Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Unbelievable: CRW Random-Dialing for Bigotry

Oh those wacky Citizens for a Responsible Whatever. Sounds like they're calling people at random again, this time to promote discrimination against transgender people. From Anjeelou's LiveJournal site:
What the...

*sigh*

So, I was expecting a call and made the mistake of picking up the phone without looking at caller ID.
Telemarketer? No. Political lobbyist.

The first thing I heard was "Are you concerned that the safety of women and children in the shower is being threatened in Montgomery County?"
Well, actually, no, it hasn't been weighing heavily on my mind.

Turns out, they are trying to petition to overturn this bill:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/bill/2007/23-07.pdf
The basis of it is that people shouldn't be discriminated against or denied housing, access, resources, etc., due to
gender identity.
These idiots making the phone calls pulled out one tiny clause of the bill referring to bathrooms and locker rooms and made an entire campaign about it. Oh, and a lunatic website:
www.notmyshower.com
Aaaaahhhhhh craziness. *headdesk*

I'm not going to link to it, it's just some kid's web site. But a smart kid, she understood exactly what the deal was here.

Can you believe these guys?

58 Comments:

Anonymous the red baron said...

Hey guys, it looks like my hot streak is over. I picked Huck for Michigan and Romney rolled. Oh well, I'm still on fire with lottery picks.

On to South Carolina.

January 15, 2008 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Here go the freaks again... This is from their website, www.mcpscurriculum.com:

*Action Alert:*
Hearing on Sex-Ed Curriculum Appeal
January 16, 9:45am - Montgomery County Circuit Court, Rockville, MD Judge Rowan


Wasting our tax dollars... ONCE AGAIN!

January 16, 2008 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
N.M. Baron- we all know you never had anything nor were anything hot.

January 16, 2008 9:25 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And just as I suggested in an earlier thread, Huckabee has called for amending the U.S. constitution to "god's standards"

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/01/15/1291#comments


Contrary to Red Baron's lie, Christians, his favourite christian, wants to replace a democracy with a theocracy. His supporters and financial backers in the Christian reconstructionist movement have called for the death penalty for gays and adulterers, amongst others - if he wasn't sympathetic to that idea he wouldn't associate with people advocating such heinous goals.

January 16, 2008 12:54 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

You know, I thought the arrest of Larry Craig was unjustified because he hadn't clearly incriminated himself. Still, I think the ACLU has gone overboard:

"ACLU Calls Sex in Restroom Stalls Private

AP

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Jan. 15) - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in June on suspicion of soliciting sex in a men's bathroom. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, but denied soliciting anyone for sex. He is trying to withdraw his plea.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy."

This is where the bathroom issue is headed in MC.

January 16, 2008 12:58 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

You're a laugh riot Red Baron. You defend Larry Craig and insist that he shouldn't have been arrested and then when the ACLU does the same thing you criticize them for it. Once again your astounding hypocrisy is on display for all to see.

January 16, 2008 1:25 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Randi

You are really quite an ignorant fool. The seperation of church and state that is part of our tradition never meant that morality derived from religion should not be permitted to shape our laws. Seperation of church and state is actually a Christian concept. It was instituted by Jesus Christ, who famously said "render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Our founding fathers believed without a Christian basis that our Constitution would not work.

George Washington: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Thomas Jefferson: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"

When the Constitution said the government shouldn't establish a religion, they meant the government should stay out of theology. General Judeo-Christian morality was a given.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited America in the early nineteenth century called religion the first of America's political institutions. Here's a quote:

"The sects that exist in America are innumerable and, yet, all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God."

We live in a benevolent, egalitarian and tolerant society. It would not be that way but for the influence of a carpenter in Galilee two thousand years ago.

It's a fact.

January 16, 2008 1:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "We live in a benevolent, egalitarian and tolerant society. It would not be that way but for the influence of a carpenter in Galilee two thousand years ago. It's a fact."

Facts require evidence to demonstrate them and you have none. Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what the word "fact" means.

Its a fact that we live in a benevolent, egalitarian, and tolerant society precisely because the influence of Christianity has declined since then enlightenment. And there is tons of evidence to demonstrate that:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

January 16, 2008 2:02 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Your constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954.

In 1797 your government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:


As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast."

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists--that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that "religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize." He spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Thomas Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. "The day will come," he predicted, "when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac."

The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of--those that he requested be put on his tombstone--were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally "freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination"--note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the "infidel." The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.

Jefferson's real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This raised plenty of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude, with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.

John Adams observed, "Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!'" Speaking ex cathedra, as a relic of the founding generation, he expressed his admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom, what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.

Like Jefferson, every recent President has understood the necessity of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters. All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican, have attended church, and have made very sure they are seen to do so. But there is a difference between offering this gesture of respect for majority beliefs and manipulating and pandering to the bigotry, prejudice and millennial fantasies of Christian extremists. Though for public consumption the Founding Fathers identified themselves as Christians, they were, at least by today's standards, remarkably honest about their misgivings when it came to theological doctrine, and religion in general came very low on the list of their concerns and priorities--always excepting, that is, their determination to keep the new nation free from bondage to its rule.

January 16, 2008 2:35 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Randi

The "fact" I was referring to was the key Christian influence on our societal traits of benevolence, egalitarianism and tolerance. Far from happening in spite of Christianity, they happened because of it. You always refer to the Enlightenment but that happened only in the Judeo-Christian world. The American model of democracy, benevolence, egalitarianism, tolerance and freedom of speech, press and thought was all the direct result of our Christian heritage. Wouldn't have happened without it. The other countries you mentioned all modelled themselves on America. They're running on momentum but it won't last. Why? Here's why:

"Bucking the trend in many other wealthy industrialized nations, the United States seems to be experiencing a baby boomlet, reporting the largest number of children born in 45 years.

An Associated Press review of birth numbers dating to 1909 found the total number of U.S. births was the highest since 1961, near the end of the baby boom. An examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan."

You see countries without a strong religious dimension become lethargic, apathetic and depressed. Pessimistic about the future, they tend not to reproduce and slowly die off. In other words, they can't think of a reason to get out of bed in the morning and their population declines.

Meanwhile, in areas where religion flourishes, the population booms. Witness the Christian explosion in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The demographics are clear.

January 16, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous MCPSmom2 said...

Red Baron: you are such a bigot.

You disgust a lot of people.

I have a gay son in MCPS and I am so proud of him for being out and happy.

People like you make me sick.

I am thankful that I live in such an education community where hate and bigotry is not tolerated.

Haven't you noticed that? Education level and tolerance go hand-in-hand. That's because Democrats and actually think for themselves.

January 16, 2008 3:06 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "The "fact" I was referring to was the key Christian influence on our societal traits of benevolence, egalitarianism and tolerance. Far from happening in spite of Christianity, they happened because of it.".

You have nothing to back up your bald assertion and it is directly contradicted by the facts. It is a fact that higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Red Baron said "You always refer to the Enlightenment but that happened only in the Judeo-Christian world.".

It occurred in Christian countries precisely because Christianity was no longer able to rule with an iron fist. It is the weakness of Christianity, its failure to dominate every aspect of life that is the reason for progressive societies.

Red Baron said "The American model of democracy, benevolence, egalitarianism, tolerance and freedom of speech, press and thought was all the direct result of our Christian heritage. Wouldn't have happened without it. The other countries you mentioned all modelled themselves on America.".

You moron, democracy started in ancient greece, not the U.S. The only country that modeled itself after the U.S. is Liberia and their country is a disaster. Newsflash for you moron, all the western European countries came long, long before the U.S.

Democracy is NEVER mentioned in your bible, spare us the ongoing lie about it being based on Christianity - have you no integrity whatsoever?! Or are you just so totally deluded with your own personal mind-f*ck that you can't tell reality from fantasy any longer?

January 16, 2008 3:36 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And the ancient Greeks who invented democracy were pagans, not Christians, you idiot.

January 16, 2008 3:42 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

You're a mess, Randi. Democracy is the only logical government based on the key doctrines of orthodox Christianity. I'll try to get to detailed flowchart of the history tonight for you.

Geez. Educating you is a fulltime job.

January 16, 2008 3:45 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Also, we'll compare what was called "democracy" in ancient Greece with what have today and see if you'd like to go back.

January 16, 2008 3:57 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "Democracy is the only logical government based on the key doctrines of orthodox Christianity.".

Save your BS for your other delusional friends. The "divine right of kings" was justified based on your Christianity. Democracy is NEVER mentioned in your bible, it completely ignores the concept while it establishes theocracy as the ruling concept of Christianity. The key doctrine of Orthodox Christianity is that all are subservient to a celestial dictator - your "god" is not an elected official.

January 16, 2008 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

RB said You are really quite an ignorant fool. The seperation of church and state that is part of our tradition...

A taste of ignorant fool-RB's own medicine: [RB] said something about a [separation] but since [RB] doesn't know how to spell it, maybe [RB] doesn't know what it means either. You know [Christianists]. They have their own special type of English.

January 16, 2008 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (Jan. 16) - A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

He could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday, and his attorney in Kansas City, JR Hobbs, had no immediate comment.

January 16, 2008 6:07 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

I've always considered Republicans terrorists.

January 16, 2008 6:23 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Apparently the CRG has enough money to robocall everyone in the County. My wife called to tell me we had just received one of those calls -- she was horrified at the false statements made and the scare tactics used.

January 16, 2008 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

Thanks for the post, David.

That's horrible.

It's a good thing that people in Montgomery County are educated or we would be in an interesting situation.

January 16, 2008 6:45 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

"she was horrified at the false statements made and the scare tactics used"

Could you be more specific, David? What horrifying things were said?

January 16, 2008 11:22 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Excerpts from Acts 15

"When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and order them to keep the law of Moses.

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider the matter. After a debate, Peter stood up and said to them,..."why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"...

After they finished speaking, James replied,..."write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood"

Romans 7:6

"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which kept us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in new life of the Spirit."

I Corinthians 6:9,12

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality...will inherit the kingdom of God.

"All things are lawful for me" but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me" but I will not be enslaved by anything."

Galatians 3:10

"All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse."

That's four books of the New Testament in a row. Keep going. Virtually every book discusses the same topic.

Questions of the day for tomorrow:

How do these verse reconcile with Jesus' words that the law will never be abolished?

Discuss and we'll wrap it up tomorrow night.

January 17, 2008 12:52 AM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

This is from www.nbc4.com about yesterday's court case.


ROCKVILLE, Md. -- Montgomery County education officials are defending their sex education plan in court.

At issue is the countywide health curriculum, which introduces the topic of sexual orientation to students for the first time.

The state school board denied an appeal last year by groups who oppose the lessons on religious grounds. Now those groups are seeking a ruling from Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge William Rowan.

Reports said that lawyers for a coalition of opposing groups argued that lesson plans on homosexuality are factually incorrect and that a video on condom use includes an illegal discussion of sex acts in the classroom.

An attorney for the county school board countered that opponents are asking the judge to edit, word by word, the curriculum the board has already adopted.

The judge said he'll respond with a written ruling.

January 17, 2008 5:35 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

ftb said...
"Questions of the day for tomorrow:

How do these verse reconcile with Jesus' words that the law will never be abolished?"

---
Exactly ftb. How do Jesus' words NOT confirm Old Testament-God's approval of killing, incest and polygamy?

January 17, 2008 6:45 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Well, for one thing Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but to "fulfill" it.

What did he mean by that, Improv?

January 17, 2008 8:10 AM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

If i can interjet, red baron.

some have said that jesus was talking about the prophecies that foretold His coming.

January 17, 2008 8:14 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Please do, interject, BT, and everyone else too. Let's get all our ideas together and think look at them all tonight.

Thanks.

January 17, 2008 10:16 AM  
Anonymous David Weintraub said...

I know that sometimes these threads can go off on a tangent, but why is red baron trying to introduce a discussion of scriptural passages? I don't see the relevance.

Does anyone here from CRC/R/W think that these or other scriptural passages should determine the content of either a public school curriculum or a civil law prohibiting discrimination? And if so, is this an official statement of your group's policy position?

January 17, 2008 10:50 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, stop with the "ftb" nonsense trying to pretend you're two or more people, its fundamentally dishonest.

January 17, 2008 11:01 AM  
Anonymous The Red Baron said...

"I know that sometimes these threads can go off on a tangent, but why is red baron trying to introduce a discussion of scriptural passages? I don't see the relevance."

David,

Longtime TTF contributors Randi and Improv have requested an explanation of how biblical passages are consistent with Christian ideals. I think their point is to discredit Christianity but I'm simply trying to accomodate their inquiry. If you think religious beliefs are an inappropriate topic here, could you, in the interest of fairmess, also object when TTF contributors attack Christianity?

Thanks.

January 17, 2008 11:02 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, all you've done is lie and obfuscate. I made no such request on this thread.

January 17, 2008 11:06 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

That sound you hear, Randi, is the hearty laughter of everyone who has read this blog over the last week and heard you repeatedly make this request. True, it wasn't on this "thread." I moved the discussion up to the current thread for the convenience of anyone who is interested.

At the time, I didn't have time to look up some verses to answer your inquiry. I bided my time with the aasurance that you would continue to make a fool of yourself.

I've posted a few now and will leave further discussion until everyone's had a chance to think about them and voice their opinion about what is being said. All passages of scripture must be taken in context with the rest of scripture. People who don't realize this have caused a great deal of confusion and suffering throughout history.

January 17, 2008 11:52 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

You're delusional Red Baron, I made no such request. The discussion on the other thread has nothing to do with this thread. That discusssion was over, you conceded defeat, you admitted Leviticus 20:13 was to be taken literally. Now shut up and let people talk about the topic of the thread.

January 17, 2008 12:08 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

I never said the Leviticus wasn't meant to be taken literally. I said some scripture isn't and you pounced with your usual imprecision. I also pointed out that you are making scurrilous accusations by taking scripture out of context of the New Testament fulfillment of it.

Stop being so scared that you might learn something that disturbs your carefully crafted and hate-filled world view. You're acting like Hitchens and Ehrman. Don't worry, I'm not D'Souza or Craig.

January 17, 2008 1:04 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"let people talk about the topic of the thread"

People are free to. I'm not stopping them.

January 17, 2008 1:05 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

from Randi's greatest hits:

"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."

and Romans 7:6

"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which kept us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in new life of the Spirit."

January 17, 2008 1:10 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

LOL, just as I said Red Baron - NOWHERE in the bible does it say Leviticus is revoked.

You excluded the part of Romans 7 that explains what it means:

1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.


In other words the only reasonable meaning you can take from Romans 7 is that once you are dead you are no longer bound by the law - duh.

Romans 7 is one convulted and ambiguous passage and I encourage people to read it in its entirety and see if it makes any sense to them.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%207&version=9


Note, NOWHERE in Romans 7 does it say that the death penalty for gays is revoked. It does say some crazy stuff like:

15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.


Red Baron's assertion that the law is revoked is preposterous on its face. By his bizarre interpretation it means that the law in general is revoked - that it is no longer against the law to murder, rape, steal, etc., obviously not what is meant. There is no comprehensive list in the new testament of laws that have been revoked and laws that have not.

Like a fool he quotes 1: Corinthians 6:12 which says "All things are lawful unto me" like it's supposed to back up his insane claims when its clearly utter nonsense.

In the end Red Baron has no argument whatsoever, he admits that the commandment to put gays to death is meant literally and Jesus's word is clear on the 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.".

What part of Luke 16:17 don't you understand Red Baron?!

You lied and said the passage about the woman caught in adultery means that the death penalty for gays is no longer in effect. You then tripped up on your own lies and admitted that the passage about the woman caught in adultery doesn't belong in the bible. Then like a moron you stated that you don't see how that passage's not belonging in the bible is germane to the discussion. You can't keep your own lies straight

January 17, 2008 2:07 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

At January 15, 2008 10:30 PM in this thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2008/01/people-are-starting-to-worry.html#comments

Red Baron demonstrated his foolishness by proclaiming "There are really no Christians who believe that the Bible is only to be interpretted literally." (he spelled interpreted wrong, maybe he doesn't know what it means)

As we can see from this poll

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070525/27615_Poll:_1_of_3_Americans_Say_Bible_Should_be_Taken_Literally.htm

54 percent of Americans who attend church weekly believe the Bible should be taken literally word for word.

You should apologize for your lies Red Baron, lying is breaking one of the 10 commandments you profess to follow.

January 17, 2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous David Weintraub said...

Ok, I take it back. This is really kind of entertaining.

January 17, 2008 7:04 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Glad you're back on board, David. We'll get to Randi a little later tonight. A little work to do first.

January 17, 2008 8:29 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Yeah, we're all dying to see what kind of tortured logic you're going to try to come up with to support the unsupportable. I haven't poked all the holes in your logic that I can, I want to draw this out a bit and savour you demonstrating your foolishness.

January 17, 2008 9:48 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

What really makes Red Baron's argument laughable is that if we take it at face value, all laws (or somehow just the one about gays even though its never specificed) are no longer in effect. His arguments say nothing about the death penalty for gayness being mitigated. According to what he's arguing the law against gay sex is no longer in effect, its no longer against the law to be gay. That's the conclusion your (incredibly weak and convoluted) line of argumentation leads to Red Baron.

January 18, 2008 12:40 PM  
Anonymous the reddest of barons said...

"Red Baron demonstrated his foolishness by proclaiming "There are really no Christians who believe that the Bible is only to be interpretted literally." (he spelled interpreted wrong, maybe he doesn't know what it means)

As we can see from this poll

ZNSb*%&^e#*&^}{}Kqkjemq_&

54 percent of Americans who attend church weekly believe the Bible should be taken literally word for word."

Randi

This is America. We have freddom of the press. I'll spell words any way I like 'em.

As for your cited poll, you need to start reading with a sceptical eye. (I mean, do they have schools in Canada?) All Christians, and virtually all sane people, realize there are literal portions of the Bible and non-literal portions of the Bible. If you think there are people that believe every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, could you please tell us who. I don't believe anyone that stupid exists. Of course, there are some people stupid enough to believe none of the Bible should be taken literally. Mostly, miltant atheists, but stupidity is par for the course for people who deny the abundant evidence of a Creator.

Anyway, you can rule out all Protestants to begin with. None of them believe every word of scripture is meant to be taken literally. This was a big issue in the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church insisted that certain passages were meant to be taken literally while Protestants said scripture should be read with common sense. Even the Catholics back then, however, didn't believe every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

Let me know if you can find even one of these 54% of churchgoers.

January 18, 2008 4:40 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "This is America. We have freddom of the press. I'll spell words any way I like 'em.".

Mighty hypocritical of you to complain about me making the same "spelling" comment you did. Remember? "randi spelled rebuttel wrong, maybe she doesn't know what it means".

Typical of religionists like you, its okay if you do something but if someone else does the exact same thing to you they're a b*tch. By the way, you spelled skeptical wrong - maybe you don't know what it means.

As to your rant about the poll results you don't like: Taking the bible literally doesn't mean that one believes there are no figures of speech in it, it means that statements like "they must be put to death" and "on the first day god created" are taken as literally true.

As to "ruling out all the protestants" - get real, you don't speak for all Christians, and they spoke for themselves. The 54% of regular church goers who said the bible is literally true word for word includes protestants. We know you hate reality, but you'll just have to accept it anyway - the majority of regular church goers believe in a literal bible word for word

January 18, 2008 5:13 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

What you're asserting Red Baron is that 54% of regular church goers are liars. And you spelled "freddom" wrong too - based on your attitudes towards gays it IS clear you don't know what that means.

January 18, 2008 5:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 18, 2008 5:41 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And as for your "The Roman Catholic Church insisted that certain passages were meant to be taken literally while Protestants said scripture should be read with common sense." line, you're referring to the reason protestantism was created - to ignore the biblical laws against divorce.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:9

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.".

There's no escaping what that means Red baron, no alternative meaning that can readily be accepted. You say that as a protestant you don't take that literally, that somehow divorce is allowed. If you want to say that makes sense, that that's reasonable then it makes just as much sense that the bible's condemnation of gays was not a condemnation, that being gay is just as acceptable for a Christian as divorce is - you can't have it both ways.

January 18, 2008 5:58 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Rather amusing how when Jesus makes a clear statement opposing divorce protestants like Red Baron say "common sense" says divorce is okay, but when Jesus fails to say anything against gays somehow that means Jesus opposes gay sex. Its clear how it works for protestants like red baron - any sin he wants to perform is okay, but any sex he doesn't like is a sin.

January 18, 2008 6:10 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Wow, Red Baron.

That's a whopper of a comment when it takes Randi five tries (one just deleted) to get a response together.

Uh, Randi, I don't the Baron was talking about divorce but transubstantiation. It was a big Reformation issue. Divorce wasn't. You're probably thinking of Henry VIII who had that motive for forming the Anglican Church. He was not really a Reformation figure. And literalism was not really the issue there.

You probably get a slanted view up there since you're still ruled by the British sovereign. Maybe someday you'll get the Queen off your money and get a little, uh, independence.

January 18, 2008 7:50 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

"What you're asserting Red Baron is that 54% of regular church goers are liars."

I think he just said they were wrong. And they obviously are. They have the same problem a lot of atheists have. "The Bible is literal" is a code phrase for saying the events it describes like the Flood, the Garden, the Resurrection actually true. Most Christians would agree with that. A better phrase would be is the Bible "accurate" or "inerrant." "Literal" is not the correct term for what is trying to be conveyed.

BTW, one sign of an extremist is that they think anyone who is simply mistaken is a "liar."

January 18, 2008 7:58 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 19, 2008 3:11 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Stop with the pretending to be more than one person red baron, its childish, dishonest, against what you profess to follow as a Christian, and you're not fooling anyone.

Stop with the "I just said they were wrong" lie, you said "If you think there are people that believe every word of the Bible is meant to be taken literally...I don't believe anyone that stupid exists...you can rule out all Protestants to begin with."

The poll I posted proves you wrong. 54% of regular church goers believe "the bible should be taken literally word for word". Perhaps you should read and delete a few of your own posts so you don't find yourself trying to cover up one lie with another.

January 19, 2008 3:26 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And to sum up, 54% of weekly churchgoers said the believe "the bile should be taken literally, word for word". Red Baron said no one is that stupid, in other words, that those people were lying when they said that. Its nice to see what you think of the majority of serious Christians Red Baron. Obviously you're projecting your own personality onto them - you know you're a liar so you assume all other Christians must be as well.

January 19, 2008 3:39 PM  
Anonymous ftb said...

Of course, as everyone here sees clearly, they simply didn't understand the question. They can also see that neither do you. Of course, also, that's assuming an accurate poll. Pollsters are starting to rival used car salesmen in reputation.

BTW, have you yet found anyone, anyone at all, who believes every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally?

January 19, 2008 10:55 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, I know reality makes you angry but you'll have to learn to accept it anyway. 54% of weekly church goers believe "the bible is to be taken literally word for word".

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070525/27615_Poll:_1_of_3_Americans_Say_Bible_Should_be_Taken_Literally.htm

The question as to whether the bible is meant to be taken literally is not one that is easily misunderstood, they knew exactly what they were being asked. And, yes I've encountered many Christians - most - who believe the bible is to be taken literally word for word.

January 20, 2008 12:10 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And Red baron, the idea that Gallup and all the people they polled got it 100% wrong and that you and your unsupported seat of the pants feeling are right is laughable to say the least. You're not a mind reader, you can't read millions of people's minds and discredit what the majority of serious Christians say they believe.

January 20, 2008 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

ftb said...
A better phrase would be is the Bible "accurate" or "inerrant." "Literal" is not the correct term for what is trying to be conveyed.
--
An even better question for discussion might be, to what extent is the Bible accurate or inerrant?

I say as much because the word "literal" means "accurate" and "inerrant."

I’ve found that asking "to what extent" helps to better qualify the differences between seeming synonyms like literal, accurate, and inerrant.

Point being that those who claim the Bible as something to be taken literally, often conflate the meaning of Literal, accurate, and inerrant, without even consciously recognizing it.

Further point being, and most importantly, these words are all adjectives for truth.

Which brings us to our final point. Before we can agree on the truth of the Bible, we need to first agree on the words used to describe that truth.

So far, I have not seen this effort on behalf of ftb and Red Baron.

How would each of you describe the level of truth you feel about the Bible?

To what extent would you say that the Bible should be taken literally, and to what extent do you feel that the words written in it are directly from God, and therefore inerrant?

And to what extent do you feel that these words, and books have been found, put together, interpreted and translated, without interference of man’s corruption of any kind?

These are precisely the questions. I don’t necessarily believe anyone is out to kill me, but when they continue to maintain that God believes I "must be put to death" as a part of their Biblical anti-gay regimen to express their "deeply held moral beliefs," it’s really not something I can rule out as a reality.

So in essence, that’s what it comes down to. If you say your beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality is based on the bible, who are you to say that I should NOT believe in the Bible when it comes to its proscribed consequences?

Easy enough to understand and accept that Biblical "moral relativism," through interpretation and context, but then the question becomes, why would you find the Bible to be the best reflection of perfection itself?

God being perfect, His word would reflect perfection don’t you think?

The Bible being a far cry from that.

All this time, the ball is, and has been in your court, not ours.

This is THE point of contention.

If you have a problem with the way the Bible is being perceived by those who don't understand it, then the burden to prove it accurate lies with you.

Start proving.

January 22, 2008 9:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home