods. We got a lot of people coming door to door where I grew up trying to sell religion. It got to the point where I could pretty much guess the denomination before they opened their mouth. That's just not my style. I'm more of a, "knowing people by their fruits," kind of person. Living your life as an example and, if someone ever asks, then sharing with them. But not starting out with the hard sell. Which is what I see from the evangelical movement.

Again, we find ourselves in full agreement, as you'll have seen by now, if you've read my response to Fremdfirma, above. You can't blame the door-to-door people, though, for "caring" about you. As I said, if you don't want to hear it (and I don't want people coming to my door, either), then just politely tell them so, like I do when the telemarketers incessantly annoy me. If they insist, then they are not being good examples of Christian disciples, and you can tell them I said so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
To me, it's more like a pendulum. (snip) Think Sunday blue laws. It's just as important to have people constantly making sure there is no preference as to have people constantly making sure they can practice their own religion without fear.

Well, I don't think the Blue Laws were a good idea, myself (and my mother would smack me upside the head if she heard me say that). As I said previously, you have to obey willingly from the heart, not because you're compelled to do so (or afraid of suffering the consequences). The Bible is clear that the Lord does not accept people's "going through the motions" out of a feeling of compulsion, fear of reprisal, or for the attention of others. A person's heart has to be in whatever they do, or they're wasting their time.

And I don't know the origin of the Blue laws -- how they got on the books in the first place (I'm old enough to remember them, though). But, I think that's an exception, rather than the norm -- and you had to go back to a law which was probably enacted from colonial days. If that's the only example you can come up with, then you're hardly making a solid argument that Christians are trying to get the government to "establish" their religion.

Can you think of anything more recent? (And I'm asking because I'd like to know why we're perceived the way we are by some, and from the examples I'm seeing so far, I'm still not seeing any justification for the perception, much less the seeming hostility that many have.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
So hopefully that sheds a little more light on where I'm coming from.

Yes, it does. And I don't think we're that far apart in what we'd like to see the government doing and not doing.

I do think, though, that many who mistrust Christians are doing so from misconceptions based upon stereotypes -- including the way the media consistently portrays us (when was the last time you saw a film where the "religious" person wasn't a total nutcase?). They are also judging the whole by the actions of few overzealous people, who I'm sure are acting with the best intentions, but nonetheless a bit "annoying" to those who would rather not be bothered with it.

However, just for a moment, try to realize the way a follower of Jesus feels, and then maybe you can better understand why Christians want others to find what we've found.

Firstly, we were all born as sinful wretches, destined for a fairly unpleasant eternity. As the Bible says, not one of us would seek God on our own -- so God takes the initiative and seeks us. And every single one us resists the calling. Some resist subtlely, others violently rebel against the call for repentence and salvation (like the Apostle Paul, who persecuted believers with a frenzy).

But, by God's grace, some are reached -- some in short order, others after years of resistence(like me). They realize their need for a Savior, that the price has been paid, and they fully embrace the outstetched hand.

Try to imagine you owe an infinite amount of value to the richest, most powerful King in the universe -- something you can never, in all eternity repay. Then imagine that someone interceded for you and paid the debt fully. And, as if that wasn't great enough, the person who paid the debt also adopted you (as a full heir) into the family of the King to whom you'd been indebted, to share in King's inheritance.

I imagine you'd be pretty ecstatic about it. What would be the first thing you'd probably do after that happened? (After thanking the one who paid your debt and adopted you into the family, that is.) You'd run back to your family and friends and say, "Hey, guess what? The King paid my debt and adopted me into His family, and I'm going to live with Him in the palace forever. And there's an open invitation. It's not just for me -- you can come, too."

When a believer tells you about the gospel of Jesus Christ it is not because they want you to join a cult (although there are a lot of crazy cults out there). It's not because they want you to join their local assembly and give all your money to their pastor (although, there are some shady people out there, who still have their eyes too much on this world, instead of the next). It's because, for all their faults, stupidity, and horrible inclination to remain in/fall back into their ever-present, old, sinful nature, that they want you to come into the fullness of riches that they were blessed to be given (apart from anything they've done, entirely without merit).

Hopefully, they won't be pushy or rude (as some are), and even though you may think they're firing a few rounds short of a clip, hopefully you won't be offended by their desire to share the ultimate gift for all time with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 2, 2006 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I got into dog doo on another forum because it prohibited political and religious expression, but some of the participants couldn't grasp that "God bless America" fell into both categories. They thought I was "un-American" when I objected, and then they felt "picked on" when I pressed my point. But I would have said the same if someone had said "Allah give strength to our soldiers".

Yeah, but that's erm, different, isn't it. Yeah.

Perhaps a different tact, saying "Viva La France" for instance in responce.

I have been called anti-American simply for preffering the governmental and sociatal structure of the UK over that of the US. To some liking the country you live in, and preffering it to the USA is anti-American, because as we all know, God Blesses America, and everyone WANTS to be an American.

Quote:
Originally posted by Frendfirma:
As far as coercion goes, the Blue Laws, many of which are still in existence, are designed to force non-christians to in essence, practice a christian belief on sunday, whether they like it or not - if i wanna go grocery shopping, buy some beer and have a BBQ on sunday, that's my business, and any LAW preventing me from doing so at the behest of someone elses religion is an intolerable assault, in my opinion.

Not to mention when I was in Atlanta this September it stopped me getting beer for a party. This whole idea of buying beer being stopped is a new and somewhat scary one for me. I hear tell that once apone a time Pubs here had to close between 3 and 6 on Sundays, thank whoever that craziness has changed...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 2, 2006 7:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
In my opinion, professional librarians haven't been very good at adapting to the new information age in recent times, but that is changing! As the role of the library changes, so will the perception of it's value in our society and the cradle will continue to rock.

Have ya seen Cliff Stoll's book Silicon Snake Oil?
He makes the case that schools and libraries are wasting money on computerization, buying computers at 1000's of $ each, instead of reliable, permanent, if unsexy, books and other materials that cost much less, and paying salaries for librarians and extended hours.
He makes the point brilliantly, that librarians have spent years studying how to classify data, but administrators turn their catalogs over to computer data base writers who don't know what they're doing.

and 2 research examples from my life:

1/) back when I used to search the old card catalogs, the stuff that got cross referenced . The book I picked might not have what I wanted, but some thing on the next card, that seemed related but not quite, would be exactly perfect.

2/) My favorite technique would be to get the first 3 , or sometimes even only 2, digits of the Dewey Decimal number of the book I thought I wanted. So I had to check an entire shelf, or sometimes rack, or even sometimes , aisle. Can't tell ya how many times exactly what I wanted was right next to what I thought I wanted , from the Catalog...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 2, 2006 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
With reagard to reading from the Bible out loud... there is no coursework that I know in elementary school, and very few in junior high, high school, and college where reading from ANY religious text is a viable part of the curriculum.

I didn't necessarily mean read aloud in class, but to utilize the Bible in any capacity (reading, citing passages within a report, etc.). I agree, that any reading (or other usage) should be limited to subject/assignment specifity -- unless, of course, the student is given permission to read/write about any subject they choose.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy....
...performing miracles and possibly fomenting the rebellion that they were worried about. Again, not an expert, but my understanding of the times is that there was heightened Messianic fervor, and that the outlook of some Jews was that the Messiah would deliver them from Roman rule, which the Romans were aware of.

Given that all of these things would've been local (to Judea), I doubt word would've left the region, contemporaneously. (No satellite news then. Everything was a hard copy, delivered on foot.)

Apparently, the Roman officials weren't too concerned either, as Pilate was seemingly so unconcerned about the allegations brought against Jesus by the Sanhedrian that he had to be threatened by the Sanhedrian (with an allegation of "treason" against Caesar if he allowed anyone but Caesar claim to be a "King") in order for him to grant their request for Jesus's crucifixion.

And, regarding the Sanhedrian, they certainly weren't going to record anything. They wanted Jesus out of the way as quickly and quietly as possible, as He had been exposing them as the hypocrites (and distorters of God's word) that most of them apparently were.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[The point you keep evading, though, is the one about Mohammed. You have your religious texts, they have theirs which has the same lineage but of more certain provenance. So why pick yours and not theirs?

I haven't been evading the question, I just haven't had the time to answer it with the degree of detail it requires. Given that I've been so busy lately, I'll try to give it a brief shot here, though...

Firstly, your question seems to be saying that the historically, more-credible texts should be more believable simply because of their manuscript integrity.

Firstly, I can't comment on the manuscript integrity of the Koran, as I know absolutely nothing about it. I've never studied it. I have, however, studied the Bible in great detail (as well as its manuscript integrity), and I do know that there is no ancient text with more solid, manuscript evidence than the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

Also, as the Koran is not from the same period, it can't probably even be classified as in the same historical era, as far as manuscripts go. Aside from that, as I said, there may be a lot of manuscript evidence for the Koran, or there may be squat. I don't know, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other, because...

Textual integrity aside, one doesn't accept the message of the Bible based on textual integrity, and how it compares to other documents (even though no other document from that period, or older, comes anywhere close to it in that respect).

You can probably direct me to thousands of webpages that emphatically declare that the current President of the U.S. is a moron. I'm sure all of those webpages are textually reliable (in that the people who professed to author them, actually did, and that their words weren't altered after-the-fact). That doesn't mean, however, that I accept and embrace the verity of their message.

I am not a Christian because of the textual integrity of the scriptures (although, they are reliable).

I am a Christian because of the verity of the message to which the texts attest. It's a message from the God of the universe to all people -- not just the Jews (through whom He delivered His laws and plan of salvation), but to all mankind, regardless of ancestory, ethnicity, thought, word or deed.

I believe the entirety of the Hebrew Old Testament -- and that it pointed to Jesus as the final, complete and only atonement for sin, as well as the whole New Testament -- that Jesus was God (as He claimed), and the means of salvation for all who would trust Him (as He also claimed).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 2, 2006 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Firstly, I can't comment on the manuscript integrity of the Koran, as I know absolutely nothing about it. I've never studied it. I have, however, studied the Bible in great detail (as well as its manuscript integrity), and I do know that there is no ancient text with more solid, manuscript evidence than the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?

Cartoon, this is a real problem.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I am not a Christian because of the textual integrity of the scriptures (although, they are reliable). I am a Christian because of the verity of the message to which the texts attest. It's a message from the God of the universe to all people -- not just the Jews (through whom He delivered His laws and plan of salvation), but to all mankind, regardless of ancestory, ethnicity, thought, word or deed.

And you know this... how? I get the feeeling that your reasoning is running in circles. You believe the Bible because it is the word of god, and you believe it's the word of god because it says so.

But that's where the Koran comes in. I strongly suggest you read some religious texts BESIDE the bible.

EDITED TO ADD: For all of your scholarly impulses, you don't believe the Bible because it is firmly founded in historical fact or because it is consistent (which BTW it isn't.) You believe in the Bible because you want to believe in the Bible. In future please don't bring up your Bible studies bc you're making the same mistake that all Xtian fundamentalists make: you try to argue "credible" evidence for your belief. But all of those arguments are irrelevant. Because, if you could PROVE your faith it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

--------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 3, 2006 3:18 AM

It's the job of the religious fanatic to not be swayed by reason

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 3, 2006 11:23 AM

This was accidentally posted before completion. See full post below...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 3, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?

In the terminology of textual verity, "ancient" means pre-fall of the Roman empire. The Koran is after that. I assumed that people would realize the Koran isn't "ancient". Apparently, they do not.

Nice quibble, Cartoon. So what ancient texts are you familiar with enough to compare them with the Bible.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 3, 2006 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?

In the terminology of textual verity, "ancient" means pre-fall of the Roman empire. The Koran is after that. I assumed that people would realize the Koran isn't "ancient". Apparently, some do not.

Regarding the integrity of ancient texts, no, I have obviously not studied (or read) all ancient texts in existence. I have, however, studied manuscript evidence for ancient texts as a field of study, and have a basic knowledge of what still exits in the field of ancient manuscripts.

And, as I've said (and apparently must keep saying as people cannot seem to grasp it) -- most texts we have from antiquity were written centuries after the fact (I again point to my example about Alexander's two earliest biographies). That's the norm for ancient most ancient documents. However, the New Testament was written within decades (not centuries) of the events described therein.

Secondly, as a rule, we have no surviving, early manuscripts for most ancient documents which come anywhere near the dates of original authorship. However, we have surviving manuscripts of books from the New Testament from approximately only a century after the date of original authorship.

(That one papyrus of the Book of John is within a few decades of authorship. But, I already mentioned that, and shouldn't have to be continually repeating myself.)

And thanks to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the middle of the last Century, we now also have more surviving ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament than we'd ever had, previously.

To finalize (hopefully for the last time):

#1) The authorship of the Bible is generally closer to the events it portrays than the vast majority of other texts from antiquity.

#2) The earliest known, surviving manuscripts from the New Testament which we currently possess are closer to the dates of original authorship than any other known, surviving manuscript from antiquity.

The point being -- there is more evidence that the Bible has been reliably preserved than most of the ancient history and literature upon which most of us would never cast even a shadow of doubt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym: And you know this... how? I get the feeeling that your reasoning is running in circles. You believe the Bible because it is the word of god, and you believe it's the word of god because it says so.

But that's where the Koran comes in. I strongly suggest you read some religious texts BESIDE the bible.

If you don't mind me saying, your reasoning is bizarre at best.

According to your beliefs (as I understand them from your statement), a man should never marry a woman until he has checked out every single other woman on the planet? Because I have not studied other belief systems, I cannot know that Christianity is correct?

Of course, this is complete nonsense.

As my full answer explained (which began several paragraphs before the point you snipped for a quote in your response), the textual integrity of the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) is matchless in all of antiquity. Those scriptures declare that there is one God (the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), that Jesus was the Messiah (predicted from as far back as Eden) who would come to take away the sin of the world. Jesus, Himself, boldly declared to be that Messiah, and that He was God (liberals like to deny He said that, and to them I only say, instead of believing everything the Bible's critics have said about it, read the Bible, itself), and that He was the only way to salvation, and that no one could come to the Father except through Him.

If you don't like the message, take it up with the messenger. He said it, and I believe it, and I make no apologies for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym: Because, if you could PROVE your faith it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

I never said one could prove faith. To the contrary, I've multitudinously said that one cannot.

The entire discussion about the Bible in this thread has been about the integrity of the manuscripts. That can be ascertained to a point that to question the verity of the Bible's manusripts, one would have to question everything from antiquity (which people don't -- they only pick on the Christian texts, further underscoring the initial premise of this thread -- an unmitigated bias against Christianity).

The verity of the manuscripts can be reasonably proven. Faith cannot. If one believes the integrity of the manuscripts, however, and actually reads them for themselves, then they would have to exercise faith to believe the message contained therein. How is this not comprehendible? Am I suddenly speaking in Chinese, or is the prejudice against the Bible and Christianity so rank in here, that it's stifling?

I'm really tired of people twisting my words, and have gone well above and beyond what is reasonably expected of anyone in this thread.

Thanks to those of you who (while disagreeing on fundamentals) have had the decency to be far more reasonable, and have not exhibited the degree of blatant prejudice as has been apparent with some of the posters in this thread.

The responses from the two previous posters only underscore the initial premise of this thread (that there are those who will go out of their way not to believe something that's as plain as the nose on their face because they don't want to believe it), and I refuse to play this game any futher.

Thank you for your participation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 3, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Regarding the integrity of ancient texts, no, I have obviously not studied (or read) all ancient texts in existence. I have, however, studied manuscript evidence for ancient texts as a field of study, and have a basic knowledge of what still exits in the field of ancient manuscripts.

I'm genuinely glad to hear this.

Quote:
The point being -- there is more evidence that the Bible has been reliably preserved than most of the ancient history and literature upon which most of us would never cast even a shadow of doubt.

I was more or less with you up to this paragraph. I'm one of these, history-is-written-by-the-victors type o' people. I don't place a lot of trust in documentary history. Certainly not 3rd person stuff written 40 or more years after the fact. I pretty much assume the story's been doctored/sanitized/sexed-up by then to suit the writers or the men who pay them (gimme primary texts: diaries, letters written by eye-witnesses, etc). The difference between most ancient texts and the Bible is that no one is trying to get laws changed so we can all do as Herodotus dictates, or even Aristotle. For the most part, history is simply history.

Also, historians get their information from a lot of sources other than scrolls and codices. Books tell us there were amazons and unicorns and one-eyed giants. Now I'm prolly more willing than a lot of people to imagine that such folks and critters may have existed, but history says they didn't. Why not? After all, there are a great many well-preserved pre-modern texts that describe these creatures in detail and with pictures! But history usually demands a little more evidence than a lot of text. I don't know of any archeological evidence that supports Jesus' existence unless you count the Shroud of Turin.

Also, your sources, all the books of the New Testiment, are all Christian and therefore partizan texts. You don't read Pravda to get the truth about Soviet Russia, do you? One of the reasons Josephus is such a big deal for the Christian historians is that he was a non-Christian supposedly acknowledging the events of Jesus' life as Christians have wrote of Jesus themselves. Problem is, his comments about Jesus were a little too much in agreement with Christian dogma, to the point that they contradicted the author's own religious beliefs.

Josephus is kind of the Piltdown Man of Christian historical proof.

In the case of Alexander, history has much more than his biographies to go on. We have archeological evidence of his battles and his influence. We have authors from the cultures he conquered and those which he did not. I'm not an Alexander scholar by any means, but I know our knowledge of his life does not rest entirely on the say-so of a few biographies. Unfortunately for historians, our knowledge of Jesus' does.

Quote:
According to your beliefs (as I understand them from your statement), a man should never marry a woman until he has checked out every single other woman on the planet? Because I have not studied other belief systems, I cannot know that Christianity is correct?

Please find a closer analogy. Loving a woman and deciding what the ultimate truth of the universe is are not comparable opperations for most of us (at least after the honeymoon phase

Quote:
The entire discussion about the Bible in this thread has been about the integrity of the manuscripts.

The reason the discussion has been limited to manuscripts is because that's pretty much all you have to offer up as historical evidence of Jesus.

That said, you have given me something to think about, Cartoon. I can see your point that the Christian Bible is remarkably well preserved for a text of such antiquity.

I actually saw an exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls last week and was pretty much in awe of how well they were preserved. How did it happen? And why? Did they have any idea what they were doing? It's all very mysterious.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 4, 2006 12:37 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Look what piled up on my virtual desk

.

Razza:

Thanks for the links to the American Legion and ACLU position statements. Maybe my characterization is a bit unfair. But what I’m not sure of is how big a problem this is (this being groups feeling that it is better to settle out of court even though they believe they do not violate the establishment clause). Is this like the voting ID laws (solutions in search of problems that don’t really exist)? Or are there many examples where this is a genuine problem? The Legion statement did make a list of victims but I wasn’t able to determine if these were groups that lost court cases or groups that settled rather than going to court. Two very different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I think both statements have some merit and suspect this has more to do with "exorbitant attorney's fees" than anything. Why are they so exorbitant? I know, that's a whole new can of worms worthy of a whole new thread. Regardless, there must be some happy medium where defendant's aren't intimidated with the prospect of paying a plaintiff's exorbitant attorney's fees and where the defendants should rightly be compelled to take responsibility for their actions which infringe on a plaintiff's constitiutional rights.

Why does the law go for an all or nothing approach? Why not just say that these types of cases are so important that we should cap lawyer fee structures? If there are abuses of an oversight provision you don’t get rid of the oversight provision, you just tighten up the administration. The people who want to make oversight exceedingly rare are those who get dinged when that oversight is applied. In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that the goal is to minimize establishment clause lawsuits.

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I agree with your approach to lead by example, and I have also had some folks come to my door trying to "sell" me their religion. One question though, Cartoon has stated that evangelicals are not interested in forcing others to believe as they do. How is going door to door to deliver an informational message forcing you to believe as they do? I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door. While I find it annoying to be bothered with this kind of thing, I don't feel as if they are forcing me in any way. I am not required to listen to them and they have no means to compel me to do so.

Two different directions here. The first is the difference between forcing others to believe as you do (which I agree is impossible and not a goal of the evangelical movement) and forcing others to legally conform to your beliefs and/or learn your beliefs (which is definitely a goal of the evangelical movement). The approach is to influence legislation and what children are taught in public school. Pretty much everyone has an agenda. And every activist is trying to get enacted legislation that, in effect, would penalize those who do not conform to the underlying belief system. There is nothing wrong with that process. But let’s be honest about it. To say that evangelicals are not trying to force belief is side stepping the issue. And when we get to public school that’s where the wheels come off the wagon (creationism morphing into intelligent design, anyone? Abstinence only sex ed?). The ninety percent of American children that attend public schools (I think that figure is correct) are a huge potential growth market for evangelical churches, if they can just get more of their beliefs into the curriculum.

Which kind of leads to the second direction: the difference between a hard sell and a soft sell. Going door to door is a hard sell. Doesn’t matter if it’s setting up appointments to get your carpets cleaned, subscribing people to magazines, trying to get someone to vote for a candidate (guilty as charged), or talking with people about your faith. I personally believe that hard sell techniques are a poor method to spread the gospel. But that may just be personal preference. And maybe that preference has been shaped by overzealous evangelizers in the past (nothing to the extent of what’s happened to Frem). I’m much more impressed with the soft sell. Make sure your church is visible and inviting. Be a force for good in the community. And, if people are interested, they will come to you. I guess what it comes down to is that I equate the hard sell with a product that you’re unsure of (and, yes, I do put my shilling for a politician in that category). This product should be good enough. Salvation and eternal life? Why do you need the hard sell for that?

Oh, on a side note, I find it very cool that you’re a librarian. In my next life, I want to come back as a reference librarian. But I think I’d have to shed a lot of karma…

Cartoon:

I want to say that I’m enjoying this discussion but worried that you might burn out. Take a break. We’ll still be here a day or two from now (or quite a lot longer).

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Well, I didn't mean "religious" statues, but regular, civic statues (erected by the local, state or federal government) -- you know, an artillery piece, a memorial, something like that -- with some sort of inscription on it -- which may include a brief quote from scripture, or a simple mention of "God", etc.

There are actually people who get all bent out of shape about such things, and believe that this is somehow "Congress establishing a religion."
…
As a matter of fact, God (as indicated multitudinously throughout the Scripture -- both Old and New Testaments) frowns upon this sort of thing -- you know, the no "graven images" thing.

I’m curious how widespread this is. Not looking for exact numbers, just a general ballpark (see earlier in this post re: Legion statement). I mean I’ve heard statements like, “You can’t pray in school anymore” used to fire up support and that statement is just patently false. It is in the interests of the leaders of the evangelical movement to stay in power and there’s no better way than to constantly hit their followers over the head with a threat.

And I thought the graven images portion of the Ten Commandments only applied to Protestants

. If you’re Catholic you get two types of Shalt not Covet.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Can you think of anything more recent? (And I'm asking because I'd like to know why we're perceived the way we are by some, and from the examples I'm seeing so far, I'm still not seeing any justification for the perception, much less the seeming hostility that many have.)

Probably the biggest hostility comes from the evangelical movement trying to teach other people’s children their beliefs in public schools. That’s just not fair. And I can sympathise with parents who feel that evolution is a belief system and their kids are being forced to learn that. They’re wrong, but I sympathize. There’s plenty of options out there like parochial or home schooling (and many churches have subsidy programs for families who can’t afford private school). I understand that that’s a lot of potential converts. But getting the state to help teach other people’s children your dogma is just plain weenie.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon
However, just for a moment, try to realize the way a follower of Jesus feels, and then maybe you can better understand why Christians want others to find what we've found.

I don’t disagree with anything that you wrote. And I thought it was quite honest and heart felt. And, just as a little background, I’ve been surrounded by Christians for most of my life (kindegarten through bachelor’s degree in parochial schooling, same denomination).

And that’s one of the reasons why I’m such a proponent of separation of church and state. Because I know that the denomination of my family has no shot in hell of coming out on top in an American theocracy. And they will be easily identifiable for persecution by whichever Protestant denomination eventually wins out (Protestants worshipping on Saturday? There should be a special tax for that. And so it begins).

Ain’t no hater like a fundie hater ‘cause a fundie hater don’t stop. (apologies to Coolio)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 4, 2006 4:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Cartoon. first of all, the dates you propose are not accepted fact, they are still being determined. SOME people- mostly notably Xtian fundamentalists- like to say that the documents date back to w/in "decades" of the purported event. Others put that date later- more in the realm of 100-200 years. I looked into this a few years ago, so forgive me if I don't have all of the facts on-hand, but because of incosistencies w/in the Gospels themselves there is the thought that they were trascribed from an original document (Q).

There are other documents from about that (50-100 CE) time which present a different version, most notably the Gospel of Thomas which is also complete and has remained reasonably consistent in translation
www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

There are many ancient Xtain writings:

Quote:
Charles W. Hedrick writes in the Bible Review ("The 34 Gospels: Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians")- In sum, in addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period.

www.earlychristianwritings.com
www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

To place these in context, one must look at the NON-Xtian documents and other sources as well.

EDIT: I'll be willing to discuss this further but happy to wait. I know we're all busy with the holiday season.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 4, 2006 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
(when was the last time you saw a film where the "religious" person wasn't a total nutcase?).

Three of my favorite American films:

Dead Man Walking

What's Love Got to Do with It

Malcolm X

Quote:
However, just for a moment, try to realize the way a follower of Jesus feels, and then maybe you can better understand why Christians want others to find what we've found.

Firstly, we were all born as sinful wretches, destined for a fairly unpleasant eternity. As the Bible says, not one of us would seek God on our own -- so God takes the initiative and seeks us. And every single one us resists the calling. Some resist subtlely, others violently rebel against the call for repentence and salvation (like the Apostle Paul, who persecuted believers with a frenzy).

But, by God's grace, some are reached -- some in short order, others after years of resistence(like me). They realize their need for a Savior, that the price has been paid, and they fully embrace the outstetched hand.

Try to imagine you owe an infinite amount of value to the richest, most powerful King in the universe -- something you can never, in all eternity repay. Then imagine that someone interceded for you and paid the debt fully. And, as if that wasn't great enough, the person who paid the debt also adopted you (as a full heir) into the family of the King to whom you'd been indebted, to share in King's inheritance.

I imagine you'd be pretty ecstatic about it. What would be the first thing you'd probably do after that happened? (After thanking the one who paid your debt and adopted you into the family, that is.) You'd run back to your family and friends and say, "Hey, guess what? The King paid my debt and adopted me into His family, and I'm going to live with Him in the palace forever. And there's an open invitation. It's not just for me -- you can come, too."

When a believer tells you about the gospel of Jesus Christ it is not because they want you to join a cult (although there are a lot of crazy cults out there). It's not because they want you to join their local assembly and give all your money to their pastor (although, there are some shady people out there, who still have their eyes too much on this world, instead of the next). It's because, for all their faults, stupidity, and horrible inclination to remain in/fall back into their ever-present, old, sinful nature, that they want you to come into the fullness of riches that they were blessed to be given (apart from anything they've done, entirely without merit).

Cartoon, I think you're right to talk about seeing the situation from the other guy's point of view. I think that really is the key to tolerance. I recognize from the point of view you describe, the benignity of the Christian mission. I don't believe Christians nowadays, as a group, consciously want to harm anyone. I'm always polite to the Christian missionaries I meet. But the happy non-Christian does not see things at all the same way as the Christian does.

You paint an eloquent picture of a Christian mindset, but can you also imagine how a non-Christian sees all this?

For a Christian like yourself to fully believe the Christian version of reality, you have to believe that there's no positive alternative to Christian belief, right? That's part of your conversion process, "no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

To your mind, only Christians have a chance to be really good people, right? The rest of us are definitively running from God? I mean, seriously, I know you need to walk amoung us and talk to us on the internet like this, so you soft peddle that stuff, but honestly, deep down, you judge us all as sinners and enemies of God, right? (You prolly judge yourself that way too, but, as a Christian, you'd have that covered.)

Can you see how that might come across as deeply hostile to the non-Christian? How your self-concept as a "sinful wretch" might be likewise disturbing?

So, if I, as a non-Christian, fully expect eternity to be more or less positive and if I believe my relationship with God is not in need of Jesus' bargain; doesn't a Christian have to believe that I'm quite deluded if not wholly corrupt--just as you were, before you came to Him?

Now. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose for a moment that there is no need for Jesus' bargain, none at all, because that's what non-Christians believe. And let's suppose further that God loves you anyway, perhaps because our natural ability to love, in the face of all the trouble and misery in the world working to close our hearts, is God. God is us, working for a better world. Imagine how a Christian must look from such a point of view.

The first thing you might notice is what really abysmal self-esteme the Christians labor under, all of them "sinful wretches" brimming over with "faults, stupidity, and horrible inclinations." Obsessed with wickedness, their leaders so often unable to live up to their own words.

Then there's this delusion of the unpayable debt. People don't usually accumulate debt, without borrowing first. If someone were to claim that I was was indebted to them without so much as a verbal agreement beforehand, I'd call the cops on 'm.

So what has the Christian borrowed? Nothing at all, the "debt" is something a Christian is born with, apparently (payment for the gift of life, perhaps, to the Guy who decided to create you in the first place--damn, that's harsh). And it's a dept no ordinary person could ever hope to pay off; that's why Christians need a divine Intercessor to pay the unpayable debt for them. But of course, the Intercessor and God are the same. So God rigs things so nobody can win, just so He can waltz in and play Savior? That sounds pretty messed up from a non-Christian point of view.

But we're told that this situation is the most wonderful thing that ever happened. And the poor Christian is exstatic about it. He's paid off a debt he never incurred in the first place, and the good news is that you can join him!

I understand that this is all blasphemous nonsense to you, but to a non-Christian it's plain as day.

Cartoon, I think part of the reason people are hostile to proselytizing Christians is that, to a happy non-Christian, this talk about debts and sinful natures sounds pretty crazy. People don't tend to mind the quietly crazy and excentric (everyone's at least a little bit nuts, anyway

). But when crazy knocks on your door and asks to come in? People aren't always at their best when dealing with folks who seem to them to be crazy. Particularly when crazy seems so polite and dresses so nicely. It can be a pretty creepy experience to a non-Christian.

You may call me intolerant, but just as I imagine you must see my point of view as damning me to some kind of eternal unpleasantness, I perceive the Christian point of view as an affliction on the Christian's psyche right now. It hasn't seemed to help the Christians I've known. The many good people I've known who are Christian, have all been good in spite of their odd belief system. I've also noticed that they've all felt pretty bad about themselves as people and often felt compelled to be good, not because the goodness expresses their best self, but in order to make up for how sinful and bad they were at heart. Now, that's harsh.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 7:10 AM

HK, Hi.

I'll not cover things I've already gone over multitudinously, but try to keep this brief and to the main point of your post.

If one does not believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then nothing else I say here will likely bring them into agreement with the Christian worldview, and they should stop reading here.

However, if one does believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then they must also recognize that Jesus is God (as He claimed). Given that, they would be compelled to believe His view on #1) their standing with God on all things (including, but not limited to) their indebtedness to God, #2) His being the way to pay the indebtedness, and #3) how they should live their lives from that point on, in gratitude for the gift of salvation.

Indebtness for what? As both the Old and New Testaments testify, the debt of sin. I know I covered this in depth elsewhere in this forum several months ago, but as I have no idea where it was, I will attempt to restate it as briefly and simply as possible...

God demands sinless perfection. None of us meet that mark. The penalty for sin (even one sin) is eternal separation from God. That is the debt we cannot pay. Jesus lived the sinless life required of us, and was/is willing to attribute His righteousness to those who merely #1) admit their need for it and #2) accept the gift.

If you don't trust the Scriptures as reliable sources of Jesus's life and teaching, however, nothing I can say (in quoting from them) will convince you (or anyone else) to believe. If you do trust the Scriptures as reliable sources of Jesus's life and teaching, then read them for yourself (preferably all of them), and you will see what they say about sin, the penalty and the payment for it.

As I said in a previous post, I'm through debating the integrity of the Scriptures. I've specifically covered every contrary point, only to have an argument re-made against something I'd already fully explained elsewhere in the course of this lengthy, two-tiered thread. I can only say "the sky is blue" thirty-five times before I tire of hearing myself say it. If you doubt the statements I made, as such, feel free to disregard them, but I refuse continually reanswer the same points over and over and over again. In that respect, this is over.

I hope I've given the answer you were seeking. Thanks again.

To Soupcatcher:

Hi, Soup.

We actually have more in common than either of us may've thought possible prior to a few days ago.

Regarding "denominations" of Christendom --

As you've seen somewhat from my previous post, I've been through most of them. The trouble with all of them is that in some respect (some more so than others), they have added to or subtracted from the Scriptures. If you recall, Jesus's biggest beef with the religious leaders of His day was what? Their aggrandizement of the "traditions of men" over the "Word of God". Apparently, little has been learned since then. They do the same thing today -- which is why (for the better part of the last 20 years) I've attended non-demoninational assemblies which go by the Word of God, and not what man has addded to it, or subtracted from it.

If you want to seek God on His terms, read His word, and don't take anyone else's (mine included) for what it says. Read it yourself. After all, you won't be able to stand before God and say, "But, Cartoon said that...(so and so)." That won't wash.

Read it yourself.

And if there are parts you don't understand -- join the club. Anyone who says they understand it all is a fool or a liar. Thing is, if you're sincere, the Lord will make clear whatever you individually need to know. He promised that He will be found by those who seek Him with their whole heart (and the only way to do that is through an indepth study of His word). And He always keeps His word.

Of course, if you doubt the accuracy of what's portrayed in the Scriptures, then I doubt you would take their word for anything they say about Him, so we're back to square one.

Anyhow, as I know I mentioned earlier in this thread (in the first part, I think), there are specifically, three good English translations of the best, reliable Greek and Hebrew texts (which footnote all descrepencies). Grab one of those if you're interested. If not, then just ignore everything I said.

Thanks again for the discourse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 9:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I can only say "the sky is blue" thirty-five times before I tire of hearing myself say it.

Cartoon, you are NOT saying "the sky is blue". If that were the case, we'd all look up at the sky and say "Oh yeah. When I compare it to a color chart it falls within the range defined as 'blue'".

What you're saying is FAR more dubious. Even restricting ourselves to canonical Gospels, they show enough inconsistency to indicate interpolation, for example, the inconistencies the "virgin birth". John and Matthew make no specific reference to it; neither does Paul, whose writings predate the Gospels by 10-100 years (depending on whose Gospel dating you reference). Mark and Luke tell different stories about the virgin birth, while contradictorily referencing geneology through Joseph to prove that Jesus was heir to King David.

But in addition to the canonical Gospels, there are ancient religious texts regarding Jesus that make no reference to miracles. Instead, they limit themselves to quoting "what Jesus said". My impression- not a scholar by any means- is that as the writings became more distant in time from the original events more and more "fantastical" elements were added to buttress the belief that Jesus really WAS the Son of God.

Quote:
If one does not believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then nothing else I say here will likely bring them into agreement with the Christian worldview, and they should stop reading here

So it is clear that - basically- you only want to talk to those who believe as you believe. I think we ran into this conundrum before, when you asked if it was possible to have a religious discussion. My answer at the time was "Only between those who share the same beliefs. And then, if you run into a serious discrepancy of beliefs you have to end the discussion because there is no way to resolve them". You seemed at the time rather perturbed about my reply. But here is a case in point: there is NO WAY to "discuss" religion with people who don't share your faith, because faith- by definition- isn't arguable.

In essence, why did you bother posting? You only want to talk to fundies like yourself; to people who will restrict their discussion to YOUR assumptions. Since 90% of what you posted isn't open to discussion, why pretend to have one? You're really just prosyletizing. And no doubt you will feel that I'm being "intolerant".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Thanks for the links to the American Legion and ACLU position statements. Maybe my characterization is a bit unfair. But what I’m not sure of is how big a problem this is (this being groups feeling that it is better to settle out of court even though they believe they do not violate the establishment clause). Is this like the voting ID laws (solutions in search of problems that don’t really exist)? Or are there many examples where this is a genuine problem? The Legion statement did make a list of victims but I wasn’t able to determine if these were groups that lost court cases or groups that settled rather than going to court. Two very different things.

Why does the law go for an all or nothing approach? Why not just say that these types of cases are so important that we should cap lawyer fee structures? If there are abuses of an oversight provision you don’t get rid of the oversight provision, you just tighten up the administration. The people who want to make oversight exceedingly rare are those who get dinged when that oversight is applied. In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that the goal is to minimize establishment clause lawsuits.

Soup:

Your welcome for the links! In truth, I'm not sure how big a problem this is either, but it's obviously a big enough problem for the American Legion to support legislation for it. I have no doubt you are correct that there are supporters of the bill who would like to suppress establishment clause cases which is why I hope the bill doesn't pass in it's present form. I think your ideas concerning lawyer fee structures would certainly go a long way towards finding that happy medium I mentioned.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Two different directions here. The first is the difference between forcing others to believe as you do (which I agree is impossible and not a goal of the evangelical movement) and forcing others to legally conform to your beliefs and/or learn your beliefs (which is definitely a goal of the evangelical movement). The approach is to influence legislation and what children are taught in public school. Pretty much everyone has an agenda. And every activist is trying to get enacted legislation that, in effect, would penalize those who do not conform to the underlying belief system. There is nothing wrong with that process. But let’s be honest about it. To say that evangelicals are not trying to force belief is side stepping the issue. And when we get to public school that’s where the wheels come off the wagon (creationism morphing into intelligent design, anyone? Abstinence only sex ed?). The ninety percent of American children that attend public schools (I think that figure is correct) are a huge potential growth market for evangelical churches, if they can just get more of their beliefs into the curriculum.

Which kind of leads to the second direction: the difference between a hard sell and a soft sell. Going door to door is a hard sell. Doesn’t matter if it’s setting up appointments to get your carpets cleaned, subscribing people to magazines, trying to get someone to vote for a candidate (guilty as charged), or talking with people about your faith. I personally believe that hard sell techniques are a poor method to spread the gospel. But that may just be personal preference. And maybe that preference has been shaped by overzealous evangelizers in the past (nothing to the extent of what’s happened to Frem). I’m much more impressed with the soft sell. Make sure your church is visible and inviting. Be a force for good in the community. And, if people are interested, they will come to you. I guess what it comes down to is that I equate the hard sell with a product that you’re unsure of (and, yes, I do put my shilling for a politician in that category). This product should be good enough. Salvation and eternal life? Why do you need the hard sell for that?

Again, I think we probably agree on this more than not. I'd also like to point out that most efforts by a minority of religious evangelicals to effect cirriculum changes have ended disastrously for them. Not because radical anti-religious people took up the cause and fought it, but IMHO because everyday americans are overwhelmingly secular in their outlook when it comes to public school education. They can try all they like as far as I'm concerned, and they will lose the vast majority of the time and in the long run only hurt their cause in my opinion. I think the hard selling of door-to-door evangelism has the same effect of turning people off. There is a reason manufacturers no longer employ door-to-door salesmen to sell their products. As you say, it is a weak method, but free speech is more important to me and I'm willing to endure some annoyance to make sure it is protected.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Oh, on a side note, I find it very cool that you’re a librarian. In my next life, I want to come back as a reference librarian. But I think I’d have to shed a lot of karma…

Why do you say that? This is my second career actually and I've only been at it for a couple of years, but I'm getting great satisfaction from it. You should think about trying it now, it's never too late! Of course, it would mean a pay cut, but money isn't everything.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 11:03 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
As you say, it is a weak method, but free speech is more important to me and I'm willing to endure some annoyance to make sure it is protected.

Razza:

Just wanted to touch on this real quick.

My reason for bringing up door-to-door evangelizing was not to advocate getting rid of it but rather as an example of proactive efforts by some Christian denominations to spread the gospel. It was in response to cartoon's post where he painted the evangelical movement as not wanting to force others to believe as they do. I agree with that particular statement but do not agree with the implication that the evangelical movement is reactive in terms of witnessing (And here I'm equating the soft sell with reactive and the hard sell with proactive). So that's why I introduced door-to-door outreach into the discussion. It was an attempt to say, "Let's be honest. Some groups are very proactive about conversion."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 1:30 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
posted by Citizen-
Theres the Christian schools that teach radical Christianity in the US, and prepare their students to win debates and so on with the stated purpose of turning out the next presidents of the US.

right.. because Harvard and Yale and these other ivy leagues universities are notorious theistic breeding grounds. academia is a secular humanist machine designed to produce the globalist mindset that actually will enslave us. it seems 'radical' to me that an institution would teach evolutionary theory as proven science.. without showing the evidence that life came from a rock or that all the matter in the universe came from nothing; seems pretty theoretical to me.. kind of short on facts aswell. the real difference is that we admit ours is a religion and we arent forcing it on the public with federal money... which is what you claim we're doing

Quote:
Radical Christian organisations that are playing the long game to litterally take over the US government.

look if that were true, then why does the Federal government consistanly incorporate what christians know to be pagan and occult symbolism? the bible says the final empire on earth is of the antichrist.. so what then is our motive to contribute to the creation of this entity? to seek a christian theocracy in this age would be a contradiction of prophecy... which means theres no scriptural basis for this alleged theocracy. you coincidentally overlook the luciferian masonic influences in government that are far more frequent and substantial.. and they have the motive for a 'new order of the ages'. if the goal were a christian theocracy, then why is creation not taught in schools? they teach evolution-federally funded no less

Quote:
What happens next? I imagine the US becomes a Christian Theocracy and Cartoon gets it's life long dream of leading a violent inquisition against the non-believers.

so read revelations and tell me who it is that WE believe leads this 'inquisition'... because Jesus himself says that its not his believers, but those enforcing the global government of antichrist. we do not have the motive for this atheocracy, the bible says itself that this age is Satans, that the world and its material wealth are desires of the flesh and not heavenly. i know where you are coming from but understand, every attempt to institutionalize christianity becomes in itself a perversion.. so no christian would want this global theocracy, because the bible says that such an entity would be of the antichrist. instead, why arent you reading a little more into the tens of secret societies that place their occultic iconography on the money and government buildings of the world

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 2:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
right.. because Harvard and Yale and these other ivy leagues universities are notorious theistic breeding grounds. academia is a secular humanist machine designed to produce the globalist mindset that actually will enslave us. it seems 'radical' to me that an institution would teach evolutionary theory as proven science.. without showing the evidence that life came from a rock or that all the matter in the universe came from nothing; seems pretty theoretical to me.. kind of short on facts aswell. the real difference is that we admit ours is a religion and we arent forcing it on the public with federal money... which is what you claim we're doing

Not this boring crap again. There's plenty of evidence for both evolution and the big bang, they're constantly 'evolving' theories that were arrived at scientifically and are being explored scientifically, unlike a religion they are not set in stone. They are not a religion, maybe that's hard for some people to understand, something not being a religion, but they're not. Just because you are incapable or unwilling to look at or understand the evidence because it doesn't show what you want to believe does not mean it is not there.

Really I am beyond any desire to try and discuss this reasonably, over here, in 'backwards' Europe this debate was settled about two centuries ago, and we've never been happier. Religious people get to go to Church, science is taught in science class, religions are studied in Religious Education class and no one is trying to say science is a religion and religion is science.

You guys want to be stuck in the 19th century good luck to you, and in fifty years time when European scientists are working on the latest deep space probe and American scientist are putting the finishing touches to the proof that the sun orbits the Earth and rises in the morning because God turns the celestial hand crank you be sure to tell us how Immoral we Europ-Ains are for actually USING our god given brains rather than denying their existence.

If you Yanks want to live in god fearing ignorance go ahead, I couldn't care less any more, just keep that crap to yourselves please, because we're just ecstatic about our sane non-fundamentalist approach to things over here.

Quote:
look if that were true, then why does the Federal government consistanly incorporate what christians know to be pagan and occult symbolism?

What? So you're denying the existence of these schools because there's a pyramid on the dollar bill?

Quote:
to seek a christian theocracy in this age would be a contradiction of prophecy... which means theres no scriptural basis for this alleged theocracy- its a contradiction of bible prophecy.

So? So's torturing non-believers, that didn't stop Tomás de Torquemada.

Quote:
you coincidentally overlook the luciferian masonic influences in government that are far more frequent and substantial.. and they have the motive for a 'new order of the ages'. if the goal were a christian theocracy, then why is creation not taught in schools? they teach evolution-federally funded no less

Yes I get it already, Christian = good, Science = Luciferian EVIL!!! Teaching Evolution in Science class is teaching the Luciferian religion of science, evidently.

What else is a religion that is taught in schools? English? Definatly! Maths? Without doubt! Chemistry? Well of course (it is a science afterall!) IT? Well obviously, what else could be a subject talking about magic boxes of light?

That's it, every subject in School is a religion, no more funding for schools! I mean come on, you say this mysterious 'electricity' operates your computer, I say it's God, whats the difference?

Maybe if you for once responded to what I had said I would be more willing to talk to you, this has nothing to do with anything I said. There are Christian schools with the stated purpose of breaking down the barrier between church and state, maybe you can back up your accusations that Science is a Luciferian religion?

Quote:
so read revelations and tell me who it is that WE believe leads this 'inquisition'... because Jesus himself says that its not his believers, but those enforcing the global government of antichrist.

Read history and tell me how the Spanish or any other Christian Inquisition throughout history wasn't Christian at all.

Quote:
i know where you are coming from but understand, every attempt to institutionalize christianity becomes in itself a perversion.. so no christian would want this global theocracy, because the bible says that such an entity would be of the antichrist.

Then please explain to me the Roman Catholic Church, a monolithic organisation which was the closest thing we had to a world government for quite sometime.

Quote:
instead, why arent you reading a little more into the tens of secret societies that place their occultic iconography on the money and government buildings of the world

Why are you reading secret societies that are so secret that no one knows about them but so obvious it only takes a spot of paranoid schizophrenia to uncover them into everything? The best evidence for these secret societies running the universe seems to be "this guy said global and government in the same speech once".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I hope I've given the answer you were seeking. Thanks again.

Not really. I asked you if you could, for the sake of argument, see things from a non-Christian point of view. The answer I get from your last post is a great big "no."

I don't need you to explain what Christians feel indebted to God for, I know that all too well. Do you honestly think that my last post was written out of confusion about Biblical teaching?

I was trying to show you how it doesn't make any sense from a non-Christian point of view; that if one doesn't buy into the Christian world view, the Christian world view sounds goofy. A lot of non-Christians don't believe in sin, for instance. So telling me that the debt I owe to God is my sin sounds a lot like the debt I owe to God is my super goblin nasal spray. I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense to someone who doesn't share your peculiar belief system.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 4:35 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Not this boring crap again. There's plenty of evidence for both evolution and the big bang, they're constantly 'evolving' theories that were arrived at scientifically and are being explored scientifically, unlike a religion they are not set in stone.

a fact is something you can prove empirically..so why is evolution 'fact' if its not set in stone? if something cannot be proven, like "billions of years ago(nothingness came alive)" ..then it is just as much a faith based religion as ours is

Quote:
They are not a religion, maybe that's hard for some people to understand, something not being a religion, but they're not. Just because you are incapable or unwilling to look at or understand the evidence because it doesn't show what you want to believe does not mean it is not there.

i want the evidence that removes all doubt about our origins.. more than "at some point billions of years ago" lifeless matter itself became living; because thats not science. i dont object to scienctific study, but i object to religious fronts parading as science, which is exactly what evolution is

Quote:
Really I am beyond any desire to try and discuss this reasonably, over here, in 'backwards' Europe this debate was settled about two centuries ago, and we've never been happier.

show me the fossils that prove that all life evolved from an inadamant rock; i assume you europeans have had it for years now right?

Quote:
Religious people get to go to Church, science is taught in science class, religions are studied in Religious Education class and no one is trying to say science is a religion and religion is science.

are they teaching evolution as proven scientific fact? then theyre teaching you a religion as science

Quote:
You guys want to be stuck in the 19th century good luck to you, and in fifty years time when European scientists are working on the latest deep space probe and American scientist are putting the finishing touches to the proof that the sun orbits the Earth

this might suprise you but the same people who control us have control over you all aswell, so they teach the same crap here as in Europe. if we're still around 50 years from now i expect the next batch of mad scientists to be working on merging man with machine... which seems to be the inevitable progression of evolutionary thought

Quote:
and rises in the morning because God turns the celestial hand crank you be sure to tell us how Immoral we Europ-Ains are for actually USING our god given brains rather than denying their existence.

what are you implying... that because Europe is more secular then America that youre thereby more intelligent? make that case for me please

Quote:
If you Yanks want to live in god fearing ignorance go ahead, I couldn't care less any more, just keep that crap to yourselves please, because we're just ecstatic about our sane non-fundamentalist approach to things over here.

well we're not being video taped on every street corner and barked at by servelience cameras yet either.. you must be further evolved then we are i guess. criticize America all you want but your secular leadership is no better than ours.. they dont give a rats ass about your freedoms, you are less an individual sovereign being and more a cog in the machine

Quote:
Maybe if you for once responded to what I had said I would be more willing to talk to you, this has nothing to do with anything I said.

i know what you said.. its the same as i always hear from you, that Christians hate unbelievers and want them converted or murdered.. what am i supposed to say? thats simply not true.. and ive tried to quote you the bible to prove that we would not be motivated by our faith to convert you

Quote:
There are Christian schools with the stated purpose of breaking down the barrier between church and state

and im sure their are evolutionary institutions determined to marginalize and remove all influence of the world religions.. so whats your point? if you think a christian theocracy is a real threat than your just delusional, it would never happen in this age

Quote:
maybe you can back up your accusations that Science is a Luciferian religion?

i never said science was luciferian.. i said evolution was, as it negates the need for God and claims that all the matter in existence came from nowhere before it manifested; thats not a lot different then what we believe, in the beginning there was God.. or in the beginning there was nothing

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 4:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a short comment - science can NEVER prove anything is true. Theories are models we construct to explain observations. The theories are then tested over and over till discrepancies are found, then new theories have to be constructed to include all observations. And so on. That's why theories change over time.

PS - you make use of the advances of science every day - from medicine to autos to blenders. And you don't seem to dispute other scientific theories - like gravity, electricity, and blood circulation. So, where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 5:18 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What else is a religion that is taught in schools? English? Definatly!

As an English teacher, I for one welcome our new grammatically correct deities. Let us all bow in wonder and awe before the prophets Reed-Kellogg (who in their majesty gave us the book of diagrams)! Praise be unto those who can differentiate the Predicate Nominative from the Direct Object! All hail the mighty He-Who-Can-Never-Be-Identified-By-My-Students, the Adverbial Prepositional Phrase!

From the book of grammar, Chapter 17 (Exercise 3, Number 2): "And I wept with joy, for there was one among you who did actually know mechanics! Lo! I did look at your paper and see that your subjects and verbs were in agreement, and you did receiveth the A+, as was wanted in the home of your parents..."

Sorry Citizen - Had to.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 5:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not to go too far astray - since I learned grammar many many years ago, things have come into common usage - like dangling participles. Has it changed so much?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 6:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

Citizen,

Not to nitpick another argument with you, but radical christians were fundamental to the founding of this nation. It really worries me not at all. If someone from my one of my local looney christian fringe groups ran for office, I'd weigh what they said in a fair and balanced manner, and either vote for them or not, with pro- or anti- bias.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 2:08 AM