Tuesday, July 24, 2007

(Weekly Column)

I was famished on my long drive to New York City and pulled off I-95 in the middle of Nowhere, South Carolina. A billboard had directed me to a restaurant on desolate Frontage Road, which had the charm of an abandon rock quarry. In the distance, I saw a bright yellow sign that read "Maurice's BBQ." I bounded into the aromatic smoke pit looking forward to good southern ribs, but what I found instead was good ole' fashioned red meat conservatism. In this contentious day and age, it seems even pulled pork is politicized.

A small glass encased room at the store's entrance served as a propaganda center, with books, pamphlets and cartoons extolling the virtues of the old Confederacy and modern Republican politics. One book depicted a photograph of the American flag under the caption, "The Real Slave Flag." Various rebel flags also filled the space, as well as photographs of southern Civil War "heroes."

Ironically, there was a young African American teenager working at the cash register. Either she was blissfully ignorant of her surroundings, or jobs were scarce in this neck of the woods. I just can't imagine a black person in New York or Miami working in such a place. (The exception is Washington, where you can always find a self-loathing minority of all stripes to shill on The Hill)

Once I placed my order, I listened to the locals yak about the great George W. Bush, the reasons why we should invade Iran and how certain Republican politicians betrayed them on immigration legislation. I had often wondered who the remaining 28-percent of the idiots were that supported the worst president in history and I finally found them. A couple of people sported well-worn Bush/Cheney campaign T-shirts. Meanwhile, several power trucks in the parking lot had bumper stickers that cheered the GOP, lauded Intelligent Design or depicted bloody fetuses.

Other trucks had anti-Hillary Clinton bumper stickers. A typical one showed the Republican elephant under the word "The Good", the Democratic donkey under "The Bad" and Hillary's face under the caption "The Ugly."

It is always jarring to see the level of ire and fire that social conservatives reserve for Hillary. It is one thing to dislike her personal style or politics. But the visceral disgust and animal animus literally emanating from the pores of these poor southerners is perplexing. And, quite frankly, judging by the missing teeth of a few of the patrons, they really could have used her health care plan.

Prominently featured at Maurice's was "The Times Examiner," a newspaper that billed itself as the "independent conservative voice of the Palmetto State." It was good to know that they were keeping the torch, because if there is one thing that South Carolina lacks it is conservative voices.

The top story in the newspaper opened with the screaming headline: U.S SENATE TO OPEN SESSION WITH A HINDU PRAYER. Oh my, what a huge threat. If we are not careful, masses of South Carolinians will renounce Christianity and leave their pastors to storm the pastures in a heroic effort save the cows.

As I perused page two, I was disappointed to learn that I had just missed Creation Science "Super Thursday." For an admission fee of $5, I could have been treated to a video tour of the "Answers in Genesis Creation Museum" in Kentucky. Well, at least when I finally make the pilgrimage, I won’t know how the story ends.

In the international affairs section, Dr. Al Snyder, a former professor at Liberty University, forcefully argued against peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems that unless the Middle East ruptures, the fundamentalists don’t get their Rapture, so they are doing everything in their power to ensure killing and chaos. The great irony is that they are fomenting deadly dissension, while calling themselves friends of Israel.

The most illuminating article was a guest column written by Dr. Winston L. McCuen entitled, "When Slavery is Good." Until I read this, I was unaware that owning another human being could be perceived as a positive experience from both ends of the whip. I must note, however, that I have yet to read a screed from a pro-slavery author who doesn't imagine himself as the Master.

Surprisingly, The Times Examiner did not appear to have any Jeremiads against gay people. After all these years attacking homosexuals, the immigration debate reminded conservatives that rekindling racism and xenophobia is good fun too! But, it also is a sad reminder that discrimination against gay and lesbian people will persist long after all of the equal rights laws are finally passed.

168 Comments:

Thank goodness that such nonsense comes from the mouths of stupid people. That's the way it should be. They can have their confederate flags, their "intelligent design" and their George W. Bush t-shirts. They all match really well.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 4:48 PM  

As an African-American gay child of the south, I have to say that not everyone Southern are like the folks Wayne ran into.

It's just a matter of how gets all of the media attention.
posted by  BlackTsunami, at 7/24/2007 7:54 PM  

of who gets the media attention. sorry about that
posted by  BlackTsunami, at 7/24/2007 7:54 PM  

After reading what Wayne expearianced in S.C. being I live in S.C. reminds me of the reason I have started dating a female and gone back into the closet, she knows I'm gay but I have asked her to be my girlfriend and see what happens.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2007 10:10 PM  

Anonymous, I hope you find your peace soon. Become what is true to yourself.
posted by  Emily K, at 7/24/2007 10:37 PM  

Come on, people. Every state, every city has its pockets of ignorant, prejudiced people. Some more than others. These in South Carolina just stood out more. You gotta remember that South Carolina boasts Charleston, home of the Spoleto Festival USA, the most diverse cultural festival in the world! South Carolina has a wonderful coast filled with all types of people from all over the USA. Not all can be as described by Wayne. Granted it is off putting to meet red necks while traveling but one thing is for sure: we used to ignore them before Bush, not anymore!!!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 8:43 AM  

I grew up in South Carolina and Richard Schillen and blacktsunami right, there are some wonderful people and places there, including the beautiful, sophisticated city of Charleston. But there is also a strong, persistent hard right conservatism that is harsh, mean and uncompromising. It is maintained by ignorance and fundamentalism and pandering politicians, and thrives in the rural areas. I suppose SC is no different from other states in this regard, and those of us who live in large urban areas where being gay is no big deal need these reminders of how hard it is to be anything other than white, straight, conservative and Baptist in many places in America.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/25/2007 9:41 AM  

Anonymous, what are you saying! You said that you are going back into the closet and are "dating a woman" because you "live in South Carolina"?!? May I humbly suggest that "living in South Carolina" is not a permanent state of being! If you're really a gay man, instead of going back into the closet and wasting that woman's time, how about, errrr, moving to another state, especially if you find living there so oppressive???
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 10:07 AM  

Wayne, duh!? You're not supposed to be eating pork anyway! And another thing, about the pleasure of the whip from both ends, may I suggest a trip to CellBlock on Halstead your next trip to Chicago? Ask for my friend Daddy Dean and tell him you've been a bad boy.

Seriously, this is a wonderful column, and that's a compliment coming from a Deep-South born&bred but mercifully escaped homo.

There will always be a lowest common denominator in American politics, and so long as there is, base appetites for hate and scapegoating will be fed with votes. As Bush has proven, you CAN fool some of the people all of the time, and he won't be the last to make it work.

Kudos for exposing the underbelly of redneck voters and the actual location of the mysterious 25%. If you hadn't printed it, it would have been classified next week and unavailable until 2099.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 10:54 AM  

Can you imagine if they found out Wayne was both Jewish AND gay!? The pork wouldnt have been the only thing that was pulled to shreds that day in that confederate hovel.
By the way, why DO so many southerners have missing teeth? I know they like 'sweet tea' but marone---save some of that money you spend on beer and cigarettes and get thee to a dentist!
Red V
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 12:52 PM  

Red, maybe so many southerners with bad teeth lack universal health care or have no health care at all. The same ones who support Bush! According to a report issued recently from I believe the Dental Assocation, more than 70% of Americans have some form of gum disease. Makes you wonder what socalled health insurance is covering or isn't.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 1:16 PM  

The anti-Hillary and anti-gay aspects of the rural areas reflect the long standing misogyny of our culture.

Joe Bageant has detailed the phenomenon of rural lower-class voters consistently voting against their self interest, because of poor education and the clever pitches of the Republican party, which exploits their prejudices and gives them nothing to improve their lot in life.

Anon 7/24 10:10
Do that woman (and your potential children)a HUGE favor and not drag them into your personal conflict. Sort that out first before you get into a relationship with anyone!
-SharonB
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 4:16 PM  

Well before I get to the point of marriage I'm just going to (date) for a little while,this person is someone who works with me, she knows I'm gay, but I told her that I'm willing to open myself up to the possibility that I could be Bisexual,She has flirted with me for the last years and asked me out before but I would always tell her I'm gay well this time I told her to be patiant with me and we'll see what happens. She asked me about the fact that I'm gay, I told her that I been starting to feel that I could be Bi.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 9:47 PM  

Anonymous,

"She asked me about the fact that I'm gay, I told her that I been starting to feel that I could be Bi."

The only one way that could be true: if you get an erection when she is "nakid" in front of you. The thermometer between your legs never lies! The harder it gets, the more you are what you deny! Get a life and quit screwing up women's lives so that you can find yourself!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 8:50 AM  

Anonymous, unless you are aroused by women, you're not bi! Most heterosexual women have much in common with the ex-gay ministries, to convert a gay man to an heterosexual. It doesn't work. The majority of ex-gays rarely if ever sustain heterosexual relationship in the sexual context, most choose to remain celibate which of course doesn't mean they're straight but gay and asexual, nothing more.

Try converting a straight person to gay and you'll see what I mean. Never works and often can't work. That's why there are no ex-straight ministries.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 10:56 AM  

I think you all may have a point, I think what trigured the thought of tring to go straight was reading alot of sites by Allen Chambers,Richard Cohen and others alike who claim there is No such thing as a Homosexual, they claim that all men are Born Straight but somehow got led on homosexuality early in life, well after all of thier theology I started to question maby they could be right.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 12:07 PM  

Anonymous, a lot of socalled bisexuals have a real problem with their gay side too, much in common with socalled ex-gays. Many marry to hide it because they're ashamed but many also cheat on their spouses. Despicable. Many would be the first to vote against our equality and often do, but would deny and lie about their gay orientation. I don't buy the bisexual argument at all, never did, never will. Its a copout. I've personally had sexual encounters with women in my past merely out of curiosity but it doesn't make me bisexual nor do I profess to be one and neither would I choose to live that way for fear of rejection or discrimination. I'm proud to be gay, out,loud and very happy!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 1:27 PM  

Anonymous-- chambers and cohen make their livings by telling people that gay does not exist, except for their belief that they can change it. As mark Twain said, "Show me how a man earns his cornpone and i'll tell you what his opinions are." They use their ex-gay businesses and ministries to work through their own issues. How successful they are at it is questionable, which is the point of this website.

I don't doubt that it is possible for SOME people to change their sexual orientations, though i suspect that the reality is that they are truly bisexual to begin with. and yes, I think there is sufficient evidence that there is a true bisexuality. However, the overwhelming evidence is that for the great majority of people, a true change (as opposed to supression of one's gay self) is not possible, simply because there is nothing to change.

google Ted Haggard and Rev. Paul Barnes and rev. Lonnie Latham for some really good examples of the futility of appealing to religion to change people from gay to straight.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 1:38 PM  

The considerable weight of science, both biology and psychology is that one is born gay. Nurture has about zero effect on that. Cohen et al are totally WRONG!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 1:53 PM  

Ok, I have read the last few replyes and yes you all do make alot of sence, still think I could be a little attracted to females,I don't know how to explain how that happend, maby I talked myself into believing it. But you all are right (:
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 2:12 PM  

Anonymous, ok. Try working on the little bit that makes you think you're attracted to females. Just for the hell of it, what is that "little bit" you're referring to?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2007 9:41 PM  

Well someone stated unless I can get aroused by seeing a nude female I can't be Bi, Well I went to adult bookstor and bought me some straight porn movies to watch and yes it works,I did get hard and actauly climaxed,rather or not that really proves anything I think it has to indicate something.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 10:02 AM  

Anonymous, viewing straight porn doesn't work unless I assume you're concentrating on the male depicted. Get naked with a female and perform, then you'll know for sure.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 11:28 AM  

the north should have allowed the south to secede from the union. we then could have exploited them for whatever natural resources we northerners needed, just like we have done with so many other third world nations. as george carlin has said: don't believe all this 'new south' bullshit you hear about. the south will always be a millstone around the rest of the country's neck and i think the democrats should nix them altogether from their electoral strategy and focus on winning ohio, pennsylvania, michigan, etc. maybe florida. and screw them good.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 12:21 PM  

I do agree I should be alone with a female as stated if I'm watching porn and still see a guy it won't work, well now thinking about it, I'm not going to really worry myself about it anymore,this whole inner struggeling has been hard on me and it's time to accept that yes I do still get turned on by men, and a little good time with a female now and then don't hurt. I've grown tired of rightwingers telling me how I should live and (who) I should Love (:
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 1:36 PM  

Anonymous, the "right wingers" who presume to lecture you on your most intimate matters don't know God from the hole in their ass. It is you who makes the decision to take them seriously or not, and we all have to learn to value our inner voice over the rantings of those who exploit God for their own purposes.

Jesus was crucified by the religious fundamentalists of his day because he directly challenged their fundamentalist dogma. Jesus brought in people from the margins, including women, the lepers and Gentiles, too, much to the anger and consternation of the fundamentalists of his day who, not surprisingly, dogged him at every turn with their pious quoting of scripture.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 2:00 PM  

Anonymous, good for you and Chris, well said!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 2:18 PM  

Thanks, Chris and others who gave proper insight on this matter,I see it sometimes takes the caring of others to help someone out of a bottomless Pit (Fundies)
I actuly think for the most part I'm prety normal but over a long period of time some people have got to me with thier negitive opinions against GLBT people. I do thank all who have helped me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 3:03 PM  

Anonymous, you are welcome.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 3:30 PM  

Chris L., I actually agree with parts of what you say, but on what basis do you accept that Jesus was a friend of sinners and social outcasts (as all His followers should be) and was crucified, yet apparently reject His Resurrection, demands that people repent, His consistent teaching on the reality of a literal, eternal, tormenting hell? How do you pick and choose what to believe about Jesus from the Gospel accounts in particular, as well as the eyewitness testimony of His followers?

Furthermore, as I pointed out to Emproph, whenever you or I object to anything, we are always assuming some standard or rule that the thing allegedly violates. For example, if you object to the commandments/ethics of the Christian faith, you are assuming some standard that Christianity supposedly violates. My question is how you justify the standard - whatever it is - that you are utilizing? So what is your standard for ethics and reason, and how do you justify it?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 3:33 PM  

ummmmm--how about...the whole thing is a made up fairy tale which some people believe to the exclsuion of all reason? will that do?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 3:53 PM  

AJ, I strongly recommend a book which is entitled, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". It is an excellent book which deals with this subject. But your point, I think, is very valid. What is our standard for determining what, in scripture, is worthy and what is problematic? And how can we lay claim to one part of it if we reject another? I think this is just the way life is, in the Bible and in most other things. We would like things to be "black and white", "cut and dry", but, alas, life just isn't like that.

I do know that Jesus Himself often dismissed "scripture" out of hand when it was quoted to him in a toxic manner. Jesus rejected Moses' law of divorce (which was scripture) and the belief in "an eye for an eye". Jesus looked the fundamentalists right in the eye and said, "Yeah, I know the Bible says 'an eye for an eye', but I reject that and say: Turn the Other Cheek". So they killed him off. :( I say, man wasn't made for religion. Religion was made for man.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 3:54 PM  

Well Ben, if that's your take you have many other problems to deal with. But you're missing the issue. You can believe that but if you do, then to me you wouldn't be justified in quoting Jesus or the historical sources that describe the life and times of Jesus as true in order to support an argument, as Chris L. and others have done.

Chris L., thank you for the book recommendation and I will attempt to track it down and add it to the reading list. BTW, do you recall what the author's thesis and some of his claims,evidence were?

Now, you basically claim, if I understand you correctly, that we can pick and choose what to accept from the teachings of Jesus because "this is just the way life is..." But isn't that merely descriptive, not prescriptive? Yes, people do that, but are they justified and consistent in doing that? And doesn't such reasoning commit the is/ought fallacy? You're saying that's the way it is, when the question should be is that the way it ought to be? And if it ought to be that way, if we should pick and choose what to accept and reject from the teachings of Jesus, then we of course return to the question asked (which wasn't really answered) and that being on what basis do we pick and choose what to accept and reject?

And I agree with you that Jesus corrected people concerning the Scriptures, but when? You nailed it sir - "when it was quoted to Him in a toxic manner" - i.e., when the Law was being used unlawfully, when it was being using inconsistently, when it was being used arbitrarily, etc. We should do the same. But with all due respect that's not what I see you and others doing.

You don't seem to be correcting a misinterpretation or misapplication of the Word, you seem rather to be picking and choosing what to accept and reject? If you have a standard to do this, what is it? If you don't have a standard, your argument and method would seem to fail for its arbitrariness.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2007 4:20 PM  

Chris, check out www.fallwell.com and you'll see the hypocrisy and self-righteousness among the right wing religious bigots.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 8:15 AM  

Jesus' "eye witnesses" never wrote anything down. The oldest gospel, Mark, was written at least 50 years AFTER Jesus was gone. Tales told by wandering people with a new religion to promote can be distorted and exagerated beyond all recognition. *Believing* that these were a dictation from God is one thing, but dont try to pass it off as proven historical facts. And yes Jesus did include and love and accept all the abused, excluded, 'impure', and marginalized people of his time. Marcus Borg's books are excellent on addressing these issues and others.
Red V
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 9:31 AM  

All I can say Wayne about your experience is THE HILLS HAVE EYES!
Those people in the BBQ pit remind me of an old X-Files episode. A mutant mother with no arms or legs was being impregnated by her mutant sons to produce more inbred murderous mutants who went out on nightly killing sprees. They transported her around in the trunk of a big junky car--presumably to the local megachurch where they could continue practising their republican 'christian' inbred mutant killer family values!!!
Gary (NJ)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 9:41 AM  

AJ, all I am saying is that one cannot take 66 different books which were written over hundreds of years and copied over and over by illiterate scribes until the invention of the printing press in 1500 a.d., and claim that there is not a single error in any of them. I respectfully suggest your premise is invalid, which appears to be that some cannot be true and some cannot be false at the same time. It is illogical to say that the only two possibilities are complete perfection or complete unreliability. And remember, it was humans who "picked and chose" the 66 books in the first place.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 10:24 AM  

AJ

Since you are back, you still need to apologize and repent for bearing false witness against me and my partner, and against millions of other GLBTQ people. Any post from you about the Bible is pretty darned worthless when you break 'thou shalt not bear false witness' and then insist that you are exempt from repenting of your sins against other people.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/28/2007 11:45 AM  

Chris, the creationists actually believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old based on biblical texts yet they can't account for the discovery of fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs that go back hundreds of millions of years. The creationists believe verbatim what is said in that greatest piece of fiction ever concocted, the bible. They'd be better off living in the middle east, they'd have much in common with the shia and taliban alike.

There are also some who think that looking lustful at a woman (if you're straight) is sinful and that getting an erection as a result of that is also a sin, so I suppose by the same taken it is a sin to look lustfully at one's spouse. This would mean that no straight man could ever look at a "beautiful" woman unless he didn't get aroused because of the sin involved. Its all f...ked up if you ask me, even more so those who believe in that "lifestyle".

I often wonder how these socalled bible-thumping humping christian men wake up every morning with a hardon, is it possible they pray it away just as they do the gay? I for one don't believe any of them and certainly none who say they never masturbate either, single or married. Bunch of hypocrites, liars and cheats. As for the ones who come here to agitate with their religious drivel, I suspect they're deeply closeted gay men anyway who can't deal with their sexuality, many bisexuals are like that. Did you see the article in New York Magazine on that recently? There was an article about married men on the down-low, men who cheat with men, the same ones who vote against our equality saying we're the threat to marriage. What a crock! I guess the Ted Haggard syndrome is pandemic nowadays. They've all cornered the market on hypocrisy, that's for sure.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 12:43 PM  

Read this blog regarding bisexual men on the down-low.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D2DDF27A6726085A4ABDDB77D305FCD1?diaryId=2432
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 1:02 PM  

Yes, the people who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old say that "carbon dating" is a fraud. They also say that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time. To them I ask this question: Which is more likely a fraud: science, or a story which says that we'd all be in paradise right now but for the actions of a talking snake?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 1:21 PM  

All this talk of sin 1) presumes there is such a thing 2) there is something to sin against 3) the bible is its representative 4) we understand the bible 5)we understand its intentions 6) it is telling us the truth that it has the authority to tell us what a sin is.
If you read the book of job, we see that satan devcides to sit on the throne of god, and all hell breaks loose for poor job.
That's the problem with all of those assumptions--someone gets hurt, and it is all apparently with gods will and permission.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 1:58 PM  

Chris, exactly my point. The notion of a talking serpent is absurd at best and the taking of a bone from Adam during his sleep to create the first woman. I've laughed at that one for decades. These morons have been drinking far too much right-wing koolaid if you ask me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 2:56 PM  

Red V., I'd be more than willing to interact with any specific claim of Dr. Borg you put forward with the evidence he uses. Any time. Any claim. The methodology, presuppositions, and assertions of Dr. Borg have been weighed and found wanting by many scholars, including Greg Boyd (certainly no conservative), N.T. Wright (ditto), James R. White, and others. But simply throwing out claims is not only laughable, it's unscholarly. Anyone can do that. Hell, Robert does that all the time and look what an amateurish dolt he ends up appearing. He's back with some posts here of course, and as intellectually irrelevant as before. LOL Robert - cheers!

Chris L., good points. You're still avoiding - not necessarily purposely - the central issue. HOW do you know whether the teaching or claim in question is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, reliable or unreliable? That's the issue. What's your standard to make such distinctions, and can you justify it?

And welcome back Friend of Jonathan! Contextually irrelevant and just as illogical as ever I see. I really find it humorous no one else feels it necessary to identify Friend of Jonathan's logic - or lack thereof in this case. He calls me to "apologize and repent." For what? For declaring and defending my conviction that homosexuality is classified as sin and a transgression of God's Law in the Bible. But that's the debate! Now, Friend of Jonathan certainly can and does disagree with me, and the point of the discussion (if he's willing to have one) is too work through the issue and check for general consistency, arbitrariness, ability to deal with the text in a reasonable and consistent manner, etc.

Friend of Jonathan can't do this however. When we began to get beyond the initial, foundational stages of debate a couple of weeks ago he soon began to twist himself like a pretzel into inconsistency after inconsistency. What did he do? He simply stopped the debate and called me to repent of...holding and declaring the very belief we are debating! And he's still doing that here - WOW! That would be comedic were it not so tragic.

And Ben, my question to you is the same I have asked of others, whenever you or I object to anything, we're always assuming some standard or rule that the thing allegedly violates. For example, when you object to the commandments/ethics of the Christian faith, you're assuming some standard that Christianity supposedly violates. My question is how you justify the standard - which you have to identify - that you're utilizing? What is your standard for ethics and reason, and how do you justify it?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 6:57 PM  

AJ

Still waiting for you to repent. Funny, I asked you to repent of your sin of bearing false witness against me, and instead, you did the reverse - you sinned against me even more.

"For what? For declaring and defending my conviction that homosexuality is classified as sin and a transgression of God's Law in the Bible."

No, you are lying about my request. I have repeatedly asked you to repent of your specific nasty declarations about my relationship - declarations that are cases of bearing false witness.

"Friend of Jonathan can't do this however."

Here you go again, sinning against me, AJ. Please repent.

"he soon began to twist himself like a pretzel into inconsistency after inconsistency."

And another example of bearing false witness, AJ. All this sin on your part just doesn't lend any credibility to your religious claims. After all, if you cannot even keep one of the ten commandments, or Jesus's Law of Love by simply avoiding lying about people, how can you possibly be a credible source of information about anything else?

The tragic thing, AJ, is that you repeatedly sinned against me, having set yourself up to declare that GLBTQ relationships, which have nothing to do with you and therefore, even if they were sin(and they are not), would be none of your business. Yet, though you condemn our lives, you refuse to repent when you sin against us.

When you were asked, nicely and repeatedly, to repent of your sins, you left. Apparently, you feel free to declare our lives sin, and above repenting of your own sin.

Do you feel that your alleged heterosexuality makes it unnecessary for you to repent when you bear false witness, AJ?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/28/2007 8:05 PM  

I was reminded that Friend of Jonathan's logic is astonishingly similar to Kramer's in an early Seinfeld episode. Kramer has a plan to get rid of the furniture in his apartment and build "levels." Jerry insists that Kramer can't do this and won't do this. So they bet on it - a dinner if Kramer finishes by the end of the month. Here's the scene a short time later:

Kramer: Oh, hi.I just came to say goodbye...
Jerry's dad: So, how are your levels coming along?
Kramer: Oh, well...I decided I'm not gonna do it.
Jerry: Really? What a shock...So, when do I get my dinner?
Kramer: There's no dinner. The bet's off. I'm not gonna do it.
Jerry: Yes. I know you're not gonna do it. That's why I bet.
Kramer: There's no bet if I'm not doing it.
Jerry: That's the bet! That you're not doing it!
Kramer: Yeah, well, I could do it. I don't want to do it.
Jerry: We didn't bet on if you wanted to. We bet on if it would be done.
Kramer: And it could be done.
Jerry: Well, of course it could be done! Anything could be done! But it only is done if it's done. Show me the levels! The bet is the levels.
Kramer: But I don't want the levels!
Jerry: That's the bet!

That's hilarious! Sort of like Friend of Jonathan's reasoning in fact.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2007 8:44 PM  

Just piling on the sin, eh AJ?

Please repent of your repeated personal attacks on my character - it is sin.


There is a point I'm making here, AJ, and no matter how much you duck, my point is getting through to others.

You, like so many conservative "Christians" run your mouths or keyboards making ugly and vicious claims about GLBTQ people, denigrating our lives, our relationships, asserting that scriptural death sentences apply to us - and in doing so - you boldly and deliberately disobey Jesus Christ, in several ways.

First, the heresy 'homosexuality is sin' violates Jesus's command 'love your neighbor as yourself' for it vilifies the most personal and intimate element of people's lifes - something not even you would stand for. But you certainly did vilify my life directly and explicitly, and for that, you are to ask for forgiveness, you are supposed to repent.

Next, even if homosexual love-making were sin, and it is not AJ, it is none of your business, it would not be a sin against you. Jesus taught not to judge others, and the only exception He made, was when someone has sinned against you, as you have sinned against me over and over again, as you have sinned against every GLBTQ person here, and I suspect, elsewhere.

Then there is the sin of bearing false witness - the horrible lies that you and other conservative "Christians" tell about GLBTQ people. Repeatedly the Bible forbids both lying, and false testimony.

The really revealing element though, AJ, is that you duck the whole issue of your sins against us, and add to your burden with more insults, more lies, more libel and slander.

The result then is that we have someone presenting an argument that is sin, committing sins in the process of spreading and explaining that argument, ignoring all requests to repent of that reprobate behavior, in order to tell us that something that is none of his business,

is sin according to him. Not according to God, for God said no such thing, but according to the very fallible human perpetrating deception and sin to tear down other people's lives.

Please repent, AJ, for your own sake.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/28/2007 11:29 PM  

See AJ,

You come here to self-righteous judge our lives, and label our relationships sin -

well, it is much more important and relevant to talk about your sins against us, to talk about the sins of conservative Christians and homophobes against GLBTQ people.

And if you are not willing to talk about your sin, then you'd best not worry so much about what you wrongly perceive as sin in our lives.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/29/2007 12:11 AM  

I think we should focus AJ's real intent here.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

TROLL - INTENT:
The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person...

(Indignation - annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment)

Continuing:
A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end. One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning.

How's that for a description of AJ's posts?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 3:46 AM  

Emproph, thanks. Lets just ignore the bigot.and his looney tunes religion. Its obvious he can't get a date otherwise he wouldn't be here...ooooops, can't lust after any woman or could it be a man? Maybe that's why he's so miserable, the conflict must be overwhelming. He's certainly succeeded in winning....as a fool!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 8:59 AM  

AJ, you ask, "HOW do you know whether the teaching or claim in question is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, reliable or unreliable? That's the issue. What's your standard to make such distinctions, and can you justify it?"

So, regarding this central issue, when it comes to the task of determining whether something is true or not, my standard is logic and science, intellect over emotion. Regarding morality, my moral code is: "Do nothing that harms others or yourself." I justify that standard on the basis that it is life-affirming and progress producing.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 10:37 AM  

Chris, I agree but religious bigots don't agree on our views of the moral code because they think their's is the only one because it comes from the bible and can't evolve, it just IS and always was and will be, just as they believe that the world is only 6000 years old. These are the same people who genuinely believe that we are the cause of hurricanes, tsunamis, 9/11, middle east turmoil, drought, famine, genocide, gay marriage signalling the end of civilization, lower birth rates, you name it. Science in their world is secondary. Sick, pathetic people if you ask me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 11:24 AM  

Robert, I think we both view them the same way, with absolute and utter contempt. There's something that's missing in their thought process. They can't see above their religious worldview. They have every right to believe anything that they want to believe, but, of course, they're not content with that. They demand that everyone think like they do, live like they do, and pray like they do, and they insult and offend people who hold different views. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Christianity's worldwide collapse is directly due to their miserable behavior.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 11:46 AM  

Chris L quotes AJ:

"HOW do you know whether the teaching or claim in question is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, reliable or unreliable? That's the issue. What's your standard to make such distinctions, and can you justify it?"
___
Chris L, I've heard this many times. The question is about the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. You understand and have expressed this much when you said:

"Do nothing that harms others or yourself."

That's perfectly Biblical, but even this is rejected by Biblicists because it goes against the "I hate gays" part of the Bible.

For Supremacists, when it comes to the argument of the Biblical Golden Rule, vs. religious supremacy, supremacy wins every time.

AJ itself said:
"Had God not declared it sin, I would have NO ethical issues with it. Zero. None."

No personal moral problem with homosexuality, yet has to express this in the most disrespectful way possible?

My point here is that this legitimate moral question by AJ personally, has nothing to do with religion OR homosexuality, the goal, in and of itself, is to anger.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 1:07 PM  

Friend of Jonathan, still avoiding the debate? I of course have never been unwilling to discuss my sins and transgressions of God's Law. I have broken all of the Ten Commandments in spirit, if not in letter. The point of our discussion is whether homosexuality is classified as sin in the Bible. A discussion which you are continuing to duck with Kramer logic.

Chris L., thank you for forwarding the discussion. Do you believe in the laws of logic, then? And what do you mean by "science"? And concerning your moral code, how do you know whether or not something "harms" someone? Your justification for this standard is that it's "life-affirming and progress producing"? If so, that's (a) not justification and (b) arbitrary and (c) ill-defined. What is "life-affirming"? Whose to say? By what authority? And "progress producing," what's that? That as well would demand a standard. How could one claim progress is being made unless they have a rule with which to measure against? Furthermore, announcing the "Golden Rule" doesn't justify it - and in fact announcing it and approving of it (which I of course do) while ignoring Jesus' authority and other teachings is blatant hypocrisy completely inconsistent.

Robert, it's not necessarily that I don't agree with your "moral code," it's simply that I don't know what it is. What is your "moral code," and how to you justify it? Simply announcing it doesn't do anything. Try that in Philosophy 101 and let me know what your grade is. Also, you bring up science a lot Robert. I personally have no ill will toward or fear of science. Since you've brought it up, I'm interested if you've read David Hume and his discussion of induction/the uniformity of nature? And have you read Thomas Kuhn on the issues of scientific change and dogma in scientific paradigms? I'd love to get your take, since you bring up the issue.

Finally, I don't demand anyone think like me or believe what I believe. Each of you are more than free to believe in anything you want. But I've found that many homosexuals (certainly NOT all) are the ones who demand approval from others - especially followers of Jesus Christ who proclaim the sovereignty of God, His right to define sexual morals, His condemnation of homosexuality, and His call for homosexuals to repent and turn to Jesus for forgiveness of their sins and complete transformation. Given that homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives, it becomes difficult for them to wrestle constantly with their conscience, as homosexuals who have been transformed by the grace of God attest. They therefore have to extend much effort in order to convince themselves that their sinful, immoral, unnatural behavior is good, moral, and natural. So because of their rebellion homosexuals are particularly angered by people such as myself who lovingly speak God's truth and declare that it's sinful, immoral, and unnatural, and that homosexuality is in direct opposition to their Creator's "creative order" - and that He demands them to repent from it. Because of their rebellion and struggle to completely suppress their knowledge of God's truth, many homosexuals (NOT all) desire to suppress any speech that declares their conduct sinful and immoral and unnatural in light of God's revelation. One bit of evidence of this on this blog was Robert's basically requesting Mr. Besen to block my comments on 7/27/2007 at 11:43 AM. Very telling.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 2:06 PM  

"Given that homosexuals are suppressing the truth of God in their lives, it becomes difficult for them to wrestle constantly with their conscience, as homosexuals who have been transformed by the grace of God attest. "

AJ, bearing false witness is a sin, per the ten commandments. Please repent.

Your assumption is built not on reality, for you cannot know the truth of our lives, it is pure fabrication, but since you present it as fact, that makes it lie, and thus, sin.

Please, for your own sake, repent of your sin, and refrain from committing it any more.

"So because of their rebellion homosexuals are particularly angered by people such as myself who lovingly speak God's truth and declare that it's sinful, immoral, and unnatural,"

No, it is not because of rebellion, AJ, as has been explained to you many time, so again, you are bearing false witness, and that is sin. Please repent.

There is nothing loving in declaring that our loving relationships are worthy of death and damnation, as you do each time you label our love sin. Lying to us doesn't change that - we know the truth about our lives, you seem quite incapable of recognizing the truth about much of anything.

"He demands them to repent from it."

No, only fallible, deception prone humans like you demand that we repent. Though you refuse to believe it, AJ, the fact is that I, and millions of other GLBTQ Christians, have sincere and intimate relationships with God, and God does not even ask us to repent of the gift of love and intimacy God gave us.

The ironic thing is that you've been asked by people you have sinned against to repent, and won't.

Please, AJ, for your own sake, repent of your sins against me, my partner, and all GLBTQ people. Remember, we are tasked by Christ himself not to give up on you, but to invite you to repent over and over again until you finally experience contrition and repentence.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/29/2007 3:41 PM  

Friend of Jonathan, you've acknowledge you're a homosexual several times. What's to assume?

Now, if you wish to debate, just say so. If not, that's perfectly fine too. But please sir, state openly before me and the other readers whether or not you want to debate so you can't just weasel out when your inconsistencies and fallacies and textual mistakes begin to mount, as you did last time.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2007 4:19 PM  

"Friend of Jonathan, still avoiding the debate?"

I'm so sorry I missed this the first time through.

I'm not avoiding anything, so you have again sinned against me, AJ. Please, repent.

"I of course have never been unwilling to discuss my sins and transgressions of God's Law. I have broken all of the Ten Commandments in spirit, if not in letter."

Yet you simply dismiss or ignore the calls for you to repent of your sins against me. Deception, AJ, will not help you yere. And, at least regarding your claims about my relationship, and about GLBTQ people, you have indeed broken the letter of the Law.

"The point of our discussion is whether homosexuality is classified as sin in the Bible."

Well, actually, the point of this thread is something else entirely. My point in our discussion is that your statements are hate speech, grievious violations of both the laws forbidding lying and false witness, and Christ's command 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

Your point seems to be whatever false accusation, insult, slander or libel comes to your mind as you type.

"A discussion which you are continuing to duck with Kramer logic."

And another instance of bearing false witness. Please, AJ, repent. Stop lying about me and my posts, my life, my relationship, my partner and my faith. Lies will not help you here or later.

You sinned against me, and before there can be any serious debate with you about Scripture, you have to demonstrate that your faith is genuine by repenting of your sins against GLBTQ people.

You sinned against me, AJ. Please, repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/29/2007 4:24 PM  

"Friend of Jonathan, you've acknowledge you're a homosexual several times. What's to assume?"

All of your claim was an assumption, a fabrication built not on fact, but on your heretical belief.

You sinned against me, AJ. Please, repent.

"so you can't just weasel out when your inconsistencies and fallacies and textual mistakes begin to mount, as you did last time."

AJ, repeatedly sinning against me with false accusations, is not, I repeat, not repentance.

I haven't weaseled out of anything. Each time you lie about me, AJ, you are sinning.

Do you believe that you are not accountable to anyone for your sins?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/29/2007 4:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/29/2007 11:17 PM  

I appreciate Chris L.'s responses to AJ's circular logic. They're reasoned and on-track.

Lay the axe at the foot of the tree--don't bother with the branches. Christianity's claims are absurd at their base and should be dealt with, not with the periphery of 'ceremonial washings and endless geneologies'. (Inside joke there.)

Yes, it's incredibly difficult to argue with folks like AJ. People like this are usually completely blinded and sated by the notion that they're 'being a light' or 'standing for truth in a darkened world'. They're driven by semantics and feed off of the responses of others. This is middlebrow apologetics at its worst. Saying people like this are smug and pharisaical, lacking in empathy only scratches the surface.

To those who wish to debate him you're in for a long, drawn-out battle--one with unceasing arguments from authority (the Bible in this case). I say you're casting your pearls before swine. He has no interest in hearing reason or science and will continue to use scripture to accost you. He'll keep your 'scripture-proven' immorality front-and-center rather than address the unsubstantiated claims of Christianity brought to his attention.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/29/2007 11:20 PM  

This is what AJ had said about homosexuals a little further up. But I changed "homosexuals" to "divorce and remarried". Sounds a bit more interesting now.

But I've found that many divorce and remarried (certainly NOT all) are the ones who demand approval from others - especially followers of Jesus Christ who proclaim the sovereignty of God, His right to define sexual morals, His condemnation of divorce and remarriage, and His call for divorced and remarried to repent and turn to Jesus for forgiveness of their sins and complete transformation. Given that the divorce and remarried are suppressing the truth of God in their lives, it becomes difficult for them to wrestle constantly with their conscience, as the divorced and remarried who have been transformed by the grace of God attest and now live celibate lives. They therefore have to extend much effort in order to convince themselves that their sinful, immoral, unnatural behavior is good, moral, and natural. So because of their rebellion the divorced and remarried are particularly angered by people such as myself who lovingly speak God's truth and declare that it's sinful, immoral, and unnatural, and that the divorce and remarried are in direct opposition to their Creator's "creative order" - and that He demands them to repent from it and remain celibate. Because of their rebellion and struggle to completely suppress their knowledge of God's truth, many divorced and remarried persons (NOT all) desire to suppress any speech that declares their conduct sinful and immoral and unnatural in light of God's revelation.

I wonder if AJ would have said the exact same thing to someone that has divorced and remarried for other reasons than adultery? This would include marriages than end in divorce from physical abuse by either partner where both of the spouses remarry other persons. It still is sin no matter how you look at it since abuse was not one of the reasons a divorce and remarriage can be valid in God's eyes.It's still considered adultery. Not to mention the offspring from such a sinful and immoral union.

Poor children.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:11 AM  

Jonathan, you're so right about that. People like that do it to wear us down, to shift guilt so that we'll give in and accept their delusional beliefs. That's how ex-gay ministries operate. Not so far removed from the Inquisition except that physical torture has now been replaced with the mental variety. So far, its been an utter failure. I recommend that nobody respond directly to the perpetrator but to ourselves only. Its useless wasting positive energy on such a negative topic.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 9:52 AM  

Had Ken been following the conversion in any depth, he would know exactly what my answer would be. That doesn't mean he's engaged the issue of course. He sidesteps the issue and uses hypocrisy of others as an argument. That's not only fallacious, it also violates the rules of evidence. I've acknowledged the (incredibly unfortunate) reality of such hypocrisy on several occasions.

Jonathan, it should be obvious that Chris L. and I have only begun the discussion. He may not wish to pursue any further, but that would only be additional proof to me that he probably never knew what he was talking about from the very beginning.

Anybody can throw claims out. It's when a person is forced to commit to an assertion(s) on one given topic, and then have their views and presuppositions and methodology critically evaluated for consistency, justification, arbitrariness, etc., under rebuttal and cross-examination. People like Barry Lynn (and probably Robert and Ben) do very well on talk-shows where they have 15 seconds to throw out a bunch of claims and their opponent has five seconds to respond. But when someone like Lynn has to face someone like James White and there is much more time for examination and explanation, they not only get blown away in the debate and end up looking like fools, they sue to keep the recordings from reaching the public! Here again, very telling.

People can be so brave behind the keyboard when they don't think their words and views will be challenged, but my oh my do they shrink back from a real debate when they have to defend their assertions.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 10:04 AM  

AJ, you're looking for black and white answers in a world which doesn't operate that way. Yes, we humans have to make moral choices all the time, several times a day, in fact, and we have to rely on ourselves when we do it. At the base of your thinking seems to be the belief in "total depravity" i.e., that man is so worthless and sinful that nothing he can do has any goodness in it. A few religions, most notably the Pentecostals, believe like this, and it is a VERY bad way of thinking. Do you believe that way?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 10:06 AM  

Thanks for piping in Robert! My entrance this time was, as you surely recall, due to an obvious error on your part. Yeah, I suppose it's easier for you just to ignore me; as long as you know you don't know what you're talking about and leave the discussion to the grown-ups, that would probably be best the best. How'd that dodgeball go, by the way?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 10:09 AM  

Chris L., you're unsurprisingly not engaging the issue which, btw, you brought up. You've made distinctions and I'm merely (this is only foundational) looking for your standards. Total depravity (which, if your definition is any indication, you don't seem to understand), as one reviews our discussion so far, is completely irrelevant and more than likely a red herring.

So, as I asked before, do you believe in the laws of logic? And what do you mean by "science"? And concerning your moral code, how do you know whether or not something "harms" someone? Your justification for this standard is that it's "life-affirming and progress producing"? If so, that's (a) not justification and (b) arbitrary and (c) ill-defined. What is "life-affirming"? Whose to say? By what authority? And "progress producing," what's that? That as well would demand a standard. How could one claim progress is being made unless they have a rule with which to measure against?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 10:19 AM  

AJ:

(1) Yes, I believe in logic.

(2) By "science", I refer to the definition which can be found by going to google.com and searching the phrase "scientific method". See the Wikipedia definition.

(3) We know that something "harms" someone by using our logic and/or scientific method to come to a conclusion. For example, the Bible says nothing about using cocaine or smoking cigarettes, but these things are regarded as BAD (by me anyway) based upon that standard. So even despite your believe that the Bible is the only "moral code" to be used, even you must acknowledge that situations occur which force even you to consult standards that are outside of the Bible.

(4) "Life affirming" means that it is healthy and is productive for the human race. Healthy/Unhealthy.

(5) You ask "by what authority" I say these things. I say these things based upon my own responsibility to be a thinking, rational human being. I do not need to hear from any "authority" before forming an opinion.

(6) One point: If it weren't for logic and science/technology, we couldn't even be having this online debate right now. If we were left only to the Bible, we'd be using papyrus right now. Ergo, the Internet is progress which was brought upon by logic/science/technology.

As you can see, I have answered all of your questions.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 11:00 AM  

AJ, I do find it ironic that you are interrogating Chris L. by begging the question.

You infer that he is using a relative moral compass. This is indeed accurate. But by arguing from authority you are doing the very same thing. Pot, meet kettle.

If Chris L. states that scripture isn't sufficient authority to him than why should he give credence to your claims? Without law there is no sin. He may be an infidel in your mind, but in reality you'd be a troll to continue to harrass him.

Your relative moral compass is scripture. I say 'relative' because folks still argue about what scripture actually says on certain matters of conscience. Not only that, its bronze-age claims have been disproven by science again and again rendering it a poor guide in terms of infallibility, i.e.: the earth is NOT flat, the sun does not go around the earth (sorry, Pslamist David) and man does not have one more rib than woman. These are things a *child* knows. And that's just the start...

When the above is factored in, you and Chris L. are really aruging from the same virtual level--relative morality. There's really no difference, and he has just as much right to feeling his viewpoint is superior.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 11:09 AM  

I suppose I just can't resist this, lest the truth be unclear.

AJ says: But I've found that many homosexuals (certainly NOT all) are the ones who demand approval from others - blahblahblah

Honey, i'm not asking for your approval, or the approval of anyone like you. I don't care about it, any more than i care about your twisted version of reality, whether it is your bleief in the twisted nature of man (talk about hte irony of srelf-fulfillingf prophecies!!!) or your twisted myth of Jesus and redemption.

I don't demand your approval--I demand that you keep your twisted beliefs out of my life, and stop limiting my life and my choices and my happiness to satisfy your agenda. and honey, it is YOUR agenda.

As i have pointed out before--I don't hear God talking, i only hear YOU talking.

Keep your goddamned and goddamning agenda to yourself.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 11:16 AM  

OR...you can post like Ben just did, which in essence works too!

;-)

Thanks, Ben.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 11:56 AM  

Chris L., appreciate the reply sir.

(1) I'll take your answer to mean you believe in the laws of logic. Are the laws of logic universal?

(2) Do you hold that peer review, replication, and double-blind trials, for example, are necessary ingredients if and when referring to "science"? And have you read and/or interacted with David Hume's discussion of induction/the uniformity of nature? Have you read Thomas Kuhn on the issues of scientific change and dogma in scientific paradigms?

(3) You surely must know that's not good enough Chris L.! For example, you say the using cocaine and smoking cigarettes are "BAD" (emphasis yours). How would, or could, logic and the scientific method tell you these are "BAD." Logic couldn't ever offer such a moralistic prescription in this example, and the scientific method could only show you WHAT is happening to your body when you perform these actions. Neither one has the ability to - nor claims to - offer prescriptions, only descriptions (in the case of the scientific method at least). Concerning the Bible and its ethical commands and implications, I've never argued the Bible is exhaustive. You err here by (a) not knowing the Scriptures and (b) not understanding the doctrine of sola scriptura. Both errors lead to a staw-man.

(4) But you would have to have a standard to ever make that claim one way or another. Simply announcing it isn't good enough (it's obviously a start though). Healthy and unhealthy in this case are moral claims.

(5) Then your opinion is arbitrary and fails the test of relativism. Your feet are planted firmly in mid-air. You don't need me to refute you; the philosophers who hold your conclusions can and have easily demolished your premises.

(6) Don't think I don't appreciate and use logic and science. But they aren't self-authenticating and self-justified. In order to use these tools (and that is what they are) without being inconsistent, irrational, and arbitrary you must be able to account for them and justify them. You're not doing to well so far, but still have time to redeem yourself. Please don't weasel out like others I could name.

And thank you for the discussion so far sir. I can now see a bit more clearly where you are coming from and look forward to your explanations.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 12:09 PM  

Jonathan, please retake Elementary Logic sir and then rejoin us. And asking questions and seeking to understand a worldview isn't harassing. It's being intellectually honest by letting the other person define their own beliefs before interacting with them. It's one guard against committing straw-man arguments - a guard which you would do well to implement.

And you certainly misconstrue relativism. Identifying there is more than one belief or interpretation doesn't even implicitly demand a title of relativism. Ignoring your amateurish appeals to "science" and straw-man arguments related to Scripture (unless you want to strictly discuss those), if you are a relativist, then you hold a self-refuting position and can't prove anything. If all truth is relative, then the assertion "all truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the assertion that "all truth is relative" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then the assertion "there are no absolute truths" is an absolute assertion which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "there are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 12:14 PM  

AJ, now it's my turn for a question. How did you decide that it was the Bible, instead of the Koran, that expressed the proper moral standard?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 12:22 PM  

AJ

I'm still waiting for you to repent of your sin of lying about me, my partner, and our relationship.

Your ideas about what might be sin in other people's lives cannot have any credibility if you refuse to accept responsibility when you sin against us. Please repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/30/2007 12:55 PM  

AJ,

The reason I brought up divorce and remarriage is that most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians do in fact ignore this command by Christ that divorce and remarriage is a sin (except in cases of adultery). They completely ignore it. And these are righteous soldiers for Christ? The Guardians of Scripture? And yes I do find it hypocritical for those that cry against homosexuality and not even give a divorce and remarried person any second thought about their adulterous affair. You demand that homosexuals repent of their sin and be changed. Do you demand a divorce and remarried person to repent, leave the adulterous second marriage, and with a shake of your judging finger, that they remain celibate? Somehow I don't think you do.

I have met many Christians like you that have ignored such "truths" all the while waiting impatiently for the Rapture (false doctrine) to occur and the fulfillment of the "Left Behind" series to come to pass (work of fiction). Their own pastors are in adulterous affairs but yet cry out against other sinners because their own self-righteous attitudes give them license to do so while they are heavy and deep in their own sins. They have become drunk with greed and power. OH! Wait! That can't be because they are soldiers for Christ! Right....

The Religious Right and others like you AJ that throw out Bible verses to prove that God is with them against homosexuality really need to read Romans 1 and 2 without chapters and verses. You'll find the real truth about what Paul was actually talking about. That you and those that speak against God's GLBT children and calling them sinners do not have any moral high ground to stand on. That you yourself are just in need of salvation through Christ like the next person. That judgement is not for you to undertake. That is God's alone.

AJ, did you know with every condemnation you utter from your lips you condemn yourself? Those that sit in self-righteous judgement will not inherit the Kingdom of God. They have already condemned themselves. That is quite a few individuals. Many of those are within the Body of Christ. Or claim to be.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 1:12 PM  

(1) Yes, the laws of logic (as I define it) are universal.

(2) I would say that replication and double-blind trials are necessary ingredients when referring to science. I have not read any David Hume or Thomas Kuhn.

(3) Cocaine/Cigarettes are not life-sustaining. Remember my healthy-unhealthy paradigm. Also, I didn’t say that you said that the Bible is exhaustive. I merely said that the Bible does not cover all issues, cocaine and cigarettes amongst them, and that you have to come to the conclusion that these things are bad through logic and science.

(4) I do not agree that “healthy/unhealthy” are moral claims.

(5) I completely disagree with your views on “authority”. Who was the authority that the Authority used to bolster his claims? As for philosophers demolishing my premises, I never claimed to be error-free. Nor do I claim the ability to sit in a roomful of philosophers and be applauded by them.

(6) I await your answer to my previous question. How did you decide to choose the Judeo-Christian Bible as the standard over, for example, the Koran?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 1:13 PM  

Chris L., that's a good and very relevant question and I will gladly answer it - and try to be as brief as possible :-) . When I place Christian theism and Islamic theism side by side and compare them strictly on the objective merits which can be made for them (i.e., not subjective or personal or political matters), I have found Islam to be internally contradictory and philosophically indefensible.

As a whole and within its major branches, Islam is internally incoherent and undermines human reason and experience. The Christian theistic worldview, on the other hand, is more rational than Islam and has the ability to more consistently provide the preconditions of morality, the laws of logic, our experiences, etc.

More important with reference to the question of Islam, however, is the fact that Islam does recognize the divine inspiration of the Torah and most of the Tanakh. Based on this commonality with Christianity, Islam and Christianity can be objectively judged as to which theological perspective is divinely authorized.

From this shared outlook we can, for example, lay out the Messianic prophecies and demonstrate how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled those prophecies and is the promised Messiah, how salvation from God's judgment on sin is not achieved by performing "good works," but rather God's grace (unmerited favor) received by faith in the redemptive work (sacrificial death) of Jesus the Messiah.

When one evaluates the Quran itself, it claims to be the writing of an eternal book in heaven. However, later portions of it abrogate earlier ones. The Bible, which Muslims claim to accept to some extent, teaches very clearly that later revelations from God must conform with previous revelations. Also, the Quran claims to be a continuation and confirmation of the Bible. But there are obvious contradictions between the two books (e.g., the divinity of Jesus the Messiah, the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross, etc.).

There are also numerous conflicts between Biblical accounts and Quranic versions of certain historical events. There are incredibly embarrassing historical errors and contradictions in the Quran, such as the mother of Jesus being called the sister of Aaron and all of Noah's family being said to have been saved through the flood but then one of Noah's sons is elsewhere said to have drowned in the flood.

To me one of the most damning items in Islamic theology is the doctrine of "tanzih," or transcendence. This doctrine states that no human language can positively describe "Allah." He is allegedly, according to Surah 42:11, completely incomparable. But this would make it logically impossible for the Quran to be what it itself claims to be - that being a positive revelation and description of "Allah."

Finally, Islam does not have an "Anointed One" (i.e., Messiah) who fulfills the prophecies of the very Scriptures BOTH Islam and Christianity each hold to be God-breathed. Therefore, Islam does not do justice to the message both they and Christianity AGREE is God's revealed word. Islam is a heretical version of the Biblical faith. It doesn't deliver the promised "good news" to a fallen and cursed and hopeless world. Islam can't provide any assurance of salvation for those they and Christianity BOTH acknowledge are guilty before a holy and just God.

Between Christianity and Islam, Christianity provides the fulfillment of the texts BOTH claim to be God-breathed and offers salvation from God's judgment on sin through the finished work of the Messiah. Christianity teaches that the Messiah Jesus paid the price of sin on the Cross, and that through faith in Him and His saving work, men and women can be justly forgiven by God. They can't earn this forgiveness by good works and they can't take any credit before their Creator. Salvation comes as a gift, appropriated by faith in Jesus Christ rather than meritorious good deeds.

I could go on Chris L. but will stop there for your sake and the sake of the readers :-) If you would like me to further clarify any specific points, please let me know.

Concerning you response:

(1) So the laws of logic are universal. Great. Are they conventional in nature?

(2) What about peer review? For brevity sake, I'll stick with David Hume for now and return to Kuhn later (but I do personally find it UNBELIEVEABLE that you could make such general and bold claims for "science" and not have read either, especially Thomas Kuhn!).

The validity of scientific laws were undermined by philosopher David Hume. His contention was that we have no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past - i.e., to be the types of events where one can expect the same consequence from similar causation. Hume claimed to see no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past which would mean science is based simply on convention or habits of thought or presuppositions. "What is the nature of that evidence which assures us of any real existence and matter-of-fact beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory?," Hume asked. So by what logical right do we claim to know that some empirical generalizations are in fact "true"? What are people warranted in asserting on the basis of theirs or others experiences?

Hume claimed there is no basis for projecting that into the future. "If you insist," Hume said, "that the inferences made by a chain of reasoning then I desire you to produce that reasoning." Hume didn't doubt that everyone assumes the future will be like the past, but he rightly "want[ed] to learn the foundation of this inference."

Do you agree with Hume? Why or why not? What is the basis for the Uniformity of Nature? Do you have an answer for him?

(3) But I have God's Word as the standard, the ultimate and final authority, the rule of life. What is your standard (and not the standard you use to make evaluations)?

(4) You may not agree that healthy and unhealthy are moral claims, but then we merely return to the question: what is your basis for morality? Whenever you or I object to anything, we're always assuming some standard or rule that the thing allegedly violates. What is your standard for ethics, and how do you justify it?

(5) You ask a good question concerning authority. If God exists, and I can prove very easily that He does (but that would be a different debate), then He is the Ultimate Authority, in ethics and in everything. You appear to be claiming this is some form of "authoritarianism." Such an objection would only be valid if the authority was less than ultimate. But there's nothing wrong or invalid or arbitrary with acknowledging that the Ultimate Authority has ultimate authority. If an absolutely perfect God exists, then by His very nature He is the ultimate standard for what is good and what is not.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:16 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:18 PM  

Ken, you really need to update yourself on the discussion my friend. Suffice it to say here I do demand that a person who has been unbiblically divorced and remarried to repent, etc. Also, I'm not apart of the "Religious Right," I don't support President Bush, I don't demand "conservative" judges, I don't hold up signs at homosexual event, etc., etc., etc. Please stick with the issues sir.

And if you ever want to discuss and debate the text of Romans chapter one, I would love to! All I ask is that you clearly state this is your intention and that you're willing to stick with it beyond merely the opening assertions. Last time I debated this, my opponent stopped after his foundational assertions were made and my critical evaluation was about to begin (because he began to see his inconsistencies and fallacies). Let me know if you're willing, because I surely am, and will even give you the opening and closing word.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:20 PM  

My apologies to AJ for the not answering Chris L. portion of my last post.

You posted before I posted my response. ;-)
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:23 PM  

Ooooh, big man getting edgy. I'm scared...

'Amateurish appeals to science'. I call them appeals to simple truths discovered through experimentation, observation and study. Why go any deeper when deeper isn't necessary?

The earth being flat, the sun going around the earth and men having one less rib than women--no straw man arguments here. These are fair and true illustrations of what scripture actually says. If you're going to attack (and you are attacking) someone else's supposedly faulty belief system, you better be ready for the converse.

I believe I'm very clearly illustrating the falibilty of scripture with these simple illustrations. If scripture is fallible as an authority your arguments hold little weight. Pretty simple. Why can you not understand this? Chris L. has consistently pointed out the same thing and you still have not answered his query.

Again: if scripture/biblegod did not have the prescience to get basic scientific facts straight, why should humankind trust he/she/it as judge and jury against those who don't fit his/her/its mold morally or ethically? Why is scripture correct about morals and incorrect about science? I thought god was not a man that he should lie? Should not the two line up perfectly? If the god of the bible is omniscient they certainly would.

They don't line up because they were written by men with limited, bronze-age understanding. (My apologies to those Christians who are reasonable here.) With the same authority they wrote god's mind on morals they wrote his mind on the nature of creation. And guess what? They were wrong for certain on the nature of creation and the universe.

It's all very clear. That is, unless you don't want it to be clear. The bottom line is that scripture is an article of faith, not science. Apologists simply cannot accept that.

BTW, your last paragraph about moral relativism is a morass of foolishness bringing no light to this discussion. Save it next time.

Also, let me say, you're *not* dialoging with these individuals--you're attacking their belief systems. They are clearly stating this.

Their responses show their discomfort not because you're winning them over or convicting their consciences, but because you're an arrogant troll who's p*ssing them off.

Personally, I enjoy reading your posts because they're food for thought--as how Christians should not behave when trying to win souls to Christ.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:25 PM  

The amateur one is back. Welcome! Normally when one makes claims such as yours they provide some sort of citation. I await yours.

Concerning science, Chris L. and I are discussing this very matter. If you disagree with Chris L. on anything, feel free to comment and I'll address you separately on that matter. Otherwise I'll assume you and Chris L. are in full agreement.

And if anything I said concerning moral relativism was logically in error, why not give an example instead of only announcing it? Probably because announcing it is so much easier than examples and you merely appear like a close-mouthed fool instead of an open-mouthed fool :-) Good for you!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:29 PM  

AJ said "if you object to the commandments/ethics of the Christian faith, you are assuming some standard that Christianity supposedly violates. My question is how you justify the standard - whatever it is - that you are utilizing? So what is your standard for ethics and reason, and how do you justify it?
HOW do you know whether the teaching or claim in question is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, reliable or unreliable?"

Its simple AJ, the basis of morality is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same" - do whatever you want but harm no one. We decide what is right and wrong based on whether or not others are harmed. Gays harm no one by being in a loving committed relationship and this is by definition a moral act. People like you harm gays by trying to prevent such relationships. Your actions and your bible's blind condemnation of gays who hurt no one are by definition immoral.

Your bible teaches that gays who hurt no one should be tortured for eternity - your bible is immoral. Your "god" eternally tortures people for innocently and harmlessly not believiing in him and his religion of preference - your "god" is by definition evil. In no way can your bible ever be a foundation for morality and goodness, it violates the foundation of morality again and
again - you must harm no one.

AJ said "I really find it humorous no one else feels it necessary to identify Friend of Jonathan's logic - or lack thereof in this case. He calls me to "apologize and repent." For what?".

Apologize for your immoral denegration of his and all LGBT relationships. You've harmed Friend of Jonathon by encouraging others to discriminate against him for the loving relationship he's in. That you find your hurting of others to be humorous merely highlights your evil motivations based on an evil bible - a bible that demands people who hurt no one be harmed.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/30/2007 2:35 PM  

I will definitely look at Hume! But you and I draw some very different conclusions, especially regarding the Judeo-Christian Bible. I find the Bible to be woefully, badly inadequate in so many ways, and I am, frankly, amazed that you deem it worthy. On the question of the resurrection, for example, the gospel accounts badly and plainly contradict each other. There are many, MANY examples of this. So, let me ask you this question, and I am not joking: Do you truly believe that a talking snake actually existed and spoke verbally to a woman named Eve?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:35 PM  

Here's alist, though not current of all the right wingers who claim they're believers in the bible, yet do completely the opposite but swift to condemn and judge us though.

http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:40 PM  

Ugh, I'm not following my own advice here. lol

(3) You say you use god's word as your standard. Are you aware that scripture is riddled with manifold contradictions and inaccuracies? (This is rhetorical because of course you are aware of this--you simply rationalize them away like most apologists do.)

I particulary enjoy how you say that you cannot subscribe to the Koran being infallible, but believe wholeheartedly that scripture is? Because the Koran is internally contradictory and scripture is not? That's rich.

(5) Prove easily that god exists, huh? That's pretty marvelous. Using the same simple logic as your moral relativism coments? Let's hear it...going to use the argument from authority again maybe?
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:40 PM  

Yes, I am in complete agreement with Chris L.'s comments.

I'll break it down very, very simply into bite-sized pieces for you:

Where do you get that the bible is THE authority on humankind's moral/ethical behavior? Please don't use circular logic on this one.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:45 PM  

AJ gets frisky. Very christlike.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 2:48 PM  

AJ, you have admitted to using the power of LOGIC to convince yourself of the truth of the Bible over the Koran. However, you abandon using the weapon of logic once inside "The Book". Very interesting that you admit that LOGIC brought you divinely-revealed truth!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 2:55 PM  

Chris L., can we back up a step?

My question is: what was the logic that brought him to decide that scripture is the infallible authority on morals and ethics?
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:01 PM  

Well, my point is that he used LOGIC to come to a book which condemns the use of LOGIC, so his premise simply cannot be valid.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:07 PM  

My favorite comment from AJ thus far.

'Friend of Jonathan, just an fyi. You're incorrect about the usage of square brackets.'

Perfectly sums him up. Strain out a gnat, swallow a camel.

*Love* the christlike way he insults people and belittles them all with a stench of superiority. When approached by this he drops back to semantics. "Jesus used this language when speaking to the pharisees".
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:10 PM  

Gotcha, Chris. Wasn't sure whatcha meant.

Yeah, that's a great question too. Logic--that's a no-no.

'Trust in the Lord with all your heart and _lean not on your own understanding_. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths'

'Knowledge puffs up...'

That's just a start.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:14 PM  

Welcome Mr. Schimnosky! How do you justify that standard? What constitutes "interference"? What constitutes "harms"? What is "evil" - and how to you know that?

I do agree with you that the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin and condemns it. We are in agreement there, and ironically you and Friend of Jonathan disagree on that important point. But I applaud your intellectual honesty in this regard sir.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:14 PM  

AJ, we're all waiting with bated breath:

How did you arrive at the supposedly logical conclusion that scripture (the bible) is the inerrant word of god than directs man's moral and ethical decsions?
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:19 PM  

AJ, even Jesus, when speaking about marriage and family, said, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those for whom it is given". (sigh)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:19 PM  

Chris L., don't ignore the issue here and trail off...but definitely read Hume and Kuhn! And what about peer review? We simply can't discuss "science" until you have some sort of opinion on and answer for Hume and Kuhn, and I would say any appeal you or Jonathan or anyone make to "science" generally without being prepared to answer these two giants is not very credible.

I would obviously (and respectfully) disagree that the Gospel accounts are contradictory. But I can only respond to specific examples you put forward. I will answer your final question - which I find to be completely irrelevant to the discussion between us - while awaiting your answers. The serpent that appeared to Eve and spoke to her was obviously Satan himself. And this, as know, was not the only instance of a talking animal in the Bible. As one who believes in God's existence and therefore in the reality of miracles, I have no objection to this. While many of my brothers in Christ would reject my interpretation here, I respectfully disagree with them and question their consistency and presuppositions, just as I do yours. And I would find any disagreement or appeal to "science" on your part not credible until you have some semblance of an answer to Kuhn generally and of course Hume in particular on this point.

And when did I ever say that logic brought me divinely inspired truth? And where does the Bible condemn logic?

Look forward to your other answers sir!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:21 PM  

AJ, scripture doesn't use Hume and Kuhn when stating supposedly obvious truths like the earth is flat, et al. It simply declares these things as fact.

So then: why do we need to cite references for very, very obvious, proven scientific facts? The answer is we don't. We can compare apples with apples and go from there.

I'm saying scripture is inaccurate with the most basic scientific truths. Why should it be trusted as the reference for our planet's morality?

You really haven't answered our questions thus far, AJ.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:28 PM  

(1) AJ, thank you for admitting that you believe in talking animals.

(2) You claimed that LOGIC brought you to the realization of the truth of the bible in your previous post in which you described "inconsistencies" in the Koran.

(3) The Bible condemns logic when it urges people to not rely upon their own understanding but upon divinely revealed truth.

(4) Using the gospel accounts of the resurrection, who was the first person to see Jesus after he rose form the dead?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:29 PM  

Jonathan, God would obviously be, and is, the Ultimate Authority, and the Bible is His SPECIAL revelation to us. Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura holds that the Scriptures are presently the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine doesn't claim that there are not other fallible rules of faith or traditions that a Christian can refer to and even embrace. But the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other "rules" - e.g., creeds, confessons, traditions - are by their very nature inferior to the Scriptures and subject to correction by the Scriptures. God's Word presently acts as an ultimate authority given that it is God-breathed and it allows no equal or superior. It embodies the very speaking of God Himself.

Your circularity objection is absurd and would be similar to claiming on can't prove that the President lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It's looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The historical accuracy and miracles and fulfilled prophecies and amazing consistency within the Bible, for example, demonstrate the Bible to be the Word of our Transcendent Creator. Such proofs provide evidence of the Bible's supernatural origin.

Now, you may and probably do disagree with this, but that's based on your own presuppositions, such as a misunderstanding of the Bible itself, a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, no answer as yet for Hume and Kuhn, no justification for the use of the laws of logic, no moral standard and therefore no justification for it.

And Chris L., I have no idea what your last post is meant to offer to the discussion.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:30 PM  

Trolling, trolling, trolling...keep those blogs a-trolling
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:30 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:41 PM  

AJ said "Healthy and unhealthy in this case are moral claims.".

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Cigarettes kill, that's unhealthy, it has nothing to do with morality. Do you believe the only reason its wrong to kill others is because your imaginary god says so? If your god said it wasn't a sin to kill would you consider it okay to do so?

AJ said "When I place Christian theism and Islamic theism side by side and compare them strictly on the objective merits which can be made for them (i.e., not subjective or personal or political matters), I have found Islam to be internally contradictory and philosophically indefensible."

Bullshit. Christianity is every bit as contradictory and philosophically indefensible as Islam. The idea that a just and loving god creates imperfect humans and tortures them eternally for behaving exactly as he knew they would when he created them is philosophically indefensible. The idea that a just and loving god tortures and kills the innocent Jesus for the wrong-doings of others is philosphically indefensible. The idea that the sins of some are excused by the human sacrifice of the innocent is philosophically indefensible. The idea that an omnipotent god needs to sacrifice Jesus in order to overlook others sins is contradictory - if he wants to overlook peoples sins he simply could do so, the sacrifice of Jesus is unnecessary and evil.

If a mother of two said "Jullie was so terrible today that I beat the hell out of innocent little Joey" we'd consider her insane - its no different with your god. Your bible is insane and you have no more reason to accept it as the truth than you do to accept Islam as the truth.

AJ said "There are incredibly embarrassing historical errors and contradictions in the Quran".

And so there are in the bible. PI equalling three, the town of Nazareth never existed, rabbits chewing their cud, the sun revolving around the earth, the stars falling to the earth and people holding them in their hands, billions of species being collected by Noah and stored on the ark, people living to be hundreds of years old, a "firmament" holding the skies up, and on and on. You've got your reality filter on and you filter out the contradictions of what you want to believe in the bible while acknowledging the same sort of contradictions in the Koran. You're not objective in the slightest, if you were you'd recognize that both books are similarly preposterous.

AJ said "The validity of scientific laws were undermined by philosopher David Hume. His contention was that we have no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past."

Bullshit. The fact that scientific laws have held true throughout all recorded history is more than enough evidence to believe they will continue to do so in the future. You're a liar - you don't honestly believe that despite a history of things responding to gravity by falling that at some point in the future they might stop responding that way. The overwhelming consistency of the behavior of scientific laws over time means that the odds of them behaving differently at some point in the future are so vanishingly small as to be totally dismissable altogether.

AJ said "I have God's Word as the standard, the ultimate and final authority, the rule of life.".

No you don't, that's an arbitrary guess on your part. There have been thousands of religions over the millenia and at best only one of them might be true. The odds of it being yours are thousands to one and far more likely is that your religion is false like all those that have come before - it is the nature of religons to be false. You come up with absurdities like "how do we know if people are being harmed" and yet fail to ask yourself how do you know if your particular favoured words on paper are produced by a god. You have no more evidence that your book is the truth than the muslims have that there's is the truth, or that leprechauns exist.

Think about it. A book written by an omniscient being would amaze you page after page with its unknowable insights, it would stand drastically apart from everything ever written by humans, it would be profoundly intelligent. The bible doesn't read like that. It reads just like the Koran, full of absurdities, contradictions and primitive zenophobia. It reads just like one would expect something written by primitive bronze age tribesmen - loaded with scientific, historical, and geogrphical errors, quotes from Aesop's fables attributed to Jesus and son on. This is not the work of an omnisient being, it violates the simple morality of not harming others over and over, its full of genocide and eternal torture for finite or non-existent crimes. It describes the most depicable evil character in all of fiction. That you base your "morality" on this makes you a threat to all that is right and good.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/30/2007 3:42 PM  

Randi, your comments are thoughtful and resonant. Too bad they're falling on deaf ears.

No matter how you easy slice it with trolls like this they refuse to see the light. They continue to shift their position like the snakes they are.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:47 PM  

Randi, amen. I have always thought the same. If the Bible really was "The Word of God", it would be an amazing read. Instead we get things like, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" and "women should shut up in church". Yeah, such inspiration. But please do indeed note the fact that AJ and those like him must go on a full-throttle attack against logic itself in order to believe what they believe.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 3:53 PM  

AJ said "Welcome Mr. Schimnosky!"

That's Ms Schimnosky - I am a woman.

AJ said "How do you justify that standard?"

I justify it by the fact that I don't want others to harm me so I must in turn agree not to harm others. Its the foundation of society.

AJ said "What constitutes "interference"?"

Using the law to deny gays the same right heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love most. Using hate crimes laws to protect people based on religion but not based on sexual orientation.

AJ said "What constitutes "harms"?

Punching, kicking, stabbing, or murdering others or encouraging people to do that with your false declarations that gay relationships which harm no one are wrong.
AJ said "What is "evil" - and how to you know that?".

The above is evil because it harms people. I know that because I've experienced the pain of being harmed.

Do you think being eternally tortured in a lake of fire isn't harmful? Do you think its not evil for a god to allow believe in him and his religion of preference to be questionable and then to eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise?
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/30/2007 3:55 PM  

Randi said:

Do you think being eternally tortured in a lake of fire isn't harmful? Do you think its not evil for a god to allow believe in him and his religion of preference to be questionable and then to eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise?

Randi, I hope you're ready to hear he most absurb logic on this one? It'll be appalling, I assure you.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 3:59 PM  

AJ, you said, "Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura holds that the Scriptures are presently the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church."

Fine. So why do you try to institute those policies, which you admit are 'for the church', into secular law?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:00 PM  

Jonathan, when did I ever claim the Bible referred to Hume or Kuhn? And where is your textual evidence for your claims that the Bible teaches the earth is flat? Where, based on cited texts, does the Bible commit a scientific error?

You must be confused on where the debate is Jonathan. To appeal to "science" generally when questioning certain philosophical positions or events, one must have a definition of science they're committed to and assume things like the uniformity of nature. I told you I was assuming you have agreed with Chris L. until told otherwise, and he still hasn't provided an answer to things like the problem of induction/uniformity of nature. Perhaps you can?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:01 PM  

AJ

You appear to be weaseling out of apologizing and repenting for lying about my relationship.

Perhaps it is only an oversight, that you have simply gotten caught up in something a little less embarassing for you.

Still, that excuse won't work for long. You sinned against me, AJ, and I'm still asking you nicely to repent and apologize. Live the faith you claim, by repenting of your sin against me and my partner.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/30/2007 4:07 PM  

Yes, I believe in the possibility of talking animals. Why don't you believe in that possibility sir? Are any supernatural events even possible in your worldview? If not, why? Past experiences? Current theories? Answer Hume and Russell and Kuhn then if that's your answer.

I never claimed that the laws of logic "brought" me anything. Logic was used to evaluate the texts, of course. But I can account for the laws of logic and justifiy their usage Chris L.. You haven't yet. Nor have you answered my question above concerning the laws of logic.

The Bible no where condemns logic. Your example (again without any citation) is absurd. The point is merely that human reasoning is fallible, while the Word of God is infallible. In fact, God commands us in Isaiah to come and reason with Him.

Concerning the Resurrection question, a careful examination of the four historical records in comparison with one another demonstrates they are not contradictory. I hope when I answer your question here and any additional questions you'll admit this much, regardless of whether you agree with the testimony of the accounts. The first person to see Jesus after he rose from the dead was Mary Magdalene.

Finally, secular law? Now that surely is a red herring sir. My goodness, when have I ever spoken here of a desire to implement any secular law?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:07 PM  

AJ, I am not familiar with the terms "induction/uniformity of nature", and I don't speak on things that I don't know, and I have no problem admitting when I don't know something. But I will, of course, research these things.

But how can you chastise me for not answering your question, when, in fact, you have ignored mine??? The question was, "Who was the first person to see the risen Jesus"? You seem to be typical for those with the authoritative personality ... you make demands on others that you are not willing to apply to yourself.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:08 PM  

OH REALLY! Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Jesus?? Then how do you explain this:

"...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve." (1 Corinthians 15:3b-5)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 4:15 PM  

AJ said "I would obviously (and respectfully) disagree that the Gospel accounts are contradictory".

Well, then you're either incredibly ignorant or a liar. The gospels are loaded with contradictions - look here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Type in the books of your gospels and then click on contradictions - you'll find no shortage of them.

AJ said "The historical accuracy and miracles and fulfilled prophecies and amazing consistency within the Bible, for example, demonstrate the Bible to be the Word of our Transcendent Creator. Such proofs provide evidence of the Bible's supernatural origin.".

Hitorical accuracy?! LOL, once again, check here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Click on the books of your bible and then click on history/science and note the overwhelming number of flaws. Words on paper are no evidence of miracles or fulfilled prophecies. What reason do you have to believe that those "miracles" weren't simply made up just like the miracles in the Koran or Hinduisms holy texts?! NONE! You have no reason to believe any of these so called miracles took place, and given the long history people have of making up such stories you must accept that as the far more likely explanation. Extraordinary claims (miracles) require extraordinary proof and you have none.

AJ said "God would obviously be, and is, the Ultimate Authority, and the Bible is His SPECIAL revelation to us."

Once again, what reason do you have to believe this beyond easily forgeable words on paper? There's never been any evidence of the supernatural and Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct. The simplest and most likely explanation for the bible is that it was made up be people for political purposes just like all the other religions. You have no evidence to believe anything else.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/30/2007 4:15 PM  

Scientific errors in the the bible (some already stated by Randi):

> Earth = flat
> Sun orbits earth
> Firmament holding up sky
> Stars in the firmament
> Stars falling to the ground
> Noah's Ark/The Flood
> People living to 900+ years
> Talking donkey
> Talking snake
> Angels
> Demons
> Demons of muteness
> Demons that cause fevers
> Questionable reality of Nazareth
> Jonah and the Whale
> Giants
> Angels sleeping with women

Some lazy copy/paste:

> Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight.
> God obliges Joshua by making the sun and moon stand still (so that he can finish his battle by daylight).
> The shadow on a sun dial moves backwards.
> Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm
> There are at least three heavens
> Plants began to grow before there was sunlight
> Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations
> God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.)
> The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

More if you like: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html
posted by  Unknown, at 7/30/2007 4:19 PM  

Randi, first off, PLEASE accept my deepest apology for referring to you as "Mr." I meant no harm nor any disrespect by it. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

Second, if there is no God, then ALL the things you mention are in the same meaningless category. Morality or tragedy or sorrow are equally temporary and fleeting. They're ALL merely empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, which in turn are created by something like to many nacho supremes and tequila shots the night before. If there is no God, then ALL abstractions are simply chemical epiphenomena. This means that you have NO reason for assigning TRUTH and FALSITY to what is only the chemical fizz you happen to label "reasoning," or RIGHT and WRONG to the irrational reaction you happen to label "morality." If there is no God, mankind is a set of carbon units of mostly water - and NOTHING else.

You want to object to the God of the Bible on the basis of of alleged (and arbitrary) ethical "problems" with the character of God as revealed in the Bible. For example, you identified the slaughter of the Canaanites and the eternal wrath of God on the unrepentent and exclaim something to the effect of "how could I worship a God like THAT!" A careful examination of such an argument and objection shows it to be completely futile. Far from being your strongest case against the true God, your objection actually reveals the radical futility of your own unbelief. Without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING!

As for the town of Nazareth never existing - I was there in November! LOL!! And Randi, you never answered Hume. "Bullshit" doesn't count for a philosophically credible answer. And not only that, you completely missed Hume's point! He never doubted the assumption you're making, he wanted the assumption justified.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:04 PM  

Chris L., no one's attacking logic. I merely want to know how it's accounted for and justified in your worldview. BTW, are the laws of logic conventional in nature? And if you're not familiar with the terms "induction/uniformity of nature," and don't speak on things that you don't know, I would strongly urge you not too make general appeals to "science" when debating. Based on your statements, you have assumptions you don't even realize and therefore would have no basis to account for them or justify them. I don't say this to attack you or offend you Chris L., in fact I find it admirable to admit when you don't know something (I hope I never come across as claiming omniscience!), but you really need to examine the assumptions that underlie the scientific method and the tools related to it.

I love discussing science and the philosophy of science, but that is difficult to do here if you can't speak to such basic assumptions as the uniformity of nature and the arguments of Thomas Kuhn (whose book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was one of the 20th century's most frequently cited and has been labeled one of the 100 most influential books since 1945).

As for your quotation from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 as evidence of a historical contradiction, the Apostle Paul offers no indication that he is giving an exhaustive account or a strict chronological account of the Resurrection appearances. He's simply listing many of the people who have seen the Risen Savior. No contradiction there. Next!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:11 PM  

Randi, I'll answer any specific questions or objections you or anyone has concerning the Bible. I do ask for the Biblical citation of the supposed error or contradiction, however.

And there are many reasons I believe the Bible to be the word of God. One reason is Bible prophecy. The Old Testament was completed centuries before Jesus was ever born. There are prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah's birthplace, such as the fact that He would be born of a virgin, that He would be rejected by His own people, that He would be betrayed by a close friend, that He would die by having His hands and feet pierced, and that He would rise from the dead, and hundreds more. These prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. Only God knows the future, has power over it, and can look into it to tell us exactly what will happen. In the Bible we have the fingerprints of God - fulfilled prophecy!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:13 PM  

One more objection I neglected to deal with Randi was this idea that because there are a lot of religions, somehow we can't ever know which is correct. Why do you assume this? Why do a lot of views = no truth per se or no way of knowing the truth at all? I'm not surprised at all that humans have developed many different ways of appeasing their knowledge that God exists, He has revealed His Law and will, and that they have violated His Law and are living contrary to His will.

The hundreds of different religions have hundreds of different ways of attempting to rid their adherents of sin and its consequences. Some fast, others pray, others deny themselves legitimate pleasures, while others chasten themselves, etc. They do this because they have a concept of what they think God is like, so they seek to establish their own righteousness, being ignorant of God's righteousness. They're, you included Randi, are essentially rebels. And the Good News of Yeshua the Messiah is that no one needs to suffer the pains of any religious works. The blood of Messiah can cleanse our conscience from the dead works of religion and your transgressions of God's Law. Yeshua took our punishment upon Himself, and He is the only One who can save us from sin and death.

I personally didn't realize for far too long that the Bible warns that for every idle word I have spoken, I will have to give an account on Judgment Day. I foolishly and illogically thought that as long as I "believed in God" and tried to live a "good life," I would go to heaven when I died. But I was horribly mistaken. Yeshua clearly taught that if I as much as looked with heterosexual lust at a women or with homosexual lust at a man, I had committed adultery in my heart. I had broken God's holy Law, and there was nothing I could do to cancel the penalty I deserved. I knew then and I know now that if my Creator judged me by the Ten Commandments on Judgment Day, I would stand guilty before Him and justly be sent to hell. But it was then by God's grace that my eyes were opened and I understood my predicament. I began to understand more fully why it was that Yeshua had to die. He came to pay the price I could never pay. He came to die in order to take the punishment for my sins and the sins of the world. Yeshua indeed was the Promised Messiah, He died for our sins just as Moses and the Prophets had promised, was buried, and rose from the dead just as Moses and the Prophets had promised.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:34 PM  

...fulfilled prophecy... or not!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:39 PM  

This is a complete turn around from the subject of Wayne's Stop in South Carolina lol.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 5:49 PM  

You placed an order at this establishment? Why give them your money? I don't think I've ever been that famished.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 6:20 PM  

Something just caught my attention. i tihnk AJ is a jew for Jesus. Nothing so zealous as a convert or an apostate
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 6:44 PM  

AJ said "if there is no God, then ALL the things you mention are in the same meaningless category. Morality or tragedy or sorrow are equally temporary and fleeting. They're ALL merely empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain...If there is no God, mankind is a set of carbon units of mostly water - and NOTHING else.".

Well, fact is AJ THERE IS NO GOD - do you now feel your life is empty and meaningless? Of course not. We've evolved to feel pleasure and pain otherwise we could not survive and these feelings are what give our lives meaning. Without emotions we wouldn't have the motivation to eat, avoid harm, seek beneficial activites and so on. Evolution has given our lives meaning and emotion.

AJ said " Without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING!".


Don't be absurd. We all feel pleasure and pain. If we want to avoid having others hurt us we have to grant them the same committment that we won't hurt them - it has nothing to do with your imaginary sky-buddy. If we want others to help us achieve pleasure we have to committ to helping them do the same.

Do you honestly think the Israelites didn't understand that murder and theft were wrong before they were given the 10 commandments? How do you think they survived as a society without a sense of right and wrong? I asked you once before and you hid from the question: Do you think murder is wrong just because your god says so? If your god said murder wasn't a sin do you think it would be okay?

The fact is that your god takes many actions that we know to be immoral, we couldn't know this if morality came from your bible. In Deuteronomy 7:2 your god demands that the israelites committ genocide and kill not just soldiers, but innocent women, children and babies. Your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they try to make a peace treaty - we know this to be wrong because our morality doesn't come from your bible (fortunately).

In your bible some of gods faithful servants are carrying the arc of the covenant over some rough ground and one reaches out to prevent the arc from falling and being damaged and your god kills him for it - what kind of evil god kills his faithful servant for trying to keep his object of veneration from damage? An immoral god, that's who.

In your bible your god brags about punishing the children and grandchildren unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. We know that its immoral to punsish the innocent for others wrongdoings and we know this is an immoral act of your god - once again your morality does not come from your god, it comes from the simple knowledge that its wrong to harm others and that only the guilty should be punished.

In your bible your "god" hardens pharoah's heart so he won't let the israelites go. Then your god punishes the innocent egyption people because pharoah won't let the israelites go. Your god brags that this will allow him to show off his miracles and show what a big-shot he does. We know these actions of your god are undeniably evil because morality is evolved into people, not given to us by some fictional god.

The foundation of your religion is an absurd and immoral joke. Your god kills the innocent Jesus for the wrongdoings of others - we know that's immoral and yet you are willfully blind to your god's evil. And what kind of sense does that make - your god kills his innocent self to appease himself for the wrongdoings of others?! Crazy! And you talk about the Koran being unbelivable because its full of contradictions and philosophical nonsense! If a mother of two said "Jullie was so terrible today I beat the hell out of innocent little joey" we'd think her evil and punish her - why should your god get a free pass for the same immoral actions?

Do you think being eternally tortured in a lake of fire isn't harmful? Do you think its not evil for a god to allow believe in him and his religion of preference to be questionable and then to eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise?


AJ said "As for the town of Nazareth never existing - I was there in November! LOL!!".

Jokes on you AJ. Nazareth never existed in ancient times and church leaders being embarrassed by this decided they had to have such a place and so arbitrarily selected a place and changed its name to fullfill what they wanted it to.

AJ said "And Randi, you never answered Hume. "Bullshit" doesn't count for a philosophically credible answer. And not only that, you completely missed Hume's point! He never doubted the assumption you're making, he wanted the assumption justified.".

The assumption is justified by the historical fact that such scientific laws have always held up and there is no reason to believe they won't do so in the future. The fact that science has given us the virtual miracles of modern medicine, transportation, and computers validates the assumptions it is based upon. Contrast this with the bible which has given us nothing even remotely comparable - there is no great knowledge in the bible. And frankly I don't give a damn about Hume and I couldn't care less about your pointless argumenst about what the meaning of 'is' is.

AJ said "As for your quotation from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 as evidence of a historical contradiction...".

Of course its a contradiction AJ and just one of many, many contradictions. Once again, go to this link:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Type in the books of your gospels and then click on contradictions - you'll find no shortage of them. Your bible is undeniably full of errors, contradictions, and immorality espoused by your fictional god.

AJ said "And there are many reasons I believe the Bible to be the word of God. One reason is Bible prophecy. The Old Testament was completed centuries before Jesus was ever born. There are prophecies in the Old Testament concerning...".

AJ, give your head a shake. When you're writing a fictional book its no problem to write stories that fit in with the "prophecies" of another older book - this doesn't prove anything. There are no historical records of Jesus apart from the bible - he was a fictional character. That one piece of fiction fits with a previous piece of fiction means NOTHING. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE IS TRUE - WORDS WRITTEN ON PAPER PROVE NOTHING.
For f*cks sake the story of Jesus riding into town on an ass was stolen from the story of Dionysius riding into town on an ass. Stolen from previous myths like so much of the Jesus story, like being born of a virgin, a common story, even Julius Caeser was mythologized to have been born of a virgin.

AJ said "One more objection I neglected to deal with Randi was this idea that because there are a lot of religions, somehow we can't ever know which is correct. Why do you assume this?"

Even you would admit that virtually all religions are false (you have to if you believe yours to be true). In the end you have no more proof that yours is true than do any of the others. They all base their claims to be the truth on the circular logic you use - they're true because the ancient scripts say they are. There is nothing to differentiate your religion as the truth from any of them as the truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordiary proof and you have none - just words on paper like every other religion. You're making the exceptional claim, the onus is on you to provde evidence to support it, not on me to refute it. There's just as much evidence for the existence of leprechauns, elves, zeus, thor and apollo as there is for your god, why believe in Jesus and not them?

AJ said "They're, you included Randi, are essentially rebels."

I can't rebel against what doesn't exist AJ. I can't believe without evidence - that'd be wrong. You're the one rebelling against logic, reality and likelihoods. You're the one believing with out good reason to do so.


AJ said "And the Good News of Yeshua the Messiah is that no one needs to suffer the pains of any religious works."

Your god allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be questionable and then eternally tortures people for innocently beliving otherwise, just as he knew he would when he created them. That's one evil despicable being. No morals can come from a bieng that would do that.
AJ said "The blood of Messiah can cleanse our conscience from the dead works of religion and your transgressions of God's Law."

Note how your bible works in the ancient idea of animal sacrifices to appease the gods. Your religion retains its primitive superstitious roots. An omnipotent god doesn't need sacrifices, especially of the innocent, to forgive sins, he simply could just do so. Once again your bible makes no sense.

AJ said "Yeshua took our punishment upon Himself, and He is the only One who can save us from sin and death.".

The innocent can never take responsiblity from the guilty. Once again the foundation of your religion is absurd and violates the innate morality we all have.

AJ said "I personally didn't realize for far too long that the Bible warns that for every idle word I have spoken, I will have to give an account on Judgment Day. I foolishly and illogically thought that as long as I "believed in God" and tried to live a "good life," I would go to heaven when I died."

I got news for you AJ, you're not going to heaven. When you die, that's it, you're done. Don't waste your life on these foolish myths and hate mongering against gays who harm no one, make the most of this life, its the only one you've got.

AJ said "if I as much as looked with heterosexual lust at a women or with homosexual lust at a man... I would stand guilty before Him and justly be sent to hell.".

Once again AJ the immorality of your bible versus our innate understanding of morality is clear. We all know in our hearts that the punishement should fit the crimea and eternal torture most certainly isn't a just punishement for the "crime" of lusting after someone. You're not hurting anyone by lusting after them - its not a crime, its not a sin, no punishement is due. Any book that suggests otherwise is undeniably evil. We know our morality doesn't come from your bible or "god" because we can tell when your bible and god are immoral, as they so often are.

AJ said "I began to understand more fully why it was that Yeshua had to die. He came to pay the price I could never pay. He came to die in order to take the punishment for my sins and the sins of the world.".

Ridiculous "yeshua" didn't have to die. Your god's supposed to be omnipotent, if he wannted to forgive your sins he just needed to do so, he didn't need to kill the innocent Jesus to do it. And once again one cannot take the punhishment for the wrongdoings of others. We'd never allow this in our judicial system because we know only the guilty can pay for their crimes, some innocent person cannot do it on their behalf. Once again, our innate understanding of morality shows the actions of your fictional god to be immoral. Our morals couldn't have come from the bible or we wouldn't be able to recognize the immorality in it.

The fact is that our morality comes from the desire to have what we want, freedom from harm and pain, access to pleasure and benefits. We know logically that we can't be secure in expecting these for ourselves unless we're willing to grant the same to all others. The foundation of morality is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - its that simple. Your 1300 page contrdictory, errorfilled, immoral book only gets in the way. A loving committed gay couple hurts no one and their marriage is by definition moral. Your attempts to prevent such relationships are by definition immoral.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/30/2007 7:05 PM  

Well, nobody can ever claim I alone am long-winded again! :-)

I'll assume Randi that based on your comments you're arguing from an atheistic worldview. Quick question: Would you agree that atheism is a universal negative?

Now, I want to make sure I understand exactly what you're asserting here Randi. Are you claiming that sensory perception is the standard of morality?

And I didn't hide from any question at all. If there is no God, then all things - including murder - are in the same meaningless category. If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between my thoughts and your thoughts correspond to the difference between shaking up a can of Pepsi and a can of Coke. Randi fizzes an atheistic worldview and I fizz a theistic worldview.

That would mean that you don't have an atheist worldview because it's true. You have an atheistic worldview because of a series of random chemical reactions in your brain. So your atheism destroys the very rationality you claim to have as well as any moral compass you can piece together. I'm arguing nothing new here Randi. Intellectual and moral relativism have long challenged the atheistic worldview. No atheist has successfully addressed this problem, and given your replies I don't see you answering it at all. But I would love to see you try!

You go back to the Bible and continue to find moral faults. But the ironic fact is there can be no immorality or evil in the atheist's worldview. Since there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard, and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children isn't wrong in an atheist's universe. It may be painful to another's senses, but can't be said to be wrong. And please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not claiming that atheists don't have any morals or morality. They surely do. The problem is that the atheistic worldview cannot account for and justify an atheists morals or moral philosophy.

Randi, your worldview is not consistent with what you're doing and claiming. Atheism doesn't provide any rational basis for any condemnation of the deeds of anyone. By what rational warrant do you have for calling one choice "moral" and another choice "not moral." Your answers so far have been completely arbitrary.

Concerning Nazareth, the joke is really on you. You've jumped on a dead horse and I'll have the last laugh. Contemporary archeological findings indicate that the village has been occupied since several centuries before Christ. One of the (many) errors that people like Rene Salm make is to assume that if there was an increase in population and activity in the area after Christ, this must have been the founding. Not exactly a compelling argument. Paul Barnett, in his Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, states:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth."

There are other simple errors adherents to this view make and I will respond to them if and when they're made. I have no evidence Randi even knows of the arguments! She only announces the view and provides no evidence. What a shock!

Your response to Hume is (respectfully) laughable and completely inadequate philosophically. You must know your argument will fail because you dismiss this great philosopher (who I disagree with on most things) in a very disrespectful way. Says a lot about you.

But anyway, your answer is essentially, "Well, it's worked in the past." And that's to ASSUME of course that the future is going to be like the past. And that is to BEG THE VERY QUESTION that was asked of you! Amazing!!

Now, if Randi doesn't like and can't handle the tough philosophical questions that are asked of her about things like the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature and how they are justified, and to then dismiss them as absurd, appears to me to be avoiding the issues cause, like, they're difficult. Well toughen up women! :-) These are philosophical questions which all philosophers have to face and deal with. And you haven't even scratched the surface yet.

Concerning contradictions, I want your definition of the term. Because if you're actually arguing there is a contradiction between Paul's list - which contains no claim of chronology or claim of exhaustation - and the Gospels accounts, either you have a different definition of contradiction or you're being inconsistent.

You claim that there "are no historical records of Jesus apart from the bible." Question: Do you deny that Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian (and others) refer to Jesus? Furthermore, on what historical basis do you deny the Gospel accounts themselves? BTW, I want evidence, not just announcements. The fact is Randi you're wrong on this claim. Plain and simple.

The difficult thing here is that you throw out so many absurd claims it's difficult for me to deal with all of them. I recognize others may feel the same way about me sometimes :-) But here's an idea. You pick one claim or topic and we'll debate that one and then move unto another. That way you can't just throw claims out. And you'll be forced to provide evidence. What'd ya say?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 9:48 PM  

AJ

I just want to remind you, that you still haven't repented here and asked for my forgiveness, for the terrible, hateful and evil things you said about me, my partner, and my relationship.

I'm still waiting, and not planning on going away any time soon. I take the offenses you committed against me and my beloved partner very seriously.

Please repent. Doing so will lend your arguments about Christianity some much needed internal support. After all, there is no credibility for your claims that our relationships are sin, if you refuse to repent when you sin against others, such as your many false statements about me.

Please repent, and sincerely too, AJ. Surely you do not wish to be, or be perceived as being, a worker of iniquity, a false teacher, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/30/2007 11:11 PM  

I am a frequent reader of Besen's blog and while I don't agree with much of what he says (Besen is actually too conservative for me), I think it's refreshing to hear someone who is willing to say what he means without hiding behind the canned, predicable banter of gay rights discourse.

I usually don't comment on the comments page, but this discussion has gotten my attention because it's about the Bible--my favorite subject.

I first would like to say that I am a Christian (Episcopalian), and believe the tenets of the Nicene Creed--though I think we may need to expand our interpretation of some things and say for some things,"I don't know exactly what that means" (i.e. the Virgin Birth, which is hard to swallow literally).

Note that sola scriptura is NOT a part of Christianity's historic creeds, nor have Anglicans accepted this idea traditionally (though sadly, fundamentalism is strongly asserting itself even in the Anglican tradition).

Faith is by its very nature an arbitrary thing. In a biblical sense, at least, faith is less about statements you claim to "believe in" and more about what tradition you put your trust in to provide ethical and spiritual guidance for your (or the community's) life. And sometimes the tradition's understanding of God and God's relationship to humanity changes drastically.

For example, it was once believed among the ancient Israelites that God visited the punishment of fathers on their descendants (Ex. 20:4) but others later argued for more individual responsibility (Ezek. 18:20-31). The promise of restoration for the people of Israel required a reevaluation of the theology that previously said that bad things happened to Israel because their fathers were bad. They could no longer have the sins of the past hang over their heads if they wanted to move on.

Or, take 2 Sam. 7 and 1 Kgs 11:34-39, strongest statements promising an eternal dynasty of David and an indestructible Jerusalem (see also 1 Kgs. 15:4;2 Kgs 8:19). Obviously the destruction of Jerusalem, the eventual annihilation of the Davidic monarchy, and exile created problems for these passages. The theology had to be revamped and updated by later authors.

The reason I bring these examples up is to show that when REALITY hits your theological system upside the head it may be time for a reevaluation. A willingness to reevaluation your tradition can save lots of heartache and may actually prevent your theology from KILLING PEOPLE (as Christian theology has often done).

I have to say that I am entertained by fundamentalists and conservative Christians who sanctimoniously demand that liberal Christians and others say where they get their ethical foundation. They say this as if conservative Christianity has been some great beacon of ethical life in the world. It hasn't.

From the Catholic Church's Inquisition and support for fascism to American conservative evangelicalism's support for every backwards institution and practice society has come up with (slavery, imperialism, women's subjugation, Manifest Destiny, segregation, so on and so forth). Now progressive Christianity may not be perfect, we have our dysfunctions--but at least our tradition wasn't used to justify SLAVERY.

Oh yes, I've heard the excuses! I'm so tired of the that-wasn't -"true"-Christianity copout. Well, it certainly wasn't Zoroastrians quoting, "Slaves in all things submit to your masters " (Col. 3:22); it was Christians.

And did you know the Bible never said anything about "human rights," "racial/sexual equality" or "civil rights?" Those are concepts that developed AFTER the Bible was written that we READ INTO the text after the fact.

Those holding to the doctrine of sola scriptura have legitimized many an atrocity and it is absolutely risible that someone would suggest that it is some kind guarantee against ethical problems.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2007 11:26 PM  

Welcome Brian! I'm curious as to why the Virgin Birth is difficult to swallow if you don't hold an anti-supernaturalism bias? If you actually believe what you claim to believe you hold that Jesus was God incarnate, that God created heaven and earth and everything seen and unseen, that God came down from heaven, that Jesus rose from the dead, that He ascended into heaven, that He's seated at the right hand of the Father, etc. Now, if you truly believe those things, on what basis do you have trouble with the Virgin Birth?

How do you define sola scriptura? Is Scripture the only infallible authority Christians have? Is Scripture the only ultimate spiritual authority Christians have?

With all due respect sir, your understanding of Biblical faith is not accurate. The Biblical notion of faith includes three components: "notitia" - understanding the content of the Christian faith (see 1 Corinthians 15: 1 - 5), "fiducia" - trust, and "assensus" - the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition. Trust is based on understanding, knowledge, and the intellect's assent to the truth of the Gospel. Belief IN rests on belief THAT. One is called to trust in what he or she has reason to give intellectual assent ("assensus") to.

In the Bible, faith involves placing trust in what you have reason to believe is true. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the dark. Faith and reason (which itself rests upon faith) come together in a biblical view of faith.

Now, I personally wouldn't ever deny that many professing Christians have done horrible things. But so have people from all religions and ideologies. Of course I have a moral standard with which to objectively declare the actions of any individual or group of professing Christians to be immoral and sinful.

Regrettably and shamefully, people professing to be Christians have frequently taken verses of Scripture out of context to justify despicable acts such as slavery or physically/verbally attacking homosexuals (which is not, contrary to what some claim, what I do). I of course could argue, as Brian has noted, that most of these people were not really Christians, and I would be right for the most part. Such people were not really "born again" but were adhering to a form of Christianity for traditional or national or cultural reasons. After all, Jesus told us there would be some who, in their errors, commit atrocities and even murder in the name of God. However, He informs us that these are not true believers in Him.

But even I will here concede that there may have been genuine Christians who have believed the vilest lies about the nature of certain people groups, accepted these lies as presuppositions, and then eisegetically sought support for their disgraceful views from the pages of Scripture (some on this blog unfortunately think the same thing about me, and we can and certainly should discuss that). We could never blame slavery on the Bible, though. Slavery has always existed, and even exists today. I'm affiliated with a Christian organization committed to freeing modern slaves. Please pray for us Brian.

One should also note that slavery was opposed by Christians such as William Wilberforce - not by examining Biblical passages on slavery because the slaveries described there were of a much different type(s). "Racial" slavery was opposed by many Christians who were diligent students of the Bible because it was seen to be contrary to the value that God places on every human being, and on the fact that God "has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). The use of the term "one blood" is important, and was important historically. If "races" were really of different "bloods," many Christians argued, then we could not all be saved by the shedding of the blood of one Savior. It is because the entire human race is descended from one man - Adam - that we know we can trust in one Savior, Jesus Christ.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 12:56 AM  

On FAITH: I misspoke. I should never have said "in a biblical sense." There IS no "biblical sense." The Bible speaks with many voices and points of view.

On VIRGIN-BIRTHS: I don't have a problem with the supernatural per se, though I do have a problem with crude supernaturalism, and I think the virgin birth is a little crude and too ham-handedly hearkens back to pagan mythology (not that there aren't many mythological ideas and themes in the Bible).

On Christian atrocities: It was not just "some" "born-again" Christians who believed vile things, it was the majority of them. The pro-slavery exegetes had the most literal reading of scripture. Most Americans in the antebellum period (even many abolitionists) were outright racists.

No, anti-black racism is not in the Bible, but submission to authority is (Rom. 13, and other "submission passages"). There is no "human rights" caveat. If racial apartheid is the system of the US, according to Scriptures, we are to submit to that system. The fact that our Scriptures even SAY this makes me ill. I understand why these passages exist in the tradition, but because of biblical literalism--yes DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF BIBLICAL LITERALISM--the presence of these verses has meant untold suffering.

AJ, YOU are the one EISEGETICALLY reading "equal rights" into Acts 17:26. It does not say, "all people come from one man, therefore all people are entitled to equal rights."

It says:
"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having DETERMINED THEIR APPOINTED TIME AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR HABITATION,
that they would seek God..." Guess what proslavery apologists said? That God appointed blacks to be in servitude in order to bring them to salvation and "civilize" black people. Disgusting! But you've gotta hand it to em--it's biblically based.

The "oneness" of humanity does not preclude the idea that some people are inferior to others. The idea (promoted by Acts 17:26) that God has established certain races in certain places for some divine purpose was theological POISON for people of color. It was used by oppressors to justify putting people in their place (as were other passages that encourage "submission" to oppression--e.g. Col 3:22; 1 Pet 2:13-21, etc; Eph. 5, etc). And what biblical response was there?

Well nothing, really. Abolitionists HAD to appeal to principles that stood outside the Bible. They could repeat broad passages like "love your neighbor" or "we're all one in Christ" but proslavery people would point to the fact that the biblical tradition UPHOLDS hierarchical/patriarchal societies (which it does). Sorry, that's just the way it is. No wonder abolitionists were constantly accused by proslavery theologians of...wait for it...EISEGESIS!

Now, I've actually studied racist theology in the US, and I was quite shocked at how sophisticated it was. I became very annoyed at the caricatures of proslavery and racist theology presented by Christians.

I suspect the caricatures are the result of embarrassment over the undeniable fact that conservative Christianity has consistently AIDED and ABETTED oppression.

The Bible alone cannot be the basis for ethics. Biblical concepts must also be tested against human experience and reality and the concepts need to be updated, revamped, revised--and in some instances chucked out altogether. Otherwise you get support for evil, as conservative Christianity has done throughout the centuries.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 1:49 AM  

AJ, you and I disagree strongly about 1 Corinthians 15. But you ended your answer saying "Next!". OK, we will agree to disagree on 1 Cor. 15. So here's my next question: When Mary went to the TOMB of Jesus, who did she encounter?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 9:04 AM  

An aside to AJ: You said, "As for your quotation from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 as evidence of a historical contradiction, the Apostle Paul offers no indication that he is giving an exhaustive account or a strict chronological account of the Resurrection appearances." How interesting!

Therefore, I would like to say THIS to YOU: As for your belief that Roman 1 condemns homosexuality, the Apostle Paul offers no indication that he is giving a specific statement of doctrine regarding homosexuality, but, in fact, specifically condemns shrine prostitution.

I'm glad we cleared that one up! :)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 9:44 AM  

"The Bible alone cannot be the basis for ethics. Biblical concepts must also be tested against human experience and reality and the concepts need to be updated, revamped, revised--and in some instances chucked out altogether.

Otherwise you get support for evil, as conservative Christianity has done throughout the centuries."

That's the whole point of the Bible for supremacists. To justify their immorality de jour.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 9:46 AM  

Good morning everyone! Just a quick fyi: I'll be out of town all day today. If I get back early enough I may be able to send out some replies. Otherwise - and I know this will upset some of you - will not be able to reply until tomorrow. Wouldn't want anyone to think I was ducking them. Cheers!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 9:58 AM  

How predictable ... you choose to leave town instead of answering our questions. Have a safe trip! :)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 10:42 AM  

Everyone in SC already knows about Maurice. He's a crazy man, but he makes great BBQ. I spent a lot of my childhood in Columbia (where he started his business). We ate the BBQ but knew he was whacko. Didn't care, just wanted our BBQ. Outsiders just don't understand, and if they don't like the BBQ or SC, they can just drive right on through. Makes no difference to me.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/31/2007 12:16 PM  

That's the problem, Betsy. It might not matter to you, but it SHOULD matter. The guy puts out racist literature, which is his absolute right. But do you ever, even for a second, take a moment to think of the people who are the target of that stuff, about how they feel, how it impacts them, how it hurts them and makes their daily walk through life more difficult? Or are you just content to fill your stomach with your bbq?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 12:37 PM  

AJ

When you return, it would be a great shown of genuine faith on your part, if you repent, apologize, and ask for forgiveness from those of us whom you have libeled and lied about.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/31/2007 1:08 PM  

Brian, you have still not addressed your definition of sola scriptura, which you continue to reference. Also, is Scripture the only infallible authority Christians have? Is Scripture the only ultimate spiritual authority Christians have?

You said the "Bible speaks with many voices and points of view" in relation to the concept and definition of faith. I offered the Biblical terminology used by the New Testament authors themselves. What did I neglect concerning the New Testament teaching on the relatively simple concept of faith?

While you claim to have no "problem with the supernatural per se," you do make an interesting distinction between supernaturalism and "crude supernaturalism." What's your basis for this distinction? On what basis, for example, do you define the Virgin Birth as "crude supernaturalism" and possibly reject it, yet accept the rest of the just as supernatural elements of the Nicene Creed?

You make enormous generalizations sir related to history in general and the history of Christianity in particular. One thing about history - and this from one who also holds a degree in history - it's a far cry from the clean categories you try to put it in. When conservatives try to do that - and they do it very often - they are wrong and should be corrected. When liberals do - which is not as often - they are equally wrong and should be corrected. You may want to revise your statements sir to more accurately reflect what took place according to the evidence we have.

Concerning slavery, the Scriptures obviously recognized that it existed in the ancient world, and the Scriptures recognizing this reality didn't overthrow the entirety of the economic system at that time and thereby throw everyone into chaos. Instead, the Scriptures clearly regulated the accepted practice and did so in a human fashion. The Mosaic Law abounds with examples of this. And simply because an erroneous interpretation of Scripture was a dominant position at one point in history doesn't mean that everyone held that position. That's just historically inaccurate sir. Give credit where credit is due. And definitely put the blame where it belongs (which is NOT on the Scriptures and a proper, consistent exegesis of them).

Finally Brian, one of the mistakes you make is too anachronistically force your 21st century political paradigm on Jesus in particular and on the Scriptures in general. The government of Jesus' day was wicked, twisted, perverted, violent, oppressive, and unjust. In spite of this, Jesus largely avoided getting involved (as we would today understand it) in the incredibly partisan political divides of His day. Yes, He was committed to social change. But the change that would come to people would be a real change achieved peacefully through "power under" (i.e., sacrificial love and service) rather than "power over" (i.e., the coercive power of the state). A recent book by Dr. Gregory Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church, is the most outstanding I have read on this subject (I would also recommend Yoder's The Politics of Jesus and Hauerwas' Resident Aliens).

On many points then I would essentially agree with you. As Christians, it really shouldn't make any substantial difference whether the country we live in is democratic, socialistic, totalitarian, or communistic. We are missionaries (ambassadors) of our King Jesus wherever we are. We are, as Boyd writes, "guerilla warriors stationed behind enemy lines, called to topple the existing regime which is controlled by our captain's arch enemy." We are to change the world, but NOT by the MEANS the world employs (largely violence and coersion). Our power is sacrificial love and service based on the example of Christ, prayer, evangelism, declaring the whole counsel of God, etc. Our hope should be placed on NOTHING other than God using us to follow Jesus' example to transform the world in a way the political systems of this present world can NEVER do.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 9:51 PM  

Chris L., thank you kind sir. It was a good trip (not a great trip). I'll actually be leaving on Friday morning for a week as well, so hopefully we can get through some of these issues by then. So just agree with me and let's move on :-)

Yes, we disagree about 1 Corinthians 15. But I'm not quite willing to just shrug the shoulders yet. I REALLY want to understand your standard (a) for interpreting historical documents and (b) for claiming a contradiction exists.

Concerning (a), when you look at and critically examine a historical document, do you believe the document is innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

Concerning (b), the only way I could see there being a contradiction between the Gospel accounts and 1 Corinthians 15 is if you insist Paul was making an exhaustive, chronological list in 1 Corinthians 15. But that claim is NOT there in English translations. It's NOT there in the original Greek. On what basis sir do you demand this as being an exhaustive, chronological list? Perhaps a presupposition I could be made aware of? Perhaps an unawareness that in Paul's cultural circumstances only a man's testimony was considered legal or official, so it shouldn't surprise the modern reader that he wouldn't include any women as witnesses in his defense of the resurrection (which is a major portion of the general context of 1 Corinthians 15). I have noticed a differing, inconsistent standard being used in places like the Skeptics Bible and I want to know if this is your standard as well.

Now, I do believe you have overlooked some of my previous questions, and if time allows you perhaps you could shoot me some answers (although it appears Mr. Besen wants to move on :-) ) Concerning your question, I need a clarification sir. Which Mary are you referring to?

In relation to Romans chapter one, your illogical comparisons between my comments related to our previous discussion (a completely different text and context) baffles me. But I have given a relatively brief exegesis of Romans 1 previously and you are more than welcome to ask any questions or offer any rebuttal to that comment.

That said, your claim that the Apostle Paul is merely condemning shrine prostitution ignores the text itself - you don't even address the text! The text itself is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul right in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on God's GENERAL revelation to every man and woman. Based on the text, the Apostle is clearly NOT speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution. He is talking about a universal condition of man.

Regarding homosexual behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses: a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that's unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).

There's only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed - if someone is in complete revolt against their Creator. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one's Creator. Verse 32 shows it's rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God - true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality. God's response is explicit - "they are without excuse" (v. 20).

Look Chris L., after condemning lesbianism, Paul moves on and writes: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

The meaning of this text and others is clear. Even atheists like Randi will acknowledge the Bible condemns homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1. I would submit people like her, who acknowledge the clear teaching of the New Testament on this matter but simply choose to reject it, are being much more intellectually honest with the text than you and others on this blog.

Let me close here Chris L. by saying that the reality is your Creator has spoken, and He has spoken with clarity. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior as sin. But I want to be clear and acknowledge that I am merely one sexual sinner speaking to another sexual sinner(s). Sin corrupts every dimension of human existence in general and my existence in particular.

The entire human being, which includes our sexual desire and the emotions, is corrupted and disoriented by sin and its awful consequences. Every human being, heterosexual or homosexual, is a sexual sinner. All men bear a different sexual struggle, but every man is engaged in a sexual struggle - be they homosexual or heterosexual. But the homosexual "movement" tells homosexuals that their arousal is their destiny. This is a blasphemous slander against our holy and just God and Creator. We simply can't trust our sinful affections and erotic interests. We are commanded by God to submit all of this to Him and the objective authority of His revealed Word.

By and through the grace (unmerited favor) of God, each one of us is commanded to come before the throne of Jesus Christ and pray that God will order our affections, order our sexual passions, and order our erotic interests. Chris L., you and I and everyone stands under the exact same need for forgiveness for our breaking of God's Law. We have the same accountability before our Creator.

One day it will be your last day sir. You will die and stand before your Creator and give an account. The Bible says that God will punish all murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. He will even judge our words and thoughts. On Judgment Day, will you be found to be guilty or innocent of breaking your Creator's commandments?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2007 10:17 PM  

"The Bible says that God will punish all murderers, rapists, thieves, liars,"

AJ, you have repeatedly lied about me and my partner.

As you said above, God punishes liars.

Why don't you repent?

Then, we can all discuss together how Paul did not use either of the two greek words that actually mean 'men who have sex with men' in 1 Corinthians 15 - and so, whatever he did mean, it was not 'homosexuals'.

But, after you demonstrate that you are serious about being a Christian, by repenting of your deliberate sins against me and my partner.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 8/01/2007 1:02 AM  

SOLA SCRIPTURA: I believe that sola scriptura is the doctrine that scripture ALONE (that's what the latin means, after all) is enough to be the final authority on matters of Christian doctrine. The doctrine, a rallying cry so to speak of the Reformation, also implies that the ordinary reader can rationally read and interpret Scripture, etc. I reject this view. Scripture alone without interaction with modern philosophical ideas and human experience has led to fatal theology (i.e. proslavery theology).

VIRGIN BIRTH: The virgin birth is such a typical motif in classical antiquity, and it is only mentioned in one gospel, so I think that it is a ham-handed attempt to make Jesus appeal to themes in the Greco-Roman world. Maybe a loose analogy is when people say things like "Jesus is my special friend" (thus crudely appealing to Western individualist notions). It's not that there isn't truth in the statement, but it's also pretty annoying and makes me cringe.

FAITH: While you may be bedazzled by your ability to use Latin words, I see no reason to read your view of "faith" into Paul's writings. Since I am a Hebrew Bible scholar by training, I tend to look at Paul's views in light of Old Testament paradigms--though this is often a creative theological reading instead of a scholarly one.

In 1 Cor 15.1-5, Paul is indeed describing a common narrative that is significant to early churches (as was the Exodus for the Israelites). Obviously a common narrative (or epic as Frank Moore Cross would call it) is an important part of establishing a faith community.

But I don't see that as the same as making "cognitive assent" to tenets as the definition of "faith." The descendants of a faith tradition can interact with and critically engage that narrative (see again, the example of Zion theology in 2 Sam 7 and 1 Kgs 11). I say my view is "biblical" because it looks at how the faith tradition has CHANGED over time in biblical literature, instead of cobbling together proof-texts to support a particular definition of "faith." The change and alteration itself is theologically significant and says something about the nature of faith.

CHRISTIAN SUPPORTED ATROCITIES: Ah yes, the "Paul/Jesus/Moses didn't want to disrupt the system of the time" argument. Guess what, slavery and white supremacy were ALSO the systems of the time. The southern economy was based on slavery. Slavery was a critical part of the foundations of modern capitalism. Guess we shouldn't have done anything about it. It is so funny that you are echoing the arguments of proslavery apologists as you try to explain away the theological problems some biblical writers set up for people who resisted injustice.

AJ, when the Bible tells people to submit to existing structures (no matter how evil they are), it creates a big theological problem for people who want to resist and transform that system and provides a boost for those who want to uphold the system. It's a theological conundrum that exists because of what New Testament writers actually wrote. It is not a matter of "misinterpretation." Unless you EISEGETICALLY read into scripture the notions of equal rights and the right to resist injustice (which is NOT, NOT, NOT biblical concepts) your interpretation makes no sense.

In fact, for all of your sanctimonious talk about "eisegesis" your entire suggestion that Scriptures were merely "acknowledging the existence of slavery" is an arbitrary, eisegetical reading. The Bible says no such thing, explicitly. In fact, some writers imply the OPPOSITE, suggesting that evil, oppressive societies are actually ordained by God for some higher purpose (did you miss Rom. 13?). If you don't see how this creates problems, you are simply living in denial.

And where does the Bible say anything about racial/human equality? Where does the Bible say anything about equal rights? It's not there AJ! It's (dunt dunt duuun) EISEGESIS!

Lastly, as someone who has studied antebellum theological debates over slavery, I find your "peaceful" resolution to injustice outrageous. That's EXACTLY what many proslavery apologists said. Don't resist it, don't fight it, don't abolish it--just piously pray away the injustice if you don't like it and slaves and masters will live in a happy, paternalistic world where masters treat their slaves so nicely that they can't help but sing, "zip-a-dee-doo-dah."

That is ethically, morally, and spiritually UNACCEPTABLE. No wonder the Exodus and the prophets were so important to blacks in the US. Because the NT epistles are, in many ways, toxic to social justice.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 1:34 AM  

AJ, it was so disheartening to log onto this site this morning and read your responses.

"The Bible simply acknowledged that slavery was a part of the economic system and it sought to regulate the accepted practice".

AJ, you claim that God went along with the monstrosity of slavery because it was "accepted practice" at the time. So, God Himself took the side of slavery?? The bottom line: Congratulations for being intellectually honest. Yes, we both agree, THE BIBLE SUPPORTS SLAVERY.

Funny, changing monies in the Temple was also an "accepted practice", and Jesus didn't have any problem running them out of town. If Jesus was God, as you claim, surely He would have liberated those oppressed by slavery.

Yes, AJ, your Creator has spoken, and, indeed, He has spoken with clarity.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 10:43 AM  

"Sin corrupts every dimension of human existence in general and my existence in particular."

If this is true, how can we trust anything you say. You're corrupt. and sinful. and depraved.

honey, you have issues. If you can ever get your head unstuck from your biblical, god-breathed ass, you might even have a life someday
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:26 AM  

I should have said....

If you can ever get your head unstuck from your biblical, god-breathed ass, you might see something besides darkness
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:40 AM  

Good morning men. Brian, I find your definition of sola scriptura fairly acceptable. More specifically though, sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible "rule of faith" for the Church. The doctrine doesn't say that there aren't other, fallible "rules of faith" or even traditions that Christians can refer to and even embrace.

The doctrine does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it's "theopneustos," or God-breathed. Therefore, the Scriptures embody the very speaking of our Creator and must, of necessity, therefore be of the highest authority.

The place then where your view of the doctrine completely fails is when you imply that is somehow rules out "interaction with modern philosophical ideas and human experience." The doctrines does nothing of the sort! Modern philosophical ideas and human experiences can of course be a "rule."

Sola scriptura simply teaches that modern philosophical ideas and human experiences are by nature inferior to the Scriptures and subject to correction by the Scriptures. My goodness, some of the top philosophers in America today are Christians (e.g., William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga) who adhere to sola scriptura!

Now, with all due respect sir, you didn't answer my questions. Is Scripture the only infallible authority Christians have? Is Scripture the only ultimate spiritual authority Christians have? And also, how, if modern philosophical ideas and human experience are your final authorities, would you ever know if they are correct or moral? Against which standard do you compare your experiences or your philosophical ideas, for example? Could an experience actually tell you that your experience is moral?

Also, you didn't answer my questions concerning the Virgin Birth and the New Testament concept of faith (do you see a pattern developing here?). You claimed that the "Bible speaks with many voices and points of view" in relation to the concept and definition of faith. I offered the Biblical terminology used by the New Testament authors themselves. Again, what did I neglect concerning the New Testament teaching on the relatively simple concept of faith?

And while you claimed to have no "problem with the supernatural per se," you do make a distinction between supernaturalism and "crude supernaturalism." Again, WHAT IS YOUR BASIS for this distinction? Again, on what basis, for example, do you define the Virgin Birth as "crude supernaturalism" and possibly reject it, yet accept the rest of the just as supernatural elements of the Nicene Creed, as you claimed you do?

In your brief discussion of Biblical faith you highlighted the tenet of assent while ignoring the elements of trust and understanding. Again, the essential elements of Biblical faith are noticia (notice of the facts), assensus (assent to those facts), and fiducia (trust in the facts). This is final element is a critical one, for we are told that even the devil has "noticia" and "assensus" - a saving faith also requires trust. Now, in 1 Corinthians 15 we have the summary of the Christian Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached. Reread it sir. It contains all of these elements. And while the CONTENT of God's people's faith has changed as God's revelation has progressively unfolded, this doesn't mean the CONCEPT of faith itself has changed, which is what you seem to falsely assume. On this you are quite mistaken sir.

Your error in relation to slavery is a common one and one I could see someone like Chris L. making (which he does), but it's completely unacceptable an error for a person who claims to have the education you claim to have. You equate the ancient slavery the Bible in general and the Mosaic Law in particular were addressing with the distinctly "racial" slavery in southern America in particular.

Your errors here remind me of a humorous anecdote Christians in the history department used to remind ourselves of: "You may be a fundamentalist atheist [or a "liberal" Christian] if you think when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they were ALL thoroughgoing deists, but when they were owning slaves they were ALL Bible-believing Christians." But such "reasoning," if we can even call it that, should be expected I suppose. Atheists and far too many "liberal" Christians, are hopelessly inconsistent, irrational, and totally arbitrary in much of their philosophy and theology. It should be no surprise when their history is faulty as well.

Now, of course, some misplaced Christians tried to justify slavery in America (e.g., John Henry Hopkins), but it's undeniable there were many Christians who refuted Hopkins and others. Have you read the publications of the American Anti-Slavery society, such as their Anti-Slavery Examiner? Perhaps their 1838 publication of "The Bible Against Slavery: An Inquiry Into the Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights"? Perhaps you've read the 1831 edition of "An Address to Christians of All Denominations on the Inconsistency of Admitting Slave-Holders to Common and Church Membership"? Perhaps you've read The Representatives of the Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England's 1842 publication of "An Appeal to the Professors of Christianity, In the Southern States and Elsewhere, On the Subject of Slavery"? I could literally go on and on! Your studies appear to have been quite one-sided to say the least. You may want your money back, or demand that they let you back in to get a real education.

The simple fact is slavery was a reality in the ancient world. God was telling people to work in the positions they were in and to do what they were doing in a God-honoring way. Furthermore, slavery was not as heinous in the ancient world as you and Chris L. imply, especially when the two of you equate it with modern forms of slavery. Both of you are simply being historically inaccurate. People often voluntarily went into slavery in the ancient world as a vocation. Sometimes the slaves chose to stay with their masters because they loved their masters. But then again, you and Chris L. probably wouldn't know this since you don't appear to study the culture in which those Biblical verses regarding slavery in the ancient world were written.

God can and often does work within the sinful limitations of humanity to accomplish His divine will. When Jesus came to earth, He didn't seek the overthrow of the oppressive Roman government with the sword (His followers did that by loving sacrificially and preaching the Cross). Instead, He taught that we are to behave properly and morally in the social and political context in which we find ourselves and ultimately obey Him.

The truth is gentlemen that God's Word and the love of Christ in us changes society and removes from society oppressive systems. This is what happened in early America when many Christians worked to get rid of slavery in America. It's true that Christians on both sides of the slavery issue used the Bible to try and justify their position. But this does not negate the validity of the Bible. You make a logical error when you claim that the erring application of biblical truth by those who misapply it invalidates the Bible. That's an easily recognizable logical fallacy.

Brian's biggest error in reasoning though is, like Randi and Chris L. and many others on this blog, is that he has absolutely no basis for morality. None! By what standard do you assert what God/Jesus should or shouldn't have done? By what standard can you consistently, rationally, and justifiably assert what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil? You have absolutely no standard for morality.

What you really do Brian is slip into my worldview for a second, grab all of the stuff you like and what "feels good" to you and reject what you don't like and what "feels bad" to you. Then, you jump back into your inconsistent, irrational, and arbitrary worldview and use the weapons you borrowed from me and try to use them against me! To bad for you I see what you're doing and can easily demonstrate you have no basis for your claimed "morality" and are thereby being inconsistent, irrational, and arbitrary.

Finally Chris L., Jesus did liberate those oppressed in slavery. All of us are by nature slaves to sin - we don't rule sin. Sin rules us. To the Christian, sin and Satan WERE our masters (they are still your master). Our wills WERE in bondage to the allurements of sin (yours is still in bondage). But we were set free by the LORD Jesus Christ (you're still enslaved). Jesus was the decisive deliverer from this slavery.

And He does also liberate those in bondage to other forms of slavery. But He (presently) does it NOT by the violent power of the sword of Caesar and Constantine, but rather by His cross and through the sacrificial love and service of His followers obedience to Him. I work with modern anti-slavery groups to free modern slaves. In obediance to my King, I sacrificially love the masters and the slaves as Christ does, sacrificially serve both of them as Christ did, preach the Gospel to both of them as Christ would, pray for both of them as Christ would, and have seen many miracles happen. True changes of hearts. True changes of lives. True liberation. The kind of changes and liberation that the violent sword of Caesar - which you arbitrarily demand Christ to have used - could never have done, and can never do.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:43 AM  

Ah, Ben. No arguments, just insults. No surprise there. And suprisingly no correction by those who claim to have such a heightened sensitivity to morality. Interesting...but not surprising I suppose.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:46 AM  

AJ, stop putting words in my mouth. I did not equate american/racial slavery with the slavery that existed in Biblical times (see Leviticus 25:44-45). And your veiled reference that I am not educated is offensive.

"No arguments, just insults" goes both ways.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:54 AM  

honey, it's not an insult. It is a very well meant, reasonably witty, piece of advice.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:57 AM  

AJ, since you chose to end this discussion with a toxic appeal which painted all of us with the brush of being spiritually sick and deficient, I would like to do the same favor for you, and here it is:

In my late teen years until my early 20s, I was a born again, Pentecostal Christian who believed EXACTLY what you believe now. I parroted and mimicked everything that you say, to the letter. When I got older, however, I came to see that the Bible simply didn't reflect reality, nor did it offer any particularly valuable insights. I had to admit what was obvious, that scriptures like "women must wear long hair as a covering" and "slaves obey your masters" were far from being divinely inspired, and in fact, seemed rather petty coming from the God of the Universe.

For that and many other reasons, I began to see that being "born again" was a cheap, psychologically tawdry substitute for actual spiritual growth. I really only started on that genuine journey towards truth when I summoned the courage to acknowledge that as much as I might want to believe that this book had all the answers, it really did not, and I rejected fundamentalism at that point.

As a young man, true spirituality was robbed from me by those people who I permitted to install that belief system into my unquestioning, teenage brain.

Today, I am free of the burden of having to convince everyone that they are spiritual derelicts because they don't believe that the 66 books of the Bible were supernaturally delivered. I no longer have to threaten genuinely good people with eternal torture if they fail to accept my beliefs on what are, in all actuality, very personal things, a person's relationship with God. I look back with shame when I consider that I allowed myself to lecture people on something so personal, something that was really none of my business.

When I stopped believing in the prepackaged "truth" that folks like you believe in, I started to joyously discover real truth. Gone was the "lazy luxury" of instantly knowing the answers to all of these profound questions. That spiritual arrogance was replaced by a journey so much richer, a long worthwhile journey that repeatedly surprises and inspires me, a journey that has given me freedom rather than bondage, a journey which involved me asking, rather than telling.

AJ, you can be set free from the bondage of Christian fundamentalism too. You can embrace the joy of not knowing. You can accept people who are different than you rather than marking them as outsiders or tools of the Enemy. You can, in those differences, discover a connection to your fellow human beings that will bless you more than the Bible ever has. That's a journey that you should truly consider taking. Best wishes to you.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 1:02 PM  

AJ said "The torture of little children isn't wrong in an atheist's universe.".

You are a despicable pig and a liar. Every atheist I know stands against that and abhors needlessly causing others pain. If anyone thinks its not wrong to torture children its theists - they're the ones who believe people should be eternally tortured for harmless acts such as being in a loving committed same sex relationship, or innocently and harmlessly not believing in Christianity. We atheists abhor such gross injustice and you worship and defend it.

AJ said "Brian's biggest error in reasoning though is, like Randi and Chris L. and many others on this blog, is that he has absolutely no basis for morality. None! By what standard do you assert what God/Jesus should or shouldn't have done?".

You lie. The standard is clear and inarguable. Morality is based on whether or not we harm others and that is the standard by which we must judge your god/jesus character as immoral. We know it is wrong to harm others because we ourselves feel pain and if we wish to avoid having others inflict it upon us we must committ to not inflicting it upon others. Your fictional god eternally tortures people for the harmless act of not believing in him and his religion of preference just as he knew they would do when he created them as the imperfect beings they are. Its well understood in todays society that freedom of religion is a good and just right. Your bible violates this righteousnous by trying to deny freedom of religion.


Your god punishes the innocent for the wrongdoings of others, we know that to be immoral because we don't get our morality from the bible or your fictional god - we know better.

In Deuteronomy 7:2 your god demands that the israelites committ genocide and kill not just soldiers, but innocent women, children and babies. Your god demands that they be utterly wiped out even if they try to make a peace treaty. Only an evil being would do that and that is exactly what your bible describes.

Your god kills his faithful servant for trying to protect the arc of the covenant, his venerated object, from damage. We recognize that as evil because our sense of justice is inherent, it has nothing to do with your despicable evil book.

In your bible your god brags about punishing the children and grandchildren unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. We know that its immoral to punsish the innocent for others wrongdoings and we know this is an immoral act of your god - once again your morality does not come from your god, it comes from the simple knowledge that its wrong to harm others and that only the guilty should be punished.

In your bible your "god" hardens pharoah's heart so he won't let the israelites go. Then your god punishes the innocent egyptian people because pharoah won't let the israelites go. Your god brags that this will allow him to show off his miracles and show what a big-shot he does. We know these actions of your god are undeniably evil because morality is evolved into people, not given to us by some fictional god.

The foundation of your religion is an absurd and immoral joke. Your god kills the innocent Jesus for the wrongdoings of others - we know that's immoral and yet you are willfully blind to your god's evil. It makes no sense - your god kills his innocent self to appease himself for the wrongdoings of others - that's insane. If a mother of two said "Jullie was so terrible today I beat the hell out of innocent little joey" we'd think her evil and punish her - why should your god get a free pass for the same immoral actions?

You talk about contradictions in the Koran discrediting it?! Look at the contradictions just in the book of Matthew alone!:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/contra_list.html

How many generations from Jesus to Abraham? 1:2-16, 17

From which of David's sons was Jesus descended? 1:6-7

Genealogy of Jesus (Mt.1 vs Lk.3) 1:6-16

Generations from David to the Babylonian Captivity 1:11

Was Jeconiah the son or the grandson of Josiah? 1:11

Did Jeconiah have any sons? 1:12

Who was Zerubbabel's father? 1:12

Who was Jesus' grandfather on his father's side? 1:16

Was Joseph the father of Jesus? 1:18, 22:41-45

Has there ever been a just person? 1:19, 5:45, 13:49

When was Jesus born? 2:1

Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus? 2:1-2, 11, 22-23

Did Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Egypt or Nazareth? 2:14

Where did John baptize? 3:4-6

Were the Pharisees baptized by John? 3:7-11

How did God address Jesus at his baptism? 3:17

Can God be tempted? 4:7

Is it OK to test (or tempt) God? 4:7

Should we serve God alone? 4:10, 23:10

Should we let others see our good works? 5:16, 6:1, 23:3, 5

Must we obey Old Testament Laws? 5:18-19

Will the earth last forever? 5:18, 24:35

Is Salvation by faith alone? 5:20, 12:37, 16:27, 19:16-17, 25:41-46

Has there ever been a righteous person? 5:20, 23:35, 25:46

Is it OK to call someone a fool? 5:22, 23:17, 19

Is divorce ever permissible? 5:32, 19:9

Is it OK to take oaths? 5:34-37

How should we treat our enemies? 5:44

How should nonbelievers be treated? 5:44, 7:12, 22:29

Is anyone good? 5:45, 13:47-48, 22:10

Should Christians pray in public? 6:5-6

Do Christians know how to pray? 6:9-13

Is God's will always done in heaven? 6:10

Has God ever tempted anyone? 6:13

Should Christians be concerned with material things? 6:31, 34

To judge or not to judge 7:1

What must you do to be saved? 5:20, 7:1, 7:7-8, 10:22, 12:37, 16:37, 18:3, 19:17, 19:23-24, 22:14, 24:13, 25:34-36

Can God be found? 7:8

Will those who call on the Lord be delivered? 7:21

Who can cast out devils in the name of Jesus? 7?21-23

Did the Centurion ask Jesus directly to help his servant? 8:5-9

Did Jesus know everything? 8:10

What will happen to Jews when they die? 8:12

How many men were possessed with devils? 8:28

Does God desire animal sacrifices? 9:13, 12:7

Was Jarius's daughter alive when Jesus was approached? 9:18

Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? 9:18

Is there to be a resurrection from the dead? 9:24-25, 25:46, 27:53-54

Who were the apostles? 10:2-4

Should the gospel be preached to everyone? 10:5-6, 15:24, 28:19

Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? 10:10

When will the end of the world come? 10:23, 24:14

Should we fear God? 10:28

Did Jesus come to bring peace? 10:34, 26:52

Who was the greatest: Jesus, Solomon, or John the Baptist? 11:11, 12:42

Was John the Baptist Elijah? 11:13-14, 17:12-13

Is it necessary to keep the Sabbath? 12:2-5

Was David alone when asking for the holy bread at Nob? 12:3-4

Who is for or against Jesus? 12:30

Is there an unforgivable sin? 12:31

How are people judged by God? 12:37

Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders? 12:39, 16:4

Was Jonah swallowed by a fish or a whale? 12:40

How should parents be treated? 12:47-48, 23:9

When did the transfiguration occur? 17:1

Is it a a good thing to be childish? 18:3, 19:14

Can God be seen? 18:9

Is marriage a good thing? 19:4-5, 19:10-12

What was Jesus' sixth commandment? 19:17-19

Is it OK to steal? 19:18

Is it OK to kill? 19:18

Is it OK to be rich? 19:23-24

Can God do anything? 19:26

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? 20:18-19, 26:31-32

How much power did Jesus have? 20:23, 28:18

Who asked Jesus for the best seats in heaven? 20:20-21

Was Jesus a ransom for many or for all? 20:28

How many blind men were healed near Jericho? 20:30

When was the blind man (or men) healed? 20:30

On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? 21:2-7

When did Jesus curse the fig tree? 21:12, 17-19

When did the cursed fig tree die? 21:19-20

Is is OK to call your father (or anyone else) father? 23:9

Who was Zechariah's father? 23:35

How long does God's anger last? 25:41, 25:46

When was heaven created? 25:34

How should strangers be treated? 25:35

Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crow twice? 26:34

Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial? 26:34

Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? 26:39, 42

Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss? 26:47-49

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first? 26:57

Did Jesus say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? 26:59-61

How did Jesus respond when questioned by the high priest? 26:63-64

To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? 26:69

How did Judas die? 27:5

Who bought the Potter's field? 27:6-7

Was Jesus silent during his trial before Pilate? 27:12-14

Who put the robe on Jesus? 27:27-28

What color was Jesus' robe? 27:28

Who carried Jesus' cross? 27:32

What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink? 27:34

What did the sign over Jesus' head say? 27:37

Did both thieves revile Jesus? 27:44

What were the last words of Jesus? 27:46

What did the Centurion call Jesus when he died? 27:54

Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand? 27:55

Who buried Jesus? 27:57-60

When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre? 28:1

How many women went to the sepulchre? 28:1

Who did the women see at the tomb? 28:2

Was the tomb open or closed? 28:2

Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when first seen? 28:2

Did the women immediately tell the disciples? 28:8

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? 28:1, 9

Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus? 28:8-12

Did the Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus when he first appeared to her? 28:9

Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus? 28:9

Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? 28:10

Where did Jesus first appear after the resurrection? 28:16

In whose name is baptism to be performed? 28:19


121 of them! Go to the page I linked to and see for yourself! If you dismiss the Koran because of its contradictions you must dismiss the bible for the same reason.

Your idiocy is highlighted by your challenging the basis of science. Every bit of technological wizardry is testamony to the fact that the future will be the same as the past. If this were not the case you wouldn't be using the computer you're typing on now. You're asserting that we have no reason to believe that people will continue to die as they always have, that dropped things will continue to fall as they always have, that cutting yourself with a knife will hurt as it always have - sheer stupidity on your part. And you don't even believe it yourself, if you did you wouldn't even try to communicate with others because you'd have no confidence that your words would have the same meaning in the future that they did in the past. The scientific method has been vindicated over and over again by the virtual miracles of modern medicine, transportation, communication, and so on. The bible has given us nothing of the sort. No inventions, no usefull justice system, no medicine. If the bible was the work of an omniscient being it would have told us how to use DNA to solve rapes instead of the laughable advice that if a woman doesn't scream loudly enough when she's raped that her claim isn't valid.

Fact is you're the one without morality, you're the one claiming that murder wouldn't be wrong if your god didn't say it was. What you're saying is the only thing keeping you from murdering, stealing and raping is the threat of punishment and the promise of reward - you have no empathy for others.

The fact is there have been thousands of religions over the millenia and at best only one of them might be true. The odds are thousands to one (at least) that its yours. You have no reason to believe in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Zeus, Apollo, or leprechauns and elves. Words on paper prove nothing, anyone can write whatever lies they want down (and have done so throughout history)
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 8/01/2007 5:21 PM  

I would have to say, randi, that you didn't parse your last paragraph very well. Either one of the religions is true, or none of them are true, or far more intriguingly (and entertaining) They're ALL true. Even the ones that claim they're the only true one. Did you ever read james Branch cabell? Very few people do these days.

BTW, AJ, basically what Randi and Chris were telling you is what I had to say. they just were less blunt than I was.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 7:53 PM  

Another Conservative christian brought low. so much for the bible believers, and their "god-breathed" bible. doesn't seem to save them from their problems.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2007/08/01/6
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 7:57 PM  

Ben, you seem to believe (and with some warrant unfortunately) that the Church is made up completely of hypocrites. Well, hypocrites may show up at a church building every Sunday, but there are no hypocrites in the Church - Christ's body. "Hypocrite" comes from the Greek word for "actor," or pretender. Hypocrisy is "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold."

The Church is made up of true believers in Jesus and in what He accomplished in His death and Resurrection. Hypocrites are "pretenders" who sit among God's people. They're tares among the wheat. God knows His elect and those who love Him, and the Bible warns that He will sort out the true converts from the false converts on the Day of Judgment. And all hypocrites will end up in hell.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:18 PM  

Chris L., you are spiritually sick sir. Everyone is. You are. I am. It's called sin. We've broken God's Law, and there are consequences for that.

I meant no disrespect sir related to your error - which you did commit - of equating slavery in ancient times with "racial" slavery when I commented about your education. You made mistakes when commenting on the topic that any one who has done even a modicum of study on the subject should not make. And your claims didn't seem elaborate enough to equal deception.

You claim you were once a Christian, but based on what you wrote it appears to me you never really knew the LORD Jesus Christ. Based on this I would say you were never a Christian to begin with (cf. 1 John 5:11-13, 20). The Bible has much to say concerning false conversions.

That said, your "statement of conversion" is interesting (really), but IN THIS CONTEXT it's still a fallacy - and one that Christian's use far too often for an argument. Your "argument" here is simply a weak form of asserting some sort of expertise in lieu of making the case for your worldview.

You're trying to imply that you've learned something as you've grown, and now that you're "better informed," you have rejected such and such. I could find thousands of Christians who have the exact opposite testimony. And it really doesn't matter what you believe now, what you used to believe, or what you'll believe in the future. Just as it doesn't really matter what I believe now, what I used to believe, or what I'll believe in the future. It's what's true, what's consistent, what's rational, what's justifiable, etc. And your worldview simply isn't.

You claim that I'm using scare tactics on you. Well, yeah, sort of. In the late 80s, I recall commercials that asked, "What goes through the mind of a driver who is not wearing a seat belt in a head-on collision?" Then they showed a crash test dummy having its head crushed by a steering wheel in a collision, and said, "The steering wheel!"

Those were certainly scare tactics, but no one complained because they were legitimate scare tactics. That's what happens in a head-on collision if you are foolish enough to not put on a seat belt. To warn of hell is fearful, but it's absolutely legitimate. The Bible warns that it's a fearful thing for a sinner to fall into the hands of the living God.

Chris L., I have enjoyed this conversation immensely. Believe it or not, I have been able to sit down with a homosexual over coffee (or a beer :-) ), discuss these very same issues, and leave hours later with neither of us having given any ground, and we leave with a hug and with respect for one another. You seem like a very warm, loving man who I could have that experience with, and hope to meet you someday in person. Best wishes to you sir until I meet you again on another one of Mr. Besen's interesting posts!
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:31 PM  

Again, WHAT IS YOUR BASIS for this distinction? Again, on what basis, for example, do you define the Virgin Birth as "crude supernaturalism" and possibly reject it, yet accept the rest of the just as supernatural elements of the Nicene Creed, as you claimed you do?

I explained this already. Reread my post. My view of "crude supernaturalism" is based on a theological critique and a thematic one.

...while the CONTENT of God's people's faith has changed as God's revelation has progressively unfolded, this doesn't mean the CONCEPT of faith itself has changed, which is what you seem to falsely assume. On this you are quite mistaken sir.

The CONTENT of faith has changed but that has absolutely nothing to do with the CONCEPT of faith! What a ridiculous, nonsensical counterposition. If the CONTENT has changed, that has implications for the CONCEPT as well. And anyway even the concept has changed. Even if your (arbitrary) interpretation of Paul WERE correct, that does not mean that this is the way the ancient Israelites, for instance, thought of faith.

...but it's undeniable there were many Christians who refuted Hopkins and others. Have you read the publications...blah, blah patronizing blah

I have read much abolitionist theological literature. And have YOU read the responses from proslavery exegetes? Even abolitionist literature that claims to just be innocently reading the text is dependent on an eisegetical insertion of concepts of equal rights and equality which are, again, extra-biblical.

For some reason, you think that the mere existence of antislavery literature is significant. You need to look at WHAT they were saying and HOW they were saying it (something I touched on in the last post). Which one is really the more literal interpretation?

Furthermore, slavery was not as heinous in the ancient world as you and Chris L. imply, especially when the two of you equate it with modern forms of slavery. Both of you are simply being historically inaccurate...

This is just crap. YOU are the one who hasn't studied ancient slave societies, you're just parroting conservative Christian apologetic cliches about the ancient world. It's so absurd, I'm not even going to get into it--read a book on ancient slavery. Indeed, there was no racial slavery in antiquity, but to say it wasn't heinous or brutal is just downright ignorant.

Instead, He taught that we are to behave properly and morally in the social and political context in which we find ourselves and ultimately obey Him.

And not do anything to resist it. So your advice, were you an antebellum Christian would be for black slaves accept their lot, don't do anything to change the system and wait for the hearts of slave masters to change. You'll understand if I find your "ethics" repugnant. And by the way, your argument is, again, similar to proslavery arguments.

You think slavery ended because some southern hearts were warmed to abolitionist theology? Slavery ended because Southern cities were "warmed" by George Sherman's fires. Don't you lecture me about "history" again, until you take it seriously yourself.

...it's true that Christians on both sides of the slavery issue used the Bible to try and justify their position. But this does not negate the validity of the Bible...

Well I'm not going to comment on the "validity" of the Bible--I don't know what you mean by that. I do, however believe that what you defined as the doctrine of sola scriptura and the text of the Bible did create theological problems for abolitionist theology.

Biblical commands to submit to unjust systems (a concept STRONGLY promoted by the NT epistles) has aided and abetted oppressive systems.

You all but admitted that this is the theology to get from these texts: "Don't resist injustice. Just let God work it out." If you don't see that this idea is problematic for those who seek to fight injustice, wow.

The reality is that we come together as a human community to determine what is moral and what is not. It's a messy process--and that's what I find that fundamentalists fear. They wish to deny the volatility that goes with establishing ethical standards. They want a clear-cut, obvious solution.

But the quest for that "obvious" solution was what led to problems in the first place. A refusal to accept a concept that was "man-made" (i.e. equal rights) and instead just go with what the Bible explicitly said, led to problems. Because as I pointed out, and you refuse to acknowledge, equal rights and human (social, political) equality is not a biblical concept.

Lastly, let me address some self-righteous bile for a second:
What you really do Brian is slip into my worldview for a second, grab all of the stuff you like and what "feels good" to you and reject what you don't like and what "feels bad" to you...

Yes, I do reject telling people who are suffering and oppressed to just let God work it out. That does "feel bad" because it's wrong. As I said before, progressive Christianity may not be perfect, but at least our tradition didn't justify slavery--as yours does.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2007 11:51 PM  

Randi, what I want to know, and it seems you're completely missing the argument (perhaps in your ardor to come up with new names for me) is WHY in an athiest's universe it's wrong to torture children. I don't doubt for one second you actually believe it to be wrong and wouldn't do it. But why?

You can announce something's wrong all you want, but you have no way to account for it and justify it. You want to be able to objectively say that torturing children is wrong. But objective truth cannot be validly derived from the premises of your worldview. You are borrowing objective rationality and morality from the Christian worldview in order to attack the rationality and morality of the Christian worldview. In your atheistic worldview there's no real difference between the Holocaust and a day at the beach. In both cases, all you have is atoms banging around.

You may even acknowledge that your morality isn't objective (although I do detect a hint of Ayn Rand in your thinking). Fine. If morality isn't objective, then it's subjective. If it's subjective, then it's as diverse as six billion subjective states of mind. Such fragmented subjectivity provides no authoritative ethical voice, and therefore no morality deserving of the name. Related to this, if you're intellectually honest you must now and forever disclaim "objective rationality" as well as "objective morality," for the two are built on the same foundation - or rather, in your worldview, not built on the same non-foundation. But if objective rationality does not exist, then your worldview does not permit you to reason for five words in a row, much less five hundred. The laws of logic are as nonmaterial as the God you so diligently oppose.

And repeating yourself without answering direct questions is fallacious evading Randi. You claim that morality is based on not "harming" others. Reminds me of the C.S. Lewis remark that the inventors of "new moralities" don't really invent new moralities - they merely accept the bits of the old morality that they like, and ignore the bits of the old morality that they don't like. This is merely what you're doing Randi, for the duty to avoid unnecessary harm to others is a genuine part of God-ordained morality. Your problem isn't that you're completely wrong. Your problem is that you ignore all the other necessary parts of a consistent, rational, and justifiable morality.

One problem with your "ethic," or lack thereof, is that it makes you and others selfish. What would you think of a man who had never lifted a finger to protect his wife, but bragged that he had never beaten her? Of a man who failed to sound the fire alarm, but boasted that he hadn't set the fire? How about a teacher who had never taught his students a single truth, but congratulated himself with the fact that he had never taught them a lie? I doubt you would admire such people. But by claiming that your only duty is to avoid harm to others, you're training yourself and others to be just like them.

Another problem with your narrow-minded "ethic" is that it makes you and others stupid. If the only duty you recognize is not harming others, you won't (and you demonstrably don't) have the foggiest idea of what harming others actually means. And one reason for this, besides your rebellion against your Creator, is that every moral DUTY depends on the other moral duties to flesh it out and complete its meaning. Arbitrarily keeping one duty but arbitrarily throwing out the others will lead you to not ever understanding the one you've chosen to keep. This is sad in that your claim to be ignorant of every moral duty but avoiding harm to others actually makes you ignorant. But even sadder is the deeper issue - your claim to be ignorant of your moral and spiritual dependence on God.

And by the way, who are you to make any standard and stipulate it? God, your Creator, doesn't have the right to stipulate an authority on His creation, but Randi does? Interesting.

You said that your Creator "eternally tortures people for the harmless act of not believing in him and his religion of preference..." No, He will punish people for breaking His Law, just as any judge would punish you for breaking the law, and just as your parents should or should have punished you for your potty mouth :-)

You also basically argue something to the effect of you or "your god" would never create hell. And you're absolutely right Randi. You or your "god" would NEVER create hell. You can't create anything (don't be offended, neither can I). And your "god" would never create hell, because he couldn't. He doesn't exist. He's a figment of your vain imagination, a god you create every now and then to suit yourself and your selfish desires. That's called "idolatry." Idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God. The one true God, however, could and did create hell for those who break His Law and reject His mercy. They will reap His just wrath.

You AGAIN go back to the Old Testament and find moral fault. And AGAIN I'll point out that despite the surface plausibility of your objection, a careful examination of it shows your objection actually reveals the radical futility of your unbelief. Without God there are no ethical objections to anything.

Now everyone, please read what I wrote to Randi two days ago, in light of her long list of alleged "contradictions":

"The difficult thing here is that you throw out so many absurd claims it's difficult for me to deal with all of them. I recognize others may feel the same way about me sometimes :-) But here's an idea. You pick one claim or topic and we'll debate that one and then move unto another. That way you can't just throw claims out. And you'll be forced to provide evidence. What'd ya say?"

Well, we now know what she says. No argument. She must have went to the Barry Lynn School of Argumentation. Throw out as many claims as you can, when you know your opponent won't have time to answer them all, and then RUUNNN!!! She apparently read I'll be out of town for at least a week. Good one Randi!

And Randi continues to BEG THE QUESTION referring to the uniformity of nature. Translation - she doesn't have an answer.

"On what basis do you assume the uniformity of nature Randi?"

"Well, the future has always been like the past before."

"But that's begging the question Randi."

"Cuss, Cuss, Swear, Swear, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about."

You now basically add that if there were no uniformity of nature, science would be impossible. Exactly Randi! Welcome to the debate!!

Indeed, if there were no uniformity, science would be impossible. So on what basis in an atheist's universe is science possible, since in an atheist's universe there is no basis for assuming that there is going to be uniformity? Randi, your worldview can't account for the laws of science, the laws of logic, morality, etc. And you admit that without some of these, science would be impossible. Thanks for the admission!

Now, Randi claims I don't have an answer to the uniformity issue. Well I certainly do! It's just that Randi doesn't like my answer. The answer is that God created the world, created even Randi, and this world reflects the uniformity that He imposes on it by His governing, and our thinking is to reflect the same consistency and logical coherence that is in God's thinking. How do we learn about those things? God reveals Himself to us.

Randi's worldview can't account for the laws of science, the laws of logic, and the laws of morality. And so on three of the most important and foundational issues that men and women must face philosophically the atheist's worldview is completely at odds with those things.

Well again, this may be it for me for awhile. You got lucky Randi. It has surely been fun and I'll probably be back at some point I'm sure. Cheers all!
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/02/2007 12:02 AM  

And one more short one for Brian and that is it for now! You and I could obviously go on for a long while on these topics, but I just want to close by responding your morality argument.

You seem to imply that what is morally right is determined by the culture or state to which one belongs. Ethics is defined in terms of what is ethnically or culturally or nationally acceptable. What the "community" says constitutes what is morally right for its members. Cultural practices are ethical commands. And whatever similarity may exist between moral codes in different social groups is simply due to common needs and aspirations, not to any universal moral prescriptions.

The first of many difficulties with this position is what is called the "is-ought" fallacy. Simply because someone IS doing something does not mean one OUGHT to do so. Furthermore, if each individual community's mores are right, then there is no way to adjudicate conflicts between different communities. Unless there are moral principles ABOVE all communities, there is no moral way to solve conflicts between them. And finally, if morals are relative to each social or cultural or national group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites.

Perhaps you'll respond Brian by claiming the human race as a whole is the standard for good. You may claim that the PART does not determine what is right for the WHOLE, but the WHOLE determines what is right for the PART. Here "humankind" would be the measure of all things.

But even humanity as a whole could be wrong. Entire communities have committed mass suicide. What if the majority of the human race decided that suicide was the best "solution" to the world's problems? Should dissenters be forced to conform? Furthermore, humanity is always changing, as are its ethical practices - for better and worse. Recall that child sacrifice was once commonly approved. Today we like to think we have a "better" moral standard. But better implies an objective standard outside humanity by which any progress can be measured. We could NEVER gauge the moral level of humanity unless there is a perfect standard outside it by which it can be measured. And my worldview allows for that standard; yours doesn't.

Thank you good sir for the conversation and the challenges. Until I meet you again, be good!
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/02/2007 12:33 AM  

AJ

Nice try at getting the last word in, AJ.

When you return, I'll still be asking for you to repent of your sin of bearing false witness against me, and hoping you will apologize and recant.

I really want to see you live your faith.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 8/02/2007 12:48 AM  

AJ, thank you for your words. I will sit down and have a beer with almost anyone, of course. Nice to hear that you don't think alcohol is "...a tool of the devil", as my former Pentecostal friends used to say. Looking back, a good stiff drink was exactly what was needed, but, alas...
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/02/2007 12:05 PM  

Now that our "group debate" with AJ is over, please take note: AJ did nothing whatsoever to prove his premise, that "a Hebrew man needed to be brutally murdered to death 2,000 years ago to prevent those who believe in him from being tortured for all eternity".

AJ did a lot of other things; he demanded that we "read Hume and Kuhn" and wanted to know what our definitions were for "logic and science." We even debated a few scriptures! But when it was all over, not a single piece of supporting evidence or proof for his mystical premise was to be found.
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/03/2007 12:51 PM  

AJ has said that he's left this forum, but I have a few observations of his argumentation to add to chris l's comments for the benefit of those who may stumble on this forum later.

Yes, AJ demanded facts, evidence, and answers to questions but refused to answer many of ours. For example:

AJ never dealt with the fact that the many NT passages promote submission to oppressive systems and he all but said people who are oppressed are not supposed to fight back but rather "by His cross and through the sacrificial love and service of His followers obedience to Him." Of course I believe that fighting back and resisting IS sacrificial love, service and obedience, but it is clear that AJ believes otherwise.

AJ couldn't get over the fact that biblical passages support patriarchal, oppressive systems and that this FACT informed proslavery literature and created theological problems for abolitionists so he posted a laundry list of some abolitionist literature--as if this proved that this wasn't what the biblical passages said or that the problems didn't exist!

AJ demanded to know where we progressive Christians got our ethical system. Why is it wrong to torture babies, he asked? Please. It's rarely progressive Christians who are proposing these kinds of things. On the other hand, the President of the United States, an evangelical Christian, thinks torture (excuse me "harsh" interrogation tactics) is ok. I think you'll find the vast majority of liberal Christians against torturing people. How many in fundamentalist Christian circles take the right position on this?

I asked AJ to find passages supporting equal rights and human equality. The only passage he cited was Acts 17:26, which says NOTHING of the sort. He kept huffing that the "proper" interpretation would bring someone to the right conclusion. How do we know it's the "proper" one? Because AJ, living in a post-slavery society where proslavery theology has been discredited, says it's the right one. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that the "proper" interpretation requires reading extrabiblical concepts into the text.

This leads me to my next point which is that AJ never addressed the fact that extrabiblical concepts were read into Scripture to create abolitionist theology (and other anti-authoritarian, anti-patriarchal theologies). The fact that extrabiblical concepts were read into scripture shows that sola scriptura (the Bible alone) has FAILED to provide a basis for ethics and moral behavior. It is only by working outside the doctrine, and reading the Bible in conjunction with philosophies often alien to the biblical world, that ethical biblical interpretation is possible.

AJ's theological system has failed miserably throughout history. But to this fact, he said:

It's true that Christians on both sides of the slavery issue used the Bible to try and justify their position. But this does not negate the validity of the Bible. You make a logical error when you claim that the erring application of biblical truth by those who misapply it invalidates the Bible. That's an easily recognizable logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy? Which one? I see traces of the "no true scotsman" fallacy and tautological reasoning (for instance, when he said that only those who came to the historically vindicated biblical interpretation on slavery were "correct" How does he know they were correct? Because it's the "correct" interpretation!) in AJ's reasoning, but I don't know what fallacy I used.

Actually, I demand that people operate within the world of reality instead of an abstract, theological fantasy world.

When someone says, "the Bible" didn't err, people did, it's really obnoxious. People have to interpret the Bible. An ethical system is something that has to work for people. If your ethical/theological system fails miserably, in reality, among human beings-it's flawed!

AJ thinks it doesn't matter because all works out in his abstract theology! Never mind that it failed practically! What the hell ethical system is this?!?!?
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/03/2007 3:57 PM  

I believe it's called "(I believe that) God said, I (am pretty sure I understand and) believe it and THAT SETTLES IT!"

END OF STORY.

:)
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/03/2007 5:59 PM  

Exactly Ben, can't we all just peacefully disagree that we're all One, everything is God (Love), and that eventually we'll find out that everything is always heaven?

:)
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/05/2007 7:40 AM  

mapaus bingo -
maple casino -
maples casino -
miami beach -
miami beach casino -
miami beachs -
millionaire casino -
millionaires casino -
online casino -
online casinos -
orbital casino -
orbitals casino -
phoenician casino -
phoenicians casino -
platinum play -
platinum play casino -
platinum plays -
play 4 free -
poker forum challenge -
poker ocean -
poker ocean casino -
poker oceans -
poker reward -
poker rewards -
poker room la -
poker rooms la -
poker show -
poker show casino -
poker shows -
poker time -
poker time casino -
poker times -
refer back -
refer backs -
reward parking -
rewards parking -
river belle -
river belle casino -
river belle poker -
river belle poker casino -
river belles -
river belles casino -
river belles poker -
royal plaza -
royal plaza casino -
royal plazas casino -
royals vegas -
royal vegas -
royal vegas casino -
royal vegas poker -
royal vegas poker casino -
seven sultan -
seven sultan casino -
seven sultan poker -
seven sultans -
seven sultans casino -
seven sultans poker -
showdown casino -
showdowns casino -
silver dollar -
silver dollar casino -
silver dollars -
strike it lucky -
strike it lucky casino -
sunny diamond -
sunny diamonds -
sun vegas -
sun vegas casino -
super slot -
super slot bingo -
super slots -
super slots bingo -
super slots bingo casino -
super slots casino -
the gaming club -
titan poker -
titan poker casino -
titans poker -
vegas 7 -
vegas 7 casino -
vegas affiliate -
vegas affiliates -
vegas country -
vegas country casino -
vegas joker -
vegas joker casino -
vegas jokers -
vegas jokers casino -
vegas palm -
vegas palms -
vegas palms casino -
vegas partner -
vegas partner lounge -
vegas partners -
vegas red -
vegas red casino -
vegas reds -
vegas seven -
vegas seven casino -
vegas slot -
vegas slot casino -
vegas slots -
vegas slots casino -
vegas tower -
vegas towers -
vegas towers casino -
vegas villa -
vegas villa casino -
vegas villas -
virtual city -
virtual city casino -
virtual city poker -
virtual city poker casino -
virtual citys -
virtual citys casino -
virtual citys poker -
yukon gold -
yukon gold casino -
yukon golds -
yukon golds casino -
zodiac casino -
zodiacs casino -
32 vegas -
32 vegas casino -
3 diamond casino -
3 diamonds -
3 diamonds casino -
49 er -
49er casino -
49ers casino -
50 star -
50 stars -
50 stars casino -
888 -
888 casino -
ace club -
ace club casino -
ace clubs -
amber coast -
amber coast casino -
amber coasts -
amber coasts casino -
bingo knight -
bingo knights -
bingo knights casino -
black pools uk -
black pool uk -
black widow -
black widow casino -
black widows -
black widows casino -
cabaret club -
cabaret club casino -
cabaret clubs -
cabaret clubs casino -
caribbean sun poker -
caribbean sun poker casino -
caribbean suns poker -
carnival casino -
carnivals casino -
car sand -
car sands -
car sands casino -
casino france net -
casino frances net -
casino king -
casino kings -
casino las vegas -
casino onliner -
casino onliners -
casino profit share -
casino profit shares -
cd casino -
cd poker -
challenge casino -
challenges casino -
cirrus casino -
cirrus casinos -
club dice -
club dice casino -
club dice poker -
club dices -
club dices casino -
club dices poker -
club player -
club player casino -
club players -
club players casino -
cool cat -
cool cat casino -
cool cats -
cool cats casino -
cote dazur palace -
cote dazur palace casino -
cote dazur palaces -
cs casino -
cs casinos -
diamond club -
diamond club casino -
diamond club poker -
diamond club poker casino -
diamond clubs -
diamond clubs casino -
diamond clubs poker -
empire poker -
empire poker casino -
empire pokers -
empires poker -
enter casino -
enter casinos -
euro grand -
euro grand casino -
euro grands -
fair poker -
fair poker casino -
fairs poker -
fast win -
fast win casino -
fast wins -
fast wins casino -
fifty stars -
fifty stars casino -
gambling wage -
gambling wages -
geisha lounge -
geisha lounge casino -
geisha lounges -
gl casino -
golden reef -
golden reef casino -
golden reefs -
golden reefs casino -
golden riviera -
golden riviera casino -
golden riviera poker -
golden riviera poker casino -
golden rivieras -
golden rivieras casino -
golden rivieras poker -
gold key -
gold key casino -
gold keys -
gold keys casino -
grand ace -
grand ace casino -
grand aces -
grand aces casino -
grand bank -
grand bank casino -
grand banks -
grand banks casino -
i big -
ibig casino -
ibigs casino -
i play tournament -
i play tournaments -
jackpot in a flash -
jackpots in a flash -
jackpots in a flash casino -
joyland casino -
joylands casino -
king solomon -
king solomon casino -
king solomons -
king solomons casino -
kiwi bingo -
kiwi bingo casino -
kiwi casino -
kiwi casino poker -
kiwis bingo -
kiwis casino -
luck and roll -
luck and roll casino -
luck n roll -
luck n roll casino -
mad bingo -
mad bingo casino -
mad bingos -
magic box -
magic box casino -
magic boxs -
magic boxs casino -
magic oasis -
magic oasis casino -
miami paradise -
miami paradise casino -
miami paradises -
miami paradises casino -
miss bingo -
miss bingo casino -
miss bingos -
mummy gold -
mummys gold -
mummys gold casino -
mummys golds -
music hall -
music hall casino -
music halls casino -
new york casino -
new yorks casino -
noble poker -
noble poker casino -
nobles poker -
nostalgia casino -
nostalgia casinos -
nostalgias casinos -
omni casino -
omnis casino -
palace of chance -
palace of chance casino -
palace of chances -
palace of chances casino -
party casino -
party casinos -
party gammon -
party gammon casino -
party gammons -
party poker -
party poker casino -
party pokers -
partys casino -
partys poker -
peach casino -
peachs casino -
pigg casino -
pigg peak -
piggs casino -
piggs peak -
piggs peak casino -
piggs peaks -
planet luck -
planet luck casino -
planet lucks -
play gate -
play gate casino -
play gate poker -
play gate poker casino -
play gates -
play gates casino -
play gates poker -
poker 333 -
poker 333 casino -
poker metro -
poker metro casino -
poker metros -
poke round -
poke round casino -
poker round -
prestige bingo -
prestige casino -
prestige poker -
prestiges bingo -
prestiges casino -
prestiges poker -
rich webmaster -
rich webmasters -
river nile -
river nile casino -
river niles -
river niles casino -
ruby bingo -
ruby bingo casino -
ruby bingo casino uk -
ruby bingo uk -
ruby fortune -
ruby fortune casino -
ruby fortunes -
rubys bingo -
rubys bingo uk -
sands of the caribbean -
sands of the caribbean casino -
s casino -
slot alley -
slot royale -
slots alley -
slots alley casino -
slots alleys -
slots alleys casino -
slots royale -
slots royale casino -
slots royales -
spass kasino -
spin palace -
spin palace casino -
spin palace poker -
spin palace poker casino -
spin palaces -
spin palaces poker -
sport interaction -
sports interaction -
star luck -
star luck casino -
star lucks -
star lucks casino -
sterling house casino uk -
sterling houses casino -
sterling house uk -
sun poker -
sun poker casino -
suns poker -
swiss casino -
the sand -
the sand of caribbean -
the sands -
the sands casino -
the sands of caribbean -
three diamonds -
three diamonds casino -
tiki bingo -
tiki bingos -
tikis bingo -
uk casino club -
uk casino clubs -
uk casinos club -
usa casino -
wager junction -
wager junctions -
window casino -
windows casino -
you bingo -
you bingo casino -
you bingos -
action gold -
action poker -
action pokers -
actions poker -
affiliate lounge -
affiliate lounges -
all jackpot -
all jackpots -
all jackpots casino -
all slot -
all slots -
all slots casino -
all star affiliate -
all star affiliates -
apues tas -
aus vegas -
aus vegas casino -
bellas vegas -
bella vegas -
bella vegas casino -
bet 19 -
bet bet -
bet casino -
bet casinos -
bet euro -
bet euros -
bet game day -
bet game days -
bet holdem -
bet holdem casino -
bet holdems -
bet on game -
bet on games -
bet on race -
bet on races -
bets son -
bet wwts -
big bettys -
big bettys bingo -
bing fantasy casino -
bingo 777 -
bingo 777 casino -
bingo cafe -
bingo cafes -
bingo fantasy -
bingo for money -
bingo hall -
bingo hall casino -
bingo halls -
bingo liner -
bingo liners -
bingo palace -
bingo palaces -
bingo reward -
bingo rewards -
bingos 777 -
bingos cafe -
bingos for money -
bingos liner -
bingos reward -
black pool bingo -
black pools bingo -
break away -
break away casino -
break aways -
break aways casino -
bright right -
cash wave -
cash waves -
casino domain -
casino domains -
casino euro -
casino euros -
casino lucky dog -
casino lucky dogs -
casino pay check -
casino pay checks -
casino verano -
casino veranos -
casino webcam -
casino webcams -
cherry casino -
cherrys casino -
city club -
city club casino -
city clubs casino -
cyber sportsbook -
diamond gal -
diamond gal casino -
diamond gals -
dimaond gals casino -
earn united -
fair deal sport -
fair deal sports -
first web casino -
first webs casino -
five card charlie -
five card charlies -
five cards charlie -
fortune junction -
fortune junction casino -
fortune junctions -
geisha bingo -
geisha bingos -
geishas bingo -
giant vegas -
giant vegas casino -
go casino -
go casinos -
gold betting -
good as gold casino -
grand bay -
grand bay casino -
grand bay poker -
grand bay poker casino -
grand bays -
grand bays poker -
grand casino royale -
grand casino royales -
grand riviera -
grand riviera casino -
grand rivieras -
hampton casino -
hamptons casino -
hotel casino network -
hotel casinos network -
internet bingo -
internet bingo casino -
internet bingos -
jackpot factory -
jackpot factory casino -
jackpot joy -
jackpot joy casino -
jackpot joys -
jackpots factory -
jackpot wheel -
jackpot wheel casino -
jackpot wheels -
jet bingo -
jet bingos -
jets bingo -
jupiter club -
jupiter club casino -
jupiter clubs -
king neptune -
king neptune casino -
king neptunes -
king neptunes casino -
kiwi bingo casino uk -
kiwi bingo uk -
lady dream -
lady dream casino -
lady dreams -
lake palace -
lake palaces -
mahjong time -
mahjong times -
merlins magic -
merlins magic casino -
merlins magics -
oasis casino -
online vegas -
online vegas casino -
only bingo -
only bingo casino -
only bingos -
paradise affiliate -
paradise affiliates -
paradise poker -
paradise pokers -
paradises poker -
play 65 -
play 65 casino -
players vegas -
players vegas casino -
player vegas -
plays 65 -
play united -
play united casino -
poker in canada -
poker share -
poker share casino -
poker shares -
pokers in canada -
portofino casino -
portofino casinos -
portofinos casino -
race track -
race track casino -
race tracks -
race tracks casino -
refer bingo -
refer bingos -
refer spot -
refer spots -
revenue giant -
revenue giants -
roxy palace -
roxy palace casino -
roxy palaces -
roxy poker -
roxy pokers -
roxys poker -
royal dice -
royal dice casino -
royal dices -
sail away casino -
sail aways casino -
sand piper -
sand piper casino -
sand pipers -
sci fi -
sci fi casino -
shark casino -
shark casinos -
sharks casino -
sierra star -
sierra star casino -
sierra stars -
sierra stars casino -
slots village -
slots villages -
slot village -
speed bet -
speed bets -
tcads -
the six shooter -
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2008 2:17 AM  

the six shooter casino -
the six shooters -
the star -
the star casino -
the stars casino -
tiger gaming -
top card casino -
top cards casino -
top line bingo -
top line bingo casino -
top line bingos -
top lines bingo -
trident lounge -
trident lounge casino -
trident lounges -
trident poker -
trident poker casino -
trident pokers -
tridents poker -
triple win -
triple win casino -
triple wins -
ultimate bet -
ultimate bets -
vegas break -
vegas break casino -
vegas breaks -
vegas breaks casino -
vegas expert -
vegas experts -
vegas splendido -
vegas usa -
vegas usa casino -
vic bingo -
vics bingo -
vics bingo casino -
vics bingos -
vip -
vip casino -
vip casinos -
vip horse -
vip horses -
vip poker -
vip poker casino -
vip profit -
vip profits -
vips -
vip soccer -
vip soccers -
vips poker -
vip sport -
vip sports -
wager profit -
wager profits -
wild jack -
wild jack casino -
wild jack mobile -
wild jack mobiles -
wild jack poker -
wild jack poker casino -
wild jacks -
wild jacks casino -
wild jacks mobile -
wild jacks poker -
win ward -
win ward casino -
win wards -
win wards casino -
wssb casino -
wssb casinos -
wssbs casino -
wssb sport -
wssb sports -
24h poker -
24h poker casino -
24h pokers -
24kt gold casino -
400 affiliate -
400 affiliates -
9 AM -
9 game -
9 games -
9 poker -
9 poker casino -
9 pokers -
absolute poker -
absolute pokers -
absolutes poker -
acf webmaster -
acf webmasters -
acropolis casino -
acropolis casinos -
aspinalls online casino -
atlantic lounge -
atlantic lounges -
aztec riches casino -
aztec riches poker -
bet 365 -
bet 365 casino -
bet 365 poker -
bet 365 poker casino -
bet 365 pokers -
bet com -
bet fred -
bet max -
bet max casino -
bet on usa -
bets on usa -
bingo -
bingo bank roll -
bingo bank rolls -
bingo cabin -
bingo cabin casino -
bingo cabins -
bingo program -
bingo programs -
bingo promoter -
bingo promoters -
bingo royalty -
bingo royaltys -
bingos -
bingos cabin -
bingos promoter -
bingos royalty -
bingos uk -
blackjack ballroom -
canada best bingo -
canadas best bingo -
canadas best bingo casino -
can bet -
canbet casino -
canbet casinos -
canbet poker -
canbet pokers -
can bets -
canbets casino -
canbets poker -
canbet sport -
canbet sports -
capital bingo -
capital bingos -
capitals bingo -
captain cooks casino -
captain cooks poker -
casino 365 -
casino 770 -
casino blasters -
casino classic -
casino controller -
casino kingdom -
casino partouche -
casino partouches -
casino rewards -
casino room -
casino rooms -
casinos 365 -
casinos 770 -
celeb poker -
celeb pokers -
celebs poker -
cindy poker -
cindys poker -
cindys poker casino -
cindys pokers -
club euro -
club euro casino -
club euros casino -
club uk -
club uk casino -
club uks casino -
club usa -
club usa casino -
club usas casino -
cocas casino -
cocoa casino -
crystal palace -
crystal palace casino -
crystal palaces -
crystal palaces casino -
da vincis gold -
da vincis gold casino -
diamond deal -
diamond deal casino -
diamond deals -
diamond deals casino -
dream poker -
dream pokers -
dreams poker -
ecard room -
ecard rooms -
el bingo -
el bingos -
euro poker -
euro poker casino -
euro pokers -
euros poker -
festive bingo -
festive bingo casino -
festive bingos -
festives bingo -
flamingo club -
galactic bingo -
galactic bingo casino -
galactic bingos -
galactics bingo -
gaming income -
gaming incomes -
giga slot -
giga slot casino -
giga slots -
global player -
global players -
golden casino -
golden palace -
golden palace bingo -
golden palace mobile -
golden palace poker -
golden tiger casino -
golden tiger casino jp -
golden tiger poker -
gold nugget casino -
gran casino espana -
grand online -
gut shot -
gut shots -
holdem poker -
holdem pokers -
holdems poker -
i net bet -
i net bets -
inter champ -
inter champs -
inter champs casino -
isa bet -
isa bets -
island poker -
island poker casino -
island pokers -
islands poker -
jackpot palace -
jackpot palace casino -
jackpot palaces -
jackpots palace -
juegos 65 -
ladies bingo -
ladies bingos -
lady bingo -
las seter -
las seter casino -
las seters -
las seters casino -
las vegas usa -
las vegas usa casino -
lucky emperor -
metro casino -
metros casino -
my bookie -
my bookies -
nine -
nine am -
nine game -
nine games -
nine poker -
nines -
online casino -
oyna 65 -
pacific poker -
pacific poker casino -
pacific pokers -
pacifics poker -
paradise 8 -
paradise 8 casino -
paradise eight -
pharaoh casino -
pharaohs casino -
phoenician casino -
play and deal -
play and deal casino -
player club -
players club -
players club casino -
players clubs -
play n deal -
poker -
poker affiliate -
poker affiliates -
poker cs -
poker rewards -
poker room -
poker room casino -
poker rooms -
pure slot -
pure slots -
purple lounge -
purple lounge casino -
purple lounges -
pyramid casino -
pyramids casino -
rock my wallet -
rock my wallets -
royal card club -
royal card clubs -
royal cards club -
sia casino -
sias casino -
slot -
slot 24 -
slot cr -
slot fever -
slot fever casino -
slot fevers -
slot fevers casino -
slot land -
slot lands -
slot plus -
slots -
slots 24 -
slots 24 casino -
slots cr -
slots fever -
slots fever casino -
slots land -
slots plus -
stars and stripes -
stars and stripes bingo -
strike it lucky casino -
sun palace -
sun palace casino -
sun palaces -
sun palaces casino -
sunset casino -
sunsets casino -
this is vegas -
this is vegas casino -
touch stone poker -
touch stone poker casino -
touch stone pokers -
touch stones poker -
true earning -
true earnings -
twin ace -
twin ace casino -
twin aces -
twin aces casino -
vc casino -
vc casinos -
vc poker -
vc poker casino -
vegas casino online -
vegas casinos online -
vegas lucky -
vegas lucky casino -
vegas luckys -
vegas luckys casino -
vegas magic -
vegas magic casino -
vegas magics -
vegas magics casino -
victor -
victor casino -
victor chandler -
victor chandlers -
victor chandlers casino -
victor chardler casino -
victor poker -
video poker classic -
video pokers classic -
villento -
villento casino -
virtual city casino -
virtual city poker -
yukon gold casino -
zodiac casino -
32 vegas -
3 diamonds casino -
49er casino -
50 stars casino -
777 dragon -
7 sultans -
7 sultans poker -
888 -
888 casino -
ace club -
aces high -
action gold -
action poker -
all jackpots -
all poker casino -
all slots -
all star affiliates -
amber coast casino -
aposte -
arthurian casino -
aus vegas -
bella vegas -
bet 19 -
bet bet -
bet casino -
bet euro -
bet game day -
bet holdem -
bet on games -
bet on races -
bet wwts -
big bettys bingo -
bingo 777 -
bingo cafe -
bingo day -
bingo fantasy -
bingo for money -
bingo hall -
bingo knights -
bingo liner -
bingo palace -
bingo reward -
black pool bingo -
black widow casino -
break away casino -
bright right -
cabaret club casino -
cameo casino -
caribbean gold -
caribbean sun poker -
carnival casino -
car sands -
cash wave -
casino bleu blanc rouge -
casino coins -
casino del rio -
casino fortune -
casino fortune uk -
casino france net -
casino king -
casino las vegas -
casino lucky dog -
casino mb -
casino onliner -
casino partners -
casino pay check -
casino pays -
casino profit share -
casino tropez -
casino us -
casino verano -
casino webcam -
cd poker -
challenge casino -
cinema casino -
cirrus casino -
city club casino -
club dice casino -
club dice poker -
club player casino -
college poker championship -
colosseum casino -
cool cat casino -
cote dazur palace -
crazy vegas casino -
crazy vegas poker -
cs casino -
cyber sportsbook -
desert dollar -
diamond casino -
diamond club casino -
diamond club poker -
diamond gal -
earn united -
empire poker -
english habour -
english habour poker -
english habour uk -
enter casino -
euro grand -
europa casino -
fair deal sports -
fair poker -
fast win casino -
first web casino -
five card charlie -
fortune affiliates -
fortune junction -
fortune lounge -
fortune room -
gambling wages -
gaming club -
gaming club poker -
gaming club uk -
geisha bingo -
geisha lounge -
gl casino -
go casino -
gold betting -
golden reef casino -
golden riviera casino -
golden riviera poker -
gold gate casino -
gold key casino -
good as gold casino -
grand aces -
grand banks casino -
grand bay -
grand bay poker -
grand casino royale -
grand hotel casino -
grand prix lotto -
grand riviera -
hammers casino -
hampton casino -
havana club -
home casino -
hotel casino network -
ibig casino -
internet bingo -
i play tournaments -
jackpot city -
jackpot factory -
jackpot joy -
jackpots in a flash -
jackpot wheel -
jet bingo -
joyland casino -
jupiter club -
king neptunes casino -
king solomons -
kiwi bingo -
kiwi bingo uk -
kiwi casino -
kiwi casino poker -
lady dream -
lake palace -
luck n roll casino -
lucky nugget -
lucky nugget casino uk -
lucky nugget poker -
mad bingo -
magic box casino -
magic oasis -
mahjong time -
mapau -
mapau bingo -
mapau de -
maple casino -
merlins magic casino -
miami beach -
miami paradise casino -
millionaire casino -
miss bingo -
monaco gold casino -
mummys gold -
music hall casino -
new york casino -
noble poker -
nostalgia casino -
omni casino -
online vegas -
only bingo -
orbital casino -
palace of chance -
party bingo -
party casino -
party gammon -
party poker -
peach casino -
piggs casino -
piggs peak -
planet luck -
platinum play -
play 4 free -
players vegas -
play gate casino -
play gate poker -
play united -
poker 333 -
poker forum challenge -
poker metro -
poker ocean -
poke round -
poker room la -
poker share -
poker show -
poker time -
portofino casino -
prestige bingo -
prestige casino -
prestige poker -
race track casino -
refer back -
refer bingo -
refer spot -
revenue giants -
rewards parking -
rich webmaster -
river belle -
river belle poker -
river nile casino -
roxy palace -
roxy poker -
royal plaza casino -
royal vegas -
royal vegas poker -
ruby bingo -
ruby bingo uk -
ruby fortune -
sail away casino -
sandpiper casino -
s casino -
sci fi casino -
seven sultans -
seven sultans poker -
shark casino -
showdown casino -
silver dollar -
slots alley casino -
slots royale -
slots village -
spass kasino -
spin palace -
spin palace poker -
sports interaction -
star luck casino -
sterling house casino -
sunny diamonds -
sun poker -
sun vegas -
super slots -
super slots bingo -
swiss casino -
the six shooter -
the star casino -
tiger gaming -
tiki bingo -
titan poker -
top card casino -
top line bingo -
trident lounge -
trident poker -
triple win -
uk casino club -
ultimate bet -
usa casino -
vegas 7 casino -
vegas affiliates -
vegas break casino -
vegas country casino -
vegas experts -
vegas joker casino -
vegas palms -
vegas partner -
vegas partner lounge -
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2008 2:17 AM  

gaming club uk -
gaming wages -
geisha lounge -
gl casino -
go casino -
gold betting -
golden casino -
golden reef casino -
golden riviera casino -
golden riviera poker -
golden tiger casino -
golden tiger casino jp -
golden tiger poker -
gold gate casino -
gold key casino -
gold nugget casino -
good as gold casino -
grand aces -
grand banks casino -
grand bay -
grand bay poker -
grand casino royale -
grand hotel casino -
grand prix lotto -
grand riviera -
hammers casino -
havana club -
home casino -
hotel casino network -
ibig casino -
i play tournaments -
jackpot city -
jackpot joy -
jackpots in a flash -
jackpot wheel -
joyland casino -
jupiter club -
king neptunes casino -
king solomons -
kiwi bingo -
kiwi bingo uk -
kiwi casino -
kiwi casino poker -
lady dream -
lake palace -
luck n roll casino -
lucky emperor -
lucky nugget -
lucky nugget casino uk -
lucky nugget poker -
mad bingo -
magic box casino -
magic oasis -
mahjong time -
mapau -
mapau bingo -
mapau de -
maple casino -
merlins magic casino -
miami beach -
miami paradise casino -
millionaire casino -
miss bingo -
monaco gold casino -
mummys gold -
music hall casino -
new york casino -
noble poker -
nostalgia casinos -
omni casino -
online casino -
online vegas -
only bingo -
orbital casino -
palace of chance -
party bingo -
party casino -
party gammon -
party poker -
peach casino -
phoenician casino -
piggs casino -
piggs peak -
planet luck -
platinum play -
play 4 free -
players vegas -
playgate casino -
playgate poker -
play united -
poker 333 -
poker forum challenge -
poker metro -
poker ocean -
poke round -
poker rewards -
poker room la -
poker share -
poker show -
poker time -
prestige bingo -
prestige casino -
prestige poker -
race track casino -
refer back -
refer bingo -
rewards parking -
rich webmaster -
river belle -
river belle poker -
river nile casino -
roxy palace -
roxy poker -
royal plaza casino -
royal vegas -
royal vegas poker -
ruby bingo -
ruby bingo uk -
ruby fortune -
sail away casino -
sandpiper casino -
sands of the caribbean -
s casino -
sci fi casino -
seven sultans -
seven sultans poker -
shark casino -
showdown casino -
silver dollar -
slots alley casino -
slots royale -
spass kasino -
spin palace -
spin palace poker -
sports interaction -
star luck casino -
sterling house casino -
strike it lucky casino -
sunny diamonds -
sun poker -
sun vegas -
super slots -
super slots bingo -
swiss casino -
the sands -
the six shooter -
the star casino -
tiki bingo -
titan poker -
top card casino -
top line bingo -
trident lounge -
trident poker -
triple win -
uk casino club -
ultimate bet -
usa casino -
vegas 7 casino -
vegas affiliates -
vegas break casino -
vegas country casino -
vegas experts -
vegas joker casino -
vegas palms -
vegas partner -
vegas partner lounge -
vegas red -
vegas seven casino -
vegas slot casino -
vegas splendido -
vegas towers -
vegas usa -
vegas villa -
vip -
vip casinos -
vip horses -
vip poker -
vip profits -
vip soccer -
vip sports -
virtual city casino -
virtual city poker -
wager junction -
wager profits -
windows casino -
wssb casino -
wssb sport -
you bingo -
yukon gold casino -
zodiac casino -
24h poker -
3 diamonds casino -
400 affiliates -
49er casino -
50 stars casino -
9 AM -
9 games -
9 poker -
absolute poker -
acf webmaster -
acropolis casinos -
action gold -
action poker -
affiliate lounge -
all jackpots -
all slots -
all star affiliates -
apues tas -
aspinalls online casino -
atlantic lounge -
aus vegas -
bella vegas -
bet 19 -
bet 365 -
bet 365 poker -
bet bet -
bet casino -
bet com -
bet euro -
bet fred -
bet game day -
bet holdem -
bet max casino -
bet on games -
bet on races -
bet on usa -
bets son -
bet wwts -
big bettys bingo -
bingo 777 -
bingo bank roll -
bingo cabin -
bingo cafe -
bingo fantasy -
bingo for money -
bingo hall -
bingo knights -
bingo liner -
bingo palace uk -
bingo program -
bingo promoter -
bingo reward -
bingo royalty -
bingos -
bingos uk -
black pool bingo -
black widow casino -
break away casino -
bright right -
cabaret club casino -
canadas best bingo -
can bet -
canbet casino -
canbet poker -
canbet sports -
capital bingo -
caribbean sun poker -
car sands -
cash wave -
casino 365 -
casino 770 -
casino blasters -
casino domain -
casino euro -
casino france net -
casino king -
casino las vegas -
casino lucky dog -
casino onliner -
casino partouche -
casino pay check -
casino profit share -
casino room -
casino verano -
casino webcam -
celeb poker -
challenge casino -
cherry casino -
cindys poker -
city club casino -
club euro casino -
club uk casino -
club usa casino -
cocoa casino -
crystal palace casino -
cs casino -
cyber sportsbook -
da vincis gold -
diamond deal casino -
diamond gal -
dream poker -
earn united -
ecard room -
el bingo -
euro poker -
fair deal sports -
fair poker -
fast win casino -
festive bingo -
first web casino -
five card charlie -
flamingo club -
fortune junction -
galactic bingo -
gaming income -
geisha bingo -
geisha lounge -
giant vegas -
giga slot -
gl casino -
global player -
go casino -
gold betting -
golden palace -
golden palace bingo -
golden palace mobile -
golden palace poker -
golden reef casino -
golden riviera casino -
golden riviera poker -
gold nugget casino -
good as gold casino -
gran casino espana -
grand aces -
grand banks casino -
grand bay -
grand bay poker -
grand casino royale -
grand online -
grand riviera -
gut shot -
hampton casino -
holdem poker -
hotel casino network -
ibig casino -
i net bet -
inter champs -
internet bingo -
i play tournaments -
isa bet -
island poker -
jackpot factory -
jackpot joy -
jackpot palace -
jackpots in a flash -
jackpot wheel -
jet bingo -
juegos 65 -
jupiter club -
king neptunes casino -
king solomons -
kiwi bingo -
kiwi bingo uk -
kiwi casino -
kiwi casino poker -
ladies bingo -
lady dream -
lake palace -
las seters -
las vegas usa casino -
luck n roll casino -
magic box casino -
mahjong time -
merlins magic casino -
metro casino -
miami paradise casino -
miss bingo -
mummys gold -
music hall casino -
my bookie -
nine -
nine am -
nine games -
nine poker -
nostalgia casinos -
oasis casino -
omni casino -
online vegas -
only bingo -
oyna 65 -
pacific poker -
palace of chance -
paradise 8 -
paradise affiliates -
paradise eight -
paradise poker -
pharaohs casino -
piggs casino -
piggs peak -
play 65 -
play and deal -
players club casino -
players vegas -
play united -
poker -
poker 333 -
poker affiliate -
poker cs -
poker in canada -
poker metro -
poke round -
poker room -
poker share -
portofino casino -
pure slots -
purple lounge -
pyramid casino -
race track casino -
refer bingo -
refer spot -
revenue giants -
rich webmaster -
river nile casino -
rock my wallet -
roxy palace -
roxy poker -
royal card club -
royal dice -
ruby fortune -
sail away casino -
sandpiper casino -
sands of the caribbean -
s casino -
sci fi casino -
shark casino -
sia casino -
sierra star casino -
slot fever casino -
slot land -
slots -
slots 24 -
slots cr -
slots plus -
slots royale -
slots village -
spass kasino -
speed bet -
spin palace -
spin palace poker -
stars and stripes bingo -
sterling house casino -
sun palace casino -
sun poker -
sunset casino -
swiss casino -
tcads -
the six shooter -
the star casino -
this is vegas -
tiger gaming -
tiki bingo -
top card casino -
top line bingo -
touch stone poker -
trident lounge -
trident poker -
triple win -
true earnings -
twin aces casino -
uk casino club -
ultimate bet -
vc casino -
vc poker -
vegas break casino -
vegas casino online -
vegas experts -
vegas lucky -
vegas magic -
vegas splendido -
vegas usa -
vics bingo -
victor -
victor chandler casino -
video poker classic -
villento -
vip -
vip casinos -
vip horses -
vip poker -
vip profits -
vip soccer -
vip sports -
wager junction -
wager profits -
wild jack casino -
wild jack mobile -
wild jack poker -
winward casino -
wssb casino -
wssb sport -
24h poker -
24kt gold casino -
32 vegas -
400 affiliates -
777 dragon -
7 sultans -
7 sultans poker -
888 -
888 casino -
9 AM -
9 games -
9 poker -
absolute poker -
ace club -
aces high -
acf webmaster -
acropolis casinos -
action gold -
action poker -
affiliate lounge -
all jackpots -
all poker casino -
all slots -
amber coast casino -
aposte -
apues tas -
arthurian casino -
aspinalls online casino -
atlantic lounge -
aztec riches casino -
aztec riches poker -
bet 365 -
bet 365 poker -
bet com -
bet fred -
bet max casino -
bet on usa -
bets son -
bingo bank roll -
bingo cabin -
bingo cafe -
bingo day -
bingo for money -
bingo hall -
bingo liner -
bingo palace -
bingo program -
bingo promoter -
bingo reward -
bingo royalty -
bingos -
bingos uk -
blackjack ballroom -
cameo casino -
canadas best bingo -
can bet -
canbet casino -
canbet poker -
canbet sports -
capital bingo -
captain cooks casino -
captain cooks poker -
caribbean gold -
carnival casino -
casino 365 -
casino 770 -
casino blasters -
casino bleu blanc rouge -
casino classic -
casino coins -
casino controller -
casino del rio -
casino domain -
casino euro -
casino fortune -
casino fortune uk -
casino kingdom -
casino mb -
casino partners -
casino partouche -
casino pays -
casino rewards -
casino room -
casino tropez -
casino us -
cd casino -
cd poker -
celeb poker -
cherry casino -
cindys poker -
cinema casino -
club dice casino -
club dice poker -
club euro casino -
club uk casino -
club usa casino -
cocoa casino -
college poker championship -
colosseum casino -
cote dazur palace -
crazy vegas casino -
crazy vegas poker -
crystal palace casino -
da vincis gold -
desert dollar -
diamond casino -
diamond club casino -
diamond club poker -
diamond deal casino -
dream poker -
ecard room -
el bingo -
english habour -
english habour poker -
english habour uk -
euro grand -
europa casino -
euro poker -
festive bingo -
first web casino -
flamingo club -
fortune affiliates -
fortune lounge -
fortune room -
galactic bingo -
gaming club -
gaming club poker -
gaming club uk -
gaming income -
geisha bingo -
giant vegas -
giga slot -
global player -
golden casino -
golden palace -
golden palace bingo -
golden palace mobile -
golden palace poker -
golden tiger casino -
golden tiger casino jp -
golden tiger poker -
gold gate casino -
gold key casino -
gold nugget casino -
gran casino espana -
grand hotel casino -
grand online -
grand prix lotto -
gut shot -
hammers casino -
hampton casino -
havana club -
holdem poker -
home casino -
i net bet -
inter champs -
internet bingo -
isa bet -
island poker -
jackpot city -
jackpot factory -
jackpot palace -
jet bingo -
joyland casino -
juegos 65 -
ladies bingo -
las seters -
las vegas usa casino -
lucky emperor -
lucky nugget -
lucky nugget casino uk -
lucky nugget poker -
mad bingo -
magic oasis -
mapau -
mapau bingo -
mapau de -
maple casino -
metro casino -
miami beach -
millionaire casino -
monaco gold casino -
my bookie -
new york casino -
nine -
nine am -
nine games -
nine poker -
oasis casino -
online casino -
orbital casino -
oyna 65 -
pacific poker -
paradise 8 -
paradise affiliates -
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2008 2:17 AM  

Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Bagatelle PM Purple M40232
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Bowling Montaigne PM Purple M59322
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Cannes Cosmetic Bag Orange M48032
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Croisette MM Black M5250
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Dhanura PM Blue M5981H
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Ellipse Bag Orange M51127
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Eugenie Wallet Black M63882
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather French Purse Purple M6364K
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Honfleur Clutch Yellow M52732
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Monceau Black M52122
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Bag Purple M59302
Louis Vuttion Replica Epi Leather Musette Bagatelle Black M40252
posted by  Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 9:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

January 16, 2005   January 23, 2005   January 30, 2005   February 06, 2005   February 13, 2005   February 20, 2005   February 27, 2005   March 06, 2005   March 13, 2005   March 20, 2005   March 27, 2005   April 03, 2005   April 10, 2005   April 17, 2005   April 24, 2005   May 01, 2005   May 08, 2005   May 15, 2005   May 22, 2005   May 29, 2005   June 05, 2005   June 12, 2005   June 19, 2005   June 26, 2005   July 03, 2005   July 10, 2005   July 17, 2005   July 24, 2005   July 31, 2005   August 07, 2005   August 14, 2005   August 21, 2005   August 28, 2005   September 04, 2005   September 11, 2005   September 18, 2005   September 25, 2005   October 02, 2005   October 09, 2005   October 16, 2005   October 23, 2005   October 30, 2005   November 06, 2005   November 13, 2005   November 20, 2005   November 27, 2005   December 04, 2005   December 11, 2005   December 18, 2005   December 25, 2005   January 01, 2006   January 08, 2006   January 15, 2006   January 22, 2006   January 29, 2006   February 05, 2006   February 12, 2006   February 19, 2006   February 26, 2006   March 05, 2006   March 12, 2006   March 19, 2006   March 26, 2006   April 02, 2006   April 09, 2006   April 16, 2006   April 23, 2006   April 30, 2006   May 07, 2006   May 14, 2006   May 21, 2006   May 28, 2006   June 04, 2006   June 11, 2006   June 18, 2006   June 25, 2006   July 02, 2006   July 09, 2006   July 16, 2006   July 23, 2006   July 30, 2006   August 06, 2006   August 13, 2006   August 20, 2006   August 27, 2006   September 03, 2006   September 10, 2006   September 17, 2006   September 24, 2006   October 01, 2006   October 08, 2006   October 15, 2006   October 22, 2006   October 29, 2006   November 05, 2006   November 12, 2006   November 19, 2006   November 26, 2006   December 03, 2006   December 10, 2006   December 17, 2006   December 31, 2006   January 07, 2007   January 14, 2007   January 21, 2007   January 28, 2007   February 04, 2007   February 11, 2007   February 18, 2007   February 25, 2007   March 04, 2007   March 11, 2007   March 18, 2007   March 25, 2007   April 01, 2007   April 08, 2007   April 15, 2007   April 22, 2007   April 29, 2007   May 06, 2007   May 13, 2007   May 20, 2007   May 27, 2007   June 03, 2007   June 10, 2007   June 17, 2007   June 24, 2007   July 01, 2007   July 08, 2007   July 15, 2007   July 22, 2007   July 29, 2007   August 05, 2007   August 12, 2007   August 19, 2007   August 26, 2007   September 02, 2007   September 09, 2007   September 16, 2007   September 23, 2007   September 30, 2007   October 07, 2007   October 14, 2007   October 21, 2007   October 28, 2007   November 04, 2007   November 11, 2007   November 18, 2007   November 25, 2007   December 02, 2007   December 09, 2007   December 16, 2007   December 23, 2007   December 30, 2007   January 06, 2008   January 13, 2008   January 20, 2008   January 27, 2008   February 03, 2008   February 10, 2008   February 17, 2008   February 24, 2008   March 02, 2008   March 09, 2008   March 16, 2008   March 23, 2008   March 30, 2008   April 06, 2008   April 13, 2008   April 20, 2008   April 27, 2008   May 04, 2008   May 11, 2008   May 18, 2008   May 25, 2008   June 01, 2008   June 08, 2008   June 15, 2008   June 22, 2008   June 29, 2008   July 06, 2008   July 13, 2008   July 20, 2008   July 27, 2008   August 03, 2008   August 10, 2008   August 17, 2008   August 24, 2008   August 31, 2008   September 07, 2008   September 14, 2008   September 21, 2008   September 28, 2008   October 05, 2008   October 12, 2008   October 19, 2008   October 26, 2008   November 02, 2008   November 09, 2008   November 16, 2008   November 23, 2008   November 30, 2008   December 07, 2008   December 14, 2008   December 21, 2008   December 28, 2008   January 04, 2009   January 11, 2009   January 18, 2009   January 25, 2009   February 01, 2009   February 08, 2009   February 15, 2009   February 22, 2009   March 01, 2009   March 08, 2009   March 15, 2009   March 22, 2009   March 29, 2009   April 05, 2009   April 12, 2009   April 19, 2009   April 26, 2009   May 03, 2009   May 10, 2009   May 17, 2009   May 24, 2009   May 31, 2009   June 07, 2009   June 14, 2009   June 21, 2009   June 28, 2009   July 12, 2009   July 19, 2009   July 26, 2009   August 02, 2009   August 09, 2009   August 16, 2009   August 23, 2009   August 30, 2009   September 06, 2009   September 13, 2009   September 20, 2009   September 27, 2009   October 04, 2009   October 11, 2009   October 18, 2009   November 01, 2009   November 08, 2009   November 15, 2009   November 22, 2009   December 06, 2009   December 13, 2009   December 20, 2009   December 27, 2009   January 17, 2010   January 24, 2010   January 31, 2010   February 07, 2010   February 14, 2010   February 21, 2010   March 21, 2010   April 18, 2010   June 06, 2010   July 18, 2010   July 25, 2010   October 31, 2010   December 19, 2010   April 10, 2011