Monday, January 14, 2008

The People Are Starting to Worry

A new survey reported at CBS yesterday shows that Americans are not all that excited about the way things are going, you might say.
(CBS) Assessments of the current state of the nation are grim as Americans have begun to choose who will vie to be the country’s next president. 75% of Americans think the country is off on the wrong track - matching the highest number ever recorded in the CBS News/New York Times Poll - and approval of President Bush remains low.

Concern about the direction of the country is accompanied by growing alarm about the condition of the economy - now the country’s most important problem. Perceptions of the condition of the national economy continue to drop, and most Americans think the worst is yet to come.

Three in four Americans think the country is off on the wrong track, matching the highest number recorded in the twenty-five years since CBS News began asking the question. Only 19% say it is headed in the right direction, matching the all-time low reached last June.

Worries about the direction of the country coincide with a low job approval rating for the president. 29% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president. Approval has hovered around 30% for the past year. Poll: Americans Think U.S. On Wrong Track

I understand that not all of this concern means that people agree with me. Somebody who thinks America is becoming too tolerant of differences on sex and gender dimensions, for instance, might vote with me, saying that the country's going to hell in a handbasket. Those who think we don't torture nearly enough and need to take away more of citizens' Constitutional rights, those who think we need to invade more random Middle Eastern countries, those who think the rich aren't rich enough and there aren't enough poor people, will be included in these pessimistic numbers. But I think the Bush approval rating indicates that it's not that.

Another tidbit or two...
For the first time in over two years the economy and jobs is the most important problem facing the country today - edging out the war in Iraq. 23% name it - up eleven points in just one month.

61% say the condition of the economy is bad - including nearly one in five that say it is in very bad shape. 38% describe the economy as good - though only 3% say it is very good. In January 2007 a majority of Americans said the economy was at least in fairly good condition.

Pessimism about the economy’s future is on the rise. 62%, the highest percentage since 1990, think the economy is getting worse, not better.
...

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the war in Iraq is going badly - including 30% who say it is going very badly - while another 38% say it is going at least somewhat well. These numbers have changed little since last month, though they are an improvement from a year ago.

Meanwhile, public opinion on the effectiveness of the troop surge that began last spring continues to improve. 40% now say it has made the situation better there, a number that has increased steadily since July.

Looking to the future of U.S. troop commitment in Iraq, half of all Americans want most U.S. troops out of Iraq within the next year, and only about one in five is willing to see large numbers of American troops remain in Iraq for longer than two years.

Looking back, 58% of Americans believe the U.S. made the wrong decision going to war in Iraq.

The question then is how to turn all this around. Of course there is an election this year, but can people hold their heads up high enough to see what's going on? Can they stand tall enough to pull the country up? Of course watching these catastrophic years makes a cynic out of a guy, but I retain quite a lot of hope, actually, that people will come to their senses.

78 Comments:

Anonymous ftb said...

One thing that is rarely mentioned when these polls come out about how horrible everything is:

When asked how things are going in their personal lives, the majority of Americans say "Great, thanks!"

January 14, 2008 7:48 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

FTB, classic research in social psychology demonstrates that people anchor their judgments to a standard. Bag ladies and millionaires report about the same levels of life satisfaction, and always have.

JimK

January 14, 2008 9:07 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

The most damanging legacy of George Bush is his doubling of the U.S. national debt in the last 7 years. The party that was supposed to stand for fiscal conservatism has gone on a spending spree while trying to distract the public from their mismanagement with attacks on gays. It may take decades to undo the damage resulting from the Bush administration.

January 14, 2008 1:04 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

When did George Bush ever attack gays?

January 14, 2008 1:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

When he and the Republicans promoted a constitutional amendment to try to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most. When his party attacked the bill to protect gays from discrimination, when his party attacked the bill to protect gays from hate crimes, when he and his party attacked the righteous decisions of some states to grant gays and lesbians marriage and civil unions, when his party opposed anti-bullying programs and gay support groups in schools around the nation.

Red Baron, you haven't addressed the rebuttels to your foolishness on the Hillary and Obama thread or the "crw gathering signatures" thread. Are you too much of a coward to admit when you're wrong and do the right thing?

January 14, 2008 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

I agree, Randi. I am waiting for his/her response as well.

It's finals week in Montgomery County and I have a lot of them to grade... but I am sure I will finish grading all of them (and it is not a small task!) before we see a response that's worth anything from Red Baron

January 14, 2008 1:57 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"When he and the Republicans promoted a constitutional amendment to try to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most."

So, if you don't think the definition of marriage should be expanded, you're attacking someone? I don't think sisters and brothers should marry each other. Am I attacking families by taking this position?


"When his party attacked the bill to protect gays from discrimination,"

People can discriminate against me for my idiosyncrasies. Why shouldn't they be able to discriminate against gays for theirs? Why can't people have dealings with who they want? If you don't want to hang out with someone, that's an attack?

"when his party attacked the bill to protect gays from hate crimes,"

If you commit a criminal offense against someone, it's already a crime. To give special protection to some groups by increasing penalties for crimes against them is unfair. Opposing unfair treatment is not an attack.

Let's see on example where George Bush has made any attack at all on gay people. While not endorsing their agenda, I think he's always resisted the temptation to use the public dislike for homosexuality against them for political purposes.

"Red Baron, you haven't addressed the rebuttels to your foolishness on the Hillary and Obama thread or the "crw gathering signatures" thread. Are you too much of a coward to admit when you're wrong and do the right thing?"

I remember a bunch of foolishness from your side last week with hundreds of lines that couldn't possibly be addressed in a reasonable time. I also remember someone on your side lying and saying Focus on the Family advocated genocide and refusing to back it up with even one example or, alternatively, to apologize for the slander.

Anyway, stick to one point at a time and I'll considering giving a response if I feel the question is asked in good faith. Otherwise, I may, as the whim hits me, completely ignore you.

I may be feelin' that way without warning.

BTW, where do you teach, TM?

January 14, 2008 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

BTW- What's your name, Red Baron?

January 14, 2008 4:17 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

I'm taking advantage of the TTF anonymity option, TM.

BTW, Randi appears non-responsive. Does anyone else know what Randi is looking for a response to?

Randi said something about a rebuttal but since Randi doesn't know how to spell it, maybe Randi doesn't know what it means either. You know Canadians. They have their own special type of English.

January 14, 2008 4:24 PM  
Anonymous MCPSmom2 said...

And you, Red Baron, have your own little special type of glass box world in which you live.

You should come out and get a taste of reality sometime, it may serve you well.

January 14, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Go ahead, Mom.

Tell me something real.

Surprise me.

January 14, 2008 4:52 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "So, if you don't think the definition of marriage should be expanded, you're attacking someone?".

If someone tried to tell you you couldn't marry the one person you love most you'd most definitely consider it an attack - don't be absurd.

Red Baron said "I don't think sisters and brothers should marry each other.".

Lesbians and gays aren't asking to marry their brothers or sisters, just the non-relative they love most.

Red Baron said "People can discriminate against me for my idiosyncrasies. Why shouldn't they be able to discriminate against gays for theirs?."

You can discriminate against gays for the same idiosyncrasies that people discriminate against you for. People can't discriminate against you because of your race or religion, by the same token you shouldn't be able to discriminate against gays simply because they are gay. You never wail about how unfair it is people can't discriminate against Christians or blacks or whites, you only hate anti-discrimination laws when they protect someone other than yourself.

Red Baron said "Why can't people have dealings with who they want?". They can in private dealings. Not so when it comes to public dealings, because everyone deserves equal access to social institutions.

Red baron said "If you don't want to hang out with someone, that's an attack?".

No one's forcing you to hang out with gays. If you want to profit from society by running a business, then society rightly demands that in return you serve all citizens unless you've got damn good reason not to. And just like one's race or religion, one's sexual orientation is not a good reason not to serve someone.

Red Baron said "If you commit a criminal offense against someone, it's already a crime. To give special protection to some groups by increasing penalties for crimes against them is unfair. Opposing unfair treatment is not an attack.".

No one's talking about giving special protection to gays. We're talking about giving gays the same protection that Christians, blacks, and whites have. Its unfair not to give gays the same protection you have - you're opposing fair treatment, not unfair treatment. You've never stood up and protested hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws that protect Christians.

Red Baron said "Let's see on example where George Bush has made any attack at all on gay people. While not endorsing their agenda, I think he's always resisted the temptation to use the public dislike for gayness against them for political purposes.".

Bush attacked gay people by promoting a constitutional amendment try to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most. When his party attacked the bill to protect gays from discrimination, when his party attacked the bill to protect gays from hate crimes, when he and his party attacked the righteous decisions of some states to grant gays and lesbians marriage and civil unions, when his party opposed anti-bullying programs and gay support groups in schools around the nation. In every one of those instances he used religious hatred of gays for political purposes - to get votes.

Red Baron said "I remember a bunch of foolishness from your side last week with hundreds of lines that couldn't possibly be addressed in a reasonable time.".

That "foolishness" was verbatim words from your bible.

Red Baron said "stick to one point at a time and I'll considering giving a response if I feel the question is asked in good faith.".

Oooo, how honoured we are to have you consider letting us question your BS. Here's one point for you, in your bible your god punishes the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty, if you get your concept of right and wrong from the bible, why are you having so much trouble acknowledging your god's actions and praising them?

Red Baron said "I also remember someone on your side lying and saying Focus on the Family advocated genocide and refusing to back it up with even one example or, alternatively, to apologize for the slander.".

Emproph gave you the quote from Leviticus where your bible commands you to put gays to death. As he said, "Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?"

Red Baron said "Randi appears non-responsive. Does anyone else know what Randi is looking for a response to?".

You're pretty stupid, but not that stupid. How about you respond to the posts I made after your last posts on the "hillary and Obama", "Wide Stance", "CRW gathering signatures" threads. You're too much of an intellecutal coward to respon. Save the pathetic "I don't know what you're talking about" response for your anti-gay religionist friends.

January 14, 2008 6:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Once again demonstrating the absurdity if the "its a choice" theory, sociologists at Minot State University in North Dakota identified a correlation between sexual orientation and both blood type and Rh factor.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18074215

The findings suggest that a connection may exist between sexual orientation and genes both on chromosome 9 (where blood type is determined) and on chromosome 1 (where the Rh factor is regulated).

January 14, 2008 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Interesting. I'm A, which is more likely among straight men, and Rh-, which was much more likely among gay and lesbian people.

Red Baron, will you at least share your blood type (and sexual orientation and Gender identity/expression) with us?

Robert

January 15, 2008 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

red baron, it's been four posts now, shouldn't you be promoting the imprisonment and genocide of gay Americans by now?

Just a question.

January 15, 2008 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

And by the way, where the heck is Theresa these days?

Am I the only one who misses hearing the provocative ring of terms such as "male equipment" and "expose themselves?"

I guess I'm just not feeling unnecessarily afraid enough lately...

January 15, 2008 12:48 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Today's New York Times brings news of a another present to America from the gay community which, it is becoming increasingly apparent, is an incubator of new and deadly diseases because of widespread, uncontrollable, random promiscuity. As America slowly starts to embrace the homosexual lifestyle as normal, who knows what it will eventually cost our country. Perhaps this will cause an election year backlash.:

"New Bacteria Strain Is Striking Gay Men

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: January 15, 2008

A new, highly drug-resistant strain of the “flesh-eating” MRSA bacteria is being spread among gay men in San Francisco and Boston, researchers reported on Monday.

In a study published online by the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the bacteria seemed to be spread most easily through anal intercourse but also through casual skin-to-skin contact and touching contaminated surfaces.

The authors warned that unless microbiology laboratories were able to identify the strain and doctors prescribed the proper antibiotic therapy, THE INFECTION COULD SOON SPREAD AMONG OTHER GROUPS AND BECOME A WIDER THREAT.

The new strain seems to have “spread rapidly” in gay populations in San Francisco and Boston, the researchers wrote, and “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.

The study was based on a review of medical records from outpatient clinics in San Francisco and Boston and nine medical centers in San Francisco.

The Castro district in San Francisco has the highest number of gay residents in the country, according to the University of California, San Francisco. One in 588 residents is infected with the new multidrug-resistant MRSA strain, the study found. That compares with 1 in 3,800 people in San Francisco, according to statistical analyses based on ZIP codes.

A separate part of the study found that gay men in San Francisco were about 13 times more likely to be infected than other people in the city."

Aren't San Francisco and Boston the two places in America that have conducted "wedding ceremonies" gays?

Coincidence?

January 15, 2008 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Big Joe said...

hey, don't blame gays

it's probably a monkey from Haiti that brought in

January 15, 2008 1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Aren't San Francisco and Boston the two places in America that have conducted "wedding ceremonies" gays?"

Also, the two places in America where gays have received the most education about safe sex.

Yeah, that's been effective!

January 15, 2008 1:50 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"red baron, it's been four posts now, shouldn't you be promoting the imprisonment and genocide of gay Americans by now?"

Improv, you really shouldn't make any more comments until you apologize for lying about Focus on the Family. You slandered them and said they were advocating genocide. That was lie. They have never made any attempt to promote genocide. And don't think we haven't noticed your diversionary tactic of throwing in the term "imprisonment." Find a quote from them advocating genocide or admit that you lied and why.

You lied and tried to damage the reputation of organization doing important work in our country. You should apologize.

January 15, 2008 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"Aren't San Francisco and Boston the two places in America that have conducted "wedding ceremonies" gays?"

Also, the two places in America where gays have received the most education about safe sex.

Yeah, that's been effective!

--
Touche', why that certainly absolves America of taking responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed in the name of preventing another 9/11 (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11).

Tell me, where can I as a moral citizen trade in my soul for sheer idiocy?

January 15, 2008 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

red baron said...
"Improv, you really shouldn't make any more comments until you apologize for lying about Focus on the Family. You slandered them and said they were advocating genocide. That was lie. They have never made any attempt to promote genocide. And don't think we haven't noticed your diversionary tactic of throwing in the term "imprisonment." Find a quote from them advocating genocide or admit that you lied and why."

Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?

And also,
Shouldn't you be promoting the imprisonment and genocide of gay Americans by now?

What, are we up to five or six posts now, and STILL no Citizenlink article to show your conviction that gays should be imprisoned and executed in the name of Jesus?

You must be going through withdrawals. Ok, go ahead. Post a Citizenlink article, I won't tell anyone.

Oh, and don't forget, Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?

January 15, 2008 2:35 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, you really shouldn't be asking people to apologize when they've done nothing wrong, and you shouldn't be suggesting wrongs are to be apologized for unless you're willing to apologize for your own wrongs.

Apologize for lying and saying democracy is part of your biblical system when the word never appears in your bible. Apologize for lying and saying your Jesus doesn't eternally torture those who do no harm when dozens of biblical passages including this one:
2 Thessalonians Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9

say he does. Apologize for lying and saying that Bush hasn't attacked gays for political purposes. Apologize for claiming the god character in your bible epitomizes morality when he punishes the innocnet for the wrongs of the guilty.

January 15, 2008 2:37 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

What Straights Can Learn From Gays about Relationships and Parenting

Psychological studies of lesbian and gay couples reveal two key factors that promote healthier relationships and provide examples for all couples: (1) flexibility about gender roles, and (2) equal division of parenting and household tasks.
“It all comes down to greater equality in the relationship,” says Robert-Jay Green, PhD, executive director of the Rockway Institute and a nationally recognized researcher in both family issues and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. “Research shows that lesbian and gay couples -- by virtue of being composed of two partners of the same gender -- have a head start in escaping the traditional gender role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships.”
Green is Distinguished Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University, the nation’s largest nonprofit training institution for doctoral clinical psychologists. In a series of studies he conducted with Michael Bettinger, PhD, and Ellis Zacks, PhD, lesbian couples were found to be emotionally closer than gay male couples who, in turn, were found to be emotionally closer than heterosexual married couples. Lesbian and gay male couples also showed dramatically more flexibility in the way they handled rules and roles in the relationship. Thus they avoided the traditional division of labor and division of expressive versus instrumental roles toward which heterosexual couple typically evolve over time despite their best intentions, especially after the birth of children.
More equal relationships for same-sex couples also were confirmed in recent studies by John Gottman, PhD, of the University of Washington, and Robert Levinson, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley. Based on observations of couples interacting in conflict situations, these scientists found that same-sex couples were better at resolving disagreements because they approached problems from a position of peer equality, using “softer” starts in the initiation of conflict discussions and more humor during the discussion to avoid escalation of hostilities. With married heterosexual couples, the researchers observed, there was “much more of a power struggle with someone being invalidated.”
Other research on parenting also found significant advantages for same-sex couples. In three separate studies, Charlotte Patterson, PhD, at the University of Virginia, Valory Mitchell, PhD, at Alliant International University in San Francisco, and Henny Bos, PhD at the University of Amsterdam found that lesbian partners tend to share parenting and household responsibilities more equally and to be more satisfied with this division of labor. By contrast, in heterosexual dual-career families, mothers often did much more childcare and housework compared to fathers, regardless of equal hours spent at work. This imbalance often breeds resentment over time.


http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/536799/

January 15, 2008 2:57 PM  
Anonymous The Baron said...

"What, are we up to five or six posts now, and STILL no Citizenlink article to show your conviction that gays should be imprisoned and executed in the name of Jesus?"

Are you completely delusional, Improv? I don't have such a conviction. Further, why would I post such an article when none exists? None exists because Focus on the Family has never advocating executing gays, just like they have never advocated genocide, as you viciously and slanderously said they did last week. You lied about a very serious accusation and should apologize immediately and stop wallowing in diversionary tactics.

No one's fooled. No one's impressed.

Once again, everyone, Focus on the Family doesn't promote genocide. Improv is committing integriticide, the destruction of his own integrity.

"Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?"

I don't know what you're talking about here but apparently nothing could be clear enough that you wouldn't feel embarassed about twisting it. If you're really having problems understanding scripture, try reading the whole Bible rather than selected excerpts on atheist websites.

January 15, 2008 3:06 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "I don't have such a conviction.".

Of course you do, you're just too ashamed to admit it. You've repeatedly bragged about how you learned right and wrong from your bible, that Jesus is the example of morality that you follow and your bible is unequivocal - gays must be put to death - Leviticus 20:13, that comes directly from your bible, not from an atheist web site. You want to renounce that commandment then repudiate your bible right now, state loud and clear that you reject the teachings of your bible and that it is evil and wrong. Your Jesus taught that disobedient children must be stoned to death, you're at a crossroads, either accept your bible (and the evil in it) or do the right thing and reject such evil teachings.

January 15, 2008 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

And let's not forget the casualties of this war that these so-called Christians are just SO GUNG HO to continue to support:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.

Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents. (more in About IBC)

--
This site has documented at least 80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as the direct result of the the US occupation.

For every US soldier that is killed, seven are wounded. I believe it is safe to assume the same holds true for Iraqi citizen deaths - 80,000 x 7 = 560,000 wounded.

We're already spending billions of dollars to rehabilitate and care for our own veterans. Think of the physical, emotional, and familial toll on these people who are not receiving ANY help.

January 15, 2008 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Tuberculosis: Over 30 million people are expected to die of tuberculosis during this decade. Because of inefficient treatment of the disease in the past, drug-resistant tuberculosis is now a global threat. Some strains are presently immune to drugs that once destroyed the bacteria without fail.

Malaria: This disease afflicts up to 500 million people yearly, killing 2 million. Control has been hindered by lack of or misuse of drugs. As a result, malaria parasites have become resistant to the drugs that once killed them. Complicating the problem is mosquito resistance to insecticides.

Cholera: Cholera kills 120,000 people per year, mostly in Africa, where epidemics have become more widespread and more frequent. Unknown in South America for decades, cholera struck Peru in 1991 and has since spread throughout the continent.

Dengue: This mosquito-borne virus afflicts an estimated 20 million people each year. During 1995 the worst dengue epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean in 15 years struck at least 14 countries there. Dengue epidemics are increasing because of growing cities, the spread of dengue-carrying mosquitoes, and the mass movement of infected people.

Diphtheria: Mass immunization programs that began 50 years ago made this disease extremely rare in industrialized countries. Since 1990, however, diphtheria epidemics have raged in 15 countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Up to 1 in 4 people who contracted the disease died. During the first half of 1995, about 25,000 cases were reported.

Bubonic plague: During 1995, at least 1,400 cases of human plague were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). In the United States and elsewhere, the disease has spread to areas that had been plague free for decades."

http://www.jehovantodistajat.fi/e/19971122/diagram_03.htm

Not a one of these resurgent diseases is related to sexual orientation or sexual behavior. Looks like RB will be busy looking for scapegoats to blame for these other drug resistant disease. Here, maybe this will help:

"DENVER -- State health officials said the bubonic plague has been detected in animals in six Colorado counties, including in 10 cats that may have been infected through hunting and eating infected rodents.

John Pape is an epidemiologist with the state health department. He said that cats present a concern because pets that become severely ill could transmit the disease directly to their owners. Dogs and cats also could bring infected fleas into the home.

Counties that have detected the plague include Archuleta, Larimer, La Plata, Mesa, Montezuma and San Miguel.

Bubonic plague was detected in animals throughout the state last year and in three humans. Since being first documented in Colorado in 1957, nine people have died from the plague."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/8981141/detail.html

Using RB's logic: Those filthy pet owners! Everybody knows the pet-owning lifestyle is a choice and a danger to the public health. Pet-owners should not be free to walk their pets around in public, trying to corrupt our youth into joining the pet-owing lifestyle. Pet owners' pets carry bubonic plague and people contract the disease and die. Coincidence?

RB said "BTW, Randi appears non-responsive. Does anyone else know what Randi is looking for a response to?

Randi said something about a rebuttal but since Randi doesn't know how to spell it, maybe Randi doesn't know what it means either. You know Canadians. They have their own special type of English."


RB, who doesn't bother to respond to direct inquiries, mentions that Randi "appears" non-responsive to an RB inquiry and then makes a nasty personal smear against, not only Randi but all Canadians because she misspelled a single word. It's really great for RB to show us how her type operates. She's made it clear as day that she consider herself above the rules she expects everyone else to follow whenever she feels like it.

January 15, 2008 3:37 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

Oh, Red Baron... I hope you have more in your life than sitting around and thinking about gay sex all day long... I'd never make it a priority to go into your bedroom so stay out of mine!

January 15, 2008 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

The Baron said...
"What, are we up to five or six posts now, and STILL no Citizenlink article to show your conviction that gays should be imprisoned and executed in the name of Jesus?"

Are you completely delusional, Improv? I don't have such a conviction.
---
Well OBVIOUSLY not when you put it like THAT. That's my whole point!

It's high time that you post a Citizenlink article in order to demonstrate that YOU DO INDEED believe, according to the Bible, that all GLBT persons should be imprisoned and put to death.

It's so simple, I just don't know how else to say it red baron.

January 15, 2008 3:46 PM  
Anonymous MCPSmom2 said...

Red Baron the Bizarre:

It's interesting that all the people who made it in the news one way or another in Montgomery County who have contracted MRSA are straight Hmm. Interesting.


Your logic is unacceptable. We should have coffee sometime. I'll even bring my Bible.

January 15, 2008 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"try reading the whole Bible rather than selected excerpts"

I don't normally do this, but...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

January 15, 2008 3:53 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Anyone ever watch Green Acres?

Improv thinks acting like Mr Kimball will hide the fact that he has lied about Focus on the Family.

It's a lie about which it would be appropriate to apologize!

January 15, 2008 4:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 15, 2008 4:54 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, Emproph hasn't lied, you have. You shouldn't be suggesting wrongs are to be apologized for unless you're willing to apologize for your own wrongs.

Apologize for lying and saying democracy is part of your biblical system when the word never appears in your bible. Apologize for lying and saying your Jesus doesn't eternally torture those who do no harm when dozens of biblical passages including this one:
2 Thessalonians Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9

say he does. Apologize for lying and saying that Bush hasn't attacked gays for political purposes. Apologize for claiming the god character in your bible epitomizes morality when he punishes the innocnet for the wrongs of the guilty.


Once again Red Baron, "Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?"

January 15, 2008 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

the red baron said...
"Anyone ever watch Green Acres?

Improv thinks acting like Mr Kimball will hide the fact that he has lied about Focus on the Family.

It's a lie about which it would be appropriate to apologize!"

--
I apologize red baron, I'm still not seeing how that answers my question:

Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?

January 15, 2008 5:12 PM  
Anonymous THE RED BARON said...

"Once again Red Baron, "Are you saying that God's word isn't clear enough for you, or just that James Dobson isn't really serious about God's word when it comes to his political efforts?""

This question doesn't make any sense so either your buddy, Imp-off, or you will have to explain what you're talking about. Seems to be based on some faulty assumption so maybe if you explained, everyone can see what kind of fallacious thinking your type of extremism is prone to lead to.

And, really, Imp-off knows he lied. That's why he's acting like such a fool. He's putting off what he knows he needs to do: apologize for telling vicious lies about someone.

BTW, is imp-off your "boyfriend"?

January 15, 2008 5:16 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Oh, sorry, improv, the last one crossed before I noticed your apology.

hey, could you explain the assumptions on which your question is based? I don't get it.

January 15, 2008 5:18 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "This question doesn't make any sense so either your buddy, Imp-off, or you will have to explain what you're talking about."

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."

It doesn't get any clearer than that Red Baron. THAT is YOUR bible. Either you accept it and your role in genocide or you renounce it and repudiate your bible - you can't have it both ways. Now stop playing the fool and trying to deny what your bible says.

January 15, 2008 5:27 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

The Red Baron said "hey, could you explain the assumptions on which your question is based? I don't get it.".

Oh, you get it all right, you're just afraid to face the reality of it. Its based on the assumption that you follow the bible as its written when you claim that is what you do. Of course you've repeatedly demonstrated your willingness to lie so it wouldn't be a surprise if you were lying about that as well.

January 15, 2008 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa sent out an email that CRW is on the 5 pm Channel 7 broadcast, something about a man going into the women's locker room at something called Rio sports club.

Good god, will it not stop.

BTW, I agree with the Red Baron/Peter: all scripture should be taken with a very large grain of salt (would that be a salt lick?).

Robert

January 15, 2008 5:36 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"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."

It doesn't get any clearer than that Red Baron. THAT is YOUR bible. Either you accept it and your role in genocide or you renounce it and repudiate your bible - you can't have it both ways."

This is a penalty God set up for a certain law violation in ancient Israel. You and your friend don't seem to distinguish between moral principle and method of enforcement. There is really so many ways in which your view is faulty, it's hard to know where to start. I could really writes paragraphs about how ignoarant your viewpoint is. But you already know that.

Here's one aspect to start off with: in Ancient Israel, there were many laws whose violations merited the death penalty. So many, in fact, that is doubtful that anyone would have survived if they were enforced. Who would be qualified to enforce these rules?

Remember the story of the women who was about to be stoned for adultery when Jesus walked by? He asked what was going on, wrote some things in the dirt and said "whoever is without sin may cast the first stone." No one standing there would say they were without sin. After they left, Jesus forgave her. He didn't say, "you didn't sin." He said your sin is forgiven. Using Jesus as an example, a Christian would not pretend immorality is irrelevant but would desire that everyone receive forgiveness.

I think most people understand this and you and your friend are playing a game.

Jesus said much more about the meaning and purpose of the law. Paul expounded on the words of Jesus to provide greater understanding. Read the New Testament and ask God to help you understand it and you will see that the Bible is indeed clear.

January 15, 2008 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the Bible is clear and so is James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family.

"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."
The Holy Bible, Leviticus 20:13

"What better basis for theological interpretation is there than the Word of God, especially when it specifically addresses the issue in question?"
James Dobson, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000302.cfm

James Dobson and his group Focus on the Family endorse putting people who engage in same-sex behavior to death.

January 15, 2008 6:02 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, as I pointed out to you previously Jesus said this about old testament law:

Matthew 5:18

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Luke 16:17

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Your bible teaches that loving committed gays must be put to death and Jesus makes clear that there are no exceptions to this law. Spare me your exhortations to read the bible, I have read and by your constant ignorance of it it is clear you have not.

The story of the woman caught in adultery does not belong in the bible, it does not appear in the bible until the 14th century when it was added by Christian Monks. This is explaned in the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. Read that after you read your bible. Jesus did not preach forgiveness, he commanded that disobedient children be stoned to death. He stated that he will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. He most certainly wasn't into forgiveness.

Red Baron, cast aside the evil that is your bible. Acknowledge as you know in your heart the essence of morality is "Do whatever you want but harm no one". You said yourself people shouldn't be too critical of Larry Craig's solicitation of public sex because "He didn't really hurt anyone". You know in your heart where morality comes from and it isn't from a bible that exhalts the punishment of the innocent for the wrongs of the guilty.

January 15, 2008 6:12 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Well, most Christians don't believe the way to interpret the Bible is to personally go around like a vigilante enforcing Old Testament law. If you think Dobson has forsaken centuries of Christian thought and now favors killing those who break the law, you have a burden to find him supporting that.

Here's what scripture is clear on:

The wages of sin is death

Homosexuality is a sin

The free give gift of God is forgiveness through Christ

Christians are not to judge so they won't be judged

January 15, 2008 6:21 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Bart D. Ehrman is a highly educated biblical/religious scholar. He was a religious fundamentalist until his detailed study of the bible convinced him it couldn't possibly be true. Read your bible Red Baron, from end to end and like most who have you will find it too absurd to believe. I myself decided to read the bible to look for errors, contradictions and inconsistencies. What shocked me is the HUGE volume of them I found - to say I was stunned by the BS I found is to vastly understate it.

January 15, 2008 6:30 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Well, most Christians don't believe the way to interpret the Bible is to personally go around like a vigilante enforcing Old Testament law.".

No, what they believe is that the bible should replace the U.S. constitution and by biblical law gays should be put to death, not by vigilanteism. That's what the friends and supporters of Huckabee's campaign, the Christian reconstructionists, are trying to bring about. And no one who condemns the idea that gays should be legally put to death would associate with people with that view if they weren't sympathetic to it themselves.

Red Baron said "If you think Dobson has forsaken centuries of Christian thought and now favors killing those who break the law, you have a burden to find him supporting that.".

The centuries of christian thought are that gays should be put to death. As anonymous at January 15, 2008 6:02 PM made clear Dobson is a-ok with that:

"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."
The Holy Bible, Leviticus 20:13

"What better basis for theological interpretation is there than the Word of God, especially when it specifically addresses the issue in question?"
James Dobson, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters


Red Baron said "Here's what scripture is clear on: The wages of sin is death. Gayness is a sin."

See, that wasn't so hard, now you've admitted that the bible calls for gays to be put to death.

Red Baron said "The free give gift of God is forgiveness through Christ".

Its not a free gift when one threatens to eternally torture those who don't want Jesus's false forgiveness. Only the people who've been wronged can forgive, Jesus can't forgive you for what you did to someone else.

Red Baron said "Christians are not to judge so they won't be judged."

How delightfully hypocritical coming from someone as judgemental as you. Gays haven't hurt you - stop trying to hurt gays.

January 15, 2008 6:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And Red Baron, further to your "The free give gift of God is forgiveness through Christ" comment, what your Jesus character says is "love me or I'll eternally torture you". That's not a gift, its extortion. That's exactly the same as the Mafia offer to sell you "protection".

January 15, 2008 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I agree with the anonymous "Red Baron": centuries of Christian thought indicate that scripture is not to be taken literally.

Here's a link to the Channel 7 story Theresa was talking about in her email. I didn't see the episode broadcast on TV, though:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0108/488213.html

Robert

January 15, 2008 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I think I can put this more clearly than many others. Red Baron- peddle your papers somewhere else, get lost, go bye-bye, get a life.

January 15, 2008 7:18 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Robert, would you say some of it is to be taken literally, or none of it? And once you decide some of it is not to be taken literally, on what basis do you decide which parts?

January 15, 2008 7:30 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"I agree with the anonymous "Red Baron": centuries of Christian thought indicate that scripture is not to be taken literally."

I agree with you, Robert, that scripture is not always meant to be taken literally but that's not the problem with Randi and Improv arguments here. The problem with them is context. By taking some of Jesus' words about the law without considering the rest of his words, they have missed the meaning.

As for when to interpret scripture literally and when to interpret it by some other literary construct, it's usually obvious and, if not, then it's probably not significant whether it's literal or not. All it really takes is honesty.

They who have ears, let them hear.

January 15, 2008 7:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Problem for you Red Baron is that once you say some of the bible is not to be taken literally you have no justification for taking any of it literally.

Red Baron said "As for when to interpret scripture literally and when to interpret it by some other literary construct, it's usually obvious and, if not, then it's probably not significant whether it's literal or not. All it really takes is honesty.".

LOL, Obvious! That's a good one! Its so obvious thats why there are literally thousands of different flavours of Christianity based on disagreements over what scripture means and when it should be taken literally or not. Many Christians say its obvious that its not a sin to be gay and you've got no reason to disagree with them if you think the bible isn't always to be taken literally.

And you contradict yourself by saying Leviticus 20:13 isn't made to be taken literally. Earlier you were arguing that the death penalty for gays was for ancient Israel and that it didn't apply in this day and age, you said it was to be taken literally, but that it no longer applies. Thats moral relativism, something Christians like you claim to abhor. Absolute morality dictates that if the death penalty was apropriate yesterday, then its apropriate today and forever.

The idea that your god would say "gays should be put to death" but not really mean it is absurd. If he didn't really mean it he wouldn't have said it in such clear concise and unmistakeable terms. "They must be put to death" is not a phrase that readily lends itself to less malevolent interpretations.

You can't have it both ways Red Baron, you can't say you follow the bible and reject its teachings. Either you accept the bible as is or you question it in its entirety. You know in your heart its wong to punish those that harm no one Red Baron, finish the job and renounce the evil that is your bible in its entirety.

January 15, 2008 8:21 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Randi

As usual, we get to the point where you are so messed up, it would require an unreasonable amount of time to straighten you out.

There is really no problem at all saying some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally. The principle for distinguishing when is simple perspicuity. Your problem is you don't know the meaning of the word literal. There are really no Christians who believe that the Bible is only to be interpretted literally. Jesus said, for example, "I am the vine" or "I am the door." He's really not. It's a figure of speech.

That's not the problem with your statements about Old Testament law however. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge the extensive discussion about the law in the New Testament. You don't understand what Jesus meant when he said the law will never pass away. You don't want to. I never said Leviticus shouldn't be taken literally, you put those words in my mouth.

As for the passage about the woman in adultery, it's common knowledge that some scholars say it isn't in early manuscripts. There's a footnote to that effect in my Bible. I don't see how that's germane to our discussion however. You say Jesus is fiction. I don't agree but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether Jesus, fictional or real, thinks Christians should try to kill gays. Your position is preposterous and I've probably indulged it more than I should but it doesn't make sense for you to say he's fictional and then start arguing about what he really said.

BTW, I've read some of Ehrman's book. Not much new, except a catchy title. I also know a couple of kids who have taken his class at UNC and remain solid believers. You may be interested to know he debated William Lane Craig, an evangelical scholar from Biola University and did so poorly that he refused permission for a text of the debate to be published. Sounds like Hitchens without the alcohol crutch.

January 15, 2008 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

You may be interested to know he debated William Lane Craig, an evangelical scholar from Biola University and did so poorly that he refused permission for a text of the debate to be published.

Liar!

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

January 16, 2008 7:36 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

WFA is lying by calling me a liar.

Ehrman did indeed refuse permission to have a text of the debate published. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't keep Holy Cross from making the transcript available on its website.

There are a number of exchanges between Ehrman and Craig on the Dangerous Ideas blogspot discussing why Ehrman refused to publish the text. Ehrman says Craig approached publishers behind his back and that he doesn't want to give any publicity to Craig's ideas. Craig says Ehrman's agent approached him about the idea.

Bottom line: Craig is happy to have the debate published and Ehrman is making excuses not to.

What could the motive possibly be?

January 16, 2008 9:19 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Last post from me for today:

Notice in yesterday's exchanges a very interesting inconsistency in radical fringe gay advocacy thinking. When an item is posted about a new incurable disease that is 13 times more prevalent among gays than the general population, it doesn't mean a thing. It's just a coincidence. When a paper is published showing a slight correlation between blood type and claims of same sex attraction, it's proof positive that homosexuality is not a choice.

A similar phenomena can be observed when Randi is said to have read the whole Bible looking for inconsistencies and, voila, found some. Yet, Randi didn't notice the extensive discussion about purpose and meaning of the Old Testament law. Why? Because it didn't fit well with the gay agenda line.

Isn't it obvious that among radical fringe extremists like TTF that they tend to believe what they want to believe?

Yes, it is.

January 16, 2008 9:31 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, you have nothing but your baseless assertion to say that Ehrman refused permisssion and given your long history of lying that means nothing.

Similarly despite your insistence that something in the bible contradicts Leviticus you have nothing but your baseless assertion that there is.

Leviticus is crystal clear:

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."

as is Jesus's view on Leviticus:

Matthew 5:18

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Luke 16:17

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Similarly James Dobson's word on the bible is crystal clear:

"What better basis for theological interpretation is there than the Word of God, especially when it specifically addresses the issue in question?"
James Dobson, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters

You yourself have now said that Leviticus is to be taken literally so you have conceded my point and are now merely ranting like a fool.

And as to your "centuries of Christian thought" on the death penalty for gayness it wasn't revoked until the 1800's in Canada, the U.S. and Britain. So much for your "centuries" of Christian thought. Millenia of Christian thought is that gays must be put to death and the idea that they shouldn't be is wet behind the ears in terms of the volume of Christian history. And in fact there is little doubt that you like Huckabee would advocate for this if you weren't in polite company.

Red Baron said "As for the passage about the woman in adultery, it's common knowledge that some scholars say it isn't in early manuscripts. There's a footnote to that effect in my Bible. I don't see how that's germane to our discussion however.".

You liar! You used it to justify your claim that Jesus forgives rather than kills gays! You can't use it as the basis for your argument and then like a fool claim you don't see how its germane to the discussion! You can't claim this story from the bible proves your point and then admit that its not part of your bible! Its insane "logic" like this that demonstrates why you have no credibility when it comes to discussing the bible or Christian thought. You'll obviously twist and warp reality beyond recognition to support your lies.

Red Baron said "it doesn't make sense for you to say [Jesus is] fictional and then start arguing about what he really said.

It makes sense when arguing from your perspective that he is real. You have to be consistent about what is said in the bible because you believe it to be his word. It makes perfect sense for me to point out that your arguments are inconsistent with the words you believe are Jesus's.


Fact is you've admitted Leviticus is literal and you have nothing to contradict what YOU believe to be Jesus's words saying the old testament law is always in effect.
NOWHERE in the bible does it say that Leviticus is revoked. By promoting your bible as the definitive teaching on right and wrong you promote genocide against gays.

January 16, 2008 11:30 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 16, 2008 11:45 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Red Baron, you have nothing but your baseless assertion to say that Ehrman refused permisssion and given your long history of lying that means nothing."

Oh, the wacky world of Randi's mind.

No one has to take my word for it. Here, in Ehrman's own words, taken from a comment he posted on the blog I cited above, is why he is refusing to let the debate be published:

"We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much."

So Ehrman is claiming he won't let the debate be published because he thinks Craig's arguments are irrational and he doesn't want them heard. But, if that were true, wouldn't he welcome a public display contrasting them to his own exceedingly "rational" arguments?

Clearly, Ehrman is avoiding having a record of his defeat in this debate disseminated. No other explanation makes sense.

Thanks for bringing up Ehrman, Randi.

January 16, 2008 12:36 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 16, 2008 1:04 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 16, 2008 1:08 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, as we've seen all too frequently your opinion of who won a debate bears no resemblance to the reality of who did

And what, Red Baron, you've got nothing to say about your basing your argument on the story about the woman caught in adultery, later admitting it doesn't belong in the bible and claiming you don't see how its not belonging in the bible is germane to the argument?

You're a laugh riot Red Baron. Rather than accepting the clear words of your bible you lamely insist you've got some convoluted logic that contradicts it which you refuse to demonstrate.

January 16, 2008 1:21 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

And why do you think Ehrman won't consent to publishing the debate?

January 16, 2008 1:31 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I haven't seen evidence that he won't. In any event, that is irrelevant to the argument at hand and you based your argument on the story about the woman caught in adultery, admitted that it doesn't belong in the bible, and then claimed you don't see how its not belonging in the bible is germane to the argument - your fundamental dishonesty is plain for all to see, you're happy to lie about your bible because you can't defend it without doing so.

January 16, 2008 2:09 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

I've told where you can see the evidence that he won't. You can look at his post on a blog site.

Like Ehrman, you won't.

January 16, 2008 3:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Its irrelvant to the arguement at hand which is settled as you've acknowledged Leviticus is to be taken literally and it is crystal clear:

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."

as is Jesus's view on Leviticus:

Matthew 5:18

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Luke 16:17

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Similarly James Dobson's word on the bible is crystal clear:

"What better basis for theological interpretation is there than the Word of God, especially when it specifically addresses the issue in question?"
James Dobson, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters

You promote the bible as the unquestioned model for morality, you promote genocide against gays.

January 16, 2008 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Isn't it obvious that among radical fringe extremists like TTF that they tend to believe what they want to believe?

Here in Montgomery County, TeachtheFacts.org is a mainstream group. Candidates for Board of Education seats who support TTF's mission defeated the few candidates who supported CRC mission by wide margins in our most recent local elections in 2006. Another indication TTF is mainstream: Over 90% of eligible MCPS students received parental permission to take the pilot of the newly revised health education curriculum called "Respect for Difference in Human Sexuality." Over 90% support means it's mainstream, less than 10% support means it's "radical fringe extrem[e]"

CRC is a radical group and acts like one. They sue repeatedly, steal from the PTA repeatedly, protest the teaching of tolerance constantly, have lately moved on to try to reinstate discrimination in employment, housing, etc. against transgender people.

Also, everybody knows it is the folks who say The Bible is inerrant who pick and choose "to believe what they want to believe," particularly among the laws laid down in Leviticus. Leviticus says homosexuality is an abomination and those who commit it must be put to death; Leviticus also says disobedient children must be put to death, yet RB and her ilk point to the law concerning for gays while ignoring the law for disobedient children.

RB quoted someone without providing the URL or link to the source as saying: We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to [sic] much."

Here's some more of what RB omitted and the URL where I found it. BTW, Ehrman answers RB's question (And why do you think Ehrman won't consent to publishing the debate?). Only Ehrman can tell us why he won't consent to publishing the debate and he does so here:

Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Craig-Ehrman update
Messages from Bart Ehrman:

"I didn’t back out of doing a book with him. There never was any agreement that we would do a book together. We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much.

Best wishes,
-- Bart Ehrman"

This was followed by a report that Ehrman was offset most by the use of probability. That was followed by this:

"Thanks for your note. Yes, I did know what Craig's positions were, quite well, before our debate. And I came away from it thinking that he had not done a very good job in defending his views -- especially as he was completely unable to answer the objections I had raised (he evidently is not used to someone dealing directly with his arguments and raising hard questions). Most people I talked with thought that I had far the upper hand in the debate (of course, people already convinced by his views ahead of time probably thought that he won!). But I also felt that by
publicizing the debate, it would give him the kind of credibility that he so desparately is seeking (he claims to have written an enormous number of books: a lot of them are simply his edited transcripts: as if that's the same thing as writing a book!).

What I'm most surprised about is that he approached my publisher about publishing the debate, without even once asking me if I thought it was a good idea or desirable, or asking what I wanted -- as if his own desires were the only thing that mattered. And now he talks about my reaction,
again without saying word one to me. Why wouldn't he speak to me if he wanted *our* debate published? Why would he talk about me behind my back? This doesn't seem like very Christian behavior to me.

Thanks again for your note. Best wishes.

Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill"

Craig responded:

"My, this is really condescending. Robert Miller isn't just Bart Ehrman's publisher! I knew Robert from previous projects and was contacting him for advice about the series of books in natural theology JP Moreland and I are proposing, and HE brought up the debate, having heard of it from, I think, Ehrman.

Since Ehrman skotched the project--which Charles Anderton of Holy Cross broached to Ehrman and me--, I haven't spoken about it again to Robert.

As for the objections, I'm glad the transcript is available so that folks can form their own opinions!

Do, you have Ehrman's email? I want to write him directly about this.

Bill"

I think that problem here is that Ehrman fails to understand that Craig is well-respected in fundamentalist circles. Ehrman considerably out-performed Crossan and Ludemann, who have debated Craig previously and agreed to have the debates put into book form. Publishing this debate can only harm Craig.


http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/06/craig-ehrman-update.html

January 16, 2008 6:00 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Yes, anon-B, you printed a longer version of the exchange between Ehrman and Craig but it does show anything different than what RB had already shown more sucinctly.

Ehrman says he doesn't want to provide a platform for Craig's views. It's obviously a rationalization. He lost the debate.

BTW, what's this little cluck of crap:

"Also, everybody knows it is the folks who say The Bible is inerrant who pick and choose "to believe what they want to believe," particularly among the laws laid down in Leviticus. Leviticus says homosexuality is an abomination and those who commit it must be put to death; Leviticus also says disobedient children must be put to death, yet RB and her ilk point to the law concerning for gays while ignoring the law for disobedient children."

You know full well that the same people who believe homosexuality is immoral also believe disobeying parents is wrong. No prominent pro-family advocate has suggested penalties from Old Testament law for our secular judicial system, however. Moral principles and penalties are not the same thing.

Homosexuality isn't just a rule specific to the culture like some of the elements of the law. It is discussed in the New Testament.

January 16, 2008 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

ftb said...
Homosexuality isn't just a rule specific to the culture like some of the elements of the law. It is discussed in the New Testament.
---
And if anyone questions the inerrancy of the New Testament's confirmation of the Old Testament, rember God’s warning on the very last page:

Revelations 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
---
So there you have it. Perfect God warns us not to cause error to something that couldn’t possibly contain error to begin with.

January 17, 2008 6:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEW YORK - TruthWinsOut.org expressed concern today over a Reuters news story about a drug-resistant strain of MRSA bacteria that is more prevalent among gay men in urban centers, such as Boston and San Francisco. The organization also slammed extremist groups for exploiting the news in order to smear the GLBT community and advance an agenda of pure prejudice and discrimination.

"The comments by Concerned Women for America is hatred in its rawest and ugliest form," said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of TruthWinsOut.org. "These wing nuts wasted no time seeking the spotlight and creating a climate of panic and fear. They are factually wrong, morally wrong-headed and tragically addicted to bigotry."

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, used the news to viciously attack gay people. "Citizens, especially parents, need to stand up and say, 'No More! We will no longer sit idly by while politically correct cultural elites endanger our children and larger communities through propagandist promotion of this demonstrably deadly lifestyle,'" Barber said.

Peter LaBarbara, director of American's for Truth, capitalized on the situation to call for a government crackdown to "reign in homosexual promiscuity." In a statement he asked, "Why won't the news media make the common-sense connection between these frequent stories about (male) homosexual behavior and disease - to the idea that perhaps it's probably not smart for society and pop culture to celebrate homosexuality and bisexuality?"

"This disease is a result of the overuse and abuse of antibiotics, which has led to strains of MRSA that are drug resistant," said TWO's Besen. "The hysteria from the right is reminiscent of how they exploited the HIV crisis in the early 80's for political gain. If there is any dangerous lifestyle, it is that of religious fanatics who have caused untold misery, war, death and repression across the globe."

January 17, 2008 7:58 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "You know full well that the same people who believe homosexuality is immoral also believe disobeying parents is wrong. No prominent pro-family advocate has suggested penalties from Old Testament law for our secular judicial system, however. Moral principles and penalties are not the same thing.".

The problem for you Red Baron is that you've been arguing that old testament penalties are no longer in effect, that Jesus said so. However Jesus was clear, the old testament penalty for disobedient children was STILL in effect in the new testament:

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark 7:9-10

You can't have it both ways, you can't say Jesus decides what the law and penalties are and then ignore his word when he says that disobedient children must be stoned to death.

January 17, 2008 2:19 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Ehrman says he doesn't want to provide a platform for Craig's views. It's obviously a rationalization. He lost the debate.".

No, its clear from what Aunt Bea posted that you lied, yet again. Ehrman never said anything about not wanting the debate to be published, he said that he wasn't going to do a book with him - something altogether different.

January 17, 2008 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Here's the most recent data demonstrating that TTF is mainstream and groups like CRC and PFOX are the radical fringe extremists here in Montgomery County:

Conservative groups opposed to revamped sexual education courses for Montgomery County Public Schools eighth- and 10th-graders asked a judge Wednesday to overturn a state Board of Education ruling...

Brian Edwards, a spokesman for Superintendent Jerry D. Weast, said 97 percent of 10th-graders and 95 percent of middle schoolers had opted in for the courses this year.


http://www.examiner.com/a-1163313~Group_appeals_to_judge_to_reverse_sex_ed_ruling.html

"Opted in for the courses" means parents signed permission slips for their students to take the class. No one under the age of 18 may take MCPS classes on Human Sexuality without parental consent.

January 17, 2008 5:52 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Red Baron said "Ehrman says he doesn't want to provide a platform for Craig's views. It's obviously a rationalization. He lost the debate.".

Randi said: "No, its clear from what Aunt Bea posted that you lied, yet again. Ehrman never said anything about not wanting the debate to be published, he said that he wasn't going to do a book with him - something altogether different."

The proposed book was nothing more than the text of the debate. He didn't have to "do" anything other than consent to its publication. Ehrman said he wouldn't give permission because he didn't want to provide a platform for Craig. And yet he agreed to debate him earlier, giving him a platform.

What had changed after the debate? Obviously, that Ehrman had lost. He doesn't want that publicized.

This incident and the fact that Dawson and Hitchens are refusing to do any more debates with D'Souza brings to mind a verse from the Bible:

"resist the devil and he will flee"

January 18, 2008 8:08 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, the text of the debate is not a book. Ehrman specifically refused to do a book with Craig, at no time did he refuse to publish the debate or try to stop it from being published.

Your opinion that Ehrman "lost" is entirely irrelevant, you lied about Mcgrath as well, stating what a great debator he is when he is anything but. I don't know who "Dawson" is, but I have yet to see anything showing where Hitchen's refused to debate D'souza.

January 21, 2008 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ehrman is a professor down at University of North Carolina. I'm sure his e-mail is listed on the college website. Why don't you send him an e-mail and see what he says?

January 21, 2008 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much."

"Yes, I did know what Craig's positions were, quite well, before our debate. And I came away from it thinking that he had not done a very good job in defending his views -- especially as he was completely unable to answer the objections I had raised (he evidently is not used to someone dealing directly with his arguments and raising hard questions). Most people I talked with thought that I had far the upper hand in the debate (of course, people already convinced by his views ahead of time probably thought that he won!). But I also felt that by
publicizing the debate, it would give him the kind of credibility that he so desparately is seeking"

"What I'm most surprised about is that he approached my publisher about publishing the debate, without even once asking me if I thought it was a good idea or desirable, or asking what I wanted -- as if his own desires were the only thing that mattered. And now he talks about my reaction,
again without saying word one to me. Why wouldn't he speak to me if he wanted *our* debate published?"

January 21, 2008 8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home