Outakes
02.15.05

The New York Times Rule — Dr. John Mark Reynolds has discovered one of the natural laws of journalism:

Just at the moment that the Times says a problem cannot be solved, then it is within ten months of being solved.

See also: the New York Times Solution Rule.

******

ARMinian — I realize that those who subscribe to the tenets of TULIP are often branded as Calvinist. But this is the first time I ‘

Published by

Joe Carter

Joe Carter founded Evangelical Outpost in 2005. He is the web editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. A fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran, he previously served as the managing editor for the online magazine Culture11 and The East Texas Tribune. Joe has also served as the Director of Research and Rapid Response for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign and as a director of communications for both the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Family Research Council. He is the co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicaton.

  • http://www.batesline.com/archives/001274.html BatesLine

    Whirled threatens BatesLine

    NOTE to those of you who normally skip the Tulsa stuff here: Please read this entry. This is not just about the sordid little world of Tulsa politics. This is the old media trying to intimidate their critics in the new media into silence. It has reperc…

  • http://www.batesline.com/archives/001274.html BatesLine

    Whirled threatens BatesLine

    NOTE to those of you who normally skip the Tulsa stuff here: Please read this entry. This is not just about the sordid little world of Tulsa politics. This is the old media trying to intimidate their critics in the new media into silence. It has reperc…

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    You think I will get any Google hits for the Paris Hilton post? :) that honestly wasn’t my thought process when writing the post. I was thinking, “How would Joe Carter start this post?” and low and behold the Paris Hilton idea came.
    Thanks for the link and the laugh.
    On another note from the Outtakes – Can Pastor Dean and Rev. Hillary not get an amen for their pre-election conversion?

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    Maybe Mr Dean thought that the word “Love” in “love thy neighbor” was from the Greek root eros, not agape. :)

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    Joe- Thanks for the link!
    Mark O- How could I have missed that one?!

  • http://www.pajamahadin.com/index.php/RoundUp/2005/02/15/the_evangelical_outpost PajamaHadin

    the evangelical outpost

    … is embarrassed even further. ****** The Missing Two — Newly selected DNC chairman Howard

  • Phil Aldridge

    Democrats are at their most pathetic and amusing when they are trying to pander, especially to people they pretty much hate.
    The democrats have been the party of phonies, liars, and cheaters for two (or maybe more, I’m not that old) decades now and it’s actually starting to get really old.
    Sure, the GOP has it’s share of bad eggs, but it’s the dems who are led (both literally and spiritually) by The Clintons, Howard Dean, Nancy Pilosi, and expert swimmer Ted Kennedy. They are on their way to irrelevance, and this article just proves it.
    I can’t wait for the Dems to start ham-handedly trying to fake spirituality so they can offend yet more people. This is going to be comedy gold.

  • MarkR

    Well, the humor or tragedy can go both ways.
    “While we respect everybody’s right to practice their own “faith tradition”, we don’t think that someone’s believing in a given “faith tradition” necessarily makes it valid or true.”
    Translation: you have right to believe what you like, but you are wrong. Therefore, you need us to tell you how to live and if you don’t like it move out!
    “While most of us recognize an individual’s right to live in what the Bible calls sin, we will never express approval of it or buy into the idea that someone’s sin constitutes their whole identity.”
    Translation: you can live as you like as long as we aren’t in power. Once we are, we will certainly pass laws that make your life illegal and we can then get rid of you.
    “And this whole “compassion for the poor” thing? There’s this wee small matter of it being voluntary. And the goal isn’t long-term dependence on Caesar.”
    Translation: therefore if we feel like not helping the poor, that’s ok because we don’t want them around to bother us anyway.
    “See, the thing is, even though you are trying to figure out how to talk in our lingo, we still see a lot of things that suggest that you remain secularists and relativists, antagonistic to us way down deep at the level of worldview.”
    Translation: our way is right and yours is wrong, so just shut up!
    Finally,
    Democrats have tried to follow maybe 25 of 27 main values? Which two did they miss? Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself?”
    Translation: love your neighbor as yourself means only those who agree with us. If you disagree, we will eventually get you with laws that make you agree with us.
    See, things can be looked two ways. I find it extremely difficult to take such arguments seriously. From what I have read, the Republican party seems to be intent on making this a State-Sponsored Christian society. If it does not fall in a narrow view of Christian beliefs, than it is wrong, and there must be a law against it.
    While you’re at it, lets bring back the Dark Ages. Then it will be very easy for you to dictate your way of life to everyone else. Let’s close the schools and make it illegal for anyone who is not a minister to teach a child anything.
    What are we becoming, a Christian Iran?

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    MarKR,
    I find it hard to believe that you have spent any amount of time with any one who had a developed Christian worldview if that is the impression you have of actual Christians. Have you sat down and discussed these issues with a Christian? If someone told you they were a Christian and they gave you those ideas (your translations), then they are mistaken about what they believe because none of that flows with Biblical Christianity. Kevin’s statements had nothing to do with your “translations.”
    If you honestly think that Christians (the vast majority at least) want to turn this country into “a Christian Iran,” you have spent way too much time believing the New York Times Christian stereotype.
    There are many behaviors that I find immoral, but I would never call for them to be declared illegal whether I was the President or the dog catcher. I won’t bore you with the list, but it would probably include all those that you are accusing us of wanting to outlaw.
    Also, you miss the point on the helping the poor. Christians want to voluntarily help the poor. That is part of what the Bible calls “pure religion.” It is a good thing that we hold in high regard, but most people do not want their money taken from them and redistributed to someone else because the government decides that is a good thing. What if the government decided that people named Mark only need half their money, but people named Aaron needed more. Whould that be okay with you? It is not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. The poor should be taken care of, but not in such a way as to under cut any possibility of them ever going out and making it on their own. Remember the old adage about giving a man a fish, instead of teaching him how to fish?
    I find it amazing that so many people get offended by the truth claims of Christianity. Why would anyone follow anything if they didn’t think it was true? If Christianity is not true, I don’t want to follow it. So the truthfulness and validity of the Christian faith is a huge deal to me. Don’t be offended if we believe our faith is the Truth, most wouldn’t follow it otherwise.
    I’m sure you feel your concerns are valid. Apparently you feel like Christians want to take over the world and throw everyone else in jail, but real Christianity is nothing like that. Just don’t put so much stock in the media driven stereotypes.

  • MarkR

    Aaron,
    I don’t take offense to anything you said. The point of my comment was that you can look at everything with two different viewpoints. Although you do not want to make what you believe a sin illegal does not dismiss those that do. There are a number of issues on the political agenda that will do just that.
    Although some here have doubted it, I am also a Christian. I give to the poor, I help others when I can. When people I know are out of work, I do my best to help them find a new job.
    I am not talking about redistributing wealth, I am talking about making sure every one in this country has at least the minimum necessary to live. I don’t have a problem with the government spending some of my tax dollars to achieve that end. I would rather they spend the dollars there than some on “pork barrel” projects.
    The main thing is that if democracy is to continue, I believe we need a separation of church and state. I want politicians to make political judgements based on common sense and what is in the best interests of ALL the people. I don’t want them based on ANY religious belief.
    The translations I made above are the translations many people in this country will take from the article. Whether they are based on media stereotyping or not. Our political system has deteriorated into one of ridiculing the other side. We seem to have lost the ability to intelligently debate and/or discuss issues without letting our religious biases interfere. I am just hoping that it will stop so we can get back to dealing with the issues on a basis that will result in what is best for all. Is that asking too much?

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    MarkR,
    No it is not asking too much for people to debate issues that need to be debated, but I think it is asking too much for everyone out there to not poke fun at the other side. As Christians we should not be malicious that is a given. Both sides need to learn how to laugh at some of the funnier things that are said. It makes me laugh that Howard Dean is now trying to speak like an evangelical when he has no intention of actually doing anything but changing his terminology. That to me is funny. Lots of things done by the Republicans strike me as funny.
    As far as helping the poor, if I had a choice for my tax dollars to go to helping someone survive or going to pork barrell spending I would choose helping someone, but again that is not my choice because the government won’t allow me that choice.
    Besides the Bible saying that helping the poor is a good thing, it also says that if a man does not work he should not eat. There must be a balance to where we help those who need it, but we do not continue to prop up people who will not work because they are getting a check from the government. The help should be an encouragement for them to go out and make it on their own. We shouldn’t be dumping people on the street, but we also should not be paying for people to continue to live pretty good lives (spending wise) while not working for years and years. That handicaps people and robs them of their dignity. The best help we can give them is to encourage them to find a job and restore any self-worth they may have lost that way.
    I also don’t think you can say that you don’t want any political agenda based on “ANY religious belief,” since many of our laws were based on Old Testament laws particularly the Ten Commandments. Religious beliefs are the basis for many of the best things in humanity. We should not exclude something simply because it has a religious foundation. That in itself is discriminating against religion.
    I don’t want to “dismiss” those that want to take their view of sin and make it illegal, but I can believe that they constitute anywhere close to a majority of Christians. I think you can find those type of issues on either side.
    I’m sure you are familiar with those from the right, since you are refering to them. But they are present on the left as well. Many liberals view smoking as a “sin.” They won’t call it that, but they basically view it that way. Many are outlawing it around the country. Many environmentalist thinking drilling for oil or driving a SUV is a “sin” and they are working to effectively outlaw those things.
    I’m not sure what you mean by religious bias, but as a Christian I am a Christian in everything I do. So that cannot be removed from me, nor should I be expected to remove it, simply because I step on government property. Our nation should protect the rights of all and that includes those who hold a traditional or Christian view.

  • Phil Aldridge

    Danny Fast actually interviewed me about Open Theism…
    Maybe I should get a tattoo of Greg Boyd’s book on my back just to compete

  • http://www.dannyfast.com danny

    For the record….it isn’t my tat but a friends.

  • MarkR

    Aaron,
    You are right. We need to poke fun at those who deserve it. Howard Dean does deserve it because in my opinion, he is simply trying to find “acceptable” language. On the other hand, I found Newt Gingrich hillarious also.
    We all make decisions based on our core beliefs. At least that should be the starting point. However, we also need to consider other opinions and beliefs before we make the final decisions. That is what helps keep church and state separate.
    As an example, and I’ll probably get some grief over this one, let’s take the proposal for an constitutional ammendment against gay marriage.
    My belief of the separation of church and state tells me that it is wrong, unlawful, and unconstitutional for anyone to propose such an ammendment. Why? Because it is the right of individuals, according to our constitution, to determine their life style. If they choose a gay life style and want the legal protection of legal marriage that hetero’s have, then that is their right.
    Those protections cover a large basis such as medical insurance for their partner when a company offers it to hetro marriage partners, etc.
    On the other hand, I also find it unlawful, wrong, and unconstitutional for any government to pass a law that requires religious instutions to perform gay marriages if it is against their beliefs. To me, that is the difference between legal institutions and religious ones.
    That is one example, but it is this type of behavior that makes me believe that there is a segment of our society that desires to create the Christian Iran in America that I spoke about earlier. And, quite frankly, that is a very scary proposition.

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    Aaron, thanks for the comments!
    MarkR, Aaron is right. I never meant the things you suggest I did. Not to be rude, but I’ve never encountered a Christian with such a knee-jerk hostility to Christians that you displayed here. Christianity does indeed make propositional truth claims that are either true or not true. Is that unacceptable? (Careful now! That’s a tricky one to answer without being guilty of what you criticize.)
    I have never advocated that anyone “shut up”. You come close though, by suggesting that my post was unaccaptable because some people might take it the wrong way. Is that really the criterion? People should only be allowed to say things if there is no possibility that anyone anywhere might misconstrue or misapply it?
    Also, you contrast “common sense” with “religious belief”. Do you not think there is any overlap between the two? The point is, any public policy will reflect some people’s ideas about what is right or desirable, and I fail to see how secular ideas are inherently superior to religious ideas. Either God’s will is knowable and relevant, or else it isn’t. Unless you can come up with a third alternative.
    Aaron is right. Your ideas about Christians seem to be based a lot more on the caricatures of anti-Christian bigots than on anything that actual Christians have actually said.
    Make you a deal. When you see a Christian actually advocating theocracy, let us know, OK?

  • Scott Buttes

    Danny and Phil:
    I don’t want to be left out. Can you think of any good tatoo ideas to represent middle knowledge? Perhaps a portrait of WL Craig?

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    MarkR,
    I don’t think that an amendment defining marriage amounts to theocracy, although I doubt it would accomplish much if passed anyway. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s rather hypocritical for Christians to perceive homosexuality as a threat to marriage while ignoring the rampant divorce within our own ranks.
    Even so, defining marriage is not establishing a religion, because people of many religions agree with it. The First Amendment only prevents any religion from becoming the official religion; it doesn’t mandate that the Christian position on a given issue be rejected outright just because it’s the Christisn position. This would actually establish a specific religious viewpoint (anti-Christianity or secularism) as official. That’s not what the framers intended.
    Also, it seems rather arbitrary to me for people to cite Jefferson’s personal correspondence re: church-state separation as demonstrating the framers’ intention while summarily dismissing the Declaration of Independence (rights the inalienable gift of the Creator) as not representative of the framers’ intention.

  • Chris Lutz

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s rather hypocritical for Christians to perceive homosexuality as a threat to marriage while ignoring the rampant divorce within our own ranks.
    I agree that there is a problem there. However, I always wondered how the divorce statistics were determined. For instance, was the survey just of those in the church who had been divorced without regards for whether they had been a Christian before the divorce. Plus does it take into account how committed the person is to his/her beliefs (i.e. I go to church on Easter and Christmas and do nothing outside of that). Its just something of an interesting question.

  • RA

    Mark R; You cannot take a humanist world view, justify it with some quotes out of context and make us believe this is Christian theology.
    You say we should consider all points of view before we act. That works well when you are buying a DVD or a car but it is disasterous on moral issues.
    Should I steal X from a store. The Bible says no. End of story, walk away. If you start making a list of all the “good” that will happen if you steal the item, it will tempt you to do it. Ultimately you will rationalize to the point, “if I don’t get caught, whats the problem”. Wether you get caught this time or not it is still sin. Sin has a price. Eventually you will get caught and pay a price that you never wanted to consider.
    The wisdom of the Scripture, properly applied, is above debate. It is the most profitable course for the Christian to take regardless of what you think at the time. Do the right thing and God will bless you. Do the wrong thing and there is a “bill in the mail” you will have to pay. Maybe tommorow maybe next year but its coming.
    The humanist thinks they can lie, cheat, steal and murder, and get away with no consequences. Its not true.
    As far as Dean the Scream is concerned, we should educate him with the verses his party are flaunting. “If a man does not work he should not eat.” Personal responsibility. I believe they call that the Protestant Work Ethic.

  • http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/02/15/kevin-aylward-v-john-d-bair/ Myopic Zeal

    Kevin Aylward v. John D. Bair

    Wizbang unleashes the power of the blogosphere in defense of the attempted silencing of batesline by tulsaworld.com.
    Even though you are only targeting a couple small weblogs, when you attempt to silence them you attempt to silence us all.
    I ass…

  • http://blogotional.blogspot.com/2005/02/some-thanks-are-necessary.html Blogotional

    Some Thanks Are Necessary

    I am having good traffic today. That is in large part due to some generous links from some kind people.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Thanks for the reference… these guys don’t do Buddhism very well…

  • http://www.brentrasmussen.com/ ~DS~

    Mumon it’s actually good that the RR is driving itself off a cliff like this. Historically, extreme religious fanaticism and bloody religious immorality has been followed by periods of great acheivement. You just have to be able to stay out of the sight while the fanatics are busy destroying each other.
    That’s what Dean says he’s going to try and change. The perception the religious right has managed to cast their faith in. That Christianity is an extremist violent religion; i.e. Militant Neo-Christianity which has lost it’s moral compass. I doubt he can make any serious inroads. The hold of violence on their ideology is too powerful imo. And besides, if there’s one thing that religious extremism is good at, it’s never admitting they’re wrong; even when they’re wrong.
    Of course, Dean only has to shave off a few percent off from the diseased body of Neo-Christianity to prevent the crazies from taking over. So maybe he’ll succeed. but I wuoldn’t count on it. you can see how contempourous they are about anyoen who wants to save them from their inner demons. Let em fry in their own filth I say.
    So, personally? I don’t give a hoot. Grown-ups who believe in magic are in my eyes mostly pitiful, but still amusing and I like having the crazies around. It’s like an episode of COPS: Just when you’re feeling that your own life hasn’t gone exactly how you’d hoped, you watch an episode of COPS and suddenly realize what a winner you are. The religious fanatics of Islam or Neo-Christianity make me feel much, much better about my own level of sanity and lucidity.
    So I see no reason to try and help the rational among them keep the fanatics from screwing up the reputation of Christianity to the rest of the planet, anymore than trying to keep violent Islamic fanatics from doing the same thing to their faith. I think it’s great that American Neo-Christian Ideology is now percieved as being on par with Fanatical Islamic Militantism. These folks are now judged as violent, as immoral, as decadant, as Al Qaeada. They’ve made that bed, let ’em sleep tight, LOL.
    I hope Dean fails and leaves them at the mercy of the depraved and immoral violents freaks among them that they have allowed to speak and act for them! It serves them right.

  • http://gideonstrauss.com Gideon Strauss

    Re: TULIP branding.
    Ew!
    Funny, I cannot cope with the branding notion, but I find my friend who has the SOLAs tattood in full colour all over his upper body quite okay. I wonder why that is?

  • http://www.brentrasmussen.com/ ~DS~

    Joe I think you you misunderstand; I’m glad you’re ruining the reputation of your faith. I’m happy you working hard to prevent anyone from saving it. Just as I’m glad Osama bin Laden is ruining the rep of his faith. There’s no way anyone from outside your cult could have managed to screw it up like those inside can. My hope is that both the Neo-Islamic and Neo-Christian violent extremists continue to screw it up. This is a worldwide struggle against the forces of ignorance and superstition Vs those of reason and rationality. You’re doing your part to insure low recruitment in the industrilized world for Neo-Christianity, and Al Qaeda is doing the same for violent Islamic fanaticism. By acting the way your both are, you’re helping the rest of humanity see you for the immoral violent fanatics you all are. And being an atheist, I see that as a good thing. (Throwing in a Gay Military Hooker working for you at the White House was beyond my wildest hopes!)
    When you signed off on torture and death (And by ‘you’ I mean both Islamicists and Neo-Christians) and the whole violent religious kick, you lost any and all claims to morality. You’re done, in the eyes of the world. Finished. And I can now honestly say that my atheist subjective quirky morality far outstrips the horridf set of ethicvs the Islamo-Christian fanatics demonstrate everytime they open their mouths.
    When evil rears its ugly head, you’re either with it or against it. And until you renounce that association with violence, you’re with it. So I’m glad you did it, because now I can handilly dispell any illusions you may have once had about being ‘more moral’ than the next guy. I’m glad because now I revel in my vastly superior set of ethics while your own faith gets dragged into the gutter of bloodshed and violence. Anytime one of you brings up morality, all we need do is mention Alebrto Gonzales and the moral argument is over, and I win.
    American Evangelical Neo-Christianity and violent Islamis Fascism is so now percieved as so foul, so immoral, so distasteful to the civilized world, that you’ve helped end religion’s hold over humanity down the road by poisoning the well. I duobt you can crawl out of that pit in the eyes of the world at this point any time soon, no matter what good deeds you do.
    And that’s wonderful for mankind! The funniest thing is … all the world’s religious nutcases are so engrossed in their thirst for blood, violence, and hatred, I can openly crow over their lack of ethics and make hold them up to ridicule like I’m doing now … with no chance of you stopping or even taking me seriously! Hehe, it’s pretty cool! Ultimately, religious revival is always its own worst enemy, becuase it always goes too far and sickens decent people in the end.
    So, while the christian and Islamic crazies might not like what they’re producing in the long run … they can be counted on to never stop. And I’m enjoying it immenesly with every life you take, with every person you torture, with every moral code your demolish, with every child your surrogates rape. Please, for Odin’s sake, Osama, Tim Lahoye, Pat Robertson, Ameyn Zarawori: DO NOT STOP! Keep it up! The Rapture will be coming any day now! [EG].

  • http://lespritdescalier.blogspot.com jpe

    Shouldn

  • http://www.thinklings.org Jared

    Actually, if you look more closely at the dude’s tattoo, he’s got “TELIP” on there, not TULIP. He said he did that for “aesthetic reasons.” I guess that beats “the tattoo artist screwed up.”

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    American Evangelical Neo-Christianity and violent Islamis Fascism is so now percieved as so foul, so immoral, so distasteful to the civilized world, that you’ve helped end religion’s hold over humanity down the road by poisoning the well.
    You never did say who is making this claim. Is it simply your own unique personal opinion?
    Throwing in a Gay Military Hooker working for you at the White House was beyond my wildest hopes!
    Once again you made this claim without saying how you know it

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    Ugh. DS… what got you in the raving, ranting mood today?
    No fresh meat at your blog, or something?

  • http://www.brentrasmussen.com/ ~DS~

    BTW, Joe asked me if something had changed in my reckoning of religion. What changed is a friend of ours went to one of you guys little ‘meetings’ with a tape recorder. The speakers were Lahaye and some others. The violence, hatred, and outright bloodthirsty motives of the Neo-Christian right was made crystal clear at that little meeting of future Gestapo freaks. You guys are some sick MF’s. Immoral, depraved, violent, bloodghtirsty, psychos. You’re right up there with al Qaeda, just a different Deity name is all.
    You can either renounce that sickness. Or be part of it.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    DS,
    Anyone can have a bad day and inadvertently post an embarrassing rant (or three) so I don

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    You do realize that the Evangelical/Religious viewpoint has been almost completely undermined, as no longer even a factor in cultural development – and has not been for the past 60 years or more – right?
    I have a study on that topic going on right now.
    Interesting to see what happens when the “kid gloves” come off of the humanistic perspective though.
    Not that I expected anything else. I debate humanists and atheists all the time. Stop on by. Try to bring a semblance of historical/theological perspective though. I’m seeing a pretty poor understanding of the basic tenets of “fundamentalists” there. The problem is that the basic tenets of Christianity are not in today’s society. The reason that the moral decay of this country is accelerating is not because “our morals have been in charge”. It’s because yours are, my friend. Don’t believe me? Come and see. Stop by – and engage. Bring your friends – and let’s rumble. Showdown, OK Corral. I don’t need you to convince me – it won’t work anyway. I’m not interested in your philosophy – I’m interested in demolishing it. So, marshal your arguments, and your friends – and come on down. See if you can “facilitate” the apologists’ exit.
    The Apologists are calling you out.
    Come play?

  • http://www.brentrasmussen.com/ ~DS~

    Joe,
    This isn’t a temporary lapse in judgement. I wish it was … I’ve enjoyed the talks here. It’s realizing the awful truth about some of you folks. You’re sick people. Seriously messed up human beings, and you show no signs of trying to change. It’s shamfeul. Your ideology has swept you up and out of the pale of decency. Even though I think of many of you as good people, you’ve taken to surrounding yourselves with filth of the worst kind, and I can’t condone that. Not even passively. You guys need to think about the kind of folks you’re climbing into bed with. You’re killing your religion.
    I don’t like making snap decisions …. But I don’t think I can hang here anymore. I’m sad to say because I really enjoyed the discussions. I’ll think about it a bit … But I don’t see how I can even associate with folks given a certain admittedly arbitrary level of depravity that so many of you have sunk to or are willing to tolerate. Some among you are just too deranged and deluded with so much hatred and anger towards the world and mankind. I can’t rationalize friendleness with that. There are too many in the religious right against decent values and American ideals, hell even simple humane ideals. They’ve gone right off the edge. It would be wrong and against my own principles for me to provide any kind of mainstream validation for this diseased ideology of violent Neo-Christian extremism or to associate with folks who tolerate it in their own ranks. Let me now if you people change your ways. I sincerely hope you do, for everyone’s sake. I mean it has to be unpleasant to hold that much hatred inside for so many of your fellow human beings.

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    heh. You’ll love me then. You better hurry up and expose my indecent love for the Word of God. That filthy book.
    *rolls*
    C’mon DS!

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    DS,
    I too have enjoyed our discussions and am sorry to see that you

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    I’ll be praying for you too.
    (All semi-combative tendencies aside. I’m a debate-a-holic.)
    Love ya. I really do. Even though I think you’re wrong :D

  • MarkR

    Kevin,
    You said that an ammendment banning gay marriage does not constituts theocracy. I disagree. When any religious group or groups attempt to “legislate” anothers behavior based on their religious belief, that is very definition of theocracy.
    I keep hearing everyone here quote the bible. The bible says this and the bible says that. The bible is…..
    The question I am asking is which bible are you quoting? And, is everyone quoting the same bible? I wanted to see if some the the quotes here are in the bible, so I did a google search for “bible research”. One of the site it took me to was Crosswalk.com. I get to choose which bible I want to research. There are 25 different bibles listed. So, which is your “exact translation from god” bible? Since there are so many, and since all of them have been translated from their original language, and they all have errors in their translations, which bible is supposed to be the one that gives the one truth as spoken by God?
    Just to be sure I have the correct info, I asked a question in the research area. It was simply: Where in the bible does it state that homosexuality is a sin? The answer was: No results found. I then asked Where in the Bible does it define marriage as only between a man and a woman? Again: No response found. So, my mind tells me that these quotes are either really based on another person’s interpretation of passages in one of these bibles, or I can’t ask the right questions.
    As far as the quote from the Declaration of Independence goes, it says “they are endowed by THEIR creator…. not THE creator. So, I believe the basis for Thomas Jefferson’s paper on the separation of church and state is taken directly from the Declaration of Independence. Expecially since different religions have different creators. Even pagans believe is some kind of creator.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Mark R,
    Here are some quotes:

  • Rob Smith

    DS, I agree with Joe, et al., something has changed about you. You used to be someone I could occasionally have reasonable discussions with, but this, I couldn’t begin to respond. How do you have a rational exchange of ideas with someone who apparently thinks you are the focus of Evil in the world? I sincerely hope nothing serious has happened in your life and I too will pray for your well being.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/02/logic-and-buddhism.html Notes in Samsara

    Logic and Buddhism…

    Joe Carter mentions a “new apologetics blog,” by one Dr. Thomas A. Howe that among other things, has a rather odd post about “Logic and Buddhism.”

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    Whoa, I left for the night and DS has went off. I always thought of him as the more resonable one in our discussions with those outside the faith. He is (was?) more resonable than mumon who is more resonable than Larry.
    I would love to read a transcript or hear the “meeting” that your friend went to DS. I am also curious as to what anyone here has said that makes us “Immoral, depraved, violent, bloodghtirsty, psychos.” Sure you disagree with some people on Iraq or on abortion or whatever issue, but I have never seen anything that measures up to your charges.
    I also find it odd that as you blast us for our “sickness,” immorality and lack of concern for others. Yet, you have said numerous things that illustrates vices during your current tirade. You referred to Gannon (I assume) as a “gay prostitute” or a “Gay Military Hooker” without any kind of evidence to that. I don’t know the man, so I have no idea what he is, but unless you know him personally and are aware of things that no one in the media is, you are making slanderous charges that should be backed up with facts.
    Also during your rant where you again link Christians wtih terrorists (also again with out proof) you make the following statement:
    I’m going to facilitate you in denying science, in denying morality, in acting the primitive savage, in killing each other:
    Every.
    Single.
    Day.
    Until you’re all gone!

    Now, that doesn’t exactly sound like a loving thing or a statement fillled with compassion and morality.
    I’m like Joe apparently you are under some emotional distress, or someone else is writing under your name, but this is not you normally. I do indeed hope you feel better and echo the prayers of others on your behalf.
    MarkR,
    I agree with you some what on the FMA. I am not a big fan of the amendment myself. Not because it establishes a religion. It would make no mention of religion or anything of that nature. I believe in the concept of federalism, one of the principles this nation was founded on. Local autonomy should be protected. If Mass, Cal, or NY wants to have gay marriage, then go for it. But don’t use the courts to force TX, Miss and SC to have it too.
    Also, I think you are stretching a little bit by saying Jefferson’s use of their instead of the is the foundation of seperation of church and state. Let’s look at some of Jefferson’s writings.
    In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 Jefferson said, “No power over the freedom of religion … (is) delegated to the United States by the Constitution.”
    In Jefferson’s second Inaugural Address in 1805, he said, “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General (federal) government.”
    And, one more example, in a letter to Samuel Miller (since we use his letter to the Danbury Baptist association for the phrase “wall of seperation between church and state”) in 1808, Jefferson said, “Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.”
    Doesn’t sound like Jefferson was saying that they couldn’t be any religion in government or the marketplace of ideas. It sounds like he wanted the wall to prevent government from infecting religion, not the other way around.
    Also to your quote: “When any religious group or groups attempt to “legislate” anothers behavior based on their religious belief, that is very definition of theocracy.” If that is the definition of theocracy then basically every nation in the world is a theocracy, since most governments have drawn upon religions writings at some stage in their formation and law-making process. Also, that concept would effectively discriminate against people of religion. It would basically only allow atheist to be in the government, since anyone of any religion would be influenced by their religion. It is impossible to have legislation without morality. Virtually ever piece of legislation is some one’s version of morality, thus discriminating against some one else’s.
    Why do we have to have such indepth substanative discussions, can we just talk about Paris Hilton and evangelicalism? ;)

  • Dave S.

    DS- “I don’t like making snap decisions …. But I don’t think I can hang here anymore.”
    Oh well, I never got much out of your posts anyway. They tended to ramble on in a predictable way without much supporting information.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Joe Carter:
    The “Jeff Gannon” thing’s pretty, um, I better not say “rock solid,” somebody will think that’s a pun, but suffice it to say they can check the links back at my blog (warning: adult content). Until you can explain why the White House would give press credentials – and apparently, access to classified material – to a male prostitute, well, we’ll have to assume that even below the waist, the Clinton White House was squeaky clean compared to this present regime.
    ~DS~:
    I appreciate your viewpoints here, and understand what you’re saying. You can see some of it here: the rank denial of what is so obviously present elsewhere.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    To anyone else who still doesn’t get it about Gannon: Today’s Washington Post has the awful truth
    That’s your “values” administration at work…

  • Kevin W

    Why should anyone be surprised at the shrill meltdowns of those on the Left?
    For most of the past 60 years, the God-hating American Left sat by and encouraged Soviet Communism. How many hundreds of millions of human lives have been flushed down the toilet bowl of Leftism? They demonstrated against our bases in Europe and in Asia. They protested the funding of our own defense. They attacked the men who declared that the Soviet Union was the “evil empire” which must be brought down. And they now equate our brave troops who have brought free elections and free governments to Afghanistan and Iraq with the totalitarian regimes that were replaced.
    They are totally, irredeemably stupid. And, with each passing day, only become more so.

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    I take huge offense at the statement that anyone can be “irredeemably stupid” or irredeemably anything. That is the antithesis to the Christian message. God is able to redeem to the uttermost.
    Going beyond Christianity to politics (since Christian does not equal Republican, even though myself and many others may consider themselves both to some degree). Many people change ideology over time. Most college students (because of their professors) come out liberal, but many change gradual after real world experience. Many people are raised conservative, but turn into liberals through their life experiences.
    I may agree with most of what you are saying Kevin, but I think it is irresponsible and dare I say “stupid” to pass judgement on anyone as being irredeemable, unless one is God and capable of making those decisions.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Kevin W:
    Thanks for showing that “beneath the grestest love, is a hurricane of hate,” as the late Phil Ochs remarked.
    Now, what’s that got to do with whether or not George W. Bush was using the services of Jeff Gannon or not?

  • Kevin W

    The American Left is, institutionally, irredeemably stupid. As individuals, we can only hope that they see the light, are redeemed, and see their wisdom multiplied.
    Would you take offense at this? “The American Socialist Party is irredeemably stupid.” Or, “Islamic Jihad is irredeemably suicidal.” Probably not. In the same way, I posit that the Western Leftists are moronic, stupid, and become more bellicose with every obvious policy failure. Irredeemably so.

  • RA

    DS and Mumon are good examples of humanist tolerance. The love Jesus has for homosexuals is to tell them to “sin no more” and save themselves the ravages of illness, spiritual trauma and hell. The love DS and Mumon espouse tells homosexuals there is nothing wrong with what your doing. Go out and have 200 sex partners in the next year. Take drugs to enhance your orgies. Then when you catch HIV, hepatitus B or C, don’t tell anyone about it and keep spreading it to your “friends and lovers”.
    According to Jesus we should all work hard in order to gain some economic excess so we can share it with our neighbors until they get back on their feet. Not the humanist love of giving the lazy, a permanent free ride at he expense of the hard working. This is to be voluntary and have conditions incase people start to kick back. Then they should not eat.
    As for the rapture, Jesus did preach it so I guess DS has no respect for Jesus either. Dr. Dean thinks partial birth abortion is acceptible.
    In the last century humanists have murdered more people than have died in all the “holy wars” in the history of mankind. The philosophies of DS and Mumon are working just the way the Bible says they would.
    As far as hating Christians and not wanting to associate with them. The Bible speaks to that issue to. It says Christians have the smell of death on them to unbelievers. The only way to get rid of that smell is to be washed in The Blood yourself.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Kevin W:
    Because making an equivalence between Socialists and terrorist groups is reprehensible, dishonest, inflamatory, bigotted, and does not belong in acceptable discourse.
    And therefore .

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    Kevin – Actually I do take offense at those, since those groups are made up of individuals who are “redeemable.”
    We may agree that the majority of the policies of the left are “moronic” or “stupid” but that is light years away from calling individuals or groups of individuals the same thing. The tactics of the islamic jihad are suicidal and destructive, but does that mean we write them off and say, “Nope no way God can save them.”
    What of other murderers who come to God’s grace? What of Paul in the New Testament? I think you could place all of your statements on the religious rulers of the days of the early church. They were out killing people, trying to stop the spread of the Gospel. If anyone would seem to be irredeemable, it would have to be Paul, who wanted to destroy the Church and torture/kill it’s members. God’s grace reached down to him, saved him and used him to give us the majority of the NT books and spread the Gospel all over Asia and Europe.
    My point being that I don’t think we should write anyone off. We can disagree with their positions, view their policies as not-worthwhile, but I do not think we as humans have the right to say that about other individuals. We didn’t make them, we can’t call them irredeemable.
    Your statements just gives further fuel to mumon and DS’ fire of the supposed arrogance and hatred of Christians. I don’t think you are an arrogant person or a hateful person, but the things you are saying do not put you (or by virture of our shard faith, me and other Christians, and by that case Christ Himself) in a positive light. I just think you need to be careful with your word usage. Syntax matters and it will be exploited by those who do not know Christ to harm the Kingdom.
    Mumon – As to your obession with Jeff Gannon, what does that have to do with anything? So what if someone with a questionable or even shady personal life got press credentials? Are we going to start holding Bush responsible for all the reporters and their actions now, too?
    Why is the left making such a big deal of Gannon? Nobody even knew who he was before all this. It is not like he was influencing the world with his statements. He wrote for an online news service that most people have never heard of and the left is acting like he was the world’s news source.
    And I thought liberals didn’t care about someone’s personal life, is that not off-limits? We learned over and over again during Clinton’s years that a little sex (or lying to a grand jury) didn’t matter. I also thought that a person’s sexual identity did not matter either. Why is it relevant to anything that Gannon is gay?
    Or are these things only important when it might hurt a conservative or republican?

  • Rob Smith

    Because making an equivalence between Socialists and terrorist groups is reprehensible, dishonest, inflamatory, bigotted, and does not belong in acceptable discourse.
    But equating Christians with terrorists is? Your buddy ~DS did just that and you claimed to understand. Hell, he compared “religious regime” in Washington with those of Hitler and Stalin (though I always remember those on the Left as having soft spots for Socialist dictators like Stalin or Castro). Is that acceptable discourse? ~DS is right about one thing, there is a lot of hate in here, but it ain’t coming from Christians.

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    Rob – that is pretty funny how Christian = terrorist is just fine, but socialist = terrorist is “reprehensible, dishonest, inflamatory, bigotted, and does not belong in acceptable discourse.” I don’t think either group is an actual terrorist group, but let the left’s double standards continue.

  • Kevin W

    Fair enough.
    To the readers: for every post above where I accused any group of being “irredeemably stupid” or “irredeemably moronic”, please substitute “stupid beyond belief” and “moronic to a degree that staggers the imagination”, respectively.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Rob Smith:
    Uh, but you do have terrorists within your ranks: Eric Rudolph, the Christian militias of Lebanon and Burma, the death squads of Efrain Rios-Mont, to name just a few.
    Why you can’t accept that, I don’t know. But they are terrorists. That’s a fact.
    Aaron:
    Well the issue is the fact that some people are raising the question about George W. Bush’s sexuality. Not me, of course, but some people are thinking that Gannon was let into the White House to service Bush, or perhaps someone else.
    We don’t know, but I think you’ll agree that we need a special prosecutor to find out, right?

  • Dave S.

    “…the fact that some people are raising the question about George W. Bush’s sexuality. Not me, of course, but some people…”
    Some people just hit a new low. Of course, I’m not referring to mumon when I say that some people have their minds in the gutter. Certainly not. Just “some people.”

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/02/shrill-baying-of-fascist-hounds.html Notes in Samsara

    The shrill baying of the fascist hounds…

    # Hindraker publicly apologize to President Carter.
    # Joe Carter should take some steps to enforce some decorum amongst his bloodhounds. His smugness and silence in the face of the bloodthirsty baying of his co-religionists is apalling.I noticed tha…

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Dave S.:
    LOL! I just borrowed the technique from Michelle Malkin…but actually there’s real speculation on this point…apparently George W. Bush’s past is a bit sketchy before, he “found Jesus” and “quit drinking.” (Do a google search on “Victor Ashe,” George W. Bush’s reputed gay lover.)
    In addition, the simplest explanation for something – the one with the least assumptions- is usually the correct one.
    Now why would people go through the trouble to “credential” a fake reporter who was really a gay male prostitute? Simplest answer: because they wanted his services. Who? Well, where does the proverbial buck stop?
    Now it doesn’t really matter to me what George W. Bush’s sexual proclivities are.

  • jefferson

    The atheist wacked out left wing communist liberals over at Democraticunderground.com are targeting your blog. Expect some morons to come here and rant & rave and write ignorant posts.

  • monitor

    mumon (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-16-05 04:45 PM
    Original message
    Fun with fundies….
    Visit this “evangelical” blog and see how the regulars react when you pose to them the issues raised by Gannongate, among them: is George W. Bush gay?
    http://mumonno.blogspot.com

  • Dave Sylvester

    “…it doesn’t really matter to me…”
    Oh, but it seems to matter a great deal. You seem to have read quite a bit about it, and now you are spreading what are rumors and attempts at character assassination. This is simply another symptom of the hate that the President’s enemies have for him. I think you should leave this one alone. It’s beneath you…or at least beneath someone. ;-)

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Dave Sylvester :
    Ummm, isn’t necessary to have a character before it’s “assassinated?” I mean, we’re talking about George W. Bush here, the guy who lied about Iraq, about tax cuts, about deficits, about Social Security, about John Kerry, etc., etc.
    Of course, just because he might have been the gay lover of Victor Ashe, and may have paid “Jeff Gannon” for sex doesn’t mean I think any less of him, I mean frankly, those things didn’t kill anyone, or destroy anyone’s hopes of social advancement or force old people to subsist on dog food.
    Do you think any less of George W. Bush might very possibly be the gay lover of Victor Ashe and may have paid for sex with “Jeff Gannon?”
    I’m just asking…

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    monitor:
    Why thanks, I just thought I’d invite people- as Razorkis wanted- over here to see what the hubub’s about.

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    Kevin – now that I can handle. ;)
    mumon – of course you have some evidence, besides throwing out a google search, to back up a statement that is “reprehensible, dishonest, inflamatory, bigotted, and does not belong in acceptable discourse.”
    Gannon was not a fake newsreporter, he worked for Talon News. He wrote articles. The articles might not have been huge or important, but you can’t say they were fake.
    The White House might have let him because he did asked biased questions in their favor. Did anyone question why they kept letting Helen Thomas in during the Clinton years? She obviously asked biased questions.
    I still don’t see how anything 1) proves Gannon is a gay prostitute. The Washington Post had a lot of accusations and a statement by a web designer who said he worked with Gannon in the past. 2) Regardless of all that, how does one jump from that to Bush is gay and having sex with a male prostitute?
    It just makes me laugh to here those on the left talk about being part of the “reality based community.”
    As to your Christians terrorist – there are people in the world who claim the name of Christ and do crazy murderous things? Does that mean Christian = terrorist? If so then socialist must equal torturer and mass murderer. Your examples don’t prove that Christianity encourages terrorism. They all acted outside of what Scripture teaches. Most belong to some type of militant cult of Christianity.
    So I admitted that some nutjobs who say they are Christians committed terrorist acts, are you going to admitt that socialist torture or murder their own people?

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Aaron:
    He plagiarized white house press releases. The evidence on George W. Bush with Victor Ashe is pretty strong- much, much stronger than the “Clinton Murders.” (Remember that smear? I do.)
    The White House might have let him because he did asked biased questions in their favor.
    Look, he had to pass a background check. Are you saying that it’s easy to have a criminal backtround and pass an FBI background check? Do you seriously believe that?
    The guy had no reporter’s background (breaking: he was let in before “Talon News” let him in.) The guy DID have a background in gay male prostitution. Now, you can believe a convoluted story like “the administration wanted to lie about what they were doing” but I think it’s more likely that somebody simply wanted “Gannon’s” “professional” services (what he actually got paid for- Talon only gave him a stipend.)
    there are people in the world who claim the name of Christ and do crazy murderous things? Does that mean Christian = terrorist?…
    Ah, the “No true Scotsman” fallacy rears its head.
    Thanks- I haven’t seen that in a while…

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    are you going to admitt that socialist torture or murder their own people
    Like the Swedes? The Social Democrats of Germany?
    I think you mean “Communist” and even there, there’s gradations: Maoists, Khmer Rouge etc. are not exactly Alexandr Dubceks…

  • http://www.kbuxton.com/discordia/ George Dorn

    Mmmmm, yes, speaking of Bush/Gannongate (“I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Man”) you all would be advised to check out these pictures of the two. You can cut the smoldering sodomite tension with a knife. (Look at those eyes!) Seems to me these gents are just a couple steps from renting two pairs of cheekless chaps and heading down to the Castro for a pride parade…
    http://photos1.blogger.com/img/227/958/640/2.jpg
    http://www.michaeldellabitta.com/wordpress/images/mark.jpg
    As far as “moronic beyond belief”, that kind of criticism carries quite a bit of weight, especially when it comes from people who spend all their time worrying about a giant invisible man in the sky for which a single, solitary shred of physical evidence can’t be dug up, unlike the dinosaur bones that “he” allegedly buried 4,000 years ago to trick people into believing that the world is actually older than that. (Either that or T. Rex was chasing Abraham and Co. around the desert, as the Ohio Creationist Crowd seems to be asserting… a fact conveniently omitted from the Old Testament)
    Really, I’m sure you boys are right about everything… everyone who doesn’t believe exactly as as you do is an immoral degenerate, and the Universe really is run by a rule-crazy old coot who has nothing better to worry about than where the hairless apes of Planet Earth are sticking their naughty bits…
    Moronic beyond belief, indeed.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon
  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    My colleague mumon is clearly trolling here, so I suggest people refrain from giving him what he wants.

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    mumon – I invited them to MY blog, not Joe’s :D If you read all those links – they were to my blog :P
    So, invite them there.
    Not DU rezidents – that’s politics – frankly, I don’t give a crap about politics. In fact, my comment rules specifically say not to mention politics – because I’m not interested in it, or in somehow equating either a political party, or a president, with Christianity. Christianity stands just fine on its own merits. It doesn’t need any political rhetoric to make it any more, or less true. It is the Truth – regardless of what any politicians did, or did not say. It only matters what God says. If you disagree, come on down.
    To my blog.
    I talk about morality theories, philosophy, general apologetics, biblical theology, and refute arguments from humanists/atheists.
    So, if you want more political battles – you’ll be out of luck. If you want a discussion about the things that matter – the supposed moral issues that Christianity suffers from, according to DS – and I’m not talking about political things – he wasn’t either – come on down.
    Read my rules, and begin your dialogue. See if you can argue sans political topics :D

  • 386sx

    (having a moral relativist go off on such a rant about another groups morality is quite cringe worthy).
    Yeah, yer a real genius there, Mr. Carter.

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    Joe,
    Your site must be accomplishing something major to be targeted by the Brown Shirt Underground, and the way that DS and Larry have gone so completely off the deep end.
    Maybe they see the end of their fellow-travelers’ hegemony in public discourse, and express a less dignified parallel to Dan Rather and Eason Jordan. Where do we go once reasoned discourse is replaced by thuggery and tantrums?
    I too prayed for DS, but it’s not just him/her.

  • http://musik.mp3-play.de Lotta Josane

    Day for day I surf around in net to meet interesting people and international places. It

  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    I didn’t mistake socialist for communist. I thought communist werent’ that bad anyway, but for socialist there are plenty. We still have one living right below our country who likes to kill people and crush dissent. I wasn’t even going to bring communist into the argument, but we can if you want to.
    Since you are found of using Google searches as evidence, why don’t you type in Socialist murderers or something to that extent. That is all the proof we need right?
    As to Gannon and Bush, go ahead on that one. (A better question would be if I am the president or someone working with him, why would I need to bring someone in as a press person with all that goes along with it. Why not just sneak him in without going through the channels of the press?) If you think you got the scoop start pushing that story to everyone in the media, you will probably be on 60 Minutes next week with a fresh set of documents that prove the story. But that is all I will say on that, you can keep trolling along with that story.
    George – If you really want to discuss Christianity or creationism that is fine, but stop using made up stereotypes and false assertions to promote your view point. I don’t think one thing you said accurately represents Christianity. Yes, some of us believe in a young earth and there is evidence for that. As far as the Old Testament mentioning dinosaurs, there are several verses in Job, Pslams and other places that could be refering to dinosaurs (of course it doesn’t say “dinosaur” since the word hadn’t been created yet). But regardless not everyone in Christianity believes in young earth creation.
    Also our view of God is not that of a “crazy old coot.” We know Him as a loving God that desires the best for every person. The reason why He is concerned with us and our actions is His love.
    If you want to discuss something, fine, but at least understand the things you are arguing against (Christianity in this case).

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin
  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    RazorsKiss :
    Sorry, I don’t make distinctions between religius and political. That way the sincerity factor’s maximized.
    … morality theories, philosophy, general apologetics, biblical theology, and refute arguments from humanists/atheists…
    Seems to me your biggest weakness is the argument from pragmatism: despite your co-religionists protestations, it doesn’t seem to make you better people.
    Look at today’s posts: Joe Carter is still dishonestly shilling for “Intelligent” “Design” and crudely attempting to smear scientists working in genetic algorithms. Why is that? Is it because being saved by the blood of the lamb only makes him…bloodthirsty?
    Kevin:
    There are many of us who will just say “no” to theocratic fascism. Deal with it.
    Aaron:
    Again I wonder how people like yourself look at yourselves in the mirror.

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    Mumon,
    Nobody here has advocated theocreatic fascism. Speaking of dishonesty…

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin
  • http://wardrobedoor.blogspot.com Aaron

    Mumon – I often reflect on myself and how I live and what I believe. I constantly surround myself with opinions from people who disagree with me.
    I have opened my blog up to people who disagree with me on a host of areas and had them post, not comment, post. They challenge my beliefs and cause me to examine my thoughts and faith. This has only made my faith stronger.
    As Ravi Zacharias said, “I took philosophy courses at Cambridge under a renowned atheist and I remember thinking in astonishment, ‘These are the best arguments atheists have?’ It merely confirmed the truth of Scripture.”
    You can sit on the other side of the computer all day long and make insinuations about Bush’s character or my character or anyone else’s that you have no personal knowledge of.
    I find it very enlightening that you have been virtually the only one to bring up personal attacks on people’s character. That doesn’t make me angry at you or even challenged by you, it makes me pity you.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    Those who don’t know aren’t paying enough attention: do a background search on “Council for National Policy,” “Chalcedon Foundation,” etc.
    Look, I’ve been attacked personally on this site quite a number of times. (Saying I’m going to hell is a personal attack, even if you’re couching it in vicarious god rhetoric.)
    I’ve seen Socialists smeared on this very thread. I’ve seen the patronizing attitude.
    I bear witness to it.
    You may deny that you are immoral, or that there is suffering caused by your adherence to what reasonable people find too much like fascism for their comfort, but your denial cannot change reality, it cannot change the truth, and you do not possess it.

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    Chalcedon Foundation? I’m not aware that they go around engaging in violence, as do Democrats at election time and lefties on college campuses. But I guess that doesn’t matter; we’re all a bunch of Brown Shirts and we’re coming for you.
    Hark! Is that the black helicopters I hear?
    You slander anyone who disagrees with you. I’m not about to see the CF as a threat just on your say-so.
    If Christians are really all a bunch of misanthropic fascists as you keep saying (and you’re saying little else), then surely you can cite a long list of specific, verifiable crimes we’ve committed. So let’s see it.
    Otherwise, you’re just another hater making stuff up to justify your bigotry. You’re not as far from the Chalcedon Foundation as you’d like to think.

  • http://shortattnspan.blogspot.com Kevin

    BTW, my point was not to say you’re going to Hell, but to show the prophetic insight of Jesus. He said that those who are alienated from God would hate His people without reason. If the shoe fits, then wear it. Either that, or stop and ask yourself why you have such hatred for people who have done you no harm except saying things you are offended at.

  • http://razorskiss.net/wp RazorsKiss

    RazorsKiss :
    Sorry, I don’t make distinctions between religius and political. That way the sincerity factor’s maximized.

    Neither do I. However, if I allow politics – the blogosphere being what it is – a politically driven animal – I will talk about nothing BUT politics, and everything will be shaded by some political slant. I don’t need to be tarred with a certain brush – and I don’t care which political ideology you are being tarred by, or tarring yourself with. Talk about more important things – like the philosophies behind what, and how, you think. That is what drives your political ideology, anyway. Politics is so.. superficial? Talk about what makes you think that way – and stay out of the political manisfestations of it. You know what I mean? I’m not even registered in a party – and I don’t care what party you are in, or are not in. I care, and am interested in, what you think, what you believe, and what drives you. What your political leanings are don’t interest me in the least – the celebrity circus of political deeds and misdeeds don’t interest me either. I am not a politician-worshipper. I am a God-worshipper. Thus, I’d rather talk about what is most important to me – what I believe, and what you believe.

    … morality theories, philosophy, general apologetics, biblical theology, and refute arguments from humanists/atheists…
    Seems to me your biggest weakness is the argument from pragmatism: despite your co-religionists protestations, it doesn’t seem to make you better people.

    Which, honestly, is a basic tenet of Christianity. There ARE no “better people”. Only people who are granted the favor of God, despite their failings – and people who choose to reject that favor. And, as I’m sure you know – arguing anything from pragmatism, or the “relative” merits of anything, is not exactly the tack to take with objective moralists. Especially ones that think that they are not any better than anyone else – as is clearly explained in the book of Romans.

    Look at today’s posts: Joe Carter is still dishonestly shilling for “Intelligent” “Design” and crudely attempting to smear scientists working in genetic algorithms. Why is that? Is it because being saved by the blood of the lamb only makes him…bloodthirsty?

    What does “bloodthirsty” have to do with an argument against an idea that he dislikes? Just so you could get in your Christianity-bash du jour quip? Just because they work with genetic algorithms doesn’t make them right. Joe can say whatever he wants. Just because you disagree with it, and others do, doesn’t make it wrong. That is the essence of your usual argument.

  • Larry Lord

    RK
    “Joe can say whatever he wants. Just because you disagree with it, and others do, doesn’t make it wrong.”
    And just because your holy book says something doesn’t mean it’s right. Do we understand each other now?
    Good. Now, it’s time for your mommy to change your diaper, RK. Stop weeping.

  • Larry Lord

    Kevin
    “the prophetic insight of Jesus. He said that those who are alienated from God would hate His people without reason.”
    Mumon doesn’t hate Christians. He hates people who pretend to be Christians but who are actually fundie Christianity-warping bigots who will apologize on behalf of jackass ignorant politicians and anti-science reality-denying morons just because those politicians and morons make some empty gestures towards fundie-minded bigotry.
    I thought that was obvious.
    Nice dishonest smear of lefties by the way, Kevin. Jesus loves that kind of garbage — “Go forth and lie in my name!”

  • http://mossback.org Richard Bennett

    Mumon loves Mao, one of the most accomplished mass-murderers in all of history, and he opposed the action in Afghanistan that brought down the Taliban.
    Yet he’s incensed with hatred for Christians. Go figure.