1

Dawkins is my hero!

2

To be fair, what Dawkins is getting at is the idea that, while molestation is a terrible thing to happen to a child, it is of limited duration and does not continue for every waking moment of that person's entire existence.

Also, on Limbaugh, he got it wrong - "Pre-mortem" was indeed the title of Glenn Reynolds's posting, and in it he tolls the bell for the Republicans. The Democrats are taking at least one house of Congress this November and we'll try to restore some measure of sanity to government and start undoing the massive damage that has been wrought by the Bush administration.

When the Instapundit bails, you know the situation is bad. Look for more rats to flee the sinking ship soon. Visited FOX News online lately? (Hint: Used to be an all-red color scheme.)

3

The Grist/Moyers/PBS project "Is God Green" started out to be a worthwhile project to get the discussion of Christian ecology out into the marketplace of ideas. Moyers, Beisner (http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/), bloggers, and a couple of lawyers have managed to turn the whole thing into a brawl. A shame, really.

4

To be fair, what Dawkins is getting at is the idea that, while molestation is a terrible thing to happen to a child, it is of limited duration and does not continue for every waking moment of that person's entire existence.

To be fair? Yes, we are all aware that is what Dawkins is getting at. Nevertheless, it is still disgusting, inflammatory, and indefensible. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from an atheist Ann Coulter, not a distinguished scientist.

I enjoyed reading _The Selfish Gene_ and _Climbing Mount Improbable_, but life is too short to waste any more time on Dawkins. For a spirited defense of science, we'd all be better off re-reading the works of Gould, E.O. Wilson, or Peter Medawar.

5

geez, thanks for clearing that Dawkins statement up for us, Raven. I have often wondered which was worse according to you guys--pedophiles or religious types. Thankfully, we now know that religious folks are more dangerous than pedophiles. Well, you've gotten rid of one pedophile in Congress, but you've ignored the 300-400 Christians who should have been outed first, being more dangerous and all. Incredible. You and Dawkins need to take a break, step back, catch a breath, smoke another joint, do something to ease the pressure on that vacuum pump you call your mind.

Every once in awhile liberals (or should I say progressives) slip up and let the world know what they really think. It's not a pretty sight.

Speaking of sights no one wants to see, whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi? Could it be she is a walking symbol of what the Democrats are trying to hide? Wherever can she be now that her party needs her to step up and tell the country where her party stands? She is nowhere to be found. Oh, wait. I saw her on the Today show this morning doing a human interest type story (apparently she's already the new speaker according to NBC and Jamie Gangel). There she was at six years old holding her little JFK doll and saying her prayers. And some people actually thought NBC was biased. Naw, can't be.

Raven, tell the truth. Are you Heckle--or Jeckle?

6

"Purgatorio has a list of 50 Books You Should Leave on The Shelf."

A few good calls, but I'm a bit wary of any list that puts Geisler in the same category as Spong.

Of all of Robb Bell's work that I've read/watched/listened to, Velvet Elvis is definitely the most impressive. He presents a wealth of information with a good dose of humility that is often lacking in Christian discussions on doctrinal differences (again, comparing Geisler to Spong?). I'm beginning to think he's been blacklisted simply because "emergents" find him interesting.

Not too surprising was the obligatory inclusion of Purpose Driven Life. Can anyone share a little insight as to why so many people despise Rick Warren? One would think he's claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus.

7

Maybe its me but the '50 worse books' link keeps coming up with a blank page.

Speaking of sights no one wants to see, whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi? Could it be she is a walking symbol of what the Democrats are trying to hide? Wherever can she be now that her party needs her to step up and tell the country where her party stands?

Tell the country where her party stands on what? Your post is confused and unfocused. Does she need to tell the country where she stands on NBC doing lifestyle pieces? Does she need to tell us where she stands on JKF dolls for kids? Does she need to tell the country where she stands on a British intellectual who declares that he is an athiest and not only that but he thinks religion is really horrible? (BTW, if pressed what would Christians say is worse...to experience a single incident or two of molestation as a child or to never ever hear or know anything about God or Jesus?)

8

Raven said:"To be fair, what Dawkins is getting at is the idea that, while molestation is a terrible thing to happen to a child, it is of limited duration and does not continue for every waking moment of that person's entire existence."

Are you kidding me? Are you actually arguing that child molestation has no long-term physical or emotional consequences?

I suppose you and/or Dawkins think Christians walk around in abject, paralyzing fear of hell "every waking moment of [their] entire existence". If so, I'm genuinely sorry the Gospel has been so badly misrepresented to you.

9

Actually while Catholics do have hell I would have put Baptists or some other types as more likely to use the fear of hell as main tool to indoctrinate children in their religion. While it's not always soft peddled there are plenty of other types of Christians who play up hell a lot more than the Catholics. Perhaps Dawkins was thinking of Dante...

10

Boonton - I'm not getting into a drawn-out discussion, but I will respond narrowly to your narrow question: Child molestation is far worse than "never ever hearing" about God or Jesus. I would point out what Jesus said about children, though: "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Jesus has no tolerance for child molesters.

11

If you want to answer just one question then please do but try not to distort the question. I asked what would be worse for a person, to be a VICTIM of a single incident or two as a child or to spend an entire life never knowing anything about God or Jesus. Most Christians, if they are honest and really Christians, would have to opt for the former rather than the latter.

I did not ask if you thought Jesus would have approved of molesting children. Thank you though for clearing that matter up for anyone who might have been confused and unsure whether or not Jesus supported child molesting. Those people now know clearly that he didn't.

12

BTW, if pressed what would Christians say is worse...to experience a single incident or two of molestation as a child or to never ever hear or know anything about God or Jesus?)

That's not parallel to Dawkins' comment. A parallel would be to ask which is worse, to be molested or to be raised by parents who teach atheism? To me, the obvious answer is that molestation is a traumatic ordeal which cannot be compared to being raised Christian or to being raised atheist. After all, a child raised by atheist parents can still become Christian, and a child raised by Christian parents, even the strictest hellfire and brimstone fundamentalists, is free to embrace atheism as an adult.

Both Catholic parents and atheist parents can be loving, attentive, and Good parents, and neither are child abusers simply because they teach their children their own beliefs. Since you generally seem like a rational guy, I'm having a hard time understaning how you could defend Dawkin's repulsive Coulteresque comments.

13

Not too surprising was the obligatory inclusion of Purpose Driven Life. Can anyone share a little insight as to why so many people despise Rick Warren? One would think he's claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus.

When you're at the top - people will snipe at you. It's a simple as that.

While it's been quite some time that I've encountered the book (it didn't get "read"; but it was covered in a small group that I was bad at attending during my Slacker Christian years) - it wasn't best I've read and it wasn't the worst.

I was happy to see Left Behind up there and I was also happy not to see John Maxwell. I think his books are fantastic.

14

Not having heard of the website Purgatorio before, I'm not sure where they are coming from or what the general quality of their content is, but their list of "50 books to avoid" reads strangely to me. I'm not sure how Spong, Gomes, or Ehrman have supposedly "influenced evangelicalism," except as fuel for the fire. Without more explanation as to why these books are on this person's list, I don't see the point. In most bibliographies, the real value is in the annotations.

15

Nick,

I think you're hung up on the technicalities. Dawkins clearly thinks being raised to believe in hell is harmful because it is wrong and a wrong belief like that will bring about a lifetime of unneeded suffering. Yes technically he said 'raised by Catholics' but that's what he clearly meant. If a child was raised by athiests but somehow a next door neighbor taught the child to believe in hell Dawkins would say that's bad as well.

And the fact is Dawkins is clearly right if you take any of this stuff seriously. If Christianity is bunk (and religion in general) then yes this is all a big waste of time and effort and a wasted lifetime is much worse than a single incident in childhood that one can recover from.

On the flip side if its true then having to endure a ruined childhood is a trivial price to pay for something so valuable isn't it?

16

I think you're hung up on the technicalities
Dawkins clearly thinks being raised to believe in hell is harmful because it is wrong and a wrong belief like that will bring about a lifetime of unneeded suffering.

Yes, I understand that's what Dawkins believes. I think that is stupid. A lifetime of unneeded suffering? A wasted lifetime? Even if I were to stipulate that believing in hell is a false belief and that false beliefs can have negative consequences, I would still think it obscene to compare it to molestation and incredible exaggeration to say that it leads to a lifetime of suffering. We have, all of us, been raised to believe things that are not correct, because none of our parents are omniscient. Very few, if any, of those wrong beliefs constitute child abuse, which molestation very clearly is. Yes, we could probably think of situations where parenting is equivalent to psychological torture, but that's not the case here.

17

I'm not going to defend Dawkins' statement, but I think some here are misrepresenting what he said. He was comnparing two evils - being molested and believing in a place of eternal torture for those who do not believe or act the "right way." One can produce a lifetime of anguish of remembering what happened; the other can produce a lifetime of anguish anticipating what might happen to oneself or others.

In fairness to Dawkins, it should be realized that not all child molestations are the same. Some are relatively mild and occur at an age so young that the child doesn't even recall it. Others are much more prolonged and traumatic. By the same token, not all hell-believing Christians live with the same amount of fear of hell. I would say that most Christians either don't take hell seriously, don't think they or anyone they know will go there, or just block it out of their minds.

For those who take hell seriously though, the thought of any human going to a place of constant torture for all eternity - a place invented by a "loving" God - can be traumatic. There are multiple cases of parents killing their children so that they wouldn't grow up as non-believers and thus go to hell. In a perverse way, that is completely logical. If one believes that innocent children are guaranteed a spot in heaven, while adults have a high likelihood of spending eternity in hell, the most loving thing one could do would be to kill all the children in the world. Abortionists are doing a great thing - sacrificing their own salvation to ensure the salvation of untold numbers of children.

I remember my own fear of hell as a child. Most parents spend a lot of time assuring children that their fears are unfounded. The boogie man won't get you, there are no monsters in the closet, no one will kidnap you, I will always protect you. But with the subject of hell, many parents intentionally instill a fear in their children. For those who believe in an "age of accountability" the fear can be intensified. I have yet to find a single person who can explain when this magic moment actually occurs. The child must live in constant fear that they might wait too long and thus burn in hell forever. For non-Calvinists, the fear continues after salvation as one worries about losing their salvation. Have I committed the unpardonable sin? My sweet grandmother who passed away recently was afraid in her dying hours that she might go to hell for some unforgiven sin. Any Christian with a sensitive conscience also worries daily about loved ones and even unloved ones who are in hell or are in danger of going to hell.

18

If believing in hell keeps one from commiting evil acts, isn't the net effect on ones life still a positive even if it isn't true? C'mon people, Pascals wager ever heard of it? I swear people like Boonton and Rave should get punched in the adam's apple for being so retarded.

Finally, how can Rush not know who Instapundit is? It's only the most important libertarian/conservative blog out there. Rush just outed himself as out of touch.

19

Boonton - I should have worded that as "Being molested is far worse than 'never ever hearing'..." I apologize for the confusion. Otherwise, I'm with Nick.

20

Daniel, are you kidding me? "The Velvet Elvis" impressive? It is an intellectual and theological mess! I'm surprised anyone out of junior high/high school finds it compelling.

21

Hedgy writes: "If believing in hell keeps one from commiting evil acts, isn't the net effect on ones life still a positive even if it isn't true?"

Unfortunately, most Christians believe that one's eternal destiny is not connected to the acts committed in this life, but to having the right beliefs about God and Jesus. I've heard Christians boast that even someone as evil as Hitler could be in heaven if he repented and confessed faith in Jesus right before he died. By the same token, someone as innocent as Anne Frank will burn in hell for eternity for not believing the right things.

22

You're as worthless as the rest of the tools that troll here ex. You guys are the Arizona Cardinals of blog commenters.
Even if it's all a lie, wouldn't someone who was motivated to be a better person by the fear of hell lead a more fulfilled life than a niihilistic libertine? Oh I forget who I'm dealing with here, a bunch people who actually do find fulfillment in nihilism. My bad.

23

Chris-
Perhaps you have more knowledge of 1st century Hebrew culture than I, and can point out his factual inaccuracies. I was impressed with the amount of study he (seemed) to put into the work as he illustrated the scope of the gospel's theological implications from the time they were originally spoken up to today. I'm not sure what you mean by "theological mess," unless it's another way to say "he isn't reformed." Intellectually, it's very coherent and easy to follow, and it does a good job of explaining some rather difficult ideas without becoming tedious or technical. It's not written like a systematic theology book, which is why it's appealing in the first place. I think it's a great introduction to and illustration of the most basic Christian truths, and I really appreciate that admits he could be mistaken and encourages the reader to use discernment while reading instead of simply writing off those who disagree with him.

24

If believing in hell keeps one from commiting evil acts, isn't the net effect on ones life still a positive even if it isn't true? C'mon people, Pascals wager ever heard of it? I swear people like Boonton and Rave should get punched in the adam's apple for being so retarded.

On the contrary, I think its more simple and honest to say if Christianity is true then it is the most important thing in the universe whose value trumps everything else. In that case having to suffer a molestation in childhood is a trivial price to pay. Didn't the early Christians throw themselves in the mouths of lions happily?

If it's not true, though, then I think you have a tough time telling us it's ok to essentially fool people into dedicating their lives to a lie. Plato tried to pull that trick off in The Republic but even he wasn't all that convincing and you're no Plato!

Boonton - I should have worded that as "Being molested is far worse than 'never ever hearing'..." I apologize for the confusion. Otherwise, I'm with Nick.

Then you're not much of a Christian.

25

Why even argue with you people? If someone argues from the basis that Christianity is true, you just assert it is false so the argument is false. If one steps back and tries to come at it from a different angle, you just say, "what you aren't a REEEAAAL Christian afterall!" Tell me again why are you worth anyone's time?

26

I'm actually being a lot more basic than that Hedgy. I'm arguing that whether Christianity is true or false is a very important question. It's ironic that the 'Christians' here seem to be staking out the ground that its irrelevant whether or not its true or false.

27

I agree with many of Purgatorio's suggestions on books that aren't worth reading. It would be nice if he had a comment or two with each one. I'm curious about his reasoning on "Wild at Heart". I'm not saying he's wrong because the last third of the book was a major disappointment. The first two thirds of the book may be the best description I've ever read of how the ideal of biblical masculinity is lost in our culture. But then, the last part of the book is dedicated to his solution and unfortunately he seems to be of the "deliverance model" persuasion of spiritual warfare (ala Neil Anderson). I guess I can see how any book that takes Neil Anderson seriously could make it onto some 50-worst-books-ever list. I've always thought it to be a shame about "Wild at Heart". Eldredge does such a masterful job of showing how the biblical model of masculinity is different than the world's. You would think the solution for an individual believer would be to...well...read the Bible, see what it says, and then live it out (aka the discipleship model). However, he's far too comfortable with the hokey "deliverance" model... i.e. blame all the right demons, say all the right prayers, and all your dreams will come true. Still, I'd recommend that book, with the stipulation that the first two thirds identifies the problem well, it just doesn't come through with satisfying solutions. Quantifying and qualifying the problem correctly is a valuable thing in working toward a solution. It's too bad the author got off track after such a good start.

28

I'm actually being a lot more basic than that Hedgy. I'm arguing that whether Christianity is true or false is a very important question.

If Christianity is true, then whether one believes is a very important question. If Christianity (including the belief in hell) is false, then it is about as important as believing in UFOs or astrology. Teaching your kids to believe in UFOs or astrology is not ideal, and it may hinder them as scientists, but it hardly consititutes child abuse.

According to Dawkins, all religion is false, so Christian parents are equivalent to parents who teach their kids astrology. Are they really worse than pedophiles?

Let's not forget that there are real people, children and parents, involved in the priest abuse scandal. Dawkins is saying that those parents are doing worse harm to their children than the pervert priests who abused the kids. Do you really agree with that? From my point of view, that's as hurtful and hateful as anything Ann Coulter has said about the 911 widows.

29

I personally know a Christian book seller... she sells books to Christian book stores to stock in their inventory. She showed me her basement full of shelves full of books. Believe me, there are THOUSANDS of books for trash out there. I guess these 50 made the list only because they are also popular. thus spoke churchpundit!

30

If Christianity is true, then whether one believes is a very important question. If Christianity (including the belief in hell) is false, then it is about as important as believing in UFOs or astrology. Teaching your kids to believe in UFOs or astrology is not ideal, and it may hinder them as scientists, but it hardly consititutes child abuse.

For the most part people who believe UFOs and astrology are true do not give those things much control over their lives. While they may believe UFO's have play an important role in history or world affairs they usually don't let that belief impact their daily behavior much.

So we can say whether or not UFO's are real is an interesting question but not very important for most people. Even if they are real you still will have to go to work tomorrow and pay your bills.

But is the truth value of Christianity really so trivial? I don't think so, at least in theory it is supposed to have a huge impact on your life. In fact, if you guys are to be taken seriously it is the single most important thing in your life....it's even more important than life itself. If made to choose between Christ and their own mortal lives Christians are taught they should follow the examples of the martyrs. Yet people here are saying if forced to choose between a life without any opportunity to know about Christ or God and a life with such an opportunity but one or two incidents of molestation as a child they would choose the former?!

Let's not forget that there are real people, children and parents, involved in the priest abuse scandal. Dawkins is saying that those parents are doing worse harm to their children than the pervert priests who abused the kids. Do you really agree with that? From my point of view, that's as hurtful and hateful as anything Ann Coulter has said about the 911 widows.

I wouldn't take this too literally. Children are not raised in a box nor do they mirror their parents views. Plenty were taught about religion as children only to forget it as adults. Others were taught atheism only to be zealous converts as adults. So it can only be a hypothetical to suppose the possibility of a life without any hints or opportunities to have religion.

That being the case if you know something as important as religion is false then yes it is a very bad thing to teach it as if it was true. For the most part, though, I don't think Dawkins would find religious parents as morally blameworthy as pedophilies. Pedophiles know very well that their activities are damaging and are not tolerated by society. Ignorance cannot be an excuse for them. There is no definitive proof one way or the other on religion (and which religion if religion) so even if you think parents are causing great harm to their kids you can't hold them as blameworthy. It's a bit like noting that millions died needlessly before the invention of antibiotics. It's true but it doesn't mean that we can blame doctors for not knowing about antibiotics all along.

31

Does it matter that Christianity is true or not to you Boonton? You come in here with your ever so smug detachment, and then get offended when people don't try hard enough to convince you. Please, when has anyone here ever caused you to even think about conceding a point. I've got better odds convincing Paris Hilton to stay chaste!

32

Joe:

Aren't you "jumping the gun" on Limbaugh? Do you have inside knowledge on the blogs he is reading or not reading? While it's certainly possible that he underestimates the value and popularity of blogs, isn't it also possible that you're overestimating their influence? You know the term jumping the shark usually denotes the imminent cancellation or discreditation or collapse of the jumper. Rush's audience is still huge, and his political observations are still astute. He is not in any danger of going the way of all sitcoms. Once again, it's apparent you now dislike Rush, in addition to Coulter. Well, that's OK, I guess. But if I hear you're starting to favor John McCain or Barack Obama...

Speaking of disdain for fellow believers--what's the difference between that 50 books list and what is known as "watchbloggers?" I know that David Wayne has a very dim view of "watchbloggers", but that 50 books list has the watch blogger smell about it, does it not?

33

That's not parallel to Dawkins' comment. A parallel would be to ask which is worse, to be molested or to be raised by parents who teach atheism? To me, the obvious answer is that molestation is a traumatic ordeal which cannot be compared to being raised Christian or to being raised atheist. After all, a child raised by atheist parents can still become Christian, and a child raised by Christian parents, even the strictest hellfire and brimstone fundamentalists, is free to embrace atheism as an adult.

That's a good reformulation of the problem, Nick. My compliments. To the first, obviously molestation would be worse than being raised atheist. As to the second, Dawkins is obviously positing the Catholicism being lifelong, and that's worse in my estimation because a life lived in belief of a lie - a whole slew of them - is not a life worth living.

The torment, guilt and shame many Catholics talk about as being part of their religious experience is, for them, entirely self-sustained and the product of the rigorous inculcation they experienced. And then the omnipresent dread of Hell and the fear of death put on top of it, the supposition of an all-seeing monitor judging every thought and desire... Hey, if I'm the kid and I get a choice in this, I'd be tempted to opt for the molester, and "Mister, just make it quick and let's get this crap over with."

But inasmuch as the brainwashing often doesn't fully take and some people snap out of it, and some can be deprogrammed, I think Dawkins was a bit over the top on this one.

34

JD,

Aren't you "jumping the gun" on Limbaugh? Do you have inside knowledge on the blogs he is reading or not reading?

It’s true that I don’t have inside knowledge about Rush’s blog reading habits. Applying a bit of inductive reasoning, however, helps to show that it is highly unlikely that he reads all of the blogs he claims and yet has not even heard of Instapundit.

While it's certainly possible that he underestimates the value and popularity of blogs, isn't it also possible that you're overestimating their influence?

I’m not commenting at all on their influence. All I’m saying is that anyone who reads all of the blogs that Rush claims to read would have heard of Glenn Reynolds.

You know the term jumping the shark usually denotes the imminent cancellation or discreditation or collapse of the jumper.

Not necessarily. The term refers to a scene from Happy Days and that show went on to produce about a 100 more episodes. I’m not saying that Rush is bound for imminent cancellation. But it appears that he has lost his edge and is getting sloppy and out of touch.

Once again, it's apparent you now dislike Rush, in addition to Coulter.

No, I despise Coulter but I don’t dislike of Rush. I just think he has largely ceased to be relevant. He has been upstaged by the people he paved the way for. Guys like O’Reilly and Sean Hannity now do a better Rush imitation than Limbaugh.

Rush’s decline started when he became a mouthpiece for Republicanism rather than for conservatism. It was probably inevitable. Once he attained his power and status he has to keep sucking up to the GOP in order to keep it. (His spat with Reynolds and social conservatives is a prime example.)

Well, that's OK, I guess. But if I hear you're starting to favor John McCain or Barack Obama...

I’d vote for a real Democrat before I’d vote for the Democrat-in-disguise like McCain. And I don’t understand the whole fascination with Obama. Sure, he’s got a voice that sounds like Steve “The Rock” Johnson. But aside from his oratorical skills what does he have?

Speaking of disdain for fellow believers--what's the difference between that 50 books list and what is known as "watchbloggers?" I know that David Wayne has a very dim view of "watchbloggers", but that 50 books list has the watch blogger smell about it, does it not?

I didn’t think so. I think you can hold a strong opinion without crossing the line over into “watchblogger” territory. And while Marc may add dispensationalist’s books to his list, he probably doesn’t condemn them as heretics the way that the WB’ers do.

35

Which is worse: a lifetime fear of hell or a lifetime of Nausea and despair looking at the abyssal nothingness that evoluation has led to?

36

Does it matter to Christian fan's of Rush that he has been married so many times or that he would demean a little girl on his show because he didn't like her dad's politics?

37

Jeez, moby I looked at your blog and the way you demean the president who IS a brother in Christ is pretty lame. What's your excuse?
Be careful in being critical of a person like Limbaugh's sins when there are plenty of beams in the eyes of people on your side. Don't bring that weak stuff up in here again or I'll make YOU my white whale!

38

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, Bush said he believes that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

"I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty," Bush said. "But I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to get decide who goes to heaven. The Almighty God decides who goes to heaven and I am on my personal walk," he said.

--ABC News, October 26, 2004
Yes ,Hedgy, I have my doubts. I rather think of Bush as Ahab,

39

He should have remembered that, back in 1986, Bush told The Wall Street Journal’s Al Hunt that he was a "f---ing son of a bitch" or that during the presidential campaign Bush called a New York Times reporter a "major-league a--hole." Time magazine reported earlier this year that during a briefing for three senators by Condoleezza Rice in March of 2002, Bush stuck his head into a White House meeting room and exclaimed: "F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out!"

The words of a Christian?

40

So you think Christians don't sin, Moby? Why are you so judgemental of a fellow believer. Or have you never sworn before?

As for the president's comments regarding muslims, what would you expect him to say? He is acting in a capacity as the leader of a multicultural, and multi faith nation. Would you prefer he say that all Muslims are going to hell? And really, when it comes to the ultimate fate of a person's soul isn't God the final judge?

41

Hedgy, Now that I will agree to. I will leave the President out but what about Rush? Isn't it his business to be an accuser? He calls liberals very unkind things, it is only fair to respond.

42

Joe:

I have to concede your points about Rush regarding blogs, though in some ways it's not exactly a new point. He has been too dismissive of blogs for a long time. I think it's partly the ego of media people, particularly radio people. O'Reilly, Howard Stern, Imus... they all talk like they're king of all media. Really, whenever they mention competitors it's with disdain. I think there's more of that ego thing going on with Rush, than a disdain for blogs as somehow less than valid.

I will not concede that Rush has been "upstaged." I listen to those other guys. O'Reilly's good. He's very tough. But he's more of a populist than a conservative: note his pandering to the anti-big-oil crowd (though I guess he really believes what he says). I agree with Hannity on issues, but I can't stand to listen to him. I don't think he's ever had an original thought.

I think you're way off base if you think Rush has no relevance anymore. He is brilliant, and his political observations are astute. He is right about what happens during elections more often than the conventional wisdom. He might be out of touch in that he lives in Palm Beach as a multi-millionaire, but he certainly knows what people are thinking--just as much as any professional pollster. You might think he's passe' but I think he's still head and shoulders above all the rest.

43

Hedgy:

You are so right about Boonton. I once engaged in a long discussion about education with him. Never again. When you hit the mark with him, he won't admit it. He'll just accuse you of missing some mark that you were never aiming at. He is the king of the straw man, the false dilemma and oneupsmanship. He has a million "facts" to refute every fact you bring up. For him, your facts can always be refuted by "his" facts. Facts are never facts because they can always be refuted. Almost all of his posts start with "Er, no." I couldn't even get him to admit he's a liberal--in spite of the fact that he opposes everything posted on this blog. He reminds me of that ornery New Englander in the movie "Peyton Place." When asked yea or nay on some vote, he would always be the only one to say nay because he couldn't stand anything to be unanimous. He appears to be intelligent, but I'd be wary of having a serious discussion with him. I think he sees us all as Luke Skywalker to his Yoda. I can sort of picture him trying to lift Joe's chair with the force. May the force be with him, and with you.

44

Did anyone read the "50 Books you *should* read" on Purgatorio? What did you guys think of those?

For the record, I really liked Velvet Elvis, even though many around me claim I'm the biggest fundie they know. I am regularly accused of being 'too black and white' and 'too narrow' about the world and about biblical Truth. :-)

45

Does it matter that Christianity is true or not to you Boonton? You come in here with your ever so smug detachment, and then get offended when people don't try hard enough to convince you.

It's odd that you're getting so upset with me when other people on this list have basically said it doesn't matter if Christianity is true because if people believe it they won't be nihilists & I guess won't cut others off in traffic as much or whatever.

But inasmuch as the brainwashing often doesn't fully take and some people snap out of it, and some can be deprogrammed, I think Dawkins was a bit over the top on this one.

I'll agree with you there Raven. Dawkins was over the top but his comment wasn't as radical as it appears at first glance, in fact it was quite orthodox. A serious Christian would almost certainly agree the truth value of Christianity's claims is the most important thing in the world. Its value would trump having a happy childhood or even losing one's life. Likewise if it isn't true then it should be firmly rejected...not embraced simply because it may make people 'nice' (which quite often it doesn't).

Joe
I’d vote for a real Democrat before I’d vote for the Democrat-in-disguise like McCain.

Again, aside from opposing Bush what makes McCain a 'Democrat-in-disguise'?

Moby:
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, Bush said he believes that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

They do. What's the story here?

jd
You are so right about Boonton. I once engaged in a long discussion about education with him. Never again. When you hit the mark with him, he won't admit it.

On the contrary I've admitted mistakes here much more than most others here. I'm not sure what long discussion you are talking about here but if it was the one over whether or not the Swiftboaters were right about John Kerry I'll let my position stand for itself there rather than reopen that multi-hundred post discussion again.

46

Boonton, If one believes in the trinity, it is a story.

47

So, Moby, do Jews and Christians worship the same God?

48

Joe,
I'd include Rob Bell in any such list. Have you even watched the nooma series? In 'dust' for instance, where he reveals how Peter failed in walking on water not because he didn't have enough faith in Jesus/God, but because he didn't have enough faith in himself.

Like many in the emergent church, he brings in far too much new age rubbish to give his theology high esteem.

I think the author of the list makes bad mistakes in thinking. There seems to be a basic idea in his list that anything a non-christian observes should not be used in a Christian book. This is rubbish. For instance, 'Wild at heart' is on the list because "In a nutshell, unbiblical anthropology and open theistic statements about the nature of God.". Whilst the open theistic statements may be an appropriate reason...unbiblical anthropology I think is not. The observation of cultures dealings with masculinity and manhood can provide a valid insight into the nature of man, as much as other science can provide insight into the nature of the world. Where the real issue comes in is where you start to use non-biblical interpretations and 'solutions' to the observations.

For instance, a satanist can tell me that someone is about to rob me, and that I should break the guys arm to stop him. The first is the observation, which I should use as information, the second is his solution, which I should ignore, and instead use the information through a biblical worldview and respond with a Christian solution.

49

ex-preacher, Does a "born again Christian, as Bush says he is, believe in the trinity? Why is this controversial?

50

ex-preacher, I don't. in fact, feel right in judging anyone. The fact I brought Bush's name up, and I shouldn't have, was a prompt from an earlier post. Like I said earlier, I will leave it alone. The truth is, instead of hate for differences in others, muslims, Jews, ect.,maybe we could all try harder to solve the world's problems, knowing we all are seeking truth. I think, in fact, I'll leave all judging of a person's faith alone. Thank you for pointing out a wrong.

51

Here's something I was impressed with from Rob Bell:

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religous cults that were hugely poplular at the time of Jesus whose gods had virgin birth?

What if that spring [in the trampoline of faith] was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?

...[I]f the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it? [Velvet Elvis, pp. 026-027]

In other words, if your silly little faith can't withstand the destruction of the Bible as the authoritative word of God and the elimination of the miraculous incarnation and birth of Christ, it must not be much of a faith. I guess I have to plead guilty there.

Other than that, I'm sure he's great, though.

52

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

53

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

54

Good afternoon. Was glad to a meeting.
totylkotescik

55

Visit my webpage!!

56

Visit my webpage!!

57

Visit my webpage!!

58

Visit my webpage!!

59

Visit my webpage!!

60

Visit my webpage!!

61

Visit my webpage!!

62

Visit my webpage!!

63

Visit my webpage!!

64

Visit my webpage!!

65

Visit my webpage!!

66

Visit my webpage!!

67

Visit my webpage!!

68

Visit my webpage!!

69

Visit my webpage!!

70

Visit my webpage!!

71

Order percocet online. Difference in darvocet and percocet. Percocet alieve. Dosages for percocet