AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > February > 03 > Entry
Should Harvard’s president have apologized for theorizing that innate differences may account for the scarcity of women in science?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The furor over Larry Summers’ recent comments about women in science — and his eventual apology — is an indictment of how far society still has to go before we’re ready for adult conversations about controversial topics.
For the record, Harvard University president Summers, never even suggested that women were unfit for or unable to handle science, or anything else that would truly be worth the ruckus. At a small private workshop for the National Bureau of Economic Research, he told the 50 attendees that he was going to outline possible explanations for the relative scarcity of women in high-level science positions, including theories that might “provoke” the audience. His top theory was that fewer family women than family men wanted to work the 80-hour weeks required in many science professions. The next possibility was that both tests and observed differences suggested some innate differences between the sexes, not in intellectual ability but in average preferences for different fields of study. The third theory was outright discrimination.
Several women apparently couldn’t take being provoked. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins walked out on Summers and told the media his comments made her sick. Several other women agreed. Although plenty of other female attendees protested that his theorizing was welcome and in line with current scientific and sociological thinking, the political-correctness machine had already swung into action. Under attack for somehow “discouraging” young women in the pursuit of science, Summers issued a formal letter of apology.
I really wish he hadn’t done that. A letter of clarification, sure. But no apology was necessary. Summers was doing something that any true scientist should welcome: positing theories — including those that are uncomfortable — for the sake of seeking after truth. In his talk, he emphasized that these theories required further study to either substantiate or discount them. That is, after all, the process of science.
Oddly, the women scientists’ incensed reactions have resulted in the very thing they’ve presumably worked hard to avoid: suppressing rigorous scientific pursuit with an emotional over-reaction. So what if brain science is increasingly showing physical differences between male and female brains? So what if the cortical areas for spatial thinking and abstract systems are larger in males from birth on, due to an in-utero wash of testosterone? No — we must deny those differences and aggressively preach male-female uniformity, instead of researching the potential differences as a way of tailoring specialized encouragement and help for budding female scientists.
It sounds to me as if the conference organizer was right on when he told the Boston Globe that “Summers’ critics [were] activists whose sensibilities might be at odds with intellectual debate.”
Summers’ critics are the ones who should apologize — ironically, for setting back the advancement of women in science. After all, if we women can’t endure a little provoking and aren’t willing to test controversial hypotheses — especially those consistent with emerging science — then we provide unnecessary ammunition for the antiquated charge that we really don’t belong in science after all.
Rebuttal
Tenured female professorships at Harvard’s faculty of Arts and Sciences have decreased dramatically during Larry Summers’ tenure. Last year, only four of the 32 tenured positions were offered to women. The well-respected African-American scholar Cornel West left Harvard after Summers attacked his scholarship. Now Summers is accused of sexist remarks. One would think a man who represents Harvard would be a little more circumspect. Maybe white men lack an innate ability of self-censorship.
Many champion Summers’ provocations, but there is a difference between healthy debate and stirring up old biases. There is also a difference between a man on the street shooting off his mouth and the representative of higher education doing the same. Science does uncover a lot of truths. It also promotes many falsehoods. Historically, minorities have been hurt financially and socially by so-called scientific truths. Those who represent educational institutions shouldn’t repeat history.
Regrettably, Summers exposed his personal bias when he shared a story with the audience about his little girl playing with trucks. She named one “baby” and the other “daddy.” How cute. When I was at Harvard our research was a little more in depth than a parent chat at the local playground. Such a naive comparison to endorse a genetic basis for brain sex differences is bad judgment. And I could ask why Summers believes that naming trucks indicates his daughter is less of a mechanic? Maybe personalizing inanimate objects is a way to process complex organization.
As a leader of a prominent educational institution, Summers should provoke discussion, not incite division. Summers was remiss by not mentioning scientific research that disputes the gender basis of scientific ability. One overlooked study indicated women score higher than men on math tests when there are fewer men in a classroom during test time. Summers’ argument falls apart under closer scrutiny; Shaunti’s defense isn’t far behind.
To her credit, Shaunti does note that gender differences shouldn’t result in discrimination but, rather, “specialized encouragement” for “budding” female scientists. But what does that mean? If women should be encouraged in the sciences why is Shaunti so adamantly against women in ground combat? If women are at a physical disadvantage in combat, shouldn’t they also have “specialized encouragement” to participate in ground combat? And if Shaunti is right, if women are weaker scientists, why should women be encouraged to pursue math and science? Bad science is more dangerous than ground combat. Bad science can kill thousands more than a war. If women make bad scientists, they should be discouraged from scientific pursuit, not encouraged.
Shaunti thinks it is no big deal that men’s brains are different or that “cortical areas for spatial thinking and abstract systems are larger in males from birth on, due to an in-utero wash of testosterone.” But her source for this statement is Michael Gurian, a social philosopher. Brain science should originate from brain scientists, not from someone who interprets science as philosophical potential.
Which brings me back to my point. Scientific study is diverse and often contradictory. Nothing should be dismissed or taken as absolute truth. Assumptions and generalizations strip away civil liberties. Larry Summers should’ve apologized, even though his remarks were — as he stated — “off the record.”
You’re never off the record when you represent an esteemed center of education. Summers represents all of Harvard as well as his female students, not just himself. No one thinks the sexes are the same. But everyone believes we all deserve a chance.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Lyrazel
February 7, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this
Summers did apologize for his remarks the day after he made them. This is a tedious hashing on arguments from both sides of an already drained brain pool and relevant to nothing. While the Georgia legislature is debating if a woman has the intellegence to govern her own body, pin-head intellectuals are lost flapping their gums about irrelevent issues.
By Angie
February 7, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
I don’t think Summers should be villified like this. I, of course, cannot speak to what kind of person he is privately. But, why shouldn’t he be permitted to give his hypothesis as to why a larger female presence is not represented in scientific cirlces? Most especially when his comments were directed at the very TOPIC of the meeting in the first place? Science at it’s very heart is inexact. It takes people sitting around in meetings, labs, classrooms, etc…to establish theory. And isn’t that what he was offering? I did not see that as his personal opinion, but a possible theory. Albeit a theory that needs more attention. Why do people, women particularly, get so upset when our differences to men are mentioned? The differences for the most part are common knowledge. Does it not stand to reason that women bring to the scientific table a differing set of attributes? Not less than, just different. Who knows why some women left Harvard during Summer’s tenure? Maybe he’s a jerk, perhaps the people they worked directly for were jerks. Perhaps they found amazing opportunities elsewhere. Or perhaps, they wanted to take a break. No one will ever really know. The women who made such a darn stink at his remarks are the reason some men find women emotional extremeists. This is an issue that should not be an issue. Nancy Pelosi is a bigger threat to the success of the women’s movement than Summers could ever be.
By Mark Cornett
February 7, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Why is it OK to talk about differences in men and women as long as the woman is naturally better at something? But the minute anyone says that men might be naturally better at anything, the PC police come out in force. It seems to me that Ms. Glass, and those who think like her, are afraid that there may be some truth in this. Why else would they be affraid to discuss it?
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Here’s a thought, replace the words “female” or “women” with “BLACK” in Larry Summers little speech.
I’d like everyone’s opinion on THAT.
By Mark Cornett
February 7, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
Substitute black in the place of female and Mr. Summers would have been called racist instead of sexist. But the principal is still the same. Dare we suggest that maybe whites are better at some things than blacks?
By Randy
February 7, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Like Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Mr Summers is probably a good person who didn’t think before he spoke. As we all make mistakes, a apology is all that is necessary and he is forgiven.
By Zack
February 7, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
This is a non-issue. With all the problems of the world, we hear about something like this.
While Mr. Summers obviously said nothing wrong (the media always makes a story out of something, even to the point of bending/breaking the truth), I’ll take it a step farther: In general, men are better at math and science than are women. Does this make men superior to women? No. We just have different strengths and weaknesses. Do not buy into the myth that men and women are only different from a physical standpoint.
RS—I saw your childish posts over the weekend and wasn’t surprised. Your ignorance was on full display again. Norman DID make a racist comment, and you know it. You only defend him because he’s on your side and shares the same distorted worldview as you. You also said that I was against homeschooling, which I never said. (As I’ve asked you before, do you pay attention when you read, or are you just a liar?) Also, you advocate making the decision of accepting parenthood AFTER the moment of conception. This, of course, is murder, regardless of whether you want to believe this or not. You advocate whore-like behavior and then murder, all in the name of denying personal responsibility. It’s sad that someone with your mentality is allowed to vote.
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Holy Cow Zack take a chill pill. In fact take the whole bottle. Just because someone has sex that does not make them whore-like. I’m assuming you only view women as whores, men are just being men.
Sex is fantastic ! Not evil. Get over yourself.
P.S. A fetus isn’t a person. Get over yourself.
By Randy
February 7, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Sex is fantastic, however a fetus is a person(as it has a soul). You are half right Whiley.
By Gil Gibson
February 7, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Diane says, “Science does uncover a lot of truths. It also promotes many falsehoods.” Is she speaking of the science that is absolutely unerring with regard to evolution? So unerring in fact that no other thoughts are even allowed to be mentioned in a classroom? Liberal ideas must be protected from any challenge; no debate, just accept and believe what they assert. It is so ironic that institutions which trumpet the cause of diversity in support of their pet ideologies are supposed to suppress ruthlessly any diversity in thought.
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Fetus has a soul? That’s a matter of opinion & religious view. You cannot make laws based on religious rules. You just can’t. If you want to believe in the toothfairy fine, just don’t force everyone else to.
OK now, about this reason women aren’t in science in bigger numbers. Only till recent history women were in any field that wasn’t childcare, cleaning or secretary.
Hello ! If you are only encouraged since the dawn of time to get married, clean, cook & make babies, you aren’t going to educate yourself to GET those types of jobs. It’s getting better, give it time.
By Zack
February 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
whiley—I’ve noticed a major problem with you. Your worldview is only supported by your hope that it’s true. Nothing else.
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Holy cow Zack! what a coincidence I was thinking the same about you !
By RS
February 7, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Whiley! Hey, do you suppose Zack has ever spawned? What a scary thought..
By norman
February 7, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
As Freud once asked, “vhat iz a zoul?”
By RS
February 7, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
No, Zack, Norman’s comment was not inteneded as a racist slur; in fact, it was poking fun AT racists; and I’M the one who pays no attention to what she reads??? As for homeschooling, yes, you seem to feel it’s most prevalent among liberal parents. Well, no, one of the main reasons parents choose to homeschool their children is to get them away from a non- Christ centered environment. Do some research! With your narrow, antiquated view that sex is “whore-like” unless it culminates in conception, you’d have fit in perfectly in Queen Victoria’s court. Look, who invesnted us & our bodies? Yes, God! There’s got to be a reason why He created our bodies with the capability to enjoy sex; after all, why else would those nerve endings be there? A fetus is a THING. A PERSON is a human being. Therefore, we, as humans, should have more rights than a thing. Unfortunately, there are enough crackpots in power with your twisted (to use your word) worldview who cannot see that. It’s people like you who suck all the joy out of life
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
RS FOR PRESIDENT !
Zack has spawned???? WELL THANKS a LOT I just lost my LUNCH !
LOL
By AllaboutME
February 7, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
…can theorizing innate differences for the scarcity of women in science actually be blamed on SpongeBob Squarepants?
By RS
February 7, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Whiley! You get MY vote too! No, no, I don’t know if (horrors!) Zack has spawned; what I meant was, how scary if he has. Or, is planning to. But I doubt we have anything to worry about. Clearly, he’s a bitter man who can’t even get a woman to look at him, let alone anything more.
By Clint
February 7, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
You have go to be kidding me Shaunti. Your condescending comments regarding womenin science are vulgar. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder regarding smart women. In fact, I suggest that conservative right wing women like you who insist on keeping other women on the back burner and not in jobs that the smart, strong men folk should be doing — do not make good columnists. Shouldn’t you be baking a pie? Or maybe shopping? Or giggling on the phone with your girlfriends? Hey, that’s the way your type wants the world to be. So forget Madame Curie (discovered use of xrays and radiation). Forget Rosalind Franklin (helped discover DNA). Forget Margaret Mead (Anthorpoligist) and all the others. Because Shaunti says women have no place in science. Shame. Shame. Shame.
By Mark Cornett
February 7, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Clint
Shaunti said “women have no place in science???” You and I obviously didn’t read the same piece. She didn’t say, nor did she even imply, any such thing. Read it again.
By Bruce
February 7, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
This is a prime example that women in general are way to emotional…
By Dustie
February 7, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
The next time your woman doctor sends you to the hospital where female RNs and LPNs take care of you, a woman dietition plans your meals, a woman physical therapist helps you, a woman runs an EKG and another takes an x-ray; please tell them all that it is too bad women don’t have any talent for science.
By Van
February 7, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
From the comments it seems obvious that not many folks read the transcript of the meeting.
I believe a person has the right to speak and state their opinion. It was not a public forum, but a workshop.
The whiners from the PC side need to grow up and face the facts - some folks do better at something and others do better at something else.
Try this for size -
“he told the 50 attendees that he was going to outline possible explanations for the relative scarcity of* WHITE MEN in professional level basketball*, including theories that might “provokeâ€? the audience.”
This sounds racist?
“he told the 50 attendees that he was going to outline possible explanations for the relative scarcity of men in primary school teaching positions, including theories that might “provokeâ€? the audience.”
This is sexist?
Wake up folks, get a life, this is a non-issue, use your common sense.
By Zack
February 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
RS—Ironically, I was thinking the same thing about you. You’ve advocated lasciviousness on this blog on numerous occasions, as well as abortion. You advocate premarital sex and the act of killing a baby and buy into the myth that a baby in your womb somehow is YOUR property. Oh, my, that is wrong.
No, I don’t have any children, yet, but you’ve mentioned having a daughter, as I recall. Are you wanting her to adopt the same whorelike behavior that you constantly promote? Are you? If so, if I have a son in the future, keep your daughter away from him.
By Jodi
February 7, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
“Lasciviousness”?!!! What century do you live in anyway? Who talks like that? Did give me a good laugh, though! :)
By Zack
February 7, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Jodi—You have a point. Maybe I should not use real words and just use stupid jargon. Why read and expand one’s vocabulary when one can just talk like a 16-year-old girl who lives with her cell phone next to her ear and who can tell you all about Justin and Britney but who never has heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
By Jodi
February 7, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Zack—just a little harmless ribbing. No offense meant.
By whiley
February 7, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Zack showed himself again. He is truly p** off that women have sex & he’s not included. So that means all women are whores, but the boys are just dandy.
Zack, it’s our ovens, our cake mix. Get over it. We have the greatest power in the world, create life. AND decide how & when. I know that’s difficult for a cave man to understand.
(but he knows who Justin & Britney are)
By RS
February 7, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Zack: My, if this isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t pay attention to what I read?? In this post alone, Zack, YOU misquoted ME 4 times. No, I do not have any kids. In fact, I am militantly childfree. See, there is a difference between being childLESS & childFREE. Being childLESS means you physically cannot procreate. Being childFREE means you have no children because you choose not to have any. Knowing someone like you plans to breed makes me doubly grateful that I am not. Believe me, the thought of any daughter of mine associating with any son of yours fills me with horror beyond belief. And, no, I do not “advocate” lasciviousness or premarital sex in the sense that the latter would be synonimous with indiscriminate sex. While I feel it’s unrealistic to expect most people to be virgins on their wedding night ( a lady I know never married till age 43; not her fault. Do you REALLY expect she’d be a virgin at that age??) I do not feel hopping from bed to bed is either safe or desirable. If you’re in a committed relationship, though, sex is fine. And I never put my seal of approval on killing babies. Foetuses, yes. babies, NO. Know what? You remind me of that riddle: Q)What’s the definition of a whore? A)A woman who sleeps with every man at the party except you. (Something tells me you’re the one guy the “whore” did not sleep with)Have fun listening to your Justin & Britney cd’s; obviously you’re a lot more well-schooled in that trash than I’ll ever be.
By Randy
February 7, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Wow Zack you must have hit a “nerve” with Whiley, her calling you a caveman. I agree with you Zack on your points. I really feel sorry for those who don’t know the truth, they must really feel out of place, seeing the Super Bowl last night and them quoting the constitution. Saying things about God and our Creator and seeing our brave servicemen and women. I really don’t know how you can call yourself an American and not believe in Jesus and a creator. Really its unamerican.
By Whiley
February 7, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
Randy you can believe in the great pumpkin if you want to. I think it’s crazy some of you claim to know the truth.
As for Zack, you really have to feel sorry for him. It really sounds like he was raised in fear & constant mind control. This is what some crazy religious groups do to people in the long run.
I wonder how many females raised in these types of sad situations are even given the opportunity to get educated enough to BE in science.
By Randy
February 7, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I don’t believe in the great pumkin, santa claus, or the tooth fairy etc. I do however believe in a creator. Why do I believe in a creator, common sense, in the beginning the universe didn’t create itself(I actually went to college and took Physics). You must be the one who believes in the great pumpkin, if you believe that the universe just appeared out of thin air. Think it through.
By Lee
February 7, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Having been in a scientific field and seeing two females in the upper level courses, and only one female instructor, I’ve seen first hand that some fields are female deficient. Now, if you want to theorize WHY there are fewer women in these fields, you might ruffle a feather or two saying that men and women are different. The women in these fields are extremely bright. I don’t think the lack of women in these fields is due to the differences in brain make-up. Much of it has to do with training the brain over years of study to handle the topics. I think it has more cultural roots, where (in the past) women were only in certain fields, and were not encouraged to pursue science or technical fields.
Now, what did that have to do with pre-marital sex and abortions again??
Oh yeah, the smart women get the smart guys, play around after playing on the computers, get knocked up and have to go get an abortion… (if you missed it, that was supposed to be sarcastic) :)
By Mara
February 8, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Shauti, as usual, is just spouting the same-old same-old conservative talking points. If a liberal objects to something then obviously there is nothing to object to and they’re just being hypocrits (hello, Kettle? This is Pot). It seems to me that it wasn’t just what Summers said but also his record in female recruitment. Before the federal government mandated Title IX, it was popularly believed that women just didn’t like sports. Medical science showed us that, generally speaking, women aren’t as physically strong as men. Sociologist said that women didn’t do sports because they were too combative and competative, something that females abhored. Statistics showed that few women participated in sports. Therefore, it was believed, women just didn’t like sports for reasons both physical and mental. Suprise, suprise. After implementing Title IX, womens participation jumped by the hundreds of percentiles. Mr. Summers and his supporters may believe that he was merely conjecturing to spur debate but when the President of a college like Harvard opines that women are under represented in the science because maybe their brains aren’t set up right, or perhaps they’re not willing to work hard enough, it harks back to the “women just don’t like sports” good ol’ days of male dominance. Considering the manner of his “suggestion” it may not be that surprising that tenure rates for women are dropping under his administration.
By Mara
February 8, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this
Sorry about the typos in the above opinion. Stupid non-existant spell-check lets me down again!
By Van
February 8, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this
Mara, please read the articles.
His top theory was that fewer family women than family men wanted to work the 80-hour weeks required in many science professions. The next possibility was that both tests and observed differences suggested some innate differences between the sexes, not in intellectual ability but in average preferences for different fields of study. The third theory was outright discrimination.
Just where is the problem?
If the third theory was the first one, would that make you feel better? Get a life.
By chuck
February 8, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
I don’t think that anyone on this forum is more conservative than me (or my wife). I think that what the guy at Harvard said was meant to start discussion on how to get more women involved in science NOT to say that they should not be involved. My wife is a science teacher and a good one at that. There is NO WAY that a guy can make it to the position he is in and have the kind of views that some of you are saying he espoused. Not in this PC age. So, we have to look at why he said what he said and that is obvious from his opening statement. He wanted to provoke thoughtful discussion, something the leftists are totally incapable of. We are never going to be able to solve the problems we face as a nation if we cannot carry on intellectual discussions about them. Knee-jerk reactionaries like RS, Whiley, Jodi, AND ZACK, keep those discussions from taking place because they cannot see beyond their own opinions to see the FACTS. The fact is there ARE fewer women in those fields. It is easy for some of you to think that it is because they have been held down by those nasty white men in charge, but that is not the case at all. Universities fight each other for the women and minority candidates in many of those fields. If anything, they try too hard to get those candidates rather than just looking for the BEST qualified PERSON for the job. SOMETIMES, that person is a white male. I know that is hard for some of you to believe, but it happens. There is no great conspiracy to keep women barefoot and pregnant or to keep minorites out of the work place. The opposite is true.
By Mac
February 8, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
Hey Terry! Since it is painfully (albeit joyfully ) obvious that you have been exiled, I thought I would give you a little “shout out!” One can only imagine what you would say regarding this forum topic. Glad to be rid of ya Terr!!
By Randy
February 8, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
You are right Chuck, the left cannot here what we conservatives say. Their hearts are dark and cold and they probably don’t even know it! I guess the saying that the heart controls the mind is absolutely true.
By lozen
February 8, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, you are so right. I wonder who does pick these inane topics for Woman to Woman?
By lozen
February 8, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Randy said, “I really don’t know how you can call yourself an American and not believe in Jesus and a creator. Really its unamerican.” So Randy, what do you think needs to be done to these “unamerican” people? What is your “solution” to this problem?
By RS
February 8, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
Again, kudos to you, Lozen. Once more, folks, we have a prime example of the bigoted conservative Christian agenda of viewing non-Christians as inferior. Yes, I’m Jewish but I was born in the USA, as were my parents & I support our troops. What more do you want, Randy? Do I need to get a tattoo of the American flag on my backside??
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Um…I object to being called a knee-jerk reactor. I’ve hardly said two words on this subject! When I do post, I try to be respectful, and I don’t call people names or tell them they can’t express their opinions! I’ve certainly not said that discussions shouldn’t be had! Chuck, I’m hurt…
By Randy
February 8, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
I figured that would get to somebody. Nothing can be done forcefully, what is needed is gentle persuasion and I’m not good at that. My agologies.
By RS
February 8, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Randy, I’ve seen many of your posts where you WERE being very gentle & respectful, but if a person is that resistant to becoming a Christian, they just won’t. It’s no failure on your part. It’s just something that must be accepted; no one has any control over that
By Zack
February 8, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
RS—Again, you misread/misinterpreted what I said (I’m losing count now of how many times I’ve done this). I said I THOUGHT/BELIEVED you didn’t have any children. I didn’t say definitely. There’s a difference.
However, there’s no question that you DO advocate whore-like behavior, and this endorsement doesn’t speak positively of your personal lifestyle. As for abortion, I have news for you: It’s murder, and a fetus is a human being, just like a 115-year-old person in a wheelchair is a human being. It’s not up to the discretion of someone who wants to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood to decide who should and shouldn’t be born.
You can say what you want about me and this “son” you lied and said I had, but if I had a son, I would teach him to avoid any woman who had your personality, someone who advocated bed-hopping and baby-murdering. (If you don’t like my saying this, tough. You made the news; I’m reporting it.) You get on here all the time and try to establish credibility, but all you do is show hatred toward men, babies, sexual-abstinence advocates, Blacks, and Christians.
By the way, I don’t owe you this information, but I’m not the kind of guy who sleeps around. I don’t drink, either. I also, obviously, don’t advocate trying to get a girl drunk and then into bed, as you want to portray me. (My friend, I’m not in YOUR crowd.) Actually, you strike me completely as the kind who would be all for that. There’s no evidence in anything you say that would indicate otherwise.
You talk about double standards. My friend, I don’t show signs of having double standards, which is a lot more than I can say for you. You’re still trying to justify Norman’s racist comments and say there was nothing wrong with what he said. (I asked a Black co-worker the other way what he thought about Jewish people. He got an odd look on his face and said, “You know, they can be some of the most bigoted and narrow-minded people anywhere.” I laughed and said, “Yes, they can be.”)
As for my not being able to attract a woman, I’m proud to say that I’ve had dates with plenty of women who are what you are not: Ladies.
You can write me all you want and spout off your babble as you’ve done to this point, but I encourage you to put aside your childish temper and all your prejudices and for once have intelligent conversation.
By Whiley
February 8, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Hey Zack ! Are only women whores? What do YOU call a man that sleeps around a lot? Isn’t the word whore only used for females? (you seem to use that word a lot so I’m assuming you are only referring to females) Do you even think a man that has sex is bad in any way? I’m thinking you don’t.
I’m also thinking if men got pregnant you wouldn’t be so high & mighty about the Govt. deciding the abortion issue.
And how many times can a woman have sex before she is considered a whore? 1? 2?
How many times can a man have sex before he is considered a whore? 52? 107?
By norman
February 8, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
If you listen with a psychologically attuned ear to what our conservatives are saying on this site you can only shudder at the degree of mental derangement, paranoia, and probably schizophrenia. As I’ve said before, the only good thing the Soviets did was to put believers in mental wards. We should do the same.
By lozen
February 8, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
If you listen to what these people say, you should be frightened. They want to tell us all how we should live our lives even though we don’t believe what they believe. It’s the mentality that can easily jump to “burn them all at the stake because they’re tools of the devil.” It has happened many times before! The common thread with all fundamentalists, whether they are christians, muslims, or whatever, is “I am 100 percent right and you are 100 percent wrong, therefore you can be disposed of.” The people who flew planes into the Trade Center buildings were fundamentalists who believed that and they did what they thought their god wanted them to do. The Inquisitors of the catholic church believed that and did what they thought their god told them to do. The priests who came to the South West believed that they were doing what their god wanted when they cut off the natives’ feet to keep them from dancing “devil” dances. People who shoot nurses and doctors at abortion clinics believe they are doing god’s will. Religious fanatics are dangerous if they ever manage to get any power on their side. We live in a free country and they don’t like that. If we disagree with them, we are wrong and don’t deserve to have children, plan our lives, or take responsibility for our actions. Free women are whores; they hate women unless they do what they think women should do. Women who choose not to bring every foetus to term are murderers. Gay people are “abominations”. Hitler agreed. Fanatical muslim leaders agree. We need to be on guard against these people at all times and remember what they have done throughout history.
By Mara
February 8, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Well Van, gottta tell ya. I did read both columns. Mr. Summers first theory, that family women weren’t as willing as a family man to work the hours needed is like saying women didn’t play sports because they weren’t as willing as men to get physical and sweaty. More likely its not so much that women aren’t willing to work as hard as it is that women are still expected to take responsibility for the family regardless of whether she works or not. Were society more equal in its expectations of gender rolls, as in allowing house husbands to live without the “girly man” epithet, then that little theory would probably be debunked. But that’s just one of the nearly invisible tethers holding women back.
Mr. Summers second guess, that women just don’t prefer these professions is personally repugnant to me. At one time I myself considered the sciences as a profession. I was quite interested in nuclear physics as well as engineering. I was quite firmly steered away from these fields because, as my advisor told me, I would want children one day and radiation could damage my baby making parts(FYI - 40 and childfree). Just as women were once thought to prefer not playing sports, so are women still thought to be uninterested in scientific persuits.
As for out-right discrimination, it does indeed still exist. It may be less blatent now than in the past, but never doubt that a qualified man will beat out an equally qualified woman perhaps 75% of the time. Why? Because people still persist in believing that a woman will inevitably get pregnant and want to stay home with the kids to the detriment of the business.
Mr. Summers furthers these stereotypes merely by suggesting that they have credance.
By Bob Casey
February 8, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
What in the world is SO wrong with the concept that we are all individuals? Some people are smarter than others. Some women are smarter than 99.999% of men. Some men are smarter than 99.999% women. So, who is the smartest person in the world? No one! It is ALL relevant.
The problem with “liberalism” and PC is that EVERYONE has to be treated as a member of a group. NOT as an individual.
We are all individuals that can ONLY survive in a society. But first and foremost we are individuals with different abilities and interests. We have had PC for almost 40 years now. Feminism has insisted that women be treated just like men for almost that long - in sports and education. Yet the facts are the facts - most women STILL aren’t as interested in sports as men (playing and watching - and I said “most” not ALL). And most women aren’t as interested in math and hard science. Those that are can be great, no doubt about it. And “better” than most (if not all) men. But the ONLY way to increase that participation is to mandate (FORCE) it.
Why? What would be the point of that? Already more women than men attend college. Can’t those women already choose their own majors?
Another, really silly, non-issue…
But arguing about all these really inconsequential petty little “hurt my feelings” issues is actually good - shows how far we have REALLY come in handling the truly bad prejudicial societal issues of the not too distant past…
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Bob—As a woman, I for one would love to be treated as an individual! The problem is that the luxury of being an individual has historically been given only to men. For example, the armed services did not allow women in certain types of combat. Now, it doesn’t matter how qualified a woman is—she’s barred as a part of a group bar. Another example—not so long ago, most women had few options in life other than to aspire to being a wife and mother (honorable goals, but the only ones available). Men had all kinds of choices about what they wanted to be—doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. Nowdays things are getting better, but old habits are hard to break.
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you’re correct when you talk about those extremists that think that way. Throughout history the religious have been persecuted by those who share your point of view as well. Clearly it goes both ways.
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.â€? President George Washington - FANATIC according to lozen
By Jake
February 8, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.
By Mara
February 8, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Bob Casey insists that MOST women just aren’t as interested in sports (playing and watching) as men. I wonder why he would think that. My girlfriends and I have football night (appropriately, on Monday) NASCAR roadtrips, golf memberships and, occasionally, we’ll even catch a farm-league hockey game. I’d hate to contradict Bob, but I have to say that he may just be hanging out at the wrong places. Get off your Hooters stool and take a walk to someplace with a more co-ed atmosphere (like Jocks-and-Jills maybe) and I guarantee you’ll see a LOT of women who like sports.
In 1991 fewer than 300,000 girls played interscholastic sports. By 1997 participation was estimated at 2.4 million. Girls who participate in sports are less likely to engage in high-risk behaviour like using drugs and alcohol, and sexual activity. They are less likely to accept domestic abuse and more likely to report such abuse. 80% of women managers in Fortune 500 companies have a background in competative sports. So much for it being “just a sport” and being more important to men than women. Don’t make the mistake of believing that just because participation in organized activities is low, that there is a lack of interest.
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
Jake—part of the reason (and there are many reasons) women go to work and want careers is so that, as you say, when their husbands leave after twenty years, they won’t be left high and dry. I’ve seen countless women who do as you advocate, staying home with the children and not cultivating careers—only to be left practically penniless, without job skills, due to their husbands’ abandonment. Oh, and not many men still dig ditches or cut forests without the help of machinery—which is perfectly operatable by women. I don’t think anyone, besides Ayn Rand maybe, is advocating that all women work outside the home. Most of us just want a choice in the matter.
By Gina
February 8, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Adding to Jake’s last comment…
As a woman, I see most women want all privileges. They want what they want and want men to support them, emotionally and financially. Stay at home mom, career mom, it doesn’t matter because if she changes her mind, she still wants a man to support her. Most women are consoled only by their alimony and child support checks. The man can work all his life but he better work for her. Women have gone overboard on some issues. Women have all the rights in a divorce even when they filed for the divorce or cheated.
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Gina—I noticed that in your scenario, you keep referring to the women as “moms.” What about those women who don’t have children? What would you propose they do? Wait around until they have some? Also, why is it okay for a man to want a career and a family but somehow it’s not okay for women? As I’ve mentioned before on these forums, I worked for some years in family law, and (with some exceptions of course) alimony is designed so that one spouse doesn’t, so to speak, live “high on the hog” while the other suffers in poverty. Does it ALWAYS work this way? Of course not. But the courts do look at the payee’s financial need, the payor’s ability to pay, the parties’ standard of living while they were married, and other factors. Those cohabitating or remarried parties lose their right to alimony. Finally, I certainly don’t expect a man to support me financially—I can do that myself. I never wanted to be in a situation where I was at the mercy of a husband for financial stability, so I worked to become self-sufficient. What is wrong with that?
By steve
February 8, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Mara,
Bob did not say that most women do not like sports. He said, “most women STILL aren’t as interested in sports as men (playing and watching - and I said “mostâ€? not ALL”
There is no doubt that there are many, many female sports fans. However, I do not think there is much doubt that sports are still MORE popular among men than with women. Advertisers recognize that as can be attested to by watching the commercials shown during ballgames.
Not trying to get sidetracked, but I just thought you missed the point he was making.
By Mara
February 8, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Jeez, when’d the cave men come out? Why in the world, other than stereotypical contempt, would Jake think that all women have “soft hands”? Why does he think women would be offended to dig ditches, cut down trees, and pound whatever he thinks they pound? Is he unaware of human history where women were considered the ones responsible for the growing of crops and the building of homes while the men were the hunters and protectors? The woman, bent under the weight of grain bundles, water buckets, and laundry piles had still better have dinner ready when Pa comes in from his afternoon hike of looking for game to kill or perhaps from the ol’ fishin’ hole, where he “the hunter, the breadwinner” has toiled endlessly. No, the delicate lady neither toils nor strives as she cooks, cleans, grows crops, raises children and fulfills her conjugal duties. All the things a fulfilled and happy woman needs. Sheesh! Do you anti-fems really believe that only through a man can a woman find contentment? Without a man I’d be a bitter hateful person? Do you really believe that just because you can’t discriminate against me in hiring that my husband will desert me? Do you really assume that all women are, or want to be, mothers? And if they are fems they and their children will be deserted by their men? I don’t give a damn whether you hold the door for me. I couldn’t care less if you were to to jostle me on the sidewalk or in the subway, though I would think it rude no matter what gender is involved. I do insist that I be judged on ability not breast size. I insist that my strengths be acknowleged whether they are considered “ladylike” or not. I insist on being “Mara D” instead of “Mrs. Caveman”. My husband knows how to launder clothing and I know how to change the oil in the car. Somehow I don’t think that these things will topple our society. But anyway, I thought we were doomed not by feminism, but by the Anti-Religious Liberal-Socialist-homosexual agenda being forced down Americas otherwise pious throat by left-wing activist judges.
By Whiley
February 8, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
I’m supposed to get child support & alimony checks? There are men out there that can support a family without the wife having to work? Staying at home to raise kids & cook & clean & being secluded from other adults without any ability to support yourself is a luxury?
Who are these people that have this & where do they live?
By Mara
February 8, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Well Steve, if the commercials shown during ballgames featured Fabio-wannabes wandering around in Speedos, or perhaps a couple of guys rubbing suntan lotion on each other, would you still be as eager to see it? I got Bobs point between MOST and ALL. You didn’t get MY point that it isn’t necessarily lack of interest by women. It may be lack of interest by the sports powers-that-be in having women involved as more than eye candy.
By Jake
February 8, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
What a traditional woman did that made her home warm and alive was not dusting and laundry…. Her real secret was that she identified herself with her home. It is not surprising that feminists, who misconstrue so much, misconstrue the nature of the opposition to them. Since their position requires a comprehensive and minute system of ideological regimentation they assume antifeminists must also be aspiring tyrants. They thus recreate their opponents in their own image. In fact, to be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions. By feminist standards all societies have been thoroughly sexist. It follows that to be antifeminist is only to abandon the bigotry of a present-day ideology that sees traditional relations between the sexes as simply a matter of domination and submission, and to accept the validity of the ways in which human beings have actually dealt with sex, children, family life and so on. Antifeminism is thus nothing more than the rejection of one of the narrow and destructive fantasies of an age in which such things have been responsible for destruction and murder on an unprecedented scale. It is opening oneself to the reality of things
By Hugh G Reaction
February 8, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Mara, probably wouldn’t make it at Hooters…too bad.
By Gina
February 8, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Jodi, Statistics say differently…most women these days file for divorce knowing they will get most of the marital property, alimony, custody of the children and child support. And most of those divorces are filed not because of an abusive situation, but because of other issues. As far as working outside the home, it is nothing new for the women in my family. They have always worked outside the home and had careers. Some women need to stop this “victim mentality” which tells women that they need “taking care of”. This is the reason welfare is such an issue.
By Bob Casey
February 8, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Jodi, Whatever makes you think the Army (Military Forces) allows ALL men to participate in combat that want to - or fly airplanes, or whatever? Women seem to be SO myopic nowadays. Everything is only viewed thru one prism. The “I’m deprived” prism.
My son wasn’t even allowed to join the military - bad asthma. And there are LOTS of other disqualifications for men as well as women.
I will bet you that women take LOTS of pilot opportunities that many men apply for. Hopefully the Air Force (etc.) is doing what is best for “the team” overall, rather than acceding to each individuals wishes. The military (and fighting) is too important to screw around with - winning with minimal casualties HAS to be the first goal.
When healthy young men and women can get together without the “friction” of sex - (You know - when h#$@l freezes over! Can’t even seem to do that on a college football team, right now - see U of Colo.) Then maybe some things can change. Also look at Abu Ghraib! Not saying the women caused that - but they sure didn’t prevent it!
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Jake—A couple of things:
First of all, there are MANY different types of feminism. A lot of forms of feminism actually celebrate what is believed to be inherent biological differences between men and women. Do some research on this and you’ll find them. It’s always convenient to point out the extremists in any camp (whether feminist, Christian, etc.) and extend that to the general populations of any group.
Second, I’m guessing that, despite your implication, most would agree that men murder far more people than women.
Third, are you really advocating going back to the times before any major women’s movements? I’d say that voting, equal opportunity employment, and the right to own property seem like basic human rights to me.
There will always be women who choose to stay home with their children—more power to them. However, many women don’t have children, don’t want to stay home, or work outside the home out of economic necessity. All we want is the choice. Men get one.
By lozen
February 8, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Gee Boscoe, do I have to explain everything to you? Washington may very well have defined religion and morality differently than you do. I know I do. Perhaps Washington meant by morality: “Judge not lest ye be judged.” “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Be compassionate toward others.” Again you jump to the conclusion that your religion is the only right way and your morality is the only true morality. It doesn’t cross your mind to wonder what “religion and morality” Washington was talking about.
By RS
February 8, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Ah, Zack, I’m probably the only woman who’s ever paid this much attention to you. And, no, my point is that YOU accuse ME of not paying attention. If YOU’D paid attention, you’d have known from the jump I have no children & that I realize your mention of a son is purely hypothetical (oh PLEASE have mercy on us all & never breed!) How the $%@&* do you know ANYTHING about my lifestyle? I’ve been married 10 years & never strayed ONCE. Again, if you paid attention, you’d know this. So much for me advocating bed-hopping. My, don’t I wish I lived the glamourous life you envision me as having. I don’t drink either, or smoke, or do drugs. Why, I don’t even eat red meat or wear leather although you’re probably sneering at me as being a radical left-wing, Birkenstock-wearing, no-Nukes, tree-hugging Granola cruncher. Whatever. So I hate men? No, I’m married to one & have many more as dear friends. Yeah, right. I’m against children being brought into a situation where they’d be starved, neglected & abused so I must hate babies too. How illogical. No, I don’t hate sexual abstinence advocates, I’m just aware that everyone remaining celibate until marriage is unrealistic; get your head out of the sand. I’m getting tired of explaining I’m not racist at all & I have NO idea where you even got such an outlandish idea. I have nothing against Christians, just hypocrites; if the shoe fits…I’m very sorry your co-worker has had bad experiences with Jews but not every Jewish person is like that. As I’ve stated before, although again, I doubt you were paying attention, most of the Jews I know are not racist. In fact, if the “N” word is mentioned in the presence of my (Jewish) husband, he’ll go into quite a rampage. My definition of a lady is a female who treats others with honesty, dignity, fairness & respect. Anyone who really knows me will attest that I possess these qualities, whether you believe it or not. Oh, check out “Jake“‘s post; looks like we have a new best friend for you, another knuckle-scraping Neanderthal. Frankly, you people scare me. You don’t strike me as being much different than the 19 insane zealots who flew planes into buildings & fields on 9/11/01
By Jake
February 8, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Women who have been inside the feminist movement have themselves confirmed the Marxist ties to radical feminism. In order to attract as wide a base as possible, the sixties Leftists hid their socialist sympathies and, in some cases, actual Communist Party membership. Betty Friedan is a classic case. In the book that launched the modern feminist movement�The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963�she portrayed herself as a politically inactive housewife who simply had had enough of sexism. Forty years later, Friedan told the real story. In Life So Far, published in 2000, she recounts, “I would come into New York on my days off from the hospital and would go to Communist Front meetings and rallies … I looked up the address of the Communist Party headquarters in New York and … went into their dark and dingy building on 13th Street and announced I wanted to become a member.� This was in 1942, a quarter-century before she and a few others founded NOW. Friedan’s revelation that, while she may have been a bored and frustrated housewife, she had also been a member of the Communist Party, shed some much needed light on how left-wing politics have been masquerading as authentic feminism.
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Bob—You’re missing my point. I have no problem with women being excluded as individuals if they cannot meet the standards that need to be met. My problem is with broad sweeping bans just based on genitalia without even offering women the chance to compete. For example, they used to not allow women marathon runners because women were thought too delicate to undertake such a grueling task. However, once women began running them, it became clear that while not every woman (like not every man) can run a marathon, there are many that can. And yes, I know about the Air Force—had two brothers be declined for the pilot program because of color blindness. Also have a father who is a retired leutenant colonel.
By Gina
February 8, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
No, women shouldn’t wait for a man to take care of them. I wish more women were self-sufficient. It is okay for a woman to want a career and children, but she should also realize that there are sacrifices just as a man should realize it. I am all too familiar with the “family law” courts and I see a lot of “gender bias”.
By Whiley
February 8, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
That’s weird, absolutely every woman I know that is divorced couldn’t count on getting child support. While their ex’s complain of the few hundred dollars per month they had to pay, mom’s were paying more than that just on day care & school lunches. While dads got to enjoy every other weekend of fun & games with their kids, Mom is stuck with the daily hard duties of having children, car pool, shopping, homework, etc etc etc. Divorce changed their lives drastically. Check to check & lots of penny pinching. One can only put up with abuse, neglect & infidelity for so long. Becoming poor was just the price one has to pay to escape a bad marriage.
WHO ARE THESE WOMEN you speak of living the high life on some guys money????
By RS
February 8, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Hugh…(yeah, G. Rection, I get it. har dee har har), I highly doubt Mara would WANT to work at Hooters. A “job” like that is for morons whose bra size far exceeds their IQ’s. And by the way, I’m no slouch in either department, in case you were preparing to attack ME.
By norman
February 8, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Washington was a deist who attended the Episcopal Church of Virginia for social reasons. He meant by religion what Boscoe disapproves of: free thought and a creator God who doesn’t butt in.
Last week Boscoe quoted John Adams, another deist, inappropriately. Boscoe should stick to quoting Spanish inquisitors and heresy hunters. Suits him better.
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
“The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” - George Washington’s letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson
“Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prostrate myself before Thee.” -George Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” - Farewell Address, 1796
lozen, according to your definition Washington should be considered a fanatic.
By RS
February 8, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Whiley, the women living the high life on some guy’s money are not Everywoman, getting the short end of the stick & being forced to live in grinding poverty after escaping a horrible marriage. The ones living off some man are outwordly beautiful, inwardly hideous, trophy-wife eye-candy bimbos who know they can use their bodies to get what they want. Most of us are not like that so you are right. The majority of divorced women fall into the first category, particularly if they’re moms.
By Hugh G Reaction
February 8, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
RS, I’m sure you’re a beautiful woman. That’s what I appreciate you for. You like other woman to right? Even better.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
RS Talking about hypocrites, really a good Christian who does what he is suppose to do, can’t win with a non-Christian. For example I don’t drink, I don’t need to drink(the spirit of the lord Jesus more than takes care of me) and I would not want to set that example for my children. But non-Christians would look at me and say that I’m trying to be better than others. So I can’t win, if I drink,I’m a hypocrit, I’f I don’t, I’m trying to be better than others. Right! By the way, I don’t see anything wrong with a drink or two, here or there. I just don’t need it and don’t feel I can ask my children not to start drinking, if I drink.
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Norman is that the best you can do? You disappoint me so!
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Here you go Norman….I’m sure you’ll like these too. John Adams: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
James Monroe: “The liberty, prosperity, and the happiness of our country will always be the object of my most fervent prayers to the Supreme Author of All Good.” - March 5, 1821 in his Second Inaugural Address
John Quincy Adams: “It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God.”
By Randy
February 8, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
Norman, You are dreaming if you think that Washington or Adams were non-Christians. They were devout Christians and there are many documents to prove it. You are distorted and I really don’t believe you believe the things you print. I guess George W. Bush isn’t a Christian either. I have called you the village idiot before but you are worse than that, the village idiot probably has no harmful agenda, but you do. You are either the most insane person in Georgia or a person who has no life and gets his kicks in attacking the institutions(Christianity and sports) that has made this country great. Get a life..
By norman
February 8, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
What is Christianity? According to Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee it is a Magian (or Arabian or Syriac) religion transplanted without understanding to Europe. Europeans do not understand that the closest thing to early Christianity is Islam. Put that in your suicide bomb and throw it.
By RS
February 8, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Well, thank you, Hugh, I suppose there’s a compliment in there somewhere but I prefer to be appreciated based on my inner qualities. Yes, I like other women (but not in the way you probably think/hope….hmmmm) AND men, as long as they are nice people I can communicate well with. Randy, I for one, am in no position to claim you’re trying to be better than anyone else, as I myself don’t drink. Whatever the reason, abstaining from liquour sets a good example for & sends a positive message to your children & I admire that.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Norman, you have attacked Christianity over and over. Why don’t you tell us the answers to all the questions that confront man. Who created the universe in the beginning? Would a creator, not let himself be known to his creation? Do things appear out of thin air without help of a creator? ETC. Since you know everything, let us in on it!
By Boscoe
February 8, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Spengler upheld the ideal of obedience to the state.Toynbee’s influences include Spengler. They were communists. I thought you hated Marxism Norman?
By Gina
February 8, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Yes, there are different kinds of feminists. There are those like me, individualist feminists who believe in order to gain women’s rights we don’t have to trample men. Then, there are the “radical” feminists who think that everything wrong in a woman’s life is due to a man’s oppression. I remember years ago I went to a NOW meeting and I was appalled at the hatred against men. Having had strong male role models in my life, it was very offensive to me. That was my first and last NOW meeting. Growing up, I found very few of my female friends interested in science and math careers which I pursued. Over the years, as part of my volunteer work, I encourage young girls to pursue traditionally male careers.
By Hugh G Reaction
February 8, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
RS do you fool around?
By norman
February 8, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Boscoe knows nothing about Spengler or Toynbee. Spengler was a German thinker on the Right but not a Nazi. Toynbee was a middle of the road Englishman. I thought calling people Communists was out of date but Boscoe learned his politics and religion during the heyday of Catholic anti-Communism after WWII, with Fulton J. Sheen, Cardinal Spellman and all those phonies.
Randy: we don’t know how the world was begun but we do know that it was by biological evolution that the various species evolved. There might be a Creator God but if He exists He is quite distant and gives not a fig for your religion. As I once quoted from Voltaire (if you have ears to hear) “when the Sultn sends a ship to Egypt does he bother about the rats on board?”
By Randy
February 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Norman would quote Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot or anyone who has said anything against Christianity. Really Norman why do you hate Christians? If you really hate us. Be truthful, none of this nonsense you have been posting. Show us you are a big person and be real here. You can do it.
By Gina
February 8, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Whiley, If joint physical custody was the norm and fathers weren’t relegated to every other weekend babysitters by their ex and the courts, then raising children after a divorce would be more 50/50. And those weekends aren’t fun and games, the father doesn’t really have a right to discipline the children because the custodial parent has all the power. In Georgia, child support for one child ranges from 17-23% of a non-custodial parent’s “Gross” income. Plus, the court has add-ons for childcare, private school, etc. The non-custodial parent also has to provide medical and dental insurance. They are also required to have a life insurance policy with their ex-spouse as the beneficiary. Thus, the father doesn’t have any money for the so-called “fun and games”.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Think it through Norman, the world came into existance at some point. Things don’t appear out of thin air and the universe is not eternal, so a creator does exist. As far a him being distant, he isn’t distant to me, I talk to him daily. Really he is in the same place he always was, we as humans are the ones who move away, Jesus is one prayer away! People who are honest with themselves, will admit this.
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Gina—Good for you, encouraging young girls to go into math or science! As a feminist myself, there are feminist streams of thought which I don’t feel are particularly productive as well. I also do not hate men (married to one!) nor do I want to see them trampled. NOW is not the only feminism there is…
There are some things that are unfair in family law, mostly brought on by those who really want to screw their exes! Many men and women openly defy court rulings in re visitation, child support, etc. However, if both sides act maturely (VERY difficult in divorce) and in the best interest of their kids (if they have any) it can work out fairly. I always felt bad for the kids in the messy divorces I worked on…
By Bob Casey
February 8, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Mara, I KNOW there are many women somewhat interested in sports. I have played on many coed softball teams and mixed doubles ALTA teams. I have always LIKED women that like sports.
“Sports” nowadays includes everything from in-line skating to health-club work-outs - so there actually MAY be close to as many women participants as men in “sports”. Been trying to research this on-line - as near as I can tell men still lead women in being active “fans” of sports in the 60-70% to 40-30% range. NASCAR is close to 50-50.
You are actually reinforcing my point. The fact that there ARE millions of women sports fans proves what? Don’t see any societal restrictions on it. But there still aren’t as many women really interested in sports as men or as good (gasp!). Professional women don’t play against men (and succeed) - not even in Golf or bowling - much less tennis, baseball, soccer or football.
There is the occasional race car driver - an exception that only proves the rule. The rule is that we are all individuals, but that generally most men are better at sports (especially “physical” sports) than women. I have played a lot of sports over a lot of years. And I am not a large man - think I have met ONE woman that could throw a softball equal to me. Met a few tennis players that could beat me. A few runners and in-line skaters faster than me - but other MEN won ALL those running and inline races (overall).
And some women harp on women not allowed in combat! As if that was nothing more than pulling a trigger. Sure, women can fight when they have too - history is full of examples. But you don’t purposefully put less able individuals in competitive life-and-death situations, without a compelling rationale. The WISH that men and women are always equal in everything isn’t compelling and doesn’t make it true. Not even all MEN are physically, athletically, or even mentally equal. Which is why I am not on an NBA basketball team.
By norman
February 8, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Randy: if you wish to delude yourself with the notion that Jesus is one prayer away, go ahead. Jesus’ teachings were part of the Magian world and are quite different from what the Christian Churches teach. Islam is closer but also distant. I think Albert Schweitzer probably got the closest to him in his Quest of the Historical Jesus, written one hundred years ago. One hundred years since Schweitzer. Four hundred years since Spinoza and the first biblical scholars. And still too many people believe what any redneck Baptist or bigotted Catholic prelate tells him to believe. O tempora, o mores!
By Mara
February 8, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
Ah Randy. You misunderstand, dear. We non-religious people are delighted you are happy with your religion. We are absolutely giddy that you don’t drink. Well, that may be a trifle over-enthusiastic since really, we don’t much care what you do on your own time, in your own house, bothering nobody but yourself. It’s when your buddies-in-Christ decide that what I do on my own time, in my own house, without harming another sould should be fodder for their moral crusade. I don’t care how you live as long as you do no harm. Just tell your friends to quit trying to legislate how I live my life and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.
By norman
February 8, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Mara: Christians are fascinated by the awful thought that somewhere people are doing with no guilt what they long to do but feel guilty about. Christianity is a polite term for mental illness.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Norman you can’t see the forest for the trees. Mara, its not us Christians that bother you, its your conscience that is telling you that God exists and you need to bond with the creator of this universe. I’m sure you will deny this, but its extremely true, if you were to be honest with yourself.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
No Norman the problem with us Christians is not guilt. I don’t feel guilt, my problem is I know what I believe to be true is absolutely true and the bible can be taken literally.
By Tom
February 8, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Nothing is wrong with being Christian. I am a Christian but am also pro-choice. What gives me the right to decide the fate of a woman’s fetus/body. I have 2 children and both were “accidents”. I asked my wife what she wanted to do and we kept them. If she had wanted not to keep them, I would have supported her. It is her body, her choice.
By chuck
February 8, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Mara,
If you are for EQUALITY in sports, lets eliminate all high school and college sports that are not self-supporting. If the program in college doesn’t make enough to cover all costs including scholarships, coaches salaries, travel expenses, etc. Eliminate the sport. That won’t happen though, because almost every women’s sports program would be eliminated along with some men’s programs. The fact is, without a Federal Mandate (title IX) there would be no sports for women to compete in. Since most colleges and universities have more women than men enrolled, what does that tell you about women and their interest in sports? Now before you start ripping me, I coach a girl’s volleyball team at the middle school level and it is totally self-supporting. I support women’s sports to a degree, but the feds should not be in the business of requiring those things in school or anywhere else. Why should football have to support ALL of the women’s sports programs? In some districts they have even cut boys’ sports programs that were self-supporting to meet title IX requirements. They couldn’t afford to add girls programs that couldn’t support themselves so they cut programs that could to meet the requirements.
I don’t know about you, but whether it is a bus driver, a surgeon or an athlete, I want to see the best qualified PERSON there. I believe in MERITOCRACY…not MEDIOCRITY.
By Bob Casey
February 8, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Jodi, You are missing MY point. Combat isn’t marathon running. In fact the comparison is ludicris. Marathon running is all about an individual doing an individual thing. Combat is about esprit de corp - beyond teamwork. The “team” (squad or platoon) is not just more important than each individual - but VASTLY more important. This is one of the things that “feminist” women really don’t seem to get…
I am sure there are some women that - as individuals - could meet the physical requirements of a general combat unit. Maybe those women should do the gender change thing - if they can’t live without a military career - including combat.
But, otherwise we all DO have genitalia and there IS cultural issues that are 1,000’s of years old (and biological that are millions). Sex can’t be dismissed or policed successfully. With sex comes a lot of baggage - like jealousy and other emotions - maybe even love or over-protectiveness…
This is ALL friction and counter-productive to efficiency of the combat unit - maximum success with minimal casualties. You can’t just wish it away or “change a law”.
Just in case you again think this is so unfair - it is one reason homosexuality (especially “active”) is discouraged in the military. It just leads to problems in an already tough situation…
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Bob. Barring homosexuals from the armed services does cause problems—like an enormous shortage of language experts…
Bob, I was just using one example of group bans handed down to women. However, I do think that it is unfair if a woman wants to serve her country by fighting on the front lines and is physically qualified to do so but is not allowed. It seems to me that if the men can’t handle it, then that’s their problem. Women and men work together in MANY situations, even life threatening ones, and seem to have no problems doing so. Having said that, though, I’m not sure why anyone, male or female, would want to be on the front line! :)
By Gina
February 8, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Jodi, I so wish people could put their feelings aside in a divorce for the sake of the children also. Adults are more resilient, but the children suffer emotionally. The children get caught in a power struggle and should be able to love both their parents without guilty feelings.
As far as women in the sciences, teachers, parents and family members are crucial in letting a child know all career avenues are open to them. With pursuing their chosen goal also comes study, extended education, sacrifice and most importantly, a love and talent for the career. I know many people who pursue a career for the money but hate it.
By Randy
February 8, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Really I think the problem with some people who are non-Christian is perception. You see becoming a Christian as being like in this group of people who are conservative, who stand against abortion etc. But Christianity is much more than that(it’s not like becoming a Democrat or Republican). It is a true relationship with the creator(I won’t say God or Jesus, as some have built up a defense mechanism to those discriptions) What Christianity is, is being true to yourself, being honest with yourself. One day you are going to be on your deathbed and when you die the only one that is going to be there is “the Creator” of this universe. If you look deep into your spirit or soul ask yourself serious questions, be honest with yourself. Go pick up some “dirt” and ask yourself, in the beginning where did this come from, or a seed and ask “where did the first one come from”. These are serious questions and the way you answer them, means everything.
By Tom
February 8, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Jodi, If it gets down to hand to hand combat, the woman would lose. Don’t try the arguement that it never gets down to hand to hand now-a-days, that is bull. If I am in combat with a woman, my instinct would make me be protective of her putting both of us at risk. Ask any combat vet.
By RS
February 8, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
Hugh G: Yes, as a matter of fact I DO fool around. With my husband, and ONLY my husband. Read some of my previous posts.
By Jodi
February 8, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Again, the fact that you want to “protect” the woman is not her fault. It’s something that men need to get over. If’s she’s qualified (notice I said earlier that if she met the physical standards) then she should go.
Why is it that whenever men want to “protect” women from other men that it’s the women that get restricted? On the EXTREME end of that is forcing women to wear burkas because men feel she is unsafe because men may rape her. Instead of changing the men, they want to restrict the women!
By lozen
February 8, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this
Randy, # 2 is especially for you.
75 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, God exists.
MORAL ARGUMENT (I) (1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. (2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. (2) Evolution can’t be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (1) See this bonfire? (2) Therefore, God exists.
PARENTAL ARGUMENT (1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists. (2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL (1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God! (2) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, God exists.
THE JUST IN CASE ARGUMENT If I’m wrong and have loved god and tried to be a good person and when I die there is no God, what have I lost? If you’re wrong and die and there is a god, you will burn forever in hell. Therefore there is a god.
By Randy
February 9, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
Iozen, That sounds good, however being raised by a father who should have been a staff sargent in the marines, I’m not afraid of any situation. A few years ago, I said to myself, I want to know the truth. I want to be honest with myself. If God doesn’t exist or if heaven isn’t there, I can take it(I just want the truth). Jesus answered all my questions in a logical way and things I see now as obvious(like a creator existing) came to me. All my concerns were answered and now I have no doubts. Jesus will answer all your questions, if you will be honest with yourself. He doesn’t have to, but thank God he does.
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this
Whatever.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice if organized religion actually included females more or was more female friendly? For instance why would the Pope STILL tell women not to use birth control? That’s abuse of power. And it sends a mixed message, like, “it’s a crap shoot girls when you are having sex with your husband, so don’t worry about school or a career. Since birth control is evil & not allowed, get ready to be pregnant the rest of your life. Your quality of life & well-being isn’t that important to the church.” No wonder teen girls have such low self esteem. They are even “put in their place” in church.
By chuck
February 9, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
Lozen, As a Christian who completely understands the theory of evolution, I can assure you that that is exactly the reason that I believe in Creation. Evolution has no scientific foundation. It takes much more faith to believe the story concocted by athiest scientists than it does to believe in God. Evolution is like a religion to the left. The only way you guys and gals can feel comfortable in your amoral lifestyle is to find a way to explain away GOD. Evolution is that “explanation”. If you can get mankind here without God, then you become your own god. That way you can justify immoral behavior like homosexuality and murdering babies, by rationalizing that you are the god of your own body. Unfortunately for you, it will never work. You will always have that nagging doubt in the back of your mind “what if I’m wrong”? You can’t escape it until death and then it won’t be a nagging doubt anymore, it will be an eternal surety.
By norman
February 9, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
Chuck proves the point, that people who doubt evolution do so because they have not the courage to live with the truth.
By Bruce
February 9, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
I would be interested in reading the scripture used by the Pope (the Cathloic Church) that says birth control is wrong.
As a Chrisitan I have learned over the years that it is always best for me to examine what a preacher or teacher tells me the scripture says with what God tells me it says. That is why Christians should take their Bible with them to Church, read it daily, and pray for guidance and understanding.
As Randy put it, if you take the time to talk to God He will talk to you. But don’t take our word for it, try it sometime. You may not always like His answer but you can bet it will be in your best interest.
By norman
February 9, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
The Pope doesn’t base his opposition to birth control on the Bible. He bases it on Aristotelian philosophy as interpreted theologically by Thomas Aquinas. Of course it is all nonsense — but no more nonsense than the bible. You who look in the bible are just as dumb as those who look to Rome. Look to Reason.
By Bruce
February 9, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
Norman, You have been asked to tell us what the truth is but instead you just give out more insults. Since you have the knowledge pass the truth on to the rest of us. You say there is no God (Creator, Supreme Being or whatever you what to call Him) give us your proof. Don’t give us something someone else has said, give us a real life experience YOU have had that proves there is no God. It is through many real life experiences I have had that tells me there is a God in heaven and He loves you and me.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Bruce, Give up on Norman. You might as well be talking to a door.
By norman
February 9, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
I don’t have to prove there is no God, y’all have to prove there is one. And by proof I don’t mean that the idea of God makes you feel good, or that without a God you would be miserable, or any other subjective nonsense.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
Norman, I will not try and convert you. I know, most of the time your just pulling our chains. However please consider:
“Jesus raised from the dead? Sure. Right. And I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.”
That’s how Thomas might have responded if he had lived in the year 2000. “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”[1] He’d seen dead people before. And Jesus was dead. He sounds like sophisticated rationalists of the Twentieth Century. “It isn’t plausible,” they would contend. “It didn’t happen.”
But what if it did happen?
Thomas was convinced when Jesus appeared to him, reached out his hands to Thomas, and said, “Put your finger here.”
Thomas dropped to his knees. “My Lord and my God!”[2]
It was self-hypnosis, you counter. The disciples wanted to believe that their Lord was not dead, so they just invented it out of whole cloth.
Really? Let’s look at some of the evidence.
First, Jesus’ body was missing. If the Jews could have found it, they could have stilled the preaching of Jesus’ resurrection that filled Jerusalem. But they could not.
Next, the body wasn’t stolen. The Romans had no motive. The Jews had no motive. Ah-ha, you say, the disciples stole it. There is the matter of the Roman guards, and the disciples’ initial disbelief when the women brought them the news early that Easter morning. This brings me to my third point.
If the disciples had stolen the body, you wouldn’t expect them to risk their lives. People don’t die for what they know is not true. But the disciples put their lives on the line, and nearly all were eventually martyred for their faith. They certainly believed it.
Followers of Jesus in the city of Jerusalem grew from a few dozen to thousands upon thousands soon after Jesus’ resurrection. They believed it was true.
Even contemporary documents refer to the event. Thallus the Samaritan, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny contain references to Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus writes about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. They knew something had happened.
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is actually more plausible than any other explanation. That’s why we Christians make such a big deal about Easter. That’s why we celebrate.
Jesus’ resurrection means that death is not the end. That though my body may lie mouldering in the ground, Jesus, whom the Father raised from the dead, gives me eternal life. Ultimately, we Christians believe, our bodies, too, will be raised from the dead.
And since Jesus is not dead, people can encounter Him today. You can know Him through a personal relationship. I could point to lots of people who can testify what Jesus has done in their lives to bring them from the brink of disaster to peace and meaning and joy. He changes people for good.
If you’re not sure, and can’t really say you’ve met this risen Jesus, this Easter Sunday why don’t you slip into a church to seek Him. And perhaps in the midst of our celebration, you’ll find Him for yourself. I hope so — for your sake!
He’s alive, you know. HE’S RISEN! That’s what Easter is all about!
By lozen
February 9, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hey Chuck, For me there is evidence of evolution (geological evidence) but I find no evidence of the christian god you believe in. Evolution is not a religion! It’s a scientific theory based on evidence. Creationism is a religious theory based on no evidence. I don’t need evolution to explain away god. The onus of proof is on those of you who claim there is a god! You can’t prove there is a Yahweh any more than I could prove there’s a Zeus or a Thor. If you can get mankind here created by some invisible god, then you can tell everybody how they should live. You can judge others, hate your gay neighbor, and be consumed by the sins of others while you feel morally superior and hide behind your version of god. You will always have the nagging doubt in the back of your mind, “What if I’m wrong? What if there is no god?” If you were so sure you wouldn’t have to keep trying to make others live by your rules and regulations. You believe abortion is a sin? Don’t have one. You are concerned about amoral behavior? Don’t do anything you consider immoral.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
Lozen Please read! Open Letter from God My dear children, believe Me, that is all of you. I consider Myself a pretty patient guy. I mean, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right. And about evolution? Boy, nothing is slower than designing that whole Darwinian thing to take place cell by cell and gene by gene.
And I have been patient through your fashions, your civilizations, wars and schemes, and the countless ways that you take Me for granted until you get yourselves into big trouble again and again.
I want to let you know about some of the things that started ticking Me off. First of all, your religious rivalries are driving Me up a wall. Enough already!
Let’s get one thing straight. These are your religions, not Mine. I’m the whole enchilada. I’m beyond ‘em all.
Every one of your religions claims that there’s only one of Me, which, by the way, is absolutely true, but in the very next breath each religion claims that it’s My favorite one. And each claims its bible was written personally by Me, and that all of the other bibles are man-made. Oh, Me. How do I ever begin to put a stop to such complicated nonsense?
All right, listen up now. I am your Father and Mother, and I don’t play favorites among My children.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but I don’t write. My longhand is awful, and I’ve always been more of a doer anyway. So ALL of your books, including those bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired men and women, they were remarkable people, but they also made mistakes here and there. And I made sure of that, so that you would never trust a written word rather than your own living heart.
You see, one human being to Me — even a bum on the street — is worth more than all of the holy books in the world. That’s just the kind of guy I am.
My spirit is not a historical thing. It’s alive right now, right now, as fresh as your next breath. Holy books and religious rites are sacred and powerful, but they are not more so than the least of you. They were only meant to steer you in the right direction, not to keep you arguing with each other, and certainly not to keep you from trusting your own personal connection with Me.
Which brings Me to My next point about your nonsense. You act like I need you and your religions to stick up for Me or win souls for My sake. Please, don’t do Me any favors. I can stand quite well on My own, thank you. I don’t need you to defend Me, I don’t need constant credit. I just want you to be good to each other.
And another thing. I don’t get all worked up over money or politics, so stop dragging My name into your dramas. For example, I swear to Me that I never threatened Oral Roberts. I never rode in any of Rajneesh’s Rolls Royces and I never told Pat Robertson to run for president, and I have never had a conversation with Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart.
Of course, come Judgement Day, I certainly intend to.
Now the thing is, I want you to stop thinking of religion as some sort of a loyalty pledge to Me. The true purpose of religion is so that YOU can become more aware of ME, not the other way around. Believe Me, I know you already. I know what’s in each of your hearts, and I love you anyway with no strings attached. So, lighten up and enjoy Me. That’s what religion’s best for.
What you seem to forget is how mysterious I am. You look at the petty differences in your scriptures and you say, “Well, if this is the truth, then that can’t be.” But instead of trying to figure out My paradoxes and unfathomable nature — which, by the way, you never will — why not open your hearts to the simple, common threads of every religion? You know what I’m talking about. Play nice with each other. Love and respect everyone. Be kind. Even when life is scary or confusing, take courage and be of good cheer, for I’m always with you.
And learn how to be quiet, so that you can hear My still, small voice. I don’t like to shout. Leave the world a better place by living your life with dignity and gracefulness, for you are My own child. Hold back nothing from life, for the parts of you that can die surely will, and the parts that can’t, won’t. So don’t worry, be happy. (I stole that last line from Bobby McFerrin, but Who gave it to him in the first place?)
Simple stuff now. Why do you keep making it so complicated? It’s like you’re always looking for an excuse to be upset. And I am very tired of being your main excuse. Do you think whether you call Me God, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, Allah, Wakatonka, Brahma, Father, Mother, even the Void of Nirvana that I care? Do you think I care which of My Special Children you feel closest to — Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed or any of the others? You can call Me and My Special Ones any names you choose, if only you will go about My business of loving one another as I love you.
How can you keep neglecting something so simple?
No, I am not telling you to abandon your religions. Enjoy your religions, honor them, learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents. But do you walk around telling everyone that your parents are better than theirs? Your religion, like your parents, may always have the most special place in your heart. I don’t mind that at all. And I don’t want you to combine all of the great traditions into One big mess. Each religion is unique for a reason. Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves.
But My Special Children — the ones that your religions revolve around — all live in the same place in My heart, and they get along perfectly, I assure you.
The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none. My blessed children of Earth, the world has grown too small for your pervasive religious bigotrys and confusion. The whole planet is now connected by air travel, satellite dishes, telephones, fax machines, rock concerts, diseases and mutual needs and concerns. Get with the program!
If you really want to help me celebrate the birthday of My Son Jesus, then commit yourselves to figuring out how to feed your hungry and clothe your naked, and protect your abused and shelter your poor. And just as important, make your own everyday life a shining example of kindness and good humor. I’ve given you all the resources you need, if only you abandon your fear of each other and begin living, and loving and laughing together.
Now, I am not really ticked off. Not really. I just wanted to grab your attention because I hate to see you suffer. But I gave you free will, so what can I do now other than try to influence you through reason, persuasion, and a little old-fashioned guilt and manipulation?
After all, you know I am the original Jewish Mother. I just want you to be happy, and I’ll sit in the dark. I really am with you always.
Always — trust in Me.
Your one and only … God
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Whatever.
I remember back in high school I wanted to take weight training. But that was a time when it wasn’t “right” for girls to sign up for that class. I remember as a child seeing only men reporting the news on television. I didn’t understand as a child why there were only old men on. No women. I remember as a child discovering women were few & far between in govt. I remember as a child hearing quite a bit “girls don’t do that”, “girls can’t do that”,”you’re just a girl”.
It’s changed quite a bit since then, which wasn’t that long ago in history. It’s no surprise the children of that time chose different careers due to that kind of “conditioning”.
Give this more time, very soon there will be an increase in women in all fields once only held by men. It takes a few generations to get rid of nasty controlling mind control. Don’t forget men are slowing changing too for the better.
But don’t expect any religious group to let up on females any time soon. Just ignore them
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Isn’t there a 300 word limit? Criminy!
By Angie
February 9, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Texas….you seem very educated on your resurrection history. Your entry was very well worded. Indeed, He is risen. And I do think that we as believers,( I say beleiver because I am not a Christian ) we have a duty to tell people about the wonders of Yahweh, for they are many. But I think in today’s climate, we need to be carful not to thump our Bible or Tora. I for one, accept science and my beliefs together…..they coexist…happily even. It comes down to the ultimate realization. No one knows God’s heart and/or intentions. I cannot speak with complete certainty how He melds both creationism and evolution. But I have faith that the answers to that exist somewhere. So many have an either/or mentality. You and I believe the resurrection happened. But many need “proof”. For these people, no amount of literature, theory, or miraculous intervention will suffice. I believe that our duty as followers of Christ is to guide with extreme humility. People expect us to be pushy and hipocritical and unaccepting. And sadly, there exists a faction that lives that to the hilt. It gives us all a bad reputation. Much like the exreme followers of Islam or Muslim beliefs…. one or two nit wits can spoil the entire message. Science and religion can and should coexist. God makes no mistakes. Don’t you get the feeling that the scholars in both areas were created by Yahweh to help us all learn something….that something being much bigger than ourselves?
By norman
February 9, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Texas: don’t quote the Gospels to me. They are just novels.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Angie—well put. You are a credit to Christianity.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Texas—Although you probably didn’t mean it that way, that was sacreligious.
Lozen—We’re not evolving now, and we never were. Evolution is not based on scientific fact, just theory. If the secular classroom would drop its hatred toward Christianity and its embracing of the “Separation of Church and State” myth, the educational system might get somewhere. Evidence supports Creationism and not evolution, not vice-versa, so it’s nothing but bigotry when you see school systems, like Cobb County, refusing to teach evolution as anything but fact and even to teach Creationism as a theory. This insane bigotry is infuriating.
Whiley—Guess what? If men were the ones who had childbirth, I’d still be against abortion. My position wouldn’t waver. Murder is murder, and I don’t believe in having double standards. You’re starting to put words in my mouth. RS has done so about 10 times now, and you’re starting to catch up with her. I wish you people would pay attention and stick to the facts.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
SORRY Jodi, In the future I will refrain from posting such large stories. Kind Regards.
By norman
February 9, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Pope Zack I is telling Texas von Pious that he is being sacrilegious. What greater proof is needed that these Christians are infuriating busybodies, butting into everyone’s affairs. Zack, keep to your own silly life and leave even other silly Christians alone!
In the meanwhile in honor of Ash Wednesday go shove your head in a sack of ashes.
By Seaborn
February 9, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
This past weekend My amoral homosexual partner and I spent the weekend in the mountains with my parents, my two brothers and their wives, and my neice and nephew. After a great dinner in which we celebrated my younger brother’s announcement that his wife is expecting, my partner played bumper pool with my neice while I talked about buying some property that my sister-in-law had listed. I thought it was a great weekend celebrating life and family and I thought pretty highly of myself. Then I read your post and am once again reminded that I’m just an immoral pervert. I am sick and tired of some jerk like you judging my life that you know nothing about based on your narrow-minded head-up-the-a* conservative upbringin’. I am just as moral as you and probably more. You are nothing more than one more angry heterosexual white man that is frustrated by the fact that you haven’t really accomplished what you wanted to in life, as evidence by your multiple useless degrees and constant lurking on this forum. And I’m quite certain that my cat is closer to God then you will ever be.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
Zack, I did not mean it that way, and your correct. I was trying to express to Lozen the true meaning. I did not intend to mock!
By Zack
February 9, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Norman—I wish I had two cents for each time you gave me your two cents, although that’s low pay for the hassle of reading them.
What’s the matter? You didn’t say anything about Black people today, didn’t refer to them as monkeys. I guess your buddy RS would be laughing it up reading it if you did, because she sure didn’t bother to call you on it, did she? Of course not. All she did was say that wasn’t how you meant it, which is ridiculous. She’s the resident hypocrite. I’ll say one thing for you: You’re pretty much overt about your bigotry. At least you don’t try to put on an innocent face in the process, so with all the hatred, naivety, and thesis statements with no support you two make, at least you can honestly say you’re not a hypocrite.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Texas sure is long winded isn’t he?
By Zack
February 9, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
RS—By the way, your repetitive statements against me, telling me I can’t get a girl in bed, etc. only show your looseness in that type of area and your sheer lack of class.
By Bob Casey
February 9, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Jodi, Don’t quite get the “lack of language experts” in the military because of the non-existent ban on homosexuals. Homosexual activity isn’t wanted but they aren’t banned… Didn’t know they were such great linguists - maybe “cunning linguists”?
Your answer (and really the feminist answer) to every potential problem with women in combat units is “men need to change”. Well, actually women need to change as well. Right now 18% of women in the military are pregnant. Women treat being in the military as just another job - one that just barely interferes with their normal activities…Now tell me that the women in combat units will be different. That almost 20% of the unit won’t be available to fight when needed because they are pregnant!
Feminist philosophy in general has evolved (devolved?) from one of protecting womens general rights to the advantages and fun of modern culture - college, sports, sex without consequences (almost!), equal pay for equal work, entry into ANY job or profession without bias, to one of the most selfish and self-centered world-views imaginable. Maybe 1% of women would actually have the physical, mental, and emotional capabilities to qualify for combat roles. Maybe 10% of THOSE women would want too - and yet MEN have to change. The military institution has to change to accomodate that miniscule number of women that COULD do the job - just because the women want too.
Military training and combat is a fine art - honed by centuries of trial and error - for men. Basic training has just the right amount of stress to begin the preparation for actual combat without breaking everyone in the training. Women are different - training would have to change. Facilities would have to change. Tactics would have to change. Right now, America produces some of the best warriors the world has ever seen. But let us throw all that out for some self-centered women. Yeah, that is a great idea. Like I said before, if they want combat all that badly, what is wrong with gender-change? Oh that’s right, any woman self-sacrifice is SO passe.
Kind of ironic because woman and self-sacrifice used to be synonomous…
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Zack you say what you want, I have no DOUBT your views would change if you could become pregnant.
Whatever.
And you had dates? Someone might want to check Zacks basement for corpses.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
Bob—Can’t remember the number off hand, but I’ve read many articles in mainstream magazines, newspapers, etc. stating that a large number of much-needed linguists had been kicked out of the military because of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
I said it once, I’ll say it again—if she can physically cut it, then she should be allowed. She should not have to suffer discrimination because of some man’s chivalrous feelings—regardless of his good intentions. Likewise, she should not expect them to be chivalrous towards her. My only point with this is that I get frustrated when women are denied opportunities because men may “feel uncomfortable” or that there may be a “lack of cohesion.” That is not the woman’s fault that they cannot comfortably interact with women. People do it under stressful situations all the time—emergency rooms, non-direct combat situations, etc.
The military has already made many changes to accomodate women and yet the military hasn’t fallen apart.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
Whiley—Oohh, just another statement I’d expect from someone like you. You feminists are getting more and more desperate.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Bob, I agree 100%. Are you aware of the latest incident? Mud Wrestling, flashing and sex. This is sure to prolong and put ours in harms way. Why do we complicate things? There’s no excuse and the college mentality in a war is unacceptable. If one life is lost due to the latest incident, we as a nation need to reevaluate our PC interest in combat! Abu Ghraib in addition, might have been avoided if our military was stripped of PC mentality. It certainly isn’t helping!
By Tom
February 9, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Bob, Better watch it, Jodi is going to beat you up.
By RS
February 9, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
Zack: Looseness? Again, pay attention before you start foaming at the mouth. I don’t call being faithful to one’s spouse loose. As for Texas’ post being sacriligious; lighten up! That’s the problem with you Bible-thumpers. You take everything TOO seriously & subsequently suck the joy out of life. I have proof God has a sense of humour: He made YOU. “We’re not evolving”?? Speak for yourself! I’LL say you’re not. And again, if you’d read Norman’s post about “monkeys” more carefully, he was actually poking fun at people like you. Seaborn; Oh my goodness, a sinful gay orgy up in the mountains, tsk tsk. My my, whatever WILL our Bible-thumping contingent say about THAT? Whiley: Way to go! And while we’re checking Zack’s basement for corpses, why not peek into his closet in case he’s still IN it???
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
One thought just occurred to me…If we have a shortage of soldiers, which it appears that we do, isn’t a woman soldier better than no soldier at all? Also, women in Israel are compelled to service in the military (I think for 2 years) and seem to have no problem….Can’t tell me they aren’t in a war zone!
By steve
February 9, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
I just saw this article from Chuck Colson and thought it might further the disussion here (or at least get it back on subject!). Hope you enjoy (even if you do not agree).
Denying the Obvious Lawrence Summers and Sexual Differences
I understand why Harvard president Lawrence Summers might be confused. Speaking at a conference about “diversifying the science and engineering workforce,” he thought that science might have something to do with the subject. He was wrong.
The subject was why “relatively few women become scientists or engineers.” Besides the obligatory nod to discrimination on the part of universities, Summers noted the differences in math test scores. While, on average, boys and girls score approximately the same, more boys than girls score in both the highest and lowest percentiles.
Summers reportedly mentioned “innate” and/or “natural” differences between the sexes: the differences reflected in the test scores. That’s when the fur flew. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins told the Boston Globe that she thought that she was going to be sick. “This kind of bias” left her with no choice but to flee the room. If she had stayed, she risked “blacking out.”
Hopkins’s hysteria is hilarious. As George Will put it, here we have someone “at the peak of the academic pyramid” overcome by the “vapors” upon hearing an “unwelcome idea.” Like a “Victorian maiden,” she collapsed waiting to be “revived … by the offending brute’s contrition.”
What’s not funny is that Hopkins and others succeeded in getting Summers to apologize for “sending an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.” What nonsense! The only “signal of discouragement” being sent in this affair was by Hopkins and the others directed at anyone who takes the pursuit of truth and free inquiry seriously.
That signal was intended to enforce the idea that differences between men and women are “socially constructed.” Aside from the inconvenient fact that only women can get pregnant and bear children, there’s no reason that women and men shouldn’t be interchangeable, whether at home or at work.
Unfortunately for Hopkins and company, as John Adams once said, “facts are stubborn things … our wishes [and] the dictates of our passion … cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” As Hopkins’s MIT colleague David Page told the New York Times, “the genetic difference between males and females absolutely dwarfs all other differences in the human genome.” By some estimates, the genetic difference due to sex is 100 to 200 times greater than the difference due to race or ethnicity.
One of the places these biological differences manifest themselves is the way in which our brains work. According to the Los Angeles Times, “men and women, on average … possess documented differences in certain thinking tasks … ” Those of us who are married know thisâ€â€?and are glad of it. It helps me that Patty’s often more sensitive than I am. None of this means, however, that a given girl might not be a brilliant mathematicianâ€â€?only that, all things being equal, mathematicians are more likely to be male than female.
Ideologues like Hopkins don’t care about the facts. Like the villains in C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, their goal is to re-make humanity in a more amenable image. That begins with denying the obvious and punishing those who dare to point it outâ€â€?even if his title is the “president of Harvard.”
By Tom
February 9, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
You feminists should try to imagine the smiles on the faces of the enemy when they are confronted by a platoon of all females that pass the new improved and p.c military training.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
I imagine when the enemy has an automatic weapon pointed at him, he won’t be smiling all that much.
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Cavemen like to use the words feminist & desperate in the same sentence thinking it will scare us into submissiveness. I’ll never understand why men like you must control & put women down to feel like a man. Your type will die out soon, but not soon enough. True men know the importance of feminism & are not angry about women wanting equality. They know that feminism does not take away from men, but improves the lives for all.
Men like you like to make feminism a dirty word. YOU are a dirty word. Go back to your basement.
It’s amazing women have gotten as far as they have considering all the constant garbage & verbal/physical attacks.
Seriously Zack, why are you on this message board? It seems you just want a good public way of showing your hatred for women. I never understood hatred of women anyway. What do we do to men? If anything WE are the ones that should be running around raping, beating, killing & chopping up you guys, etc for giving us so much grief.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Zack, You’ve got the touch. They’re all fired up now. Obviously Whiley & Jodi wear the pants in their family.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Tom—actually, neither my husband nor I, as you put it, “wear the pants in the family” because that implies that one of us is in charge. We’re both very happy to be equal partners. I don’t tell him what he can’t do, and he doesn’t tell me what I can’t do.
By RS
February 9, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Whiley, the reason why “men”(!??!) like Zack like to control us women & put us down is simple: Plain old insecurity about their own masculinity. That is exactly what I was referring to when I stated someone should be peeking into his closet as he may very well still be in there. We all know that’s the root of homophobia too.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
Jodi, Ask your husband if he thinks you should be on the front lines in a war as a member of the infantry.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
I’d just like to add that I also feel that Hopkins went overboard. I can understand her being upset at the remark but passing out and throwing up? Puleeze… I don’t think Summers was wrong to want to explore the subject, but perhaps a different venue may have been more wise…
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Tom that’s what I’m talking about. You put me down for standing up against sexist comments. “wearing the pants in the family” is the same as saying:
“nothing you say is important. We will make fun of you till you shut up. What you are saying is making Zack & I feel uncomfortable because it’s true what you say. What you are saying is making me feel uncomfortable becuase I am also a man & have been part of the problem you are talking about”
I know when a women speaks out it makes men uncomfortable. These sexist ideals have been taught to you since the day you were born too.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
If that’s what I really wanted to do, then he would be okay with that (though, like any spouse, he would worry a ton.) However, the choice is not his—it’s mine. That’s my point.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Whiley, You have no clue, no clue, no clue.
By norman
February 9, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Well, it was bound to happen. Someone finally mentioned that old fraud, C.S. Lewis. He has throughout a long career attempted to make Christian myth meaningful. I went to my Spengler for a little encouragement, finding again and again that the West is weak because of Christianity. Christianity is found in its authentic state in Islam, which makes our Christianity-lite a subversive, pro-Islamic weakness which could undermine us totally. We must eradicate Christianity from our culture and free ourselves from this primitive Magian embrace or we will go under.
I realize few of you will understand this. You have been undereducated by our schools, weakened by religious faith, and corrupted by American vulgar culture (sports, tv, and all the rest).
By Tom
February 9, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
Norman probably cannot venture out during the day and gets hungry when he sees signs for a blood drive.
By Randy
February 9, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Norman you are a CLOWN.
By norman
February 9, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Tom: I thought you Christians were washed in the blood of the Lamb.
Just think about this. Primitive, barbaric, irrational, just plain dumb. Typically Magian.
By RS
February 9, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Norman, I’m one of the few who understand what you mean. Yes, I believe in God but am very very soured on organized religion. Organized religion is used as a conformist indoctrination tool designed to control the (sheep mentality) masses. This garbage already IS undermining us & has been for ages. Wars are being waged in the name of religion. Our rights are being taken away in the name of religion. Innocent people are the targets of hate & violence in the name of religion. Millions of diseased & deformed babies are being born into poverty in the name of religion. Religion has very little to do with GOD, so yes, Norman, I understand all too well.
By lozen
February 9, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Zack, you are so frustrating. This is what I said, “Evolution is not a religion! It’s a scientific theory based on evidence. Creationism is a religious theory based on no evidence.” And you respond with, “Evolution is not based on scientific fact, just theory.” Please listen carefully Zack. Scientific theory has evidence to back it up: fossils, carbon dating, bones, etc. Creationism has no, NONE, nada evidence to support it at all. Yet you insist your religious belief is evidence. I can show you fossils, bones, ruins, etc. You cannot show me god, adam, eve, the garden of eden, or any trace of these things. Christians have been claiming for over 2,000 years now that Jesus is coming back; it hasn’t happened. Christians claim Mary was a virgin; this goes against all laws of nature. Christians claim Jesus rose from the dead; this goes against all laws of nature. I believe in nature; there is a wondrous cycle of birth, life and death. I can show you proof of that. I don’t need a belief about a god to make my life meaningful, full and rich. I am not afraid of death. I don’t believe there’s a hell so what’s to fear? When the trees and flowers burst forth with new life I’ll be celebrating that just as you celebrate Easter (which was a pagan holiday to celebrate spring and new life long, long before christians took it over).
By Randy
February 9, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Macro-Evolution is a joke. Plain and simple. Here is another example of you non-Christians not thinking it through. Living with a half-truth.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Lozen—Oh, but the evidence is not there for evolution and IS there for Creationism. Unfortunately, our school systems are trying their best to hide it. It’s that simple. Evolution is a theory that is losing more and more followers simply because the evidence is not there.
Whiley—Nice try. Gays say that those who oppose homosexuality “hate”, and you say that I hate women because I’m against abortion. I’m against the hatred shown to the unborn because murder—yes, “murder”, there’s no other word for it—deserves hatred. You sound as desperate as RS calling people anti-Semitic out of the blue and now comparing me to the muslims who attacked us.
By Bruce
February 9, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Norman, If this country and it’s foundational beliefs are so distrubing to you why do you stay here? You are just as free to leave as to stay. Why put yourself through the stress of dealing with our uneducating schools, religious faith and American vulgar culture. Just simply pack up and leave.
Someone in an earlier post mentioned women in the military in Israel. My thought on that is why, since America is the most powerful nation in the world, would we want to model any country that cannot hold their own without our help?
By Zack
February 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
RS—Yeah, the word “looseness” applies to you. Anyone who says person B doesn’t have many sex partners—as though that’s a bad thing—is showing a looseness to sex. As for Norman’s racist comment, I wouldn’t expect you to call him on it, anymore than I’d expect you to call him on the overt bigotry he’s shown Christians time and time again.
By the way, if a baby is in the womb, it’s not up to you or a judge or anyone else to decide whether or not he should be born. You throw all your petty whims and attempts at rationale in our faces and try to justify murder in an attempt to keep someone out of a certain household. You are fine with sexual immorality and think the decision of having a child is perfectly fine to make AFTER the moment of conception. You’re not God.
I’ve noticed that people with your worldview are the ones who generally want Michael Jackson freed.
By lozen
February 9, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Whiley, Jodi, RS, such great responses to the misogynists. Tom is so cute isn’t he and so intelligent, articulate and most of all original “You “girls” have the audacity to speak up for yourselves, so “you must wear the pants in your family! Yah, yah, yah, yah, yah. Let’s just laugh at them boys! Maybe they’ll shut up if we make fun of them long enough. We all know they’re just women and we don’t ever have to take any of that feminist stuff seriously. Every man knows one person has to be the boss of the family and it better be us. What? Two equal partners who decide what to do together? Can’t imagine that. You have no clue, no clue, no clue!” How very clever!
By Tom
February 9, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Oh no. The Michael Jackson card has been played.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
Lozen—Laugh all you want, but there’s a clear double standard between men and women. Even in schools, a girl can get by with poking guys with pencils, etc., and guys essentially are told to ignore them. That’s wrong.
Show me a woman who cares for the unborn and does not promote the legalized Holocaust of abortion. Show me a woman who promotes sexual abstinence and responsibility for those who make the wrong choice(s). Show me a woman who does not approve of how courts pay for women to take their husbands to court, automatically get child custody, and take half of what he’s worth and then receive alimony, and I will tip my hat to her and recognize her as a woman without double standards. Show me a woman who believes child custody should go to the parent better suited to raise the children, and show me a woman who is willing to pay alimony. You don’t want equal responsibility, do you?
By Tom
February 9, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
This is fun.
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
Tom, I have no clue?? (another favorite line to use on women to put us down. After all, we are just idiot’s with a v**** right?)
Zack, you say you don’t hate women, but you sure do sound like you do. You refer to women as whores quite often. You use the term feminist in a negative way. I’d like to know who all these bad feminist are that want to kill all men or take all your rights away ! You guys are never specific on that. And if you are SO AGAINST abortion, if you were really concerned about the FETUS, then you would be adopting, handing out condoms, talking about sex education & teaching young KIDS (boys NOT just girls) how to handle relationships, how to deal with sex etc. How about teaching a class for young boys on how not to become date rapists? If you REALLY cared about the FETUS you would realize you can’t stop sex, so your fight & energy must be toward preventing conception. Why not teach REALLY good birth control classes & encouraging your govt to support birth control research, etc. You could save your FETUS’S from “death” along with helping improving the lives of women. Remember married women don’t want unwanted preganancies either.
Hell, you do that women might have a parade in your honor if you can get that birth control thing going.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike. Proverb 27:15
NAGGING WIFE
Farmer Jake had a nagging wife who made his life miserable. The only real peace that he got was when he was out in the field plowing.
One day when he was out in the field, Jake’s wife brought his lunch to him. Then she stayed while he quietly ate and berated him with a constant stream of nagging and complaining. Suddenly, Jake’s old mule kicked up his back legs, striking the wife in the head, and killing her instantly.
At the wake, Jake’s minister noticed that when the women offered their sympathy to Jake he would nod his head up and down. But when the men came up and spoke quietly to him, he would shake his head from side to side.
When the wake was over and all the mourners had left, the minister approached Jake and asked, “Why was it that you nodded your head up and down to all the women and shook your head from side to side to all the men?”
Well, Jake replied, “The women all said how nice she looked, and her dress was so pretty,” so I agreed by nodding my head up and down. The men all asked, “Is that mule for sale!?”
We laugh at jokes about nagging wives (like the one above). Sadly, nagging and wife almost appear synonymous nowadays. But to God (and your husbands) nagging is no laughing matter. Ladies, as Ephesians 5:33 states, let’s respect and reverence our husbands (notice him, regard him, honor him, prefer him, venerate and esteem him; defer to him, praise him, love and admire him exceedingly - Amplified Bible).
Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. Proverbs 31:10-12
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
“there’s a clear double standard between men and women. Even in schools, a girl can get by with poking guys with pencils, etc., and guys essentially are told to ignore them.”
BWAAAA HAAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAAAA ! Zack that’s your best one yet ! Ah yes, there is a conspiracy run ramped amongst girls in schools across the country ! Their goal is to torture & maim all boys with pencils & every one of them is getting away with it ! ! If we wanted true equality in the schools, girls will have to start grabbing & catcalling at boys, beating up their boyfriends & start date raping whenever the urge hits them.
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
“Nag”
A very popular term used by sexist men to put women down for speaking out.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
I freely admit that I am a chauvanist.Women are too precious to be foot soldiers or beat cops. Detectives yes, support roles outside of the war zone yes. I would walk thru fire for a woman but I would not expect one to do it for me, she shouldn’t have to. I believe in equal pay for equal work but I place women too high for certain roles. I know you think I am full of it but you can think whatever you want.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Whiley God said….
When I created the heavens and the earth, I spoke them into being. When I created man, I formed him and breathed life into his nostrils. But you, woman, I fashioned after I breathed the breath of life into man because your nostrils are too delicate.
I allowed a deep sleep to come over him so I could patiently and perfectly fashion you. Man was put to sleep so that he could not interfere with the creativity.
From one bone I fashioned you. I chose the bone that protects man’s life. I chose the rib, which protects his heart and lungs and supports him, as you are meant to do. Around this one bone I shaped you. I modeled you. I created you perfectly and beautifully.
Your characteristics are as the rib, strong yet delicate and fragile. You provide protection for the most delicate organ in man, his heart. His heart is the center of his being; his lungs hold the breath of life. The rib cage will allow itself to be broken before it will allow damage to the heart. Support man as the rib cage supports the body.
You were not taken from his feet, to be under him, nor were you taken from his head, to be above him. You were taken from his side, to stand beside him and be held close to his side. You are My perfect angel. You are My beautiful little girl. You have grown to be a splendid woman of excellence, and My Eyes fill when I see the virtues in your heart. Your eyes - don’t change them. Your lips - how lovely when they part in prayer. Your nose, so perfect in form, your hands so gentle to touch. I’ve caressed your face in your deepest sleep; I’ve held your heart close to Mine.
Of all that lives and breathes, you are the most like Me. Adam walked with Me in the cool of the day and yet he was lonely. He could not see Me or touch Me. He could only feel Me. So everything I wanted Adam to share and experience with Me, I fashioned in you: My Holiness, My Strength, My Purity, My Love, My Protection and Support. You are special because you are the extension of Me.
Man represents My Image - woman, My Emotions. Together, you represent the Totality of God. So man - treat woman well. Love her, respect her, for she is fragile. In hurting her, you hurt Me. What you do to her, you do to Me. In crushing her, you only damage your own heart, the heart of your Father, and the heart of her Father. Woman, support man. In humility, show him the power of emotion I have given you. In gentle quietness show your strength. In love, show him that you are the rib that protects his inner self.
Addendum — 1 Corinthians 11:12 (NKJ) “For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”
By Tom
February 9, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Aren’t your fingers getting sore Tex?
By Texas
February 9, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
You inspired me Tom by your statements! Inspire to aspire before you expire! Besides, I had to reconcile my nagging joke.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Whiley—You want me to adopt babies and pass out condoms. The latter is a non-solution in all ways. I’ve said on here before that there’s no clinical evidence whatsoever to show that condoms work at all against most STDs (please re-read this), yet you still insist on passing out condoms as though that’s some sort of solution. Even if they did work against STDs and pregnancy, they’d still be immoral (please re-read).
I’m not in position to adopt a baby. It’s not my responsibility. What is OUR responsbility is to teach kids about sex in the proper way. This method you and RS advocates is as irresponsible as it gets. You want people to have sex if they so choose and then kill the baby if they don’t want to be parents—and if anyone calls you on it, tell them it’s their fault if they don’t adopt. This is ludicrous!
By the way, Whiley, you’re right about one thing. There are indeed male whores as well. RS seems to admire them because she insulted me for not being one.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I thought it was a good joke.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry, that should of read, aspire to inspire before you expire!
By RS
February 9, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Zack: Oh boy, today is your day! Bruce made an anti-Israel remark, which should really elate you! No, I’m not sneering at you (or at anyone) for not having many sex partners; in fact, read my posts; what part of “I do not advocate promiscuity” don’t you understand?? If I considered Noramn’s comment racist, I’d say so, but I do not because it was not meant to be so. Sorry, but as a viable, tax-paying citizen, I should have more rights than a fetus. Heck, I should have more rights than a child but that’s another story. As for Michael Jackson, if he’s innocent, he should be freed, if he’s guilty, he shouldn’t be. It’s that simple. Why isn’t anyone speaking out against the greedy parents of young boys who encourage their kids to cultivate Jackson’s friendship (??) & then try to sue the guy? Texas: Not ALL women are beautiful, delicate & ultra-feminine just as not all men are burly & macho. These are sexist stereotypes. Whiley, Zack has his head so far up his you-know-where that he will never understand that wanting to have sex is basic human nature. Of course, being realistic about this probably makes me a “whore” but if you notice, I never claimed to go out & act on these urges because I DON’T. Oh, yes, another thing, Whiley; you brought up some EXCELLENT points, but in addition, equality in schools would also require girls who physically assault (not in a sexual way, but to HURT the boys) boys they consider fat & unnattractive.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Zack—If I had a stay-at-home husband raising my kids for 10 years and we got divorced—I would pay alimony. Only fair. I’m just curious whether any of you have actually worked in family law. Trust me, women get screwed plenty in divorce, the biggest problems being no child support and hidden assets. Are you seriously saying that if a woman is married to a man for 20 years, stays home to raise his children and to help his career by taking care of the home that she is not entitled to half of what was earned while they were together? If you do think that, then why in heaven’s name would any woman want to be a stay-at-home mom just to be screwed in 20 years? Often, the husband controls all of the finances (a mistake in my book!) which make it pretty easy to hide income and assets. I can’t tell you how many cases I worked on where the man earned $20k per month for ten years and all of a sudden, when it comes to setting support, he only seems capable of making $2k a month. It’s called voluntary underemployment. Happens all the time.
Having said that, a lot of men have troubles with divorce, too—namely visitation matters. There’s no excuse to deny visitation with a child’s father unless he is abusive in some way.
Unless a man earns a substantial amount of money (more than $200k per year or so) child support won’t make anyone rich.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Tom—I appreciate your comments about women—a lot of men feel this way. However, we are adults. We can make our own decisions, right or wrong. It shouldn’t really be up to you to decide what women are too “high” for. I do appreciate your respectful tone, however. This forum can get out of control!
By Tom
February 9, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Any man that does not pay child support or alimony for the wife that supported him is not a man.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Tom—Agreed! Likewise, if the man stayed home and supported the woman, then she should pay alimony. AlllRighttt! Some common ground! :)
By lozen
February 9, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Just thought of a story you might enjoy. When I was about 30 and had been divorced three years, I got a phone call out of the blue from an old high school boyfriend. He said he had graduated from Young Harris college, had gotten a job as director of a mental health clinic in south Georgia, and wanted to see me before he moved. He also confided that he was married, had two or three kids and had begun to preach after being called by god. We had lunch. In the course of the conversation I mentioned I’d had three or four intimate relationships in the past two years. He said, “And you don’t feel guilty about that?” I said, “No. I’m a grown woman and I decide how to live my life.” All you women reading this know exactly what’s coming don’t you? The next thing I know he’s grabbing at me - it was just like old times. (We wrestled throughout our high school dating because he was always trying to get me to have sex and I wouldn’t.) I told him that I didn’t have anything to do with married men and asked him what if his wife knew what he was doing. He continued grabbing with this silly smile on his face. Then I said, “God knows what you’re doing, you know.” Even that didn’t cool him down. I finally just told him to leave. I bet he looks back on that day and thinks I’m a whore for having sex when I wasn’t married!
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
“But you, woman, I fashioned after I breathed the breath of life into man because your nostrils are too delicate.” Obviously God isn’t around when my husband has a cold & reverts to infancy.
“From one bone I fashioned you. I chose the bone that protects man’s life.” I’d rather you fashion a bone that protects US. Men are killing us off everyday. Isn’t God aware of domestic violence?
“Your eyes - don’t change them. Your lips - how lovely when they part in prayer. Your nose, so perfect in form, your hands so gentle to touch. I’ve caressed your face in your deepest sleep” Wish my ex thought I was that perfect, then he wouldn’t feel the need to seek out young women 1/2 his age.
“Adam walked with Me in the cool of the day and yet he was lonely. ” That’s not exactly true, he was horny & didn’t want to clean up or cook.
By RS
February 9, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Zack, you call ME a hypocrite when you get up on your self-righteous high horse & preach abstinence & keeping unwanted babies, yet it’s “not your responsibility” to adopt these babies?!?! And no, I never insulted you for not being a male whore, actually that’s one of your very very few GOOD points; on the contrary, I insulted you for being a monumental moron. Now realistically speaking, what DOES happen when kids are taught/lectured on abstinence? Do you REALLY think a 14-year old kid who is told about abstinence in Sunday school will wait to have sex till his/her wedding day at age 26, say? Highly unlikely! And you wonder why intelligent, enlightened people (i.e. Lozen, Jodi, Whiley, Norman)challenge you & why I consider you a monumental moron.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Jodi, I know you won’t like this but any man who accepts alimony from his wife is not a man either. Sorry.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
RS, you missed the point. In a Fathers eyes, his daughter is every bit as beautiful, delicate and fragile as any other women.
By lozen
February 9, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
I agree with you Tim; this is great fun. Here’s one for you Texas. A man is driving down the road and a car passes him with a woman leaning out the window yelling “Pig!” He says a bad word and continues on. Soon another passes him and she also is leaning out the window yelling “Pig!” He thinks to himself, “These d* feminists just hate men!” It happens again but he just picks up speed. He rounds a curve and there, right in the middle of the road is a pig. The moral of this story, Why don’t men ever listen to women?
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Tom—Only by your definition. I think what makes a “man” a “man” is more about his integrity, courage, honesty, etc.—not his income. Why would a man who sacrificed and stayed home with his children not be deserving of the same financial support as women in a divorce? That would be blatently unfair. No doubt that some men would refuse to accept alimony—old stereotypes die hard.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Show me a woman who believes child custody should go to the parent better suited to raise the children, and show me a woman who is willing to pay alimony.
I’m right here. If the husband is better suited to raise the children, then by all means, he should have custody. Also, as I’ve stated above, it would be blatently unfair for me NOT to pay alimony if I had a husband who looked after my children while putting his career on hold. Absolutely.
If someone doesn’t get a good divorce settlement, then they need a better attorney. There ARE some crazy exes out there who won’t follow rules no matter what they are—they can’t be helped. But for most reasonable people, an equitable division is possible.
By RS
February 9, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Loxen: The behaviour of that ex-boyfriend you got together with is so typical; been there, had it happen. Sorry you had to go through it too. Cute “pig” story & how true! Texas; Oops, sorry. My bad. Know what though? Being beautiful, delicate & fragile are not only superficial qualities but the latter 2 are, in my book, not desireable. I’ve spent years training myself to be self-reliant & am happy to be at that place now.
By Zack
February 9, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
RS—Again, you miss the point. When it comes to “unwanted” pregnancies, it’s no one’s responsibility to adopt their baby—and if no one does, that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to have an abortion, as you would like for us to believe. People have to accept responsibility for their own actions.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Many men have made comments on this forum about wanting equal custody of their children—definitely commendable. However, in some cases (notice I said SOME!), especially in traditional-type families, it doesn’t really make sense to give the man sole custody—especially with REALLY young kids. Which would you prefer the children to be with—the parent they’ve spent the most time with over the years (usually mom) or the parent whom they only see a few hours per night? Correct or not, this is usually the thinking of the court—whomever is the primary caretaker usually gets the kids (unless they can be mature and agree on a more joint type custody arrangement). Personally, I wish everyone could do joint custody—as do most of the courts. It’s just that you really have to be able to get along with your ex to make it work. Also, logistics such as distance apart, job schedules, etc. can make it REALLY tricky.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Jodi, You are right. I just think a REAL man would never sue an ex for alimony. He should get off his duff and get a job.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
It occurs to me that we don’t really know WHAT women are capable of because for so long we’ve just been told we’re too “delicate” or “emotional” or “insert your patronizing adjective here.” Slowly, over the years, women have accomplished more and more of what we were told was impossible. The sky’s the limit!
By RS
February 9, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
No, Zack, it’s not so much I missed the point, it’s more like you’re being unrealistic, as always. So someone who’s pregnant & can’t get the baby adopted should be forced to keep it? Hey, I’m all for facing up to one’s responsibilities, that’s why I’m MILITANTLY anti welfare, food stamps, drug/homeless programs etc. But is condemning a child to a loveless, poverty-stricken drug home with a single ,promiscuous abusive AIDS-stricken mother the answer? Any reasonable person would say no but since when have we ever known YOU to be reasonable??
By Angie
February 9, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Texas, you are a very prolific poster. But I have to take extreme pause at your post regarding the nagging woman/wife. As I have said before, I have studied the major religions for many years. Even you must understand that the Bible as we know it today has too many injections of man’s will to take everything it says at face value. Neither God nor Jesus (again, as it pertains to the Bible)said that a “nagging woman” was a blight to her husband or to the glory of God. These words were the product of whomever wrote that particular book….or whomever dictated it. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe and subscribe to the Bible. But mostly in spirit. I don’t believe that My Lord sits in judgment of a wife who spurs her partner to rethink situations, or see things in softer colors. After all, this is quite often what Jesus did himself.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Tom—what kind of job is he going to get if he’s stayed home with kids for 10 years? By the way, many former homemakers work and still receive alimony because their absence from the workforce makes their job skills obsolete or inadequate. I’m not saying that our hypothetical stay-at-home dad here shouldn’t work—I’m just saying that in order for him to survive he may need supplemental income, at least for a while.
By Bruce
February 9, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
RS, If you would look at the glass as half full instead of half empty you have realized my comment on Israel was not Anti-Israel it was PRO-AMERICAN…….DUH!!!!!
By Tom
February 9, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Jodi, He should get 2 jobs to support himself if necessary. He should follow the example of the ex’s that are forced to support themselves because of the sorry (fill in the blank) that left them that way. I cannot speak from experience since I have been married to the same woman for 26 years.
By RS
February 9, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
Bruce, it was both. “Duh” back at you.
By norman
February 9, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Now is the time for Zack and Co. to repeat with Richard Nixon: I am not a crook!
By chuck
February 9, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Seaborn,
Sin is sin. I am not telling you how to live your life, God is. If you don’t like His word, take it up with Him. My point is, as long as people think that they can do whatever they want to do without consequences, we are going to have these problems. My job as a Christian is to proclaim His word. It has nothing to do with my opinion or anyone else’s opinions. History itself has proven God’s word to be true and just. Every country that has strayed from it has fallen or is on the way to total destruction. It is not my opinion that your lifestyle is immoral. God’s word CLEARLY states that it is immoral. It doesn’t matter what kind of pretty face you put on it, it is still sin, just like adultery is sin and sex outside of marriage is sin. I don’t consider your sin to be any greater than the other two although it is a little more repulsive to me personally. I’m not perfect either. I sin, BUT when I sin I have an advocate with the Father, my Savior Jesus Christ whose blood paid for my sins…past, present, and future.
Jodi, you must read a lot. It seems you never can remember when you read an article in some “major”magazine that just so happens to make your point for you. That is at least the 3rd time that you have used that ploy in your posts. Seems awfully convenient.
Lozen, Show me the fossil record that proves evolution. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. There have been hundreds of proven examples of “older” fossils being found on top of “younger” fossils and vice versa. These were found in stratifications where they were “millions” of years misplaced. There have been human footprints around the world found in the same geological layer as dinosaurs which supposedly disappeared millions of years before man. Evolution has absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that cannot be easily refuted by REAL scientists.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
Tom—If our hypothetical man (we really should name him :) helped the woman become a success in her career while “holding down the fort” with the kids at home, then what she has earned is partially a direct result of his supportive actions—so it’s half his. Without him she could not be what she is and without her he could not be what he is. Thus, each is entitled to half. Many prefer, rather than alimony, a nice property settlement—fine by me. I just don’t think people should be punished, male or female, in divorce for choosing to stay home with their kids. If that person so happens to be a man, then so be it! Good for him!
Exes usually have to get second jobs if there simply isn’t enough money between the two parties to support two households or if the party ordered to pay support doesn’t do so.
By Texas
February 9, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Angie,
I posted the Nagging Wife in Humor.
I truely believe:
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it.
Ephesians 5:28-29 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Jodi, You are right. I’m just stubborn.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Chuck—That’s because we’re having a casual discussion here. If this was a research paper, I’d cite the articles. And yes, I read A TON! Constantly reading. Probably why I can’t always remember exactly where I read things… :) Personal flaw.. :) It’s not a “ploy.” Just passing along what I read. It’s easy to find quotations if you’re only using one book (the Bible)!
By Whiley
February 9, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Which most men translate to: I’m in charge, you do as I say, I am king hear me roar no matter how awful it is to be around me.
WHICH is the reason the bible is FICTION only written to assist in the ego boosting of men. If you keep women down they won’t have the guts to speak out against your very bad behavior. Of course you guys agree with the bible.
By Seaborn
February 9, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
That’s your belief, not mine, and so I am under no obligation to give your statements any credibility. I can’t take it up with your God because I don’t believe in your God, no matter how ugly a face you put on it. My God however, made me gay and doesn’t mind.
As far as consequences to my being gay…let’s see…no children i.e., disposable income…mortgage, vehicles, and credit card paid off before age 45…great relationship with friends and families (his and mine). I’m healthier than most 20 year olds and have no diseases. All in all a pretty good life. But I should give up all of that, split with my partner, divide our assets and then go out and try and find a woman as I approach my late forties…all because your bible says so…
By RS
February 9, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Chuck, Seaborn is right. As repugnant as you find the idea, God DID make him gay. He is exactly what he is supposed to be. Did you know there are gay churches & synagogues? Homosexuality is not a choice. if it was, so would heterosexuality be a choice. Did you CHOOSE to be straight? I didn’t. That’s just how I am. Seaborn sounds like a very nice man & probably deserves all the good things in his life, although many would believe he deserves to be punished for what he is
By Tom
February 9, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
You people should read “The Davinci Code” by Dan Brown. Lots of food for thought. My preist said not to read it. I can see why.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
Sorry I spelled priest wrong. Don’t flog me.
By Jodi
February 9, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
Tom—I read it. (See, Chuck, SOMETIMES I can remember where I read something :) Very interesting. I personally think it’s very likely Christ was married and really like the idea.
By Tom
February 9, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Made me think.
By lozen
February 9, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this
Chuck, It’s not your opinion that loving someone of the same sex is a sin, it’s god’s opinion. Oh well then of course we shouldn’t blame you for wanting to limit the lives of gay people because it’s really god who wants to do that. What a crock! It is not a sin to love. Nobody had to tell me that. I looked into my heart and my mind and figured it out for myself. I stand by it. If you disagree with it, you disagree with me and I don’t need to jump behind some god’s skirts and claim, “It’s not me telling you how to live (when it is totally you trying to tell people how to live!) Oh no, it’s god! What a wimpy way to deny that you are judging and controlling others. So if Seaborn and his partner say god tells them he loves them and they’re happy, who are you to tell them they are sinners? Oh, forgot. It’s not you, it’s god. I think you have probably seen high school geology books but of course, they all were written by the devil, right? So you show me the fossil record where human foot prints are found in the same strata with dinosaurs! I bet you’ll like this argument:
CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT (1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever. (2) I rather like that idea. (3) Therefore, God exists. Or how about:
ARGUMENT FROM INDULGENCE (1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires. (2) But they’re atheists, so they can’t. (3) Therefore, atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin. (4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives. (5) Therefore, God exists.
By Bob Casey
February 9, 2005 05:17 PM | Link to this
Jodi,
I do not believe Israel allows women in combat roles anymore. Certainly their female soldiers are in a combat zone, the whole state is. We also have female soldiers and sailors in the Iraq combat zone.
You have still not given one shred of evidence that women soldiers in combat platoons would be good for anyone but the - by your admission - few who want that and only for THEIR interests, not the services. And I wonder about that…the Navy is the service that is probably MOST integrated right now and the number of female sailors becoming pregnant rises sharply before every ship deployment - especially if the ship is deploying to a combat zone. The women sailors are also excellent at playing the sexual harassment card. One documented case is a woman claiming sexual harassment just so that she could be moved to another unit to be with her sailor boyfriend.
Many naval officers won’t even TALK to their female sailors anymore, except to give a direct order.
A female soldier or sailor is NOT better than none at all - if you can’t count on them to even BE there when you need them, when you have to budget and spend money to cover for maternity leave, prenatal check-ups, etc. etc.
You mentioned you read a lot - but I am guessing NOT about Military History. You might want to check out the June 2003 issue of “Military History” magazine - the Russian Women’s Death Battalion article. For a little historical perspective on women in combat - and the differences between the sexes in this most serious of “games”.
By norman
February 10, 2005 07:10 AM | Link to this
The old Negro Spiritual “I’ve got shoes” came into my head this morning. Especially the verse “Everybody talkin’ bout Heaven ain’t goin’ dere.”
By Texas
February 10, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this
Whiley, I just heard the sad story of yet another woman who lived in a marriage where she had to endure the over-bearing actions and declarations of her husband. It has ended in a divorce. It was a marriage in which her opinions were not valued or needed, and she was made to feel disrespected, unloved, powerless and useless. The worst part is that such things are happening alarmingly often even in Christian marriages. The reality is that many men have been taught strange interpretations of portions of the Bible. These misinterpretations have been spread through ignorance and because some men’s need to feel powerful as the “priest” of the home. No wonder you mock me. We men need to do a much better job of loving our wives as Christ loved the church. I know I can, and I pray that I will. I believe that through prayer God will give us men the tools we need so we can regard our wives with great respect and affection and become the instruments of support that they need. Christ died for the church. We need to ask God to help us rise to the standard He has for us so that we will consider our wives before ourselves. That way our marriages can be a very different story.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this
I was going to read “The Davinci Code” however when I went into the book store it was under the FICTION section and I refuse to read fiction(don’t want to fill my head with information that is not true or partically true) so I got the PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE by Rick Warren instead. Great book and its sold more than 2 and one half times (22 million copies) the amount of the previously memtioned book. Don’t fill your minds with garbage books like the Davinci code. Have a great day.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this
Norman, are you a communist or a mason?
By AllaboutME
February 10, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
there is a whole lot of nothing being discussed here by many prolific posters…guess nobody actually gives a rudy …. about what the dude from harvard said…so since you are sitting about its time for exercise….everybody stand up…take a deep breath and bend saying: Its all Ted Kennedys fault…and lift…Its all Ted Kennedys fault…feels great doesnt it? Yeah…time to blame the liberal media….Its all Ted Kennedys fault…and 2….its all Ted Kennedys fault….
By Angie
February 10, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this
Norman….you actually have quite a point there. I have found all too often that the very people who tout the Bible’s (or any religious book’s) importance in their lives, are the same people who are revealed as some of the most lost. For many, the Bible is used as a wall to hide behind. The thinking being that if they hide well enough, no one will see that they have no clue. Because of my husband’s affiliations, I have had the opportunity to meet many scholars and men of the cloth (as it were). My husband and I make a point to be silent observers during these encounters….as much as we can anyway. We have seen so many of these people behaving/acting/speaking in ways that would make most non-believers cringe. While others we have met have proven to be true bastions of integrity. When you meet someone, if you are still and quiet, you can get a very real sense of who they are. It saddnes me that some of the self professed followers of Christ completely miss the point of their own sermons. These are the ones that should be held to higher standards on Earth and whom WILL be held to higher standards when The Lord calls them home. I truly believe that helping to win souls for the Kingdom of Yeshua is part of my life’s mission. However, I have learned over the years that the old addage of flies/honey/and vinegar always prevails. You cannot beat others over the head with your message. Nor can you afford to live a contradictory life. As with everything else in life, a deliate balance must be struck. Screaming about your free pass to heaven is almost never met with open eyes and hearts. But if you let people see you live a life of humilty, grace, love and acceptance….it’s origins will always be clear.
By norman
February 10, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this
Angie: the clergy are the blind leading the blind.
Boscoe, I am neither a Communist nor a Mason, funny you should mention the two fantoms of the Catholic Church in whose putrid obsessions you obviously dwell. I am a rationalist, a Voltairean, and an American.
By Whiley
February 10, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this
TEXAS
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for your post !
:)
By AllaboutME
February 10, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
…faint….NORMAN YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN!!! (used in the old term of the word)
By norman
February 10, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
I used to be a Republican but now I am only a republican.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
As with you Norman, I WISH you were only a phantom. Nonetheless, they, as yourself, are real. Much to my dismay.
By norman
February 10, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
Boscoe: the Catholic Church has always been obsessed with secret heretics, secret Jews, secret Masons, secret Communists — even secret Christians. When John XXIII was elected Pope Hannah Arendt was in Rome. Her maid ran into the room shouting, “Senora, they elected a Christian as Pope!” Christian Popes have been rare. But the Church never seems to have worried about secret Fascists. Fascism is Catholicism with a modern face-lift.
By Texas
February 10, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
Angie All forgive for this long story!
Once upon a time there was a bishop whose learning and wisdom brought him great honors. People everywhere praised his ability to preach and teach. His congregation grew, and he gained great respect in his town as a man of God.
Finally his notoriety spread all the way to the halls of the Vatican. He received word that the Pope would very much like an audience with this great spiritual giant. The town was enthusiastic about this unprecedented opportunity for one of their own. The bishop, too, felt his sense of self importance swell. When the day of departure arrived, the townspeople swarmed to the docks to see him and his entourage off to Rome.
The weather and winds were with the ship as she sailed off. After a few days of travel, the captain pointed out to the bishop a tiny island off in the distance. “That,” he said, “is the home of the three hermits.” (In those days some people had chosen to cut themselves off from all of society in order to better serve and love God.) “It is said that they are the holiest men in the land,” continued the captain.
The bishop, his vanity poked and his interest piqued, asked if there might be time for him to visit the hermits. Since the winds and weather had been so favorable, the captain indicated that they would have no problem stopping for a visit and still making their scheduled appointment in Rome.
Soon the bishop, dressed in his splendid robes and surrounded by his advisors, boarded a rowboat that carried them off to the little island. As soon as the bishop stepped on the sand, the three hermits prostrated themselves in front of him. After blessing them the bishop asked, “What do you spend all of your time doing here in this desolate place?”
“We spend our time seeking to better love God,” responded one of the hermits hesitantly.
“And what are you studying?” queried the bishop.
The puzzled hermits looked at each other and did not respond.
“Simpletons,” thought the bishop, and he decided to waste no more time with the hermits.
“Let us say the Lord’s Prayer, and then I will be off,” said the bishop with a yawn. Again the hermits looked at each other in bewilderment.
You mean you do not know the Lord’s Prayer?” the bishop cried in amazement.
The hermits shook their heads no.
“Then how can you seek him?” he muttered.
The hermits lowered their heads apologetically and said, ????? “Oh sir, if it would help us to love God more, we would be pleased to learn”.
The bishop, with an air of patronage, replied dryly, “At least I can teach you this,” and he begin to recite the Lord’s Prayer. He then encouraged the hermits to repeat it after him.
They were very slow learners. For several exasperating hours the bishop sat with the hermits, going over and over the words until each could haltingly make their way through the exercise.
The bishop quickly said a prayer over the three hermits and tumbled back into the rowboat. The entourage made their way wearily back to the ship.
“Well?” the captain asked.
“Sheer idiots, mindless morons, a waste of my time,” spat out the bishop. “Let’s get under the wind!”
As the crew raised the anchor, one of the sailors cried out for the captain. “Ahoy! Men off the starboard bow,” he shouted.
It was the three hermits, and to the astonishment of everyone on board, they were walking towards the ship on the water! Once on board they bowed low before the bishop, and with heads hung low one of them said, “Your excellency, we desire for you to teach us how to love our Savior more, but we are ashamed to say we have forgotten the last line of the prayer you taught us.”
Then the bishop, humbled to his core, got down on his knees in front of the three hermits and said, “My brothers, you have no need of me to teach you anything. Give me your blessing and I will go in peace.”
True spirituality comes not from how much you know about God but from how much you love God. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God” (1 Corinthians 8:1-3).
By Angie
February 10, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this
My husband is a mason. I can assure you, this organization can co-exist with religion just as seemlessly as science can. There is no dark, clandestine course of evil behind it. I am sure there have been and are still today men of questionable integrity….just as there are in both protestant and catholic churhes….and in the scientific community. My, the notion that everything other what you hold dear, is somehow evil incarnate is getting tiresome. And by “you”, I mean the masses of conspiracy buffs who see religion and/or science as the devil’s throne rooms. Next thing you know we’ll be hearing that Carpets of Dalton is somehow colluding with the alphabet agencies to over throw the president…..for the love of pete.
By Angie
February 10, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Very well put Texas. Forgive me, please…but is there supposed to be a correlation between how big the state of Texas is and your posts?
By Texas
February 10, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Wiseguy!
By Angie
February 10, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
Thats wiselady to you Mr.
By Adrienne
February 10, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Was anybody else offended by the “baby killer’s” options for sentencing: jail time vs. tubes tied.
Are we reverting back to stone-aged biblical times when it eye-for-an-eye was just punishment? (Wouldn’t be surprising given that conservatives are gaining momentum ie. How boring was the superbowl?)
Because this is a somewhat sexist society, when was the last time a judge offered a rapist the option of jail time or castration? A theif the option of jail time or loss of limb?
This woman committed a God-awful crime; however, she deserves jail time/death penalty or whatever other typical punishments that are warrented in murder cases. Not to get her tubes tied.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Norman, are you impaired in some way I haven’t noticed? You’re delusional or an complete moron or maybe both! It is not merely because it is a “secret societyâ€?, that Catholics cannot be Masons. It is because of the particular kind of secret society that Masonry happens to be. Masonry has a distinctly religious character, a fact which may surprise many American Masons who have joined the Lodge for business, social or political reasons. They will be tempted to deny its religious character. The look upon Masonry as a purely fraternal organization and do not consider it a religion. Either they do not know the true constitution of their Lodge, or Masonic authorities are violating the principles of Masonry, for they definitely emphasize its religious character. It may be fairly assumed that the Grand Lodge of the State of New York knew what it was talking about when arguing its case against a certain Robert Kopp in a trial before the Appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. Kopp had been expelled from the fraternity and had appealed the action of his brethren to the civil court. One of the strong points made by the Grand Lodge during the trial was as follows: * *“The right to membership in the masonic fraternity is very much like membership in the church. Each requires a candidate for admission to subscribe to certain articles of religious belief as an essential prerequisite for membership. Each requires a member to conduct himself thereafter in accordance with certain religious principles. Each requires its members to adhere to certain doctrines of belief and action…â€? “The masonic fraternity may, therefore, be quite properly regarded as a religious society, shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of membership, should be deemed applicable to the masonic fraternity.â€?* * Such a statement speaks for itself. A brief description of the “articles of religious belief which are an essential prerequisite to membership,â€? can be found in the writings of the Grand Master, Albert Pike, generally admitted to be the best authority on Masonic matters in America. “Masonry propagates no creed,â€? he wrote in ‘The Inner Sanctuary,’ “except its own most simple and most sublime one taught by Nature and Reason. There has never been a false religion in the world. The permanent one universal revelation is written in visible Nature and explained by Reason and is completed by the wise analogies of faith. There is one true religion, one dogma, one legitimate belief.â€? This sounds like you Norman - what a surprize! Whatever we may say about these principles, certainly no Catholic could subscribe to them, for they flatly contradict his own religious belief. In fact, it is difficult to see how any person who believes in the truth of Christianity can subscribe to them. How can he believe that there is no such thing as a false religion… that Christianity is merely one of many expressions of his universal true religion and that religion is taught by Freemasonry? No doubt, most Masons in America do not believe this, but nevertheless, it is the teaching of Masonry.
By RS
February 10, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
Adrienne: Re your post; I think that subhuman piece of trash got off TOO easy. And did you see/hear the details on the news? Only 34 & that was her EIGHTH child!!! I pity those children. Some women just keep popping babies out like animals. Now, see, if she’d had an abortion, a clump of cells would have been scraped out & be done with it, period. But no, she had to murder a living baby. And Bible-thumpers wonder why I’m pro-choice. Whatever…
By John
February 10, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this
RS, was it a crime to have children?
By Randy
February 10, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
Wonder why some think they need to use expressions such as Bible-thumpers and Holy rollers etc? I don’t see any need to fight against buddists or any other religion. But then there is no need to fight against something that doesn’t exist. Once again this verifies to me just how important Christianity is, it is so strong and true that those who are not Christian have the need to fight against it(push it away). Listen to your hearts, don’t push away the truth.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Lozen, I have not only read high school geology books, but I have taken 5 college/graduate level geology courses including one on stratigraphy (do you know what that is?). You obviously have not. Take a look at this we site:
http://creationanswers.net/gensci/STRATEXP.HTM
Or perhaps this one:
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm
As for the human footprints/dinosaur footprints find:
Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick, a member of the Creation Research Society, found modern human footprints next to dinosaur footprints along the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas, thus proving that (a) humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and (b) evolution must therefore be wrong. For instance, Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, writes: “One of the most spectacular examples of anamolous fossils is the now well-known case of the Paluxy River footprints, in the Cretaceous Glen Rose formation of central Texas. Here, in the limestone beds, are found large numbers of both dinosaur and human footprints. The tracks occur in trails, and in two or three locations the dinosaur and human trails cross each other, with two known cases where human and dinosaur tracks actually overlap each other… These tracks and their discovery have been conclusively documented by on-the site, at-the-time, motion pictures.” (Henry Morris, “Scientific Creationism”, CLP Publishers, San Diego CA, 1974, pp 122-123)
By Bruce
February 10, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Randy, It’s the only way they can keep the Holy Spirit away from them.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Bruce that is absolutely true, the holy spirit only wants to make their lives fulfilling and give them the great gift of Jesus Christ.
By norman
February 10, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Boscoe: you are so reactionary you don’t even realize that your own Church, the Holy Roman Apostolic One, has lifted the ban on Catholics being members of the Masons.
Living in the past as you do you remind me of Miniver Cheevey in an Edward Arlington Robinson poem:
Miniver loved the Medici, albeit he had never seen one. He would have sinned incessantly, could he have been one.
By Tom
February 10, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Funny how the subject is about the lack of women in science and all this discussion is about abortion. Arguing abortion is a no win situation. You cannot change the mind of someone who has already made it up. Why aren’t there more women in science?
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
As someone that actually works in the field of evolutionary genetics I am quite confident I know more of the subject than you do. Every assertion you put forward has long since been repudiated. I won’t go into all of them here as the internet is rife with those arguments and people can decide for themselves.
You, an educator, know as well as I do that there is nothing scientific about creationism because it only allows one conclusion. Your so called scientist are nothing but parasites that let real scientist do research, which creationist try to discredit based solely on the fact that it contradicts the bible. You demonstrate better than anyone else the absolute danger of fundamentalism..whereupon an intelligent person will give up reason for the sake of blind faith.
Also notice the dates of your reference and the dates of this one. Claim CC101: Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Glen Rose formation at Paluxy River, Texas. Source: Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122. Response: The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs [Kuban 1989; Hastings 1987]. Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting. Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration [Godfrey 1985].
The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists’ wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it [Schadewald 1986]. Links: Kuban, Glen J., 1996. The Texas dinosaur/”man track” controversy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4d References: Godfrey, L. R., 1985. Foot notes of an anatomist. Creation/Evolution 5(1): 16-36. Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987. New observations on Paluxy Tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education 35(1): 4-15. Kuban, Glen, 1989. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Gillette and Lockley, 1989 (see below), pp. 427-440. http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/color.htm Schadewald, Robert J. 1986. Scientific creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 1-9, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html Further Reading: Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley, eds., 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (technical)
By norman
February 10, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Abortion should not be handled in abstracto. It depends on who is getting one. Some groups should get abortions and some should not.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Norman, you are one aren’t you? Very few Catholics even know that info. Well, just so you’re informed. Since the decree “In Eminenti” of Pope Clement XII in 1738, Catholics have been forbidden to join the Masons, and until 1983, under pain of excommunication. (The Orthodox and several Protestant churches also ban membership in the Masons.) Confusion occurred in 1974, when a letter by Cardinal Franjo Seper, then prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was interpreted to mean that Catholics could join Masonic lodges that were not anti-Catholic; the same congregation declared this interpretation as erroneous in 1981.
On Nov. 26, 1983, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, the Sacred Congregation reiterated the ban on Catholics joining the Masons: “The Church’s negative position on Masonic association … remains unaltered, since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the Church’s doctrine. Hence, joining them remains prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in masonic associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion.” However, neither this declaration nor the 1983 Code of Canon Law imposed the penalty of excommunication on Catholics belonging to the Masons.
By lozen
February 10, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
Thank you Johnson. I know creationism is a “belief” based on a creation myth in the old testament. Therefore there cannot be any unbiased evidence for creationism. I really appreciate your information. Chuck, as you say, is a prime example of the absolute danger of fundamentalism. He certainly has given up reason for the sake of blind faith. Fundamentalist dig in their heels and fight against humananity moving on into the future. As a scientist friend of mine once said, “If it weren’t for religious fanatics, we’d already be living and traveling in space.”
By lozen
February 10, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
Thank you Johnson. I really appreciate your information. Creationism is a “belief” based on one of many creation myths human beings have come up with to explain where we came from and what we’re doing here. There simply cannot be any unbiased evidence for creationism. Chuck is a prime example of the absolute danger of fundamentalism and it is very sad and confusing to me. How can so many people in the 21st century still be clinging to myths of thousands of years ago? What makes an educated person give up reason for the sake of blind faith? Why do fundamentalists dig in their heels and fight against humanity moving on into the future? As a scientist friend of mine once said, “If it weren’t for religious fanatics holding us back, we’d already be living and traveling in space.” How does this happen to people?
By lozen
February 10, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Sorry for the double posting. Didn’t think the first one went through.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Lozen, it’s all our fault, us religious “fanatics” have prevented space travel and space colonization. That must be the 11th commandment - “Thou shall not live on the moon”.
By AllaboutME
February 10, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
…so what about the lady who got sterilized by law? yes, she got out of murder…but why no reprocussions to the man(men) who knocked her up?
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
I don’t understand that state of mind either, but it’s not a winnable argument on either side. Even in an argument there is some common ground as to what is correct or incorrect, but that doesn’t exist here. I think there is some confusion however as to what evolutionary biologists acutally do. I am a research assistant, not a primary investigator (I work for one) so I won’t call myself an evolutionary biologist, but those that are do not spend their time trying to prove evolution (or to be more specific macro-evolution for Randy). That is already a given among the scientific community. The research is based more on the mechanics of the process so it does not rely on the fossil record (the domain of paleontologist and geologist). Most research has to do with genetics and/or behavior in small observable populations. At any rate, there doesn’t have to be a conflict between evolution and religion, except for those that have to literally interpret Geneis. I personally like the idea that a divine hand has guided the process..but I don’t know if that is true, and I certainly don’t know how to test for it. Anyway,this is my last post on the subject. My department has restrictions on debating creationist publically (gives them credibility that they dont’ deserve) so I’m probably pushing my luck.
By norman
February 10, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
There was a medieval Spanish king, Alfonso the something or other, who said that had he been present at the Creation he would have done a better job.
The design in the universe may not be as INLELLIGENT as some think.
By norman
February 10, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
A Spanish medieval King, Alfonso the Something or Other once said that had he been present at the Creation he would have done a better job.
The DESIGN in the universe may not be as INTELLIGENT as some think.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
As the world famous astrobiologist, Paul Davies, says:
It’s a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living cell.2
Dr Werner Gitt is a leading German scientist and young-earth creationist who is an expert on information theory. In his powerful, tightly reasoned book, In the Beginning was Information, he argues, “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.�3
The contrast between evolution and creation is clear. Evolutionists believe in the tree of life�that all living things are descended from one common ancestor. That is, they believe in vertical change from one kind of creature to another. Creationists believe in the forest of life�horizontal variation within the original created kind, but not one kind changing into another. Which view really fits the scientific evidence?
British scientist, Edward Blyth, discussed the concept of natural selection(without using the term) 25 years before Darwin published his famous book. Blyth attributed variation within the original created kinds to changes in environment or food supply.
Johnson, you can argue all that you want for your position that all life sprang from ONE common ancestor, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support that theory. How, for instance do you explain the following:
Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies (Poecilia reticulata) from a waterfall pool teeming with predators to previously guppy-free pools above the falls where there was only one known possible predator (of small guppies only, therefore large guppies would be safe).1 The descendants of the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring.
The speed of these changes bewildered evolutionists, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt. One evolutionist said, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years–a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.’2
Many other examples can be found at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp
If species can adapt quickly then the evolutionist argument to the contrary is completely wrong. What else might they have missed?
By chuck
February 10, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I’m glad you can depend on Johnson to try to make your arguments for you. Unfortunately, like most liberals, you start out with the answer that best allows you to do whatever you want to do, then accept only information that supports that answer. I dare say that you have never researched any of the geological OR biological findings on creation, because then you would have to accept the fact that the God of the Bible is the one true God and that his judgements are true and sure. That would put a real crimp in your lifestyle choices and you just couldn’t handle that. I think the real reason that his department doesn’t want them debating creationists is because evolutionary genetics can’t explain the origins of life and the millions of anomalies that blow holes in their theories…especially in the fossil record.
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
I guess that wasn’t my last post…but Chuck’s post can’t go unchallenged. His is a classic creationist trick. Take real scientist work, quote scientist out of context, infer religious explanation.
Here is a place to start. Look up both sides of the issue. Decide for yourself.
http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/pub/public_individual.pl?faculty=711
By chuck
February 10, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
National Geographic, in a recent article on this subject leads readers to believe that Darwin thought the fossil record supported his theory. But actually he admitted more than once in his famous book that the fossil record is an embarrassment to his theory of descent from a common ancestor. He knew that if his theory was true, there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile, 75% reptile-25% bird, 50% reptile-50%bird, 25% reptile-75%bird, 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Darwin attributed the lack of evidence to our ignorance of the fossil record. But today our museums are loaded with fossils and the missing links are still missing.
As the late Harvard evolutionary geologist, Stephen Gould, put it:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7
By chuck
February 10, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
The proponents of evolution themselves KNOW it to be UNPROVABLE as is made clear in the following examples.
In a 1979 letter responding to the late creationist, Luther Sunderland, Colin Patterson, then Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, concurred:
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.â€? I will lay it on the line â€â€? there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Richard Dawkins’ evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, is emphatic:
“However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. … In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
By RS
February 10, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
John: No, having babies isn’t illegal (although in some cases, it SHOULD be) but disposing of an unwanted one by killing it AFTER it’s been born is a terrible crime. Frankly, I don’t know many people who can handle 8 kids in this fast-paced world but that’s no excuse for what she did. AllAboutMe: I think the reason the men who impregnanted her suffered no repercussions is because SHE’S the one who committed the actual murder.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
AND, Johnson, since you are in the Biology field, tell me why your textbooks continue to use the so-called evolutionary chart of the horse that has been proven over and over again to be a total hoax.
Here is another web site you can check out if you aren’t afraid of the truth. BTW, I just looked at a brand new biology text book and guess what was in it? The very same chart. Don’t talk to me about how Creationists take things out of context. Evolutionists use things that they KNOW to be false because they cannot support their arguments through scientific means.
By Boscoe
February 10, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Norman you like Voltaire…this is so ironic! In the interval between his return from Berlin and his establishment at Ferney, he completed his most ambitious work, the Essai sur l’histoire generale et sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations (Essay on General History and on the Customs and the Character of Nations, 1756). In this work, a study of human progress, Voltaire decries supernaturalism and denounces religion and the power of the clergy, although he makes evident his own belief in the existence of God. Go figure!
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Just to be relavant to this topic, my boss (an excelletent scientist) is a woman. She does pretty much live in the lab though.
The most disgusting trick of the creationist is to take the comments of scientist out of context. Science is full of unknowns…that’s why it’s science. Just because a scientist believes one explanation of evolution is incorrect does not mean he(or she) believes there is no scientific explanation.
And if one facet of the process isn’t correct, it certainly doesn’t mean there is a supernatural explanation.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
The greatest minds in the last century, I can name thousands but Einstein, Newton and DaVinci will start the list all believed in a “creator”. Or we can listen to someone who calls himself “Johnson”. Easy decision, DA.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Johnson is going to tell us the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around the earth next.
By Texas
February 10, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
It was a gorgeous February afternoon in Florida. Sunlight reflected against the water of the Miami River where 17 year old Nancy Burns sat inside a 1969 Mach I Mustang, gazing out at the marina. The car was parked on the marina lawn, about two feet from the edge of the seawall. Outside the car, Nancy’s boyfriend, Mark Smith who washed cars on weekends to earn extra money, washed and polished the car while Nancy waited inside. Sitting in the passenger seat, Nancy reached over to the driver’s seat and turned the key, which was still in the ignition. Intending to turn the key only one notch, Nancy mistakenly started the car. It lurched forward toward the seawall and plummeted over the edge into the marina. There was no time for her to escape. Thus began the longest fifteen minutes of her life. While Mark’s father called for emergency rescue, Mark dove again and again, trying unsuccessfully to locate the car in the murky depths. By the time rescuers arrived, five minutes had passed, and no one believed Nancy could still be alive. She was. Keeping cool, she managed to locate a pocket of air near a window. While divers frantically attempted to free her, she pressed her face against the shrinking air bubble. Nearly fifteen minutes went by before she finally passed out. But by then, firefighter Larry Norton, on the last second of air himself, managed to pry open the passenger door, locate Nancy, and drag her to the surface. One minute more and both Nancy and Larry would have perished. Minutes. How many of us, during the course of our day, bother to consider the value of a minute? In a matter of minutes, cities have been demolished by earthquakes, homes destroyed by fire, and lives snuffed out by random gunfire of gang violence. It took less than a minute for an atomic bomb to destroy nearly five square miles of Hiroshima and hundreds of thousands of lives. One minute Joni Erickson Tada was a vibrant, healthy teenager, about to dive into a lake. The next, she was floundering beneath the surface, near death, her neck broken, completely paralyzed. Minutes. Every minute somebody dies. Somebody’s life is changed, perhaps scarred forever. A matter of minutes—that’s all it takes for all that we’ve worked for and all that we’ve dreamed about to come to nothing. We can go along our entire lives thinking we’re okay, we’re doing fine. But the moment will come when we’ll have to face the truth the wealthy landowner in Luke’s gospel faced: “This night your soul will be required of you” (Luke 12:20). We’ll pass from this world into the presence of God. In that instant, our place in eternity will be clear. We’ll either be held accountable for our sins and judged accordingly, or we’ll be welcomed into God’s presence, completely forgiven. Minutes. That’s all it takes for our eternal destiny to be decided. A word spoken, a prayer of repentance— The choice is ours. We can be set free from the power of sin and death in our life and be at peace with God. All in a matter of minutes.
By Bruce
February 10, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
I think I read in one post this (or last) week that since you cannot see God there must not be one. Well if evolution is provable I would like to see a half something. Half man half monkey or fish or whatever. Don’t give me your book knowledge mobo-jumbo, or he said/she said, I want to see, or hold it. Why is it that fish are not still evoling into elephants, or shakes into birds? What made evolution STOP!!!!! You can think you came from a monkey but I KNOW I didn’t…
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Randy,
If you believe that Genesis is absolutely 100% right then the argument is pointless. If you believe however, there is room for interpretation, then you and I would no doubt find some type of common ground on the subject. As I said before, I am open to the idea that evolution is guided by a divine hand…within the bounds of what we know scientifically.
Chuck, I vaguely remember the issue about the horse from school. I believe the horse chart has been modified since the original incorrect one and is accepted as being scientifically correct but I haven’t looked that up (and really don’t want to). If it’s wrong then those who care should contact the authors to have it removed or modified with the correct information. However, the statement “God plopped the horse down on earth” is not the correct information for a science text. And it’s probably more your biology book than mine…you work in the school system.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
AND Johnson,
How about Haekels’s frauds? First he makes drawings of non-existent entities that were supposed to be evidence of material connecting inorganic matter with organic matter. He called these things Monera and presented it as if these had been found. They didn’t exist.
Then he creates a “speechless ape”, had an artist draw one for him to serve as the missing link between ape and man, even giving it a scientific name though one had never been found.
FINALLY, he decides that human embryos at the beginning, look just like all other mammals. He creates a set of drawings showing a human baby with gills and a tail. He took drwings of a dog embryo and morhed them into a human embryo and presented these as actual evidence that humans came from fish and apes. He admitted his own fraud years later as he began to take heat from the scientific community. The problem is that evolutionary biologists STILL USE these fraudulent drawings in textbooks today. If you really have SCIENTIFIC evidence of evolution, why do you not use that in textbooks RATHER than these well-known HOAXES? The obvious answer is that you don’t have any real science to back up these crazy notions. That is also why ya’ll have to squelch ANY attempt to suggest an alternate theory, because evolution would be seen for what it really is.
By Tom
February 10, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
She probably had additional children so she could get a raise courtesy of the US Govt tax payers.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
BTW Johnson, I went to the web site on Dr. Reznick. I read what he said about his OWN research as an evolutionary biologist. He said himself that the adaptation of the guppies occurred, and I quote “They have also shown that evolution by natural selection can be remarkably fast, on the order of four to seven orders of magnitude faster than inferred from the fossil record.” Evolutionists have ALWAYS said that the real account of the origin of species…also known as the Bible…was impossible, because species took millions of years to evolve. I guess that is NOT the case as proven by an EVOLUTIONIST.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Evolutionists claim vestigial characteristics or organs as proof of evolution. These are aspects of the body that are claimed to be useless leftovers from our animal ancestry. There are two problems with this argument. One, the loss of function (through the loss of genetic information) cannot be evidence of the ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form (which would require an increase of information). Secondly, nearly all of the 180 “vestigial organs� in man cited by evolutionists as proof of evolution at the turn of the 20th century are now known (because of medical research) to have at least one function.
Why can’t ya’ll just admit that you are just guessing and that so far almost all of your guessing has been WRONG?
By chuck
February 10, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
You will notice Lozen, that your HERO Johnson has no answers for the many evidences that I have put forth for Creationism. I go back to my original point. You will believe whatever comes closest to matching the lifestyle you have chosen.
By the way, I got wrapped up in this discussion of evolution and forgot to respond to the gay guy, Seaborn. GOD DID NOT MAKE YOU GAY. You chose that lifestyle for yourself. There is NOT ONE IOTA of evidence that homosexuality is in ANY WAY genetic OR Natural. God wouldn’t make of you something that is an abomination to Him.
By Whiley
February 10, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
ONCE again the topic of why women are socially held back from jobs such as, lets say, IN SCIENCE, ISN’T even being discussed. It’s just not that important. What IS important are religious arguments, abortion, whores & straight men that choose to be gay.
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Well Chuck you’ve convinced me. I thought all I learned about evolution in school and here in the lab was much more complex than your examples but my educational and research background is no match for your lightning fast cut-and-paste google searches to creationists web sites. I will go give my notice and urge the rest of the people in my department to abandon their careers and research. You are a credit to the fine academic acheivements that Georgia and Alabama are so well known for.
By RS
February 10, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Sigh…Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, no one CHOOSES to be gay. Did you CHOOSE to be straight? Goodness no, that’s just how you are. No one is an “abomination” for being what they can’t help. Homosexuality may not be natural to you or me, but it is to those who are gay & there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that
By chuck
February 10, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
I know it is HARD WHILEY, but try to follow the thread. These conversations always start ou addressing the original topic (almost always), but just like any normal conversation, other topics come up during that discussion that lead the conversation in a variety of other directions, connected by various threads back to the original. This is what a BLOG is all about.
By Hugh G Reaction
February 10, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
RS, if there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that then would you be willing to add a third party to your marriage?
By chuck
February 10, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Everybody is BORN STRAIGHT RS, you don’t have to choose that. We were created MALE AND FEMALE NOT male, female and shemale. That is such an intellectually bankrupt defense of homosexuality. Cite the studies to the contrary or at least try to make a reasoned argument for your position. The only species of animal that engages in homosexuality is the human one. HMMMMM…we are also the ONLY species that can make moral decisions…HMMMMM.
As for you Johnson, convinced or not, you still have not refuted these “simple” examples that I have provided for you. When you can actually refute one, then we can talk.
Is there any scientific evidence to show that ONE Species changed into ANOTHER species through macro-evolution? Is there even ONE example in the fossil record that PROVES the theory of evolution? Are the examples I gave you FALSE? If so, HOW are they false? What scientific proof do you offer? Maybe that should have been your last post earlier. You keep making yourself look less and less like a scientist and more and more like someone who washes test tubes for a living.
By Tom
February 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
I imagine Chuck has a white hood & robe at home that he wears on occasion. (but not at Halloween)
By Johnson
February 10, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
aaagh…I try to get out of this, but Chuck’s inane comments keep pulling me back. Lozen…you can see why I said it’s an unwinnable argument. Chuck I have real work to do…I can’t spend my whole day teaching you evolution.
By Tim
February 10, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Thank you RS… Chuck… like RS said… Did you choose to be heterosexual? I get sick and tired of people like you who have NO CLUE about me telling me what I ‘chose’ to be? you know nothing about me and have not lived one second living my life… and last time I checked you weren’t God either… so until you turn into God and know everything about me then stop telling me what I chose to be… like I and others have said… inform me of when in your life you ‘chose’ to be straight
p.s. homosexuality is only referred to being an abomination in the Old Testament… right next to wearing mixed fabrics and eating pork (have another piece of bacon!)… and the original words that have been translated to mean ‘abomination’ simply means it was ‘unclean’for the Isrealites… because God didn’t want them doing the same things that Gentiles were doing (things like eating pork)… NO WHERE in the Bible does it refer to homosexuality as being immoral… and before you start spouting off scripture in the New Testament it doesnt say it is immoral there either… IN THE ORIGINAL text!
By Whiley
February 10, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
lol I’m not saying it’s not completely entertaining, this is. But for this bunch it seems we don’t really need a new topic each week because the same thing keeps being debated. lol
By Tim
February 10, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Chuck… if I have, from my earliest memory, never been attracted to a woman then when did I choose to be gay… when I was a toddler?
By Eugene
February 10, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
As a psychiatrist and psychologist who have treated a significant number of men from various communities over the past 25 years for same-sex attraction (SSA or homosexuality) and for pedophilia and ephebophilia (homosexual behavior with adolescents). In treating those who have engaged in pedophilia and ephebophilia we have observed that these men almost without exception suffered from a denial of sin in their lives. They were unwilling to admit and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger. This anger, which originated most often from disappointments and hurts with their peers and/or fathers, was often directed toward the religious authorities. Rejecting teachings on sexual morality, these men for the most part adopted the utilitarian sexual ethic. They came to see their own pleasure as the highest end and used others � including adolescents and children � as sexual objects. They consistently refused to examine their consciences, to accept teachings on moral issues as a guide for their personal actions.. Tragically, these mistakes allowed these men to justify their behaviors. For over twenty years, activists, intent on changing the laws on sexual orientation, have put forward a massive public relations campaign specifically designed to spread misinformation that will change the social acceptance of homosexuality. For example, many people sincerely believe that scientific research has produced conclusive evidence that homosexuality is a genetically inherited condition, determined before birth, and cannot be changed. In fact, no such evidence exists. Several studies have been promoted in the media as providing the “proof,� but when one reads these studies, one discovers the authors do not even claim to have presented such proof. There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction pattern.One of the reasons why people have been so willing to accept the idea that same-sex attraction is genetically determined is their own experience with men who are extremely effeminate and have been so since early childhood. This condition of extreme effeminacy is called Gender Identity Disorder (GID). The differences between boys with GID and other boys are so profound, that those observing them conclude that the boys with GID must have been born that way. Those who treat GID have found that effective family therapy in which the father bonds more closely with the son and affirms his son’s masculinity can in a relatively short time result in the elimination of these symptoms and the emergence of normal boyish behavior. Tragically, because this information is not widely known most boys with GID do not receive treatment and approximately 75% of them will go on to develop SSA in adolescence.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Tim, I have read that being homosexual for a man is caused by a lack of a male figure(or a strong male influence) at a critical time in early childhood development(12 to 18 months). I’m not sure if this true, maybe you can give us your input. I’m a strong Christian, however I respect you reguardless of your sexual preference.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
Eugene, That was a very good, now can you do one on Norman, he is a basket case.
By Tim
February 10, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Randy… I have heard those claims before too… and honestly it sounds like a great argument… one of the main problems I have is that there are plenty of gay men out there who have had strong male role models through out their entire lives (the person I am with now has, and has had his entire life, a great relationship with his father)… personally, my parents did divorce when I was young… but my father was still very much in the picture while I was growing up as well as a caring step-dad and two incredible grandfathers (my Papa Norris is the greatest man in the entire world!)… so as you can see in my own personal life I had plenty of good male influences while I was growing up… so what made me and the other gay men out there who had good male role models become gay… I also would like to say that I did ‘boy’ things growing up like go hunting, fishing, played baseball (8 years), and played soccer… I did not have GID (that term is usually used for transexuals Eugene not little boys who have feminine traits… honestly I only have a BA in psych but I NEVER heard anyone of my professors refer to boys with feminine traits as having GID… maybe that is something you learn in Grad school?)… I was and still am a guy… and enjoy being a guy… no GID here… being gay doesn’t mean that you act like a girl or want to be a girl or want to act like a girl… it means you are attracted to the same-sex
I appreciate you being civil and respectful… being raised in church (and being a Christian) I can understand why you may not agree with my lifestyle… but like I said I do appreciate you being respectful
Honestly… I don’t know what ‘made me gay’ I dont know if it was nature or nuture… what I do know is that I did not choose to be gay and I don’t believe that I could somehow be altered and become straight (tried that since puberty… it didn’t take too well)
By Tom
February 10, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Eugene,
Do one for Chuck to. He needs it bad.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
To all of you promoters of homosexuality who keep saying that God made you that way Check out the following:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ336.HTM
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.
As to being called “homophobic”, I object to your use of the word “homophobic.” What does that word mean? It means that one has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Is this an accurate description of the Christian position? Are we afraid of homosexuals? No. Most people who are opposed to homosexuality are not opposed to it because it frightens them, but because they see it as morally repulsive and unnatural. Calling Christians homophobic is nothing more than name calling, putting a distasteful label with a negative connotation on us so as to discredit our position before it is ever heard.
“Homosexuality is not ‘normal’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm…Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait….” (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)
We determine one’s sex by looking at their parts. If one’s parts are designed to function one way, and yet their sexual desires are directed in another way it seems reasonable to believe that something is awry. When one’s desires do not match the hardware afforded them by nature the problem is not with the hardware, but with the desires. When something is created for a specific purpose and yet an individual is psychologically incapable of using it for its intended purpose, shouldn’t this clue us into the fact that something is wrong? This observation alone ought to clue us in to the fact that homosexuality is not natural, nor is it “normal.” Homosexuality is a perversion of the body’s natural function.
BTW, it seems to me very odd that the same people who fight for the evolutionary position are the same ones who are pro-homosexual. It seems to me that those two are mutually exclusive under the rules of “natural selection”.
Then there is this little tidbit of research:
Practicing homosexuals as a group are more prone to sexual molestation of children than are their heterosexual counterparts. The statistics quoted below bear this fact out:
Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual.’ A 1995 survey of 18- to 49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In short, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.
While it is technically correct that heterosexuals account for most molestations (because 98% of the population is heterosexual), homosexuals are much more dangerous to our children on a per capita basis. In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. 32% of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.
Homosexuality is by nature, unnatural.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
BTW Tom,
I think you’ve got a hood, too. It is obvious you’ve been hoodwinked.
By Bruce
February 10, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
If homosexuality is something you are born with why is it that more members of the same family aren’t homosexual? My own family is very large in numbers but at best we can only count two that are homosexual. I might add that neither claim they were born that way. I have three sisters and one brother. Three have brown eyes and two with blue. From my Dad and Mom, 5 kids, 10 grandkids, and 5 great grandkids, there are many that have brown eyes and many that have blue. But only one in homosexual. Common sense should tell everyone that homosexuality is a lifestyle you choose not heredity. Surely the homosexual gene would have emerged dominate in more than one. Eye color did.
By lozen
February 10, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Especially for you Chuck,
1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? 2) Atheist: of course. 3) How about the slightly modified proposition X’? 4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. 5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? 6) Atheist: No! And I didn’t agree with X’! 7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well? Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway? 8) I’m glad we all agree….. …. 37) So now we have used propositions X, X’, Y, Y’, Z, Z’, P, P’, Q and Q’ to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? 3 Atheist: Like I said, so far I’ve only agreed with X. Where is this going? …. 81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L”, L”’ and J” are true. Agreed? 82) I HAVEN’T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU’VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!? …. 177) …and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ” and BTU’ are all obviously valid. Agreed? 17 [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust] 179) Therefore, God exists.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Does anyone really read Iozen posts? What planet are you from? We are talking about Homosexuality not the existance of God. If you want to be one of the 2 or 3% of people who is a atheist, knock yourself out.
By chuck
February 10, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Here is one for you Lozen,
1)Argument from ignorance: I don’t know so I’ll believe whatever allows me to be the most perverted. Therefore, there is no God.
2)Argument from cultural indoctrination: My teacher said it so therefore evolution is true.
By Bruce
February 10, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Lozen, What’ca talking about Willis? Here’s one for you, if x+y=Z, then a must equal z since b is before c and I think you need to go wee wee.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Tim, I think you can have a good male influence in your life, but at a critical stage(where you are looking to define your sexuality) in that age group(12 to 18 months)your father is working to much or not around enough when you are needing his influence. He may be a loving father, just not present in that small window and this is extremely critical. That would explain why someone who is a Christian and a good guy(you) would end up that way.
By Randy
February 10, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Here’s one from Iozen,
1) I want to be God, therefore I can’t worship or believe in the real God.
2) I think the universe created itself and I just waiting for a few million to create itself. (then I won’t have to work)
By Tim
February 10, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Randy… if that were the case then why wouldn’t everyone whose father was working too much be gay… and for that matter at that age I was at my grandparents house during the day… and my grandfather was there… so even if my dad did work too much I still had a strong male influence all day long (may not have been my father during the day… but still a fatherly influence)
By chuck
February 10, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
BTW, Old Johnson let you down Lozen. He couldn’t carry the argument for you so he pulled out the old name calling and I don’t have time routines. I think what really happened is that he is NOT the scientist he represented himself to be. My guess is that he graduated from HIGH SCHOOL, maybe went to tech school (although I doubt it) and now works as a lab assistant…meaning that he washes test tubes for a living. He failed to bring up EVEN ONE scientific refutation of my posts. Sorry girl, You are just going to have to find somebody else.
By lozen
February 10, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Well Randy, try to pay attention now, the Argument From Exhaustion isn’t just about god and atheism you see. It also applies to creationism, homophobia, abortion, sex, all the topics you hold in such fondness. What it is saying is no matter what the topic you will ignore anything that doesn’t support your beliefs so that you can continue to feel that you are right. Beginning to get the picture now Randy? And you will hang on and on and on like a hound dog to a bone repeating the same tired old arguments until people with brains just throw up their hands out of exhaustion. No matter what anyone says you just go back to your endless, pointless rants that prove nothing. And you’re not even as good at it as Chuck!
By chuck
February 10, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
Oh Lozen, I also have to disagree with that old scientist friend of yours, too. Some of ARE already living in space…well at least youare a “space cadet”.
By Tom
February 10, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
Lozen, Randy and Chuck are losers. Might as well give up til next week. I get my sermons from church and don’t need BIGOTS to regurgitate bible verses over and over. I wonder if these guys are friends with Eric Rudolph?
By chuck
February 10, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Tim and Seaborn, Maybe you should read the following to see where I am coming from on the issue of homosexuality. Even if, AND keep in mind that there is NO EVIDENCE that homosexuality is genetic, the following would still be true.
It came from the web site: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/homosex.htm
Any discussion of homosexuality would be incomplete without addressing the difference between act and orientation. Many homosexuals will say, “I was born a homosexual�God made me this way; therefore, my thoughts, desires, and lifestyle should not be condemned.� If some people are born with a predisposition toward homosexual behavior, does that somehow make their homosexual lusts and behavior acceptable to God? Absolutely not!
The biblical doctrine of original sin teaches that all men are born with a sinful nature or disposition. The first man, Adam, was the covenant head and representative of the whole human race before God. When Adam sinned, the guilt and pollution of sin passed to the whole human race (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). Every person (except Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit) is born with a sinful nature. It is wrong to say, “God made me a homosexual (or a liar, or a murderer),� because sin did not originate with God but with man (i.e., our forefather Adam).
The fact that all human beings are born with an orientation (or proclivity) toward sin does not excuse sinful lusts or behavior. The Bible says that all men are born liars (Ps. 58:3). Yet the Bible also says that lying is a sin (Ex. 20:16, Dt.5:20); it further says that liars will not enter the kingdom of God (Rev. 21:27). If some people are born with a proclivity toward theft, homosexuality, murder, bestiality, sadomasochism, mutilation etc., that does not somehow excuse their sinful behavior. The argument that orientation towards homosexuality somehow makes it acceptable to God could be used to excuse all sinful behavior. Such an argument destroys personal responsibility; it renders God’s law meaningless and salvation through Jesus Christ unnecessary. All men will be held responsible before God for every sinful thought, word and deed, regardless of one’s orientation. Blaming God for one’s sinful behavior may make the homosexual feel better, but it will be ineffective on the day of judgment, when all unrepentant homosexuals are cast into hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Rev. 21:27). Furthermore the Bible teaches that man cannot blame God for his sinful behavior, because God doesn’t tempt man. Man is drawn away by his own lust: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death� (Jas. 1:13-15).
Some argue that homosexual acts are indeed immoral, but homosexual feelings and desires for some are inborn and therefore unavoidable and not sinful. The Bible does teach that it is not a sin to be tempted (Christ was tempted, yet He never committed sin, Heb. 2:18). What is sinful is when a person dwells upon that which tempts him, fantasizes and makes plans to engage in that sinful behavior. The Bible clearly teaches that it is not only a sin to commit evil acts, it is also a sin to have immoral desires, lusts and thoughts.
Jesus Christ forbade heterosexual lust in Matthew 5:27-29. Jesus said that when a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her in his heart (Mt. 5:28). The idea of condemning only the outward act but not the inward lust was a doctrine of the Pharisees; Christ strongly condemned such false teaching (Mt. 5:21-22, 15:19-20). The Apostle Paul in forbade ungodly fantasies, lusts, and evil desires (Col. 3:5). Paul said that Christians must sanctify (i.e., make holy) their very thoughts (Phil. 4:8). James said that if desires are not controlled, sin will follow (Jas. 4:1). Inward, homosexual lust is condemned in Romans 1:24, 26, 27. The prophet Isaiah said that repentance must extend to one’s “thoughts� as well as to one’s “way� (Isa. 55:7). Since the Bible condemns sinful lusts and sinful acts there can be no such thing as a Christian homosexual�or a Christian murderer or a Christian thief. If a homosexual becomes a Christian, he must put away both homosexual acts and thoughts; therefore, when he becomes a Christian, he ceases to be a homosexual. He may still be tempted at times but he refuses to dwell on, fantasize about, and commit such abominable deeds. “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy; meditate on these things� (Phil. 4:8). “We should not lust after evil things as they also lusted� (1 Cor. 10:6).
I think this post says everything that I want to say about the subject.CAIO
By norman
February 11, 2005 07:30 AM | Link to this
Boscoe: Voltaire said he believed in God because he worried that without the fear of hell the lower orders would cut the throats of the rich and steal their property. In time he hoped (foolish he!) that the masses would learn to live morally without a belief in God. It may be that the fear of hell is necessary to keep the rednecks in line. In other words, faith in God is for the ignorant and the poor, not for good bourgeois like you and me.
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this
Norman, Voltaire believed in God so that the lower orders would have a fear of hell? Or maybe was it because he himself feared hell? Just so you’re clear, we poor , ignorant Christians do not fear hell. We, if I may speak for other Christians as well, only fear the wrath of an angry God. It amazes me that during the entire 2000 plus years Christianity has existed, the history of Christ has not changed. It’s reasonable to surmise that if Christianity were perpetuated from a myth than the story would have been embellished to convince the unbelievers. Yet, it remains steadfastly the same, century after century.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this
Norman: Voltaire also thought that Christianity would be gone off the face of the earth 100 years after he died. Instead they were holding a bible study in his home 100 years later. Tom, where I come from a loser is someone who argues a lose/lose scenerio which is what you are doing, you lose either way. Iozen, I don’t quote bible verses, I hit people with logical explanations. With what I have heard on these posts from Christians, Texas, Boscoe, Chuck(super posts you guys) etc and you guys say you are not convinced, then you would not be convinced if Jesus came down from heaven and shook your hand. So I see why now that God doesn’t do that(appear and make himself known). I have heard the arguments from Christians and non-Christians and you non-Christians have such a weak case, its really pitiful, on the other hand the Christian case is ROCK SOLID. Sorry.
By Johnson
February 11, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this
Gee Chuck, maybe if you would actually provide some evidence I could refute it. All you have done is provide obsolete quotes from biologists that any one knows is taken out of context. Gould would go on to describe is views on punctuated equilibrium, not creationism. The only reason you provide such quotes is for deception. How Christian.
This link addresses all of your issues and most of the others you would most likely bring up.
www.freeinquiry.com/challenge.html
I actually tried to send you several references to evolution studies but the ajc must have found some problem with them because my post didn’t show up.
Look up species rings in the green warbler. Here is a link to a San Diego study ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm. Go to the University of North Carolina web site and visit their biology page. You will find dozens of articles proving evolution.
By the way, BS Zoology UNC, MS Computer Information Systems GSU.
You apparently have much more time on your hands than I do. Arent’ you in the school system? Is that the Georgia Public School system? Are tax dollers financing your daily religious activities here?
I find you to be the most intellectually handicapped person I have ever encountered and I’m embarassed to have spent this much time with such a close minded person
By norman
February 11, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
You’re in error again, Boscoe. The story of Christ has changed. It started out as a belief in an extraordinary man sent presumably by God to purify Israel. This belief was the faith of the Jerusalem community led by Jesus’ brother James. After the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD the Gentiles took over the beliefs of the community, making the original Jewish-Christians seem like heretics. The real beliefs of the early community continued among the Ebionites and finally found its way, with changes and distortions, into Islam where Jesus is a great prophet and nothing more. The divine Jesus, the Trinity, the vicarious atonement and all that comes from Hellenistic myth. The Christian Church has a distorted reading of Jesus and the earliest tradition is found only in Islam. If you read your Spengler you would understand, but you only read Catholic nonsense.
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this
As I said, the history of Christ and His Passion has not changed over the centuries. I certainly didn’t say that those that oppose Christianity haven’t tried. The readings of Spengler, and his kind, convince me all the more which history is correct.
By norman
February 11, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
The Gospels are not history, they are romances.
By norman
February 11, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Daddy: what shall I read you kids tonight? How about Goldilocks? Jimmy: No Daddy, read us the story about the bear. Daddy: You mean Goldilocks and the Three Bears? Jimmy: No Daddy, the one about the Papa Bear who was hurt by the hunters, he wanted to tell the hunters he really liked them but they kept shooting at him. So he sent his oldest cub to the hunters hoping they would accept him. They shot and skinned him and buried him. Then the Papa Bear forgave them if they would love his dad son, but they didn’t.
Think about this. The fairy tale told to a child. How well the Gospel story parallels it.
“When I was a child I thought like a child.” Saul of Tarsus
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Norman, wasn’t it you who said they read Spengler?
By norman
February 11, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Actually we could stay with Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The three bears represent the Trinity and Goldilocks the Madonna.
By Tim
February 11, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
I like Madonna… she looks GREAT in the Versace ads
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
As you plainly see Norman is a staunch supporter of Parousia.
By Tom
February 11, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Randy,
Looks like Lozen took my advise.
By Angie
February 11, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
Boscoe and Norman….. What is the point of bickering ladies? Honestly, you both sound like two old blue hairs…and I’m not far off from that, so I feel comfy saying it. Both of you bring valid points to the table. You also both stand firm in your beliefs. Yes Norman, even you believe in something. You will not change the other’s mind, or make them see things differntly. Let us change the subject shall we? No more Voltaire, Spengler, Jesus….how about paper vs plastic…..regular vs decaf….and my personal favorite, scented vs unscented.
By Tim
February 11, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
Angie… paper, regular… scented or unscented what?
By Tom
February 11, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
I agree Angie. I prefer unscented. It is less offensive to the nose.
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
I may not Angie but I love a challenge.
By Tom
February 11, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
OK. I challenge you not to talk religion.
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Tom,if you don’t like what’s on turn the channel.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
I believe (from my own personal research and study over the course of 45 years)that the bible is a record of the history of the Hebrew people and their ideas of 2,000+ years ago about where they came from and what they were doing here. (That’s what I believe; I will not try to force you to follow my beliefs and all I ask from you is the same.) This is a country of religious freedom.) The Hebrews were a small nomadic group of people with no written records until much later than the great civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, etc. It does not make sense to me that a god who wished to communicate with all humans would communicate exclusively through this one small group of people. I say “it” because nobody can define the great mystery. Nobody knows what it is. Nobody. Those who claim to know don’t know. The beginning of wisdom is knowing what we do not know. (I will not try to force my beliefs on you through legislation. We live in a free country where you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want.) I do not believe in original sin; that is a human invention. Children are not born tainted with sin. (If you want to believe that fine; I feel sorry for your children but I can’t control what you teach your children.) It is when you try to control my life based on your religious beliefs, that your beliefs become a problem for me. Noone is entitled to tell another consenting adult what to do in their bedroom. When you start trying that, it’s not fine. You call abortion murder but do you call dropping bombs on women and children in Iraq murder? No, you don’t. Abortion is not murder. You can believe abortion is murder if you want and nobody can force you to have an abortion. But when you start trying to change laws to prevent women who don’t believe abortion is murder from having an abortion then your beliefs become a problem. I do not believe abortion is murder. I’m in my 60’s and I’ll never need an abortion, but it should be available to any women because otherwise women are not free to live as they choose. If someone came up to shake my hand claiming to be a rabbi who died 2000 years ago (or Shiva or Athena or Artemis or Zeus or Persephone) I certainly would check her/him out because that would be so unbelievable. I have read a lot of science fiction and will not totally rule out the possibility through time travel or some such. Then if, by some mysterious lifting of natural law, it were that Jesus who tried to teach men about loving each other, forgiving, not judging others, turning the other cheek and praying for our enemies rather than bombing them, to worry less about rules and regulations and more about what’s in our hearts, to focus on our spiritual development and not on acquiring things in this world, then I would probably follow him as the disciples did. And I think some of you would want to kill him when he said again “stop judging gay people, stop judging women who have abortions, stop judging anyone and remove the mote from your own eye. Stop trying to force others to follow your religious beliefs and worry about your own sins.”
By lozen
February 11, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Norman, Tom, is there a blog anonymous that you know of?
By norman
February 11, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Lozen: your name should be Sophia (Wisdom)!
By Zack
February 11, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
Norman—Don’t you ever tire of trying to convince yourself that the Bible is untrue? You say the same things over and over and try to convince yourself that you don’t have a need for God. My friend, you are so wrong. You are buying in to the deceptive lies of the devil.
RS—You spoke against welfare and have spoken consistently for abortion. Welfare is necessary at times because some people need a hand up. You talk about compassion and claim to have it, but where’s your compassion for people who need financial assistance? Where’s your compassion for the unborn? It is not up to our discretion to decide who is born and who isn’t. Aside from being barbaric, that’s as arrogant as it could ever be. Welfare is a necessary component of our society. Sure, there are people who are taking advantage of the system, but that doesn’t mean we need to eliminate the assistance; we need to modify the system. In short, abortion is wrong in all cases. Welfare is good in most cases.
By RS
February 11, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Hugh G: Yes, I stated there’s nothing wrong with being gay so I take your comment to mean you’d like to be with my husband? ‘Fraid not, my friend. I’m married to a man who’s as straight as 6 o’clock. Bruce: I have a gay male friend with 2 brothers, one whom is also gay & the other one straight. So 2 out of those 3 brothers are gay. I’ve heard about this in other families too. Randy: When my brothers & I were little, our dad had a job that required a lot of traveling & subsequently he was away for long periods of time. The 3 of us are heterosexual because we were BORN that way & nothing can change that. Chuck: So homosexuality is a sin because gay sexual relations don’t culminate in reproduction? Well does that make being straight a sin if you’re sterile? Oh & there ARE “she-males”. The scientific name for them is “hermaphrodite”. If someone is tragically born with sexual characteristics of both genders, does that make them evil? It’s not their fault. And there ARE instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, I’ve seen studies on this. I also know for a fact that the average gay person started off his/her dating career attempting to live as a heterosexual but failed miserably. I have a gay male friend who spent his youth trying to deny what he was. He forced himself to marry & procreate, therefore living a lie for years. Finally he snapped, left his wife of 26 years & moved in with a man. It took a LONG time before healing kicked in. This could have been avoided but society put too much pressure on the poor guy to be what he isn’t. My sister in law is a lesbian. As a teenager, she was confused about her sexuality & forced herself to date boys. She’s a lovely woman & I’m sure she (inadvertantly) broke many hearts. She’s now in a happy, committed relationship with a wonderful lady.
By RS
February 11, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
Zack: Abortion is not murder. Killing living babies is murder. I have never advocated that. Welfare is wrong. No one deserves a free ride at taxpayer expense because they choose to snort crack, guzzle booze & pop out a dozen illegitimate crack/AIDS babies by just as many fathers. Defending welfare trash makes you a hypocrite, as it goes against your “people must take responsibility for their own actions” agenda. As for folks who need a hand up, let em’ do what I did when I’ve struggled; get off their lazy backsides & get a job. Plus, welfare siphons off money for those who need & deserve help: The disabled, the elderly, those who’ve lost their jobs/homes through no fault of their own (i.e. fires, accidents, illness). And if welfare were eliminated, we could raise the minimum wage, which is disgraceful
By Randy
February 11, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
lozen, If you think children are not “sinful” by nature, you don’t know much about children or human nature. You can get a small child and they will start to lie, steal, disobey authority etc. out of human nature. Once again you don’t know what you are talking about. Sorry.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Abortion is murder, just like Texas said before, death is defined by lack of brain activity, life should be the same. What abortion is, it is a convenience for those who don’t want to be responsible for a decision they made. I have nothing against protection used before intercourse, but don’t kill something that is alive. Just because you are selfish and self-centered.
By Tom
February 11, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
He will not listen to reason. In his mind there is NO choice for the woman. Wonder how he would feel if he was one?
By Randy
February 11, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
RS the father being away didn’t effect lesbians, according to the study. That has probably more to do with a hatred of men, this is my speculation.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Well Tom I wouldn’t kill a innocent baby, I actually am responsible for my decisions, that’s why I am so successful in business!
By Tom
February 11, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I believe that alright.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
I figured you would.
By Boscoe
February 11, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
The truth about man, writes Pope John Paul II, is that man has dignity. Furthermore, that dignity commands respect. And it is precisely the mutual respect that human beings give each other on the basis of their respective dignities that the foundation is established for respecting human rights and experiencing human freedom. By harmonizing truth, dignity, and freedom, according to the Holy Father, we secure the proper ground for morality. We cannot live without meaning. The fact that human life is sacred and that each human being has dignity provides a basis for meaning. The modern world has sought to deny the sacredness of human life. But it has not denied it absolutely. Rather, it has distorted it. It has not done away with the notion of sacredness altogether. It has merely replaced it with relatively superficial notions such as the “quality of life”. It has not abandoned the notion of dignity, but has enfeebled it by making it external and transitory. The modern world is not at peace, however, with its new ethics. Though the old view that acknowledged the sacredness of human life and the awesome responsibilities that it implied was frightening, the new view which empties man of his interior dignity and thereby deprives him of a life that has transcendent meaning is terrifying. The abortion debate will not be satisfactorily resolved without a recovery of the sacredness of human life as well as the exercise of love and courage which are needed to live responsibly as human beings who are made in the image of God. The reality that challenges us to be authentic human beings will always prove more satisfactory in the end than the fantasy which, in promising us ease and comfort, robs us of our soul.
By Zack
February 11, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
RS—I never defended “welfare trash”, as you put it. I said nothing close to that. You do not pay attention when reading my posts, apparently.
I encourage you to re-think your stance on abortion. A fetus is a life. It’s not anyone’s place to kill a baby once the moment of conception has occurred. I’ve noticed when you speak about fetuses, you talk about how it’s not a fetus—to you. We’re not talking about biases and personal whims here but instead facts. We need to maintain our focus as such.
Have a good weekend, and that goes out to everyone here.
By chuck
February 11, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Boy, talk about using outdated unproven materials. The web site you gave was written in 1998. It includes the following quote:
Despite the fact that transitional fossils were known in Darwin’s day (such as Archaeopteryx, the link between dinosaurs and birds), these existed at higher taxonomic levels than species, so we had transitional fossils between families, orders, classes, etc.
The archaeopteryx has since been shown to be a fraud as well. It is NOT a transitional fossil as most any evolutionist will tell you today.
He goes on to say:
Macroevolution, however, occurs too slowly to observe on human time scales, so it must be studied like other historical sciences (geology, cosmology, astronomy, etc.) with secondary observation and inference, without the benefit of contemporaneous observation and experiment. This difference in scientific methodology has led to confusion among nonscientists—especially creationists!—about the factual standing of macroevolution, but let’s not confuse this with controversies among scientists about the connection between micro- and macroevolution. The former is a mistake resulting from ignorance, the latter is legitimate.
Finally, he references a web site for a Kathleen Hunt who weaves together a fantastic “history” of the horse fossils that have already been shown to be false. One scientist named Richard Milton who is NOT a Creationist analyzed her paper this way:
*This “FAQ” should be handed back to Kathleen Hunt and she should be asked to eliminate her personal beliefs and substitute scientific facts instead. For example, she should eliminate undefined prejudicial terms such as ‘sequence’ when this is the very matter she has to prove.
Second she should be asked to replace assertions with proof. For example, if Miohippus is a descendant of Hyracotherium as Hunt asserts, then she should present us with the evidence of what it is that connects them scientifically and how this evidence proves their relationship.
She should explain the strength of this evidence. For example, morphological resemblance between fossils in a geologically broken sequence is weak circumstantial evidence.
She should do this for all the other fossils that she says are related. Whatever is left after this process, that is the sum total of scientific knowledge on the evolution of horses.*
In other words, she, and by association the web site you referenced, does exactly what you accused the Creationists of doing. She uses a WEAK CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE as an absolutely undeniable fact. We use much stronger criteria for drawing conclusions in the social sciences than do the “scientists” that you referenced.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Randy, it’s the straight women I know who hate men. It’s amazing some of the hate filled “jokes” I receive by e-mail from straight women. It’s straight women who are constantly complaining about their husbands and boyfriends. Lesbians don’t think about men much in my experience. I’ve known a lot of lesbians and they don’t hate men. All lesbians have fathers, brothers, sons, etc whom they love. Have you ever known a lesbian?
By RS
February 11, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Randy: Yes, children indulge in the “sinful” behaviours you mentioned, but not in the malicious, calculating way adults do. It’s more of a matter of not knowing better & needing to be taught right from wrong. Uh, I believe it’s less selfish to undergo an abortion than procreate for the wrong reasons, i.e. to collect welfare, to have someone to take care of you in your declining years, etc. And, categorically, hetero women hate men more so than lesbians do! Sounds strange, I know, but think about it.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
I have children and yes, they were head strong and wanted their way. They disobeyed me, lied about things they did to keep from being punished, took things they wanted when they were very young because they didn’t understand the rules. That does not mean they were sinful by nature; they were just children. Children almost always do what they see their parents doing! So you’re saying we should bring more of these sinful beings into the world? Why would you want every foetus to come to term just to create more evil in the world?
By lozen
February 11, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Randy stop! As a christian you know you are not supposed to store up treasure in this world. Jesus told the rich man to give away all he owned and come with him. Why do you constantly refer to what you own?
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
RS you still don’t get it, it is as you say on the children commiting sin. However, it is a natural sin and comes from a sinful nature(the purest form of sin) because they don’t know its sinful. They do it out of instinct. Which proves children are sinful by nature. Think it through.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
I take advise from other Christians only and the way I look at it, we Christians need to have alot of money in the bank to fight off the secular agenda of the liberal media and hollywood. I’m not a material person and money is not evil, the LOVE OF MONEY is what is evil. I don’t love money.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Zack - Don’t you ever tire of trying to convince yourself that the Bible is true? You say the same things over and over and try to convince yourself that you have a need for Yahweh. You are so wrong.” See how easy it is to counter your simple argument? If you had been born in a Muslim country, you’d be arguing that Jesus was just a prophet and Muhammed was the “true” prophet and islam is the only “true” religion. Please just once try to see the big picture.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Actually Iozen I give boatloads of money away to Christian organizations who are fighting the attacking liberal media. I don’t stand and do nothing, I’m willing to take a stand for what has made this country strong(Christianity).
By chuck
February 11, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
So Lozen, according to YOUR “logic”, if some whacko out there didn’t think killing gay people was murder, then there should not be ANY law that punishes them for killing gay people? You should stick to your short little posts that don’t make any attempt at logical, thoutghtful debate. At least then people don’t have any proof that you are a crackpot. Since when do we make laws about murder based on what people believe? Killing a human being is murder. There is NO DOUBT that babies inside the womb are human beings. AT CONCEPTION they have totally different DNA than does the mother, they have their own hearts and brain waves have been measured as early as 6 weeks. If you took a DNA sample from the baby 6 weeks after conception it would be NO DIFFERENT than if you took a sample 6 weeks after birth. There are probably thousands of people out there who think that gays are not human. Should they be allowed to murder based on their beliefs?
RS- Hermaphroditism is a BIRTH DEFECT. I guess that means that you think homosexuality is a birth defect? As for all of your little gay stories…that is purely anecdotal and means absolutely nothing. I could quote you just as many stories about people who participated in the gay lifestyle choice who are now STRAIGHT. It is a futile argument that has no intellectual or spiritual foundation.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Chuck is right on Macro-evolution, great post Chuck.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Well earthly success and acquisitions do seem to be on your mind a lot more than storing your treasure in heaven Randy. Just like judging others seems much more important to you than looking at your own pride and sinfulness.
By chuck
February 11, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Thank you Randy.
By Johnson
February 11, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
The archaeopteryx has since been shown to be a fraud as well.
Even your own creationists deny this now. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp
It is NOT a transitional fossil as most any evolutionist will tell you today. False, only creationist say this. That’s why they have so strongly back-pedaled on calling it a hoax.
Macroevolution, however, occurs too slowly to observe on human time scales, so it must be studied like other historical sciences (geology, cosmology, astronomy, etc.) with secondary observation and inference, without the benefit of contemporaneous observation and experiment. This difference in scientific methodology has led to confusion among nonscientists�especially creationists!�about the factual standing of macroevolution, but let’s not confuse this with controversies among scientists about the connection between micro- and macroevolution. The former is a mistake resulting from ignorance, the latter is legitimate.
What is your point about this quote? The ignorance he ascribes to is creationist’s misrepresenting controversies among scientist.
Richard Milton is an anti-evolutionist. More about his views can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
You didn’t mention the species rings or UCSD study.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Zack, If the bible weren’t true, all the non-Christians would have no need to debate us on this forum. You don’t see anyone debating any other religion. Why is it that you can mention the words God, Mohammad, Buddah, etc and no one cares. But mention “JESUS” and you will always get a reaction one way or the other. My wifes hairdresser who is a Christian went into a Blimpies that was owned by a Hindu. He memtioned his religion first(she had no reaction) and then she said the word “Jesus” and he now reacts every time she goes in the store, he can’t get Jesus out of his head. Maybe you guys should give him some defense words like Bible-thumper or Holy-roller, or he may end up accepting Jesus as his lord and savior and go to heaven. Better do it fast as MISERY LOVES COMPANY, or there will be one less of you miserable.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Iozen is preaching to me now. How ironic. Again I don’t love money, but when it is there to pick up easily I grab it and use it for good(Christianity). I feel the Lord has blessed me and can take it away if he wants to at any time. He has given it to me so I can help him and the great Christians(which is all of them) in this world. If I could convert one person in this world and let them know the peace and love of Jesus, I would give it all away.
By chuck
February 11, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
The point of the quote is that evolutionists agree that macroevolution is NOT observable and therefore cannot be studied using the scientific method. There is no way to replicate it in the laboratory OR in nature. That being the case, how then does science prove evolution? I’ll tell you. They start out with the conclusion and then any circumstantial evidence they find is molded to fit that conclusion. If they can’t make it fit, they do what Haekel did. They make it up. Since it has to be true you can justify “filling in the gaps” with those little fabrications. Milton is an anti-evolutionist because it is not science, it is pseudo-science. Like all the other evolutionists out there it is easier to defame those who don’t agree with you than to refute the arguments.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck your argument about killing gay people is so ridiculous but just what I’d expect from you. There are a few people I’d like to murder (none of them are gay however) but I’ve never murdered anyone and never will. Are you surprised that I don’t believe in god and I don’t murder anyone? You know we atheists just deny god so we can do whatever we want! There is no society where it is okay to murder a living human being unless of course the government convinces you that they’re going to kill you unless you kill them first. You take that clump of cells from the mother’s body a minute after conception. It would not survive. Abortion is not murder. Abortion is a way for people to take responsibility for their actions but you don’t want them to have that option because you want to tell women what to do. Tell me that you think it’s wrong to murder innocent living women and children in a war and I might feel that you are arguing for some reason other than controlling women. Tell me you think the murder of the death penalty is wrong. You can’t say that. In other words if it’s a type of murder you think is okay then god thinks it’s okay too. Your god is created in your image. All I ask is keep yourself/god out of my bedroom and let me be responsible for my decisions!
By chuck
February 11, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Lozen, if you take a 9 month old baby away from his mother and nobody else gives him nourishment, HE will die.
By chuck
February 11, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
BTW, I was NOT advocating killing gay people and you know it. But you also know what my point was. An entity is either human or it is not. A baby in the womb is every bit as human as you are.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Norman, If the bible were true, all the Christians would have no need to debate us on this forum.
By lozen
February 11, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Randy, as an anti-abortion advocate would you ever consider giving some of your money for researching birth control? If there were a means of birth control that was 100% effective, there would be no need for abortion. At least among rational people who were not against teaching that method to the people who need to know it.
By RS
February 11, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Randy: My, your view of children is very cynical. OK, if a 3 year old steals a lollypop & a few weeks later, is fatally hit by a car before getting a chance to grow up & turn his/her life over to Jesus, does that child instantly go to Hell? Chuck, I don’t use the term “birth defect” when referring to hermaphrodites because those folks are not defective in the sense that they ARE functional, they can walk, talk, take care of themselves, hold down jobs & mortgages, exactly like you & me, even though I’m sure you find the comparison repugnant…They’re just maligned by mainstream society, as gays are. Furthermore, my “gay stories” as you put it, are all true, about people I happen to be close to. Who are you, or anyone, for that matter, to accuse me of lying when you don’t even know me? If these gay people you mentioned are now straight, then guess what? They were never gay to begin with, just confused. Just like my sister-in-law & my divorced friend.
By Johnson
February 11, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
The point of the quote is that evolutionists agree that macroevolution is NOT observable and therefore cannot be studied using the scientific method.
The author did not say or even imply that and you know it.
There is no way to replicate it in the laboratory OR in nature. The studies I cited (and I have more) do exactly that. You are free to provide rebuttals to those studies if you want to.
They start out with the conclusion and then any circumstantial evidence they find is molded to fit that conclusion. If they can’t make it fit, they do what Haekel did. They make it up. Since it has to be true you can justify “filling in the gaps� with those little fabrications. Milton is an anti-evolutionist because it is not science, it is pseudo-science. Like all the other evolutionists out there it is easier to defame those who don’t agree with you than to refute the arguments.
Are you serious with that statement? That is creationism in a nutshell. The only conclusion creationist have is that a Christian god created the earth and its inhabitants. An alternate conclusion would be that aliens populated the earth.
If scientist don’t get the expected results they redesign their research and try again.
Sure there are frauds in the discipline, just like any discipline. There are certainly frauds in the clergy. That doesn’t indict all of the clergy.
You don’t just deny scientific conclusions…you deny that they can even be arrived at.
I really don’t understand why it’s such a conflict…maybe you can explain that.
By norman
February 11, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Lord, what fools these Christians be!
By lozen
February 11, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Yes, I can preach that stuff too, Randy. I know it probably better than you do. I thought it was to be taken literally when I was young before I had read, studied and thought for myself. It is not the “only” way. Militant self-righteous fundamentalism distorts a story that could make the world a better place if we followed what Yeshua taught 2,000 years ago.
By Johnson
February 11, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
I have to leave to get my dog from the vet. Believe it or not, I enjoyed the debate and apologise for anything inflammatory I said to you or anyone else for that matter.
I look forward to next weeks W to W slugfest :).
Have a good weekend. (even if you are writing something nasty to me as I type this)
By lozen
February 11, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
It’s almost the weekend! Yay. I’m going to live my sinful atheist life to the hilt this weekend. The only reason I am not a christian is so I can do anything I want; has nothing to do with reason. I’ll pick up devil groceris on the way home, take the dogs for a walk around my sin filled neighborhood full of lesbians and gay men, muslims and quakers who refuse to murder in the name of government, talk to the bright and beautiful children around the hood. I’ll have an atheist dinner with my devil friends, watch a video and go to bed in my atheist bed. I will sleep soundly and have nary a worry about the devil or hell or sin. In the morning I’ll sleep in and eat an atheist brunch meal with friends, and on and on… you get the picture. May everyone here have the same peaceful, full, rich weekend.
By RS
February 11, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Lozen, do you by any chance live in any of these zipcodes? 30306, 30307, 30308. You described my area (30307/Little 5 Points/Candler Park) to a “T” & you know what, my so-called “godless, atheist, gay/lesbian/transgender, rock musician, artist, Commie pinko sinful heathen pagan scum” neighbours are the nicest people you’d ever want to meet! I believe you’d fit right in! That’s a compliment, by the way!
By Randy
February 11, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
It’s about time for Normans summation, so he can show us his ignorance. He does this almost every week. Iozen no person is guarantee tomorrow(I’ll wake in the morning I’ll sleep in) then you will be worried about the devil and hell. But keep listening to the evil entity that tells you what you want to here.
By chuck
February 11, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Johnson, You have been a perfect Gentleman? and I too enjoyed the conversation. I hope your dog isn’t sick. You need all the best friends you can get…just kidding.
By norman
February 11, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
The Pope is reported to have just said that physical suffering is a blessing since it saves the soul. Here is still that old Persian dualism, the evil body and the good soul. In two thousand years the Christians have not changed in this madness.
By Randy
February 11, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Again Norman has proved that he stands alone as “THE VILLAGE IDIOT” a roll he probably will never give up. As for the rest of the non-Christians, you probably don’t know any better, you have my sympathy.