Sunday, January 06, 2008

Laws Against Things That People Will Do Anyway

I'm in Phoenix this morning, looking forward to getting home this week, back to normal. You'll be glad to know that Phoenix is wet and chilly this morning, we've had some of those storms that made such a mess in California. When I say "chilly," I mean that it's 56 degrees outside, brrr. And when I say it's "wet," I mean that last night you could actually see that the pavement was darker than usual due to the accumulation of literally dozens of "raindrops." This morning, no, you can't actually see anything, but it is cloudy and it kind of feels like it could rain.

I found this Washington Post story by way of Hecate, whose opinion I share, as usual.
JOHANNESBURG, Jan. 5 -- The lights dimmed. Couples skated purposefully onto the ice. And at the command of an unseen deejay, teenage lips touched in defiance of what even authorities here have grudgingly come to call "the kissing law."

"The law to me is nothing. I don't think it's going to stop anyone," said Bianca Secchia, 14, who participated in the demonstration Saturday and shared another, less political smooch afterward with her boyfriend, Attie Nortje, 17, at the darkened Northgate Ice Arena.

The protest on the northern suburban fringe of Johannesburg was hardly a signal moment in South Africa's storied history of liberation politics. Most of the two dozen young demonstrators settled for scattered group hugs that prosecutors would have struggled to deem criminal even under the new law, which prohibits physical romantic contact involving anyone under 16, regardless of consent.

But the controversy generated by news of the looming event -- first on the social networking site Facebook, then in radio and newspaper reports -- led authorities to announce that they had no intention of arresting or prosecuting anyone for violating a law enacted just three weeks earlier. It amounted to quite a victory for legions of cyberlinked high school students not yet old enough to drive themselves to their own protest.

Strictly speaking, the law criminalized for those under 16 a remarkably broad range of behavior, including mouth-to-mouth contact and any other form of touching that could cause sexual arousal. S. Africa's Teens Give New Law the Kiss-Off: Anti-Intimacy Measure Sparks Online Outrage

It turns out, lawmakers in South Africa have decided to make teenage kissing, indeed any "physical romantic contact," illegal.

You can just see the intelligent logical processes that would lead to such a law. One: consider teen sex and the problems it causes; two: almost all teens who have sex start with kissing; three: make kissing illegal and there can be no One. Brilliant.

I was in Portugal a month or two ago, and they have a system that I thought sounded kind of neat. They have sensors along the road that measure how fast you're going. If you're going over the speed limit, the sensor trips a traffic light, turning it red, so you have to stop. That'll slow you down, right? The guy I was riding with told me about this, and I thought it was fascinating, until we came to one of these sensors, which he sped through (they are clearly marked). Sure enough, the traffic light turned red -- and my friend drove right through that, too. He said, "It's nighttime, there's no traffic, I don't need to stop." "Couldn't you get a ticket?" I asked him. "Oh, yes," he said, waving his hand to indicate the deserted streets, "But there are no police here."

The point being that people are going to do what they're going to do, no matter what the law says. There are apparently some people, politicians and preachers mainly, it appears to me, who think that people make their personal decisions by first finding out what the rules are, and then doing whatever it is they are supposed to do. Actually, I guess I do know some people like that, gutless people with no initiative of their own.
In fact, actual prosecutions of consensual encounters between teenagers under 16 are unlikely under the law, requiring explicit approval from the country's top prosecutor. Authorities said the measure was intended to make it easier to prosecute sexual liaisons between adult men and much younger girls, and assaults on the mentally disabled.

Yet news of the law triggered a backlash among thousands of students armed with little more than computers, Facebook accounts and an acute sense of outrage at what they regarded as the clueless behavior of repressive adults. Many teens also posted pictures of themselves engaged in amorous, but largely PG-rated, exchanges.

"We're young. We need to experiment," Natalie Winston, 12, said before the protest here. "When you're 21, you're old already, and ugly."

Hey, how's that make you feel?

There are some things you can pass laws against, and it's just not going to happen: Prohibition was one of those things; I don't know why people drink alcohol, but it apparently doesn't matter what the law says, we never saw so many drunks as we did when the Constitution was amended to prohibit it. That would go for teen kissing, as well -- teenagers are designed by nature to experience sexual arousal, and to like it. They are pairing off and learning to adapt to their new adult bodies, and the power of all this makes some fuddy-duddy law irrelevant, trivial. No kid caught up in the emotion of a lover's kiss is going to ask himself or herself what the law says about it. They may decide to go behind the bushes or something, but no law is going to stop kissing.

Move this to the local arena. The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever believe that a new law banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity will lead to guys claiming to be "women on the inside" so they can lurk in ladies rooms. The idea is crazy on so many levels, but relevant to this news story, you can see that it doesn't matter what the law says, men aren't going to lurk in ladies rooms. For one thing, ladies don't like perverted men coming into the ladies room, and will beat them with their purses. For another thing, gallant gentlemen, as well as ladies' boyfriends and husbands, who are bigger than the ladies themselves, do not like guys lurking around ladies rooms, and will throw them out. Even another thing, there is a ton of social pressure on men not to wander into the wrong restroom, it's embarrassing. Another thing, guys don't like to say they are "women on the inside" if they're not. There are just so many reasons.

The law the CRW is protesting is about discrimination. If somebody is trying to catch a taxi, the taxi should stop, no matter whether the person fits a simple gender stereotype or not. Because there is a tendency for prejudice against transgender people in the population, they have a hard time. I don't want to see anybody go to jail for that kind of discrimination, but maybe it will make somebody think twice, and maybe the debate will make some people think about it a little bit. What would it take for somebody to choose to change their gender? It's a big decision, it almost always involves a lifetime of anxiety, confusion, fear, discomfort. Life has dealt them a different hand, and they have to figure out how to play it, and one reasonable approach is to live like you feel. Just because you and I don't feel that way, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to ride in a taxi or get served in a restaurant, or hired for a job.

It is absurd to think that the CRW really believes that perverted men will lurk in ladies rooms because of this new law. That hasn't happened anywhere that this kind of law has been passed, and it goes against everything that men -- even perverted men -- tend to feel and do. The argument is a red herring and they should be ashamed of themselves.

The only thing that makes sense is that the CRW wants to reject this law because they think that legitimizing the decision to live according to your subjective gender will lead to a wave of transgenderism (which is not really an "ism" but just a way to make a noun out of an adjective). They think that men and women will start switching their gender identities left and right, until pretty soon you can't tell who's what.

I'd have two questions about this. First, why would people do that? Reader, do you yourself feel an urge to change your gender identity? Ninety nine point nine percent of us don't. Second, the question of the day: does someone who is considering changing their gender identity care at all if there is a law banning discrimination? Does the law affect their choice? I'd be pretty sure the answer there is a negatory.

You can pass laws against teen kissing or homosexuality or changing your gender identity, but they will not affect anybody's personal decisions.

The relationships among law and custom and nature provoke deep questions, it seems to me, questions worthy of intellectual consideration. The motives of teenagers who want to kiss seem, to me, pure and refreshing, the motives of creepy people like the CRW are neither pure nor credible.

62 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Yes, because I know that if there was a law against sex before marriage- everyone would be a virgin until they married or died. I mean, that is what happens now, right?

A while ago- N. Moron anon or one of his multiple personalities asked about my acts of charity but I hadn't posted since then. Now I know my acts are not as good as CRW's spending their time collecting signatures to promote hate and bigorty but I try anyway. So before Christmas, I made by hand and also bought scarves and hats for the homeless in DC and on Christmas day, served lunch to the homeless at a shelter in DC. And moron anon- no Greeks try to tell me that what I do or believe is a result of their culture or religion rather than mine.

January 06, 2008 7:47 PM  
Anonymous saguaro sam said...

"You can pass laws against teen kissing or homosexuality or changing your gender identity, but they will not affect anybody's personal decisions."

This is a dishonest statement. No one has suggested outlawing homosexuality or trying to appear to be a gender different than the one you are. Responsible citizens just want the government to refrain from endorsing these practices by teaching their acceptability to teen students or forcing the rest of us to acknowlege people feigning a false gender.

That's all.

January 06, 2008 9:49 PM  
Anonymous saguaro sam said...

"So before Christmas, I made by hand and also bought scarves and hats for the homeless in DC and on Christmas day, served lunch to the homeless at a shelter in DC. And moron anon- no Greeks try to tell me that what I do or believe is a result of their culture or religion rather than mine."

Jolly good show, Andrea!

You are a classic product of a society with a Judeo-Christian heritage.

January 06, 2008 9:52 PM  
Anonymous saguaro sam said...

On a topic which frequently comes up on this blog, here's a link where you can view a few debates between an evangelical and some of the more prominent members of the militant atheist movement, including best-selling author, Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.tothesource.org/1_1_2008/1_1_2008.htm

BTW, does anyone know what's in that glass that Hitchens brings to the podium with him and keeps sipping from?

January 07, 2008 5:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading only the Christian view of the debates between Christians and Atheists, only tells half the story.

When fair minded readers tire of the "source's" Christian slant, they might want to read some articles written by atheists too for balance.

January 07, 2008 8:01 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Actually Sam's link is to actual video of complete debates held between D'Souza and the atheists.

They can be viewed in their entirety without any written commentary.

I think D'Souza wins the debates myself, but each person can watch and decide for themselves.

January 07, 2008 8:51 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"The pope ushered in the New Year with a bang by tackling the subject of traditional marriage and family. Pope Benedict's World Day of Peace message resonated with everyone.

"The natural family, founded on marriage between a man and a woman, is the cradle of life and love and the first and indispensable teacher of peace," he said.

He called the natural family a “foundation for society,” an “intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage" and condemned attempts to undermine its value.

Kiera McCaffrey, communications director for the Catholic League said “Nobody wants to hear messages of restraint," she said. "People want to hear these sort of complete libertine ideas of 'Do whatever you want.'

“The pope isn’t going to change his message. Gay people need to hear his message the most.”

The pope’s adherence to the Scriptures irritates gay activists. Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said he wonders whether homosexuals are allowing God to define their sexuality or relying on their homosexuality to define god.

He said: “We have to figure out who's doing what and follow God and His creative intent and be obedient to His word and not listen to someone who picks and chooses what kind of Scriptures make them feel good.”"

January 07, 2008 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"U.S. Says Pope Immune From Molestation Lawsuit

ROME - The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See."


So tell me Red Baron, does conspiring to protect child rapists qualify anyone to be a moral authority in your eyes?

January 07, 2008 1:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Saguaro Sam/Red Baron said " No one has suggested outlawing homosexuality or trying to appear to be a gender different than the one you are.".

Not true, many Christians advocate the death penalty for gays and transgenders, the most well known of these being Fred Phelps - someone who takes his bible literally and seriously.

Red Baron said "I think D'Souza wins the debates myself.".

That's not surprising, we've seen from the "Hillary and Obama" thread how much you're in denial of reality, in particular of the evil that's in your bible. By the way, I hadn't noticed that you had responded in that thread so I dealt with your lies and denial there.

January 07, 2008 1:27 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "“The pope isn’t going to change his message. Gay people need to hear his message the most.”

Like the Red Baron the pope is in denial of reality and his mind is closed. Gay people are abused by their message of intolerance and hate, the pope's message is a hatred that is slowly dying out and that no one should hear.

January 07, 2008 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"The pope’s adherence to the Scriptures irritates gay activists. Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said he wonders whether homosexuals are allowing God to define their sexuality or relying on their homosexuality to define god.

He said: “We have to figure out who's doing what and follow God and His creative intent and be obedient to His word and not listen to someone who picks and chooses what kind of Scriptures make them feel good.""


Exodus International uses Leviticus 20:13 as part of it's Scriptural basis against homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So we have the vice president of a group that endorses and promotes genocide, using the protector of a child rapist as a "moral" authority, and Red Baron using them both as "moral" authorities.

January 07, 2008 1:43 PM  
Anonymous THE red baron said...

"So tell me Red Baron, does conspiring to protect child rapists qualify anyone to be a moral authority in your eyes?"

Accusations aren't facts, Improv. Just like your rumored minimal level of intelligence.

"Saguaro Sam/Red Baron said " No one has suggested outlawing homosexuality or trying to appear to be a gender different than the one you are.".

Not true, many Christians advocate the death penalty for gays and transgenders, the most well known of these being Fred Phelps - someone who takes his bible literally and seriously."

Number one, Insanity Randi, Jim was discussing CRC. Number two, there aren't "many" Christians like Phelps. Indeed, he must be pretty unique given that he seems to be the only example of outrageousness that lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups can come up with.

Calling him "many Christians" would be akin to us calling NAMBLA "many gays". It would be shameless in its misleading intent, as you seem to be.

"Red Baron said "I think D'Souza wins the debates myself.".

That's not surprising, we've seen from the "Hillary and Obama" thread how much you're in denial of reality, in particular of the evil that's in your bible. By the way, I hadn't noticed that you had responded in that thread so I dealt with your lies and denial there."

I responded to several of your dozens of your baseless points, which you didn't even bother to rephrase and think through but simply cut and pasted from somewhere else. There was no need to go further. Your insanity was on display in Macy's front window.

Point of fact, my last comment on that thread was never posted by Jim. Watch the video of D'Souza's debate with Hitchens. As Hitchens gulps down swigs of whiskey, he is reduced to a babbling fool. Watch especially the segment where Dinesh demonstrates that Hitchens has no intellectual problem with Christianity. He simply hates God.

"Red Baron said "“The pope isn’t going to change his message. Gay people need to hear his message the most.”

Like the Red Baron the pope is in denial of reality and his mind is closed. Gay people are abused by their message of intolerance and hate, the pope's message is a hatred that is slowly dying out and that no one should hear."

Yeah, we saw that in Iowa.

Truthfully, there is no obligation on anyone to tolerate willful and flagrant sinfulness. No one is suggesting making gaiety illegal though. As scripture says, gays inflict enough punishment on themselves. There is no need for anyone to join in. It's enough for society to keep others from falling into the gay trap.

January 07, 2008 2:07 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"So we have the vice president of a group that endorses and promotes genocide,"

Gaiety isn't a "gen". The Old Testament law was a penalty for an action not a feeling.

January 07, 2008 2:24 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Accusations aren't facts, Improv. Just like your rumored minimal level of intelligence.".

Red Baron, its a well known fact that the pope and various bishops responded to incidents of child molestation by simply covering up the incidents and quietly moving priests to other locations where they could, and often did, continue molesting children.

Red Baron said "there aren't "many" Christians like Phelps.".

Christians like Phelps make up a substantial minority of Christians. What's scary about Phelps is that he's exactly what you get when you take the bible seriously and literally - crazed Christians seeking the right to kill gays and non-believers.

Red baron said "Calling [Phelps] "many Christians" would be akin to us calling NAMBLA "many gays". It would be shameless in its misleading intent.

Not the same at all. Pedophiles are neither gay nor heterosexual, they are focused on children. Phelps is a Christian in the truest sense of the word, he's calling for the bible to be followed to the letter by calling for the death of gays - once again something you are afraid to do despite falsely claiming that the bible is the source of your morality, if it was you'd be calling for the death of gays just like Phelps and the Christian reconstructionist movement does.

Red Baron said " responded to several of your dozens of your baseless points... Your insanity was on display in Macy's front window.".

You made laughable rationalizations for 4 of the 871 or examples of evil that came directly from your bible. What's insane is that you continue to claim that the god described in your bible is the example of morality when he repeatedly punishes the innocent for the real or imagined wrongs of the guilty. The fact that you refuse to praise that shows that you don't believe your own lies.

Red Baron said "Point of fact, my last comment on that thread was never posted by Jim.".

You're paranoid. Sometimes Blogger screws up and doesn't move comments from the posting page to the display page, this is what happened to yours and Emproph's post, it had nothing to do with Jim. After I made my post on the Hillary and Obama thread it pushed your posts through.

Red Baron said "Watch the video of D'Souza's debate with Hitchens.".

I watched the debates between Dawkins, Hitchens and your hero Allistair Mcgrath. Mcgrath was a joke, talking nebulous nonsense at length and saying nothing. I'm not about to waste my time listening to another hero of yours do the same - no doubt you are just as deluded about D'souza as you were about Mcgrath.

Red Baron said "[Hitchens] simply hates God.".

Can't hate what doesn't exist. Hitchens and us atheists hate the evil that Christians do with religion as an excuse - calling for the death of gays as their bible demands, for instance. If you truly believe the bible teaches you right and wrong then let's hear you agree with it that gays must be put to death - fail to do so and yet again you will have proven what a liar you are.

Red Baron said "Truthfully, there is no obligation on anyone to tolerate willful and flagrant sinfulness.".

Religions call what is good and right sinful in many cases and the law rightfully obligates them to tolerate what they falsely call sin. The various religions see following other religons as sinful. We must tolerate the exercise of other religions (sinfullness) or the world will be destroyed by war. That someone sees something as sinful is no justification for being intolerant.

Red Baron said "No one is suggesting making gaiety illegal though.".

You are repeating a lie. Phelps and his followers are, the Christian reconstructionist movement is. Hell, even Exodus international, your favourite "exgay" organization went to Jamaica to lobby against the decriminalization of gayness. Christians seeking to make gaiety illegal are commonplace.

Red Baron said "As scripture says, gays inflict enough punishment on themselves. There is no need for anyone to join in.".

Gays inflict no punishment on themselves, the punishement is inflicted by people like you - trying to prevent gays from marrying, from having employment or housing, from being safe from assault and murder. People like you are solely responsible for punishing gays.

January 07, 2008 2:49 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Emproph, I responded to the article you posted on the "Hillary and Obama" thread on that thread.

January 07, 2008 3:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Its so pathetic it'd be funny if it wasn't so serious...

"Pope Benedict XVI has instructed Roman Catholics to pray “in perpetuity” to cleanse the Church of paedophile clergy. All dioceses, parishes, monasteries, convents and seminaries will be expected to organise continuous daily prayers to express penitence and to purify the clergy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3142511.ece

Yeah, that'll fix up that child moestation problem and exonerate the Christians of all guilt.

January 07, 2008 3:17 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

PZed Myers said "I do wonder how the Pope imagines god will "cleanse" the church. Just tweaking the brains of priests so they don't feel lust anymore would be a violation of free will and make a mess of centuries of theology, while having god get all Old Testament on the church and smite priests all around the world with lightning bolts would be spectacular and effective, but probably very bad PR."

January 07, 2008 3:23 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"I'm not about to waste my time listening to another hero of yours do the same"

Don't really have "heroes". I think D'Souza does an excellent job demolishing atheist delusions.

I'm not surprised you're afraid to watch it. You ought to do yourself a favor and overcome your fear. You can beat a case of nerves the way your hero Hitchens does- knock back some whiskey. If you do, you'll find Hitchens himself starts off by calling D'Souza the best Chrsitian debater he's faced.

January 07, 2008 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
Emproph: "So we have the vice president of a group that endorses and promotes genocide,"

RB: "Gaiety isn't a "gen". The Old Testament law was a penalty for an action not a feeling."


Thanks for clarifying: It's "moral" to kill people for having same-sex sex.

Which of course is the criteria those of your ilk use to define gay people. Ergo, the genocide of gays.

Genocide for Jesus, how very "Christian" of you to defend.
_____

Randi: "Not true, many Christians advocate the death penalty for gays and transgenders, the most well known of these being Fred Phelps - someone who takes his bible literally and seriously."

RB: "Calling him [Phelps] "many Christians" would be akin to us calling NAMBLA "many gays". It would be shameless in its misleading intent, as you seem to be."

As has been demonstrated via use of Leviticus 20:13, the vast majority of those you ally yourself with promote and endorse genocide. Phelps is a step above that lot - Exodus, Focus, et al - at least he has the guts to openly admit to his murderous designs.

Also, your supremacist cohorts already routinely equate same gender attraction with pedophilia. So it comes across as ignorant at best and dishonest at worst for you to say that equating gays with NAMBLA would be "shameless in its misleading intent."

Your saying it's "shameless in its misleading intent" is shameless in its misleading intent.

January 07, 2008 3:27 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Red baron said "Calling [Phelps] "many Christians" would be akin to us calling NAMBLA "many gays". It would be shameless in its misleading intent.

Not the same at all. Pedophiles are neither gay nor heterosexual, they are focused on children."

Randi, NAMBLA people are indeed gay. It's boy-love, not child-love. Indeed, if you read the rationalizations those people use, they sound a lot like you. They talk about everybody doing whatever they want as long as they "don't hurt" anyone else.

I think it would be unfair to associate all gays with them just like it is unfair to associate all Christians with Phelps. But you do this because you are made insane and crazed by hatred over imagined slights. How dare anyone question your delusional view of sexuality.

January 07, 2008 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Apparently laws like those against murder are the only thing preventing "Christian" supremacists from committing it. Which is why they're so hell bent taking over government. Once man makes murder legal, God automatically approves. It's even in the Bible:

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

January 07, 2008 3:42 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Idiot-improv

Here's the definition of genocide:

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Is homosexuality a racial, political or a cultural group?

January 07, 2008 3:45 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Religions call what is good and right sinful in many cases and the law rightfully obligates them to tolerate what they falsely call sin. The various religions see following other religons as sinful. We must tolerate the exercise of other religions (sinfullness) or the world will be destroyed by war. That someone sees something as sinful is no justification for being intolerant."

The problem here is that randi doesn't speak English. Randi speaks lunatic fringe gay. We either "tolerate" or we go to war, as if there are no other ways to disapprove and dissent.

That's the classic post-modernist stance: "either you agree with me or you have committed an act of violence against me."

Wake up, Randi. The dream's over. We're in the real world now. Responsible people disapprove of homosexuality. It's bad for society.

January 07, 2008 4:14 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said " I think D'Souza does an excellent job demolishing atheist delusions.".

You demonstrated on the "Hillary and Obama" thread you're in denial of reality so what you think about D'Souza is irrelevant - you think up is down and black is white.


Red Baron said "I'm not surprised you're afraid to watch it.".

I'm not afraid, I'm just not willing to be bored to death by another one of your heros after listening to your hero Mcgrath.

Red Baron said "Hitchens himself starts off by calling D'Souza the best Chrsitian debater he's faced.".

Which isn't saying much. Kind of like being the smartest crazy person you've ever encountered.

Red Baron said "NAMBLA people are indeed gay. It's boy-love, not child-love."

False. Pedophiles who have sex with boys state that they are attracted to the smoothness of their bodies, the lack of body hair and secondary sexual characteristics - its the femininity of the boys they are attracted to. Pedophiles do not have an adult sexual orientation. Pedophiles that are attracted to boys are not attracted to men and it is the attraction to men that defines what a gay is.

Phelps on the other hand is a Christian following his bible exactly as it is laid out. Many Christians are calling for the death of gays and now apparently even indirectly you. How about you make it clear that you agree with your bible's demand that you put gays to death - you've stated that this is your source of morality, let's hear you state unequivoally that you want to put gays to death as your bible commands. By claiming you are not trying to make gaiety illegal you are denying that your bible is the source of your morality - you don't want to do that, do you?!

Red Baron said "But you do this because you are made insane and crazed by hatred over imagined slights. How dare anyone question your delusional view of sexuality.".

Imagined slights - like your attempts to prevent gays from marrying the one they love most, like your attempts to ensure gays can be fired or denied housing, like your attempts to prevent gays from being protected by anti-bullying programs that target gay oppressers. Yeah, that's entirely imaginary all right... You definitely get your evil from your bible, yet I still see some good in you - you're afraid to totally embrace the evil in your bible and praise it. Let that seed of goodness grow in you Red Baron, reject the hatred in your bible and embrace your gay brothers and sisters.

Red Baron said "Is [gayness] a racial, political or a cultural group?".

Absolutely. Gays are a group of people who are attracted to the same sex. Your bible commands genocide not just of gays but of all manner of groups. If you have the courage of your convictions then state openly and clearly that you believe its good and right to kill gays, innocent babies, women, and children. Otherwise if that seed of goodness still exists in you deny now the hatred that is your bible.

January 07, 2008 4:19 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "That's the classic post-modernist stance: either you agree with me or you have committed an act of violence against me."

I never said that. What I did is point out the inevitable consequences of your believe that you never have to tolerate what you foolishly call sin. That consequence is war when opposing religions think each other's religion is a sin - as yours does.

Red Baron said " Responsible people disapprove of [gayness]. It's bad for society.".

Your insanity is showing. A loving supportive same sex relationship is beneficial to the people involved, making them happier and more productive and happier more productive people are a benefit to society. Responsible people are for that. Your hatred overwhelms you and you are obsessed with your own suppressed same sex attractions. Accept yourself as you are, stop hating yourself and taking it out on innocent gays. 80% of homophobes are turned on by gay sex - that's you.i

January 07, 2008 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
"Emproph, I responded to the article you posted on the "Hillary and Obama" thread on that thread."

Thanks Randi, I'll get back with you.
___

THE red baron said...
Emproph: "So tell me Red Baron, does conspiring to protect child rapists qualify anyone to be a moral authority in your eyes?"

RB: "Accusations aren't facts, Improv. Just like your rumored minimal level of intelligence."


Fair enough, but let's get real here:

"Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican?

Secret Document Told Bishops To Conceal Allegations Against Priests

For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican."


And:

"Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
[...]
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages."


Are you suggesting that that the Vatican and Ratzinger had no knowledge of a cover-up?

Or was it just some giant coincidence that so many Bishops and Cardinals willingly, knowingly and intentionally sent predatory priests from parish to parish to parish, to rape and rape and rape some more?

The fact that you would even use such a den of moral depravity as a moral authority, and then defend the actions of the U.S. Govt. to keep the outcome of the accusations against Ratzinger a secret, speaks volumes.

Is this the best your Bible has been able to teach you about knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I got news for ya, no God of love had to come down out of infinity to teach you or anyone else how to put child rapists in the company of children and then cover it up.

We've got prisons full of humans who know how to do that all on their own.

January 07, 2008 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Happy New Year everybody!

"So tell me Red Baron, does conspiring to protect child rapists qualify anyone to be a moral authority in your eyes?"

Accusations aren't facts, Improv. Just like your rumored minimal level of intelligence.


The fact is a personal attack is not an answer to a question. No answer means assent so Red Baron thinks conspiring to protect child rapists who were ordained by the Catholic Church means the Pope is a moral authority.

Number one, Insanity Randi, Jim was discussing CRC. Number two, there aren't "many" Christians like Phelps. Indeed, he must be pretty unique given that he seems to be the only example of outrageousness that lunatic fringe gay advocacy groups can come up with.

Number one is another personal attack -- did you learn that in church? Number two, there are indeed "many" Christians like Phelps. Here a just a few examples of Christians who want gays dead or don't want other churches to accept gays as equals and are willing to use violence to attain their goals:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/10/19/watchmen-leader-gives-bizarre-account-of-gay-bashing-death/
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=524
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/07/11/christian-extremists-burn-church.htm

January 07, 2008 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"Idiot-improv

Here's the definition of genocide:

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Is homosexuality a racial, political or a cultural group?"


Yup.

Take your pick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

Including, but not limited to:

"Defining "culture"

Various definitions of culture reflect differing theories for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Edward Burnett Tylor writing from the perspective of social anthropology in the UK in 1871 described culture in the following way: "Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."

More recently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) (2002) described culture as follows: "... culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs".

While these two definitions cover a range of meaning, they do not exhaust the many uses of the term "culture."

culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs".

Seeking to provide a practical definition, social theorist, Peter Walters, describes culture simply as "shared schematic experience", including, but not limited to, any of the various qualifiers (linguistic, artistic, religious, etc.) included in previous definitions."

--
So very telling that you object not to the promotion and endorsement of genocide on behalf of your friends, but to whether GLBT persons as a group are a culture.

Leviticus 20:13: Genocide for Jesus.

January 07, 2008 5:07 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

OK, Improv. Next time these guys start giving me a bunch of crap about how homosexuality is not a lifestyle, please explain to them how it is a seperate culture.

You quite misunderstand Christianity. Its position is that anyone who sins deserves death. I can give you a biblical reference if you want. It is not particular to sexual sins and, matter of fact, when Jesus encountered those involved in sexual sins, he usually forgave them readily, while still making clear that they the sins were indeed sins. Further, Christianity holds that all have sinned so everyone deserves death. Rather than genocide, what is called for, by justice, is species-cide. Finally, it holds that God had compassion for mankind and arranged a substitute to receive the penalty for the sins.

Final result: man is forgiven, justice is affirmed, morality is not compromised.

Gays have no reason to feel singled out. They have the same opportunity to repent as everyone else.

January 07, 2008 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"OK, Improv. Next time these guys start giving me a bunch of crap about how homosexuality is not a lifestyle, please explain to them how it is a seperate culture."

Lifestyle? What you really mean is the promiscuous "lifestyle." Out of everything that was said above about the definition of culture, THAT’s all you picked out to define the 'culture' of those of us who are same gender attracted.

You didn’t see it as all the things it means to love a member of the same gender, and all the things it means to live in a society that persecutes us, and all of the profound accomplishments that are the direct result of our being -- half of Hollywood is the direct result of gay culture.

You characterized our culture as boinking anything that moves. Yet you then have the gall to proclaim that “Gays have no reason to feel singled out.”

Get this. Gays don’t feel singled out by God, they feel singled out by people like you and your friends WHO INTENTIONALLY SINGLE US OUT.

As evidenced by the posts above, the “morality” of you and your friends isn’t based on the Bible any more than what I had for breakfast is. If it were, one of your FIRST concerns would be to make divorce and remarriage illegal (outside of Biblical exception).

Jesus' teaching on divorce
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

But you don’t care about the eternal damnation all of those who are divorced and remarried, because it’s a heterosexual sin, and therefore God approves, but more importantly, it’s not as fun to hate. Much more fun to be given license by “God” to hate what you ALREADY are most revolted by – same gender attraction.

It takes a pretty small mind to think that the very definition of heterosexuality is God's command to hate homosexuality.

Not to mention the fact that to condemn remarriage would dry up the church collection plates and put Focus on the Family et al, out of business. You’re hypocrites to the CORE.

Furthermore, the notion that I should have to “repent” for having simply been created is absurd. How pray tell, is one to repent of their desire to love and be loved?

That’s what makes your perversion of Christianity so abjectly sick, you’ve literally defined my consensual love for and with another adult human, as a sin against a god who is love -- the very person who instilled within me the ability to love to begin with.

You’ve set us up for an impossible situation, and then justify condemnation of us when we don’t comply to your impossible demand to “repent” of our pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the hatred, the desire for us to live loveless lives in the name of love itself.

You say “God had compassion for mankind and arranged a substitute to receive the penalty for the sins.”

So all knowing God was unable to foresee the sins of mankind before having created mankind?

I don’t misunderstand Christianity you freak, I am a Christian, I just happen to understand it better than you. Namely because I don’t mistake my hatred for others as an expression of Christian love.

You can’t say God is all powerful and all knowing and perfect and then pretend it was somehow surprised when mankind chose “sin.”

You can’t say God is all love yet created an eternal hell to punish finite and limited sins when the same goal (whatever it may be) could have been JUST AS EASILY accomplished with perfectly just consequences, as opposed to the unjust consequences of eternal punishment.

It’s a conundrum, admit that you don’t understand it.

I’ll tell you this much you sanctimonious little brat – and yes I am angry – any atheist who practices loving their neighbor as themselves is more of a Christian than any Christian like you or you friends who promote genocide, the protection of child rapists, and the arbitrary singling out of same gender love to the exclusion of all other “sins.”

It’s pretty clear, your witness of Christianity, and those of your ilk, is the desire to ENSURE the eternal damnation of gay persons like myself.

If you really believed in an eternal hell, you’d be doing everything you can to witness to those who are in imminent danger of dying without salvation. But we see what’s REALLY important to you and those like you.

What is even sicker than sick, is your idea that somehow, no matter how many souls you are directly responsible for causing the eternal damnation of, you’re under the impression that somehow God Himself cannot even touch you because you’re “saved,” and that you will experience no consequences what so ever for this result.

That’s what your philosophy comes down to, it’s a truly “anything goes” mentality.

That, ultimately, is your “Christian” witness.

January 07, 2008 10:48 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"I don’t misunderstand Christianity you freak, I am a Christian, I just happen to understand it better than you."

Well, could you give a brief definition of what a Christian is?

"I’ll tell you this much you sanctimonious little brat – and yes I am angry – any atheist who practices loving their neighbor as themselves is more of a Christian than any Christian like you or you friends who promote genocide, the protection of child rapists, and the arbitrary singling out of same gender love to the exclusion of all other “sins.”"

Improv, I've never promoted genocide of any group, protection of child rapists from prosecution or an emphasis of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins. Most of this conversation is taking place within your mind.

January 08, 2008 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"Improv, I've never promoted genocide of any group, protection of child rapists from prosecution or an emphasis of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins.

Most of this conversation is taking place within your mind."


the red baron said...
"The pope ushered in the New Year with a bang by tackling the subject of traditional marriage and family. Pope Benedict's World Day of Peace message resonated with everyone.

"The natural family, founded on marriage between a man and a woman, is the cradle of life and love and the first and indispensable teacher of peace," he said.

He called the natural family a “foundation for society,” an “intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage" and condemned attempts to undermine its value.

Kiera McCaffrey, communications director for the Catholic League said “Nobody wants to hear messages of restraint," she said. "People want to hear these sort of complete libertine ideas of 'Do whatever you want.'

“The pope isn’t going to change his message. Gay people need to hear his message the most.”

The pope’s adherence to the Scriptures irritates gay activists. Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said he wonders whether homosexuals are allowing God to define their sexuality or relying on their homosexuality to define god.

He said: “We have to figure out who's doing what and follow God and His creative intent and be obedient to His word and not listen to someone who picks and chooses what kind of Scriptures make them feel good.”
"

January 07, 2008 12:54 PM"


the red baron said...
"Improv, I've never promoted genocide of any group, protection of child rapists from prosecution or an emphasis of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins. Most of this conversation is taking place within your mind."

Congratulations everyone who just read all that, now it's taking place in your mind too.

Red Baron, you were saying...?

January 08, 2008 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"Well, could you give a brief definition of what a Christian is?"

Sure, but you show me yours first. C'mon, I dare ya.

And I DO dare you. Because my God CAN beat up your God.

January 08, 2008 10:34 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Congratulations everyone who just read all that, now it's taking place in your mind too."

No, it's still in your mind alone. You haven't heard me promote genocide of any group, advocate protecting child rapists from prosecution or an emphasize of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins.

I posted the Pope's New Year's pronouncement not because I'm a Catholic but because some of the lunatic fringe posters here have sometimes, for whatever reason, tried to push the idea that the Roman church has a view of homosexuality that is closer to their view than that of evangelicalism.

Truth is, most societies throughout history and in the world today, regardless of their religious beliefs, have considered homosexuality immoral. Christians, by contrast to most other people who believe this, would tend to deal with this by way of moral suasion and argumentation. Brutal force would tend to be applied by non-Judeo-Christian religionists or secular objectors. A mosque in Medina or a bar in Marfa, Texas is where a gay might feel in physical danger not an evangelical church.

January 08, 2008 11:04 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Sure, but you show me yours first. C'mon, I dare ya."

I don't have my own definition. I go with the English language. here's Webster on it:

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

"And I DO dare you. Because my God CAN beat up your God."

And can you tell us who your "God" is?

January 08, 2008 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
Emproph: "Congratulations everyone who just read all that, now it's taking place in your mind too."

Red Baron: "No, it's still in your mind alone."
__

I apologize everyone, I was wrong. Apparently it's NOT in your mind too and is "still in my mind alone."

January 08, 2008 11:20 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"I apologize everyone, I was wrong. Apparently it's NOT in your mind too and is "still in my mind alone."

Actually, you're just a flat out liar. You haven't heard me promote genocide of any group, advocate protecting child rapists from prosecution or an emphasize of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins.

January 08, 2008 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
Emproph: "I apologize everyone, I was wrong. Apparently it's NOT in your mind too and is "still in my mind alone."

Red Baron: "Actually, you're just a flat out liar."


I apologize everyone, again, I apparently forgot to mention that I'm also "just a flat out liar."

January 08, 2008 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"You haven't heard me promote genocide of any group, advocate protecting child rapists from prosecution or an emphasize of homosexuality to the exclusion of other sins."

You promote Focus on the Family via Citizenlink, and by default – with that last article – Exodus International. Both of which endorse and promote Genocide via their use of Leviticus 20:13, and they do so without qualifying that the murder, execution, genocide portion of the Scripture is wrong, bad and evil!

By promoting them, you promote that.

In that same article you promoted the use of the Pope and Catholic Church as a moral authority, and by default, endorsed the protection of child rapists.

And if you weren’t emphasizing the “sin” of homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins, you wouldn’t be hanging out on this blog. Who do you think you're kidding?

At least give me something to work with here Red Baron.

January 08, 2008 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
Emproph "Sure, but you show me yours first. C'mon, I dare ya."

Red Baron: I don't have my own definition. I go with the English language. here's Webster on it:

Webster: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Emproph: "And I DO dare you. Because my God CAN beat up your God."

Red Baron: And can you tell us who your "God" is?
__

Yes, my God created Webster, who created the definition of your God.

January 08, 2008 12:15 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Next time these guys start giving me a bunch of crap about how gayness is not a lifestyle, please explain to them how it is a seperate culture."

In the same way that being black is not a lifestyle, but is a seperate culture - duh!


Red Baron said "Christianity holds that all have sinned so everyone deserves death. Rather than genocide, what is called for, by justice, is species-cide."

Thus the evil of Christianity. Christianity holds that innocent babies who have done nothing are deserving of death and eternal torture because, get this, they've inherited the sin of an ancient ancestor - that's babbling frothing at the mouth crazy...and unbelievably immoral. The punishment should fit the crime and death is most certainly not a fitting punishment for the (imagined) crime of simply existing or believing differently - there is no such thing as a thought crime.

Red Baron sadi "Finally, it holds that God had compassion for mankind and arranged a substitute to receive the penalty for the sins.".

And again the evil in your bible that you cowardly hide from. Jesus was innocent. Your god punished the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty - that is unbelievably immoral and evil. No right thinking person believes its okay to punish the innocent for the wrongs of others. We know this is wrong because we don't get our morality from the bible.

According to Christianity mankind is behaving exactly as god knew it would when he created it. "god" is responsible for mankind's "sins" and it most certainly is not compassionate to punish people for being who you created them to be.

Red Baron said "Gays have no reason to feel singled out. They have the same opportunity to repent as everyone else.".

Gays have no reason to repent, they haven't done anything wrong. Justice with few exceptions involves penalizing those who harm others. Gays who have harmed no one are unjustly singled out for penalty by evil people like you.

January 08, 2008 1:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "I've never promoted genocide of any group, protection of child rapists from prosecution or an emphasis of gayness to the exclusion of other sins."

You lie. You promote the bible as the source of morality and good behavior and it explicitly calls for the genocide of gays and many other groups. You defend churches who've raped children, and you go on day after day, month after month about nothing other than gayness - you most certainly have obsessed over gayness to the exclusion of sins, to suggest otherwise is laughable.

January 08, 2008 1:39 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Truth is, most societies throughout history and in the world today, regardless of their religious beliefs, have considered gayness immoral.".

False. The vast majority of history is unrecorded - you have no idea what the vast majority of societies have thought of gayness. And in any event just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right. Throughout the vast majority of recorded history most people believed disease was caused by evil spirits and that the earth was flat.

Red Baron said "Christians, by contrast to most other people who believe this, would tend to deal with this by way of moral suasion and argumentation. Brutal force would tend to be applied by non-Judeo-Christian religionists or secular objectors. A mosque in Medina or a bar in Marfa, Texas is where a gay might feel in physical danger not an evangelical church...No one is suggesting making gaiety illegal".

False. Many Christians want to execute gays and this desire extends to some of the most popular and well known Christians. The growing Christian reconstructionist movement believes that the bible must necessarily replace all civil laws and constitutions with the Old and New Testaments, including the revival of the death penalty for gayness, incest, adultery, lying about one’s virginity, and apostasy or public blasphemy, among a much longer list of biblical crimes. Its founder wrote that Democracy is a heresy and “the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”.

Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has close ties with the reconstructionist movement. He held a major fundraising event at the home of Houston multimillionaire Steven Hotze, a well-known Christian Reconstructionist. Pastor Rick Scarborough, who also maintains Reconstructionist beliefs, was there as well. Since then, we’ve learned that Huckabee’s ties go far deeper than mere acquaintances and financial backers. He has a history of working very closely with some very well-known Reconstructionists over the years.

One such prominent figure is George Grant, a well-known Reconstructionist who appeared with Rushdoony in the video, God’s Law and Society. Grant was the co-author for Huckabee’s 1998 book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence. That was the book where Huckabee and Grant lumped homosexuality with pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia. Grant compares homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. He also calls for the death penalty for gays, saying “[t]here is no such option for homosexual offenses” except capital punishment.

Contrary to Red Baron's lies there is a powerful and vocal minority of Christians working to make gayness illegal and bring about the death penalty for gays. This is the "morality" he get's directly from his bible.

January 08, 2008 1:55 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

While Huckabee isn't dumb enough to come out and advocate the death penalty for gays (at this point) its clear from the company he keeps that he's not opposed to the idea. Its also clear that Huckabees desire to attack gays is the reason why he's Red Baron's hero. Red Baron would also like to see gays be put to death but he knows its not socially acceptable (at this time) to say so.

January 08, 2008 2:21 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"I'm not afraid, I'm just not willing to be bored to death by another one of your heros after listening to your hero Mcgrath."

Ah, Randi's back. Randi claims to not want to watch D'Souza demolish Hitchens in a debate because it would be so boring. And yet here on this blog, Randi will spend hours writing and responding to the same topic, enthralled all the while.

Randi is lying. Randi is afraid of losing certainty in a materialist worldview.

Truth is, Randi, most educated philosophers find Hitchens' arguments very weak. He does have a way with book sales though.

Go ahead. Open your mind and listen to the debate.

January 08, 2008 2:36 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, you said the same thing about Mcgrath, and I sat through hours of his verbose nonsense and he had nothing to say. I'm not in a hurray to hear more of the same from one of your other heroes. Contrary to your lie most educated philosophers agree with Hitchens - its well known that the higher one's education level the less likely one is to believe in the cosmic sky daddy.

January 08, 2008 2:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And Red Baron, if you're so certain about your point of view how come you're afraid to explain how punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is a good thing? How come you're afraid to advocate stoning disobedient children to death like your role model Jesus did? Because you know those are evil actions and your "god" character is the most despicable character in all of fiction.

January 08, 2008 2:47 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Contrary to your lie most educated philosophers agree with Hitchens -"

Oh, I didn't say they disagreed with his conclusions just his arguments. A majority may disagree with his conclusions too. I'm not sure about the data on that.

One atheist thinker whose arguments philosophy professors generally were impressed with was Anthony Flew. His books were commonly assigned in university philosophy classes until a few years ago when Flew repudiated atheism and embraced intelligent design.

January 08, 2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Red Baron, you said the same thing about Mcgrath, and I sat through hours of his verbose nonsense and he had nothing to say. I'm not in a hurray to hear more of the same from one of your other heroes."

Come, come now, Randi. I suggested his books countering Dawkins in response to someone saying there is no one who has addressed Dawkins.

You should listen to the D'Souza-Hitchens debate. It's not a monologue and since you apparently only interested in hearing your view reinforced, you can listen to Hitchens, who you seem to adore.

Be courageous. What do you have to lose?

January 08, 2008 4:12 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

As I've previously pointed out. Anthony Flew is aging and his mental faculties deteriorating. He recently admitted not only that he didn't write the book that a bunch of Christianists stuck his name on, he hasn't even read it. When asked about comments in it and conversations he supposedly had he said he doesn't remember anything of the sort. The Christianist authors of "Flew's" book took advantage of an old man in a deteriorating state and took advantage of his desire to be amicable and put words in his mouth.

Frankly, I and I am sure most atheists never heard of Flew until Christinists like the Red Baron took to telling the lie that a "prominant" atheist had "converted" to Christianity. Even despite his being manipulated by dishonest Christians Flew himself still maintains that he doesn't believe in the Christian god, he'll go along with the idea that there is some sort of nebulous deity, but still absolutely rejects the "god" of the Christian bible.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1831,The-Turning-of-an-Atheist,Mark-Oppenheimer-NYTimescom

Red Baron, its apparent from your lies about Flew and your worship of the nonsensical Mcgrath that you're similarly lying about D'souza. Hitchens is at #1 on the New York Times best seller list and has received a National Book Award nomination. D'souza in contrast is a nobody that can't remotely match the accolades Hitchens has received.

What's hilarious is that you keep running and hiding from the posts I've made continuously trying to change the subject by repeating the lies about Flew and making unsupported statments about what a great debater D'souza is. You go on and on about how smart D'souza is supposed to be yet you don't have a single example of it - because you're full of it.

It's obvious you've got no response to the points I've made and the 871 examples of evil in your bible I gave you (big surprise there, ha!) as I've intellectually wiped the floor with you again and again.

One point I've frequently heard Hitchens make is the evil apparent in the foundation of Christianity - the idea that an innocent Jesus can take responsibility for everyone else's wrongs. We all know instinctively that its wrong to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty and that no one can take responsibility for the wrongs committed by others, yet this is the very (insane) foundation of Christianity. You laughably claim that D'souza outdebated Hitchens yet he's given you no defense for the evil at the heart of your religion. You've run in terror from that point over and over and over...you can't defend the indefensible - your bible.

January 08, 2008 4:29 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Red Baron, its apparent from your lies about Flew"

No one has lied about him other than you. I don't know if someone said he wrote a book when he didn't but what is clear and he has made it clear over the last few years that he rejects atheism and does so because he agrees with the arguments of intelligent design proponents.

I remember when this first starting coming that the president of American Atheists said that he doesn't believe it and that if it were true, it would be a tremendous blow to the cause of atheism. Flew developed much of the argumentation that is commonly used by modern atheists. He still agrees with the idea that one should not believe in God without evidence but now believes sufficient evidence exists. The fact you hadn't of him, Randi, despite your plagiarism of his ideas, like the "No such scotsman" fallacy just shows that you aren't well informed or educated.

"and your worship of the nonsensical Mcgrath"

I don't worship any writer. I've read his books and think they are solid refutation of Dawkins. If you disagree, let's here on what point.

"that you're similarly lying about D'souza. Hitchens is at #1 on the New York Times best seller list and has received a National Book Award nomination. D'souza in contrast is a nobody that can't remotely match the accolades Hitchens has received."

And what would my lie about D'Souza be? He has written best-selling books, is a fellow of the Hoover Institute and has been the editor of several political journals. Indeed, his career is similar to Hitchens except that D'Souza also served as a policy advisor in the White House during the eighties and Hitchens used to be in the leadership of a Trotskyite group in Britian.

Oh yeah, and Hitchens drinks enough to numb a mule every day. And D'souza used to date Ann Coulter.

January 08, 2008 5:22 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "No one has lied about [Flew] other than you.".

Its obvious from this article that you have lied about him.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1831,The-Turning-of-an-Atheist,Mark-Oppenheimer-NYTimescom

Its obvious from the interview with Flew that he is no longer in complete control of his faculties and that he has been manipulated into putting his name on a book written by lying Christianists. He doesn't even remember conversations attributed to him by those liars or arguments those liars claim he made.

Red Baron said "I remember when this first starting coming that the president of American Atheists said that he doesn't believe it and that if it were true, it would be a tremendous blow to the cause of atheism.".

BS, you lie and once again (surprise surprise) you've got nothing to back up your lie. Fact is Flew is a nobody and that's why I haven't heard of him until you started lying in your desperation to claim an atheist for one of your own, just as you lied about Dawkins supposedly renouncing his criticism of religion.

Red Baron said "I don't worship any writer. I've read his books and think they are solid refutation of Dawkins. If you disagree, let's here on what point.".

Oh BS, you worship Mcgrath and his idiocy. I gave you 871 examples of your "god's" evil upon which I disagree with Mcgrath - you ran in terror from the evil that's in you bible. For the dozenth time, if you're serious, let's hear you say that you think its good and right to punish the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty and that disobedient children should be stoned to death as your "lord" and "savior" commanded - let's hear what kind of psychopath you learned to be from your bible.

Red Baron said "And what would my lie about D'Souza be...his career is similar to Hitchens[?]"

LOL, Hitchens is #1 on the NYT best seller list - D'souza can't even begin to compare, a fact that is all the more telling given that Hitchens has achieved his success despite having perhaps 20% of the U.S. population that agrees with him versus the 75% of the U.S. population that agrees with D'souza. Based on that alone D'souza should have 4 times as many book sales as Hitchens given equal quality - obviously the quality of D'souza's arguments isn't remotely comparable to Hitchen's despite your lies to the contrary.

Once again Hitchens makes the point that evil apparent is foundation of Christianity - the idea that an innocent Jesus can take responsibility for everyone else's wrongs. We all know instinctively that its wrong to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty and that no one can take responsibility for the wrongs committed by others, yet this is the very (insane) foundation of Christianity.

If you learned so much from your heroes D'souza, Mcgrath, and the manipulated senile Flew why are you hiding from this point for the dozenth or so time? If you can address the evil at the heart of your religion why do you keep changing the subject by making empty assertions about how smart these guys are when they've given you nothing to counter but one of Hitchen's (and my) points?

January 08, 2008 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In this thread RB has continually commented that listening to the D'Souza-Hitchens debate would unquestionably show how much more logical and reasoned D'Souza's arguments were compared to Hitchens. In fact, RB dares Randi to listen to the debate - I assume in an effort to distract from the questions Randi and Emproph have asked that he has not responded to.

Well, last night I listed to the entire 1 hour and 30+ minute debate. Having read this blog for a number of years and never commenting in the past I felt compelled to comment. RB would have the readers of this thread believe that D'Souza trounced Hitchens in both reason and rationale throughout the debate.

Unfortunately for RB that could not be further from the truth. Both debaters bring different styles to the debate. D'Souza talks faster, quicker, and with more style than Hitchens. However, his arguments were much weaker than Hitchens. Hitches tends to speak slower and go off topic more but has a much superior reasoned, well thought out argument than D'Souza. D'Souza makes many unsupported conclusions that Hitchens could counter if he were more focused. One (but not the only) example involved D'Souza's allegation that the reason slavery was no longer being practiced in the US was due to the Christian influence. Hitchens could have easily used numerous biblical passages in both the old and new testaments supporting a biblical call for slavery. He could have used the Baptist position paper from the early 1838to show the Christian perspective on slavery:

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm

In short D'Souza's arguments across the board were exceedingly weak. Hitchens debunked many of them but his debating style causes him to lose focus as he debates.

To say that D'Souza won the debate is unquestionable incorrect. Sorry Baron.

Jayson

January 08, 2008 7:28 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Hi Jayson. Nice to hear from you. Thanks for listening to the debate. Reading your comments you sound like you think Hitchens lost even though you have suggestions how he might have won. I think Hitchens' loss of focus is probably due to his 24/7 inebriation.

The Christian influence indeed was the catalyst for ending slavery. I don't know what verses you're are referring to but I think you misunderstand them. Put them up and we can discuss.

As for the position paper, you should understand that since Christianity was widely considered truth at the time, anyone who wanted to argue any position would have to try to argue from scripture. Try and you will find position papers arguing for an end to slavery. D'Souza's point was that slavery existed in every society but its end came from societies with a Judeo-Christian heritage. It's the way it could have happened.

January 08, 2008 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The Christian influence indeed was the catalyst for ending slavery. I don't know what verses you're are referring to but I think you misunderstand them. Put them up and we can discuss.

For someone who professes familiarity with Christianity and Scripture, you sure have some gaps in your knowledge of the latter. You claim to be unfamiliar with numerous biblical passages in both the old and new testaments supporting a biblical call for slavery.

Slavery in the Bible: Passages from the Christian Scriptures

Old Testament

Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

New Testament

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

January 09, 2008 7:55 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"LOL, Hitchens is #1 on the NYT best seller list - D'souza can't even begin to compare"

You may remember yesterday when Randi claimed D'Souza can't compare to Hitchens because Hitchens was on the NYT best seller list. It's a stupid way to measure worth but that's how Randi thinks.

Unfortunately for Randi, however, these lists are on the internet. I checked and Hitchens' latest book was last on the best seller list on 9-30-7 while D'Souza latest book was last on the best seller list on 11-18-7. So D'Souza was actually on the NYT best seller list more recently than Hitchens. Michael Schermer, editor of the atheist magazine, Skeptic, says of D'Souza's new book that atheist thinkers who don't read it do so "at their own peril" because D'Souza has taken the conversation to a "new level."

BTW, an interesting bit of trivia: on the last week Hitchens book appeared on the NYT best seller list, the #1 book that week was written by Laura Ingraham, D'Souza's fiancee. Small world.

January 09, 2008 10:01 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Anon-B

The Bible tells Christians who are slaves to obtain their freedom if they can but not to worry about it if they can't. The Bible isn't a political manifesto and never encourages the violent overthrow of political and economic systems. It counsels people how to live within those systems. It's one of the reasons it is universally relevant.

If a society has this system, it tells masters to treat their slaves with respect. Indeed, in the early church, there were slaves that had leadership roles over masters.

To further illustrate, Jesus was a non-resister. Although encouraged by others to lead a revolution, he never did so but taught how to serve God within the system that exists. This doesn't mean the Bible supported the Roman occupation any more than it supports slavery. It simply teaches that an abundant spirirtual life is available regardless of one's circumstances.

And, AB, you know fully well that the anti-slavery movement began in Christian churches and not at all in countries without a Judeo-Christian heritage. Check out the film from last year, "Amazing Grace", dramatizing the struggle of Wilburforce of England to end slavery. Completely motivated by his Christian faith.

January 09, 2008 10:23 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 09, 2008 12:17 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "The Bible isn't a political manifesto and never encourages the violent overthrow of political and economic systems.".

What a hilarious lie! The bible encourages violent overthrow of political and economic systems again and again and again.

But a few such examples that you ignored like the intellecutal coward you are:

Exodus

23. God will make sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies. 7:4

31. God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

33.After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." Finally, he runs out of little babies to kill, so he slaughters the firstborn cattle, too. 12:29

Leviticus

162 God hardened the heart of the king of Heshbon and so that he could have him and all of his people killed. 2:30

163 At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain." 2:33-36

164 The Israelites, with God's help, kill all the men, women, and children of every city. 3:3-6

170 God instructs the Israelites to kill, without mercy, all the inhabitants (strangers) of the land that they conquer. 7:2

178 Kill those of other faiths. 12:30

180 If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." 13:6-10

182 Kill everyone who has religious beliefs that are different from your own. 17:2-7

Joshua

243 "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly." Notice that God hardens their hearts so that he can have an excuse to kill them. 11:20

1 Samuel

294 Under God's influence, the Philistines killed each other. 14:20

296 God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3


1 Chronicles

410 God kills 70,000 men because David had a census. 21:7


Jeremiah

551 God delivered his people "into the hand of her enemies." He "hates" his "dearly beloved" people and plans to feed them to the birds. 12:7-9

563 God will kill children if their parents worship other gods. 16:10-11

579 God will destroy "the peaceable habitations" and make the land desolate "because of his fierce anger." 25:37-38

Ezekiel

630 God will burn the inhabitants of Jerusalem to show everyone that he is the Lord. 15:6-7



The bible has no problem at all with the violent overthrow of political and economic systems, it just happens that an evil one like slavery is not one of those systems the bible advocates overthrowing. Its okay to kill the innocent, but wouldn't want to stop slavery - that'd be bad.

Red Baron said "Jesus was a non-resister. Although encouraged by others to lead a revolution, he never did so but taught how to serve God within the system that exists.".

LOL, I guess that's why he upset the tables of the money changers in the temple. Or why in the parable of the talents the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:22-27.
Given that you love the example of Jesus so much why have you consistently failed to praise him for advocating stoning to death of disobedient children? Don't you think that Jesus gives you your morality? Come on Red Baron, let's hear you say its good and right to punish the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty just like your bible says.

Red Baron said "And, AB, you know fully well that the anti-slavery movement began in Christian churches and not at all in countries without a Judeo-Christian heritage.".

Non sequitor. By the same logic the anti-slavery movement began in countries with the least religious influence. There's more reason to believe that's the impetus for the end of slavery than your lies about Christianity. As aunt Bea pointed out Christians were at the forefront of defending slavery. Yes there were those in churches opposing it but they fought against Christians armed with a bible that justifies, sanctions, and advocates slavery. Those in the churches that opposed it were behaving in a decidedly un-christian like manner - as you said your self, the bible doesn't advocate overturning the institution of slavery. An analogous situation today is Christians stand on gayness. The majority of Christians attack gays using their bible a justification while some Christians in a decidedly unchristian manner support justice and equality for gays. Once the tide of justice inevitably swings towards fairness for gays, just as it abolished slavery, there'll be liars like you trying to take undeserved credit by disingenously claiming that it was all due to Christianity that oppression of gays was ended. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

January 09, 2008 12:21 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"The bible has no problem at all with the violent overthrow of political and economic systems,"

That's true. What I meant was that it doesn't support Christians doing it. God will definitely one day overthrow all evil in the world in a very violent way. Count on it.

"Red Baron said "Jesus was a non-resister. Although encouraged by others to lead a revolution, he never did so but taught how to serve God within the system that exists.".

LOL, I guess that's why he upset the tables of the money changers in the temple."

That was in the temple. I was talking about the systems of political governance and the secular economy. Jesus definitely exerted his authority within the religious community.

"Or why in the parable of the talents the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:22-27."

You apparently don't understand literary devices. This was a parable. Jesus also said he will return "like a thief in the night."
It doesn't mean he supports burgulary.

"Given that you love the example of Jesus so much why have you consistently failed to praise him for advocating stoning to death of disobedient children?"

Because I prefer that you keep repeating that foolish nonsense in every comment, and, thus, make yourself look quite insane.

"Red Baron said "And, AB, you know fully well that the anti-slavery movement began in Christian churches and not at all in countries without a Judeo-Christian heritage.".

Non sequitor. By the same logic the anti-slavery movement began in countries with the least religious influence."

In this country, the movement began after the revivals of the nineteenth century, hardly a time of little religious influence. It started in churches with people who had become serious about doing God's will. You might try doing a little reading about that period of history.

"There's more reason to believe that's the impetus for the end of slavery than your lies about Christianity."

Really? Could you explain more? Because most historians would disagree with you.

"As aunt Bea pointed out Christians were at the forefront of defending slavery. Yes there were those in churches opposing it but they fought against Christians armed with a bible that justifies, sanctions, and advocates slavery."

Everyone was a Christian, at least they all claimed to be, so there would Christians in name on both sides. Those opposing slavery were just as armed with scripture and used it. As for pro-slavery forces, there will always be those who twist scripture. Satan did it in the garden of Eden when talking to Eve. Satan did it in the desert when trying to tempt Jesus. Pro-slavery forces did it in the 19th century. Liberal churches do it today when they push the gay agenda. The fact that virtually everyone tries to justify themself using scripture is but another indication that everyone recognizes that scripture is true.

"Those in the churches that opposed it were behaving in a decidedly un-christian like manner - as you said your self, the bible doesn't advocate overturning the institution of slavery."

I didn't say the Bible opposes overturning slavery. I said it doesn't advocate violent action, on the part of men, to accomplish it. Democracy is actually part of our system. Advocating the end of legal slavery by moral suasion and argumentation is perfectly acceptable.

"An analogous situation today is Christians stand on gayness. The majority of Christians attack gays using their bible a justification while some Christians in a decidedly unchristian manner support justice and equality for gays. Once the tide of justice inevitably swings towards fairness for gays, just as it abolished slavery, there'll be liars like you trying to take undeserved credit by disingenously claiming that it was all due to Christianity that oppression of gays was ended. Your hypocrisy is astounding."

This is twisted logic and requires no response. It impeaches itself.

Worth noting though is that tolerance of gays really only happens in countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage. Don't believe it? Try moving to Tehran.

January 09, 2008 2:37 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "The bible has no problem at all with the violent overthrow of political and economic systems,"

Red Baron said "That's true. What I meant was that it doesn't support Christians doing it.".

LOL - that's crazy. Your god commands Christians to violently overthrow political and economic systems over and over, by example, and by direct command - take a look at the 871 examples of evil noted here:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

I only focused on those committed by your sadistic "god", this link contains dozens, if not hundreds of examples of your god ordering his followers to violently overthrow political and economic systems.

I said "LOL, I guess that's why he upset the tables of the money changers in the temple."

Red Baron replied "That was in the temple. I was talking about the systems of political governance and the secular economy. Jesus definitely exerted his authority within the religious community.".

LOL, the system of political governance and the economy was run by the religious community - there was no secular control in these times - these were theocracies that your bible encouraged the violent overthrowing of.

I said "Or why in the parable of the talents the parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:22-27."

Red Baron said "You apparently don't understand literary devices. This was a parable. Jesus also said he will return "like a thief in the night."
It doesn't mean he supports burgulary.".

It means he's like a thief. And in the parable in Luke Jesus is refering to himself - he wants those who refuse to have him reign over them slain. Jesus commands Christians to violently overthrow political and economic systems.

I said "Given that you love the example of Jesus so much why have you consistently failed to praise him for advocating stoning to death of disobedient children?"

Red Baron said "Because I prefer that you keep repeating that foolish nonsense in every comment, and, thus, make yourself look quite insane.".

That foolish nonsense comes from your bible and your example of Jesus. I disagree with it, its you that said your moral example is Jesus - if you think Jesus spoke foolish nonsense (and no doubt in this case you do) have the courage to come out and say so. Otherwise it is you who's demonstrated insanity. You can't have it both ways, you can't say Jesus is the example of perfect good behavior and also say that his advocating stoning disobedient children to death was nonsense. Which is it Red Baron, do you agree with your Jesus or not?

Red Baron said "In this country, the movement [to abolish slavery] began after the revivals of the nineteenth century, hardly a time of little religious influence. It started in churches with people who had become serious about doing God's will.".

As you said yourself, it was not god's will to overturn slavery. Jesus never opposed slavery, Paul supported it, the bible supported it. Christians who opposed slavery did so despite their Christianity, not because of it. The reason the were able to do so is because of the enlightenment Christianity had less control over Christians than Islam had over Muslims. Its precisely because Christianity was less of a dominating force that a minority of Christians were able to ignore their bible and what the Christian orthodoxy was teaching and oppose slavery.

Red Baron said "You might try doing a little reading about that period of history.".

Oh you mean like the baptist postion paper Aunt bea provided showing how the leading Christians promoted, supported, and justified slavery?! You're willfully blind to the evil of your religon. Your pathetic attempts to hide from Jesus's advocating stoning disobedient children to death is proof of that.

Red Baron said "Those opposing slavery were just as armed with scripture and used it.".

B.S. Aunt Bea posted roughly 22 biblical passages supporting slavery. There are none opposing it. Jesus never condemned slavery. Your denial of reality is sad and pathetic. You'll do anything to call evil good and good evil - in reality you're ashamed of your bible that's why you consistently lie about what's in it.

Red Baron said "there will always be those who twist scripture...Liberal churches do it today when they push the gay agenda.".

And people like you do it when you lie and claim there is biblical support for opposing slavery - no where is slavery explicitely condemned in the bible. Quite the opposite, the bible expresses total support and acquiesence to slavery. Christians advocating for the end of gay oppression are no differnt than the Christians who opposed slavery that you praise.

Red Baron said "I didn't say the Bible opposes overturning slavery....Democracy is actually part of our system. Advocating the end of legal slavery by moral suasion and argumentation is perfectly acceptable.".

No where in your bible does it advocate using moral suasion or argumentation to end slavery - your bible does not advocate ending slavery by any means - violent or nonviolent, it sanctions slavery. And no where in your bible is the word democracy mentioned. Democracy is not a part of your bible, theocracy is. You are ashamed of the evil that is contained in your bible and that is why you are a chronic liar about what it says.

Your god brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Acknowledge and repudiate the evil of your god or fail to do so and demonstrate your own evil insanity.

January 09, 2008 3:48 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Worth noting though is that tolerance of gays really only happens in countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage. Don't believe it? Try moving to Tehran.".

Tolerance of gays only happens in countries where religion has lost much of its clout - that's Christian countries because the authority of Christianity took a beating due to the enlightenment. Your bible explicitely calls for gays to be put to death and many Christians want to see this happen (Huckabee and his supporters). Its only because people have thrown off the dictatorial control of Christianity that gays are relatively safe. If Christianity had total control as Islam does gays most certainly would be put to death. It is the growing weakness of Christianity that saves gays, most certainly no the Christianity who's bible calls for the death of gays.

January 09, 2008 3:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home