Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
Centers of the battle
We know why God loves cities. We also know why God hated Sodom.
FULL STORY
Settlements continue: Israel continues building in the West Bank, despite assurances
'Endangered species': Campagin accuses Planned Parenthood of encouraging black women to abort
Read the latest issue of WORLD Magazine - hot off the server!
Expelling Christians: The Moroccan government deports Christians, accusing them of proselytizing 
Good morning!
On this day in 1871: Journalist-explorer Henry M. Stanley found missing Scottish missionary David Livingstone in central Africa and delivered his famous greeting: “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?”
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
All original content Copyright © 2010 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top263 Comments to “Whirled Views 11.10”
Love that name, Livingstone. Oh, and BTW, Christians should not carry guns. And Carthage should be destroyed.
Report comment to moderator
Huh?
Report comment to moderator
From the New York Herald,7/2/1872:
“Preserving a calmness of exterior before the Arabs which was hard to simulate as he reached the group, Mr. Stanley said, ‘Doctor Livingstone, I presume?’ A smile lit up the features of the hale white man as he answered, ‘Yes, that is my name’…”
Col. 3:17 “And whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him.”
Report comment to moderator
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. Ps139
Report comment to moderator
“Droop half-mast colours; bow, bareheaded crowds,
As this plain coffin o’er the side is slung,
To pass by woods of masts and ratlined shrouds,
As erst by Afric’s trunks, liana-hung.
“‘Tis the last mile of many thousands trod
With failing strength, but never-failing will,
By the worn frame, now at its rest with God,
That never rested from its fight with ill.
“Or if the ache of travel and of toil
Would sometimes wring a short, sharp cry of pain
From agony of fever, blain, and boil,
‘Twas but to crush it down, and on again!
“He knew not that the trumpet he had blown
Out of the darkness of that dismal land,
Had reached and roused an army of its own
To strike the chains from the slave’s fettered hand.
“Now we believe he knows, sees all is well;
How God had stayed his will and shaped his way,
To bring the light to those that darkling dwell
With gains that life’s devotion well repay.
“Open the Abbey doors, and bear him in
To sleep with king and statesman, chief and sage,
The Missionary come of weaver-kin,
But great by work that brooks no lower wage.
“He needs no epitaph to guard a name
Which men shall prize while worthy work is known;
He lived and died for good — be this his fame:
Let marble crumble: this is Living-stone.
Report comment to moderator
‘Bula Matari’ was the nickname given Stanley by the natives, and a well-earned compliment. It meant ‘Breaker of Rocks’, the magic worker who smashes all obstacles lying in his path.
Scramble for Africa by Pakenham p149
http://books.google.com/books?id=VeZIcTKTydAC&lpg=PP1&dq=scramble%20for%20africa&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Report comment to moderator
Good morning.
I wonder how nihilism is capable of defining “good”.
For a nihilist to issue a moral imperative begs lots of questions.
My answer to a nihilst when he tells me to do something or when he offers his opinion on matters, terms or beliefs with inherent moral connotations within them is simply, “Why?”
The best the nihilist can do is pull something like parental rank and say “Because I said so.” For it is from his own make-believe moral presuppositions that he opperates and issues forth commands.
It is this way because the nihilist does not acknowledge any sort of moral authority or reality outside of himself. “Because I said so” however, is not compelling. For there are lots of people who don’t know said nihilist and therefore are at a disadvantage when attempting to live a moral life because they do not live in accodance with said nihilist’s nihilistic principles.
But to submit to a definition of nihilism in and of itself is to submit oneself to a self-refuting definition of obejctive morality (”objective morality doesn’t exist” is the objective definition to which I refer) that the nihilist himself did not create yet acknowledges.
The nihilist will think this to be a bit obsessive I imagine. Yet how is “obession” defined by the nihilist? Does he suggest it is “bad” or “wrong” to be obsessed? This is a curious thing.
I don’t know. I’ve never been a nihilist.
Report comment to moderator
Good morning from wet and wonderful SC.
“A wholesome tongue is a tree of life, but perversness in it breaks the spirit.” Proverbs 12:4 NKJV
May i sugest that we who believe not get caught up wallowing in the sewer with the sons of the wicked one?
God is our source and our strength. May he overwhelm you with many blessings today.
Report comment to moderator
I hope your day finds you well, Random.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Oh Roger – Thank you for the exhortation. I am assisting Mr. Random Name in seeing the futility of his own worldview in a manner which is most familiar to him and in a way that at least I hope he knows is lighthearted fun with a dash of seriousness.
I should probably limit myself to my helpful hints, but hold out hope that perhaps Random will one day be a son of the Most High. That maybe because Random helps chop wood with Chrisitians that someone will perhaps share the Gospel with him and he will be saved.
Yesterday, I encouraged Random to consider all the ways in Scripture in which God’s people engaged with walls – either tearing them down or building them up. I thought he might find a passage or two to which he could relate.
Blessings to you this day, Roger.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Roger, while I understand your encouragement to believers, I would also say that if a believer is viewing WMB as solely a place of Christian fellowship, he may be disappointed. The audience is obviously much broader and discussion/disagreement is inevitable. However, the tone of a believer’s post never has to be mean and cutting.
Report comment to moderator
Sesame Street turns 40 today, and it’s still a classic.
The beleagured counting pastry chef who would grandly proclaim “Five… chocolate…. tartufos!” followed by a collossal collapse down a short flight of stairs was one of my favorites.
Report comment to moderator
It has come to my attention that, following an ugly exchange between Jon Rowe and NJLawyer in the final days of October, Mickey McLean has banned Jon Rowe from the Web site. I have confirmed this directly from Jon; it is not a guess.
The exchange happened in the Oct. 30 Whirled Views, culminating in #208 when NJLawyer baselessly accused Jon of supporting pedophilia and said he should not be trusted with children. The next day, Mickey stepped in to say (in post #138 of the 10/31 WV), “Profanely taking the Lord’s name in vain will not be tolerated on this website, no matter what. It results in an automatic banning.” Apparently, Jon was guilty of this, although I didn’t see the offending post and Mickey has apparently removed it. Jon confirms he did put up one post telling someone defending NJL to “shut your damn mouth,” which Mickey removed. If that is what Mickey is trying to pass off as “profanely taking the Lord’s name in vain” and deserving an automatic ban, that is pathetic. Especially since Jon had just been accused of being a NAMBLA sympathizer and was understandably angry.
I looked through the Web site polices and found no such rule. In fact, while it’s clear that such langauge will not be tolerated, there’s nothing in the formal policies that says that it warrants “automatic banning.” Removing the post and warning the poster might be sufficient, especially for a first offense and in fact, Rule 5 says: “In terms of banning/not banning, we will take into account that person’s history of being naughty/nice.”
Jon has always been nice, so if he had a frustrated or angry outburst at being portrayed as a likely child molester, why was his history of niceness not taken into account, as promised?
At any rate, having confirmed the fact and thought it over: This is my last straw. NJLawyer falsely accused Jon of a vile thing, and she skates by with just a stern look (and a wink) from the moderator. Jon says something out of character for him, out of entirely reasonable anger, and he’s banned thanks to a new rule Mickey made up on the spot.
I am done here.
Report comment to moderator
Good Morning all. There is some standing water and a few roads closed due to Ida (Hurricane or Tropical Storm). Baby Girl and I had a fairly uneventful night. Not even any strong wind where we are. Still a little cloudy. I can’t wait for it to move on through, I know this sounds weird but you just wouldn’t believe how beautiful the sky is after a hurricane and how peaceful it all seems. “God is in His heaven, and all is right with the world”.
Report comment to moderator
Awww. Poor guy.
Report comment to moderator
Here is an online list of intellectually dishonest debate tactics. How many will we see here by day’s end?
Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.
Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating.
Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert’s Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers” or in my case, books—questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent’s facts or logic wrong is it invalid
Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject
False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”
Hearsay: debater cites something he heard but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources
Unqualified expert opinion: debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; in court, an expert must prove his qualifications before he can give an opinion
Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dad’s “Don’t work for money, make money work for you” is a classic example. In sports, coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism.
Motivation end justifies dishonest means: debater admits he is lying or using fallacious logic but excuses this on the grounds that he is motivating the audience to accomplish a good thing and that end justifies the intellectually-dishonest means
Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate on the grounds that he believes he is more likable than the opponent
Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present
Playing on widely held fantasies: debater offers facts or logic that support the fantasies of the audience thereby triggering powerful desires to believe that override normal desire for truth or logic
Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self: debater makes favorable claims about himself, but when asked for details or proof of the claims, refuses to provide any claiming privacy
Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic
Scapegoating: debater blames problems on persons other than the audience; this is a negative version of playing on widely-held fantasies; it plays on widely-held animosities or dislikes
Arousing envy: debater attempts to get the audience to dislike his opponent because the audience is envious of something that can be attributed to the opponent
Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes
Citing over-valued credentials: debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to overrely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the audience; for example, some con men point to registration of a trademark or corporation as evidence of approval by the government of the con man’s goods or services
Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: debater claims to be a member of a group that members of the audience are also members of like a religion, ethnic group, veterans group, and so forth; the debater’s hope is that the audience members will let their guard down with regard to facts and logic as a result and that they will give their alleged fellow group member the benefit of any doubt or even my-group-can-do-no-wrong immunity
Accusation of taking a quote out of context: debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows quotes but not reproduction of the entire text. Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best…I’ve ever seen.” Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author, a meaning which is very different from the meaning conveyed by the original quote that they complained about. Furthermore, other unrelated quotes that just prove the speaker is a nice guy, like in the Reverned Jeremiah Wright-Barack Obama controversy, are irrelevant. The discussion is about the offending quotes, not whether the speaker is a good guy. The missing context must relate to, and change the meaning of, the statements objected to, not just serve as character witness material about the speaker or writer. Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.
Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.
Rejecting facts or logic as opinion: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki says incorporating enables you to deduct a vacation to Hawaii as a board meeting on your federal income taxes. He’s wrong. It’s not my opinion. It’s the Internal Revenue Code Section 162(a) which you can read for yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000162—-000-.html. Whether you can deduct a trip to Hawaii has nothing to do with whether you are incoprorated. And you cannot deduct a vacation. It has to be an “ordinary and necessary business” expense. Travel expenses which are “lavish or extravagant” are explicitly not deductible according to IRC §162(a)(2). The fact that Kiyosaki and his CPA co-author differ from my statements on that subject are not matters of opinion. They are either lying or incompetent. I am accurately describing the law.
Argument from intimidation: [from a reader] The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” This is reminiscent of the McCarthy era loyalty oaths or groups that demand that candidates take a yes or no position on complex issues.
Theatrical fake laughter or sighs: This is wordless but it says what you just said is so ridiculously wrong that we must laugh at it. Hillary tried this without much success. It is intellectually dishonest and devoid of any intelligence, facts, or logic. The whole Democrat party laughed at Sarah Palin. They were successful with this tactic in spite of the fact that conspicuous by its absence in that “explanation” of how she was such a joke was any evidence or logic to show how a guy who was never mayor or governor or head of anything else was better qualified for the top executive job in the world than a person who was a mayor and a governor. Al Gore made the sigh debate tactic famous in the 2000 presidential debats and the ensuing Saturday Night Live parodies of it. On 6/2/09, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams celebrated this tactic in a comic strip that had Dilbert saying to the pointy-haried boss, “I like what you’ve done with your dismissive scoffing sound.”
Innuendo: an indirect remark, gesture, or reference, usually implying something derogatory.
My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.
Report comment to moderator
“But obscene, profane, or racist rhetoric – to cite only some obvious examples – shuts down debate. WORLDmag.com reserves the right to delete or edit any comment as its editors determine. …Our desire is to let truth and falsehood grapple.”
STEVEG, I saw the profanity, which is misquoted above. Enough said. This is over.
Report comment to moderator
HOPESPRINGS @ 11: Your last sentence is one thing that I mean. There is also the tendancy to argue back and forth. I have been caught up in such scenarios myself, which is easy to do, and have had to repent. Would it not be better to simply state one’s case and be done with it? I suppose I should speak only for myself.
Report comment to moderator
KIM, I so glad your day is beginning with that beautiful post-hurricane sky. It almost makes my knees a little weak. I know you’ll have a good day.
Report comment to moderator
Roger & Hope
It is my understanding Random Name understands the nature of my posts. I know they are intentionally playful and not mean-spirited. If Random has taken them in this regard, my apologies to him and I shall repent of the means by which I’ve attempted to interact with him on this blog.
I mean no ill will to Mr. Random Name. He’s emailed me in the past in polite, compassionate tones and I have attempted to do the same. It is sparing with wit and intellect which I enjoy and so does RN, at least that’s what I can say my intentions are. Sure, Random can be somewhat provocative and I’ve given in to letting some of his antagonisms in the past get to me, but for the most part, I think he knows, or at least I’ve assumed he knows, that what I post is in sporting mimicry of his own style.
Again, my humble and sincerest apologies to anyone who has believed I’ve been anything but lightheartedly serious with RN, to include RN of course.
BTW SteveG – I saw the Lord’s name in vain as well.
Thomas1 – I’d think you were guilty of the first issue you posted in #16 there a few days ago, no?
OH
Report comment to moderator
On Sunday our pastor preached on John 13:31-35. Using verse 35 (“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”) he suggested that God is inviting the outside world to judge us based on the love we show to one another. It reminded me of this blog and particularly of accusations made by unbelievers that we “certainly don’t act like Christians” because of some of the comments that are posted. We should take that to heart and remember that, while this is a blog intended for Christians, we are being “watched” by those who aren’t and every word we write becomes part of what they think of Christ.
I’m not suggesting that we don’t take a stand against things that are morally wrong, but we should do it gently and we should NEVER snip and jab at other Christians. Most don’t, but some do, some do it quite boldly, and some over nit-picking details. Perhaps we could keep this in mind and remind one another of it from time to time? Just something that has been on my mind this week.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy
I for one am open to being confronted on this blog if I’m a snipping or jabbing at others.
Please feel free to be specific with me, anyone, if you feel my comments are out of line. Honestly. No need to be suggestive.
I do get carried away sometimes.
OH
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry to see you go, Steve; I’m also sorry about Jon.
If anyone cares, I check out when the flames begin. I don’t come here to witness petty arguments. I’ve spent enough time with children, I don’t need to waste my time with adults who should know better. And if you’re writing in anger, whatever your brilliant point, you’re out of control and I don’t want to read your post.
Mickey’s is a thankless job and some of us only make it harder when we refuse to be reasonable. Posting here is a privilege, not a right. Unless you own World Magazine, you’re only a guest and you should keep that in mind.
I monitor the website for our company. We don’t have many postings because early on the president drew on my experiences on this blog and asked how to keep our blog a congenial place. I have to monitor every post which means sometimes it’s hours before things appear. That makes the “conversation” very stilted and unfluid.
This blog is by comparison a far-flung wild-western blog with some pretty simple rules; they’ve deliberately tried to keep it up-to-date by leaving us pretty much alone when we post. Unfortunately, what looks like freedom for some becomes license for others–and to keep this a family-friendly place, the moderator has to step in.
I have posted things in anger which I regret. Perhaps if we had a way to delete our own posts, we might make this a more “forgiving” spot. But I don’t own World Magazine, nor do I have stock in the company. I’m a user–just like you.
Remember that Jesus admonished us everything we say in private will be shouted from the rooftops (Biblegateway.com is not letting me find that exact verse). I try hard to remember both here and in my personal life that what I say will be exposed to the light. As a Christian, my life and words need to be above reproach. I have to confess the sin of my tongue otherwise–and I already have to do that too much.
Proverbs 12:18: “Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.”
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I think sometimes people get bothered when unbelievers come to WMB to post and, yes, to contend. However, that is the nature of this place as opposed to a “Christians Only” type of forum. The doors are (within limits) blown open.
I see what you’re saying and have only respect for your words. The Scripture does speak against debate (Ro. 1:29). However we are encouraged to contend for the faith (Ju.1:3). I don’t think, though, that this means that we are allowed biblically to be contentious.
P.S. I also see nothing wrong with a good exhortation from a well-meaning fellow believer. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
MOMMY, I totally agree! Sometimes I let the vanity of my emotions flow through my keyboard, and sometimes there is a fuzzy line between one person’s nit-picking and another’s clarification of the facts.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll second Michelle’s comments in #23. There are days when I scroll on past 90% of comments on a thread, and there are threads I don’t even bother to look at because of all the bickering and sniping.
SteveG, I’ve appreciated many of your posts and am sorry to see you go.
Report comment to moderator
Hope/Mommy/Nana
Your counsel on my interaction with Random?
Random your counsel on my interaction with Random?
Any counsel on any interaction?
I am not unlike what Nana says in #25.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OH – Thomas1 – I’d think you were guilty of the first issue you posted in #16 there a few days ago, no?
Possibly, and it did seem to shut down the debate. Though I attacked no one directly, people seemed to take it personally. This I do regret.
Perhaps it was a reflection of my frustration with people who are ill-informed and yet opine about important issues. Now I’ve got Nana addressing me as a female, Victoria ensconced in a state of high dudgeon, and News2Me misquoting me every chance she gets.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Steve,
I am sorry Jon was banned. I was away at the time of the exchange and have only skimmed the offending threads. I hope his banishment will be temporary, as I know how easy it is to let momentary anger get the best of you, and Jon is not given to such outbursts.
You have a unique voice, and I hope you will reconsider and come back after a short rest.
Report comment to moderator
One last post to clarify something:
I don’t know what Jon actually said. I didn’t see it. If he used the Lord’s name in vain, ok, so he did.
That isn’t the point. The point is this:
1. Whatever he said, he said it in an entirely understandable hurt and anger.
2. Whatever he said, it was out of character for him. He is usually even-tempered, courteous and non-confrontational.
3. Instead of a reasonable kind of discipline — such as graciously removing the offending post and issuing a warning, whether public or private — Mickey banned him under a rule that doesn’t exist. (If the moderator is going to capriciously make up new rules and enforce them without warning, how does anyone know where the boundaries are?)
4. Those of you who are piling on Jon for it are apparently completely fine with NJLawyer’s insinuations that he supports NAMBLA and shouldn’t be trusted with children, which was the attack to which he was reacting. The fact that so-called Christians are ok with her sleazy slander but can’t find the grace to offer him forgiveness for an outburst is exactly the problem.
Farewell.
Report comment to moderator
#23 Michelle,
Good post.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I hope you reconsider.
Report comment to moderator
My wife Just email me –
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 5
months — so you’ll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I hate to see you go. I’ve never said that about an announced departure before. I would encourage you not to let someone else’s argument dictate your behavior. A little inspirational Scripture? OK: Prov 26:17: “Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own.”
Thomas1: Great post at 15. But, by calling attention to faulty arguments before they happen, you may be setting yourself up!
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory – I suggest you give up the comments about nihilism. I think Random gets your point, but he does not seem to be engaging with you on this (unless I’ve missed something somewhere). Sometimes it looks like you’re getting a bit obsessed with the nihilism thing (though you did make good points about it).
About your story yesterday of getting along with a lady only to find out she was a nun – I agree with Cheryl that at least you got some practice, & it shows that ladies can like you.
Most ladies – at least those worth your time – will be forgiving of awkwardness & such. So start talking to more ladies! And, as I said elsewhere, don’t wait for a lady to talk to you, cuz many still think it’s the man’s place to approach them, not the other way around.
Report comment to moderator
Steve – Some of us did say that we thought NJL’s comment crossed a line.
Report comment to moderator
@ StuBob: Thomas1: Great post at 15. But, by calling attention to faulty arguments before they happen, you may be setting yourself up!
Or even worse – I may be broadening the education of the people here who only seem to have mastered a couple on the list.
Report comment to moderator
“Alas, eleventy-one years is far too short a time to post among such excellent and admirable WMB bloggers. I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”
“I, uh, I h-have things to do. I’ve put this off for far too long.”
“I regret to announce — this is The End. I am going now. I bid you all a very fond farewell.”
Well, okay, not all get a fond farewell.
After all, it is SO troublesome having to deal with people who don’t worship the Dear Leader! And who call killing children murder, and weird, archaic, extremist stuff like that! Just what IS the world coming to? Nasty, nasty questions, nasty, nasty criticizers!
Best to run back to the warm embrace of the Huffington Post/White House Press Office, home of the stinking, parasitic fungus that currently grows on the trunk of the American Republic and likes to pretend it is part of the tree.
And there in the the Valley of the Shadow of Death, let your neurons (the remaining functioning ones, anyway) slip gently back into that good night.
Bye.
Report comment to moderator
This will probably get me in trouble, but here goes. I didn’t call Jon Rowe a pedophile. I didn’t call him a child molester. I didn’t use those words. But when a person makes a defense for NAMBLA, which is an insidious organization, I believe I would have the right as a parent to keep my children from his influence. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t let him teach my kids American history either. He distorts it repeatedly. There are things that children should never be exposed to simply because they are children. And children should NEVER, and I do mean NEVER, be sacrificed to anyone’s political agenda. I simply do not understand people who do not value children, who will not protect them.
I don’t know what Jon Rowe said about God, so I can’t comment on that.
Report comment to moderator
I like Old Hickory’s nihilism posts (and all his other ones, too). So what if Random Name never responds substantively to a challenge. I’m sure he’s not the only visitor holding to the nihilistic view, and maybe some of those folks aren’t as closed-minded as he and will actually think about OH’s points. I say keep it coming, OH.
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
we all make mistake in our posting and we all let our emotion one time or another get the best of us. What happen between NJLawyer and Jon Rowe is between them and those who watch these boards.
Folks we should be praying for all involved that God’s peace would take hold and everyone can be able to post again.
Report comment to moderator
I think more posters should be given “time out” by the editor. I do not mean banning!
BUT NOT ME!
Report comment to moderator
OH, without passing judgment in any way, I finally understood your sparring w/RN, but it wasn’t my bailiwick and by scrolling past those posts I probably missed other of your comments I found more interesting. That’s just me. Continue to be yourself and keep looking Up. I very much appreciate your opinions on scriptural examples and your knowledge of history.
Report comment to moderator
OH et al,
Oddly enough, I typed my post in Word before reading any of today’s thread, so it was not prompted by anything that was said today. Interesting how relevant it was, though, isn’t it? Blessings.
Report comment to moderator
Good posts, Mommy, Michelle, others. I remember apologizing once when I got up the next morning and felt I’d gotten caught up in an online argument and didn’t handle it in the most biblical way. (Mumsee later advised us that it’s important to not feel we have to have the final word, which has helped me in subsequent discussions to say what I mean and let it go.)
Open apologies can go a long way toward helping everyone move on. (Thomas, was that an almost-apology in 28 I see?). OH has set a good example of this, I believe (even when I don’t think it’s needed), and I’d love to see more of it here. Admit when we’re wrong and when we’ve gone too far, or gotten caught up in the anger of a debate. Ask forgiveness. And move on.
Christians should always be quick to admit when we feel we’ve crossed the line.
SteveG, I’m sorry to see you go and would hope you’d reconsider. I’m sorry to see Jon “gone” as well. Is “banning” always permanent? Or can it be a time out for a designated period? Are there different levels maybe of discipline here?
Our newspaper’s web site gives readers a chance to comment on stories and it’s been frankly a nightmare (this is nothing, folks). When people can comment anonymously, it seems the the worst of the worst behavior comes out. Sad.
Report comment to moderator
I would not worry about it, NJL. What the leftist posters REALLY don’t like about you is your questioning of the moronic cartoon culture/political cult they so slavishly and mindlessly follow. They are afraid of dissent and would use any excuse to back away from a confrontation with truth.
It is a pity about Rowe, in my opinion, if it is really true that he was banned. He was an interesting and intelligent poster and a libertarian in many ways, but anyone can follow his arguments – and join in – on his blog (I can’t remember the blog name). He has a passion for history (even if I don’t agree with nine tenths of his conclusions and he tends, I think, to revise history according to his theories a bit too readily). I have no idea why Rowe would have used such a profanity here – there is NEVER any excuse for that, however, and the WMB can ban or un-ban anyone as they see fit, for all the whining to the contrary.
If someone does not like the decisions WMB make, they are free to go away and start their own blog.
I have been warned a couple of times, myself. Usually it revolved around impolitely calling people who support the butchering of children ‘child-murderers’. I consider WMB far too lenient on trying to appease the Humpty-Dumpty’s of the Left who post here and want to control language to suit and caress their own stinking amorality. Which is why I have backed off making serious posts here lately.
But you won’t catch ME whining about it. And if I leave, it won’t be for some sissified made-up reason about being ‘offended’ by a left-wing poster.
People come and go from blogs all the time. Trying to make a big issue out of it is immature.
If Steveg wants to come back and post, I am sure most would welcome him. I don’t really care, one way or the other, except all this whining about ‘unfairness’ irritates me.
No one is forcing Steveg or anyone else to post here or anywhere else.
Report comment to moderator
OH, I’ve enjoyed your nihilism posts as well, they come off as challenging but always good-natured — and I must say you’ve captured RN’s style remarkably well.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I’m also sorry to see you go, as well as Jon. I hadn’t realized that Jon had been banned, I had taken Mickey’s comment in the Oct. 31 WV as a warning rather than an explanation for something that had already happened. I scrolled back up to see what he might have been referring to, and all I found was something about “merry freakin’ Christmas.” But that was in the Oct. 31 WV, not Oct. 30, so maybe there had been something in Oct. 30 WV that I had missed.
I skip over more than half the comments these days, but I generally read yours. I come here for the range of viewpoints expressed, and yours is distinctive from most others around here. Sometimes I also find myself getting angry at the ugliness and pettiness of comments here (by people on both sides of the typical arguments), but I make a point of responding only to ideas and not people, and once I have made a point and they don’t seem to get it, I leave it alone. In person, I think there are times when it is important to confront the person for not only what is said but how. But here online, I haven’t seen anything positive come about from those confrontations.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the input Macrutabaga and Karen.
It’s a tough call. “Over coffee” the dynamic of our interactions would be substantially different. I’ve clarified my intentions with Random. I do think Random does respond. We had what I thought was an enjoyable “joust” yesterday morning. I suppose in the back of my mind, I write it all with a wink and a smile. If I met Random in person, I would shake his hand, maybe hug him and take him to lunch. I know I would. I don’t think I have any malice toward him whatever.
Nana is spot on in 25. Roger has good points. Mommy has good points. Pastor Roy has good points.
“Just” writing, especially in a blog, is a limitation that does not afford us the opportunity to “see” or truly “read” a person’s reaction to what we write. “We” think we’re being understood, but others take it in a whole different light and to that degree we should excercise caution and circumspection.
I like to be humorous, witty, intelligent, and I like others to think about and like what I read. I get emotional, nit picky and a bit too saucy at times. I do I do. That and I think Ken once correctly said I’m a bit self-righteous.
The question before all of us is “Why do we post?” I do not pretend to speak for anyone else. You all know where I’m coming from.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Drill, this is interesting:
What the leftist posters REALLY don’t like about you is your questioning of the moronic cartoon culture/political cult they so slavishly and mindlessly follow. They are afraid of dissent and would use any excuse to back away from a confrontation with truth.
A few days ago, I referred to people who had not read the healthcare bill but were against it anyway as “idiots”.
This was perhaps not a shining moment in the firmament of my posts, and I do regret it. It’s not the best way to get a point across, for one, and it offended people, which isn’t always regrettable, but was this time.
In light of that, would you reconsider the italicized portion of your post at 46?
Report comment to moderator
Donna
It has always been my hope/assumption Random has seen them as witty, insightful, perhaps a bit intentionally provocative but nevertheless thought provoking and at bottom, sincere with a wink
.
If I’m not mistaken, Drill sort of goes in that direction with him too, boots and all.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
the question the must be asked is how do we as Christian deal with people who disagrees with us?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see, Thomas1. I believe that, in the order of diminishing IQ, the relevant categories are ‘moronic’, ‘imbecilic’, and then ‘idiotic’.
So you may be right here. I may have overstated the case a bit by using the word ‘moronic’ to describe the intellectual ability of the left-wing in my statement above.
My apologies all around. Thanks – good catch.
Report comment to moderator
OH–If memory serves, I think Random was going to be gone a few days with Mrs. Random. So if he’s not responding I think that is why.
Michelle, I appreciate your thoughts on the Rowe row. I too exit when the exchanges get angry. That being said, what I’m reading–quite second hand–does not sound like the usual Jon Rowe that we know and love. Hoping merely for a timeout.
And Steve, it has been said before, but please don’t leave. We need to hear your voice.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy – Tis the Lord who is always Spot On with us.
Nana et. al. – OH is always available and open to explaining himself in case you were ever wondering about what I post or what I mean.
OH
Report comment to moderator
A dog had followed his owner to school. His owner was a fourth grader at a public elementary school.
However,when the bell rang,the dog sidled inside the building and made it all the way to the child’s classroom before a teacher noticed and shooed him outside, closing the door behind him.
The dog sat down, whimpered and stared at the closed doors.
Then God appeared beside the dog, patted his head, and said,
‘Don’t feel bad fella’…they won’t let ME in either.’
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I hate to see you go and would honestly like to see Jon get another chance.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t go SteveG. Stick around so we have one intelligent, well-spoken non-conformist here.
So, where is the song that usually goes along with the history lesson? I can only think of one, by the Moody Blues from 1968:
Dr. Livingstone, I Presume
Dr. Livingstone, I presume,
Stepping out of the jungle gloom,
Into the midday sun.
What did you find there,
Did you stand a while and stare,
Did you meet anyone?
I’ve seen butterflies galore,
I’ve seen people big and small,
I’ve still not found what I’m looking for.
We’re all looking for someone.
Captain Scott, you were so bold,
Now you’re looking rather cold,
Out there in the snow.
I’ve seen polar bears and seals,
I’ve seen giant antarctic eels,
I’ve still not found what I’m looking for.
Columbus, where are you bound,
So you think that the world is round,
Sail off in the blue.
There are Indians by the score,
In many places that I saw,
I’ve still not found what I’m looking for.
We’re all looking for someone.
We’re all looking for someone.
We’re all looking for someone…
Report comment to moderator
Folks,. we need to pray for Steve that he would have a change of heart and the Jon will be able to come back.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy
In answer to your question in #52, I would simply say for starters what you would say or do if you were to spend a few days in person with the person of whom you speak in #33. You do not have to answer me. I do not mean to be provocative, only making the suggestion.
To answer you directly regarding my own personal experiences. Meet them where they are, accept their limitations in light of your own, speak a bit like them so they know you care and know a bit about them and where they’re coming from, and do it all with the power of the Holy Spirit. Love them as Jesus gives you the strength. Or there are several Scriptures which exhort us to not entangle ourselves with certain people, as well, in which case we must turn away.
It is only by Christ and his wisdom can we know how (and who) to actually love as He loved us.
OH
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory68: Hello, there.
Everything I post on WMB is true and important except for almost all of the adjectives which I throw in liberally as a kind of seasoning or spice merely to arouse, so to speak.
Also most of the verbs I use don’t count for much; verbs are somewhat superfluous anyway and tend to clutter up a sentence with too much action and not enough introspection.
Many of the nouns that I use are not necessarily vital or highly accurate, either, but are included in order to provide backdrop in order to catch the correct mood or ambiance I am attempting to create within a sentence.
Pronouns, adverbs and prepositional phrases also are mainly fillers, in order to just get my word count up.
Modifiers and punctuation could be eliminated without losing a great deal, as well.
Other than those exceptions, though, everything I post on WMB is true and important.
Report comment to moderator
Those lyrics in #58 make a point: We’re all looking for someone. Some of us have found Him.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
I saw all the posts in question. I thought that NJL was unnecessarily insulting, but just stating an opinion (that she wouldn’t trust her nieces with a man who defended such behavior), and that Jon’s increasingly belligerent demands for her to apologize were somewhat thin-skinned. Perhaps she “should” have apologized, but if she was stating the truth (that she wouldn’t trust him with children she loved), a genuine apology would be rather difficult. “I’m sorry you got offended” or, I suppose, “I’m sorry I said it.” (Without apologizing for thinking it or withdrawing thinking it, which probably wouldn’t have seemed adequate.)
The post that got him banned (which was indeed quite vitriolic, with several swear words I believe) was in fact not in the heat of anger, but days later (minimally the following day, but I think two or three days later) when he could have had a chance to “cool off.” When it in fact seemed like both of them had been banned, and not just Jon, I personally believed Jon’s banning to have been justified, but not NJL’s. (Even though I would agree that Jon usually does a better job of holding his tongue than NJL does.)
But whatever–the moderator doesn’t want us “rehashing” old arguments, but I don’t think he acted inappropriately in saying that kind of post won’t be tolerated on here. And it’s his call whether to issue a warning or a ban.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy #56
This diminishes God’s nature a bit. The punchline seems to suggest God is as helpless as the dog in not gaining admission to the public schools.
Surely you do not mean to suggest this?
OH
Report comment to moderator
Drill
Thank you for the detailed, grammatical exegesis.
You do not strike me as one who would ever dangle a modifier or end a sentence with a prepostion, especially if you thought such abuses of the English vernacular and all of its various and sundry contradictions would cause the slightest harm to your audience, your dog, pick-up, umbrella or spouse.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Adios
Yes, I recall Random telling us this. I’d thought he’d since returned, but perhaps not. Thanks for the reminder. I have the utmost confidence the resident nihilst will have plenty of peas to insert under my pillows upon his return! (Yes, that is a self-depricating slight against myself for my tendency to be petty if things are not “just right”)
OH
Report comment to moderator
Oldhickory68
It seems that the Church has failed people in today world, with the idea of helping them deal with people who disagree with them.
Report comment to moderator
Oldhickory68 11.10.09 AT 11:31 AM
Pastor Roy #56
This diminishes God’s nature a bit. The punchline seems to suggest God is as helpless as the dog in not gaining admission to the public schools.
Surely you do not mean to suggest this?
OH
—-
Not at all the punch line is the school kicked the dog out because he was not welcome and the school kick God out because He was not welcome.
Report comment to moderator
Old Hickory68:
Yes, a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with.
Also, one should never hopefully dangle a modifier.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: There are no adjectives in “child-murderer”. Or “baby killer”. Nor, for that matter, in “Christ-hater”.
Report comment to moderator
I just skimmed over 68 posts of November 11 Whirled Views. If I wrote a fictional story written as a series of blog posts (as in the past writers wrote fictional stories as a series of letters) containing what I read today, I suspect a reader (in the unlikely event such a silly story had a reader) would say, “Come on, Random, write a story that is not completely ridiculous and bears at least the slightest resemblance to what real people might actually write.”
However, I am not making any of this up.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: Your point is?
Report comment to moderator
OH (#27), I don’t view your “nihilist” posts toward Random as offensive. I can see that they are good-natured, if a bit abundant.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy:
And then along came Mohammed, and Zeus, and Baal, and the Wicked Witch of the West and all sat down outside the school room door.
Meanwhile the kids inside learned something, and prepared themselves to be productive citizens…
But the one thing your story does get right is the ownership relationship between man and his gods.
Report comment to moderator
Random,
Where did you find a November 11 Whirled Views with over 68 posts? The most recent November 11 Whirled Views had only 56 comments.
Report comment to moderator
But then again, OH, how your posts are received is probably what matters, right?
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.10.09 AT 11:50 AM
Pastor Roy:
And then along came Mohammed, and Zeus, and Baal, and the Wicked Witch of the West and all sat down outside the school room door.
Meanwhile the kids inside learned something, and prepared themselves to be productive citizens…
But the one thing your story does get right is the ownership relationship between man and his gods.
—-
Arcadia is our school Mohammed, and Zeus, and Baal, and the Wicked Witch of the West are welcome to come in.
Report comment to moderator
White House communications chief and fierce Fox News critic Anita Dunn to step down
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 (#16), could I add to your list? Ending a post with “End of story” or “‘Nuff said” is not conducive to debate. But then again, maybe that’s the intention.;)
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
I wasn’t sure what to make of your post at #16, but it appears form post #50 that you have finished your large slice of humble pie and are ready to re-enter the fray. While I wasn’t one of the ‘idiots’ you were referring to (at least I don’t think I was), it seemed a rather hurtful remark to many.
I accept your comments at #50 in all sincerity.
SteveG,
Please reconsider.
Report comment to moderator
FINAL final word: Jon really is banned, Drill.
NJL: Jon did not make any defense of NAMBLA.
Nana at #17: The rules say such POSTS will not be tolerated, and I am fine with that. They should not be tolerated. However, not tolerating the posts and banning the person are entirely different things. You can delete the posts and warn the person without resorting to a ban, especially when the person has a good track record for courtesy otherwise.
Remember Llama? Llama posted obnoxious and objectionable screeds mutliple times a day. The moderator gave him several warnings and many second chances before finally banning him.
Jon had one entirely understandable outburst, very unusual for him, and got banned with no warning or even private explanation.
I ask any of you, even NJL’s misguided defenders: Is that in any way reasonable?
Karen O at #36: I know. I’m not talking about those who did.
Jon sent me this e-mail with permission to post it, so I will. Then I have one final comment:
I don’t know why NJL keeps saying I defended NAMBLA when I never did. I actually said — perhaps where she was mistaken — don’t blame the “pro-gay” side for leading us down a slipperly slope where other unacceptable things. And I gave examples how Judeo-Christian traditions could be tied to incest (Adam & Eve’s children), polygamy (I’m not sure if I got around to saying that; but again, examples of biblical characters who were engaged in such) and what some might today term pedophilia (i.e. 12 & 13 year old having sex with someone 18 or older — the Judeo-Christian tradition endorsed this in the context of M-F marriage; this existed in conservative parts of the United States — the South — up until the 1950s, before the 1960s watershed. Jerry Lee Lewis and Lorretta Lynn are notable examples). Never did I remotely come close to defending NAMBLA. It’s NJL who concluded it’s the pro-gay side or homosexuals themselves who defend NAMBLA and then lumped me in that group.
My final final word: To those who have asked me not to leave, I appreciate your support. Here’s my decision: I will come back if, and only if, Mickey lifts the ban from Jon.
Report comment to moderator
Hope Springs, I submit that that list will get longer before it gets shorter. ;|
Report comment to moderator
One more note: if NJL did what was described, not only is it despicable, but it’s classic textbook innuendo and demonization.
Attempting to conflate gay people (or those who support them) with peodophiles is a very common debate tactic here on the conservative side. It’s been scientifically debunked many times but never renounced and keeps getting repeated. It should be banned, but I hold out little hope.
Report comment to moderator
In five years or so of reading worldmagblog comments, for no better reason than I am slightly crazy, various comment posters have straightened me out to the point I am straighter than a agnostic, atheistic, nihilistic, homosexual loving pretzel.
Solon, aka Peter Leavitt, straightened me out by telling me to go away. This may have been a violation of wmb rules. Peter has gone away. This may demonstrate the Curse of Random.
Weekenderman, who became, Outcast, sniped at me, though we later became friendly after a fashion, even though Peter accused me of driving Outcast away. A canard, perhaps foul; in any case, not true. Outcast became upset by people (not including me) making insinuations about his (ahem) “orientation.” As far as I know (seriously) Outcast is happily married in his second marriage.
Beatrix, who also posted as “BB” and other names, argued with me about homosexuality. Beatrix is no longer posting comments here. What happened to Beatrix? I have no idea.
VS also known as Vicky, posted a prayer or two at me to straighten me out, though we quickly became friends and she regularly commented at my blog. I did not know that she was dying of breast cancer at the time.
Yeah pointed out (correctly) that I have no basis for opposing murder and genocide and stealing and rape. I had to think about it for a while, but then I realized Yeah is correct. I am a slow thinker, but after I pondered for a while, I came to the conclusion that there is no reason for me not to murder (individually or in groups) except that I am not well enough armed, and no reason not to steal (except I am not smart enough), and no reason not to rape, except that while I like sex, I prefer it when my partner is willing and enthusiastic.
Conclusion: I am a nihilist! Though a wimpy, ineffective, cowardly, incompetent nihilist.
Yeah told me that he could be persuaded that practicing homosexuals should be put to death. Yeah apparently considered himself a Christian, though even for conservative Christians Yeah is very strange. Anyway, Yeah is apparently gone.
Ed, an atheist, somewhat obsessed with Darwinism, accused me of being a wimp for calling myself an agnostic instead of an atheist. Outcast defended me saying I was a relatively courteous atheist. NJL Lawyer, then took me to task for being rude. So I guess along with being a murderer and a thief and a rapist, I am a rude atheist.
Ed has been banned several times but keeps coming back under different names. Something about reading a blog where conservative Christians talk about Darwinism causes Ed to devolve.
Drill keeps being funnier than I am. Drill is frequently upset about abortion. We will get to the root of Drill’s issues one of these days.
Old Hickory is too nice for his own good, and worries that he may have offended me by going on about my nihilism. Being a nihilist means never having to say your sorry, though if I burn in Hell for eternity, I will be very sorry.
Mickey became irritated with me and asked me to apologize.
Now there is a big mess involving Jon Rowe and Steve G and who knows who else. On the other hand:
Washington state passed a “domestic partnership” measure. The citizens of my state proved 51% if them are “so gay” (so to speak) and 49% will defend their honor and their fiddle head fern until their firearm is pried from their cold dead fingers.
As I am a nihilist, I shoot bunnies and gray squirrels, but not red squirrels because my wife says the reds are native. However, just the other day, my wife said, “Something is eating the carrots in the garden. I don’t think it is the bunnies. I think it is the red squirrels.”
“Do you want me to shoot the red squirrels?” I asked her.
If you are a red squirrel, be afraid.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 12:19 PM
One more note: if NJL did what was described, not only is it despicable, but it’s classic textbook innuendo and demonization.
Attempting to conflate gay people (or those who support them) with peodophiles is a very common debate tactic here on the conservative side. It’s been scientifically debunked many times but never renounced and keeps getting repeated. It should be banned, but I hold out little hope.
—-
Thomas so peodophiles are not born that way?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, please do not go down this road.
Report comment to moderator
Too funny Random
Thanks I needed that.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Pastor Roy, please . . .
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 12:30 PM
Pastor Roy, please do not go down this road.
—
what road again? I asked a question
Thomas so peodophiles are not born that way?
Report comment to moderator
adios 11.10.09 AT 12:31 PM
Yes, Pastor Roy, please . . .
so you believe peodophiles are born that way
Report comment to moderator
RN, that’s quite the historic summary of WMB from one person’s perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, your quarrel is with the editors, not with us. Why punish those who want you to stay with an ultimatum they can’t resolve? This is over.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.10.09 AT 12:33 PM
Steve, your quarrel is with the editors, not with us. Why punish those who want you to stay with an ultimatum they can’t resolve? This is over
—–
Is Steve quarrel with the editors or could there be other reason he wants to live. (I would like him to stay)
Report comment to moderator
“Is Steve quarrel with the editors or could there be other reason he wants to live. (I would like him to stay)”
There’s a death penalty here too? That must be the step after banning.
Report comment to moderator
I think that anyone who uses adjectives should be summarily banned.
Adjectives are inherently divisive and judgmental.
In fact, I think that anyone who uses adjectives should be fined and imprisoned.
Or perhaps the White House could release a list of approved (legal) adjectives.
Maybe some sort of Federal licensing process (with a mandatory three-day waiting period during which the Government can do a background check) for people who wish to use adjectives.
Perhaps, though, only the military and the police should be allowed to use adjectives.
Report comment to moderator
DRILL, on a somewhat different tack, I had a HS English teacher who wouldn’t let us use the word “very.”
Report comment to moderator
Change of subject: A Tale of Two Kitties
Edmund and Lucy are Maine Coon Tuxedo cats, and as such they are quite large. Despite having a very uptown litter box which automatically cleans itself, one of them has taken to mysteriously and surreptitiously using a bathroom sink, a toilet (this happened twice), and the bathtub. It happens about once a week. I know the box is clean, so that’s not the issue. (Although it could be that when one of them uses it, the other won’t until the cleaning cycle runs, and hey, when a cat’s gotta go, she’s gotta go.)
It’s always the master bath, never the seldom used 1/2 bath. The culprit must want to get caught, or perhaps is leaving a trophy the way some serial killers do.
Neither one will rat the other out. I come home and am greeted with raised tails, leg rubs, and yowly meows of welcome. The furniture is unclawed and the food bowls filled regularly. They live a celestial existence of meals, fancy toys that wind up under the furniture while they play with the packaging, sun-drenched naps, and ample brushing, petting and adult-level conversations. There is no cause for either cat to complain.
Is Edmund, like his namesake Edmund Pevensie, leaving me “Turkish Delight” to confound me?
Does Lucy, like her namesake, express her childlike wonder by abusing items of furniture? Is she taking her love of Aslan to a level of imitation?
Bathrooms should smell – very faintly – like bleach. Not like Narnia’s catbox.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
approved, legal? You’re gone.
Report comment to moderator
RN
Thanks for your concise history of WMB and I am honored to be included among its chapters!
Conclusion: I am a nihilist! Though a wimpy, ineffective, cowardly, incompetent nihilist.
My question for the nihilist who defines himself as such is how does he refer to words such as “ineffective”, “cowardly” and “incompetent” if by the classic “objective” definition of nihilism there exists no objective moral reality to which such words would have to be moored in order to have any sort of negligible meaning?
OH
Report comment to moderator
Nana, would your teacher let you use “infinitely”?
“Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.”
~ C.S. Lewis
Report comment to moderator
HICKORY HITS 100?
Report comment to moderator
AW, SHUCKS!
OH
Report comment to moderator
Aw, I didn’t notice, OH. Sorry to steal your thunder.
Report comment to moderator
Drill
You realize you have violated your own proposed bill with the generous usage of multiple describing words.
For example “Federal” is an adjective which describes “process” and “background” describes “check” as well as “the” (which is the least well-known of the adjective family as an “article” adjective) describes both “military” and “police”.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Ah, hope. It’s ok. The “tension” and “fun” is in realizing that I’m either 99 or 199 or maybe someday 299 and then rushing to post to see if I get the coveted double zero. Sort of like the flop or the river in poker.
Enjoy your achievement today!
OH
Report comment to moderator
Hope, infinitely was infinitely better as long as it wasn’t used infinitely.
Report comment to moderator
I find it funny how words change over time.
Report comment to moderator
If DRILL is correct @ 61, all he would be able do is say “Hi” and “Goodby.”
My side hurts again from laughing.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy @90
I believe we are all born sinners, but how we express our particular sins sort of grows on us.
But I also know that pedophilia (not sure I spelled that right) arises in both homo and heterosexuals. To go there, so to speak, in a debate about Homosexuality is to obscure the point.
And probably breaks at least three things on Thomas1’s list of bad ways to argure.
Report comment to moderator
adios 11.10.09 AT 1:22 PM
Pastor Roy @90
I believe we are all born sinners, but how we express our particular sins sort of grows on us.
But I also know that pedophilia (not sure I spelled that right) arises in both homo and heterosexuals. To go there, so to speak, in a debate about Homosexuality is to obscure the point.
And probably breaks at least three things on Thomas1’s list of bad ways to argure.
—-
I agree with you on the issue of we are all born sinners. The issue I was trying to deal with is how certain people believe. That people are born with only certain Sexual Behavior. An I wanted to know who makes that decision?
Report comment to moderator
Being an expert pecan pie maker, this is the final word on the discusions on this blog.
Arguments are not dicussions and vice versa.
Arguments are not debates and vice versa.
And thats it.
Now I have to go and make a pecan pie!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t mind the use of “very”, as long as it is not repeated. It seems everyone is extremely fond of repeating “very” two or three times, when another adverb would do rather well.
As for not using adjectives- sorry, Drill. That is a very ridiculous idea.
Report comment to moderator
Those two words should never go togetther Pecan Pie.
Report comment to moderator
Conversely, two words which should never be separated: apple dumplings.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS1 #28 “News2Me misquoting me every chance she gets.”
If I cut and paste directly from your post that is not a misquote.
I did misunderstand you one time and I apologized immediately. I just saw that today. If I misunderstood you another time I didn’t catch it, or had to leave the blog never to return to that thread.
As far as I can remember I have only replied to you when you have misunderstood (or misquoted) me for something that was not directed at you. And you usually conclude your remarks by CALLING me NAMES and BELITTLING me.
Your most memorable post was when you called me a name, and when I returned the favor (using the same name), you told me that you reported me to the moderator. Don’t you think that is a bit childish?
If you alone have access to all the facts then you should just post them, enlighten us, and refrain from calling people names just because you disagree with them?
Report comment to moderator
News2Me, one of my cats has a present for you. See 97 for details.
Report comment to moderator
Another beautiful day in the neighborhood but I did not go for firewood. One of the kiddies needed to stay behind and do some schoolwork and I have apples to tend to. One can never have too many apple cobblers, right?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Are you a person who discriminates against women?
One who mentally harasses women?
Or did I just get lucky to have you choose to demonize me every chance you get?
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.10.09 AT 1:47 PM
Thomas1
Are you a person who discriminates against women?
One who mentally harasses women?
Or did I just get lucky to have you choose to demonize me every chance you get
—
maybe he has a hugh crush on you?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Maybe I could go back and copy some of your demoralizing posts and paste them here. But then you would say I misquoted you.
Report comment to moderator
News2ME – 120
I can remember one recent post.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want to remember. Gotta go.
Report comment to moderator
119 ; maybe he has a hugh crush on you?
As opposed to a bob or bill crush?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding profanity, the other day Kim (quite certain it was Kim, but I can’t find it now, sorry if it wasn’t you, Kim) used LORD (all caps) as an exclamation in a post. I cringed when I read it. Isn’t that profanity? Even if she is a Southern Belle?
Report comment to moderator
So Folks what are your views on the Rapture of the Church, Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation or Post-Tribulation?
Report comment to moderator
T1,
Your kitty post was amusing and a nice variation. Too bad you later had to defile it.
Sorry, no suggestions about the actual problem. We have five Siamese and, while they have never done their doo anywhere but the designated box, they are quite tight-lipped about other misdemeaners that seem to occur during the day while we are gone.
Is there any chance that the auto-pilot is taking off before they are finished? I would suspect that would discourage them from using the box.
Report comment to moderator
Haven’t had time to read all these comments yet, but want to “announce” a couple things.
1.) I am now on Facebook! Anyone who may want to be my Facebook Friend may e-mail me at keko161@yahoo.com & I’ll let you know my name.
2.) My older kitty, Peanut, is on YouTube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ueAaT9zP8
Report comment to moderator
News2Me, if I’ve made you feel discriminated against or mentally harrassed or demonized, that’s on me and I apologize.
No one should do that to anyone else, even if they don’t like them for being Muslim, of a different skin tone, gay, or a cat.
You might consider how your comments read, also. I think that’s the point of this thread.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000469687352
Actually, you can click on this link to see my profile.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy! Tsk, tsk. Perhaps I had better spell that “pecahn”.
I did hear the joke about the difference. From a man in the pulpit at that!
Report comment to moderator
Mommy – the autopilot “rake” is on a sensor. It detects when there’s a cat in there, then waits 20 minutes before moving. If a cat jumps in there before 20 minutes is up, it resets.
But I can and should test it tonight.
Report comment to moderator
KarenO: I just sent you a friend request – so you know it’s a WMB friend.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: IE the rapture. I do not believe there is enough solid biblical evidence to support it. The church until a hundred years ago +-, did not teach such a doctrine. There is much on line info concerning the subject from both sides of the issue, including how it first came into the teaching of the church. However, I quarrel with no one who believes it.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – for someone who does not want to talk about the gay issue you seem to bring it up a lot.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 11.10.09 AT 2:05 PM
Pastor Roy! Tsk, tsk. Perhaps I had better spell that “pecahn”.
I did hear the joke about the difference. From a man in the pulpit at that!
–
peacan pie, me I love a good home made apple pie
Report comment to moderator
roger patno – the idea of the rapture is mention in the Bible. The when is not spelled out.
Report comment to moderator
I think Drill is right. People read what they want to read. And I will add that they add in their own favorite things which are never said. I can’t stop that except for watching it in myself. So, to those who say “If NJL said this or that” — all I can say is the “ifs” of history are just that. They are “ifs” — they are not facts.
I did not use the word pedophile, nor child molester. I stated before that there is nothing defensible, there is no argument that can be made to explain or defend or justify NAMBLA’s existence. If it were in my power to ban its existence, I would do so, just as I would ban child pornography on the Internet. As I recall none of you joined me on that one, but I still feel that way.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: So Folks what are your views on the Rapture of the Church, Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation or Post-Tribulation?
When you see a fork in the road, take it?
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.10.09 AT 2:33 PM
Pastor Roy: So Folks what are your views on the Rapture of the Church, Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation or Post-Tribulation?
When you see a fork in the road, take it?
–
what?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — There are a couple of passages which people use to defend the idea of a Rapture, but the idea itself is harder to find. I don’t believe in a literal Rapture as currently preached. Nor do I believe in a literal, future Tribulation.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy . . . rapture . . . really . . . and when? . . . has this thread suffered enough?
I’m sort of of a mid to post-tribber hoping for all the world that I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob 11.10.09 AT 2:37 PM
Pastor Roy — There are a couple of passagesRapture which people use to defend the idea of a Rapture, but the idea itself is harder to find. I don’t believe in a literal Rapture as currently preached. Nor do I believe in a literal, future Tribulation.
–
What does Jesus say about the future Tribulation?
The idea of a Rapture is not hard to find those passages talk about it. What is hard to find is the when.
Report comment to moderator
Ha, and I like Arcadia’s advice too (by way of the great Yogi;)
Report comment to moderator
adios 11.10.09 AT 2:38 PM
Pastor Roy . . . rapture . . . really . . . and when? . . . has this thread suffered enough?
I’m sort of of a mid to post-tribber hoping for all the world that I’m wrong.
—-
What is wrong talking about God’s Word, it is to lift up our Spirit.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, no post on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 today?
Report comment to moderator
In the absence of Travis B, here are Blondie’s thoughts on Rapture.
Twenty-four hour shopping in Rapture
Fab Five Freddie told me everybody’s high
DJ’s spinnin’ are savin’ my mind
Flash is fast, Flash is cool
Francois sez fas, Flashe’ no do
And you don’t stop, sure shot
Go out to the parking lot
And you get in your car and you drive real far
And you drive all night and then you see a light
And it comes right down and lands on the ground
And out comes a man from Mars
And you try to run but he’s got a gun
And he shoots you dead and he eats your head
And then you’re in the man from Mars
You go out at night, eatin’ cars
You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too
Mercuries and Subarus
And you don’t stop, you keep on eatin’ cars
Then, when there’s no more cars
You go out at night and eat up bars where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe
Don’t move too slow, ’cause the man from Mars
Is through with cars, he’s eatin’ bars
Yeah, wall to wall, door to door, hall to hall
He’s gonna eat ‘em all
Rapture, be pure
Take a tour, through the sewer
Don’t strain your brain, paint a train
You’ll be singin’ in the rain
I said don’t stop, do punk rock
Well now you see what you wanna be
Just have your party on TV
‘Cause the man from Mars won’t eat up bars when the TV’s on
And now he’s gone back up to space
Where he won’t have a hassle with the human race
And you hip-hop, and you don’t stop
Just blast off, sure shot
‘Cause the man from Mars stopped eatin’ cars and eatin’ bars
And now he only eats guitars, get up!
Report comment to moderator
http://www.physorg.com/news177083943.html
HAHAHAHA…sorry couldnt help but chuckle a bit.
“Conventional” genetic dating methods are not accurate. Time to rework that phylogenic tree again..oopsie.
Report comment to moderator
Future to Jesus is not necessarily future to us. Many important things happened in A.D. 70. I’m not here to argue the points because it doesn’t work in this venue. It hardly works face-to-face.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – which view do you hold?
Report comment to moderator
Hey, everyone! Why don’t we combine the cat thread with the end-times eschatology thread, by discussing…
CATS WITH LASERS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRBNkMnG4uY
Report comment to moderator
StuBob 11.10.09 AT 2:49 PM
Future to Jesus is not necessarily future to us. Many important things happened in A.D. 70. I’m not here to argue the points because it doesn’t work in this venue. It hardly works face-to-face.
—
“Future to Jesus is not necessarily future to us.” what does that mean?
The Future that Jesus spoke of is out furture is it not?
Report comment to moderator
RR,
What about sharks with laser beams?
Report comment to moderator
KarenO
I’m now to FB, too, and just accidentally deleted your post to me. Sorry!
Report comment to moderator
I like Blondie’s music.
I don’t know that I subscribe to a view that devout Christians will sail naked through the sky to be with Jesus, leaving behind crashing cars and burning eggs.
Seems too messy. Plus, flying with your hoo-ha out seems dangerous.
But it could happen. Stranger things have.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, they weren’t available. Some tree-hugging environmentalists objected, or something.
But we do have some bass. No laser beams attached, but at least they’re reputed to be somewhat ill-tempered.
Report comment to moderator
Bass with laser beams…I think Dr. Evil could have come by those a bit more readily.
Report comment to moderator
RR – that was hilarious.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 2:55 PM
I like Blondie’s music.
I don’t know that I subscribe to a view that devout Christians will sail naked through the sky to be with Jesus, leaving behind crashing cars and burning eggs.
Seems too messy. Plus, flying with your hoo-ha out seems dangerous.
But it could happen. Stranger things have.
—
Well I can say that we will be sail naked through the sky. But God’s Word does say we will be caught up into the Clouds. So sailing through the sky look to be the case.
Report comment to moderator
Well I can not say that we will be sail naked through the sky. But God’s Word does say we will be caught up into the Clouds. So sailing through the sky look to be the case.
Report comment to moderator
“Holy Flying Naked Christians, Batman!”
I will probably not fly naked, but may be in a holding pattern with at least my drawers on.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 3:04 PM
“Holy Flying Naked Christians, Batman!”
I will probably not fly naked, but may be in a holding pattern with at least my drawers on.
—
why a holding pattern?
Report comment to moderator
Watching the CIC at the Fort Hood Memorial Service. Killed before they were deployed by a Muslim fanatic. I wonder if any of them were Muslim.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.10.09 AT 3:05 PM
Watching the CIC at the Fort Hood Memorial Service. Killed before they were deployed by a Muslim fanatic. I wonder if any of them were Muslim.
—
What is bugging me Obama said he was going to meet in private with the family member. Now we found out he lied, he went there to get his face on TV.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Pastor Roy, do we know that he didn’t? Pres. Bush met with the families the other day without any cameras. Maybe 0bama’s following his good example.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I think your 163 is at best careless. Any President is expected to show up at things like this; if Pres. Obama didn’t, people would be all over him for not doing so.
Unless you have evidence that he broke a promise to the families, calling him a liar is too strong.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.10.09 AT 3:09 PM
Well, Pastor Roy, do we know that he didn’t? Pres. Bush met with the families the other day without any cameras. Maybe 0bama’s following his good example.
—
Not at all Obama spoke at a services. Why? To get his face on TV. That is the different between Bush and Obama. What every Obama does, he does it to get his face on TV.
Report comment to moderator
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found..was blind but now I see. Was Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved.
Report comment to moderator
RR 11.10.09 AT 3:11 PM
Pastor Roy, I think your 163 is at best careless. Any President is expected to show up at things like this; if Pres. Obama didn’t, people would be all over him for not doing so.
Unless you have evidence that he broke a promise to the families, calling him a liar is too strong.
—-
Not at all he told the Nation, he was going to Fort Hood to meet with the Family members. But instead he give a speach and get’s his face on TV acting like he cares.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.10.09 AT 3:12 PM
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found..was blind but now I see. Was Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved.
–
amen
Report comment to moderator
166: So, Pastor, you know for a fact that he did not visit with these families in private? Evidence, please.
As for either President’s motives for visiting, you don’t know that either.
Report comment to moderator
RR 11.10.09 AT 3:13 PM
166: So, Pastor, you know for a fact that he did not visit with these families in private? Evidence, please.
As for either President’s motives for visiting, you don’t know that either.
—
This man does nothing unless he can get his face on TV.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY simply asked a question about the rapture. Many devoute, Jesus loving, God fearing Christians agree with him. Is there really a need for ridicule? Well, I suppose for those who’s only means of discussion is ridicule, that is what they have for a weapon. Pastor Roy, while I believe differently, I respect your beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Isa. 40:1 “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.”
Report comment to moderator
Correction: Isa. 40:31 Amen.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
God clothed the original couple. He will clothe us for the trip upward.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Bush came to Fort Carson, the posted wanted to do a service while he was here. He told them no, He was not here to show that he cared. He was here to see the family of the lost soldier. I know this for a fact because my friend was one of the family members. Another friend Wife was on the team that goes to inform the wives of the lost love ones.
Report comment to moderator
MOMMY, Sorry, it wasn’t me. If I did you LORD it was a positive exclamation. Cheryl D called me on the carpet some time back about using the Lord’s name in vain.
Report comment to moderator
Can anyone tell me the difference in time lag between Mr. Bush’s visit to New Orleans and Mr. Obama’s visit to Fort Hood?
I do think they were both doing the right thing, so I am just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Ditto, ROGER, Some people feed on mean-spiritedness and show their true colors.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy
You go too far in making pronouncements about the President’s motives. We may have our thoughts and opinions about them, but he needs grace like the rest of us.
If I was the President, I would very much like to be on T.V. all the time, too. Doesn’t blogging sort of hint at the possibility that we all may have this secret desire for a bit of air time ourselves?
OH
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 11.10.09 AT 3:16 PM
PASTOR ROY simply asked a question about the rapture. Many devoute, Jesus loving, God fearing Christians agree with him. Is there really a need for ridicule? Well, I suppose for those who’s only means of discussion is ridicule, that is what they have for a weapon. Pastor Roy, while I believe differently, I respect your beliefs.
—-
Roger one of the joy I have is talking about our faith and the rapture is part of it. I find all three views have strength and all three views have weakness
Report comment to moderator
Roger, at this point I don’t think it matters all that much.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you have now offered (176) some evidence why you believe the two presidents’ motivations are different. Fair enough.
You have not, however, substantiated your claim (163) that the current President lied. Will you do so? Or will you retract the accusation?
Report comment to moderator
RR
“You have not, however, substantiated your claim (163) that the current President lied. Will you do so? Or will you retract the accusation? ”
Let see Obama said he was going to meet with the family member, and now we find out that is was for a service, with TV cameras. An he was the main speaker.
Report comment to moderator
OH For President? Or Chas? Maybe you can join forces and be a ticket?
Report comment to moderator
Am I to understand you that the fact that he made a public appearance proves dishonesty with regard to meeting with the family members?
As at least two of us have noted, this doesn’t prove that he didn’t also meet with the families. That’s what I’m trying to nail down. Do you, or do you not, have evidence that he broke a promise to do this?
Report comment to moderator
Reportedly, Pres. 0bama met w/the wounded who attended the ceremony, so by the end of the day we’ll know everything else. That’s soon enough, although I understand your point RR.
Report comment to moderator
RR 11.10.09 AT 3:46 PM
Am I to understand you that the fact that he made a public appearance proves dishonesty with regard to meeting with the family members?
As at least two of us have noted, this doesn’t prove that he didn’t also meet with the families. That’s what I’m trying to nail down. Do you, or do you not, have evidence that he broke a promise to do this?
—
He did meet with the family. The issue is he made a statement of why he was going, the true was to get his face on TV, that is what I am trouble by. An yes in my view he lied.
Report comment to moderator
#181
There are actually more than three views.
1) Pre-trib, pre-millennial
2) Mid-trib, pre-millennial
3) Post-trib, pre-millennial
4) 7th trumpet, pre-millennial (a slightly different take on mid-trib, because it is not actually mid, but slightly later)
4) Preterist (Stubob’s view, I believe, which says it all happened in 70 AD. Personally, I find that hard to swallow, since John wrote Revelation after the destruction in 70 AD by most scholar’s estimation, but whatever.)
5) Amillennial (It’s all figurative).
And, those are what I can think of off the top of my head. Obviously, you can combine 4 & 5 in various ways, and there are variations amongst the others.
And, of course, there’s my all-time favorite: Pan-trib = It will all pan out in the end!!!
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! Most scholars’ estimations.
I can do grammar…sometimes, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Or, really, that’s punctuation.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – in all my studies I have never heard of
4) 7th trumpet, pre-millennial (a slightly different take on mid-trib, because it is not actually mid, but slightly later)
4) Preterist (Stubob’s view, I believe, which says it all happened in 70 AD. Personally, I find that hard to swallow, since John wrote Revelation after the destruction in 70 AD by most scholar’s estimation, but whatever.)
5) Amillennial (It’s all figurative)
—
I will have to look into them
Report comment to moderator
Donna
That would be nuts. What would I do?
Stack the courts as FDR once tried to do. Be a bit like Teddy Roosevelt with his emphasis on exercise and manly vigor, visit lots of kiddos in libraries. Be like Reagan (especially with Random) “There you go again” with my opponents. Downhome like Carter, relational like Bush, Sr., rascally like Clinton, fiesty and intense like Bush, self-agrandizing like Nixon, quiet like Ford, use martial law occasionally like Washington, quell my enemies with Alien and Sedition acts like Adams, have the “folks” over like Andrew Jackson, sit pensively like Lincoln and perhaps take a bath every now and again like Taft.
I love the Presidency and admire with childlike wonder and respect the men who’ve been there and done that.
As to whether I’m cut out for it, I would say, “Sure, why not?”
OH
Report comment to moderator
The Pres. did meet w/the families…no recriminations necessary for questioning otherwise based on his brief reputation.
Report comment to moderator
I also tend to believe mid to post trib. I definitely believe in a millennial kingdom.
The only views I have a hard time with, though (with all respect to Stubob) are the preterist and amillennial views. I think those tend to take the Bible less seriously than they ought.
Although, I do realize that most Catholics (I believe) are taught amillennialism. So, that would make it the predominant Christian viewpoint.
Otherwise, I just don’t think we know enough to be too strong on our end-time opinions. I think it will become more obvious as time moves on. (To me, there have already been numerous signs that things are moving in the direction of literal biblical fulfillment. i.e. anti-Christ, world government, Christian persecution, tribulation, etc.) But, it could be weeks, years, or decades still.
Report comment to moderator
My view on the end.
Jesus comes back once. We go with Him. Bad guys lose and I take some time finding my “mansion” amidsts the two and a quarter million cubic square miles of New Jerusalem and settle in for the long haul by the light of the Lord Jesus Christ.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Theologically, that makes me post-trib of course.
OH
Report comment to moderator
I’m pre- to mid-trib. I believe in a Rapture and an interval between the Rapture and Glorious Appearing (during the interval, those who will enter the Millenial Kingdom in their natural bodies will be saved), but I don’t see that Scripture gives a clear indication of the exact timing of the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation. Perhaps we’re not supposed to know which comes first, the Rapture or the Tribulation, so that we stay watchful for both.
Report comment to moderator
TRS and Pastor,
I havent studied one or the other much, as I tend toward the Genesis of things currently.
That being said I love the pan mil view
But on a side note, I think God enjoys doing “pilot” scale studies before enlargening his plan. What I mean is that God choses Israel as his people, and then opens the doorway for the Gentiles in essence as Christ comes.
I also think Revelation applies similiarly. It may not only be referencing such instances like Nero or the early church, but apply just as equally to the final of end times on a world wide scale.
Report comment to moderator
I was raised pre-trib, but I lean post. But I don’t care, just as long as He comes eventually and finds us ready!
Report comment to moderator
High 5s, OH! I made 200!
Report comment to moderator
“I think those tend to take the Bible less seriously than they ought.”
I wouldnt say less serious. I would say with more regard to notion that it is a picture, and our expectations may look nothing like what occurs in reality. In other words, we hear one thing only to turn around and see another.
Report comment to moderator
Preterism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
Amilleniallism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism
7th Trumpet, Pre-wrath: *The Prewrath Rapture of the Church* by Marvin Rosenthal
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophecy/The.7th.Trump.2nd.Rapture.html
The other two (amillennialism and preterist) are extremely common, so I’m somewhat surprised you haven’t heard of them. 7th trumpet is much less so.
This is a good site that even breaks down the post-trib views (and includes 7th trumpet as one of them, although it is somewhere between mid and post IMO).
http://home.nww.net/jamesu/definiti.html
Have fun researching! It is an interesting topic.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O., I sent you a friend request.
Report comment to moderator
192: Pastor Roy, I appreciate your expanding on your previous comments.
I remain unconvinced that what you’re describing is truly a lie. Meeting with the families in front of cameras would only be dishonest if he had promised a private meeting. (And President Bush comforted mourners with cameras rolling on more than one occasion, btw. See for instance http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/wp-content/uploads/bushpentagonhug) Nevertheless, your charge is plausible, and I thank you for explaining it.
Report comment to moderator
But on a side note, I think God enjoys doing “pilot” scale studies before enlargening his plan. What I mean is that God choses Israel as his people, and then opens the doorway for the Gentiles in essence as Christ comes.
******Agreed. We see this a lot throughout the Bible. In fact, I think it happens so often that we must conclude it is a pattern with God.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: “Future to Jesus is not necessarily future to us.” what does that mean?
The Future that Jesus spoke of is out furture is it not?
What I mean is that there’s a lot of “future” that was in Jesus’s future but is in our past. About 2000 years’ worth.
I don’t have a firm eschatalogical position, but there are some things I’m pretty sure I don’t believe. I don’t believe in a literal Rapture, a literal Tribulation, or a literal Millennium. I do believe in a New Heaven and a New Earth, and that Christ will rule both.
Report comment to moderator
DJ
Yessss! is what I like to say when I get the double zeros. High fives, indeed. I am jealous! 100 is special, but 200 is doubly special. Maybe I can get 300 this evening!
OH
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
In College I had a great Old Testament Teacher, who was from South Africa. He told us one day that he was 99% sure it was pre-trib, but that 1% was a big concern. An he felt that the church was so focus on the pre-trib views that the people were not prepare to go through the end times of the 1% is true.
Report comment to moderator
I am nether Pre, post or mid. But I am with DJ and pray He finds me with my wick trimmed and my lamp filled.
Report comment to moderator
I have noticed the same thing, and have wondered about it too, Pastor Roy. There could be a tendency to fall into escapism and excessive fear. Whether, pre-, mid- or post it’s important to build our faith to such a degree that it won’t matter, because we’re HIS anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Let me posit another question and see what I can get started.
How many of you have taken the step behind the veil that was wrent at Calvary?
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 11.10.09 AT 4:26 PM
Let me posit another question and see what I can get started.
How many of you have taken the step behind the veil that was wrent at Calvary?
—-
Can you explain that for me. I have never heard of taken the step behind the veil that was wrent at Calvary.
Report comment to moderator
Is there a maximum amount of baggage we can take with us?
Any weight/size restrictions on baggage and carry-ons?
Can we check our really big, bulky, stinky items?
Also, are we allowed to take our pet peeves with us as carry-ons, if we use the right kind of pet carriers for them and they promise to be quiet and well-behaved?
I cannot see leaving the poor things behind; who would know how to properly feed and take care of them, besides me?
Report comment to moderator
DJ 11.10.09 AT 4:23 PM
I have noticed the same thing, and have wondered about it too, Pastor Roy. There could be a tendency to fall into escapism and excessive fear. Whether, pre-, mid- or post it’s important to build our faith to such a degree that it won’t matter, because we’re HIS anyway.
—
I look at it this way. I pray to God that it is pre, the reason I do not want me, my wife, our son and friends to go through those 7 years. But I also pray that if we are to go through it, that God will keep His promise and help us to stand firm for Him in the midst of those 7 years.
My heart can not handle seeing my son face those days
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y. 11.10.09 AT 4:10 PM
Karen O., I sent you a friend request.
–
how do you send people friend request?
Report comment to moderator
215 comments wow well, 216 now
Report comment to moderator
PASYOR ROY: The word should have been spelled “rent”. It would take some time to explain it in depth, but let me capsualize it. The life giving death of Our Lord Jesus has rent the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy Place, allowing us to enter into the very presence of God(once reserved only for the yearly High Priest). Keeping in mind that it is a spiritual experience, by faith I took that step. It devestated me to the point that I thought I was going to die, which in fact, spiritually, I did. Then I understood Paul’s proclaimation he made in Gal. 2:20, and apprehended it for myself. My flesh nature has not been totally dealt with, but my spiritual nature is slowly getting the victory. You may have noticed that generally, I seem to make light of many worldly things. That is because I have had a slight taste of heavenly things and I realize that I truly am only a soujorner here, ready and willing to do whatever he demands of me.
If you have an email address you would care toshare, perhaps we could discuss it further.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 11.10.09 AT 4:55 PM
PASYOR ROY: The word should have been spelled “rent”. It would take some time to explain it in depth, but let me capsualize it. The life giving death of Our Lord Jesus has rent the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy Place, allowing us to enter into the very presence of God(once reserved only for the yearly High Priest). Keeping in mind that it is a spiritual experience, by faith I took that step. It devestated me to the point that I thought I was going to die, which in fact, spiritually, I did. Then I understood Paul’s proclaimation he made in Gal. 2:20, and apprehended it for myself. My flesh nature has not been totally dealt with, but my spiritual nature is slowly getting the victory. You may have noticed that generally, I seem to make light of many worldly things. That is because I have had a slight taste of heavenly things and I realize that I truly am only a soujorner here, ready and willing to do whatever he demands of me.
If you have an email address you would care toshare, perhaps we could discuss it further.
—–
I have no problem with that views and I must pray about giving out my email address.
Report comment to moderator
I pray to God that it is pre, the reason I do not want me, my wife, our son and friends to go through those 7 years.
Perhaps that time is already past. Perhaps 7 literal years of tribulation haven’t happened and won’t.
When you ask, “Are you pre-, mid-, or post-trib?” you’re really asking “What type of Dispensationalist are you?” Until the mid-nineteenth century, no one was any kind of dispensationalist; the system hadn’t been described. Coupled with TRS’s statement that people who believe otherwise don’t take Scripture as seriously as those who do, this is an indictment of 1800 years of church history. It’s a problem I’ve never heard a Dispensationalist address.
The mid-nineteenth century saw the rise of both Arminianism and Dispensationalism. I believe this combination has harmed the Church considerably.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob 11.10.09 AT 5:14 PM
I pray to God that it is pre, the reason I do not want me, my wife, our son and friends to go through those 7 years.
Perhaps that time is already past. Perhaps 7 literal years of tribulation haven’t happened and won’t.
When you ask, “Are you pre-, mid-, or post-trib?” you’re really asking “What type of Dispensationalist are you?” Until the mid-nineteenth century, no one was any kind of dispensationalist; the system hadn’t been described. Coupled with TRS’s statement that people who believe otherwise don’t take Scripture as seriously as those who do, this is an indictment of 1800 years of church history. It’s a problem I’ve never heard a Dispensationalist address.
The mid-nineteenth century saw the rise of both Arminianism and Dispensationalism. I believe this combination has harmed the Church considerably.
—-
The post tribulation view was the earl Churches views and up until the 1800
Report comment to moderator
In this linked image, teens are raptured in miniskirts and bell-bottoms. http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/The%20rapture.jpg
Here, the image is fuzzy, but apparently you get a Snuggie in white: http://www.his-amazing-love.org/images/rapture.jpg
This spooky one has folks moving too fast to see what they’re wearing: http://www.godfire.net/images/Rapture_3.JPG
These Rapturers are stylin’! http://reiki.whatitallbelike.com/wp-includes/images/Reiki%20Rapture.jpg
So I was wrong about being naked. I don’t want to go to Heaven in a Snuggie. Hopefully I can keep my favorite J. Crew sweater and go in that.
Report comment to moderator
I lean post.
Karen O, I’ll look you up on facebook.
OH, you must promise, of course, to include some of us in your cabinet.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY @ 219: Understood.
Report comment to moderator
I guess that makes me a leaning post? Agree with OH, though, Christ returns just once.
Report comment to moderator
Prayers please. I just got a message that a friends husband has been admitted to the hospital with a cerebral hemorrhage. His name is David.
Report comment to moderator
I am sorry, I watch too much House. Cerebral Blood Clot. Quite the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
I will keeo Daivd in prayer
Report comment to moderator
Kim, I hope your friend is ok and will pray also.
Report comment to moderator
Praying, Kim.
Report comment to moderator
I have a 35 volume set of the writtings of the early church fathers (300 +/- years. Of course I have not read or studied them all, but I find little if any reference to a ‘rapture’ of the church . I cannot say there is none, because as I said, I have not read them all. We do know that before the last of the original Apostles, including Paul died, the church was expecting the eminant return of Jesus in their own lifetime. That is something that we should all expect of course, but the actual starting point of the doctrine of a ‘rapture’ can be seriously studied using a mass of information available to us.
We must however be ready for we not not when He will come.I do not think the bride has made herself ready at this time.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno, the idea of a two-step salvation isn’t biblical. The point of the veil being torn is that God no longer has a barrier between God and man–through Christ, all of us can come to God. Not just some doubly saved Christians.
This is actually the first time I’ve heard this picture of “coming behind the veil.” But I’ve heard this “two steps to Christianity” expressed in lots and lots of ways. Perhaps the JW’s 144,000 who will get to heaven, and the Mormons’ various levels of heaven are the worst, but evangelicals have their own quest for “secret knowledge” that’s one step beyond your everyday Christians. (The Masons have a whole lot of steps, too.)
When I was 18, I was taught it as you’re saved, but in a separate, one-time giving everything to Jesus, you make Him Lord (Romans 12:1-2). I’d never heard that before, but trusted the ones who were teaching it, so I sort of tried to do it. (It really seemed like trying to conjure up enough earnestness for God to accept it, however–works, not grace.) But honestly, Jesus is Lord, whether I recognize it or not, and I can’t become a Christian without seeing Him as God. Plus, sanctification is step by step and not one time. (When I was 18 and being taught to teach children this teaching, it occurred to me to wonder how this works if children take this step before they’ve confronted some adult-level temptations. Is an eight-year-old who takes this step specially covered against lust later, for instance, or does he have to do it all over again?)
Many Pentecostals have theirs, as well–you aren’t “filled with the Spirit” unless you speak in tongues. (Which means, incidentally, that Pentecostal churches should be setting the world on fire for Jesus, while those of us who don’t believe this should be wandering in spiritual mediocrity. Such isn’t the case, of course.)
Report comment to moderator
KIM: Praying first for his soul and then for healing.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno
The key thing to understand about the earl church, they were face precaution, that fit what Jesus was speaking of.
Report comment to moderator
“Many Pentecostals have theirs, as well–you aren’t “filled with the Spirit” unless you speak in tongues. (Which means, incidentally, that Pentecostal churches should be setting the world on fire for Jesus, while those of us who don’t believe this should be wandering in spiritual mediocrity. Such isn’t the case, of course.)” Cheryl D.
I am trying my best to set the world on fire of Jesus and I am one of those Holy Rollers.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
I don’t consider myself a Dispensationalist, but I attended Bible school where it was taught, and they did address the issue of the previous 1800 years of church history. Their explanation is that throughout church history, there have been times when, in response to false teaching, Christians faithful to the Bible have had to work out a more detailed understanding of theology in that area. In early centuries it was the Trinity and Christology, which are taught in Scripture but not spelled out as plainly as later creeds and confessions did. At the time of the Reformation it was the nature of salvation and the church and the Christian’s authority. In the 19th century it was eschatology, in response (as I remember) to the social gospel and the then-current optimism that mankind was getting better and everything would continue improving right into the Millennial Age.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob is addressing the endtimes nicely (what I believe), so I pretty much can only say “what Stubob said.” I was raised dispensational, taught dispensationalism, and when I studied it for myself I simply had to walk away from it as unbiblical (largely the somewhat racist idea that the Jews and the church would be separate entities forever rather than one body–why do we assume that we, the Church, will have access to Paul, and Moses, and even Jesus, since they’re all Jewish, if we are slated to spend separate eternities? it simply isn’t biblical, and is refuted by Paul in about every way something can be refuted–that Jesus tore down the dividing wall, that we are grafted in to the one olive plant and are not a separate one, etc.).
I do think the biblical basis for a yet-future Tribulation is exceedingly weak . . . and the biblical “proofs” that the church will be spared from it are horrendously out of context. (How on earth can a promise to a first-century church about what THEY won’t go through be seen as a promise to us, at least if we aren’t willing to personalize all the promises and judgments to the other churches written at the same time?! It’s amazingly decontenxtualized to apply it to us.)
And as for John writing Revelation after 70 A.D.–Hank Hanegraaff (sp?) addressed this wonderfully in The Apocalypse Code–among other evidences for an earlier date, he asserts that ignoring the recent destruction of the temple, and writing as though it was still standing, wouldn’t have made sense. A late date was chosen in order to fit a certain theological position, not because it fits what we know. But he says the early church widely understood the 666 and other such things to be referring to Nero; they saw many of these writings as quite current (”let him who reads understand”), not thousands of years in the future.
Christ will come back someday, but I see no biblical warrant for repeated returns and five to seven segments of “this group of dead people taken into eternity now . . . and now that group,” and no reason to separate the Second Coming from the end of time.
Report comment to moderator
What is the actual meaning of Rapture?
If Christ says we will never die as christians, is not our physical passing and moving on to heaven just as easily as defined as rapture?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I took Roger to mean exactly what your saying, that the viel is torn and no longer applicable.
I didnt get a two step out of his earlier post.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D: If I gave you the idea that I believed in a two step salvation, I did no mean to. I am speaking of an encounter With the Father, note that I said ‘an encounter’. This did not happen as a chance thing, but only as I relentlessly pursued His presense. I speak only from my own experience. I believe that we are filled with the Holy Spirit at salvation. I also believe their are spiritual gifts which are ours for the asking.
Checking back on my post, I do not believe I suggested there was a second step, merely another experience.
I will never be satisfied with anything but to press on into the prize of the high calling we all have in Christ Jesus. I have a long way to go before I arrive. My soul longs for it.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 11.10.09 AT 5:59 PM
What is the actual meaning of Rapture?
If Christ says we will never die as Christians, is not our physical passing and moving on to heaven just as easily as defined as rapture?
—
“To be caught up is the air” is the simple meaning. I do not have my Bible with me so I can not give you passage of scripture.
Please forgive me.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, but I too am attempting to be obedient to Jesus, and I don’t have the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues–am I second class, or somehow disobedient?
The Pentecostals I know personally (for the most part) are NOT making a huge difference for the Kingdom. But with this teaching, they should never have gotten to where they are if they weren’t biblically “ahead” of me, so if I’m on level two out of five (let’s say), they should minimally be on level three, and every single one of them making a huge difference for the Kingdom (at least compared to those of us who haven’t gotten that far) . . . so something is wrong somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I took you to be asking not which of us are Christians, but which of us had done “something extra.” As in, some of us are Christians but hadn’t stepped behind the veil. I’m glad that isn’t your meaning! The other criticisms of two-step Christianity still stand.
And yes, I do believe that some Christians are more “sold out” and more effective for Christ than others . . . but it isn’t a “one step” sort of thing, do this and you’ll jump ahead of other people who haven’t taken this step. It’s a matter of daily walking by faith, getting to know God through His Word, getting to know Him better through suffering, and all sorts of things–a lifelong process. An 85-year-old Christian who has known the Lord since he was 15 should know (and trust) the Lord far more than a 15-year-old new believer, though the 15-year-old may trust God with every bit of himself, as best as he knows how; just as a man married 60 years will know his wife better than he knew her during their honeymoon, though he loved her as well as he was able even then.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. 11.10.09 AT 6:04 PM
Pastor Roy, but I too am attempting to be obedient to Jesus, and I don’t have the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues–am I second class, or somehow disobedient?
The Pentecostals I know personally (for the most part) are NOT making a huge difference for the Kingdom. But with this teaching, they should never have gotten to where they are if they weren’t biblically “ahead” of me, so if I’m on level two out of five (let’s say), they should minimally be on level three, and every single one of them making a huge difference for the Kingdom (at least compared to those of us who haven’t gotten that far) . . . so something is wrong somewhere.
—–
No, you are not a second class or being disobedient, you are wonderful made and you obey Christ.
As for the Pentecostals, I an their worst nightmare. I hold them to the fire in meeting by telling people if we believe in the Power of the Holy Spirit then we need to do the work of God.
I believe many Pentecostals have surrender the works of the Spirit for approvable of other.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – it goes back to teaching of God’s Word and getting people ready to do His Work.
Report comment to moderator
209 & 210- Concerning the “rapture” and pre-trib: I like what Keith Green used to say- “Pray for pre but prepare for post.”
I do not have a one-or-the-other view, and find all the discussion back and forth about it time wasting. God alone knows the end and He will do what He has chosen to do whether we believe His plan or not.
Report comment to moderator
Rapture means ‘traslated’. The word rapture does not appear in scripture. I like Col. 1:13 KJV
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps I do not understand what two step Christianity means. What I do know it is a day by day journey along a very narrow path.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I do not find discussing the Christian walk a waste of time as long as it is done civily, with an attempt to better understand each others walk. We stand before God all alone.
PTL!
Report comment to moderator
The mid-nineteenth century saw the rise of both Arminianism and Dispensationalism. I believe this combination has harmed the Church considerably.
******Now, since from my point of view, that is also when Calvinism arose (which I think has hurt the Church considerably), I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on something else.
Although, I only say that I “lean” Arminian, because I don’t like what leaning Calvinist does to one’s view of God. I don’t think either of them have it completely right. I just prefer the errors of the one to those of the other.
Report comment to moderator
TRS — Calvin lived and died in the 16th century. Augustine, whose teachings are similar in many ways, died in the 5th century. Calvinism didn’t arise in the 19th century.
What does Calvin do to one’s view of God that you find objectionable?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Most evangelical scholars agree that the apostle John wrote Revelation at the end of the 1st century based on accounts of the early church fathers that he had been exiled on Patmos Island during that time, and not b/c it fits a certain theological position.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn 11.10.09 AT 5:59 PM
What is the actual meaning of Rapture?
—-
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
Report comment to moderator
I looked at all the links in #203.
My brief response is: if you start with dubious premises and questionable “facts” and then do a lot of study based on that shaky start you end up with what is known in scientific research as “false precision.”
Report comment to moderator
#252 & #253
Although I had read the Bible at a fairly young age, and looked at it again at various times, the Book of Revelation always struck me as so incoherent I just skipped over it. While I don’t think the Bible is based on supernatural information or Divine Inspiration, I now think the Book of Revelation is a particularly unfortunate part of the Canon.
We don’t really know how the Great Religious beliefs (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. arose–and they are indeed monumental creations of the human consciousness–the most basic inspirations probably were:
1) Dismay at death and a desire not to die
2) Dismay at injustice and unfairness and a desire to balance the books
3) Dismay at meaningless and a declaration of meaning as a deus ex machina
Most of the rest is garnish.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11.10.09 AT 10:07 PM
I looked at all the links in #203.
My brief response is: if you start with dubious premises and questionable “facts” and then do a lot of study based on that shaky start you end up with what is known in scientific research as “false precision.”
—
Sound like the scientific research trying to prove someone is born gay.
Report comment to moderator
#256
I have often pointed out that the issue of whether people are “born gay” or not is a great deal more complicated than either side wants to admit, as both sides set out with conclusions in mind and then seek “evidence” to support where they want to go.
People seldom seek “truth.” Mostly they seek confirmation of what they want to believe. Truth is very difficult to discover.
However, as a biased and closed-minded person, I argue that there is very little evidence to support the premises and conclusions of religious belief. Most of the arguments on the issues of #203 and similar in today’s threads are based on very little evidence. I disagree with almost everyone here in this regard. Truth is not decided by numbers of believers.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name- so you are a biased and closed-minded person?
“Truth is not decided by numbers of believers.” I agree the truth is decided by God’s Word
Report comment to moderator
D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad executed by lethal injection in Virginia
I oppose capital punishment. I think it degrades society to kill people in cold blood. The idea that Jesus wants you to execute people is offensive and ridiculous. There is very little evidence it reduces or prevents murder. Mostly it makes us feel better because we seek revenge.
Nevertheless, in a list of things that bother me, capital punishment is very low and I will not shed a tear about John Allen, who apparently is crazy as a loon to boot.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name- so you are a biased and closed-minded person?
And you are not?
I agree the truth is decided by God’s Word
You know what “God’s Word” is?
As do quite a few other people, some of whom have other words.
You know your word are more true than other people’s “God’s Word” because…?
Six million comments on worldmagblog follow below, which all boil down to “We really really really really believe.”
Report comment to moderator
What does Calvin do to one’s view of God that you find objectionable?
******Just about everything.
And, since I don’t want to cause a ruckus, I think I’ll just leave it at that.
And, no, I don’t particularly care for Augustine either. I think he injected a ton of Greek thought into Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
From #256 People seldom seek “truth.” Mostly they seek confirmation of what they want to believe. Truth is very difficult to discover.
And
Truth is not decided by numbers of believers.
This is curious in that these statements are made by a self-professed nihilist. Shall we delve into the contradictions that arise from a nihilist commenting on the nature of “truth”?
Let’s shall.
In the first comment, the nihilist suggests “truth is very difficult to discover.” Hmm. How does a philiosophy which denies objective truth, especially of the moral stripe, know with such certainty the nature of truth in which he does not believe exists?
Likewise, there is another certainty which the resident nihilst posits about truth which does not exist. For sure its not decided by numbers of believers, whatever truth may or may not be.
The nihilist once told me that “truth is tentative.” I scratched my head at the time and wondered aloud if that statement was true in the absolute sense. For if it is, then we have a problem. The nihilist just demonstrated that some sort of absolute truth exists.
This is grasping for the wind. Maybe that is what a nihilist does from time to time, like when I stick my hand out of the window of my car when I drive down the interstate. I know, however, that I cannot catch the wind. Maybe nihilism teaches you can. I do not know. I’ve never been a nihilist.
Ok, then! What if there are a few hundred nihilists which show up for the “National Nihilism Conference” in Albany, New York? Just because there are say 238 people in attendence there, does not mean they are right simply because there are that many people who believe in nihilism.
And lastly, the nihilist must be exempt from the statement that he seeks confirmation of what he believes. Apparently he needs no confirmation. Empiricism nicely confirms the reality of nihilism.
Or, wait…how can it? I do not know. How does a nihilist prove nihilism is true using empiricism? There is very little empirical evidence that nihilsm is the correct way to interpret the world.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 11.11.09 AT 12:33 AM
Random Name- so you are a biased and closed-minded person?
And you are not?
I agree the truth is decided by God’s Word
You know what “God’s Word” is?
As do quite a few other people, some of whom have other words.
You know your word are more true than other people’s “God’s Word” because…?
Six million comments on worldmagblog follow below, which all boil down to “We really really really really believe.” —-
———–
No I am not biased and closed-minded person, I am a God Minded person.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!