Woman to Woman

By Gwyneth

November 28, 2005 07:03 AM | Link to this

Diane - As a liberal, secular home school parent, I was disturbed at your relatively poorly researched response to Shaunti regarding home schooling. It was a rehash of common misconceptions about home schooling which have been rebutted by numerous studies (you chose to cite one out of many). Probably most disturbing was your implication that home school parents are either religious isolationists or “New Agers.” The number of home schooled students has increased by an order of magnitude since that 1991 study was published.

I think that you and your readers should take a moment to study Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews’ “Class Struggle” article regarding home schooling, as it might have more influence on your opinions than anything that I could write. Your narrow view of home schooling falls into what Mr. Mathews calls “conventional wisdom”. He writes “The conventional wisdom about this rapidly growing dimension of American education is too simple, too stereotyped and too stale.”

The Washington Post article “Correcting Misconceptions About Home Schooling” by Jay Mathews (dated July 27, 2004) can be found on the Washington Post website at the following URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17676-2004Jul27.html

You write that “Parents who choose home schooling want to instill their children with their deeply held beliefs”, but Mr. Mathews rebuts that statement with a better researched answer, namely “There are instead at least a million American children — the real figure is probably twice that number — whose families want them to learn at home for many reasons, often having little to do with religion or politics.”

I cannot accept that “home schooling is not only a response to deteriorating public schools but a cause of its decline” is a valid argument against the home school movement. This is akin to saying that my local independent grocer was a cause for the downfall of Winn-Dixie. Even with home schooling’s growing numbers, private school enrollment is still several times larger. You cannot blame a few dedicated parents for the downfall of the public education system.

Regarding the ability of parents to teach their own children, I agree on one point. By not having my child in school, they may miss interacting with some specific, gifted, passionate teachers. This can be said of the 99.99+% of students that will also not have that particular teacher. However, as I have greater flexibility to chose who will be my child’s teacher for each specific subject, am I sure that she will have a greater percentage of impassioned teachers and a smaller percentage of unmotivated, overworked teachers than a comparable public/private school student.

Your column falls into the common trap of viewing home schooling as somehow antagonistic towards public education. It is not a response to the failures of public education, it is a response to the fundamental structure of the educational system in this country, reflected in both public and private schools. Home school parents believe they have a more efficient student-focused way to educate their children, and this goes well beyond thoughtless left/right ideology.

By Paul

November 28, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Diane either misses or ignores several points: 1. Schools have had 200 years to respond to the public needs. Every GA governor since Joe Frank has been an education governor, yet GA is still on the bottom. Our children are too precious to trust to a failing government. 2. Shaunti is probably confused. 8the graders are not performing 4 grade levels higher. The fact is many graduating Public High School Seniors do not have an 8th grade education. 3. If people have the right to become parents before they are “skilled,” [parents] certainly should have the right to insure that their children receive the best education. Why should we believe that the government is better skilled to determing what is best for a particular child than their parent for whatever the parent’s reason? 4. With all the “remedial” (high school) education colleges require before allowing students to begin college level cources it is obvious that public schools also “lack the range” to allow students to do much “leaping.”

By Akeya

November 28, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

I think that homeschooling does a disservice, to a certain advantage, as does public/private schooling. There is no magic plan that fits all families. Some children fare better with homeschooling while other children are better taught in schools by (mostly) trained professionals. Each family should decide for itself what arrangement will work best…

Unfortunately, we are led to believe that having certain DNA automatically makes us experts on our children, which is not always the case. Many people are not educated enough or qualified enough to be parents, let alone educators.

By Lyrazel

November 28, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Home schooling depends upon the the parent who is teaching and sadly not all parents removing children from schools are as academically savvy as they may believe. This is not a job for the faint-hearted, not a job for a family who has zero ability to discipline themselves muchless children. For a parent this is possibly the most difficult job to take on and requires a dedication beyond most parents skills. It also requires a lucrative source of revenue and job security of the dual parent team. (I do not see a single father home schooling a child 8-12 hours then going to work being beneficial to parent or child). There is on-line curriculum materials readily available to parents and their children and major schoolbook publishers sell the same box set of reading materials to parents. Students at home normally have computer access, more funds for learning resources, more time for field trips (including out of state). Parents who are good at home schooling also dont stop at 3pm and will continue lessons until their child understands the material. With the focus of todays public schools abandoning education to teach to the test, and the NCLB being a repository of phone numbers for selective service data banks, if I was a parent my children would be home schooled. It also makes it painfully difficult to skip class! Home schooling is not just for yahoos anymore and the social exaggerated reasons for staying (sports/prom/friendships) vs (daily surveillance through metal detectors/pitiful unhealthy lunches/high student/teacher ratios/apathy toward academics/trailer classrooms) fall by the wayside when home schooled students outperform NCLB standards on both the low-state level and the National level.

By Brian Curtis

November 28, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Diane does make one good point—that the quality of a homeschool education depends entirely on the skills, training, and temperament of a single instructor (the parent). And that instructor’s methods aren’t subject to review, critical input from other sources, or even accountability to the public.

Look around you: Do you honestly think everyone you see is qualified to teach children of all ages every subject under the sun? Are you sure of it—and are you willing to bet America’s future on it? What is a homeschooled child of the local Klan leader likely to learn about Lincoln and slavery, for example? For too many parents, it’s not about what their children learn so much as controlling what they think.

For all that some advances have been made (it’s not just for scary religious people any more), the unspoken motto of homeschooling remains: “Make sure your kids don’t know any more than you do.”

By Jack

November 28, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel. Great post. I have nothing to add to that. (other than say you can be my teacher)

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Yeah Lyrazel, well said.

By Jason

November 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Well Diane Glass shows how the liberal mind works with a collectivist socialist mentality.

See Exibit A: Diane says, “Home schooling is not about how public schools teach so much as what they teach. Parents who choose home schooling want to instill their children with their deeply held beliefs.”

That is EXACTLY why more and more parents are choosing to teach their children at home. My mother was a high school English teacher in the 1970s. She gradually saw a transition in public schools from a teaching perspective to an indoctrination perspective. For example, it is not unusual today to send your child to a public school with new supplies, only to have them confiscated by a bleeding heart liberal teacher who then puts them all into one big pile for everyone to share equally.

Further, it is not unusual for a history teacher to not teach the true history of how we got involved with World War II or the difference between freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion with regards to our Founding Fathers’ principles.

Further still, the bleeding heart left teacher unions around this nation are very blatant in their support for the left wing. Finally, there is the sheer liberal lunacy of “social promotion” where a flailing student is passed to the next grade level so as not to hurt his/her self-esteem.

I cannot fathom the mindset of some politically like-minded people who are more concerned about a child’s self-esteem than actually learning how to add or spell. Then with that alone as an example of hinderance to a child’s real development, and we wonder why our kids are falling farther and farther behind in the “world” that the liberals love so much with specific regards to math, science, and geography skills.

There is plenty of evidence out there that proves that homeschooling as a whole is a better option for a child’s development than public schools, not the least of which is not having to worry about the child getting involved with gangs, drugs, fights, sex, liberal indoctrination, or any of the other social ills of public schooling.

See Exhibit B: Diane says that “…home schooling doesn’t do the public good, just the individual. And our future is about all children, not just our own.”

Here we have yet another example of the anti-individual “It Takes A Village” mentality of the left in this nation. Besides taking away the right to individual wealth and success, Karl Marx also was against the individual right to choose what is best for your child as a parent. It appears Hillary’s book, “It Takes A Village,” is more in line with Marxist indoctrination than individual freedoms and liberties.

That is the collectivist liberal mindset: the government should take care of you through the eyes of society as a whole, and you should have no individual rights beyond that which resides in the privacy of your own bedroom. and you sure should have no right to have something more or better than someone else, not the least of which is an education. Afterall, the choice of freedom to run your own life or life of your child goes against the “level playing field” or “equality for all” mentality of the collectivist liberal left in this nation. What a horrendous thought to actually have the gall to be able to sleep at night having an upper hand or being smarter or being more successful or being happier or being wealthier than someone else in this nation.

The bottom line, as Shaunti Feldhahn accurately portrayed, is that home-schooled children are generally more socially adjusted and more educated and more likely to succeed higher than their public-schooled counterparts. The truth is out there, and perhaps that’s why Diane Glass didn’t want to bring up real statistics. Just as liberals (and moderates) want right-wing Christian fundamentalists to keep religion out of their children’s lives, conservatives who choose to home school want the liberals in the public schools to keep their indoctrination agendas out of the lives of THEIR children’s lives.

But alas, any time someone goes against what a liberal thinks is “good for society as a whole,” then said conservative is being a “hatemonger,” a “racist,” a “fascist,” a “Nazi,” a selfish “arrogant dolt,” or some combination of all the above. The anti-individual “good of society” mentality is for a Marxist-led communist society, not a freedom of individuality-led capitalist society.

By Gwyneth

November 28, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Brian - I strongly disagree with you. As a parent, it is my responsibility to provide my child with the best education possible. This is why I have chosen not to enroll my children in school. My child does not have a “single instructor”; she has many instructors. I can find the proper instructors for her better than any school administrator could. I do not have to be fluent in Latin in order for her to learn Latin. Could the public school in our neighborhood provide a 7 year old with a Latin instructor? No, but as “education facilitator”, I can find one.

Your motto “Make sure your kids don’t know any more than you doâ€? is far off the mark. My children will know more than I do in many subjects. If your definition of knoledge is “the awareness and understanding of facts”, then books and museums are full of facts that will help them to learn about many different topics. Knowledge is one aspect of an education, but not the only one. Our motto is “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” (WB Yeats)

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Wow Jason, interesting how you turned this into a political matter.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel. Yes, excellent post.

It depends solely on the parent who is conducting the home schooling. Some do a good job and others do not. Just like public school, some teachers do a good job, other’s don’t.

By Randy

November 28, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

If you are homeschooling your child because of religious reasons in the south, you are making a mistake. The public school my daughter goes to is probably 95% Christian. Now if I lived in France or Saudi Arabia, I would probably homeschool my Christian child. Also, everybody wants to downgrade Georgia schools because of their placement in the national average, this really varies according to the school, the ones in downtown Atlanta are bad. However, the ones in the surburbs are good. Don’t group all Georgia schools together.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Gwyneth, that is good, but everybody does not have the resources to go hire a latin teacher (nor do I see the need, but that is a different subject) I do agree wih your comment that our children should know more than we do. Our children should be more educated than us. I don’t feel as is homeschooling will guarantee that, but it may, depending on the situation.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

The problem with public schools is the teachers are passing children that shouldn’t. they have to either dumb down the class so that everyone passes, or just pass the ones who don’t deserve it. There is no disipline. If a teacher gets a student who disrupts the class that year, they sure don’t want to look at them the next, so they pass them. mustn’t punish, pass. Pitiful.

By Gwyneth

November 28, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Renee - there are other ways to “pay” an instructor than with money. I would think that bartering can be done by most anyone! Everyone has something to offer.

As for Latin, some good arguments are here: About.com - Why Study Latin?

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

~waving~ Hey Renee!

Jack, you’re right on point. Happened to my child at least four times - and now she’s screwed.

Randy, no, the schools in the Atlanta suburbs aren’t good, they’re just better. There is a difference.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

~~waving~~ Hey JBM! (Are you ever going to email me back??) :)

The suburbs are definitely better (I went to Atlanta Public Schools) When I moved from DeKalb to Gwinnett, I even found the schools to be significantly better than DeKalb. Now having moved to Vermont, I’m here to tell you, Georgia schools are awful, lol.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

I went to schools in Georgia and upstate New York and Pennsylvania and I can see why they refer to us as dumb hicks. Schools up North are WAY harder.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Jack - yes WAYYYY harder!!! My daughter was easily on honor roll in Dekalb, had to work a little harder in Gwinnett, and now she has to really study and do work. The schools aren’t even on the same level here as GA. And they don’t have as many disciplinary problems, the school is actually more laid back.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Renee - I know, I suck. I’m going to my e-mail in a minute, and I’ll hit you up then.

Jack, Renee: Having been schooled in New York, in what was then one of the top 100 school systems in the nation, I can agree that Georgia’s school systems, overall, SUCK. My 15 y/o’s “workload” (if you can call it that) amazes me daily. At 15 years old, in the ninth grade, she still cannot write an essay better than a 4th/5th grade level. She gets away with doing the least she can possibly do to pass. Her homework sucks, she has no study skills at all, and though she performs dismally on her tests, she still manages to pass each and every grade. In fact, many Georgia parents are aware of the HS entrance exam 8th graders must take, I think it’s called the CRCT - if they don’t pass it, they don’t graduate from 8th grade. Or so they say… funny how mine failed it and still managed to make it to high school.

And for those looking to argue, no, I’m not saying it is solely the school’s responsibility to educate children - we’ve had that discussion before and I’ve given my two cents on the distribution of responsibility.

Bottom line: Georgia’s school systems suck and it’s no wonder that we are 50th in education. Hell, even if my daughter was a straight A student in Georgia, that would equate to about a C+ in the north.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Boy I got so carried away, I forgot to mention that there’s a wonderfully inspiring (albeit lengthy) article in today’s AJC. You can find it under the “Metro/Georgia” section on the home page - the link says “2nd Chance.”

By Jack

November 28, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Renee’. Yes. The children that move down here from up there are tickled pink. It’s just like doing the last three grades over again. Those that go from here to up there are in for a rude awakening.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Now I’m ranting… it really makes my job as a parent harder too. I want nothing more than for my child to be well-adjusted, well-educated, knowledgeable, and able to converse on various subjects. I push her much harder than the teachers do, I make her do extra work, I tell her that her essay is “so 3rd grade” and that she needs to do it over… in return, she hates me. LOL! Of course I know she’ll appreciate it later on… yeah, yeah, yeah. But, nightly, Monday through Friday, it’s like pulling teeth to get her to do more than the lazy-behind teachers require.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

JBM…you are soooo right! An A+ in Georgia would definitely equate to a C here! Even I was amazed at how my daughter has been sailing through classes, and she complains now because it’s not coming so easy.

I read that 2nd chance yesterday. Once I started, I couldn’t stop. It was very good!

By Brent

November 28, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

I’m going to disagree about the schools in the suburbs versus the ones in Atlanta. Some APS schools are better than some suburb schools. When I was in high school, Benjamin E. Mays High school, a magnet school for math and science, was one of the best in the city. I went to North Atlanta, a magnet school for International Baccalaureate, International Business, and Performing Arts. I can attest to the program for International Baccalaureate being hard. You had to take a test at the end of the two years that was on par with other international curriculum around the world. The reading was difficult, the math was difficult, the science was difficult, and the economics was no joke. I’m going to disagree about the schools in the suburbs versus the ones in Atlanta. Some APS schools are better than some suburb schools. When I was in high school, Benjamin E. Mays High school, a magnet school for math and science, was one of the best in the city. I went to North Atlanta, a magnet school for International Baccalaureate, International Business, and Performing Arts. I can tell you that the program for International Baccalaureate being hard. You had to take a test at the end of the two years that was on par with other international curriculum around the world. The reading was difficult, the math was difficult, the science was difficult, and the economics was no joke.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

I know I went to one of the worst APS schools (Harper which is now Harper-Archer) Going to school there, I often wished I could have gone to Douglass and Mays and Northside (now North Atlanta). I can’t speak specifically on these schools, since I didn’t attend, but I think the one that may be in a front contention is North Atlanta. My daughter going to a Gwinnett School, was moving much quicker than we ever did in the advanced college prep classes at Harper. I took my SAT and my PSAT classes at Mays, I don’t remember if Harper didn’t offer it or if I just was trying to take it somewhere else.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

I guess they taught you to stress your point by repeating it?

By Jason

November 28, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

If anyone wonders why I politicized this issue above, then look no further than this report on CNN and how a liberal teacher slams Bush. My kids will never, EVER attend a public school.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/25/liberal.quiz.ap/index.html

By Jack

November 28, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Not being mean. I couldn’t resist that one.

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Kids!

One of the primary reasons that Northern schools are better is (what’s my motto?) MONEY. Property taxes are significantly higher starting in Virginia and heading North. My parents pay almost twice the amount of property taxes that I do for a comparably priced home. It’s a matter of you get what you pay for.

Given the numbers of outside activities in which kids regularly participate today there are plenty of opportunities for home schooled children to learn social skills. It would be nice to see Shaunti and Diane finding studies done by impartial groups as well as timely studies. Shaunti do you really think the National Home Education Research Institute would publish a study that didn’t support home schooling? Diane…a study from 1991?! PLEASE!

By Jack

November 28, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

NetB. Doesn’t APS spend more $ per student than 90% of other schools nation wide? I think I’m right. I’ll do research if I can avoid Big Brother long enough.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

The schools were nicer up North but money doesn’t determine the difficulty of the curriculum. (Hope I spelled that right)

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

LOL@ Jack.

NetB, although I usually agree with you, I don’t know if money is the definitive answer here. If you look at the per student expenditures for GA students versus NY students, it’s not very far off although NY prop taxes are higher.

Brent, no offense, but calling Mays one of the best in the city really doesn’t say much when there’s nothing great to compare it to. That’s like growing up on bologna sandwiches and declaring that Krystals is one of the best restaurants in the city. Once again, I will say that while Mays may be one of the “better” schools in APS, that still doesn’t mean it’s a “good” school.

Grady is one of the better schools. Carver is one of the better schools. Still, both of these dim in comparison to a northern public high school.

If you don’t believe me, just look at the SAT scores. Actually, I think you can find it on AJC’s website - at the bottom, left of the home page, there’s a link to some school reports if I’m not mistaken.

Georgia schools suck, and APS is the worst of them all.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

That’s like growing up on bologna sandwiches and declaring that Krystals is one of the best restaurants in the city

Tooooooo funny. That is the quote for the day!

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Jack, yes, I think you’re right. I believe overall, Georgia spends an average of $9000 per student!! That’s pretty big, considering NY spends about $9,600 per student, I think DC is around $8500… Georgia does spend a lot per student, we just can’t seem to get the curriculum together, the standards set adequately, experienced, passionate faculty, and committed parents.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Renee: Hehehehehe!!! Yeah, that was kinda funny.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

They need to put disipline back in school. They used to give “licks” in school with a paddle that had air holes drilled in it to lessen the wind resistance while on it’s way to the rear end. Why should they learn when they can coast?

By Boggled

November 28, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

So…One teacher is indicative of the entire public school system, nationwide? You don’t think there are conservative teachers who share their views in the public schools as well? I had a biology teacher in high school who was a Creationist and made no bones about his opinions.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

And Jason, that was a poor excuse for you to politicize this discussion. First off, the teacher’s example - although inappropriate - was accurate and not at all opinion-based. I think the President’s greatest supporters will admit that he has difficulty with verbal communication, to put it mildly.

When I was in HS, my 11th grade English teacher warned on the first day of class that his goal for the year was to de-program everything my conservative 10th grade English teacher taught. He was a radical Democrat, who loved to spark political debate about issues, beliefs, agendas, etc. My point? Not all teachers are “liberal” and obviously, not all are “conservative.” Refusing to send your children to public school for that reason alone is your business, but in my opinion, silly.

Either way, this really isn’t a political subject, in my opinion. But, I understand that some people can’t debate any issue without bashing the “opposing” political side.

Should cell phones be banned while driving in Atlanta? Well, the Dems blast the Republicans for not wanting to protect drivers, the Republicans blast the Democrats for imposing too much government…. why can’t it just be about safety, or lack thereof?

Everything isn’t political, man.

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

Brent..nice try, but your argument is blown for me because it was an international bac program. That is a whole different level than a general public school.

I think we started down the wrong public education road with the assumption that ALL kids should have a college education. What about the trades (plumbing, electrical, auto repair, etc.)? It seems like respect for those dropped at about the same time that college for everyone started. Working with one’s hands seemed to become synonomous with stupid. Just about every person I’ve ever met who is skilled in a trade is plenty smart and in something with a far more practical application than my own education or experiences.

My California in-laws were FLIPPING when their son announced that he was entering an electrician apprenticeship program instead of going to college.Well at 25 my nephew purchased his first home (think California real estate prices) and is making a very handsome salary. He can move anywhere and always find a job.

We’ve genericised education to one-size-fits all.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Boggled, to be honest, I don’t recall when I learned about the evolution theory, but I know it was after years and years of being taught Creationism - in my public school. Of course, for me, that wasn’t a problem - I’m just emphasizing your point that indoctrination occurs from both sides in public schools.

Personally, I think that much of it serves to stimulate a student’s mind, causing them to think critically, challenge others’ opinions and draw their own conclusions.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

I agree on the trades NetB. I don’t do it anymore but I still keep my plumbing 7 heating and air tools in case I have to get a real job again.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Jack - oh no they don’t. But, they do need to restore parents’ authority and right to discipline their children as they deem necessary (within reason, of course).

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Y’all are probably right about the money. Does the research indicate if GA has always spent comparable amounts or is this a recent change to catch up?

I don’t get the curriculum issues here in GA. Why do we keep going through all these blessed exercises over it? Pick a state that has been in the top 5 for 10 years and use theirs! Oh wait! That means we’d have to use one of those godless-librul-wimpy-gun control-environmentalist-socialist-baby killing-sex education advocating BLUE state cirriculums. Can’t have that!

By The72John

November 28, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, excellent point. The much-maligned Western European schools take that into consideration as part of their program, guiding children into their areas of apptitude.

Naturally, that doesn’t sit well with us here, and there are obviously going to be some children mis-directed. For instance, I have a family friend who scored in the 98th %ile on the French med school exam and still didn’t make the cut. She has triple citizenship in the US, England and France, so she was able to enter the British medical program instead.

Now, while I don’t think that you should be denied a chance to go to college because you don’t perform well at 14, but the idea of guiding kids towards trades when it’s obvious that’s where their strengths lie isn’t a bad idea at all.

On the homeschooling issue, I was recently in a production where 2 members of the cast were both homeschooled. Both were well educated, but one (homeschooled by an ultra-conservative religious pastor-father) was less socially adept than the others who were homeschooled by their wealthy parents with more of a secular bent. On the other hand, my cousin, who is also extremely conservative religiously, obtained a Masters in Education just so she could homeschool her children.

Whatever the reasons, it comes down to the ability of the teacher or teachers, and the level of socialization included with the homeschooling.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Growing up, I toyed with becoming a Cosmetologist, Flight Attendant, RN, Teacher, Interpreter, Attorney and President of the US. My mother always told me that it doesn’t really matter what type of career I pursue, as long as I’m successful at it and enjoy it. I tell my little girl the same thing: if you want to be a cosmetologist, or a firefighter, or a carpenter, or a mathemetician… whatever. Do what makes you happy. You never know where a career path will lead, for my grandmother it led to owning a chain of hair salons and retiring a millionairre (sp?).

Of course my preference is for her to get her PhD. and become some super-smart Nobel Prize winner… lol! But, I’ll support whatever she decides, as long as it’s productive, and makes her happy.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

My high school had a program (I forget what it was called), but all seniors graduated with certification in either Auto Mechanics, Cosmetology, Certified Nurses Assistant, Paralegal, or Fashion Design; and that was in addition to all the college prep courses most students had to take.

Anyway, it really was useful in providing those non-academic performing students with some blocks on which they could build a career. It was useful in making sure that even those students who didn’t go on to college, had a “place to go” rather than standing on the streets of NY looking for fast (probably illegal) ways to make money.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Wow. The72John and I agree on something. Is the sky falling?

By Chilao

November 28, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

The concept of home-schooling is political? Who knew?

I was home-schooled for my first three grades, survived it quite well. Did three grades in two years. My mom probably would have continued but it was indeed alot of work for her, for alot of kids. But they are Home_Schooling places that provide all the materials mail order. And you do not have to be a mathmetician in order to teach math.

By Chilao

November 28, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

“but there are”? LOL

But other relatives who were home-schooled for much longer than me certainly are not ignorant.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

An interesting point on the paddling. I know when I was in school, paddling was a reality. Not all teachers used it, but the principal did. And he called parents prior to, so you knew you were getting it again when you got home. (Timothy Road Elementary, Athens, GA). What I found incredibly interesting in Vermont, is that it is against the law for the school system, foster home or the likes to have corporal punishment. It is not against the law to spank your children, but they tell the children if they are spanked (not just abused) to talk to a counselor etc. I have spoken with several people here who have had problems as parents issuing corporal punishment.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

The72…I know all about that system by comparing experiences with other students while at university in Europe. What I found interesting is that the U.S. approach during the 50s-60s when my parents were in school was pretty much the same. There were high schools devoted to poly/tech, college prep, the arts, the trades, etc. People weren’t judged by the school they attended because each school excelled in a particular area.

I wonder how many of the learning and discipline problems would be solved by returning to that type of system since it allows for the lessons to be applied in a more practical manner. For example, would we find that a kid who naturally likes to work with his hands would perform better in a math when the learning focused on the math skills required to determine the load on a fuse box in order to wire a house versus a commercial property than on some abstract concept?

By Brent

November 28, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

I agree Netbanker about the Georgia school systems. It is a shame that we are still having a debate about creation and evolution. The top ten public school systems do not lay in the bible belt.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

I’ve got my hard hat on Jack, just in case. :)

JBM, nice list of aspirations! What’s funny is that even a college education can be ultra-focused on a trade. I majored in Theatre as an undergrad, and when I realized after a few years of working professionally that an acting career wasn’t really for me, there was very little else my degree was good for - I spent nearly three more years taking undergraduate classes in another area so I could get into grad school. My parents were much happier after that.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Jack,

They need to put discipline back in school. They used to give “licks� in school with a paddle that had air holes drilled in it to lessen the wind resistance while on it’s way to the rear end.

Please look-up and read the latest study about hand spanking children (much less paddles). It is definitive that, no matter the cultural norm one comes from, spanking creates anxiety and aggression in children.

This is across the board and in ALL cases.

It comes down to using negative re-enforcement and positive re-enforcement consistently in the home by parents - they are the people that need to step it up.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

I agree with your last statement in your post DeltaX. I’ve been thinking of your suggestion about eliminating piracy in the music business. That is a tough one. Your suggestion is a good one but the database would have to be huge and would be quite expensive to maintain.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

John, yeah great aspirations - ask me what I’m doing now!! LOL!

Personally, I learned more in the workforce, a few years of book clubs, social groups, and online forums than I ever did in 5 years (yes, five) of college. I think that colleges should offer more courses for ppl that don’t learn the traditional way, in some cases you can learn as much in the world as you can in the classroom. I like what colleges are doing with this “life credit” thing, but I think more schools should promote more untraditional assignments - outside the classroom.

I was never paddled in school - I think I might be too young to have experienced that. But, my older sisters were. I think it was good for then, but I’m not crazy about the idea now. Here in Georgia, it is lawful to spank a child as long as you use a hand or belt, and spank on the buttocks only. However, that doesn’t mean that the courts will side with the parent who spanks… trust me, I’ve dealt with DFCS on this issue. The shame is that all this does is empower the wayward child, and encourage them to disobey while flaunting that they’ll call 9-1-1 if you touch them.

I agree with protecting children from abuse, but I think the government has gone too far when it binds the hands of law-abiding, well-meaning, non-abusive parents.

By Randy

November 28, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

I almost have a MBA(did it years ago)and my opinion of education is this. It’s OK, however, it doesn’t have much to do with common sense or real life. It’s mainly a bunch of information that you will never need in life or in business. You don’t get wealthy working for someone else. You can however, live comfortable and pay back your hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. Education is a crutch in many ways. It’s like the book “everything I needed to know, I learned in kindergarden” or something like that. Get out from behind your “higher education” and go make some money and make some common sense decisions.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Definitely not going there with DeltaX… or at least not today.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

I support spanking of children 100%. Of course my daughter is a bit old for spankings but she has had hers. Spare the rod, spoil the child is a philosophy I live by. Not spanking the children creates anxiety and aggression in the adults, across the board and in all cases…lol.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

I was spanked or paddled at home and in school plenty of times. PLENTY of times. I guess that kind of sums it up - the paddling didn’t help me with learning impulse control, which was my problem in the first place. What ultimately did it was the disappointment my parents felt when things progressed that far.

I was a darn unruly kid - put fists through walls and all of that, so I can’t say that spanking wasn’t warranted, and I don’t know that “time out” would have done it, but I CAN see why parents wouldn’t want someone else spanking their child. There are bound to be teachers out there who enjoy inflicting pain on students.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

My kid threatened to call 9-1-1 on me. I told him to go ahead, he had 60 lbs. on me, I’d just say he attacked me and they would take him to jail. The look on his face was priceless.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

When I was in school, the teacher and/or the principal issued the paddling, with a witness, and a phone call and/or note to the parent (yes, I got paddled). I got sent out in the hall for disrupting the class, but for me spanking got me into shape at home and at school.

I think there are bad apples in every basket. There are teachers who enjoy inflicting harm, as well as parents who go wayyyy too far with their own. I don’t think taking the extreme examples to base the law on is the way to go. Of course, if you abuse your children you should directly to jail. Personally in this day and age, I would have not felt comfortable with a teacher spanking my child. I have spanked my child at school, when I was called off of my job for some nonsense. When my mother was in school, they used to get hit in the hand or knuckles with rulers. (Maybe that is why my mother is so anxious and aggressive)

By The72John

November 28, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I never had a witness at school. Just me and the vice-principal. And, with my dad, I always KNEW that when he said “This hurts me more than it does you” that he was absolutely telling the truth. My father is one of the kindest, gentlest human beings on the planet, but there was just no other way to control me when I was younger.

By Scalia

November 28, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Good one, Jack.

DeltaX, it’s been a while since I have seen you on the blog.

I have a question for you. I was in Wal-Mart recently. A little boy kept telling his mother to shut-up, and leave him alone. The mother talked to him calmly, and said, not to say those things to Mommie. He repeated it a couple of times. How could positive reinforcement help there?

By Scalia

November 28, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Jack, did you see the UGA/ Georgia Tech game on Saturday? It was good game. I’m glad that UGA one, even though Georgia Tech has better looking players. Reggie Ball, wow.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Would you believe I was so tired I fell asleep in my chair during Halftime and didn’t wake up until the game was over? Dangit…

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Scalia…I’d say a mouth of soap would positively reinforce the idea that you’re in deep doo-doo when you tell Mommy to shut up.

Goodness did I ever miss spankings when I got to the age that lectures were used instead. A swift couple of whacks with the belt and it was all over! Ok, there were the tears and the inevitable apology for misbehaving along with a promise to never do X again, but who knew parents could yammer on like that?

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Scalia,

The issue there is that there was no consistency to begin with. If one lets the ball roll too long, you will find yourself in a more difficult position.

Watch nanny 911 and the issues they deal with and its success by using time out CORRECTLY.

If it is beyond a certain point, you visit a therapist with the understanding that you did not do your work early on - in which case you failed your child, not vv; and begin to right it out with a new covenant.

Jack Do not like you having power struggles with your child involving incarceration; but letting that go.

Your suggestion is a good one but the database would have to be huge and would be quite expensive to maintain.

I have Maya 3d. I can have it on any number of machines, but it will only work if I have a USB dongle in that machine. The database is in your hand, not online. Applications already do this. (and if you do not like a song/CD, you sell it back and it is deleted from your dongle {a thumb-drive in essence}).

[I have not been on here because I do find it too depressing - you all do not think your views are exactly what is feeding the issues kids have in school? You think they are just bad kids? There are no bad kids, only bad modeling - which is proven]

By Scalia

November 28, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Delta X, you find this blog depressing? Go visit the comments after Mike Luckovich’s drawings. There is a guy on there named Andy that is over the top. I have never met a staunch, conservative Republican like that guy. He has a little crew that shows up every day to call all liberals moonbats.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

hah hah. You said Dongle.

By Jack

November 28, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Scalia. Your favorite part of the game is when they show the huddle isn’t it? LOL (you’re like a female me!)

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Scalia,

I am sure there are worse - as you indicate, but am ignorant to them and choose to remain that way; seeing as I am not going to help any of them make better choices.

So, I work on the assisting the choices/growth my kids {and family/exteded family} make, and have 18 years of proof that it is working for my kids and near triple that for my family {which provides me with the same}.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Spanking Article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10142008/

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

DeltaX you are on the mark. Parenting is hard WORK and it is constant. One can tell the difference between children who are raised by ‘lazy’ parents and those who put in that effort every time no matter what. I hear about it from one of my co-workers all the time, but she says she made that commitment and will stick to it even when her 4 y.o. is working her last nerve because she knows that she’ll be avoiding many future years worth of problems by setting a good foundation now.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Thanks, it is refreshing to hear sanity resounded.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Suport for spanking

abcnews.go.com/sections/ us/DailyNews/spanking_poll021108.html

By Renee

November 28, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Lots of Love & A Spanking, Jamie Pritchett.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Delta, you come across as so self-righteous.

Onto another subject - I happen to LOVVVE Nanny 9-1-1, and the other Nanny reality show. But, I will say that none of those techniques are cure-alls for each family, nor for each child. Every child is different, and every child learns differently. This doesn’t just apply at school, but at home too. Furthermore, those shows don’t show you the situations where “time out” or the “naughty point” doesn’t work, but believe me, they’re there.

As for “no bad kids, only bad modeling” - I enthusiastically disagree. I prefer not to use the term “bad” to describe a child, but whatever you call them, there are children who are inherently rebellious, disobedient, destructive, and prone to misbehavior. These children aren’t necessarily “bad” because they had “bad modeling.” My parents raised 5 girls, and fortunately all of us turned out great. I guess you could say we had “good modeling.” But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t a “bad-%$#” child. I was every parent’s nightmare. Maybe it was the ADD that did it, maybe it was middle-child syndrome, maybe it was an insatiable need for attention, maybe I was spoiled, or maybe I just liked being bad. Maybe I didn’t care about consequences - hell, I don’t know why I was so bad. But, I was. And, it has nothing to do with modeling.

Scalia - depending on the child’s age, I’d warn first, then give him a pop on the lips, or pinch his lips together (worked hilariously on my godson a few weeks ago), or as NetB said, some soap in the mouth. My strict rule is always to warn first, sometimes warn twice. Then invoke punishment.

Also, if you get depressed by a blog, something’s wrong. Secondly, if something does depress you and you’re not forced to participate, you should consider not participating and seeking professional advice. Thirdly, here’s some free UNprofessional advice: you’re probably depressed because you can’t convince everyone to believe what you believe, and you don’t respect other peoples’ right to have their own opinions.

Jack - that is TOO funny!

Renee - the most painful spanking in the world is at school or outside in front of friends! I got my daughter really good one day a couple of years ago. She asked me if she could walk to the corner with her friend. I told her to go ahead, and come straight back. Of course I can see the corner from my house, and after 20 min. I took to the window. I put my sneakers on and went outside looking for her - walked all the way around our sub looking for this child. Came back inside and got my partner - by then I was nervous. Grabbed my belt just in case… ONE HOUR after she left the house, I found her walking casually down our block with about 6 other girls and a boy. Two good swats, and a loud “gitcho black behind in the house - uh, uh, I don’t want to hear a word, GET IN THE HOUSE” was all it took.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Renee - don’t even bother. Delta should know by now that for every argument for something, there’s one against it.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

In all fairness, a poll only indicates opinion. A study examines effects from an objective standpoint.

I do wonder if this sentence isn’t key, however: in Kenya in 2003, 57 percent of grandmothers reported caning, pinching, slapping, tying with a rope, hitting, beating, and kicking

Now, these are pretty extreme. At no point did my dad ever do anything to me that would have caused actual harm or injury. Sore legs and butt were all that ever came of his spanking. Did this study take all degrees of physical punishment into consideration, or only the most extreme?

I still say that there’s no way that anything but a spanking would have snapped me out of a rage when I was in one, so I can’t blame my parents for using that tool. I can see trying alternatives in cases less extreme than I was, though. It’s a gray area.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

LOL, yeah JBM I know, but still.

Also, if you get depressed by a blog, something’s wrong. Secondly, if something does depress you and you’re not forced to participate, you should consider not participating and seeking professional advice. Thirdly, here’s some free UNprofessional advice: you’re probably depressed because you can’t convince everyone to believe what you believe, and you don’t respect other peoples’ right to have their own opinions.

JBM…you are on a roll today!!!! You go off the blog for one week and come back strong. TOOOOOOO Funny. Especially, your secondly comment….I’m at work laughing (it’s so quiet in here) and everybody is looking at me like I’m crazy.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

JBM,

if you get depressed

Learn to read without manipulating a sentence. What was written was: I have not been on here because I do find it too depressing.

{You do the same thing to the questions I have asked you. And it amounts to reading comprehension}

I carry none of your baggage, or anyone else’s; that is a lesson long ago learned.

Delta, you come across as so self-righteous. I know what I know and will not undo that until I find real factual reasons. My views will not be cultural, which requires being open to things that I may not like - I once advocated spanking, until I had children and wanted to do the best I could for them.

By Scalia

November 28, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are right about the huddle part. Athletic men in tight white lycra pants…oh yeah.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

John,

Now, these are pretty extreme.

They studied ALL cultures to be fair.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

I don’t mean cultures, I mean degree of discipline. There are parents in this country, of WASP origin, who lightly spank, and those who use sticks, paddles, boards, etc. and whack away with abandon. That’s the question of degree I’m not entirely satisfied the study addressed. Granted, I gave only a cursory read to it. I could be in error.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

John, we agree. I think that when it’s possible, time-out, or other non-spanking punishments should be administered. But, time-out just doesn’t work for all children - and it definitely didn’t work for me. My parents had to spank me. My godson is like that too - spanking is the only method that has been proven to work, and his parents have tried EVERYTHING.

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

JBM…you are absolutely correct about “there are children who are inherently rebellious, disobedient, destructive, and prone to misbehavior. ” I don’t know a thing about modeling (beyond what Tyra says on ANTM), but am going to venture a guess that what DeltaX is referring to primarily consistency.

I know that puppies and children are entirely different things, but having a 7 week old pup join our household a month ago has greatly reinforced my belief in the need for consistency with young animals and children. It’s been years since I last trained a puppy and I had forgotten how much work and vigilance it takes. What I absolutely know is that the work now is worth it and no matter how tired I am (and between work, a puppy, a partner who has been very ill for almost 2 months, and trying to keep up with a household single handedly I’m about on the edge of total exhaustion…My hats off to all single parents, I don’t know how you do it and keep it together) I know that I can’t let my guard down for an instant or I’ll end up with an unruly monster rather than a delightful member of the household.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

These studies give no room for gray areas. Are all kids who are given alternatives to spanking, happy, well-adjusted and well-behaved children. Can we even say most of them? What about the kids who continue to act out. The ones who parents have adhered to the type of discipline that Deltax is referring to (or not referring to) for the childs lifetime and that hasn’t worked. I’m the first to say spanking doesn’t always work. It doesn’t hurt to try (forgive my pun) I think. It worked for my child, it worked for me, and generations on down the line. If anyone is against it, don’t do it. It isn’t required, nor is it law that you must spank your children, nor is it law that you can’t.

I told my daughter a long time ago. If you call 911, be prepared to go with them. Because if they can do a better job, then I urge them to do so. The reaction to spanking is overwhelming to me. The opponents act as if parents who spank their children do it nonstop 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Then I could see a child becoming withdrawn and aggressive. If you are giving your child ANY punishment over and over again, especially for the same wrongdoing, then there is a problem.

On the bad kid statement. I feel as if there are good kids and bad kids. I think there are kids who don’t have good direction in life, and could use more parenting etc. But just like there are grown ups who are bad, there are the occasional bad child. A child who cannot be led down a different path, a child who does not want to do good (just like an adult). Generally (not all the time) bad kids turn into bad adults.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Learn to read without manipulating a sentence. What was written was: I have not been on here because I do find it too depressing.

Dude, only in Wonderland would that sentence need to be manipulated or interpreted. It is what it is. You said that you find this blog depressing, that means that it causes you to be depressed, or in other words, it depresses you. That deduction requires no manipulation.

If a person says that they find the news depressing, it is safe to say that the news causes them to be depressed, or said person is depressed by watching the news (and is probably keen enough to watch something else, instead of the news).

If a person says that they find the color purple in a field of green to be uplifting, it is safe to say that the color purple uplifts them, or causes them to be uplifted.

And, I’ve never had a problem with reading comprehension, thank you. The problem you have with my answers to your questions is that it’s not the answer you want to hear.

I know what I know and will not undo that until I find real factual reasons. My views will not be cultural, which requires being open to things that I may not like - I once advocated spanking, until I had children and wanted to do the best I could for them.

That doesn’t mean you have to come across as self-righteous. I feel the same way about Christianity. I know what I know, and will not undo that until I find real factual reasons. My views aren’t cultural at all. But, I doubt anyone here (or elsewhere) would say that I come across as self-righteous. Point: even if you believe everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you can dissent without being judgmental or condescending.

By DB

November 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Jason: You can’t avoid politics in any school, public or private; nor can you avoid it if you keep your kids home as obviously your kids would hear your side. That’s your business though. Also, I find a lot of your assumptions about blaming everything on liberals quite comical. You act as if conservatives are to blame for nothing, and liberals are to blame for everything. Get real. Take the good out of each. The self-esteem movement is not necessarily a result of “bleeding-heart” liberals. It is good, however, that the bleeding hearts have created a bit of protection from monster teachers, but things have gotten out of hand and students are no longer accountable for themselves. That has nothing to do with religion, prayer, liberalism, conservatism, etc. It’s all about schools not having authority to tell people the truth about their kids and deny them privileges(how about the privilege to attend school?) when they misbehave or fail to work. Instead of telling parents when their kids need to behave, they send them to a psychologist to get medication or special classes that allow them to waste more money and have lower expectations for themselves.

Equality is not a bad thing; it’s just that it has been grossly misunderstood by the ignorant masses.

I will never send my kids to a public school in GA. It’s not because I’m religious or anti-government but because schools have absolutely no discipline and literally shelter kids from the rigors of life. They teach kids they can do whatever they want without consequences, and they give kids a grossly unrealistic sense of accomplishment by giving kids good grades for almost nothing. Failure and struggle are important parts of life, and schools have removed that. Kids are not taught to learn from struggle. Curricula are a joke. And, most importantly, school policies are determined by the increasing numbers of complaining kids, and their terrible parents. Unfortunately, that has become the norm.

By Van

November 28, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Getting back to the original theme of this weeks subject, how is it that the federal school system, public schools, can spend 4-8 thousand dollars per student and get dismal results, and everyone says that is okay.

Private schools spend less and get better results, home school’s spend even less and get better results. This just defies logic. All the secular, left wing, weak kneed and spineless do gooders all seem to think that the collective should be greater than the individual, this is wrong on many levels. Question, is the average greater than the maximum value?

To make society better, there must be those that excel and are used as roll models. Imagine, a college with out bone head english or math. How about well ajusted young people?

Parents are responsible for their children, for their education and well being. If you think the state is better equiped to do this, then that is your choice.

By DB

November 28, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

DeltaX: You severely misinterpreted the spanking study! Also, it wasn’t a very good one if you plan on making strong conclusions. You may want to re-read it or get different person to explain it to you.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

JBM,

You cannot understand that a subject can be depressing, yet not make you depressed. One can do that IF they make their own ACTIVE decisions - I do not see that exhibited on here and have made the choice not to participate when I see it re-emerging. That omission of myself from a conversation is what you perceive as self-righteous.

I feel the same way about Christianity

You test and look to factual proof for your faith and belief in Christianity? You compare other religions and adhere when you find a fault in your schema?

I do not think they are remotely the same.

If someone wants to argue their opinion on what the derivative of 3X is after I point them to studies and proof; I do find them inferior in that realm of KNOWLEDGE. They have no purpose in my search of information then.

The endpoint is I have heard nothing from you that shows have the willingness to grow, so you are going to argue your point with the intention of defending what you have learned - right or wrong - all without addressing questions or statements accurately.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Once again,

Having been in the Psychiatry field; and working with kids as well as adults; you run into two cases with toubled kids:

A - They have true mental disorders that will not be benefitted by punishment of ANY type.

B - They have inconsistent parents, if not right out bad ones.

Anyplace you find a child who yells, acts out - you will find the same in their parents. The people on here that argue that they do not exhibit this, do not have a partner and do not KNOW what they are passing on. That is because they chose to run from their relationship problems.

Like a drunk: You eliminate the booze and they are not a dry drunk. Same goes for generational issues [example: dad was a drunk so I just do not drink. Well you still learned the behaviour that goes with it].

By The72John

November 28, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Again, someone blames the left for all that is evil. Spineless do-gooders? Are you quoting from a Scooby-Doo episode, or what? Talk about comic melodrama. And really - liberals don’t believe that no one should excel - that’s pure nonsense. Someone’s been listening to his talk radio, for sure. Get a grip on your political philosophies before you come a-ranting and a-raving.

I’m curious to know what private schools you think spend less per student that the state and do so well. Most private schools I know charge high tuitions and certainly spend more per-student than public schools.

The fact of the matter is that any developed nation with a reasonable literacy rate and percentage of higher educated people have a firmly rooted public school system. The institution of public education marked the transition between a mostly illiterate culture and a mostly literate one. Most people can’t afford private schools, and most people can’t afford homeschooling, or at least the loss of income that would be associated with it. To suggest that there should be no public education is the height of ideological folly.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Should read: You eliminate the booze and they are now a dry drunk.

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Like I said, Delta: self-righteous.

By Renee

November 28, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

A child who acts out sometimes is just that. They have good parents, and no mental disorders. So how do we classify those children. Sometimes children do things to emulate the behavior of other children (this falls in neither category A or B), children do things because they do not know how to express their feelings appropriately, maybe because they haven’t learned or know that they gain attention by acting out (doesn’t necessarily fall into category A or B) or they just make the CHOICE to behave in this manner (not falling into category A or B) Yes, children can have all the love, all the home schooling, all the teaching, and still act out. Doesn’t mean they have a mental disorder. Means they for whatever reason are making poor choices. As adults we do it all the time.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

DB,

across the six countries studied, children who were physically disciplined more frequently were more aggressive and anxious than were children who were physically disciplined less frequently.

What you are trying to cite is the statement: However, in countries where the use of physical discipline was more common, being physically disciplined more frequently was not related as strongly to aggression and anxiety as it was in countries where physical discipline was less frequently used,

See, it is still increased, just NOT AS MUCH.

Hmmm. Re-read or have it explained, huh? How about double-checking before making an a$$ of yourself;)

Enjoy all - you keep proving my point that your the problem, not the kids.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Means they for whatever reason are making poor choices.

Whatever reason is not an unknown. Kids are absorbing, learning machines. One day the sponge is filled and they begin to spew back at your what you put in.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Neither of my parents are violent people. I’m not mentally ill. Yet, as a youngster and early teenager I acted out violently. I wonder how this fits your theory?

You’re very quick to pigeonhole people, it seems. I may have only had a few semesters of undergrad psych, but I can’t imagine I ever had a prof who would have said that there are two possible causes, period, for any behavior. What I took from those classes was that behavior is incredibly complex.

Now, I was hyperactive - they didn’t call it ADD in the 80s - and by the time I was 11 or 12 I realized I was gay and had a hard time adjusting and dealing with that. I acted out because I was p** off at the world and because I had ADD. It had nothing to do with my parenting - they tried their best to deal with an unruly kid.

I just don’t buy your two cause theory. Sorry.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Now, I was hyperactive

Bingo!

And spanking will not help, but hinder that issue.

I would expect you, being one of the more logical bloggers to have been able to pick that up and not make me have to point out the obvious answer in your own statement.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Means they for whatever reason are making poor choices. As adults we do it all the time.

And would you hit an adult to HELP them make a better decision?

I probably do not want the answer to that…

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Wait, I’m not leaving it like that.

JBM,

You cannot understand that a subject can be depressing, yet not make you depressed.

Uhh, if a subject is depressing to a particular person, then it will make that person depressed. This, Delta, is not rocket science. When people watch Feed the Children, or similar type programs and declare that they hate those programs because they are depressing, it is safe to assume that those programs cause the person to feel overwhelmingly saddened, or depressed. That’s just logical.

One can do that IF they make their own ACTIVE decisions - I do not see that exhibited on here and have made the choice not to participate when I see it re-emerging.

I’m not sure what “that” you’re referring to, so no response.

That omission of myself from a conversation is what you perceive as self-righteous.

No, your refusal to respect others’ differing opinions and deeming your own as superior is what I perceive as self-righteous.

‘I feel the same way about Christianity’

You test and look to factual proof for your faith and belief in Christianity? You compare other religions and adhere when you find a fault in your schema?

I do not think they are remotely the same.

Uh, excuse me, but who said they were remotely the same? Certainly not I. For the benefit of those you probably confused, let me repeat what I said:

That doesn’t mean you have to come across as self-righteous. I feel the same way about Christianity. I know what I know, and will not undo that until I find real factual reasons. My views aren’t cultural at all. But, I doubt anyone here (or elsewhere) would say that I come across as self-righteous. Point: even if you believe everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you can dissent without being judgmental or condescending.

I didn’t say anything about testing and looking for factual proof. My sentence, “I feel the same way…” was followed by an explanation of: “I know what I know, and will not undo that until I find real factual reasons.” This means that I feel the same way about Christianity as you do about some of your tightly-held beliefs: that I know what I know and that I’m not changing my mind until someone can definitively prove me wrong. This means that I am unwavering and steadfast in my belief that God exists, and that He is the supreme being, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him and a punisher of those who reject Him. Many, many people don’t agree with me. Many don’t believe in God. I don’t judge them, nor do I treat them condescendingly, or consider myself superior to them. I love and respect them all the same.

If someone wants to argue their opinion on what the derivative of 3X is after I point them to studies and proof; * do find them inferior* in that realm of KNOWLEDGE. They have no purpose in my search of information then.

I’m sure you’ll accuse me of manipulating your words, but dude… anyone who considers himself superior to another is pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous.

Furthermore, for every study you produce, there is a study producing a counter-argument. But, you’ll never get it because like YOU said, they have no purpose in your search… because they go against what you believe. You couldn’t find opposing information if someone put it under your nose and dipped it in smelling salts. Like you said, anyone who, after hearing your so-called “proof,” still has an opposing view - is inferior to you and you have no purpose for them.

The endpoint is I have heard nothing from you that shows have the willingness to grow, so you are going to argue your point with the intention of defending what you have learned - right or wrong - all without addressing questions or statements accurately.

In other words, you haven’t heard anything from me that shows I’ll ever agree with you, so everything I say to you is useless and to be disregarded.

You remind me of a Jehovah’s Witness I dated (no offense meant to JWs). He was the same way, and so aggressive about it. If I didn’t agree with him and his explanations of the Bible, I was inferior, ignorant, blinded, stubborn, uneducated, etc.

I got your number, Delta.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

There is not a case you can remedy this stuff with violence.

If they are violent, you will confirm that is acceptible.

If not, you will teach them it is.

If they have a disorder {ADD for example} it will add to the problem as well.

You have to ACT, not react. You have to TEACH and REENFORCE better decisions, not hit.

All kids want to please thier parents. Just show them how constructively.

By The72John

November 28, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

C’mon Delta. You know as well as I that finding one point that you decide is illogical (by the way, you don’t have any reasons for that statement - declaring that something is true by fiat doesn’t work any more for you or I than it does for the religious types) in no way dismisses the rest of the argument.

As it happens, in my case spanking was the one thing that did work. Trust me, when I was punching a hole in the wall and shouting incoherently, a logical talk or “time out” period didn’t do anything.

By Netbanker

November 28, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Goodness there are a lot of gay people on this blog!

And has anyone ‘seen’ Tim or Whiley in a while?

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Funny stuff how you confirm exactly my point in your prose without seeing it.

You confirm and deny concepts in the same blog!

When people watch Feed the Children, or similar type programs and declare that they hate those programs because they are depressing, it is safe to assume that those programs cause the person to feel overwhelmingly saddened, or depressed.

So, by your logic; because it is depressing to see, all the people working in it are depressed? Are you going to answer a question that makes you see your lack or understanding? BC that is what is depressing on this blog - and it is thematic.

Good show!

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

TheJohn; Your words:

I was spanked or paddled at home and in school plenty of times. PLENTY of times. I guess that kind of sums it up - the paddling didn’t help me with learning impulse control, which was my problem in the first place. What ultimately did it was the disappointment my parents felt when things progressed that far.

I was a darn unruly kid - put fists through walls and all of that, so I can’t say that spanking wasn’t warranted, and I don’t know that “time out� would have done it, but I CAN see why parents wouldn’t want someone else spanking their child. There are bound to be teachers out there who enjoy inflicting pain on students.

So, you knew a minute ago it did not help, but change that now. And you DONT KNOW what other means would have done, since they were not employed.

Come on and see that you are justifiying what you know by what you do not know! I like you man, but that IS THE CYCLE!

By Just Being Me

November 28, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Anyplace you find a child who yells, acts out - you will find the same in their parents.

Absolutely untrue. My godson is a perfect example of a child who repeatedly acts out, has no mental disorders, and is simply out-of-control. Both his parents are the most gentle, mild-mannered, calm people I’ve ever seen. Much to the family’s chagrin, his parents never raise their voices at the children, and punish by giving them a good “talking-to” and time-out. His brother is the polar opposite, taking more after his parents. (And he wasn’t switched at birth). Bottom line is that to meet his parents, you’ll never believe that they could have birthed and raised a boy like him.

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

TheJohn;

As it happens, in my case spanking was the one thing that did work. Trust me, when I was punching a hole in the wall and shouting incoherently, a logical talk or “time out� period didn’t do anything.

Possible solution: How about understanding you were gay and helping you with that?

By DeltaX

November 28, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

JBM;

And now personal testimony from afar. You should work for 2am infomertials.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

There are many articles on the success of home school students. Either of the columnists could have found dozens with a 30 second google search. Here is one from a peer reviewed journal. I have just included the abstract, but you can go and read the entire article at:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/

Scholastic Achievement and Demographic Characteristics of Home School Students in 1998 Lawrence M. Rudner ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation College of Library and Information Services University of Maryland, College Park This article has Commentary

Abstract This report presents the results of the largest survey and testing program for students in home schools to date. In Spring 1998, 20,760 K-12 home school students in 11,930 families were administered either the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) or the Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP), depending on their current grade. The parents responded to a questionnaire requesting background and demographic information. Major findings include: the achievement test scores of this group of home school students are exceptionally high—the median scores were typically in the 70th to 80th percentile; 25% of home school students are enrolled one or more grades above their age-level public and private school peers; this group of home school parents has more formal education than parents in the general population; the median income for home school families is significantly higher than that of all families with children in the United States; and almost all home school students are in married couple families. Because this was not a controlled experiment, the study does not demonstrate that home schooling is superior to public or private schools and the results must be interpreted with caution. The report clearly suggests, however, that home school students do quite well in that educational environment.

By vince

November 29, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

My sister earned her Ph.D. in Special Education Administration Leadership ten years ago. She entered into the Public School System with great hopes that she could make a difference in the lives of children. After two years, she resigned and created a tutoring business working from home.

The impact she’s been able to have working one on one with children who are distanced from the public school system was measured by a third party education company three years ago. While the list is very long, the positive changes (albeit this is a very small group and I do not mean to imply it should reflect on a national scale)deserve recognition. Scores on tests were up twenty-two percent on average, parents reported their child’s behavior at home showed signs of calming down, dialogue between the parent’s and children indicated the basic vocabulary skills were much improved over a short period of time.

My sister has been able to hold monthly seminars with the parents and share with them details about her teaching methods and provide resources helping the parents understand that homeschooling is an option. But that is the important point, its an option. Just because the performance of the children in the short term has improved, that doesn’t mean to pull them out of public schooling.

The point here is that public schooling or homeschooling choices should be made based on the circumstances facing each individual family, and not based on scientific research reports and trends.

Basing your decision not to send your child to a public school because one liberal teacher expressed their opinion on the poor performance of the current President is dangerous. Right there the child has learned bigotry is acceptable. And sending your child to a public school for the sake of socialization also makes very little sense. The classes and caliber of most public school teachers are about as stimulating as molded cucumbers.

Looking at your child and your situation and then determining what approach will suit your child’s needs the most is the only issue that matters. Some will do well in public schools, some will do well at home. There isn’t a cut and dry answer to satisfy everyone.

By Robert Kirkman

November 29, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Not all parents choose to homeschool their children for ideological reasons. In our case, it was a practical decision based on the details of our sitation: our child’s character and aptitude, and the education and services offered by our school district under the constraints of state law. To give one example, our child was born in late September, and so missed the cut-off for Kindergarden when she was about to turn five; by that point, she was already reading at a first-grade level. State law provided no flexibility in the matter, and the school district stonewalled us. By the time she was eligible for Kindergarden, she was reading at a third-grade level and doing math at a second-grade level.

We support public education in principle, and we continue to pay our property taxes without complaint. However, public education in our district (and perhaps in this state) is simply a bad fit for our child. That is why we have chosen to homeschool.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

I could never home school. I do not have the patience…. Its great being a loving aunt who can always send the ankle-biters home.

I was also a petulant problem child who got her share of spankings for doing wrong. ADD had not been invented for us to fall back on, nor were there Happy Places to be in. Now, name a problem, get a acronym and a pill for it without a psychological evaluation seems to substitute for problem kids. Blaming other reasons for bad behavior is the norm today, but will these children ever learn to go beyond blaming others/things and accept change must come from the self? Without discipline it is impossible, time will tell because adulthood leaves little room for tantrums when firing and divorce are end results.

Teachers used to put unruly kids into closets: we did not have Time Out Time and all of the nurturing a modern teacher now is expected to do. We had the principals office where you went to be expelled but never did our teachers hit/spank (except in church I was spanked by a Sunday School teacher) shout or even swipe the knuckles with a ruler. Once out of the closet, I would not misbehave until…o well…the next time. I would say my parents were good folk, hard working and full of their traditional morals but I cannot blame them for my behavior, nor do I blame my sisters and brothers for ratting on me when I did my wrongs. Its part of lessons that life gives, how to adjust, how not to behave because of the punishment.

I learned more out of school than in it. I hated school because of social peer troubles, I hated going daily to face the same boring routines, and I never studied unless there was a test! My years of public school were made hideous when my mother joined the ranks as teacher—you cant do anything when mom is teaching three doors away. Oddly when I left academia I began to re-educate myself thus challenging my staid existence with new directions and brain fodder.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

We need more people like your sister Vince.

By 2D

November 29, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

Right now, the Georgia Public Schools are in shambles. We see a few pockets of hope, but for the most part, they can’t provide a quality education. If they could, you would not see so many private schools in business.

I can attest to that first hand when I came to college and compared myself to Georgia public school, shucks even private school, for that matter. My high school education was so far advanced, I almost felt sorry for them. For the most part, the non-Georgia students far exceeded the Georgia (or pretty much any other Southern state) student by leaps and bounds. Why? Schools and priorities.

If and when I have children, I would seriously consider homeschooling them. Why? Because I have met teachers throughout our school systems, teaching a variety of subjects and unfortunately, the two parents in our family know more about all subjects than the teachers. About the only things public school would provide is 1. a lab setting for various science experiments which are very beneficial and 2. social interactions which are also important.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

And now personal testimony from afar. You should work for 2am infomertials.

Really, Delta, that is SO childish. In case you were talking to me, everybody knows that I have ONE child, and she’s not a 7 y/o boy, but a 15 y/o girl who is far from “out of control.� Furthermore, I couldn’t possibly be talking about myself because (1) I am far from mild-mannered, and (2) I raise my voice often, and would never continue to put a child in time-out while he spins out of control. Does that even sound like me?

Whew… If I didn’t know I had self-control before, I sure know it now. This is good exercise for me.

So, by your logic; because it is depressing to see, all the people working in it are depressed? Are you going to answer a question that makes you see your lack or understanding? BC that is what is depressing on this blog - and it is thematic.

Oh my goodness. Delta, do you hear yourself? Do you re-read what you type? It simply makes no sense to suggest that one person’s opinion of whether or not something is depressing can determine whether others will be depressed by it???? To continue in your example, hopefully this will make it clear for you: “it is depressing to seeâ€? means that the person speaking considers something to be depressing to see. It is not a declaration on behalf of all mankind. Just because Sally finds “Feed the Children” depressing to see, doesn’t mean that Duke will find it depressing to see, or be depressed by it. Just because YOU find this blog depressing, doesn’t mean that everyone finds it depressing. YOU said that YOU find this sight depressing, now you’re trying to manipulate your own words to explain why you continue to come back despite finding it depressing. YOU said YOU find it depressing, not me.

I’m done with this - sometimes talking to you is like talking to walls - and unlike you, I don’t do stuff that makes me miserable.

By Scalia

November 29, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Let’s get to the crux of the problem. So many people blame the schools, but what about the parents? Do they encourage their children to read, go to the library, do extra work? That makes a big difference. JBM talked about making her child do more work. It’s about expectations. If you see that your child has potential, challenge them. If you want to sit your child in front of a television screen, or focus all on their athletic ability instead of academics, what do you expect? For example, look at Stinchcomb that went to UGA couple of years back. He was all American in both academics and athletics. He has a degree in mircobiology.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Yeah but did he look good in lycra?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

The parents own the real resposibility for educating their children. One thing that may help public schools is doing away with tenure. Many teachers that have attained that are coasting just like their students only the student pays.

By vince

November 29, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Jack,

Thank you for the kind comment. I am fiercely proud of her. Currently she has three children under the age of 7 who behave like angels (I want her to write a book on parenting), oversees nine private licensed teachers,tutors a full weekly schedule of children, keeps her house and husband in great shape, and somehow maintains a low stress level.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

JBM,

Agreed. The conversation is done.

Have a great day;)

By chuck

November 29, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

I love this statement from Diane. She clearly lacks the capacity to think logically.

We also have to consider what this means for the future of public education. University of Illinois Professor Chris Lubienski contends that home schooling is not only a response to deteriorating public schools but a cause of its decline. Schools should be given the chance to respond to public needs, he argues. Home schooling doesn’t help the public good, just the individual. And our future is about all children, not just our own.

So I guess, according to her “logic”, that I am supposed to sacrifice the education of MY CHILD, for all of those whose parents DON’T TEACH THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG OR HOW TO BEHAVE IN SCHOOL?!?!?

I am a public school teacher in a really good school, but both of my children were/are home schooled. My son just graduated (He went to a private Christian school his senior year and made all A’s.)and is currently a freshman in a State university. He has made A’s in all of his classes thus far and scored over 1200 on the SAT. He is only 17. We were able to skip a grade in elementary because he was so advanced. He started reading at the age of 3, (over 200 sight words). I could never have skipped a grade in the school system in which I teach. He has NO PROBLEMS socially, he is an accomplished classical guitarist, throws a baseball in the low 90’s, and has his black belt in Tae Kwan Do. My daughter is a straight A student at 14, has tons of friends and was reading at the 12th grade level when she was in the 5th grade. I wish all of my students had her ability AND, more importantly, her WORK ETHIC.

Several posts talked about the ability of the parents as teachers being the deciding factor as to whether or not homeschooling will be successful. The same thing applies to schools. Is a “failing school” any better for the education of a child than an underprepared parent? I don’t think that it is and here is the reason why: 1) Parents who homeschool, generally do so because they love their children and want the best education possible for them. Failing schools are concerned about ONE THING…making AYP. If my kid is passing the standardized tests in a failing school, HE IS NOT GOING TO BE THE KID WHO GETS THE ATTENTION AND RECOGNITION HE DESERVES BECAUSE THAT ATTENTION WILL GO TO THE STUDENT WHO IS FAILING. (By attention, I mean attention to his educational needs, not to him personally). In other words, my kid will not be challenged and will probably REGRESS, because of that. 2) There are TONS of resources available to parents that are not available to teachers in public school. If you are studying pre-historic Indians you can pick up and take a learning trip to Etowah or Ocmulgee. If you are studying the space program you go to Huntsville. If you are studying natural history you go to Fernbank. It is almost impossible to take a field trip in many public schools because of the expense of transportation, unruly students, and scheduling difficulties. There are parent support groups for homeschoolers, there are sports programs available with many groups forming homeschool teams and competing against private schools. There ar untold numbers of curricular resources that are not tied to a textbook. With limited or no help, parents who graduated from high school are perfectly capable of teaching their children at home.

My question for Brian and others who spent so much time talking about the ability of the parents is, “If what you say is true, why do homeschoolers score SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER on all of the basic indicators (ITBS, SAT, etc.)than do their public school counterparts?

The answer is OBVIOUS. Home schoolers receive one on one attention and parents have the time to reteach as many times as they need to to make sure their children understand the concepts. Their educational plan is tailored to their individual educational needs. We don’t have that luxury in the public schools.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

OK. It is Tuesday and we already wore this subject out. Someone come up with something to stir things up. I hear “E” is going to air “The Simple Life”. That is really great. I don’t know what I would have done if we had lost such wholesome, informative, programming.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Lol Jack!

By Scalia

November 29, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Oh yeah, he rocked in lycra. Nice bottom.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Vince, that’s a great story. Your sister is to be commended.

I want to add to that, that in addition to all the options parents have to homeschool their children, I recently learned that there are also effective ways for full-time employed parents to homeschool also.

I considered homeschooling my partner’s niece, who was finally promoted to the 6th grade after failing the CRCT and sumnmer school 2 years in a row… she was only promoted because of her age. If I were to homeschool her, I would have homeschooled my daughter as well.

It’s hard to imagine working full-time and providing a quality education to your children after/before work… but, I was really surprised by the possibilities. I guess it takes an open mind, and consideration of the benefits of a non-traditional education environment.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

LOL Jack!

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Oh, I knew I was forgetting something. I meant to add in my 11:25 (which I actually typed at 9:45a and for some reason it just posted nearly 2 hrs later) that on last night’s episode of Wife Swap, one of the families had a husband who was a full-time pastor, and a wife who jointly homeschooled their seven children. The wife was swapped out with an Atheist mom who challenged the pastor-father to hire a non-Christian teacher to teach the children a lesson in Science.

I thought it was a pretty good idea, and honorable deed, to expose the children to beliefs different from what the parents hold (whether religion, politics, race relations, morals, social views, etc.).

By The72John

November 29, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Yeah, JBM, but the religious fanatics who homeschool their children do so exactly because they DON’T want their children exposed to ideas other than the ones they are trying to indoctrinate them with. They aren’t insterested in intellectual curiosity, only dogmatic acceptance.

Sometimes it backfires on them though - I recently worked with someone homeschooled by a religious fanatic and he rejected all of the harsh rigidity of his father’s narrow belief system and left home as soon as he was able. At least some people get some sense.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

I’ve been meaning to check out Wife Swap. I heard it’s pretty good. Currently I’m a fan of Trading Spouses (the newer episodes aren’t as good as when it started). They did something similar by trading a Christian Mom and a Zodiac Mom (I know that’s not the correct title but they had belief not in God but of the Zodiac Signs, Moon etc..). It would have been better but the Christian Mom seemed to have major problems and spent most of the show yelling and screaming about gargoyles.

I think the key is having an open mind and being able to listen to and accept differences in people who do not believe or think as you do.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

That woman was completely insane. Off her rocker. Gone. Lights out. Looney.

In other words, your average religious fanatic. Incapable of even attempting to understand anyone elses point of view. The other mom wasn’t Christian, so she was evil, according to the nut job.

The producer’s had to know she was unstable - the whole thing was just pathetic. Funny, but pathetic.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

darn it I don’t know where that apostrophe in producers came from.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Yeah John, and you see after all that craziness, she ended up taking the money. The husband seemed normal, and the kids but she was a piece of work.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I felt bad for the husband and children. They were obviously mortified by her, and obviously liked the woman who had been there. Unfortunately, that’s what fanaticism leads to.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Gosh, these tv shows really inspire me to sign up for cable…!

By The72John

November 29, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

For all the bad shows, there are still excellent ones out there. A lot of them aren’t age-appropriate, but hey.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

72John, again your own close-mindedness caused you to paint with too wide a brush. It has NOTHING to do with exposure to those fallacies that you call science. It has to do with those concepts being taught in EXCLUSION of everything else. My son could probably teach YOU evolutionary theory. THEN he would show you from God’s word the truth of Creation. Most Christian homeschoolers take courses in Christian apologetics. By definition, they have to learn about the world’s view of science, evolution/creation, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage and a host of other topics. They are also taught the BIBLICAL world view and are fully prepared to defend it against those who call it a lie. What’s that old saying? Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer. You have to know who/what the enemy is to be able to fight against it.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

What would possess a couple to be on wife swap? Or Temptation Island? I would be ashamed to have my family on nanny 911. (they cut out the scenes where she uses the rubber hose)

By The72John

November 29, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Lol, you’re so right Chuck. MY close-mindedness is the issue. So typical of a fanatic to try to redirect the argument at those who assault their narrowness.

The only fallacies are those you and your willfully deluded ilk so pathetically cling to as the mythology of your primitive superstitious worldview is slowly erroded away by objective, verifiable science.

I KNOW you Chuck. You’re exactly like my deluded Aunts and Uncles, with their timelines on the kitchen walls showing that the world is 6000 years old.

Interesting choice of words, by the way, Chuck. Enemy. Very adversarial. Very…Christian. I’m sure Jesus would approve of your hatred.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Chuck. If I never attended Church but were a good person, would I go to Hell? (don’t tell me that I am not a good person if I don’t go to church)

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Am I going to have to get cable, to watch these two hawtties on re-runs? Watch so little TV but would it be worth it? Liked the one where they worked on a dairy farm, milking cows, in Arkansas I think it was. Been there, done that.

Well, Mr-we’re-on-a-Crusade did come out with You’re either with us or against us, probably heard that when discussing the enemy, which is everyone who does not think like him.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Hey. He ain’t as bad as Zack.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Jack, where is the voyeur in you? Or is it the tidy-whities factor that keeps the cameras from peeping in your bay windows?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel. I don’t mind lookin. Don’t like being looked at! (the tidy-whities are supposed to be a secret)

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

After Religious Christians {much different, and converse to following Christ} have repeatedly tried to push secular teachings out of public schools, and infuse their religion; of course we should believe they, in general, would include secular teachings of a broad-minded view while homeschooling!

I mean it makes perfect sense!

BTW- My wife was adamantly against homeschooling for the longest time bc all the exposure she had were in her church; and they did fit the “Socially Retarded” concept. After meeting and reading about the greater percentage that does not act that way, she changed her views.

Think about the Mormons and their contributions in this light! Many Religious Christians are not much better

{in no way am I against HSing, just pointing out and confirming the caveats - which are Religion based, as usual.}

By The72John

November 29, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Chilao, just get the DVD. It’ll be in the bargain bin after a week. That has got to be the worst show ever made. I remember a preview of an episode where they vacumed up some poor person’s relative who’d been cremated. Talk about bad taste.

By Scalia

November 29, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Right on, Jack. Zack is a very special person.

As for the children, Chuck, when they are exposed to those other beliefs (the world’s beliefs), do they question the bible? You said that they defend their beliefs. Do they honestly have an objective or a subjective debate(I am right, you are wrong.)?

I’ve had many objective debates with Jehovah’s Witnesses. As to the Watchtower, the field service (going door to door, and knocking), and their beliefs about Christmas, etc. I never once said that they were wrong for what they do, I just asked for clarity.

By lyrazel

November 29, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck, why do you teach in a public school if it goes against all your beliefs? Would you better serve students in a faith-based school? You have serious arguments against public schools in all your postings and I am just curious. Also, have you read anything about how state universities are not accepting home-student credits for religious based coursework in science and literature? (The example I have is course work from Bob Jones Univ. vs State of CA). Thanks.

I dont think its primarily religious fanatics home schooling. I think the average educated parent confronted with teacher apathy, drugs in school, violence in school, classrooms in trailers, and the continued deterioration of educational standards are reasons enough. Private schools used to be places where the elite in Georgia sent their kids, now middle class students are more commonly going to private schools because of the shambles GA schools are in. In Garden City the schools got an F- (they also classified mac & cheese as a vegetable for school lunch). Savannah did not score much higher with a D+. How could a parent send their kid to a place like that?

Why is it most public school taught students are totally unprepared for college these days—in coursework—if they supposedly graduate with NCLB standards? Why are there 2 standards of NCLB, one for states (which is lower than national standards so states wont loose $$$) and one on the national level? Public schools are in ruin because of government regulations that maintain all students learn at the same level and if not its the teachers/school fault. Shows me bureaucrats know nothing about Education…so why give them such power over your children? NCLB is more a tool for gathering data about future recruits than education…if I had kids they would not be serving time in public school in GA…

By The72John

November 29, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

I still laugh every time I see that scene in Mean Girls, when they are showing the different homeschooled kids, and the little kids in overalls and plaid flannel say “And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle so we could hunt the dinosaurs and the homosexuals”.

Probably Chuck’s kid before he went off to secular school.

By Netbanker

November 29, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ok Jack, I’ve got one….how about the impending lawsuit being filed on behalf of children against Coca-Cola?

here’s a link to the story and a couple of excerpts to get the discussion ball rolling:

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/coke/1105/29bizcokesuit.html \ The attorneys say they could use several legal arguments. They may argue that school vending machines are a nuisance because they give kids access to something that is both tempting and dangerous, the same argument that would be used in the case of a swimming pool without a fence.

Another argument is deceptive advertising — the idea that by putting vending machines in schools, companies are implicitly telling kids the drinks are good for them. Also, attorneys may argue that it is unfair to offer kids soft drinks in an environment where parents have no control.

The caffeine addiction angle could be a factor in all of the arguments, Daynard said.

Children are also key to the obesity strategy. By focusing on schools, the attorneys are putting children at the center of the argument.

Howard said the caffeine and sugar combination in a soft drink is “toxic cocktail that children cannot easily refuse.”

Yet another reason to homeschool your children…being able to monitor what they consume and how much exercise they get. I’d wager that obesity is not a problem among home schooled children. No proof on this, but just a hunch that parents concerned enough about education also make sure their kids are getting plenty of exercise and learning good nutrition skills too.

By Lyrazel

November 29, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

…I thought god made the Uzi on the eighth day…crowd control for eden

By Renee

November 29, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Jack, I agree. I can’t understand anyone agreeing to be on the shows they do.

By Netbanker

November 29, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel…mac n cheese IS a vegetable in the South. You can verify that by looking a menu from a traditional Southern restaurant. I mean, certainly, the menus at The Collonade and Thomas’s wouldn’t lie!

By Scalia

November 29, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

John, that scene was hilarious. I had forgetten about it.

As for the diet, it is cheaper to buy fatting food than it is to buy healthy food. If the school is preparing large quantities of food, it is going to be cheaper to fry things. It’s gross, and bad for everybody, but it is cheaper.

Go back a few years. McDonald’s or Wendy’s did not have salads, or any healthy alternative. It was 3.30 to get a supersized Big Mac, fries, and soda. Now the salads cost more than that, I think 4 dollars and something with tax. Add a drink to that, and you are five dollars are more. Which alternative looks better?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

NetB. They didn’t have vending machines when I went to school. (back in the horse & buggy days) It would be nice for this country to have some real tort reform. It’s a shame that insurance companies would rather settle a frivoulous (sic) lawsuit instead of fighting it because the opposition can easily run up the legal fees beyond the settlement. We all pay. Get rear-ended by someone going 2 mph 7 no damage, no problem. Easy 10k.

By Scalia

November 29, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

John, that scene was hilarious. I had forgetten about it.

As for the diet, it is cheaper to buy fatting food than it is to buy healthy food. If the school is preparing large quantities of food, it is going to be cheaper to fry things. It’s gross, and bad for everybody, but it is cheaper.

Go back a few years. McDonald’s or Wendy’s did not have salads, or any healthy alternative. It was 3.30 to get a supersized Big Mac, fries, and soda. Now the salads cost more than that, I think 4 dollars and something with tax. Add a drink to that, and you are five dollars are more. Which option looks better?

By Netbanker

November 29, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

That quote should read toxic c-o-c-k-t-a-i-l

By Interesting...

November 29, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Democrats: * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71. * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72. * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72. * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade. * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam. * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII. * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts. * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 19 65-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress. * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. * Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91. * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier’s Medal. * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart. * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat
V. * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star. * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57 * Chuck Robb: Vietnam * Howell Heflin: Silver Star * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII. * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311. * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953 * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters. * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans — and these are the guys sending people to war: * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. * Dennis Hastert: did not serve. * Tom Delay: did not serve. * Roy Blunt: did not serve. * Bill Frist: did not serve. * Mitch McConnell: did not serve. * Rick Santorum: did not serve. * Trent Lott: did not serve. * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business. * Jeb Bush: did not serve. * Karl Rove: did not serve. * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism. * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. * Vin Weber: did not serve. * Richard Perle: did not serve. * Douglas Feith: did not serve. * Eliot Abrams: did not serve. * Richard Shelby: did not serve. * Jon! Kyl: did not serve. * Tim Hutchison: did not serve. * Christopher Cox: did not serve. * Newt Gingrich: did not serve. * Don Rumsfeld: ser ved in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor. * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama
so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty. * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies. * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea. * Phil Gramm: did not serve. * John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve. * John M. McHugh: did not serve. * JC Watts: did not serve. * Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem, ” although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback. * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard. * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. * George Pataki: did not serve. * Spencer Abraham: did not serve. * John Engler: did not serve. * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer. * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers * Sean Hannity: did not serve. * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’) * Bill O’Reilly: did not serve. * Michael Savage: did not serve. * George Will: did not serve. * Chris Matthews: did not serve. * Paul Gigot: did not serve. * Bill Bennett: did not serve. * Pat Buchanan: did not serve. * John Wayne: did not serve. * Bill Kristol: did not serve. * Kenneth Starr: did not serve. * Antonin Scalia: did not serve. * Clarence Thomas: did not serve. * Ralph Reed: did not serve. * Michael Medved: did not serve. * Charlie Daniels: did not serve. * Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don’t shoot back.)

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Scalia - hate to refer to Wife Swap again, but when they brought that non-Christian teacher in, one of the first questions the daughter had for the teacher was regarding evolution. I wondered aloud whether she had ever felt comfortable posing that same question to her parents.

I hold adamantly to my beliefs in Christ, and I teach my daughter the same. However, I make sure that she is very comfortable coming to me with concerns she has about my (our) beliefs. And, I’m always honest with her when I don’t know the true answer to her questions.

What I find extremely unfortunate is that parents often teach their children dogmatic tenets of “Christianity” which are often baseless and unfounded. Even when they are valid, the children must be encouraged and allowed to question what they don’t understand without being judged.

Oh, and I gave up debating with JWs a long time ago - it’s so exhaustive and unfruitful. They are severely brainwashed, and the sad part is that many of them know it and feel stuck.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

You are right about the mac & cheese Netbanker.

About the obesity among homeschooled children, theoretically, I think you would be right. But thinking of every homeschooled kid I know right now, they are all overweight. Which might lead me to believe that perhaps they eat more since they are home. My disclaimer: I am not saying all homeschooled kids eat more since they are home.

Also, I don’t think anyone that has overweight kids aren’t concerned about nutrition and exercise. I think that’s like saying parents who send their kids to public school aren’t concerned about their education (which I know some people do believe).

I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. I don’t think there are many children out there solely obese from the snacks they buy at school. And although you can’t monitor your kids all day, you can monitor the money you give them, and you can tell them how to spend it. And a parent can make a rule of no junk food at school.

By Netbanker

November 29, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

We had Coke vending machines when I was in high school 25 years ago, but they weren’t accessible until after school hours for kids and teachers who participated in sports or clubs to obtain a drink. We also had an amazing salad bar and at a $2 for all you could load on a plate it was cheaper than anything we could bring from home as well as pretty healthy.

Jack…I agree about tort reform. I’d love to be a judge just so I could not only throw out stupid cases, but also fine the plaintiff for wasting the court’s time. It is kind of twisted that most lawyers are conservatives, who as a group tend to espouse personal responsibility, and yet they are filing these class action law suits that say the plaintiffs aren’t responsible for what they consume or the consequences thereof.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

I thought the Colonade burned down. Did they rebuild it?

By Bruce

November 29, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

This is interesting. A few weeks ago several of you were screaming “if you want your children to know about God teach them at home”. Anyone remember that? Now you are critizing those that do just that. Just exactly what is it you want?

By Interesting...

November 29, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Bruce, I believe that if you read back you’ll see that pretty much everyone agrees that homeschooling is a legitimate alternative. No one questions the RIGHT of a parent to do so. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with the curriculum.

That aside, the “teach your children about religion at home” didn’t have anything to do with education, and everything to do with whose responsibility it is to teach spirituality. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that a public school shouldn’t be teaching religious doctrine?

By chuck

November 29, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Jack, I hate to tell you this, but you are not a good person EVEN IF YOU GO TO CHURCH. The Bible teaches:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Micah 7:2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

The plain truth of the matter is that nobody is good enough to go to heaven. Nobody CAN be good enough. If we could get to heaven by being “good” then Jesus would not have come to earth and died on the cross for our sins.

There really is good news though. It is Christ who died for our sins. Romans 5 says it like this: (this is the contemporary English translation)

6Christ died for us at a time when we were helpless and sinful. 7No one is really willing to die for an honest person, though someone might be willing to die for a truly good person. 8But God showed how much he loved us by having Christ die for us, even though we were sinful. 9But there is more! Now that God has accepted us because Christ sacrificed his life’s blood, we will also be kept safe from God’s anger. 10Even when we were God’s enemies, he made peace with us, because his Son died for us. Yet something even greater than friendship is ours. Now that we are at peace with God, we will be saved by his Son’s life. 11And in addition to everything else, we are happy because God sent our Lord Jesus Christ to make peace with us.

Adam and Christ 12Adam sinned, and that sin brought death into the world. Now everyone has sinned, and so everyone must die. 13Sin was in the world before the Law came. But no record of sin was kept, because there was no Law. 14Yet death still had power over all who lived from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. This happened, though not everyone disobeyed a direct command from God, as Adam did. In some ways Adam is like Christ who came later. 15But the gift that God was kind enough to give was very different from Adam’s sin. That one sin brought death to many others. Yet in an even greater way, Jesus Christ alone brought God’s gift of kindness to many people.

The only way that you or I or ANYONE can go to heaven is by the method that GOD gave us…receiving the free gift of His Son’s sacrifice on the cross and making Him the Lord of our lives.

By lyrazel

November 29, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Netbanger, I forgot I could classify mac & cheese with ketchup…pardon my error…sugar must be a vegetable too! Scalia, I find it amusing they sell drinks with these healthy combos…yes have a salad and a heavily laced sugar dressing mix, with a heavy sugar soft-drink. Doesnt matter if you get oil and vinegar because the amount of corn syrup in those packages is enough to skyrocket anyone into diabetic delirium. Even the fries are coated with sugar…makes them crispy brown… corn sugar is everywhere …in Wendys chili and reported nowhere…gotta use up the corn subsidies surplus…thanks ADM…its even in toothpaste…in processed American cheese…pasta…so corn is a vegetable, right? Isnt that how the food pyramid works?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

So no one goes? That doesn’t sound right. If what you preach is true, there aren’t that many people up there. So I live by the “golden rule” will that get me there?

By Netbanker

November 29, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Jack…Unless it burned down in the past couple of weeks it’s still there. I admit to being a tad out of touch with Atlanta restaurant life lately due to personal circumstances, but I know enough people who regularly go there that I’m sure I’d have heard about it. You know I never should have mentioned that place…now I really want some of their Chicken Pot Pie and a basket of rolls.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

JBM, what’s a JW?

I’m all for rational tort reform, but the current conservative theories mostly revolve around providing immunity for companies from LEGITIMATE as well as illegitimate litigation.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel. Cake is good for you. It has wheat, eggs, milk. All it needs is a slab of beef on top and we’ve hit the main food groups.

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

That may have been my favorite scene in MeanGirls. Tailgate of a pickup, even.

Now, not that I have anything against homeschooling, why half my relatives…… In fact one ended up with such disgust for the evilness of America, not being the right kind of Christian enough for him, moved his butt and family to Zimbabwe. Last I heard, he was starving to death. I jest, he moved back to Evil America.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Their squash is very good too.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Crab cakes too. Darn. Now I’m hungry.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

BTW Lyrazel, teaching in the public schools does not go against my beliefs. I have posted MANY times about the good things in education. The truth is that public education is the great equalizer in America. Without it, only the elite would be educated. Homeschooling is not an option that everybody can or necessarily should choose. It is a fantastic opportunity for parents to bond with their children and to make sure that they get the best possible education, one that is tailored to their own educational needs.

I teach in public schools because that is what I am called to do. I’m really good at it. I try to take care of my students as if they are my own children. I love seeing the spark that goes off in their eyes when they really “get” something. I teach history and I do so in a way that makes it relevent to THEIR LIVES.

When I became a Christian, God didn’t call me to some monastery to never again have contact with the world. He called me to be IN the world but not OF the world. We as Christians are supposed to be “salt” and “light” to the world. I would feel the same way if I was a truck driver or a Doctor or a bush pilot. It really would not matter to me. I love teaching because that’s what I am supposed to do.

By lyrazel

November 29, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck, God must be mighty lonely with all these rules and prerequisites… somehow the quotes does not strike me as godly…kind of sounds quite human…ya know?…like dogs dont go to heaven…or like having virgins serve warriors of battle…like anyone ever ask the virgin waitresses if they WANT to serve Rambo for eternity…

By chuck

November 29, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Jack, do you ever read beyond the first sentence of a post?

By chuck

November 29, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

There is only ONE rule and one prerequisite Lyrazel.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Jack, as I posted earlier, there is nothing you can do to go to heaven EXCEPT receive Jesus as Savior and LORD.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Ah, the root philosophy of the fire-and-brimstone Christian Fundamentalist. Focus on sin to the exclusion of all else. Forget being a good person. Forget that two of the driving questions answered by every major religion and culture throughout history (Christianity too, though Chuckish folk are loathe to admit it) are “What makes a GOOD person” and “What constitutes a GOOD life”. CHUCK tells us that there ARE no good people. We’re all just scum.

If one can never be good enough to enter heaven, then there is no incentive inherent in this philosophy requiring that one be good at all. If the sole requirement for entry into Paradise is belief in Christ, then by Chuck’s reckoning a mass-murderer could enter heaven so long as he fervently believes in Christ.

Granted, this philosophy does explain why so many fundamentalists are such cruel and compassionless people.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Yes I do Chuck. When it’s worth it. I was just seeing what you would be regurgitating up for us. Nothing new. You remind me of a person who is very diet conscious and eats healthy food their whole life, denying themselves the pleasures God gave us to eat hoping to live longer. Only to get hit by a bus trying to cross the street. Live by the golden rule and enjoy life, that’s the ticket to Heaven.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

72John - A Jehovah’s Witness.

Jack - Please don’t ingest anything Chuck says about Christianity.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Jack, that’s two things we agree on. I’m gettin’ scared.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Acts 15:28-29: “For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

Jesus tried many times to send the message in concise language, but Chucks [meant to be plural] do not get it thanks to OCD + Denial = (downward spiraling path).

The above is just one of the many attempts Jesus made.

By The72John

November 29, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

I always thought this one summed it up pretty well, Delta, but apparently the fundies don’t understand the concept of love.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Chuck. Men wrote the bible. Not God. Men determined the content. Men also lie.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

That’s three things John, we’re on a roll.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

John,

Yes, that is definitely a good one and on the mark.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty, and my legs are thin…..

By The72John

November 29, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

And the award for the most random comment of the day goes to…Jack!

I think I speak for us all when I say…huh?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

a little Lindsey Buckingham. “don’t ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to” DeltaX knows it!

By chuck

November 29, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

72john, ONCE AGAIN, your preconceived bias against Christianity has inhibited your ability to read and comprehend. Having Christ as Savior and LORD, does not free you to do whatever you want to do. It frees you to do whatever CHRIST wants you to do.

The Bible doesn’t teach some form of easy believeism. I don’t know what your definition of the word LORD is but the Bible tells us what it is and what happens when a person accepts Christ. Our will is no longer our own.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

and, 72, Jesus Himself said the following to those who are unrepentent:

Matthew 11 20In the towns where Jesus had worked most of his miracles, the people refused to turn to God. So Jesus was upset with them and said: 21You people of Chorazin are in for trouble! You people of Bethsaida are in for trouble too! If the miracles that took place in your towns had happened in Tyre and Sidon, the people there would have turned to God long ago. They would have dressed in sackcloth and put ashes on their heads. 22I tell you that on the day of judgment the people of Tyre and Sidon will get off easier than you will. 23People of Capernaum, do you think you will be honored in heaven? You will go down to hell! If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, that town would still be standing. 24So I tell you that on the day of judgment the people of Sodom will get off easier than you.

Jesus Himself taught about the “fire and brimstone” that you so fondly pass off as “fundamentalism”. Yes Jesus taught love, but He also taught JUDGEMENT.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

God should be the judge of that.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

I’m trying. Got your dander up yet Chuck? I’ve violated my rule: Never argue with a zealot. No matter what you say will sway.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

GARRRRGOYLES!!!!

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

John, that’s also one of my favorites.

But, did you ever think that it could be possible that the Chucks of the world really are following that “love your neighbor as you love yourself” commandment.

Consider that some Christians, deep down - perhaps without even realizing it - don’t love themselves one bit. Consider that many Christians, after years of hits to their self-esteem coming from misunderstood quotes like, “your sins are as scarlet,” “your righteousness is as filthy rags,” and “you were born in sin and shapen in iniquity,” really have negative images of themselves, and of mankind (or, their “neighbors”). Some overzealous Christians, usually brainwashed, have a hard time loving and respecting YOU because deep down, they don’t love and respect themselves.

They have an erroneous understanding of what Jesus Christ stands for, and consider themselves ambassadors for someone they don’t even know.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

I rarely get my dander up Jack. You asked a question, I answered it. I knew you could care less what the Bible says and that you were just trying to get an argument started. That doesn’t bother me at all. What does bother me is that there are so many reading this blog who are going to find out that HELL is a real place and that it is reserved for all of those who reject Christ.

So, when The question is asked, I will answer it every time in hopes that some who read God’s word will turn to him so that they don’t perish. I hope one day YOU do that Jack. You too 72john.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Renee… I missed that episode. I used to like that show. Wife Swap is essentially the same exact thing - only difference is that there’s no money granted at the end (or at least they don’t televise it).

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

For the record, I am a Christian. No need to preach to me thank you. The folks on this blog are intelligent and need no preaching. You will have better luck spreading the word at the Fulton county jail. “Smile on your brother, everybody get togther, try to love one another right now”

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Chuck, for the first time ever (I think), I actually agree with you about 92% on your comment about hell being reserved for those who reject Christ.

I’m still curious, though, if that’s how you feel, why didn’t you just say that in the beginning when Jack posed his question? Why go through all the battery and abuse of quoting scripture — out of context, I might add — and sending a message of hopelessness instead of hope.

Your message, in other words, was: you suck, you’re a filthy, low-down sinner and you disgust me. But, hey, Jesus loves you and he died for your sins.

Is that really the message that you believe Christ commissioned you to portray?

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Did you read “The DaVinci Code” Chuck? Or did your Pastor/Priest forbid it?

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Jack,

a little Lindsey Buckingham. “don’t ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to� DeltaX knows it!

I concur!!

By chuck

November 29, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

JBM, How do you KNOW what Christ is like APART FROM HIS OWN WORDS?

Please read THE WHOLE CHAPTER WHERE THE VERSE YOU LOVE SO MUCH IS FOUND. I love that verse too, but you show absolutely that you have no concept of what the Bible teaches. You can’t take one little verse and pluck it from the Bible and have it mean anything. You have to study the Bible as a WHOLE TEXT. You can’t just take the parts you like and agree with and reject everything else.

Matthew 22 1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,

2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

4Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14For many are called, but few are chosen.

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

23The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Ohhhhh. I like it when he uses bold type.

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

wasn’t that on Bare Trees, a pre-fleetwood mac fleetwood mac. Had it in vinyl.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

HELL is a real place

There is NOWHERE in the bible that this is stated.

You can replace hell with torment and it makes the same amount of sence.

SHOW ME WRONG ON THIS, if you can. {but I will tell you that you cannot, I have looked long and hard with others many before you on this point}

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

You can’t just take the parts you like and agree with and reject everything else.

are we back to the shellfish and pork is okay, as long as you are not gay argument?

LMAO

By Renee

November 29, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

STOPPPPP!!!!!! We all agree with you and are followers. Now puhleez stop the preaching, the bible verse quoting etc.. What do you care if JBM doesn’t know the Bible, what difference does it make if she’s only taking one verse, that’s between her and God, which is a private relationship, as is yours. No need to share ANY further of YOUR private relationship with God!!!!

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Renee’. Don’t let him get your dander up. If he does, he wins.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Chilao. Giving away your age. That was back when we were young and spry. If I could just get back all those brain cells.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

True Jack! Thanks. I guess I’ll just stick to

GARRRRGOYLES!!

By GB

November 29, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Diane shows an interesting attitude on two points:

“Parents who choose home schooling want to instill their children with their deeply held beliefs.”

It is most peculiar that Diane implies that there is something wrong of PARENTS raise their children according to their beliefs, but sees no problem if the GOVERNMENT, thru its schools, indoctrinates the kids.

And there is this:

“University of Illinois Professor Chris Lubienski contends that home schooling is not only a response to deteriorating public schools but a cause of its decline. “

The goal is to educate children. Public schools are a means to that end, and not the only means. If public schools CEASE TO EXIST American society will not necessarily be harmed, IF other means are used to teach children.

Protecting public schools is not a valid goal in and of itself. The goal is education.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

He probably had to go to church after I mentioned “The DaVinci Code”

Good post GB.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

OKAY DELTA, you asked for it. These are just SOME of the verses that talk about hell”

Deuteronomy 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. Deuteronomy 32:21-23 (in Context) Deuteronomy 32 (Whole Chapter) 2 Samuel 22:6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me; 2 Samuel 22:5-7 (in Context) 2 Samuel 22 (Whole Chapter) Job 11:8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? Job 11:7-9 (in Context) Job 11 (Whole Chapter) Job 26:6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. Job 26:5-7 (in Context) Job 26 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Psalm 9:16-18 (in Context) Psalm 9 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Psalm 16:9-11 (in Context) Psalm 16 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 18:5 The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. Psalm 18:4-6 (in Context) Psalm 18 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 55:15 Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them. Psalm 55:14-16 (in Context) Psalm 55 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell. Psalm 86:12-14 (in Context) Psalm 86 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Psalm 116:2-4 (in Context) Psalm 116 (Whole Chapter) Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Psalm 139:7-9 (in Context) Psalm 139 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 5:5 Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. Proverbs 5:4-6 (in Context) Proverbs 5 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 7:27 Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death. Proverbs 7:26-28 (in Context) Proverbs 7 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 9:18 But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell. Proverbs 9:17-19 (in Context) Proverbs 9 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 15:11 Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men? Proverbs 15:10-12 (in Context) Proverbs 15 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath. Proverbs 15:23-25 (in Context) Proverbs 15 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-15 (in Context) Proverbs 23 (Whole Chapter) Proverbs 27:20 Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied. Proverbs 27:19-21 (in Context) Proverbs 27 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:13-15 (in Context) Isaiah 5 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. Isaiah 14:8-10 (in Context) Isaiah 14 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isaiah 14:14-16 (in Context) Isaiah 14 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Isaiah 28:14-16 (in Context) Isaiah 28 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 28:18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. Isaiah 28:17-19 (in Context) Isaiah 28 (Whole Chapter) Isaiah 57:9 And thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell. Isaiah 57:8-10 (in Context) Isaiah 57 (Whole Chapter) Ezekiel 31:16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth. Ezekiel 31:15-17 (in Context) Ezekiel 31 (Whole Chapter)

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Jack - I almost added ‘Yes, I am THAT old’. LOL actually got it from a buddy when I bought 120 vinyls from him. so it/album was a few years old, but not that old.

But now, thinking, not sure that song was on BareTrees, may have been a later song.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Why don’t you just paste the whole bible on the blog Chuck. Save some time. Do you prefer the Old or New Testament?

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

WHY?

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

isn’t that all Old Testament Bible quotes? Hardly CHRISTIAN.

Or do you worship on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday?

By The72John

November 29, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

And yet again, Chuck, you fail to grasp that my “preconceived bias” isn’t against Christianity, but against fundamentalists. It just so happens that most of the fundamentalists in this part of the country happen to be Christian.

And Chucky, my logic remains sound. Let’s play a little with the consequences of all the absolute statements you’ve made, shall we?

1) The only requirement for heaven is a belief in Christ. 2) True believers behave as Christ wants them to. 3) You are not a good person EVEN IF YOU GO TO CHURCH

Soo. If true believers behave as Christ wants them to, yet even church-goers are not good people, then Christ wants his people to behave badly.

Sophistry is fun.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’ve never read the DaVinci Code. I’ve seen it on the shelves at Sam’s, but don’t have a clue what it is about. I usually read Clancy, Grisham, Martini, Baldacci, William Martin. My all time favorite book (outside the Bible) Is actually Swiss Family Robinson which I have read probably 30-40 times. I always find something new in it.

Chilao, Again, you have to read the WHOLE BIBLE and study it in context. I found a book years ago that had a great discussion on the dietary laws. I’ll try to remember the title and recommend it to you since you seem to be so fixated on it.

JBM, the reason I quoted those verses was to actually attempt to answer Jack’s questions…something that rarely happens here, but something I always attempt to do. There are many people who believe what Jack expressed…that is If when I die the good side of the scale outweighs the bad, then I’ll go to heaven. That is a lie straight from hell. It has to addressed when broached.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

And it still - in ALLLLLL THATTTT TEXTTTT - does not state it is a place.

So, metaphor it is!

Thanks for proving that Chuck;)

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

And it still - in ALLLLLL THATTTT TEXTTTT - does not state it is a place.

So, metaphor it is!

Thanks for proving that Chuck;)

And as stated, it is OT; which Crist states he brings the NEW COVENANT

You cannot have two opposing contracts - physical or otherwise!

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

That is a lie straight from hell.

How exactly does hell lie??

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

It has to addressed when broached.

Why? Says who?

By chuck

November 29, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Under those conditions DELTA, you could be a metaphor. I’m not aware that the Bible states explicitly that Jerusalem is a place. Does that make it a metaphor?

As for your “logic”, 72…there are a couple of problems. First I did not say “the only requirement for heaven is belief in Christ”. What I did say was:

The only way that you or I or ANYONE can go to heaven is by the method that GOD gave us…receiving the free gift of His Son’s sacrifice on the cross and making Him the Lord of our lives.

I’m glad you enjoy sophistry since that is exactly what most of your arguments are. It seems that you also enjoy being sophomoric.

By Info

November 29, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Hell lies by e-mail.

By Chilao

November 29, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I am not fixated on dietary rules, I am fixated on Christians like you who are more Jewish than Christian, with all the holier-than-thou hate. Not to mention the selective application of old ugly Jewish laws. i.e. as in I love to see these anti-gay crowds chowing down on their pork BBQ, and going to church on SUNDAY. the FOURTH commandment! Want to see the Ten Commandments in Judicial Buildings, and can not even follow the RELIGOUS rules.

when some ALLEDGED Christian quotes from the Old Testament, I consider them a JEW, not a Christian.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Renee, Is you stupid or is you just ignorant? If I said it was a lie from Notre Dame would you assume that the bulidings lied or would you assume that one of its professors lied? If you want to debate at least try to get into the game.

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

JBM, How do you KNOW what Christ is like APART FROM HIS OWN WORDS?

Well apart from His words, all I have is His deeds. So, I know Christ through His “words” and His deeds. None of which, even remotely, resemble your words.

Please read THE WHOLE CHAPTER WHERE THE VERSE YOU LOVE SO MUCH IS FOUND. I love that verse too, but you show absolutely that you have no concept of what the Bible teaches. You can’t take one little verse and pluck it from the Bible and have it mean anything. You have to study the Bible as a WHOLE TEXT. You can’t just take the parts you like and agree with and reject everything else.

I actually know the entire chapter by heart - had to recite it in a play eons ago.

If you believe that I have no concept of what the Bible teaches, then I’m afraid we are way too far apart to even discuss this reasonably. But, for the record (in response to your comment), I accept the entire Word of God, from the “cover to the maps.”

And, believe me, Chuck - I say this with certainty: you know NOTHING about taking the entire Bible in context. NOTHING. You take the words, and delight in finding ways to use those words against people that don’t look and behave like you. You, and people like you, live daily to take the Bible out of context, and the sad part is that you don’t even know it.

What bothers ME, is to know that people like you will one day look up from hell and STILL not know how the heck they got there.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

There are many people who believe what Jack expressed…that is If when I die the good side of the scale outweighs the bad, then I’ll go to heaven.

If that is what Jack (or many people) believe, then that is their belief. Why try to change it, combat it or otherwise. Just let people be, we let you be, until youi start panning your beliefs on us.

By Renee

November 29, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Renee, Is you stupid or is you just ignorant?

Ignorant for even taking the time to debate with your STUPID A**.

Very Christian statements you make there.

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

you could be a metaphor

BINGO!!!!

So are our kids!

All metaphors for how we have acted!

Maybe you are getting it - everything, except for mental disorders, are metaphors!!!!

By The72John

November 29, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry that you find exercises in logic to be sophmoric, Chuck. That doesn’t speak highly of your intelect.

The problem, Chuck, with you and every other fundamentalist bigot out there, is that you have this perfect catch-22 built into your narrow world. Only TRUE Christians go to heaven, those who accept Christ and behave like he wants. But then, only YOU get to say who those true Christians are. It’s an unassailable position.

I’m fully aware that no matter how I pick at your logic, or how correct from a logical standpoint my arguments are, that you will never, ever, sway from what amounts to a hateful philosophy that is designed basically to reinforce your belief in your own moral superiority.

It’s why I find people like you despicable, Chuck.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

This very well could all be a dream and we’ll wake up in The Twilight Zone. Shame on you for calling Renee’ stupid. She has more smarts in her little toe than you have in your whole body. Dilbert.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

OKAY JBM, then how do you justify your position that Jesus is JUST about love. Based on that chapter and countless others JESUS talked about JUDGEMENT as well as love. That is the CONTEXT of the Bible. YES, Jesus loves me, he loves you, and he even loves old 72 john…BUT he is also HOLY and JUST. Rest assured that the entire Bible teaches the same message. Those who reject Christ will spend eternity in HELL.

Delta, I said those were some of the verses. Here are some more. Tell me Delta, How can you be cast into a metaphor?

Ezekiel 31:17 They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen. Ezekiel 31:16-18 (in Context) Ezekiel 31 (Whole Chapter) Ezekiel 32:21 The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword. Ezekiel 32:20-22 (in Context) Ezekiel 32 (Whole Chapter) Ezekiel 32:27 And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to hell with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads, but their iniquities shall be upon their bones, though they were the terror of the mighty in the land of the living. Ezekiel 32:26-28 (in Context) Ezekiel 32 (Whole Chapter) Amos 9:2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down: Amos 9:1-3 (in Context) Amos 9 (Whole Chapter) Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. Jonah 2:1-3 (in Context) Jonah 2 (Whole Chapter) Habakkuk 2:5 Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people: Habakkuk 2:4-6 (in Context) Habakkuk 2 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21-23 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:28-30 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29-31 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:27-29 (in Context) Matthew 10 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Matthew 11:22-24 (in Context) Matthew 11 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:17-19 (in Context) Matthew 16 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Matthew 18:8-10 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matthew 23:14-16 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter) Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matthew 23:32-34 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter) Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mark 9:42-44 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter) Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mark 9:44-46 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter) Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Mark 9:46-48 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter) Luke 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. Luke 10:14-16 (in Context) Luke 10 (Whole Chapter) Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luke 12:4-6 (in Context) Luke 12 (Whole Chapter) Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Luke 16:22-24 (in Context) Luke 16 (Whole Chapter) Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Acts 2:26-28 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Acts 2:30-32 (in Context) Acts 2 (Whole Chapter) James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. James 3:5-7 (in Context) James 3 (Whole Chapter) 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:17-19 (in Context) Revelation 1 (Whole Chapter) Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Revelation 6:7-9 (in Context) Revelation 6 (Whole Chapter) Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Revelation 20:12-14 (in Context) Revelation 20 (Whole Chapter) Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Revelation 20:13-15 (in Context) Revelation 20 (Whole Chapter)

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Chucks are those people who try to master the rules:

The guy/girl in the office that leaves 15min early bc they did not take breaks on the hour. They also go around policing(sp?) everyone that goes 1 min over theirs.

Where as the adjusted people understand that you are going to miss the mark - hence the notion we are all sinners - but hitting the mark everytime, even if you could, is not the point

Then the denial kicks in, and they state the truths {all you have to have is a relationship with god} - for the briefest of seconds just to spin back around again.

They are the ones in torment - pooor poor chuck.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Isn’t there an abortion clinic you need to be protesting at Chuck?

By The72John

November 29, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck, the bible-posting is tiresome. Then again, it’s really all you have to offer, isn’t it?

By DeltaX

November 29, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Tell me Delta, How can you be cast into a metaphor?

Like I have any reason to believe you will listen. It will be just a post to argue against; not consider, synthisize(sp?to late in day) and reply to.

That is what I find depressing about the poeple on this blog; these are all just points to argue.

Have a great day all;) Homeward bound!

By Renee

November 29, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack :)

By Just Being Me

November 29, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Renee, your STOPPPPP!!!!!! We all agree with you and are followers made me laugh out loud at my new job! Please don’t get me fired, girl!!!! LMBO!!!

And, Chuck, in response to your “There are many people who believe what Jack expressed…that is If when I die the good side of the scale outweighs the bad, then I’ll go to heaven. That is a lie straight from hell. I think that this belief is a misconception, but not far from God’s concepts. The basic truth, in my opinion, is that “good people” who accept Christ as their savior will make it to heaven, if there is a heaven. I don’t believe that God is concerned with anything other than a person’s heart - his true intentions. If you accept Christ, and are a “good person” then you will make it to “heaven.” Unfortunately, millions of people fall into one category or the other, but few, very few actually fall into both.

Too many Christians think that being a “good person” means paying tithes, going to church, paying bills on time, raising good children, offering to mow your neighbor’s lawn and helping an old person across the street. Being a “good person” is a matter of the heart. How do you treat people? How do you regard people? Do you say things with the intention of hurting people? Do you commit unlawful acts when no one’s looking just because you can get away with it?

I once had a discussion on a Christian forum that I frequent about whether or not speeding (yes, speeding) is a sin. I couldn’t believe that people were actually discussing this. After thousands and thousands of threads, I concluded my part in the discussion by asserting that sin comes from the heart. I know it seems silly to consider speeding a matter of the heart, but the question is: what is in your heart regarding the matter, any matter? Do you speed to avert the law, hoping you don’t get caught? Do you have no regard for traffic law?

Chuck, it matters not what alms, or good deeds, people perform. What matters is the heart.

Surely you know that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

By chuck

November 29, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

I didn’t call Renee stupid, I asked for her opinion on that question?

John, It is not logical to base your argument against me on something that I did not say. That would be akin to me saying:

“You said that you hate all Gay people, so that means that you hate yourself.” You never said that, so that would be a fallacious statement.

By Jack

November 29, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, Rick Wakeman on the keyboards, Rick Wakeman….Yes it is.

By chuck

November 30, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this

Not that it matters, but John, the reason I posted the Bible references was because I was responding directly to what Delta said:

Chuck,HELL is a real place.There is NOWHERE in the bible that this is stated.

I just posted the first 15 or so references and he said that those were just metaphors, So I posted the more specific verses that addressed his challenge and proved him wrong. When I post Bible references it is almost always in response to a question ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SOME ISSUE OR ANOTHER.

The fact is, the Bible is the operating manual for God’s creation. It is what Christians are supposed to live their lives by. I would be concerned by a Christian NOT quoting the Bible on issues involving questions of right and wrong.

JBM, I agree in principle to your last post, but based on a number of other things you have said, I have come to the conclusion that your position is one of compromise. The Bible doesn’t teach either compromise OR tolerance when it comes to sin. Whether it is homosexuality or adultery or lieing.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Chuck. Are you really a school teacher?

By Randy

November 30, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Chuck, You are absolutely right in everything you have said. Remember people find Jesus with their “conscience” not their pride, which is where some of these people want to go. Keep up the good work. God Bless!

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

JBM, I agree in principle to your last post, but based on a number of other things you have said, I have come to the conclusion that your position is one of compromise. The Bible doesn’t teach either compromise OR tolerance when it comes to sin. Whether it is homosexuality or adultery or lieing.

I am more interested in monitoring the progress of a molasses-dipped snail crossing a deserted forest than I am in what conclusions you’ve drawn concerning me.

But, for the sake of response, you’re right: the Bible doesn’t teach compromise or tolerance for SIN. But, Jesus - hence the Bible - taught tolerance for sinNERS. Humans. People. Mankind. His sons. His friends. Regardless of what the sin is, Jesus loves the sinner.

He never sought to tear them down, destroy them, humiliate them, rip them apart, dishonor or disown them, or make them feel bad.

Yes, God is the God of judgement, but we are not God, and we should not judge. We should follow Christ’s example and LOVE. Teach and love. And tolerate. Not the sin, but the man behind the sin. Need I remind you what Paul told the Corinthians about love? You may want to reread that 13th chapter for a refresher course.

Jesus is my restoration. He edifies me, comforts me, and builds me up. I am convicted by the Word of God, but I am loved and restored and granted hope by the Savior. Your job is to show the world what the Savior looks like, what He talks like, how He acts. Let the Word do its job and you do yours. The Word’s job is to teach, correct, and encourage. Yours is to be like Christ.

By chuck

November 30, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Jack, No, I am a metaphor.

I couldn’t agree more JBM. I try my best to do that and sometimes I fail Miserably. I TRY not to attack personally and just attack the sin itself, but the truth of the matter is, when you attack the sin, people who are living that sin are going to take offence. I don’t hate anybody, in spite of what a couple of people on this blog think. All I do is speak the truth when a lie is being promoted on the blog. If people take offence to that, I can’t really do anything about that. THEY control their reaction to what they read.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Chuck:

Imagine your child is overtaken in a fault. This actually happened to me. My daughter has a serious problem with lying. She lies about everything under the sun - oftentimes for no reason at all.

One day she had a meltdown at school and the counselor called me to come in. She was at her worst… wouldn’t talk to me, wouldn’t look at me, wouldn’t answer me. She was angry with the world. I took her home and explained to her that she was being grounded for her behavior in school, and that her punishment would stand at least until she decided to tell me why she had acted out that way.

After a couple of days, I finally got to the bottom of things (after talking to my daughter’s best friend, and another one of her teachers). My daughter was telling a story about her summer vacation (she had spent a few weeks in Disney World with my sister and her family), and her teacher told her to “shut up that lying,” and told her she knows she spent the summer in the ‘hood. She then called my girl into the hall and told her that she has to stop lying like that, and that God doesn’t like liars, and that’s why she stays on punishment so much, yada yada yada. I suspect my child was humiliated, angry, and felt a sense of hopelessness. She probably felt misunderstood, ugly, and filthy.

I was FURIOUS. Simply incensed.

I imagine that’s the way our Father feels when someone chastises His children in a way that they’re not qualified or authorized to.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

I am more interested in monitoring the progress of a molasses-dipped snail crossing a deserted forest than I am in what conclusions you’ve drawn concerning me.

JBM, thank you for that. I needed laughter this morning and you helped me out! Your comments are getting funnier and funnier. Good Morning All! Hope your days are starting better than mine!

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m curious.

You said, “I TRY not to attack personally and just attack the sin itself…”

Why do you feel the need to attack anything? Why not just allow the Word of God to attack sin, and you use your physical being to demonstrate the love of God in the flesh? God doesn’t depend on us to attack sin, His Word does that for Him. But, He does need and depend on us to show and be love in the flesh (if you know what I mean). I think (just my opinion) that your time would be better served in showing others the love of Christ, and being a servant.

Leave the “bad cop” job to God.

By Lyrazel

November 30, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

What bothers ME, is to know that people like you will one day look up from hell and STILL not know how the heck they got there

What bothers me is the ease at which humans decide on earth what judgments will occur…nothing seems very holy anymore…after an hour watching TNB. Now I could get into how chuck has missed the fact that billions of Jews wont be in heaven, even if Gods chosen people were the Jews…but that would lead to a post-it flurry of activity and name-calling, slur-bating and general: my god is holier than your god and rot, but like fish and house guests, discussions that are just accusations get boring after a day.

Illegal immigration poses many problems to schools forced to comply with NCLB one being the lack of qualified teachers to teach foreign language. Should teachers be required to have language skills on hiring when language arts are not taught in public school? Should home schooled children be regulated yearly with qualifying government tests? If not then what qualifying standards should all home schooled students be subjected to to maintain the integrity of their education?

By Jack

November 30, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel. You have some of the best, most thought over posts on this blog. A little sanity where ther is none. XOXOXO to you!

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Renee - guess I’ve been watching too much House! :-)

Lyrazel - my comment was a sarcastic one, in reference to Chuck’s comment that what bothers him is that there are so many reading this blog who are going to find out that HELL is a real place and that it is reserved for all of those who reject Christ.

Although I was being sarcastic, I still meant what I said. I believe that there are millions of people who expect to make their permanent home in heaven and will be shocked in the end. I know that those people exist, because I used to be one of them.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Wonder what that snail tastes like? LOL

By Jack

November 30, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

OK. What is bothering me is that now parents need to make reservations ON THE WEB to see Santa. Since there is a limited number of resevations, parents are told not to sell their reservations on e-bay or they become void. What a sad state of affairs. Now we go buy a “holiday” tree, say Happy Holidays. What is wrong with Christmas. I now make it a point to say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays. Next Easter we can go on “spring egg hunts”. That’ll be fun. Sorry for the rant.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

LOL@ Jack!!! You mean to tell me you’ve never had molasses-marinated snails????? Boy are you underprivileged! LOL

By Renee

November 30, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

LOL @ spring egg hunt. Making reservations with Santa on the web???? Yes, that is too much! What happened to holiday traditions?

JBM - did you see House last night?? Excellent!! I can’t believe Omar Epps character (can’t remember his name is going to be his boss)

By Randy

November 30, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

I know that Chuck’s way is the right way to heaven, but some people aren’t going to decide to go to heaven. Mainly because they are stubborn and want it their way. All we can do for them is tell them the truth and pray that they come around. That is why all we Christians are on this site. But we as Christians need to remember that Jesus gives people free will(or we would just be robots)and we aren’t in heaven yet, so this isn’t a perfect world.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Doggonit, Renee!!!!! I missed it AND forgot to tape it! Shucks! I had to watch the finale of Biggest Loser. It was such a tear-jerker - I just love that show.

I totally forgot about House, though. Why is Omar going to be House’s boss???? How’d that happen?

By Susie

November 30, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Jason didn’t turn it into a political matter, Diane did. Jason just responded to her doing so.

By chuck

November 30, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Let me give you an analogy JBM. I think from your last post that we both agree that sin WILL bring certain Judgement FROM GOD. That being said, consider the following: (this is not original to me, but I don’t remember where I heard it)

A man is driving on a road at night during a storm. Visibility is limited and he’s driving somewhat slowly and because of that he is able to stop before plunging into a river, the bridge being out. Because he doesn’t want anyone to die, he puts his flashers on and then stands in the road to stop oncoming traffic. Some people heed the warning and turn around and are saved. Others see this “crazy man” standing out in the rain and they just go around him and they perish in the river. That’s how I see my role as a Christian…to tell of the impending disaster and to try to get as many as I can to avoid those consequences.

In your world, that man would turn his car around and drive away, blowing kisses to the cars that he passes on the way to the river silently saying, “I love you.” I don’t believe that Jesus taught his disciple to do that. In fact He commanded us to go and make disciples. I try to follow HIS example. Yes He loved sinners as do I, but he also confronted the sin and as He forgave the sin He always added, “Go, and SIN NO MORE.” I know that I am not God and that I am a poor example of living the Christlike life…most Christians are. That doesn’t disqualify us or preclude us from trying to do what is right or from defending the Faith.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

To sum it all up, the hospital was about to have a very large law suit, the blonde doctor (I can’t remember his name either) made an error which cost a lady her life. While conducting the investigation, they found that House blackmailed a surgeon to do a transplant to save the womans life (he blackmailed him with letting his wife know of his infidelities, and even though the surgeon did the surgery, he still told the wife about the infidelity). The panel found Houses conduct to be not ethical and he has to placed under the supervision of another doctor for 30 days (Omar Epps). AND, they showed a clip from next week, they are going to ask Omar if he wants to be House’s boss permanently and he says he doesn’t want the headache (or something to that effect).

I hope this made some sense, lol.

By RF

November 30, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Chuck- most “christians” I know would either be so busy looking at and judging everyone else that they wouldn’t see that the bridge was out and plunge hopelessly over it, OR they’d sit on the edge and watch the “sinners” who weren’t as enlightened as they were and smile as they plunged over. Your assumption about how JBM would handle the situation is at best, sinful in it’s judgement. Jesus didn’t put any of us here to point fingers. HE’s the judge, not us. While the rest of the town looked down on the woman at the well for her lifestyle, Jesus sat and talked to her. His love and patience taught her more than the judgement of other people ever could.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

~~waving~~ Hey RF! Great comment!

By chuck

November 30, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Yes RF, but what did he do as part of that encounter with the woman at the well. He pointed out her sin, required her to repent of that sin and the forgave it, admonishing her to “go and sin no more.”

What I said concerning JBM was not judgemental at all. Her point is, or at least seems to be by her posts, that all of our Christian activity should be passive in nature rather than active. That we should just love sinners and not confront the sin. That is just not what the Bible teaches. As Christians, we are accountable to one another. When we see sin in the church we are to confront it, not condone it or ignore it. If a Christian is confronted with sin and repents, they are to be restored to fellowship, but if they don’t IN JESUS’ OWN WORDS, THEY ARE TO BE PUT OUT OF THE CHURCH. iN mATTHEW 18, hE SAID:

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

As for our responsibility to the LOST, we are to reach out to them with the GOSPEL. Jesus

By chuck

November 30, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

COMMANDED IT.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

OK Chuck. This man was living near a river. It had rained quite a bit already and was still raining. The river was about to overflow it’s banks. A policeman came and knocked on the man’s door and asked him to evacuate. the man said, “No, I will stay. God will look after me.” The policeman left. The flood waters continued to rise and the man had to go to his upstairs bedroom to escape the flood waters. Some rescue workers came along in a boat and asked the man to go with them. he said, “No, I will stay here. God will look out for me.” The boat left. The water continued to rise and the man had to get up on his roof to escape the rising water. A few minutes later a helicopter flew in and they yelled down to the man to get in the basket as the waters continued to rise. He said, “No, I will stay, God will watch over me.” The flood waters continued to rise and the man drowned. When the man reached Heaven, God was there. He asked God,”Why didn’t you save me?” And God said,” I sent you a policeman, a boat, and a helicopter. What else did you want?”

By Jack

November 30, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

RF had a good point Chuck. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANYONE? Hypocrite.

By RF

November 30, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I don’t read where he ‘commanded’ her to repent. He TOLD her to ‘go forth and sin no more’.

I just don’t see how we’re justified to “point out the splinter in a brother’s eye and ignore the pole in our own”. I just think it’s a lot more convincing and effective not to point out other’s sins and focus on my own. I’ve got more than enough to keep myself busy on an average day! The holy spirit judges sin, not me.

Enough of that. I’ll get sucked into the bottomless pit of religious interpretation if I don’t quit now! Have at it folks!

By RF

November 30, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Howdy Renee— is it cold Up Nawth today? It’s right chilly down here in the armpit of the south!

By Whiley

November 30, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Oh yawn it’s a religious blog again. This is Woman To Woman, not the church blog.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

As Christians, we are accountable to one another. When we see sin in the church we are to confront it, not condone it or ignore it.

One Christian can’t save another. You can attempt to, but you can’t. It would up to that individual to find, ask for and be granted salvation. Confronting sin neither assures the confronter nor the confrontee a place in heaven. And if getting into heaven is the ultimate goal, what is the point. To help is one thing, to share your beliefs is one thing, to confront is totally different. What gives anyone the right to confront anyone based upon what you believe to be sin.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

RF - we’re actually warm today (50’s). Yesterday we were in the 60’s. Last week we had 4-6 inches of snow. Friday through Sunday this week we are expecting more snow. And I thought Georgia had crazy weather!!!!

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

~waving~ Heyyyy RF! I miss your soundness, wisdom, and mental stability when you’re not here! :-)

Chuck, good. I like examples. Let’s work with that one. You said: “That’s how I see my role as a Christian…to tell of the impending disaster and to try to get as many as I can to avoid those consequences.

Your role as a Christian is to (1) glorify God at all times, and (2) share the love of God with others. You’re confusing your role with God’s role. Does that mean we should keep “silent” about sin? Of course not. I tell my daughter, and anyone else who will listen that the wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life. But, I do not browbeat them into believing what I believe, nor do I attempt to win them over with guilt or character destruction.

In your world, that man would turn his car around and drive away, blowing kisses to the cars that he passes on the way to the river silently saying, “I love you.�

Good guess, but wrong. In my world, the man would compassionately warn the others of the dangers ahead, and pray for those who kept going in spite of the warning. In my world, the man wouldn’t shout after them: “You idiot! you’re going the wrong way! You’re going to die! You’re going straight to hell in a handbasket! You’re such a disobedient, filthy, low-down, good-for-nothing sinner! I tried to warn you… I can’t wait to see you burn in hell on Judgment Day!”

Although I’ve never heard you use those exact words, that’s the perception I have of you based on the things you do say around here. You come across as very judgmental, and very “holier-than-thou.”

I’m not passive when it comes to teaching the Word of God. I’m a licensed minister, and am very aggressive about teaching the Word. However, I believe Christ when He said that you catch more flies with honey (obviously, not His exact words - but you know the quote: with lovingkindness I’ve drawn thee). I’m not passive, I just leave the judging part up to God, and I’ll do the loving. Loving feels better, is far more effective, is an easier job, and the rewards are simply tremendous!

You said: but he also confronted the sin and as He forgave the sin He always added, “Go, and SIN NO MORE.â€? And, this is true. But you left out the part where he comforted them, healed them, encouraged them, loved them, and made them whole. We’re not very good at confronting sin and making people whole at the same time, but God is. That’s why we should do what we were created to do, which is glorify and love. I can see why you think that’s passive, but I guess you’d have to spend a couple of days with me to see what I mean by that.

Consider the woman at the well. She was basically a whore. Did Christ call her a whore and warn her of a burning hell? Re-read that story to see how He handled it. If that’s passive, then I’ll just be passive. I like Jesus. And I wanna be just like Him when I grow up.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

JBM is being sucked in….call the helicopter.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Renee - I am so mad that I missed that!!! And, I can’t believe that House finally got bit in the butt. I’ll have to wait until the season’s over to catch the rerun. Speaking of Rerun - were you a What’s Happening fan? It comes on weeknights at 11:00p on TVLand! Just started up a couple of weeks ago.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

JBM - I know. And before they had started playing them at 11:00 I had been to Best Buy (before I left GA) and bought season 1 (impulse buy). I couldnt believe I saw it and couldnt resist. What’s Happening was better than Good Times to me.

By RF

November 30, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Hey JBM—had last week off and spent it running around with my younguns at home. We had fun cooking and putting up our Christmas tree. I like your view on the woman at the well. Jesus didn’t preach to her or make her feel guilty. He let the spirit and her own sense of right and wrong do that. YOu don’t convict by calling someone a sinner. You CONVINCE by showing them the love and certainty you have as a believer. God’s spirit gets their heart a whole lot better than we can.

Renee- yep, I think your weather is obviously weirder than GA’s. We just keep the jackets thrown in the back seat. Never know until we open the garage door if we’re going to need them. We’ve worn everything from t-shirts to sweaters in the past week!

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

What’s Happening is TEN TIMES better than Good Times. I liked GT, but Thelma and Michael were horrible, HORRRRRIBLE actors back then. It was almost as if you could see them reading their lines aloud, and watching the directors off-camera. They ruined that show for me.

Now on the other hand, WH’s Dee is my all-time favorite TV character (well, it’s a toss-up between her and Eric Cartman… lol). Dee had the best lines ever, and she was SUCH a good actress. I liked her better than Tootie, Penny, J.J., Nell… everyone! I’m dying to know what ever happened to her? Where is she? What’s she doing now???? I just won a $20 bet with my partner that she didn’t become Thelma on “Amen.” LOL!!

Jack - I, and so many people I know, have been so wounded by people like Chuck. I am so passionate about destroying Christians’ perceived right to judge. It’s almost become my life’s mission. One day I’ll share some of the experiences I had growing up in one of the strictest Christian churches in the world. You’ll understand why I can’t let some things go. I know Chuck’s being a pain, and it would make more sense for me to just ignore him, but those kind of people do more harm than good, and they don’t realize it. That really bothers me.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Do you know what quibbling is, Chuck? You claim you don’t hate people, only sin, but that is NONSENSE. You ooze hatred for everyone who isn’t a Christian fanatic like yourself. You and others like you do more damage to the world than you ever do good. You’ve set yourself up as moral crusaders and believe in your heart that you have the right and the responsibility to intrude on other peoples lives whether they want you to or not.

How are you any different from an Islamic extremeist? Sure, you don’t blow people up or kill people, but in the right circumstances, Chuck, you would be strapping bombs to your chest and walking into gay bars or abortion clinics. You just haven’t hit that point yet.

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

POOT

By RF

November 30, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

JBM- the best one was when Mama was hugging Dee to her ample chest and asked her what she wanted for her birthday. Dee’s response was “AIR”. My mother and I still use that one when she’s hugging me, alllll these years later!

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Most immigrants are just plain STUPID. Give em a plastic pail and shovel then send them to the dumpster for dinner.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

C’mon - What’s Happening was a FUNNY show, but Good Times was a comedy/drama. WH never really had any serious content.

But I’ll admit to loving it :-)

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Good Times…yea that darn TVLand has been showing that silly excuse of a show incessantly. The only thing educational about Good Times is it shows people how they should NOT behave and act.

Just a bunch of hooting, hollering and jibberish. No wonder the dad left the show.

POOT

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Whats happening..funny?? Whats so funny about a group of fat people jumpin around like a bunch of retards.

POOT

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

LOL!!!! RF, I love to see Mama hug the kids too tight! Rog says, “Mama? I can’t breathe!” or “Mama, I can’t feel my arms!” and to this day, I crack up like it’s my first time hearing it!

Oh, and you need a woman in your life! Don’t you let those boys wear a t-shirt on a warm day - it’s still winter and this is pneumonia weather! (LOL! Please don’t ask me what pneumonia weather is…). They need to wear a jacket every day whether it’s warm or not! And, a scarf and hat won’t hurt either! ;-)

What can I say? I’m a NYer…

Glad you got to spend extra time with the boys… I’m jealous. But, I did “re-institute” Family Night at my house. I put a flyer on the fridge for everyone to see, and my girl said, “who’s this for?”

GRRRRRRRR… sometimes I just want to strangle her! ;-)

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

YO…wut it b…YO…wut is wuz…YO…I b dis & I b dat… YO…lez go rob da licka stoe, shoot da cluck & gitz 20 dolla’s…

POOT

By Michael_D

November 30, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Good Times and Whats Happening were two of the lowest EVER rated debacles to appear on the television set. It figures you DUNDERHEADS would like them.

And that Nell Carter was just a smart mouthed FAT PIG!

POOT

Tootie was kinda cute…especially after she got those “tooties!!!”

By RF

November 30, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

JBM- you sound just like my momma!! She saw us outside on Thanksgiving throwing a frisbee (it was 68 degrees mind you) and about had a stroke because we didn’t have our jackets on!

I know what you mean. I start laughing every time I see Momma hugging one of the kids. And that look of Dee’s just gets us giggling before she even speaks.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

JBM, do you remember the “No Roger, No Rerun, No Rent” episode? Always liked that one.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

John - WH had serious content. How about the time Rerun joined the lettuce-worshipping cult? That was pretty serious! LOL!!!

Okay, seriously, they dealt with the same types of issues all the late 70’s early 80’s sitcoms dealt with. I think the main substantial difference btwn WH and GT was that WH wasn’t centered around Mama’s financial struggles. She lived in a decent house, in a decent neighborhood (although Dee thought otherwise), worked a steady job, and her kids each had their own rooms - well, until they took in a boarder.

GT wasn’t a “deep” type of show by any means. I like GT, especially when Penny was a character, but I wouldn’t say its episodes dealt with more serious issues.

Now, I’ll tell you what the newest GT and WH will be: Everybody Hates Chris. I just got into it a couple of weeks ago, but it is absolutely HILARIOUS! There are very few sitcoms that actually make me laugh out loud (Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, What’s Happening), but I definitely have to add Chris to the list. And as much as I disliked the girl who plays Chris’s mom (her name escapes me), she is perfect for this role. I especially loved the part in Thursday’s episode when the police brought Chris to the door and said that he killed the governor, kidnapped his daughter, robbed a liquor store, and did a host of other unbelievable things. Hand over heart, the mother said, “He didn’t sell no drugs, did he?” The police officer said, “No, ma’am.” And mom, visibly relieved, said, “Boy, get in this house.”

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

72John, refresh my memory. Which one is that? I vaguely remember the episodes when Roger and Rerun shared an apartment. I loved the one when they first moved in and Mama wouldn’t let them be.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Everybody Hates Chris is in a bad time slot for me to watch, unfortunately. So maybe I’ll catch it in reruns.

The episode I was talking about was when Roger and Rerun get kicked out by the landlord for some reason and the whole building comes out to protest.

Heh, really I don’t remember a lot of the details, just that I always liked that one :-)

By Renee

November 30, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

What’s happening is the best. The best one was where they played a joke on the teacher and pretended they bought her a gift. Dee was too funny on that show. I loved all the shows actually. Good Times was terrible acting, I realized this weekend after the marathon. Some of the episodes were still funny. Dee is the best next to Cartman…lol…JBM did you see the SouthPark where Cartman was supposed to be a guest on Maury….too funny…

By The72John

November 30, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Ohhh…you BEST not be talking about Esther Rolle, I tell ya that much! We gonna throw down!

By chuck

November 30, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

JOHN, I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU WHO ONCE SAID THAT ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP AND KILLED.

I would love for you to go back and look at my posts. They used to have a way to do that on this blog but they don’t any more. If you did that you would find that I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATED VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND TOWARD SINNERS.

JBM, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE PERFECT. IN FACT I HAVE GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT I AM NOT. YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE A LICENSED MINISTER? TELL ME THEN WHAT IT IS YOU MEAN BY YOUR “PARTNER”.

As for whether or not the Bible teaches repentence, and as for Jesus’ own opinion about it, these are just a couple of examples. John the Baptist described what Jesus was going to do with the unrepentent. In fact the entire role of John the Babtist was to PREACH REPENTENCE.

7John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing. He said to them, “You are like a nest of poisonous snakes! Who warned you to escape the coming of God’s anger? 8Produce fruit that shows you have turned away from your sins. 9Don’t think you can say to yourselves, ‘Abraham is our father.’ I tell you, God can raise up children for Abraham even from these stones. 10The ax is already lying at the roots of the trees. All the trees that don’t produce good fruit will be cut down. They will be thrown into the fire.

As for Jesus, Read Matt. 23 among other chapters. He vehemently denounced the sin of the Pharisees. He called them VIPERS and fools. He also told them what was going to happen because of their unrepentent attitude.

Yes He showed love for sinners but He also called them to REPENTENCE. It was only when they repented that He forgave their sin.

What YOU preach JBM is what the Bible calls “another gospel”. It is one that has no power for changing lives OR for regeneration. Let me ask you 2 questions and I’ll try to let this go.

1) What does the Bible teach is the only way to get to heaven?

2) What happens to NON-BELIEVERS when they die?

By Renee

November 30, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Everybody hates Chris is hilarious!! Did you see where she didn’t want to spend the food stamps. TOO FUNNY

By The72John

November 30, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

I don’t know what crack you’re on, Chuck, but never in my wildest moments would I ever suggest that all Christians should be rounded up and killed. Obviously, you misinterpreted, yet again, what other people said. Possible there was a metaphor that, as a literalist, you took, well, literally.

I stand by my analysis of you Chuck. You are an evil-minded, spiteful individual who needs to tell everyone else how morally inferior to you they are. You are an example of the WORST Christianity has to offer. I doubt you’ve ever managed to convert ANYONE, except converting them AWAY from Christianity.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Michael_D (aka Needle dick) is on the blog. It’s all downhill from here. Later.

By RF

November 30, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

As I recall reading, the Pharisees were a group of self-righteous fools who thought that their money and position in the community made them better than everyone else. Of course Jesus denounced their sins. They were judgemental, aristocratic, and stuck on themselves. They sat and pointed fingers at everyone who didn’t act like they did. Kind of like a lot of us here, huh? We can believe what we choose, based on our own individual understanding. We can’t take on the role of Christ and denounce others lest we become just like the Pharisees. That’s the danger in ‘denouncing’ or pointing out the issues others appear to have. We become Pharisees in our attempts to correct others’ wrongs. Jesus pointed out their sins in an attempt to correct them. He never instructed us to judge others, but instead he instructed us to love, preach his word, and let him do the judging. I don’t recall reading anywhere that Jesus said to ‘go out and judge sinners’. That makes us more like the Pharisees than we know.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

John - I know the episode you are talking about. No Roger, no Rerun, no rent!

Off forum subject totally, I need to vent. My day, awful. My daughter didn’t want to go to school today. Some kids have been continuously making racial remarks to her like (do you want some fried chicken) among other things. Her school is about 3% minorities and of that only 1% black. She says she hates this move and wants to go back to Georgia. Last night her new IPOD broke (her fault). I tried to take it back to Best Buy, but Apple is not accepting them back (the LED screen is cracked on the inside). Apparently they are very fragile. Aplle said I can send it back, they may fix it, they may not. I spent $130 of my money on it, my daughter paid $90 from her job, so I am very frustrated, money just down the tube. I don’t know how to resolve this with the school. She thinks if I talk to the people in the school it will get worse. She was just starting to get adjusted, but now this took her back to the I love Georgia, I hate Vermont stage. Any suggestions. If not, I’m just venting. I have work piled up on my desk to where I can barely see my computer. My phone is ringing off the hook. I need a vacation, but I haven’t earned the time yet…….the list goes on and on.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Renee, if it’s the Nano, there is a class action lawsuit pending because of the fragile screen issue and Apples failure to take them back.

http://www.hagens-berman.com/frontend?command=JoinClassAction&iLawsuitId=1052

By Scalia

November 30, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Karen Walker, from Will and Grace, is my favorite TV character. She is so over the top. The first four or so seasons were hilarious. One of my favorite is when Jack’s Mom didn’t know that he was gay. Karen said, “Is she headless?”

By Jack

November 30, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

I feel for your daughter Renee. I am not black but when we moved to Georgia I was a damn yankee, we moved back up North and I was a dumb hick. Children are very cruel. She needs to try and ignore them the best she can. If you go to the school to talk to them and the other children find out, it will increase the harassment. She just needs to try and find some friends that will stick up for her. (preferably big, tough ones)

By Renee

November 30, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

John, it is the Nano…thank you for that information! Apple wasn’t helpful when I called, nor was Best Buy (but they were better than Apple)

By The72John

November 30, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Yeah, you’d think Apple would learn. The original iPod had a problem with battery life. The battery was advertised as a “permanent” rechargable battery, but in many cases stopped working after only a few months. Apple’s response was “We can sell you a new battery - for $150”.

That suit was just settled last year. Now Apple tells people who are reporting the Nano scratching “We can sell you a carrying case - for $50”.

There’s obviously a learning problem in their Customer Service division.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Jack, thanks. I can understand her frustration, and there’s only so much I can do. Kids can be cruel. It’s funny, we moved from GA (a confederacy state) and experience more racism up north. But that’s because we were in the metro Atlanta area.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Yeah, the Nano was scratched after only a few days. She kept saying she wasn’t doing anything to scratch it and I didn’t believe her. Now the LED screen. I didn’t want her to get the Nano, but it was the cool thing to get, all the kids have it, and she offered to pay almost half if I would pay for the rest. And it was for her birthday. She hasn’t even had it thirty days. Needless to say, I won’t be buying another.

By RF

November 30, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Renee- I’d get a conference with her teachers, and make them aware of what’s going on. It’s an adjustment period and she’ll eventually get over it and the kids will leave her alone. In the meantime, make her teachers aware of it. There are laws against bullying and harassment (calling her names can be both), and the teachers need to know in order to deal with the kids when they hear something. They should be anyway, but it’s hard to deal with things that happen in the hall between classes.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

RF - I have sent emails to the House Director (the high school is broken up into 4 core houses)

By Netbanker

November 30, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Better late than never, today. RF, nice to ‘see’ you. Whiley…I was asking about you. How are things? What’s happened to Tim?

How did this turn into the religion blog again? Goodness! I thought we’ve settled most this before, but let’s try, try once again.

The more Chuck argues the more he proves the point that those of the more fundamentalist persuasion (and I mean fundamentalists of ALL religions) diminish the very God that they are so adament is the only way to salvation. Every one of them, regardless of the religion) starts off with a God who is omnipotent, but by the time the fundies are done there are rules out the ying yang and only if you believe in the most narrow of interpretations (almost always labeled TRUE) will you achieve salvation. What kind of sorry-a** Omnipotent God, who can create the universe and everything in it from nothingness, can’t manage to appear the various peoples of the world that they’ve created in a manner that is meaningful to those people?

I mean really! How much sense to desert nomads does the story of a man who is a fisherman make? Do the stories of wandering in the desert connect with the peoples of the Amazon Rainforest? Every major religion has its own version of the Golden Rule. You jokers with your vindictive, rules driven tiny little Gods are completing missing the point. God (pick one, any one) told us to love one another and then made us outrageously different so that the challenge is a hard one. Those who manage to achieve it are the ones living as God directed us. The rest are just showing that they are incapable of listening with and loving with their hearts. Don’t open your eyes or your minds…open your HEARTS!

By RF

November 30, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

I’d still ask for a face to face with the teachers. Sometimes, if they know there’s a problem, they pay a little better attention to what’s going on with a child. It wouldn’t hurt for them to be paying a little more attention to your daughter and helping her adjust. E-mails are easy to ignore. Mom sitting at a table with you makes it seem more important.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

If you do the conference, do it on the sly. The other children don’t need to see you there.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Or, what kind of jerk deity condemns millions of people over a thousand years to Hell because they happen to live on continents completely unknown to the “bearers of absolute truth”?

I mean, the Mayans and Aztecs ruled over empires of MILLIONS of people. Did all those people get condemned to hell because they didn’t know that they were supposed to be Christians?

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

sorry, I hit submit before I meant to. Anyway, I sent emails, no response yet. If I don’t hear something I will call. I like email though, so I will have a written trail of everything. I told him I want to meet to discuss this further. Either he’s really busy or he’s igging me. I don’t want this to affect her schoolwork etc.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Good point Jack.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Just got back from lunch and I have some training to do. I’ll respond to you, Chuck, when I get back.

Renee - I’ll respond to you as well. I surrrre hope I don’t have to take a trip to Vermont…

Scalia - I LOVVVVE Karen Walker. I just told my partner the other day that they should rename that show Karen and Jack, they make the show.

By RF

November 30, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Net- How’s life? Good to see some added sensibility showing up today. I’m always amused how quickly these debates turn into a tug-of-war over religion or politics.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Renee, don’t you know that racism only exists in the South?

You might be encountering just a little bit of that particular problem of perception…

By Netbanker

November 30, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Renee…sorry to hear about your trials and tribulations. Moving isn’t easy for adults and is always harder for the kids.

I’d love to be able to have every person experience what it’s like to be the minority for just an hour. Whether it’s language or color or both at the same time it’s quite the experience and gives you a whole new perspective on how it feels to walk in another person’s shoes.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

RF - very true.

I knew moving from Georgia to Vermont would be a major transition, but I was still hoping it would be fairy tale smooth.

By Randy

November 30, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

72 John, Jesus doesn’t condemn people who don’t know about him(Bible). He doesn’t really condemn anyone, they do that to themselves. Minor children and people who have not heard of God are not condemned. Now people who reject him and say they don’t want him are given their wish. He would be a dictator if he made you go to heaven. Free will! Your’s is a misunderstand common among non-Christians.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Renee’. Gotta be tough on her academically as well going from here to there.

By chuck

November 30, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

72John, Here is your exact quote From October:

Yes Randy, I’m hostile towards fundamentalist fanatics. Glad you noticed! You are damn right. I think they - and therefore you - are one of the most dangerous groups on the planet today. I think we would all be far better off if you could just be exterminated off the face of the planet.

RF, Jesus gave a whole discussion on “judging” others in the sermon on the mount. In part it reads:

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

How about:

1 Corinthians 6 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

The whole idea that we are not to judge between right and wrong is stems from a total misunderstanding of the context of a couple of verses. I could go into a long discussion of this topic but it wouldn’t make any difference. You’d rather believe what is convenient rather than believe the word of God.

By dee

November 30, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

from Jason: Here we have yet another example of the anti-individual “It Takes A Village� mentality of the left in this nation. Besides taking away the right to individual wealth and success, Karl Marx also was against the individual right to choose what is best for your child as a parent. It appears Hillary’s book, “It Takes A Village,� is more in line with Marxist indoctrination than individual freedoms and liberties.

The saying “it takes a village to raise a child” is not a Marxist, Left, etc. saying. The saying comes from an old Yoruba (African) proverb. Way before Karl Marx, Hillary Clinton, or even you were ever thought of. Besides it was a CHILDREN’s BOOK about a traditional African Village. What’s so “left leaning” about that?

By The72John

November 30, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

That is the answer I expected from you, Randy. Rather than discuss the complex issues, you fall back on a simple platitude no doubt ingrained in you by some equally unimaginative minister.

Easy out. It still doesn’t answer the real question of why God would choose NOT to reveal himself and his master plan to the world as a whole. What possible reason would your loving God have, assuming that he wants everyone to know him and have the opportunity to love him, to withhold that knowledge and love from VAST segments of the population for century after century?

Where’s your pat, canned answer for that complicated philosophical question, Randy?

By Jack

November 30, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

72John. You’re good at debating but trying to do that with the Chuck, Randy & Zacks of the world is impossible. They would agrue with Jesus himself if He didn’t agree with them. When Jesus returns, they will call him a false prophet. All of their biblical quotes and garbage for debate is making this Catholic boy sick.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

The problem, Chuck, is that all Christians aren’t fundamentalist fanatics, nor are all fundamentalist fanatics Christians.

Are we or are we not currently trying to exterminate all of the fundamentalist Islamic fanatics off the face of the planet? I was merely suggesting that we should include their brethren of the Christian variety as well.

You need to learn how to distinguish between Christianity and fanaticism. If you can.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Jack - it has definitely been a struggle. She was sailing through in Georgia, and working to keep up here. The teachers here are great. They stay involved and gresat attitudes.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Moving is tough. It will make her stronger and broaden her horizons. Give her lots of kisses. :)

By Scalia

November 30, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, in the words of the philosophical Paris Hilton regarding your 2:13, “That’s hot!”

To sum up what you all are saying: The Garden of Eden was located on Pangea when all of the continents were connected. After Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, they had Cane, Abel, etc. Cane moved with his wife, etc. to what is now South America. God was upset with the sinning in Sodom and Gomorrah, and decided to shift the Tetonic plates. The Great Flood distracted everybody. Once God had the continents where they are today, the bird returned to Noah with the branch. The End.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Where did Cain’s wife come from? I mean, let’s talk about the effects of breeding in a population that all shares common ancestry. Shudder.

Come to think of it, inbreeding is the perfect explanation for Chuck and Randy.

By Scalia

November 30, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Cain’s wife? Oh that’s easy. She was Lucy, the early hominid, they found in Africa.

By RF

November 30, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck- I’m familiar with the sermon. Who, in your understanding, are the ‘saints’ that shall judge the world? I don’t think any of us qualify for that role. I never took that to mean that anyone who considers himself a christian is automatically a ‘saint’ given the power to judge the world. I think we are grossly overestimating ourselves if that’s what you believe.

Also- my take on verse 22 is that a great many who think they’ve done the right thing will find out they were wrong. Food for thought there for all of us. I guess we’ll find out who’s who on judgement day. Could be me, could be you…I’m convinced a great many of us are deluded into thinking and believing we’re doing the right thing. I simply can’t see how it’s my job or yours to determine who’s who.

I think we can all agree that we are to judge and choose right from wrong. DUH- I never said we weren’t. What isn’t right to me, and none of your diatribes has proven, is that it is okay to judge the person. The bible also says “judge not lest you also be judged”. Where does that fit? I don’t want to judge angels or people. I choose not to. I may not approve of someone’s choices, but I still have to love the person. Like my sister for instance. She was a horrible drug addict. I didn’t approve and told her so. I still loved HER. I couldn’t condone her ACTIONS, but I didn’t refuse to acknowledge her presence as my sister because of it. Love the sinner and all that jazz, you know? That’s all I’ve said today. Interpret as you will, but my words have said to judge sin, but not the sinner.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Intersting, Scalia! When I was a young teenager I met Richard Leakey - he didn’t mention anything about Cain. Guess he was holding out on me ;-)

By Jack

November 30, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

the early hominid, they found in Africa? I thought he married Madam Palm. They had 5 daughters.

By RF

November 30, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

Jack—here’s a joke for you.

A man dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter is showing him around. They pass neighborhood after neighborhood of beautiful mansions. St. Peter goes on and on about the various activities and such that the man will have to choose from. Suddenly they come to a wall as high as the man can see and St. Peter begins whispering. The man asks “why are you whispering and what’s with the wall?” St. Peter says, “shhhh, that’s the Baptists behind there and they think they’re the only ones here”

By Jack

November 30, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

RF. Good one! LMAO!

You know the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist in a liquor store? The Catholic will say hello.

By HeeHaw

November 30, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

the early hominid, they found in Africa? I thought he married Madam Palm. They had 5 daughters.

since the first early hominid was Lucy, would this make them the first lesbian couple? And they adopted? Or did the locals stone them out of existence feeling threatened, like barking dogs, leaving the poor children without parents, where the “It take’s a village” comes in.

By Renee

November 30, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

RF - I like that…..I needed a laugh today!

By Jack

November 30, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

A good one I heard on this blog.

Why do you have to invite 2 Baptists to a wedding?

If you invite 1, you will run out of liquor. If you invite 2, neither one will drink.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Madam Palm and her five daughters is a euphemism…think about it…palm…five daughters… :-)

By chuck

November 30, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

What actually happens to those who have not heard the gospel of Christ depends upon several factors.

It depends first of all (but not finally) on how they have responded to God’s general revelation. In the case of those who have neglected or rejected such general revelation (no doubt the case with the vast majority of those who have never heard of Christ), they’re lost, condemned for all eternity to a real hell. But note—they are not condemned for what they haven’t heard. They are judged for what they have heard and rejected. In this sense, as R.C. Sproul rightly states, “there are no innocent people in the world.”

In the case, however, of the one who has never heard of Christ, yet sincerely worships God as he knows Him, and lives consistently with moral law as he understands it, we do have some grounds (Acts 10 et al) to believe that God may be pleased to grant a further special revelation involving the Gospel of Christ Himself, which one would then, in turn, either accept or reject. Exactly how or when would God arrange for such a further revelation? Might I Peter 3:18-20 or 4:6 somehow correlate with Romans 2:16 here? The Scripture allows many such details to remain hidden, while being unequivocal about the fact that God will judge with perfect justice (Psalm 98:9). (Could this be what is happening on a widespread basis in the Muslim world today?)

By RF

November 30, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Jack—LOL :-) that soooo the truth too. I have a baptist friend who borders on being a fundie, and he gets allll flustered when I talk about going out for a drink. He thinks I’m in the HOV lane to Hell for that. I think he’d be a lot more fun if he had a nip or two every now and then, but then he’d have to give up sainthood.

By Randy

November 30, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

72JOHN, In response to your 2:52 post. I don’t believe that God, the creator has hid himself from cultures for hundreds or thousands of years. I beleive that those cultures just call him by another name, other than the name I know him by “Jesus”. They may call him the good spirit, or they may be on a mountain and feel the breeze and know in their heart that he exists and accept his love. I think non-Christians and maybe some Christians get hung up on the name “Jesus” but if you saw the movie, the Passion of the Christ”, he was called Enushawuah(spelling)when he was here on this earth. You must accept the good spirit as your lord and savior. You must separate good from evil and accept the good and resist evil. (which non of us can totally do, totally reject evil all the time), thank Jesus as he forgives us, if we ask him to.

By Jack

November 30, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Chuck. You should really start your own fertilizer company. Acquiring inventory would be no problem.

By The72John

November 30, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Yet again, the “We are superior morally to everyone else” attitude of the miserable human being called Chuck comes through.

the case of those who have neglected or rejected such general revelation (no doubt the case with the vast majority of those who have never heard of Christ), they’re lost, condemned for all eternity to a real hell.

What superiority! What arrogance! How typical! Chuck, even someone as wilfully ignorant as you should realize that all the great religions of the world teach the same basic concepts of how people should treat each other and what consitutes acceptable behavior. Why should you assume any moral superiority on the part of Christians?

Oh I know - because you are a fanatic who thinks that your way is the only way. By the way Chuck - quoting Bible verses as fact is meaningless to anyone who doesn’t accept the Bible as infallible. It would be like me using The Hobbit to prove that hobbits exist.

By colleen

November 30, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

just to bring this all back to the original debate wether HS is a disservice to children……perhaps …perhaps being in the home and having actual responsibilites, discipline, and parental interaction on a daily basis, does cause our children to act a little less childish….(i have know some 30 YO who are pretty childish)…but as an adult who WAS HS-ed for what i consider the best years of my life…and as a current HS-er to 4 lovely children (they do have their “Moments” but who’s kids don’t) i know that when i ask my 7YO to make her bed, get dressed, and brush she will do it (the first time) and when i ask her to take out the garbage it will happen within this century and w/o much gnashing of teeth…and i know that living in the worst school district in Illinois even if all the “schooling” she gets in one day is how to read prices at the grocery store and make good food choices (NONE of my kids (or thier mom) is overweight)…she’s gotten a heck of alot more out of her day than the 2nd grader down the street….not to mention she hasn’t been “abused” by boys in her class….etc etc etc ans i also know that i know my childrens learning styles and can find teachers or activites to accomodate them all…not just the learning style that teaches 80% of all white women…..so do i think that my daughters who can carry on a perfectly intelligible conversation with ANYONE are being cheated out of what they need? no. i don’t and i personally believe that a sitter is a whole lot better than giving up my “parental rights the moment they set foot in the building” if i need a break. well that’s my $.02 for the moment

By Renee

November 30, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Too funny Jack!!

By The72John

November 30, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe that God, the creator has hid himself from cultures for hundreds or thousands of years. I beleive that those cultures just call him by another name, other than the name I know him by “Jesus�. They may call him the good spirit, or they may be on a mountain and feel the breeze and know in their heart that he exists and accept his love.

Oh my GOD Randy…that may be the first intelligent thing you’ve ever said…

Does the word DUH mean anything to you? That’s kind of the point of the whole question. That’s what people have been saying on this board until they are blue in the face, but you persist in saying “Nope, Jesus is the only one!” The idea that God reveals himself differently to each person and culture, or that “all religions are truly one” is kind of what we’ve been getting at.

And it’s Jeheshua, by the way. That would be the Hebrew esoteric name of Christ, an expansion of “Jehovah”, which is in of itself based off of the Tetragrammaton, the unpronounceable name of God represented by the hebrew characters Jod Ha Vau He, JHVH.

By HeeHaw

November 30, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

But the Islamics are the only correct way. Why? Because they say so. Wait, sounds familiar.

By Netbanker

November 30, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

RF…you’re gonna get me in trouble at work for laughing out loud!

Life has been really hard lately. Work is over the top as usual which has not been the hard part. I hauled my partner down to Florida at the end of September after the last round of IV anti-biotics for his ulcers and invited his parents down to visit while we were there. I left them all in Florida to fly around the country for 2 weeks on client visits and for a conference. He returned to Atlanta the day before all my travels ended starting to feel on the upswing. Then he became ill the day after I got home. Long story as short as possible, he picked up Shigella (bacterial infection of intestines) in Florida that laid him out for 10 days with fevers and the s**, he started to feel better , but turned out to be one of the rare 20% who experience reactive arthitis from the Shigella. That kicked in and he’s been struggling with severe pain in his hands, ankles, and knees ever since. During the last round of the testing they’ve done (the boy has been like a pin cushion) they found out he’s recently been exposed to human Parvo Virus (very common, but only about 50% of adults have immunity) which also causes reactive arthritis.

To add to the hard part is that we got a puppy during the week or so between the end of the Shigella s** and the start of the arthritis because the house was too empty after putting down the down due to cancer. Basically for the past 2 months the moment I get home from work the real job begins with puppy play and house training while making dinner for the humans with the other hand in between running up and down the stairs to get drinks, administer meds, helping partner with whatever he needs. It seems like I am up and down those stairs every 15 minutes from 7pm to 11pm when I finally crash and burn…then I’m off again the next AM as I hear the pup whimpering at 6:30am. God bless all single parents! I don’t know how you people do it!

My partner does seem to be slowly improving and woke up for the first time in 6 weeks with no major pain yesterday morning. Then again he woke me up at 4:50am not feeling good and proceeded to throw up every 10 minutes for the next hour and now I’m not feeling so hot.

So goes life! This too shall pass so I’m not spending any time crying in my teacups because there are many people for whom things are far worse.

By Netbanker

November 30, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Jack…Damn you! I just sprayed my laptop with a mouthful of tea!

By Renee

November 30, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I’m sorry to hear that. I know we all have our stresses, but it seems like you have more than your fair share. I will keep you in my thoughts, and sunshine is not far away! A puppy does bring smiles but usually a lot of cursing between the smiles lol.

By RF

November 30, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Net- good lord, buddy, sounds like you need to hire a nurse to help out! You need to let somebody come in and help you, or are you like me with the “I can take care of the world and do it all” attitude? I had strep two years ago and it was soooo hard to call and ask my brother to come over and help with the boys. I finally had to and he was right- I should have called him sooner. I’m glad your partner’s getting better—I know you guys had an awful scare before you found out about the ulcers. Maybe hubby should consider vitamins once he feels a little better. This is a tough time of year to be weak— the germs get armor during the winter!! I double my vitamins to help avoid some of the ‘stuff’ out there right now. Tummy viruses are everywhere! Let some friends/family help you a bit. You need it and deserve it!

It’s funny- I can handle kids, but puppies make me a nervous wreck trying to train them. Isn’t that odd?

By kimberly

November 30, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

NetB, Wow I hope that stuff gets better soon! May I offer some amateur medical advice? First, STAY OUT OF FLORIDA! It’s frought with bacteria, fungi, and voting rights violations. (I’m boycotting the whole state myself.) Seriously. Second, while modern scientists have garnered the Nobel prize for identifying ulcer-causing bacteria, I’ll tell you straight up that there are STILL other contributing factors to the development of ulcers, the main one of which is stress. Just because they suddenly discover the “real cause” does not mean that what we’ve suspected all along is completely untrue. (I know this from experience with ulcers where NO whooosie whatsis bacteria were found, but they came during times of extreme stress.) Also, people’s insides are different. Just like some people can’t digest milk, or react to peanuts, other substances can irritate the insides of individuals to the point of generating a hostile duodenal environment. Doctors don’t really care. Preventing the problem is the best long-term solution. Experiment with eliminating substances and stress. Love heals. (My advice is worth exactly what you paid for it, but I hope that helps!)

By RF

November 30, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Okay, one more joke and I have to go home and get my 7 yr.old’s homework done.

Three nuns die in a plane crash. St. Peter meets them at the gate and has to ask each one a question before letting them in. First Nun gets the question “who was the first man?” “EASY”, she says, “that was Adam”. Trumpets sound, the gates open, and in she goes. Second Nun gets the question “who was the first woman?” “EASY” she says, “that was Eve.” Trumpets sound, gates open, in she goes. Peter turns to the third nun. She gets the question “what was the first thing Eve said to Adam?” She thinks a moment, looks at Peter and in a confused voice says “Now that’s a hard one…”….Trumpets sound, gates open, in she goes!

Gotta run. Remind me and I’ll share one about a hard of hearing genie tomorrow. That is if you guys can stand my quirky humor…:- )

By The72John

November 30, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

A nun is taking a shower. All of a sudden, there’s a knock on the bathroom door.

“Who is it?” the nun calls.

“It’s the blind man”, comes the answer.

“Oh, then come in!” says the nun.

In walks a man carrying a set of blinds under his arm. “Hey Sister, nice t**!”

By Renee

November 30, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

The jokes are toooo funny!! Keep them coming! I need it!

By Netbanker

November 30, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks everyone for the encouragement. RF, I have that horrible German-family condition of being hard headed and do it myself…I am definitely not one to ask for help unless I really need to do so. Besides I think it sounds worse than it really has been. My partner hasn’t been a complete invalid. The pain has been the worst in the AM and at night so during the day he’s managed to do some laundry, take the pup out to use the bathroom and run around a bit, and he’s order pizza/chinese delivery every few days to cut me a break on cooking dinner. He is pretty worn out by the time I get home, though.

He’s been making me slow down (OK, he starts nice and then ends up yelling at me to sit the F down and take a minute to breathe before I keel over. “You know if you collapse downstairs it’ll take me 45 minutes to make it down there and I’ll be p** if you’re dead when I finally make it to where you are!”) and our friends have been dragging me out of the house at least once a week for ‘adult time’ as we jokingly call it.

By Just Being Me

November 30, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

What possible reason would your loving God have, assuming that he wants everyone to know him and have the opportunity to love him, to withhold that knowledge and love from VAST segments of the population for century after century?

That’s a good question. I haven’t read past this point yet, so I’m curious to see what some of the responses, if any, were.

Jack - I am ROFLMBO!! You are a nut!

Okay, got to the bottom - and I’m glad to see Randy took a crack at it - but I don’t buy that answer. It’s after 5:00p so I’ll tell you why tomorrow.

G’night all.

By Randy

December 1, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this

To further explain my 3:37 post from yesterday. Yes other cultures may call Jesus by a different name(how could they call him Jesus, if they have never heard that name), but Jesus is the “absolute sure” way to get to heaven. That I’m sure of. Someone in deep dark Africa may not know his name and call him the good spirit or some other name, but they know that he is good and honest spirit and not the evil spirit. Bottom line, were sure Jesus is the way, truth, and life and like John 14:6 says the only way to the creator. So why even consider any other way. Take the sure thing. Like your lost in the woods and you know one way gets you home for sure and you think some other ways may get you there also(don’t chance it). As this is your immortal soul that is at risk in this situation. Remember also, evil is out there telling you anything you will listen to, to keep you out of heaven. After all misery loves company.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

GM All!

Randy, but if they’ve never heard of Jesus, how could they call Him something else? How could you be certain that the “good spirit” is really Jesus, but they don’t know it. If they don’t know enough about him to call Him by one of His appropriate names, then they don’t know anything about Him at all. They don’t know His live, what He stood for, what He taught, how He lived, who He is. So basically, their only criteria for getting into “heaven” is by being a “good person” and I suppose, not offending the “good spirit.”

Admittedly, I’ve never given this question any thought, so I’ll have to give this all some more thought. But, at first glance, your explanation doesn’t cut it with me.

Chuck, I haven’t forgotten about you. I have training from 9:30a to 12:00p, and I don’t want to respond and then not come back for hours. I’ll respond to you after lunch.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

How can you be “absolute sure� Jesus is the way to get to heaven? No one is absolutely sure. Has anyone died and came back to tell us? (other than Jesus?)

By The72John

December 1, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

JBM - you have two competing philosophies here, two different ideas about God, or Divinity, or whatever you want to call it.

The first is of a benevolent being who wants people to treat each other well and be as kind to others as possible.

The second is of a spoiled, petulant being who insists that you worship him or you will be condemned to a firey torment that lasts for all eternity.

Which do you think more likely? Which of these two versions of God do you think would have been able to create the universe in all its infinite complexity?

Why does a name matter so much and behavior so little? What kind of infinitely wise being, who ostensibly created the world’s diversity in the first place, demands a loyalty oath from his creation and seeks to eliminate that very diversity?

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Hmm. Good questions, John. Although He is the Supreme Being, the Divine One, etc., I am very comfortable calling God “God.”

That said, I think your explanation is a bit flawed. The two beings you describe both possess qualities found in the God of my life. To use your words, my God is a benevolent being who wants people to treat each other well and love others as much as they love themselves. Although I wouldn’t call Him spoiled or petulant, He does adore worship - and as an all-powerful God, created life mainly for that purpose.

He has promised rewards for those who agree to fulfill their purpose, and will punish those who refuse. Whether or not the reward and punishment can be identified as heaven and hell, I’m not 100% sure. I was raised to believe in heaven and hell, and admittedly am having a hard time abandoning those beliefs. But, at the same time, I’m also not 100% able to reconcile my teachings with my personal beliefs, as it relates to heaven and hell.

I can’t really respond to your first question, because as I said, in my opinion, the two versions you described are a bit flawed.

As for your second question, the Bible teaches that power lies in the name of Jesus, so His name does matter much to Christians - or at least to Apostolic Christians. Behavior matters just as much.

While allowing mankind free will, He, by default, created diversity. He wants us to worship Him, but at the same time, He gave us the ability to make that decision ourselves. He doesn’t want us to be robotic about it, but to make a conscious decision to believe in Him, despite our inclination to believe only what we see, feel, or can prove.

Hopefully I answered some of your questions - be mindful that my ansdwers are based on my personal beliefs and opinions.

Gotta go start training. I’ll BBL

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

I think interpretation is the issue. In my opinion, when Christ said “Follow me,” he was saying “Do as I do, treat others as I do, love and be unselfish the way I do.” And when he said, “I am the way, the truth, and the light,” he was saying, “Do like I do, and if you all do that, then there will be no war, nor famine, nor hate, and you can have heaven,” and he just MIGHT have also meant: “If you’re not GETTING this, people, a guy named John Lennon will come ‘round in a couple millenia and break it down for you AGAIN!” IMHO.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

The problem is, JBM, that I have a very hard time reconciling the idea of a god who adores worship and created man mainly to worship him and the idea of a god wise and knowledgeable enough to create the universe. I find it very difficult to imagine that someone who could envision elementary particles and quantum entanglement and singularities and pulsars and…well, I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea…created life just so he could bask in the glow of their approval.

Does a parent have a child because he wants that child to follow him around gazing lovingly at him or her for the rest of that parent’s life, or does a parent have a child because he wants to nurture and love the child and see it eventually go off into the world as a whole being?

By Renee

December 1, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Mornin’ everyone. Jack, your 9:02 post pretty much sums it up for me. There are so many beliefs, who do you know is right? There is a possibility that there is no heaven and hell, that there is no supreme being, that the bible is a farce (sp?). I think it’s human nature to believe in something. I mean the Romans believe in several Gods, as did the Greeks, are they all in hell?

By The72John

December 1, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Forget the Romans and the Greeks. What about modern-day Hindus, or Buddhists, or Shintos, or Jains, or…

By Renee

December 1, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

John, good post (9:41). The problem I have always had is that I have been taught that God is perfect. Now the idea of perfection in itself can be interpreted differently depending on whom you speak with. He’s perfect yet’s he’s jealous? He’s perfect, and he creates me in his image, but I’m not perfect? I could go on and on.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Nice to hear from you Kimberly. :)

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Hi, Jack. {:->

By Renee

December 1, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Definitely John. I just used those as examples, but I’m sure we could create a list. Christianity is the only way? I find that hard to believe. I think that if you live your life as a good person then you won’t have any problems.

Take homosexuality for instance. Christianity (some religions are more tolerant than others) but basically believes there is a section of fire and brimstone reserved specifically for us. You can have a child molesting priest, that will still have followers who believe he is going to heaven, but me as a homosexual, I’m damned. Christianity is supposed to be about love, but it’s about judgment. One does not live as they think one should. The bible was written by man and subsequently interpreted by man. Read me a verse, I might interpret it one way. Read it to a priest, he might interpret it another. What makes his interpretation correct and mine wrong?

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this

I think it’s silly (at best), and even arrogant (for some) to presume that they KNOW what our Creator wants, thinks, demands, feels, and so forth. To think that a being or entity, the likes of which we cannot possibly fathom in our small human minds, could create the whole universe and our planet in it, and billions of creatures of all kinds that have dwelled thereupon over millions of years, but would ONLY love, accept, and “save” the tiny percent of a percentage of humans who accept one particular doctrine and repeat one particular prayer in one specific way, and ALL others should endure an eternity of hellfire — that to me is the most comprehensive description of arrogance I can muster. Statistically, it’s absurd. Logically, it makes no darn sense. In my heart, I’m not feeling it either.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

The preaching of the cross is, to those who are perishing, foolishness.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

If a priest molested my child, he would meet his maker sooner than he wanted.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

As usual, Chuck has nothing to offer but self-righteous, arrogant proclamations of his own moral superiority, rooted in the circular logic of the biblical literalist.

By Renee

December 1, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Lol Jack. Thats the truth! I took off today from work, but I’m closer to a resolution at the school with my daughter. I will fill everyone in later.

Chuck - unfortunately you are in a forum full of sinners, that don’t want to be saved. Maybe you should find a religious forum, that would be more appreciative of your crusade.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

C, I don’t refute the Cross, or the life and death of Christ. Some call me silly, but I actually believe there’s something TO all that. My point is that it simply isn’t possible for us to have the WHOLE story (especially since misogynistic Popes in the middle ages decided which historical accounts would or would not be published.) If God is indeed great, and I believe He is, then the small human mind of one man cannot possibly contain all the vast knowledge about such an entity. To presume that one does, because one has read the surviving published verses in an abridged, oft-translated, and millenia-old historical document, is, in my opinion, the epitome of arrogance.

By Judi

December 1, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

WOW! What great comments on both sides. We’ve been homeschooling for 7 years. Our eldest is a senior in college, we have 1 headed to the military in January, and our youngest is doing 4th grade work - while age wise she would be in 3rd. I agree, not every parent/family is “cut out” to homeschool. It does take a lot of commitment. But if you take the plunge, that commitment is SO worth it! As for all those extra classes that some feel aren’t available to homeschooled children….think again, they are. Our children can attend many technical/community colleges for these courses while they are still taking HS courses at home. Also, many hs families take part in co-ops and other support groups. And imagine…they can offer everything from knowledge on life-skills, to anatomy, computer programming, and foreign languages. While we opted out of Latin, our children know converstaional German, a full course load of spanish, and are learning Gaelic.

Another good point mentioned was the testing of hs versus public/private schooled children. Yes, hs children tend to score better than their public schooled counterparts. BUT I agree that, at least in part, this is because our ps children are not receiving the education they should. I mean think about it, just now many states are imposing a graduation test. Prior to that the last test the kids “had to pass” was the 8th grade academic test. So when your child graduated from a public school, you were guaranteed (supposedly) that your child had at least an 8th grade education. But even that was levels below what education offered years ago. For comparison, look at your standard public school text books and compare them to another curriculum - for example ABeka. Even a glance at the spelling books from HM and ABeka for the same grade shows you a HUGE difference! And if your really interested in seeing what a big difference there is, pull out some of the old McGuffey texts! Homeschooling has taken so many various roads and has so many options available that just aren’t there for public schooled children. That still doesn’t mean it is “right” for everyone. We have to make our own choices and be open to change, whatever it may be, if it is necessary.

By HeeHaw

December 1, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Isn’t there a blog out there somewhere where the religiously superior can argue about important things, like whether or nor speeding on the interstate is sinning or even better, argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

By chuck

December 1, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, That is like saying it is silly (at best), and even arrogant (for some) to presume that they know what their college professor wants, thinks, demands, feels, and so forth. How can a student know these things? The professor gives them a syllabus. It tells them what he wants and EXPECTS THEM TO KNOW. He gives them a textbook, he gives them instruction.

How can you possibly know how to operate a computer? It came with an owner’s manual. You might have even taken classes that taught you how to use certain applications.

Why is it so hard to believe that God who created the universe would also leave us a guide that tells us what He wants from us. Why would He not do that? What kind of God would create us and then say, “Alright, I did my part. Now it’s up to YOU to figure out what I want.” He wouldn’t. He also would not create us as puppets. He gave us free will so that we can choose whether or not to love Him.

It is so simple, but it goes against our nature to accept a SIMPLE EXPLANATION for a COMPLEX QUESTION. Take for example, Renee’s post:

Christianity (some religions are more tolerant than others) but basically believes there is a section of fire and brimstone reserved specifically for us. You can have a child molesting priest, that will still have followers who believe he is going to heaven, but me as a homosexual, I’m damned. Christianity is supposed to be about love, but it’s about judgment. One does not live as they think one should. The bible was written by man and subsequently interpreted by man. Read me a verse, I might interpret it one way. Read it to a priest, he might interpret it another. What makes his interpretation correct and mine wrong?

Christianity does not believe that at all. There is no difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of adultery, OR cheating on a test for that matter. The Bible teaches that there is no difference between sins. In other words, there are no “big sins and little sins.” Sin is Sin. If I hate my neighbor, I have committed just as big a sin as adultery or murder. It is NOT the severity of the sin that matters at all.

The Bible teaches that:

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The “Him” referred to in that verse is Jesus. He was telling us what would happen some 400+ years after this was written. When He died on the cross, He did so for ALL of your sins and ALL of my sins, past, present, and future. The idea that we can take A VERSE and interpret it any way we want is incorrect. That is why so many people can’t get beyond their own pre-conceived ideas and figure out what it is that God wants. They get hung up on one verse, they think that it doesn’t match up with their “logical” conclusion, and they give up and look for answers in other sources.

There are MANY, MANY, THINGS IN THE BIBLE THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. There are some things that we won’t completely understand until we get to heaven. Then we will look back and say, “OHHHH, that’s why that happened.” MOST of the Bible is VERY CLEAR CUT AND UNEQUIVOCAL. You can’t just decide for yourself what something means or doesn’t mean. The Bible interprets ITSELF. There are no contradictions. There are no errors.

So when God in HIS WORD tells us that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but by” Him. We have to believe that. God has a plan and a purpose for EVERYONE of us, but He isn’t going to force it on us. We have to decide. I’ve been a Christian since I was 10 years old. That is over 35 years that I’ve had time to spend studying the Bible. I’ve spent thousands of hours listening to Biblical scholars preach and teach His word. In many respects, though certainly not all, I am an EXPERT on what the Bible Teaches. I’ve studied it using the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, (I wish I was a scholar in those languages, but I am NOT. I have to use study helps). The real key though is that I have studied it as a CHRISTIAN and the Holy Spirit dwelling within me helps me to understand it.

The bottom line is, Christianity is a matter of Faith, but it is a Faith of which we can be CERTAIN.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Hello Chuck. God did not write the bible. Man did.

By Judi

December 1, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Great post Chuck! I know i couldn’t have worded it better. God teaches us that sin is sin…it doesn’t matter if it is killing, stealing, adultry, witchcraft or homosexuality. You won’t spend eternity in hell just because you choose to sin. You have free choice to choose what path you take. Just as a mass murderer or any dying man can choose to accept Christ at the last moment… we all have the ability to choose. If we choose to accept Christ, our sin is blotted out, no matter what that sin is. And only God truly knows our heart. Just because I “claim” to be a christian means nothing. And if I go around following the world, what have I shown God or others regarding the condition of my heart? There is no way I am perfect! None of us are. We were made in the likeness of God….not identical to Him. He gave us the freedom of choice so we could choose what path to take…though it is His hope that “none should perish”.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

I hate the term “Christianity.” It is so misused.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

It’s pure folly to quote Bible verses at someone who is questioning the fundamental underpinnings of your religious dogma. Ascribing any veracity or credence to a biblical verse requires that one already believe in the authority of that particular volume. I could no more convince you of the endless cycles of creation, destruction and rebirth of Hindu mythology by quoting the Bhagavad Ghita at you than you can convince me of the truth of your juvenille, spoiled god by quoting bible verses at me.

Why is it so hard to believe that God who created the universe would also leave us a guide that tells us what He wants from us. Why would He not do that? What kind of God would create us and then say, “Alright, I did my part. Now it’s up to YOU to figure out what I want.�

First, because there’s no logical reason to assume that a being complex enough to create the universe in all of its incomprehensible vastness and diversity would at the same time be so limited that it would need to create a series of primitive, rigid rules that are in fundamental oposition to the natures of the creatures it created.

Second, why would this “textbook” ONLY be delivered to a tiny group of those creatures? Why would God choose to reveal himself only to some tiny nomadic tribe wandering through the desert? Presumably God created ALL the peoples of the world, so why would he ignore the rest of them?

Can you answer those questions logically, Chuck, without just parroting the bible? I doubt it.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

I thought I was going to like you, Judi, until you decided to lump in sexual orientation with murder and theft. You’re just a typical fundy after all, aren’t you?

And Judi, if God says that sin is sin, then why have the 10 Commandments? Surely THOSE are more important than the other things?

By Jack

December 1, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Charles Manson accepts Christ and goes straight to Heaven. What a deal. I can do WHATEVER I WANT and as long as I accept HIM before I die, I’m in like flint. What insentive is there not to sin if you can be forgiven afterward? Splain that Lucy.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Jack:

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you asked: Why is it so hard to believe that God who created the universe would also leave us a guide that tells us what He wants from us. That is not what I find hard to believe. My skepticism comes in with whether the book YOU are holding is THE book, and whether that book is infallible, and whether all the hundreds or thousands of MEN who handled, translated, ammended, or abridged THAT PARTICULAR BOOK were so pure and infallible, and utterly devoid of ulterior motive, as to give us all the straight scoop on the Great One. We all know the Vatican, which was full of Popes, was the keeper of this book for many centuries. Their motives were NOT pure; their motives were POWER and MONEY in that order. IMHO.

BTW, I write computer manuals. No one reads them; they call Tech Support.

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Good Morning!

If ALL sins are equal then why is there so much focus on homosexuality? Why the opposition to equal rights for homosexuals granted by our secular governments?

If there are no contradictions in the Bible how can we have a commandment of Thou shalt not kill and God telling various People to go smite someone? How could God have allowed the Crusades? And don’t give me free will when it’s the Church that was directing all the killing. How can we have a commandment against adultery and yet it was ok for men to have concubines or for Sarah (I think it’s her, but probably wrong) to offer her hand maid to her husband to have a son because she was barren? There are contradictions all over the place. If we’re supposed to give up our possessions why is the Catholic Church the wealthiest organization and largest holder of land titles in the entire World?

Study the gnostics….christianity was a bush that was pruned into the tree that it is today by humans making decisions that guaranteed their personal survival.

I know the Bible says that God knows when a sparrow falls in the forest, but it seems like God has a lot more on his plate than to worry about each and every individual and whether they are following the single set of rules that Chuck espouses. Somehow just asking for forgiveness and believing in Christ seems like a serious cop out way into Heaven. The mass murder who accepts Christ is saved, but a non-Christian who has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, cared for the sick and elderly, protected children…the person who has actually touched other’s lives with love and goodness and kindness burns in Hell because they didn’t believe in Jesus?

By Jack

December 1, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

JBM. Just playing the devil’s advocate! :)

By Judi

December 1, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

John, Thats ok…i still like you :-) You know, while I would like it if you (or anyone else)agreed with my christian beliefs - I know that just isn’t going to happen yet. They say that most people hear the gospel several times before they believe it and even more times before they accept it. Why have the 10 Commandments? Thats a foolish question…why have any rules at all in society if you know the majority of people are going to break them? hmmmm….does utter chaos not come to mind?

I believe the Bible in the literal sense of what it stands for, and what it tells us. And yes, while I might like you to share my beliefs…I know that isn’t the way it is. As for your beliefs, I would prefer you to be grounded in them, regardless of what your belief is. I mean, what good are any of us to our beliefs if we are lukewarm? Thats just being wishy-washy and not taking a stand for what we say we believe!

I think you’re a great guy and regardless of any differences, I wish you the best hon!

By Jack

December 1, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

If you think you are going to die you will be scared enough of Hell to repent beforehand and mean it.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

You don’t understand my question, Judi. Why have the 10 Commandments if there is no DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE between sins? After all, the Holiness laws lay out an entirely different set of rules. If there is no distincition between sin, there is no reason to have one set of rules laid out as more important than the others.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chuck and other fundies: please let me expand on the specific nature of my skepticism, which is not to be confused with disbelief.

Faith: (from Merriam-Webster) 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof(2) : complete trust

Okay then, if faith is believing in what we cannot see or prove, then WHY DO I NEED A BOOK, OR QUOTES FROM A BOOK, TO PROVE IT?

Hello? I can believe in God, and a person’s ability to have a relationship with God based on FAITH, and still be skeptical about the weekly pontificating and postulating of a bunch of self-appointed prophets who use fear to manipulate people, demand money on a plate, and quote from a book that may or may not be accurate and complete!

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Kimberly…don’t feel bad about no one reading the tech manuals. In my company no one reads the user or reference guides either…they call, email, or stop me and my peers in the hallway to ask. I’ve finally gotten them all on the same page to start responding with “What did it say in the reference guide?” Not a popular answer, but my head only holds so much info and why should I look it and tell someone the answer when they could have looked it up themself?

By chuck

December 1, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

72john, how about this…I assume you have a car. If your manufacturer’s warranty requires that you get your oil changed every 3000 miles you can choose whether or not you follow those guidelines. The thing is, if you don’t follow them and your engine locks up, the manufacturer won’t honor the warranty and you are up the proverbial creek. The MANUFACTURER KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT OPERATION OF YOUR CAR. It tells you in advance what is required of you and if you follow those instructions and something goes wrong, you are covered.

Let’s just look at ONE of those “primitive” rules…the prohibition against sexual promiscuity. God’s rule is ONE MAN for ONE WOMAN for LIFE. What happens when we don’t follow His plan? STD’s like syphyllis, AIDS, etc. Kids in turmoil, lives broken apart. Poverty. and on and on. God told us the BEST way which HE KNEW was best for us as our Creator. Sociology, Psychiatry, Medicine all confirm that it is the Best WAY because they see the results of doing it “our” way instead of God’s way. They may or may not attribute it to God, but it is clear that the Bible teaches it.

We could look at other “primitive” rules like using alcohol in MODERATION, or “be ye kind, one to another” and all of the others. We all know what works BEST is the way the Bible teaches us to live. Any time we don’t follow God’s laws there are consequences HERE as well as in ETERNITY. Is that “logical” enough for you john?

While I usually hesitate to respond to Jack’s inane ramblings and leaps of logic, I will just say this in response to your last 2 posts.

You said earlier that you were a “Christian”. I assume by that that you believe in Heaven and that YOU are going there. Let me ask you a question then. How can you place your trust in God making Heaven and making sure that you get there when you die, when you don’t even think He has enough power to use men to write down His word…when He doesn’t, according to you, even have enough power to see that His OWN MESSAGE GETS OUT? You want to talk about logical thinking? Get real.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

JBM, your 12:03 post was right on the nose. I agree completely. I am still waiting for an answer to yesterday’s question.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Again, Chuck, you fail to address why God only gave his rules to a chosen few.

And let’s talk about primitive rules, Chuck. Obviously, you can pick things out of the Bible that are positive. You can pick these same things out of ANY sacred text, Chuck. However, what universal, scientifically backed reasons are there for rules concerning how to sacrifice goats, or banishing women who are menstruating, or not wearing blended fabrics? I could go on and on and on, of course.

There are none, Chuck. They are examples of primitive superstitions encoded into taboo. These things are common in tribal cultures, but eventually as our knowledge grows, those taboos fall by the wayside.

All you are is a modern version of those primitives, Chuck. Too terified to make your own decisions, you need strict, rigid guidelines to tell you how to live. I pity you.

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

On a different topic, I now understand why the administration seems so anti-science…they needed the test tubes for something more important…read on!

The White House is experimenting with a nontraditional Christmas tree decoration this year —- laboratory test tubes.

As part of the “All Things Bright and Beautiful” theme selected for the 2005 holiday season, first lady Laura Bush came up with the idea of decorating Christmas trees with fresh flowers.

That left White House chief florist Nancy Clarke with the problem of keeping all those roses, lilies and azaleas properly hydrated.

“One of my suggestions was that we take a test tube, a regular test tube from any kind of lab and wrap it with wire,” Clarke said. “We could fill it up with water and actually make a Christmas ornament and still give our flowers a water source.”

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Jack - I know you are! ;-) But, they were good questions that someone else may have been wondering too, so I thought I’d take a crack at it.

General: As for “Christianity” - whatever that is, I don’t want that label. I think this forum, more so than anything else, has driven me to that decision. I’ve been “Christian” all my life, and accepted Jesus at 13 y/o. I’m realizing that there are way too many different types of Christians (not only diff. denominations), and calling me “Christian” is just like calling me “human,” — true, but not descriptive. You can “drill down” to find that I’m human, but I’m female and Black American. Likewise, you can drill down to find that I’m Apostolic.

Now, Chuck:

I’ve decided I’m not going to give you a long, drawn out answer, but I will answer your questions and any subsequent questions you have. But, I warn you: don’t try to attack me, or any of God’s children because I take that to heart, and this will get unnecessarily ugly. I don’t care who people are or what they do, I don’t ever accept any excuse for bashing, degrading, knocking, harassing, or judging. Basically, I don’t believe in giving anything but love.

In response to your 11/30 1:12p, “JBM, I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE PERFECT. IN FACT I HAVE GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT I AM NOT. Chuck, perception is reality. You may say with your words that you aren’t perfect, but your actions show that you believe otherwise. The impression that people have of you is that you are self-righteous, holier-than-thou, uppity. Trust me, IF YOUR MISSION IS TO WIN SOULS FOR CHRIST, IT WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED THAT WAY. Whether you are truly self-righteous or not doesn’t even matter. What matters is that the perception these bloggers have of you is impeding your opportunity to be an effective and reliable witness. Basically what I’m saying is that no one can hear what you’re saying because they can’t get past the way that you’re delivering the message. Your response to that is that the gospel seems foolish only to those who will perish. You’re failing in your assignment, and perhaps God sent me to let you know. You may have good intentions, but they’re lost behind your attitude.

YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE A LICENSED MINISTER? TELL ME THEN WHAT IT IS YOU MEAN BY YOUR “PARTNERâ€?.”

Yes, I am a licensed minister, since 1993. When I speak of my “partner,” I am referring to the person with whom I am committed, with whom I spend my life, raise my child, and share my bed. I suspect you want me to say openly that she is a woman, so there you go.

I don’t live under Levitical laws, and neither does my partner or our child. I don’t subscribe to the teaching that homosexuality is sinful, and that all homosexuals will automatically go to hell. I do believe that promiscuous homosexuals, and fornicating homosexuals will be punished as God sees fit (i.e. “hell”). I have studied Leviticus, and most other homosexual-referencing Biblical texts in their original languages, and am of the belief that most of that text was misinterpreted by man. Although it appears true that the Levites considered some homosexual acts to be immoral, morality varies across cultures, and adherence to morals is not a determining factor in God’s punishments or rewards.

I also find it odd that Jesus, my reference point, never once taught about homosexuality, despite others’ references to problems in this regard.

But, do me a favor, Chuck. Don’t respond to me regarding homosexuality. It’s moot. I doubt we’ll ever agree.

“What YOU preach JBM is what the Bible calls “another gospelâ€?. It is one that has no power for changing lives OR for regeneration. Let me ask you 2 questions and I’ll try to let this go.”

You’ve never heard me preach, you have no idea what “kind of gospel” I preach. That’s just another one of your assumptive judgments. But, for the record, what I preach has changed my, and scores of other, lives - so it’s got some kind of power.

1) What does the Bible teach is the only way to get to heaven?

Repentence through Jesus Christ.

2) What happens to NON-BELIEVERS when they die?

Depends on their age, and circumstances. For example, I believe that non-believers who die before the age of accountability (which, in my mind, is undefined), will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven. I’m not sure what happens to non-believers who die, never having heard the gospel of Jesus Christ; but I’m leaning towards their being accepted into the kingdom, too.

Those who rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore rejected the Father, will be punished according to the Bible. Some people believe that means hell. I agree that the punishment will be hell, but deep down, I’m not sure if Christians’ current concept and understanding of hell is what God has in store. Admittedly, I’m not a good student of the book of Revelations.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

doesn’t, according to you, even have enough power to see that His OWN MESSAGE GETS OUT?

Well gee, again, why did it only “get out” to a few people?

Duh.

By HeeHaw

December 1, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

The guy who wrote Revelations was smoking some serious Syrian hashish.

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

“God’s rule is ONE MAN for ONE WOMAN for LIFE.” Then why did so many in the old testament have mutliple wives and concubines and were still favored by God? Where exactly is that rule in plain text as you’ve stated it, Chuck?

How many churches put up Christmas trees in the Nave? That tree came from PAGAN beliefs and was grafted into christianity. There are numerous cases of local supersitions and pagan customs being incorporated by the Church in order to gain members. Doesn’t that diminish or negate being a True Christian? Look at the Mexico as a perfect example and yet they are considered a Catholic nation.

By mamafitty

December 1, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Ms. Glass seems to be chanting the typical liberal mantra of “government knows best.” If the educational system in this country were PRIVATIZED, like the business sector, educational opportunities to fit EVERY faith, ideology, academic level, etc. would open up as need demanded. Parents would determine the type of school and education their children received, and schools would be RESPONSIBLE to produce those well-educated children … or GO OUT OF BUSINESS!

In the meantime, homeschooling delivers. Just ask my National Merit semifinalist homeschooled child.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Syrian? I like Lebonese.

By Denise Stewart

December 1, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Diane Glass is an idiot. Her comments come from ingnorance and the inability to do thourough reserch or thinking that has any insight. The home educating of children in America is not “causing the eroding of American education” it is a reaction to a system that overall is in decline and unresponsive to today’s students. While many public schools do many things very well, many are and have been for years dismal failures (Time and Newsweek as well as every newspaper in the country and Broadcast news have been putting out these reports my entire life). Then you have the individual that needs a different environment or a differnent approach to be successful and a school system that strives to produce cookie cutter factory workers.

Diane Glass needs to study a little history (something they didn’t teach much of when I was in public school) and learn about the real world. The public education system as we know it has only been in existence for less then 100 years. Prior to that all kids were home educated either by the parents or tutors prior to being sent off to apprenticships, private education, taking over the family business, etc. Home education worked great for Thomas Edison, Alexander the Great, Abe Lincoln (who was self educated), Cleopatra, Ben Franklin and many other great people as well as all of us commoners who have existed on Earth since when humankind first began.

Ms. Glass, you really can’t believe that a system that is less then 100 years old is any better then what has been working for humankind for many thousands of years?

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

I think we should buy the stuff grown in the American Gulf Coast region. The climate is right for rich, sticky crops, and we need to support the rehabilitation of their decimated economy.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Come now NetB. We know you have every word in those reference manuals memorized! Charge them for the advice. Better yet, tell them “Real men/women don’t need a reference manual, they figure it out themselves.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Umm…do you have any idea what the literacy rates were like prior to public education?

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Are we sure it wasn’t Afghani opium?

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Even with public education we have terrible literacy rates. I just heard that Fantasia from American Idol is basically illiterate. Her mother is a functioning illiterate. There are a frightening number of these people walking around and you’d never really know it.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing how someone can survive in this day and time without reading. I can’t imagine.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Nice article about an actual Christian Preacher, Will D. Campbell of Tennessee — tells the self-serving money-grubbing preachers to stuff it.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Did you read about the former NHL coach who admitted to being illiterate? That really blew my mind.

By upgradequeen

December 1, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Perhaps the reason the schools are so upset about this is that (and I have heard this as a rumor…not an actual study) most of the parents of home schoolers were they themselves public schooled. In essence, as if the schools were a store, they have lost a customer….perhaps because of customer service (or lack of it). Be wary of loud blame throwers (the schools)! The guiltless usually blame themselves or react in other ways (as in parents choosing not to use the schools).

Also, if these home schooling parents Were mostly public schooled and the schools are so great with such excellent teachers, then it stands to reason that these home schooling parents must certainly be excellent teachers. Or are the schools admitting they didn’t do a good job teaching their own?

By Brent

December 1, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Why does the blame go only on the schools? When you send your child to school, and the child acts like a wild animal, what is the school to do? If they: A) chastise the child. The child will go home and tell their parent a different version. The parent will get mad, come up to the school, and yell at the teacher in front of the teacher’s colleagues and the students. I’ve seen it happen. This parent came to the school, cussed the teacher out for her son getting a “C” in front of the other students and her child. The rest of the year, the child held this over the teacher’s head. The teacher was powerless the rest of the year. The child chose not to do any work. B)The teacher does nothing, and the child wins.

If you chastise students, you hurt their feelings. If you grade papers in red, you hurt the child’s feelings. What about the teachers? Not to mention, that there are quite a few students that refuse to do homework. Every day you are forced to reteach what you did the day before. Students come to school without supplies. You are not allowed to give homework over the weekend. Parents complain about the weight of the books, and the amount of homework given to students. So don’t put the blame on the teachers, upgradequeen.

By Randy

December 1, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

72John, On your 12:38 post, there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world. How do you figure that God is only given his information to just a few people??? Most everyone has heard of Jesus now with mass media. How would it sound if in the bible, we traced events back to several different sources (Moses, Bill, Abdul, and several hundred other people were given the 10 commandments, by God) doesn’t make a good argument, nor does it make much sense. Again, this argument is irrevelant(no disrespect meant towards you). The bottom line is, a creator exists, logically he would make himself known, and almost 4 billion people(out of 6 billion total)follow the same creator(the God of Abraham). Some of these followers(Muslims)have been mislead by leaders who are out for power, wealth, or have hatred as their reason for misleading their muslim people. But they know who the original creator is, even if they don’t want to take the sure way of going to heaven, by following his son Jesus Christ.

By HeeHaw

December 1, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Randy - I think 72John’s point was God chose to ignore the Mayans, Incans, South Sea Islanders, Eskimos, Asians, etc. Of course, like the Jews, they were busy creating their own gods.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Well, no Randy, just because you say a Creator exists and he would make himself known, that doesn’t make it so.

Whenever you get painted into a logical corner you pull this argument out. It has no weight - it’s just you proclaiming that it is so, therefore it is so.

Now, let me see if I can make the other argument make “sense” for you. If God is so powerful and so anxious to have everyone bow down and worship him, then why did he not arrange for the revelation of his truth to occur to all people in their infancy? The people you mention in the Bible are still geographically and culturally THE SAME, Randy. Surely that isn’t hard for you to understand.

I used the Americas as an example because they were basically completely cut off from contact with the parts of the world where Christianity either began or later spread, and remained so, with the exception of the occasional Viking visit, for a millenium and more. During that time, civilizations consisting of millions and millions people rose and fell and rose again.

Where was God there, Randy? Or, where was God in the thousands of years of human history that are unrecorded? Why did he wait so long to reveal his Commandments?

By Jack

December 1, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Most religions have a higher power. Couldn’t this higher power be the same being for all and just referred to with different names?

By chuck

December 1, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Net, While it is probable that the birth of Christ did not occur in December at all, the Roman Catholic Church chose December 25th as the day for celebrating the birth of Christ. Why would they do that? Especially since that was a day of a Pagan festival. The Church wished to replace the pagan festival with a Christian holy day (holiday). The psychology was that is easier to take away an unholy (but traditional) festival from the population, when you can replace it with a good one. Otherwise, the Church would have left a void where there was a long-standing tradition, and risked producing a discontented population and a rapid return to the old ways.

The same thing is true of the Christmas tree. The purpose was to a degree, appeasement. The church however took something that was bad and changed it to good. The tree took on a new meaning. It became symbolic OF CHRIST. The tree itself, an evergreen, represents eternal life that comes through Christ. The candles and now electric lights that adorn the tree represent both the star that told of His coming and the fact that Jesus is the light of the world. Objects in and of themselves have no spirituality, only the meaning that we attach to them. You would think that an international banker would know that.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Otherwise, the Church would have…… risked producing a discontented population and a rapid return to the old ways.

See? It was all about getting and keeping power.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck. NetB has more brains in his little toe nail than you have in your entire body. What gall you have. You are nothing more than a sheep in human clothing.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

More Christian arrogance from Chuck.

Why were the pagan festivals that Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc. replace BAD, Chuck? They weren’t celebrations of evil, they were simply the religious celebrations of religions that weren’t Christian.

By blablabla

December 1, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

there are a lot of comments that diane made in her piece that give me pause.

first, she quotes a study from 1991 to illustrate that either fundamentalist crazies or new age crazies choose to HS their kids. that’s no longer even close to the truth. would she use research from 1991 to validate her opinion on global warming? i certainly hope not.

secondly, she says:

Most of these parents are willing to take on traditional roles of male breadwinner and female caretaker to accomplish this end. It makes you wonder if the intensity of this commitment isn’t so much about a good education, as it is about political inculcation.

why does diane always have such a problem with the husband works, wife home-maker lifestyle that so many people adhere to? she takes every possible opportunity to bash it. my wife only works part-time bc a) we didn’t and don’t need the money and b) the stress of her full-time job was leading to serious health problems. furthermore, she doesn’t want to be in the corporate rat race. it is insulting that diane uses every opportunity to trash the choices that couples such as my wife and i have made about how best to live our lives just bc my wife doesn’t choose to be the “liberated” woman diane would undoubtedly like her to be. If my wife were to homeschool our children, it would have absolutely nothing to do with political inculcation and everything to do with what we thought was best for ourselves and our children. My sincere belief is that we are not be alone in that regard, but in fact in the majority. diane’s opinion is alarmingly insulting and uninformed.

thirdly, she says:

I know from experience that a teacher’s passion for a topic is just as important as the topic itself. That passion is more often found in teachers who pursue this as a career.

for parents who homeschool, i can only imagine that their passion for their children generally outweighs any passion exhibited by teachers. i mean that as no slight to teachers, but rather to emphasize the high level of commitment that a parent must demonstrate educate their children.

then she goes on to say…

We also have to consider what this means for the future of public education. University of Illinois Professor Chris Lubienski contends that home schooling is not only a response to deteriorating public schools but a cause of its decline. Schools should be given the chance to respond to public needs, he argues. Home schooling doesn’t help the public good, just the individual.

perhaps we should consider the future of public education. last i checked, we spend more $ per student than any other country in the world. and personally, i find the product that we’re paying for to be sub-standard. i know i’m not alone in that belief. and i would be curious as to how the rise of homeschooling is a cause of public school decline, since diane chose not to expand on that point. homeowners pay property taxes for use in schools regardless of whether they have kids or send them to a public school versus homeschooling. in reality, for every kid that is homeschooled, the public school has more money per remaining child than it would otherwise.

and if diane truly believes that public schools should be allowed to respond to the public needs, why does she and the rest of her ilk oppose virtually any attempt to be innovative in order modify or improve public education in this country? de-emphasize the teacher’s union…vouchers…charter schools…diane and those like her oppose them all.

and lastly, irrespective of how children are educated, the objective is education, not the saving of the public school system and its tag along bureaucracy.

By Whiley

December 1, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

There should be a special spam filter on this blog that blocks out religious debate. That way, the bible beaters would be forced to visit the RELIGION SECTION of the AJC & do their blogging THERE.

Does home schooling do a disservice to kids? WITHOUT QUESTION YES, because most parents are weird & dysfunctional anyway.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

The tree took on a new meaning. It became symbolic OF CHRIST. The tree itself, an evergreen, represents eternal life that comes through Christ. The candles and now electric lights that adorn the tree represent both the star that told of His coming and the fact that Jesus is the light of the world.

Chuck, where’d that come from?

I’m sincerely interested in this discussion, as a JW friend and I recently discussed Christmas trees. I’m in the process of deciding whether or not I’ll put one up. I probably will, but I’m not sure how I feel about it.

Personally, I don’t think a person can just take the meaning of something and change it for their convenience. Christians tend to do that a lot. That’s bad.

Of course this is a bit over-the-top, but it’s almost like taking the “b” word and saying that from here on out, it means “Virtuous Woman,” instead of “female dog.” Now, it’s okay to use the word, because to us it means something different. Even though the secular world has a different understanding, when we use the term, we actually honor God, so we can use it freely.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Well, we discussed the topic earlier in the week. Perhaps you could have put your two cents in then and avoided sounding self-righteous now!

By Jack

December 1, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Hi Whiley. They won’t go to the religion section cause they feel there are more people to “save” on this blog.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

There should be a special spam filter on this blog that blocks out religious debate.

In that case, there would also need to be a filter that blocks out all discussion unrelated to the week’s topic - lest someone be bored, annoyed, or offended by the digressor.

Basically, if a discussion doesn’t suit your interest, bring up another topic, or ignore the one at hand.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

John, You keep repeating the same argument, but the argument is flawed. You are assuming that God only made His word to a “chosen few”. What you fail to realize is HOW THOSE FEW WERE CHOSEN. In other words, what precipitated the selection of just one group to become God’s People? In order to understand that, you have to understand where this “diversity” came from. After the Flood, the population began to grow again and people began to disperse themselves around the Middle East. In one particular city, the people rejected God and tried to put themselves on His level…they thought of themselves as gods. Because of their rebellion, God dispersed them over the earth, confounding their languages in the process. As they dispersed, they had the chance to repent and follow God, but they chose not to.

ONE MAN, chose to be obedient to God. Abram. God made a COVENENT with him and changed his name to Abraham. God’s plan was to bless the entire world THROUGH Abraham and his heirs. The story to which you referred about Sarah and her handmaid was somewhat accurate. It happened because they were starting to get old, and they had no children even though God had promised them that they would. They tried to Push God along by having Abraham have a child with the handmaid. The son that they had, Ishmael, became the basis for Islam. God rebuked Abraham for his lack of trust, but then blessed him and Sarah, who was 99 years old at the time, with a son Isaac. God’s relationship with Abraham was based on the covenent that God established. He carried through on that promise and blessed the world through the seed of Abraham. That blessing was Jesus born to Mary, a direct descendant of Abraham.

Not to get into a huge dissertation on the subject, but the truth of the matter is that the Mayans, Incas and all of the others are descendants of the people who were dispersed because they rejected God.

Because of Christ and now His followers, there are efforts under way to reach EVERY People group (there are over 5000 world-wide) with the Gospel. The Bible has been translated into the katchi(sp?)language for instance. They are a people group in Guatemala that are descendents of the Maya.

By blablabla

December 1, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

whiley - i agree 100%, but i would guess that any religion blog would be full of people patting themselves on the back in agreement. it’s no fun if we all agree.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Not to mention, the “bible beaters” you refer to, are in the minority and can be easily ignored. Off the top of my head, I can only count three: Chuck, Randy and Zack. Even if I’m missing a few, that group is still a vast minority.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

blablabla - hardly true. The religious blogs have just as much dissention as any other blog. Christians are a very judgmental people, and judge even each other if one doesn’t believe what another does.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Chuck, that argument, I’m sure, works on fundamentalist literalist Christians, but for anyone with a brain, it’s nothing but b******.

It’s so funny that you are obviously totally blind to the fact that, like any other mythology the Old Testament is nothing more than the attempts of a primitive people to make sense out of the world around them, the MICROCOSM in which they lived.

Any geologist will tell you, Chuck, that by the time your silly Old Testament begins, any land bridges connecting the continents would have long since vanished. How then, did your people who rejected God disperse throughout the world?

Is that what passes for apologetics in your world, Chuck? Just making everyone and everything fit into the mythologies of a single people? How sad.

By Whiley

December 1, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

The ORIGINAL topic was a good one. Why does religion seem to take over? That’s like in every blog discussing JUST Will & Grace, or, JUST debating the Star Wars Trilogy. I have more than two cents, just nothing to say in a mythology based religious argument.

There is nothing wrong with public schools. There is everything wrong with most of the parents who send their kids there. Parents must be involved every day in their kids education. Otherwise, don’t complain. Home schooling is an awful idea.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

JBM, Here is one source that has a great explanation:

http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/chrtree.htm

By The72John

December 1, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Did you ever stop to consider that everything that Shaunti writes is informed by her religious fundamentalism?

With religion inextricably bound up in whatever the topic of the week is, there’s little wonder that the conversation usually drifts in that direction once the original topic has been exhausted.

By Vince

December 1, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

I think the disservice is referring to children as baby goats.

I’m so tempted to show up at one of those hotels where “kids” stay free with a baby goat and see what they say.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Hey 72John, Chuckie tells you your argument is flawed, but he didn’t tell me that MY argument was flawed. Does that mean I’m “saved” and you’re going to HECK? Haha.. Or maybe Chuckie won’t argue with me anymore because thinks I’m a “depraved little miscreant”, or so the good Christian man called me before. Hahaha! Dear God, You’re the BEST. Please save me from your followers…

By RF

December 1, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Now if somebody would put up the money for a pitcher of beer, this discussion would get REALLY interesting!

JBM- put up a tree. It’s a neat family tradition. I laughed at Chuck’s explanation. We put one up as a family and for us it’s a reminder of what the season is all about-family, giving, and thankfulness for our lives.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Heh heh…Chuckie…I envision the evil little doll, but instead of a knife, he has this blood-soaked bible that he’s used to bludgeon all of the evil-doers (non-Chucklike Christians) to death. Pull his string and he shouts out “Jesus LOVES you” in this hoarse, croaking voice.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

The hotel clerk would say,”baaaaaaaaaaad Vince” :)

By Whiley

December 1, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

LOL TRUE BlaBla. But it’s still SO boring reading the nick picky religious arguments. Just being me good point, but if I avoid talking about religion, I sound like I’m having a conversation with myself again lol.

Did anyone happen to see who won Barbara Walter’s person of the year?

By Jack

December 1, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Know how to tell an elephant is on her period? Your mattress is missing and there’s a quarter on the night stand.

Know what an elephant uses for a tampon? Sheep.

Baaaaaaaabaaaaaa!!!

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Vince. I used to feel the same way, but I guess I got sucked in.

Whiley, the original topic was a good one, and I think most of us agree. However, there’re only so many ways to slice a tomato. After you’ve tried all the different ways, you start talking about God. :-)

And, everyone who hates it clears the room.

But, if you really want to know how it ended up on religion. Here ya go:

• Bloggers discuss homeschooling.
• Discussion moves toward discipline in schools and lack thereof.
• Discussion leans towards what types of discipline are acceptable and which are not.
• Discussion moves slightly back into homeschooling and some of the problems with it, such as, indoctrination.
• Discussion moves into Wife Swap, and bloggers digress into discussions of other television shows.
• Discussion moves slightly back onto how some parents who may be religious or politically affiliated, or both, lean toward homeschooling so that their children do not become “infected” with erroneous information.
• Discussion takes on religious overtones.

Got it?

By Jack

December 1, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Sorry. My mind went from goats to sheep to elephants. Yes, they’re going to take me away haha.

By Whiley

December 1, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

JACK ! ! !

lol

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Jack, LMAO!!!

By RF

December 1, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

JBM- you should be in TV news. That was the best 5 second wrap up of four days of blogging I’ve seen. Koppel couldn’t have done it better!

By RF

December 1, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Jack—- be careful. You might end up in a padded room next to Chuck. Talk about hell…

By Jack

December 1, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Long as I’m not in the same padded cell with him!

By Eirik

December 1, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

As one who is of 72John’s sexual persuasion I am shocked that I for once agree with Chuck…but I support home schooling..I for sure would home school my kids..not that I’ll ever have any. Every person I know that has been home schooled (and I seem to have met a number of them for some reason) all appeared to be extremely intelligent, but well mannered, and also quite at peace with themselves.

Anyway…below is an interesting example of the “divinity” of theology:

I just read where the Vatican is instructing priests to eliminate references to Limbo…the place between Heaven and Hell where unborn babies are supposed to go. Apparently, the vatican would like a different explanation for where dead babies go when they die. So now Limbo will no longer be a place…i.e., an accepted concept will be snuffed out of theology..because a group of men decided it isn’t an acceptable explanation. Why is this an issue now? Because many Europeans aren’t baptizing their children, mostly because they are fed up with the rigid dogma of the Catholic Church. So what do these “inspired” men do?..easy…just tell the world that what they thought was true…really isn’t…so go baptize your kids are they’ll end up in hell if they die too soon.

Gee, I wonder if that’s ever happened in the past…where men decided what was biblically true.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

As usual Whiley, you are free to post on the appointed topic and ignore the posts that have nothing to do with it. If you have something interesting to say on the topic, other people will respond to you. I don’t respond to everyone on here and I’m sure most of us don’t. I respond when I have something to say on the topic or when a legitimate question is asked. That’s why I usually ignore people like Jack because he rarely makes any contribution to understanding. His only goal is to try to get something started by making some sort of outrageous statement.

The reason that most of these discussions turn to God is because someone makes a statement in a post that is on the topic, but includes a statement that references Christianity in either a positive or a negative light. Those on the other side respond, questions are asked and the topic changes. In this particular topic, both NetB and 72John made statements of hate toward christianity and were responded to. They then asked fairly specific questions and we’ve been discussing them ever since. Of course, 72john rarely does anything but call names and he tries to ask questions that he thinks will confound Christians only to find out that when God created the world HE thought of EVERYTHING.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Lol Chuck. Good one! Statements of hate towards Christianity. Yet again, you’re confusing YOUR brand of hate-filled angry religion with Christianity.

Do you realize you are utterly unable to answer ANY QUESTION without using the Bible as proof?

By RF

December 1, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Even God wouldn’t be that cruel, Jack. Unless you’ve been very, very bad (which we probably don’t need to know, do we?)

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Jack - totally gross. Please no more period jokes.

RF - Thank you. I always wanted to be a news anchor, but didn’t know you didn’t have to look perfect until I moved to Atlanta.

I’ll probably end up getting a tree, because I won’t be able to adequately explain to my partner and daughter why we aren’t getting one. But, I hope to have really spent some time looking into it by this time next year.

I agree that it’s a nice tradition, I don’t recall one year of my entire life that I didn’t have a Christmas tree at home. But, it is a pagan tradition, as someone pointed out - and I would be remiss if I didn’t take note of that and see what the deal is.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

JBM, please don’t get suckered into that mindset. Our secular traditions and borrowed traditions are no less important because they don’t have “pure” roots. Frankly, there ARE no pure components of Christianity. Everything was borrowed from someone.

Depriving your child of the simple joys of childhood is doing her no service.

By Jack

December 1, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

I don’t argue with zealots Chuck. it is a waste of time. Just as you waste your time trying to “save” the good folks on this blog. You bring the blog down, I try to bring it up. Seriously, you should consider the fertilizer company. You spout enough to feed all the corn in Iowa.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

72John, good point about using the Bible as proof. So again I ask those who thump it every day: If I have FAITH, why do I need an old, abridged, oft-translated old BOOK to prove what I believe? Doesn’t faith, by definition, let me toss the book? And if you get all your supporting “evidence” from a BOOK, then aren’t you behaving exactly as the [dreaded] heathen ACADAMIANS behave? And if you do no differently than the acadamians who tout evolution and such, HOW are YOU any different? Is it just a matter of WHICH book you believe? Is that the depth of one’s faith? If so, that’s pretty sad, IMO.

By chuck

December 1, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

YOU KNOW JOHN, it’s kind of hard to answer questions about GOD without referring to His Word. You asked WHY GOD would do something. If you want to know why France would do something you read about the history of France and the writings of Frenchmen.

If you want to find out why God would do something you GO TO THE SOURCE. But here you go:

The familiar story of the building of the Tower and City of Babel is found in Genesis 11:1-9. From the initial setting given for the account, on the plain of Shinar, to the final lines where the city is identified with Babel, it is clear that the events recorded took place in southern Mesopotamia.<1>

Artist reconstruction of a ziggurat (pyramid) in Babylon. Illustration by Paul S. Taylor. Copyrighted, all rights reserved.

Read the story of the Tower of Babel…

It is this southern Mesopotamian backdrop that provides the basis for studying the account in light of what is known of the culture and history of Mesopotamia. One of the immediate results of that perspective is firm conviction that the tower that figures predominantly in the narrative is to be identified as a ziggurat. This is easily concluded from the importance that the ziggurat had in the civilizations of southern Mesopotamia from the earliest development of urbanized life to the high political reaches of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It is common for the ziggurat to be of central importance in city planning.

The frequent objection that the Hebrew term migdal is used primarily in military contexts or as a watch tower, but never used of a ziggurat, is easily addressed on three fronts.

We do not expect to see the term migdal used of ziggurats [stepped pyramids] in Hebrew because the Israelites did not have ziggurats.

We do not expect the Israelites to have a ready term for ziggurats because ziggurats were not a part of the Israelite culture.

Given the absence of a term in Hebrew, we would expect them to either borrow the word if they had to talk about them, use a suitable existing term, or devise a word. To call the ziggurat a tower is not inaccurate, and as a matter of fact, the term they used is derived from the Hebrew term gdl (to be large), which is somewhat parallel to the etymological root of the Akkadian word, ziqqurat (zaqaru, to be high). Despite the fact then that the Hebrew term is used primarily in military senses or as watch towers, the context here and the known background of the narrative prevent us from being limited to that semantic range. A possible nonmilitary function of a mgd may occur in Ugaritic as a place of sacrifice (Keret IV: 166-72).

ZIGGURATS

Nearly 30 ziggurats in the area of Mesopotamia have been discovered by archaeologists.<2> In location, they stretch from Mari and Tell-Brak in the northwest and Dur-Sharrukin in the north, to Ur and Eridu in the south, and to Susa and Choga Zambil in the east. In time, the span begins perhaps as early as the Ubaid temples at Eridu (end of the 5th millennium BC) and extends through the restorations and additions made even in Seleucid times (third century BC). Architectural styles feature stairs in some, ramps in others, and combinations of the two in still others. Ziggurats are of varying sizes with bases ranging from 20 meters on a side to over 90 meters on a side. Frequently the ziggurat is dedicated to the city’s patron god or goddess, but cities were not limited to one ziggurat (Kish had three). The issues most likely to be of importance in the study of Genesis 11 are the origin and function of ziggurats. We may expect that by the study of these we may be able, to some degree, to delineate the role and significance of the ziggurat in Genesis 11.

ORIGIN

The structure at Eridu, the earliest structure that some designate a ziggurat, is dated in its earliest level to the Ubaid period (4300-3500). There are 16 levels of temples beneath the Ur III period ziggurat constructed by Amar-Sin (2046-2038) that crowns the mound. At which of these levels the structure may be first designated a ziggurat is a matter of uncertainty. Oates comments, Convention clearly demanded that the ruins of one shrine should be preserved beneath the foundations of its successor, a practice that probably explains the appearance of the high terraces on which some of the latest prehistoric temples stood, and which may be forerunners of later times (1976: 132).<3> This same phenomenon occurs with the so-called White Temple of Uruk dated to the Jamdet Nasr period (3100-2900). M. Mallowan remarks, The so-called ziggurat or temple tower on which it [the white temple] was set had risen gradually in the course of more than a millennium, for in fact beneath the white Temple the tower incorporated within it a series of much earlier sanctuaries which after serving their time had been filled solid with brickwork and became terraces for later constructions (1965: 41). It is difficult to determine what should be called a ziggurat and what should not. The criteria used by the ancients is unknown to us. For our purposes, we will define a ziggurat as a staged tower for which the stages were consciously constructed. That seems to be what is taking place in Genesis 11. Therefore, even though the temples on accumulated ruins were probably the forerunners of the staged towers, the “stages” (made up of accumulated ruins) were not constructed for the tower. It is only when builders construct stages (possibly modeled after the piled up ruins) that we will acknowledge the designation ziggurat. This also rules out the oval terraces. The Early Dynastic period (2900-2350) is the most likely candidate for the origin of the ziggurat so defined. H. Crawford concedes that…

…there can now be little doubt that some sort of staged tower does go back to the Early Dynastic period, although there is no evidence for an earlier occurrence (1977: 27). The clearest evidence of this is at Ur. There… …the Early Dynastic ziggurat is completely engulfed by that of Ur-Nammu, but its existence can be safely deduced from the remains of the period in the surrounding courtyard area (Crawford 1977: 27). Mari also has a firmly established Early Dynastic ziggurat. At Nippur, superimposed ziggurats built by Ur-Nammu (2112-2095) and Naram-Sin (2254-2218) have been confirmed, and it seems likely that a pre-Sargonic ziggurat serves as a foundation (Perrot 1955: 154).

FUNCTION

There have been many different suggestions concerning the function of a ziggurat, and the issue is far from settled. Brevard S. Childs presents a brief summary of some of the major opinions: The older view that the ziggurat was a representation of a mountain, brought from the mountainous homeland of the Sumerians to Babylon, has been shown as only a secondary motif by recent investigation. Busink has demonstrated from Eridu that the original ziggurat had nothing to do with a mountain. However, in that the Babylonians later on compared the ziggurat to a mountain, this may well be at the best a secondary motif acquired during its later development. Then again, Dombart’s attempt to find in the ziggurat a throne concept has found little acceptance. Andrae advanced in 1928 the view that the temple-tower must be seen as a unity, the former being the dwelling place of the god, the latter his place of appearing. But in 1939 he retracted this view in favor of one in which the temple-tower provided the holy place for the resting of the divine spirit. Both Schott and Vincent have defended the idea that the tower was the entrance door through which the god passed to the lower temple. Lenzen, however, has attacked this theory, defending that the primary significance is that of an altar. Finally, Busink concludes that a development must have taken place in the long history of the ziggurat as to its meaning. He feels that originally perhaps the practical necessity of protecting the temple against flood and plunder was primary, but admits also that religious motives must have played an important role in its development (1955: 99-100).<4>

One of the earliest interpretations understood the ziggurat as the tomb of a king or a god (Hilprecht 1903: 469), although this was not necessarily considered the sole function. There were two major supporting arguments for this view. The first was the obvious similarity in shape to the early Egyptian pyramids. The second is connection in the inscriptional literature between the term ziggurat and gigunu, which was rendered “tomb” by Hilprecht (1903:462). In regard to the former, the earliest pyramid, the so-called step-pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, bears the closest resemblance to the ziggurat form. It has been demonstrated that the architectural form of the Egyptian pyramids began as a simple mastaba and was built up in several stages (Edwards 1946: 46ff). The step-pyramid was a product of the third dynasty in Egypt (mid-third millennium BC), which was contemporaneous with the Early Dynastic period in Mesopotamia. Although the extant evidence seems to indicate that the architectural form of the ziggurat became fully developed by that period, the development had begun perhaps a millennium earlier. Thus the ziggurat form can in no way be seen as dependent on the pyramids. Furthermore, no literary or artifactual evidence has produced any indication that the ziggurat functioned as a tomb.

With regard to the latter argument, the gigunu is no longer understood as a tomb, but rather as a sanctuary at the top of the ziggurat (CAD G: 67-70), though the precise meaning of the word remains uncertain.

One approach to examining the function of a ziggurat — and in my opinion, the only approach that can give objective data, given our present state of knowledge — is to analyze the names given to the ziggurats in the various cities where they were built. Rather than attempting to use our own standard to judge what is a ziggurat and what is not, we will use a list of designated ziggurats from a Neo-Babylonian bilingual geographical list of 23 entries (Rawlinson 1861: 50: 1-23 a, b). Following is my translation of the list:

Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth (Babylon) Temple of the Wielder of the 7 Decrees of Heaven and Earth<5> (Borsippa) […] gigir (Nippur) Temple of the Mountain Breeze (Nippur) Temple of Mystery (Nippur) ? (Kurigalzu) Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven<6> (Sippar) Temple of the god Dadia (Akkad) ? (Dumuzi - ?) Temple of the Admirable Throne/Sanctuary (Dumuzi - ?) Temple of the Ziggurat, Exalted Dwelling Place (Kish) Temple of the Exalted Mountain (Ehursagkalamma) Temple of Exalted Splendor (Enlil - at Kish?) Temple of the god Nanna (Kutha) Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth<7> (Dilbat) ? (Marad) ? (Ur) Temple which Links Heaven and Earth (Larsa) Temple of the Giparu (Uruk) Temple of the Ziggurat (Eridu) ? (Enegi) ? (Enegi) We may now attempt to categorize the names with the hope of finding some clues about the function of ziggurats. Two of the ziggurats are named for the god (8, 14; probably also 2).

Three names seem to involve general praise (13, 21, 22).<8>

Two names make reference to the structure or parts of the structure (19, 20).

Two names feature mountain terminology (4, 12).

Six names seem to address the role or function of the ziggurat (1, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18).

Of the six names that seem to address the function of the ziggurat, two indicate a cultic function, that is, that the ziggurat in some way housed the deity (10, 11; this, of course may also be conveyed by the names in category 1).

The other four may indicate a cosmological function, that is, they may indicate that the ziggurat symbolized the connecting link between heaven and earth, or between heaven and the netherworld. The ziggurat at Sippar, temple of the stairway (simmiltu) to pure heaven, is particularly indicative of such a function because of the occurrence of the simmiltu in the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal (Gurney 1960: 123:13-14; 125:42-43).

In this tale, the stairway is used by Namtar, the messenger of Ereshkigal, to journey from the netherworld to the gate of the gods Anu, Enlil, and Ea.<9> It serves as the link between the netherworld and heaven.<10> That the simmiltu occurs in the name of one ziggurat and that another means the “Temple which links heaven and earth” (18) may indicate that the ziggurat was intended to supply a connection between heaven and earth—not for mortal use, but for divine use. This is supported to some degree by the total absence of the ziggurats in the cultic rituals. S. Pallis remarks…

Anyone who has perused the whole of the material is struck by the remarkable fact that Etemenanki [the fabulous ziggurat of Babylon] is nowhere mentioned in the description of the course of the [akitu] festival though numerous other sacred localities in Babylon are referred to. Nor do we meet with any reference to ceremonies performed here. Indeed, I believe I may add that beyond the constant reference to the building of Etemenanki or “its head” in the inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and the frequent mention of it in hymns where it is referred to or invoked in conjunction with Esagila, Ekur and other temples, we find nothing about Etemenanki or its religious uses in the entire Assyro-Babylonian literature (1926: 103-104).<11> It cannot, of course, be concluded that the ziggurat was not used in the rituals. We can only say that whatever its use may have been, if it had one, it is unknown to us. While Pallis is addressing the situation with regard to the ziggurat of Babylon, we would add that the same is true of all of the ziggurats known from the ancient Near East. If the known literature were our only guide, we would have to conclude that people did not use the ziggurat for any purpose.<12> The mountain terminology used in some of the names is also of interest. In ancient mythologies certain mountains were often considered to be the place where deity descended or dwelt. The Bible likewise implies such a connection. YHWH comes down on a mountain (Sinai, Ex. 19) and sacrifice is made on a mountain (Moriah, Gen 22; Carmel, 1 Kings 18). Moses, Aaron, and Elijah, three of the most central figures in Israelite religion, all go up into a mountain for the meeting with YHWH at the end of their lives. In the Ugaritic Baal-Anat cycle, the temple of Baal is built on the summit of Mount Zaphon. The motif is likewise present in Greek mythology, Mount Olympus being the home of the gods.

Although the function of the ziggurat cannot be identified with certainty, our study of the names, the use of the simmiltu in mythology, the use of mountain terminology, and the lack of reference to a function in the cultic practice of the people, leads us to put forth tentatively, as a working hypothesis, the following suggested function:

The ziggurat was a structure that was built to support the stairway simmiltu), which was believed to be used by the gods to travel from one realm to the other. It was solely for the convenience of the gods and was maintained in order to provide the deity with the amenities that would refresh him along the way (food, a place to lie and rest, etc.). The stairway led at the top to the gate of the gods, the entrance to the divine abode. Before we move on to consider the implications of this function of the ziggurat for the narrative of Genesis 11, we need to look at a few more elements that can be further explained in light of the narrative’s Mesopotamian background.

BUILDING MATERIALS

Discussion of the building materials occupies the whole of Genesis 11:3. The first half of the verse indicates that burnt bricks are being used and the second half the verse contains an explanation by the author to those who might be unaware of the details of this “foreign” practice. Our current knowledge of ancient architecture and industry confirms the statement made by the author. In Palestine, mud bricks (sun-dried) are first found in levels designated pre-pottery Neolithic A (8th-9th millennium BC) (Kenyon 1979: 26). This is the only type of brick found in Palestine. Kiln-fired brick is unattested. The practice was rather to use stone for the foundations and sun-dried brick for the superstructure (Kenyon 1979: 46, 87, 91, 164, etc.).

Sun-dried bricks first appear in Mesopotamia at Samarran sites Sawwan and Choga Mami (mid-6th millennium BC) (D. and J. Oates 1976: 104). Kiln-fired bricks are first noted during the late Uruk period and become more common in the Jamdet Nasr period toward the end of the fourth millennium (Finegan 1979: 8; Singer 1954: 462; cf. Salonen 1972: 72ff). Bitumen is the usual mortar used with kiln-fired bricks (cf. Woolley 1939: 99). The building technology of Palestine used a mud mortar (as indicated in our narrative). Bitumen of any grade was an expensive item (Forbes 1955: 4-22), as Singer notes:

Being expensive, it was seldom used for walls of sun-dried bricks … except to make the walls and floors of such buildings impervious to water. … It was, however, widely used in baked brick buildings. These, again because of the cost of fuel, were expensive, and were normally used only for palaces, temples, and other official buildings. The low firing temperature of the bricks (550-600 degrees C.) resulted in a high porosity; thus the mastic was freely absorbed and gave such strength that the walls made of it are stronger than rock and any kind of iron (1954: 250-54).

Not only is the description of the building materials an accurate reflection of a true distinction between Israelite and Mesopotamian building methods, but it also gives us some important information. Whole cities were not generally built of these materials. Even ziggurats themselves only used burnt brick and bitumen for the outer layers while using regular sun-dried mud brick for the inner layers. The core was then filled with dirt.<13> The mention of the expensive building materials would thus suggest that the discussion is focusing on public buildings. Public buildings were frequently of either religious or administrative importance and were often grouped together in one section of the settlement. They became the focal point for the centralization of wealth and for the preservation of many aspects of the individual culture. It was the public sector of the city that was fortified and contained the stores of grain. Thus Hilprecht notes…

The temple complex of Nippur, with the dwellings of numerous officials, embraced the whole eastern half of the city, an area of almost 80 acres. The so-called inner and outer walls of Nippur cannot refer to the whole city, as one would have supposed from the inscriptions, but in accordance with the topographical evidence must be limited to the Temple of Bel (even to the exclusion of the temple library) (1904: 14-15). Although it is possible that the author wants to make the point that this endeavor was attempting to build an entire city of the most expensive materials, I find it more plausible that the public sector of the city is intended. In the end, this is probably a difference without a distinction, for the earliest “cities” were simply the administrative buildings.

Thus, when the people in Genesis 11 speak of building a city, they are most likely not referring to building of a residential settlement, but would have in mind the building of public buildings, which in ancient Mesopotamia would be largely represented by the temple complex. C.J. Gadd, writing of Early Dynastic times, observes that “the distinction of city and temple becomes dim, for one was only an agglomeration of the other” (CAH3 I, 2: 128). The focus of any major temple complex would have been the ziggurat, which leads us into the next section.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CITY AND THE TOWER

We cannot say that the building project described in Genesis 11 was exclusively a temple complex, but a temple complex certainly was included and is the focus of the story. This is confirmed by the nature of the building materials, the nature of the ancient city, and the role of the ziggurat in the narrative. This ziggurat was the dominant building of the complex, so we are not surprised that that draws the attention of the narrator. Although we have already examined the function of the ziggurat, the role of the temple complex as a whole in Mesopotamian society may now be of some significance to our study. Reference has been frequently made in the past to the administration of the so-called temple economy, which was deduced by Deimel and Falkenstein mainly from the Early Dynastic texts from Lagash and Shuruppak.<14> The main feature of the temple economy was purported to be the exclusive or almost exclusive temple ownership of land. Falkenstein added that the temple had at its disposal not only the labor resources of the temple personnel, but the labor force of the entire city-state for tasks concerning the temple (1974: 19-20). Although this theory has been largely overturned in more recent analyses (Foster 1981), the temple complex was likely the center of the earliest efforts of urbanization, a process that is characterized by public buildings, specialized labor, and some publicly owned land. Jacobsen comments:

The centralization of authority which this new political pattern made possible may have been responsible, along with other factors, for the emergence of a truly monumental architecture in Mesopotamia. Imposing temples now began to rise in the plain, often built on gigantic artificial mountains of sun-dried bricks, the famous ziggurats. Works of such proportions clearly presuppose a high degree of organization and direction in the community which achieved them (1946: 141). So we find that the development of ziggurats and the urbanization process go hand in hand.<15> The ziggurat was the architectural focus of the temple complex, which in turn functioned as the central organ in the economic, political, and cultural spheres of early communities in Mesopotamia. The interrelationship of architecture, city planning, and religion has been observed in the interpretation of the finds in ancient Uruk. Hans Nissen says, We can deduce from the completely different layout of the two shrines in the Late Uruk period that there must have been greater differences here than can be expressed merely by the assumption that we are dealing with different divinities. While in the western area, a terrace that was a good ten meters high, on which stood a high building visible from afar, the precinct of Eanna was completely differently organized. All the buildings were erected upon flat ground without the slightest elevation. Whereas in the western area it was already impossible, from the point of view of the building, for there to be more than one cult building, the layout of Eanna does not exclude the possibility that several such cult buildings were in use simultaneously. This difference in external organization can definitely be traced back to differences in the organization of the cult and can thus also clearly be traced back to different basic religious concepts (1988: 101; cf. also pp. 102-103). The connections between Genesis 11 and the early stages of urbanization in Mesopotamia are further confirmed by the statement of the builders in Genesis 11:4 that they desired not to be scattered abroad. Although this statement has often been interpreted as an indication of disobedience on the part of the builders, such a view cannot be warranted.<16> First, the disobedience that is attributed to the builders is generally explained by reference to the blessings of Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1, 7 where God says to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. But a correlation here cannot be sustained. The passages that speak of being fruitful and multiplying are better read as blessings granting permission, rather than commands; privileges, rather than obligations.<17> Further, it is clear that even if filling was seen as an obligation, it would be carried out by reproducing, not by putting geographical distance between oneself and one’s family. Scattering is not to be equated with filling.

The second point against the disobedience interpretation is the existence of a much more plausible alternative for understanding the statement. If the builders desired to prevent scattering, then we must assume that something was forcing them to scatter. The Old Testament does witness to a pressure to scatter that arises from internal conditions. Genesis 13:6-9 records a situation that arose between Abraham and Lot in which they would no longer remain together because of conflict between their men.

This would have involved competition for prime grazing land and for campsites nearer to water sources. The constant need for the patriarchs to travel to Egypt in time of famine (i.e., when there is not enough food to meet subsistence level requirements) likewise demonstrates what to them was a fact of life: the number of people that can reside in any given area is directly related to the climatic conditions and land fertility. Cooperation among residents (as initially practiced by Abraham and Lot) can increase the ratio, but eventually the growth in numbers will necessitate dispersion.

Perhaps more frequently, the cooperative effort will fail. Both reasons are mentioned in Genesis 13 — their possessions became too great, and their men fought.<18>

Scattering, then, is not being avoided by disobedience. It is rather a fact of life in nomadic and seminomadic societies that is counterproductive to cultural continuity. It is natural that the builders would want to counteract the need to scatter. The solution to this is the development of a cooperative society, which by pooling their efforts and working together can greatly increase production. In a word — the solution is urbanization.

Living together in such close quarters meant that conflicts had, rather, to be actively controlled, leading to the setting up of rules for resolving conflicts. As we have already seen, situations where people lived together in close proximity could only arise in the intensively cultivated irrigation areas. Thus it was also the inhabitants of these areas — that is, especially of Babylonia — who found themselves confronted by these challenges and had to find answers to them. The need to establish rules enabling people or communities to live together is far more important in encouraging the higher development of civilizations than the need to create purely administrative structures (Nissen 1988: 60-61). From every angle, then, the narrative, taken against its historical and cultural background, continually points us to the early period of urbanization in southern Mesopotamia. But how does this relate to YHWH’s response to the builders’ efforts? Are we to conclude that urbanization is somehow contrary to YHWH’s plan? While some have taken this route, it seems a difficult one to maintain given YHWH’s choice of a city, Jerusalem, for the dwelling place of his presence. It is more likely that there would be something that was characteristic of the urbanization process within Mesopotamia that would be identifiable as the problem. Again, our knowledge of Mesopotamian backgrounds can provide some possible explanations. The administration of the early cities was in the hands of a general assembly.<19> This form of government lasted only briefly as the need for decisive action led to the evolution of the institution of kingship. Although its period of operation was relatively brief, the general assembly format of government left a permanent impression on Mesopotamian society in that this was the form of government that mythology depicted as used by the gods. As the urbanized state began to function, the universe came to be considered a state ruled by the gods (Jacobsen 1946: 142). Details concerning the pantheon and its operation prior to this shift are few and often obscure. Jacobsen has presented the view that the earlier picture of the gods was one in which each god, or numinous power, was seen as bound up by a particular natural phenomenon through which he was made manifest. The god was seen to be the power behind the phenomenon, and the phenomenon circumscribed the power of the god and was the god’s only form (Moran 1970: 2).

As the situation developed, however, a change took place. Rather than continuing to emphasize the powerful uncontrolled manifestation of deity in natural phenomena, the view of the cosmos as a state emerged, with the now humanized gods as citizens and rulers. Mesopotamian theology that is reflected in most of the mythology of Babylon and Assyria has an urbanized society as its foundation. This theological perspective arose sometime early in the urbanization process, for even the Early Dynastic literature reflects that point of view. One indicator of this shift is the sudden popularity of the practice of setting up statues in temples that were intended to pray for the life of the benefactor. Nissen observes,

We can assume that it is highly probable that the custom of setting up statues in temples with this intention began in the Early Dynastic Period. This observation is of interest insofar as it certainly reflects a change in religious ideas. A notion of a god that makes it conceivable that the god can be influenced in this way differs fundamentally from the one that sees in the god only what is spiritually elevated. It is a humanization of the divine image such as we have already seen as a precondition for the theological speculations about a pantheon in which the ranking order of the gods among themselves was expressed in the form of family relationships (1988: 155). The ziggurat and the temple complex provide the link between urbanization, of which they are the central organ, and Mesopotamian religion which they typify. The ziggurat and the temple complex were representative of the very nature of Mesopotamian religion as it developed its characteristic forms. The essence of this new perspective, represented by the ziggurat and temple complex, is highlighted by Lambert. The theology of the Sumerians as reflected in what seem to be the older myths presents an accurate reflection of the world from which they spring. The forces of nature can be brutal and indiscriminate; so were the gods. Nature knows no modesty; nor did the gods. …In contrast the Babylonians grappled with facts and tried to reduce the conflicting elements in the universe to parts of a harmonious whole. No longer using the analogy of natural forces, they imagined the gods in their own image (1960: 7). Jacobsen further comments: Particularly powerful and concrete in the new anthropomorphic view was the symbol of the temple, the god’s house. Towering over the flat roofs of the surrounding town, it gave the townsmen visible assurance that the god was present among them (in Moran 1970: 13). The development in Mesopotamian religion that took place with the development of urbanization, was that men began to envision their gods in conformity with the image of man. Man was no longer attempting to be like God, but more insidiously, was trying to bring deity down to the level of man. The gods of the Babylonians were not only understood to interact with each other and operate their affairs as humans do, but they also behaved like humans, or worse. Finkelstein observes, The Babylonian gods …although not themselves BOUND by moral or ethical principles, nevertheless appreciated them and expected man to live by them. The Babylonians, it would seem, fashioned their gods in their own image more faithfully than the Israelites did theirs (1958: 440). This is what is represented by the ziggurat. The function of the ziggurat that was suggested earlier as a result of our study of the names further supports this. The needs and nature of the deities who would make use of such a stairway reflect the weakness of deity brought about by the Babylonian anthropomorphization of the gods. It is this system of religion that was an outgrowth of the urbanization process as it unfolded in Mesopotamia, and it was this system that had as its chief symbol the towering ziggurat.

The danger of the action of the builders then has nothing to do with architecture or with urbanization. Nothing was wrong with towers or with cities. The danger is found in what this building project stood for in the minds of the builders. To the Israelites, this would be considered the ultimate act of religious hubris, making God in the image of man. This goes beyond mere idolatry; it degrades the nature of god.

One could perhaps object to this interpretation on the grounds that it requires the ziggurat or the temple complex in Genesis 11 to be a “silent” symbol of the Mesopotamian religious system. In fact, it is no more silent a symbol than the courtyard of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Vatican Square. The editor’s own presentation of the material demonstrates their understanding of the symbol. In Genesis 11:6, YHWH says this is only the beginning of what men will do. What is the end result? The editor’s answer to that question is given by means of a rhetorical device: “Therefore its name was called Babel” (Gn 11:9). It was the Babylonians who eventually committed the offense.<20> This offense lay not in the building of buildings, nor in the architectural structure itself, nor in the effort that achieved it. In the eyes of the editor the intentions of the builders were innocent enough, but now, behold what their ziggurat had come to represent! The hubris was committed by those who carried on from that innocent yet auspicious beginning and brought to fruition the very evil that YHWH had foreseen — the degradation of deity. As the modern poet has voiced it:

The more the gods become like men, the easier it is for men to believe the gods. When both have only human appetites, then rogues may worship rogues (Miller 1977: 32).<21> Unlike the modern interpretations, which suggest that there was no offense and that YHWH, acting in grace, prevented offense from occurring, we would suggest that the offense was not prevented, but rather delayed and isolated by YHWH’s action. By confusing the languages, God made cooperation impossible; therefore, scattering could no longer be prevented. Thus the urbanization process was delayed. We cannot deny the possibility that this account was understood by the Israelites as being pregnant with political implications. Its main intent, though, we would argue, would seem to be not political polemic, nor even the account of yet another offense. Rather, the account demonstrates the need for God to reveal himself to the world. The concept of God had been corrupted and distorted; this would require an extensive program of reeducation to correct. So it was that God chose Abraham and his family and made a covenant with them. The covenant would serve as the mechanism by which God would reveal himself to the world through Israel.

THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE TOWER OF BABEL

As is evident from the above, I believe that the account of Genesis 11 has a solid historical foundation in early Mesopotamia. The details are authentic and realistic. The identification of the urbanization process and the accompanying development of the ziggurat with fundamental changes in the religious perspectives of the people demonstrates the keen analytical insight of the Biblical author. Is it possible to suggest a particular historical period as the background of the event recounted in this narrative? First, a review of the pertinent information: Development of baked brick technology: Jamdet Nasr, ca. 3100 BC Development of Ziggurat: Early Dynastic Period, ca. 2500 BC (earlier prototypes go back to the Late Uruk phase, ca. 3200 BC) Development of Urbanization: Early Dynastic Period, ca. 2800 BC Government by Ruling Assembly: Early Dynastic I, ca. 2900 BC When considering the impact of this information, two caveats must be identified.

First, in the Biblical account the tower of Babel is presented as a failed prototype. The result of God’s action against the builders was to delay the development of urbanization in Mesopotamia. Consequently, it would be logical to infer that the event recorded in Genesis 11 occurred perhaps centuries prior to the actual development of urbanization as attested by archaeological records.

Second, development of institutions may have taken place prior to the Early Dynastic period, but written records are not available to inform us of those developments. Writing developed in the Late Uruk period, but is limited to basic economical use for some time.

Besides the archaeological information that has been discussed, we must also consider that the account must have support from our understanding of the history of linguistic development and from settlement patterns in Mesopotamia. Taking all of this information into account, the Ubaid period (5000-3500) is most intriguing. Ubaid is a site in southern Mesopotamia just northwest of Ur. The Ubaid period witnesses the first settlements in southern Mesopotamia, with many of the sites being built on virgin soil (Finegan 1979: 8). The sites in the northern section of Mesopotamia that attest the earlier settlements (e.g., Jarmo, Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf) appear not to continue into this period, though Ubaid cultures are attested in the north as well as the south. This pattern suggests that the Ubaid period witnessed the initial migration from the north into southern Mesopotamia, in notable agreement with Genesis 11:2. Nissen has described the developments of this period in southern Mesopotamia and suggested a cause for the events:

A prolonged period in which only very scattered individual settlements existed was suddenly followed by a phase in which the land was clearly so densely settled that nothing like it had been seen even in the Susiana of the previous period. With the help of information from the Meteor research project, an explanation for this development in Babylonia is now possible. The land, which had been unsuitable for settlement owing to the high sea level in the Gulf or the large amount of water in the rivers, had at first supported only a few island sites, but from the moment the waters began to recede it was open to much more extensive habitation (1988: 56). And again: The results of studies of the ancient climate and of the changes in the amount of water in the Mesopotamian river system and in the Gulf… now present us with a clearer picture of the developments in southern Babylonia. The climatic changes documented for the middle of the fourth millennium seem, within a space of two to three hundred years, to have stemmed the floods that regularly covered large tracts of land and to have drained such large areas that in a relatively short period of time large parts of Babylonia, particularly throughout the south, became attractive for new permanent settlements (1988: 67). Both architecture and pottery of the period show similarity to that found at earlier northern sites (CAH3 I, 1: 337, 340, 365). Archaeologists have observed that the most striking characteristic of the Ubaid period is its uniformity. Mellaart comments: Never before had a single culture been able to influence such a vast area, if only superficially. The pottery distribution, in spite of minor variations, is fairly uniform (1965: 130). The principal site of the Ubaid period is Eridu. One of the Babylonian creation accounts says: “All lands were sea, then Eridu was made” (Heidel 1951: 62, 10-12). It appears to have had a town wall even in its earliest periods (CAH3 I, 1: 332). Levels 18-6 feature temples, though none approach very closely the ziggurat architectural development. The patron deity of Eridu in the Sumerian periods was Enki, the crafty god, known for his association with the arts of civilization and for his many sexual encounters (cf. Kramer and Maier 1989). The mention of baked brick technology directs our primary attention to the periods coming after the Ubaid period, but Genesis 11 may span these periods. In Genesis 11:2 a group of people is identified as having traveled to the plain of Shinar to settle. The traveling group is not necessarily “all the earth” from v. 1, but perhaps just the descendants of Shem, since the genealogy of all of the sons of Noah has already been treated in chapter 10.<22> We would expect here a narrowing of focus to Shem’s line. In this scenario, a large group of Semites migrated southeast and settled in Sumer. The text would not demand that even all the Semites were there. The span of time that the text covers is not mentioned.

It is possible that the migration should be understood as having taken place in the Ubaid period, during which southern Mesopotamia began to be settled. Then the decision to undertake the project may have come toward the end of the fourth millennium, perhaps during the Late Uruk period, or perhaps as late as the Jamdet Nasr period, when we actually have the beginning of baked brick technology. The project would then result in different (Semitic?) languages being created, or perhaps would represent the differentiation of the Semitic languages from Sumerian. Whatever the case may be, it resulted in the people being scattered throughout the fertile crescent.

This scenario would not require that all language groups were formed at this time or that all the languages were represented there. But from that beginning, urbanization in southern Mesopotamia was initiated, including the development of ziggurat architecture and the full development of the Mesopotamian religious system that it represented.

It is interesting to note that archaeological evidence shows a clear dissemination of Babylonian culture throughout the ancient Near East at the end of the Late Uruk period and into the Jamdet Nasr period. This is particularly evident in the Zagros area and in Syria. Nissen says,

…in the Syrian area, we now encounter yet another variant. In a completely independent local development, individual settlements were founded that are absolutely identical with what we know from Babylonia and Susiana, down to the last pottery sherd in the inventory. …There does not seem to have been any traffic in the opposite direction. If, in addition, we consider that these alien types of settlement were all either directly on the Euphrates or on its tributaries, there seems to be a relatively simple explanation for the whole situation. We are most probably dealing here with settlements of people who came there directly from the southern lowland plains (1988: 120; cf. 113-15). Furthermore, it is evident that this influence did not last for long but quickly was subsumed by the local cultures. The Habuba settlement in Syria, for instance, hardly survived more than 50 years (Nissen 1988: 115, 122). It is difficult to bring archaeological or historical information to bear on the question of whether the city Babylon was actually the site of this occurrence or whether it was the outstanding example of that system. Excavation at Babylon cannot inform us of its history prior to the second millennium, because the shifting water table of the Euphrates has obliterated the strata (Saggs 1967: 41-42). Historical records do not mention Babylon prior to meager references in the Ur III period, and a year date formula of Sarkalisarri during the dynasty of Akkad (Gelb 1955). If it was the site of the event recorded in Genesis 11, it seems to have been abandoned for over a millennium before it was again occupied.

Further Reading

Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature? Answer… Confusion of tongues Tower of Babel Nimrod Babylon City Chaldea Shinar Dispersion Peleg Read the story of the Tower of Babel Read the Biblical record Wordsearch game: Wow! What Happened at Babel? Printable / On-line version

Explanation of the origin of races, beginning at Babel: ORIGIN OF RACES - where did they all come from? How did different skin colors come about? Racism, Racial Issues and Christianity: Answers to Frequently-Asked-Questions

One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism - Everyone concerned with racial discrimination and misunderstanding will really appreciate the content and spirit of this timely, Bible-based book, full of fascinating scientific facts and information. Eye-opening and encouraging!

[More Info] US$10.99

NOTES

Whether Shinar = Sumer is now open to question in light of the analysis of Ran Zadok (1984), but there is no doubt that it refers to southern Mesopotamia. For the best analysis of these, see Parrot 1955. We would suggest that “convention” is less responsible for this practice than the belief that the location and orientation of the temple had been ordained by the gods and was therefore not to be abandoned. It may also be overstatement to say that the previous shrine was preserved. While not totally demolished, it was filled with brick or rubble so as to serve as a suitable foundation for its successor. The assertion that Busink demonstrated that the ziggurat had nothing to do with a mountain is perhaps overzealous. While Busink’s evidence suggested other formative elements as more likely, the mountain motif cannot be entirely discarded. This name is reconstructed, although there is little doubt of the reading. The transliteration is presented as [E.UR4.ME].IMIN.AN.KI. The name of the ziggurat of Nabu in Borsippa is well-known. ME is a variable in the name, so it may or may not have occurred in this tablet. The meaning traditionally suggested is “Temple of the seven masters of heaven and earth.” This would be logical, it is argued, if each of the seven levels of the ziggurat were (as Rawlinson postulated) dedicated to one of the seven major heavenly bodies (cf. Ebeling and Meissner 1932: 422). This view, however, does not enjoy a consensus and fails to give adequate explanation of the ME variant. I have posited the present translation based on the role ascribed to Inanna in Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld (cf. Falkenstein 1942: 115:14-15; Hallo and van Dijk 1968: lines 5-8). This reading follows the generally accepted emendation. Cf. SL 2:2, 568 #84 and CAD Z, 130-31. The signs on this as they stand would be read E.DU.BA.AN.KI and this is retained by Deimel. I have read SUHUS(!) (=isdu) which appears as a combination of DU + BA. The meaning of DU.BA is obscure, although DU alone is a variant of SUHUS for isdu. In #21 the name is restored as E.U6.DI.GAL.[AN.NA], where U6.DI + tabratu, “praise.” #22 is read E.ARATTA2.KI.KI.SAR.RA. If ARATTA = Akk. kabtu, “honorable” (cf. SL 3:1, 19, though somewhat dubious) praise would be intended. KI.SAR.RA = kissatu and expresses totality. Akkadian simmiltu has cognates in many Semitic languages. B. Landsberger (1933: 230-31) lists the following: “neusyr. simelta; mand. sumbilta; altsyr. sebbelta; Hebrew., jud.-aram, arab. mit Metathese, sullam.” Cf. von Soden 1965-1981: 1045. The Hebrew sullam is used only in the story known as “Jacob’s Ladder” in Genesis 28:12. In Jacob’s dream the sullam is set up with its head reaching toward the heavens. Messengers of God (cf. Namtar in Nergal and Ereshkigal) were going up and down it. This certainly does not indicate a procession, but rather indicates that messengers to earth were using this stairway/ladder to set out on and return from their missions. Upon awaking, Jacob comments concerning the house of God as well as the “gate of the heavens” — thereby conforming quite closely to general ancient Near Eastern perceptions. For discussion of this see Millard 1966: 86-87; Houtman 1977; and Cohen 1978: 34. The ziggurat name ending AN.KI could be translated “heaven and netherworld” rather that “heaven and earth” in that ersetim can refer to either (CAD E). The Hittite texts which speak of a ritual ladder being lowered into pits for the spirits of the dead also use the symbol KUN(5) for the ladder. See Hoffner 1967. A survey of occurrences of ziqquratu in CAD further confirms the lack of references to the cultic use of the ziggurat. By this I mean in general worship. Certainly the fertility rituals where a high-priestess cohabited with deity would have taken place in the deity’s chamber on top of the ziggurat. It has also been thought that astrological observation was made from the top of the ziggurat, though I have been unable to confirm any such references to this sort of use prior to the Neo-Babylonian period. I am grateful to Prof. D.J. Wiseman for this information. For the limitations of the evidence, see CAH3 I, 2: 126. Cf. Falkenstein, “The development of civilization is most closely connected with the temples of the country” (1974: 5). This interpretation is as early as Josephus (Ant. 1.4) and persists in many commentaries today. On the permissive function of the imperative see Kautzsch 1910: 110.b. Cf. Genesis 36:7. Jacobsen refers to this system of government as “Primitive Democracy.” The aptness of this designation is disputed, but the role of the assembly is not. Edzard views the process less a democracy and more a “public sounding board” (cf. Bottero, Cassin, and Vercoutter 1967: 80). Jacobsen suggests that the structure can be seen on a larger scale in the role of Nippur and Enlil in Early Dynastic I. He refers to this as the Kengir League (in Moran 1970: 137-41; 157-72). Though it is possible that this building project was attempted at Babylon, current evidence suggests that the city is not that ancient. I would allow that the name Babel is used here as identification of the contemporary example of what was wrought in that initial incident. Cf. C.S. Lewis, On the one hand the man who does not regard God as other than himself cannot be said to have a religion at all. On the other hand, if I think God other than myself in the same way in which my fellowmen, and objects in general, are other than myself, I am beginning to make Him an idol. l am daring to treat His existence as somehow parallel to my own (1964: 68). For the use of implied antecedents of pronouns in Biblical Hebrew see Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 16.4-5; 16.3.5c. There are no other occurrences of “all the earth” functioning metonymically as a reference to people and serving as subject of a verb, so it is not easy to determine whether a singular or plural verb would be used. Cf. independently, Hamilton 1990: 351.

REFERENCES

Bottero, J.; Cassin, E.; and Vercoutter, J. 1967 The Near East: The Early Civilizations. Trans. R.F. Tannenbaum. New York: Delacorte. CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956-. CAH Cambridge Ancient History Childs, B.S. 1955 A Study of Myth in Genesis I-XI. Unpublished dissertation, Heidelberg. Cohen, H.R. 1978 Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Missoula: Scholars Press. Crawford, H. 1977 The Architecture of Iraq in the Third Millennium B.C. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Ebeling, E., and Meissner, B. 1932 Reallexikon der Assyriologie, v. 1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Edwards, I.E.S. 1946 The Pyramids of Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Falkenstein 1942 Archiv für Orientforschung 14. 1974 The Sumerian Temple City. Los Angeles: Undena. Finegan, J. 1979 Archaeological History of the Ancient Near East. Boulder CO: Westview. Finkelstein, J.J. 1958 Bible and Babel, in Commentary 26. Forbes, R.J. 1955 Studies in Ancient Technology, v. 1. Leiden: Brill. Foster, B. 1981 A New Look at the Sumerian Temple State. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 24: 225-41. Gelb, I.J. 1955 The Name of Babylon. Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 1: 25-28. Gurney, O. 1960 The Sultantepe Tablets: The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal. Anatolian Studies 10. Hamilton, V. 1990 The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Heidel, A. 1951 The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hilprecht, H. 1903 Exploration in Bible Lands. Philadelphia: Holman. 1904 In the Temple of Bel at Nippur. Philadelphia: Holman. Hoffner, H. 1967 Second Millennium Antecedents to the Hebrew ‘ob. Journal of Biblical Literature 86: 385-401. Hallo, W.W.; and van Dijk, J. 1968 The Exaltation of Inanna. New Haven: Yale University Press. Houtman, C. 1977 What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Vetus Testamentum 27: 337-51. Jacobsen, T. 1946 Before Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin. Kautzsch, E., ed. 1910 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 28th ed. Trans. A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon. Kenyon, K. 1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land, 4th ed. New York: Norton. Kramer, S.N. 1968 The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version. Journal of the American Oriental Society 88: 108-11. Kramer, S.N., and Maier, J. 1989 Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. New York: Oxford University Press. Lambert, W. 1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. Landsberger, B. 1933 Lexicalisches Archiv. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 41. Lewis, C.S. 1964 Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. New York: Macmillan. Mallowan, M. 1965 Early Mesopotamia and Iran. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mellaart, J. 1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East. New York: McGraw-Hill. Millard, A.R. 1966 The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven. Expository Times 78. Miller, C. 1977 The Song. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity. Moran, W., ed. 1970 Toward the Image of Tammuz. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nissen, H. 1988 The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000-2000 BC. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oats, D. and J. 1976 The Rise of Civilization. New York: Elsevier Phaidon. Pallis, S. 1926 The Babylonian Akitu Festival. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Parrot, A. 1955 Ziggurats et Tour de Babel. London: SCM. Rawlinson, H.C. 1861 The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, v. 2. London: R.E. Bowler. Saggs, H.W.F. 1967 Babylon. In Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D.W. Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon. Salonen, A. 1972 Die Ziegeleien im alten Mesopotamien. Annales Academiac Scientiarum Fennicae 171. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Singer, C. 1954 The History of Technology, v 1. Oxford: Clarendon. von Soden, W. 1965-1981 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, 3 vv. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Waltke, B.K., and O’Connor, M. 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Woolley, L. 1939 Ur Excavations: The Ziggurat and Its Surroundings. New York: British Museum and University of Pennsylvania. Zadok, R. 1984 The Origin of the Name Shinar. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 74: 240-44. [ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: John H. Walton, reprinted by permission from Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 [1995]: 155-75. Supplied by Associates for Biblical Research Copyright © 1996, 2001, Associates for Biblical Research, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

By Nikki

December 1, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Thank you Shaunti for your open response to home schooling. On the other hand, Diane, you need to do further research on what you think home schooling is all about. Yes, positive scholastic outcome on homeschoolers is not the only issue (even though they do rank higher), but I thought that people sent their children to school to get an education in the first place. Maybe I was mistaken. Anyway, you could not be further off the mark with your statement “home schooling is not about how public schools teach so much as what they teach.” It ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY is about how AND what they teach. Why else would us so called “extremely religious” and “New Age” parents home school? As a homeschooler, I home school to instill good values, morals, beliefs and a good education based on truths and facts. When was the last time you heard a teacher ask a student to say excuse me instead of pushing or when was the last time you heard a teacher tell a student to say sorry because he broke the other students crayons and when was the last time you heard a student say thank you to the lunch lady giving them their lunch? I grew up in a public school in Pennsylvania and it was very rare, almost non-existent. I think it is wrong that the school cannot discipline the children. If the children know that they can get away with bad behavior and no consequence, what do think they will do? It is also very upsetting to me that you would pick money over your children. By the way, do you have children? When you have children, you sacrifice. You should WANT to sacrifice. As far as a male breadwinner and female caretaker, I am honored to be able to be with my children every day. So many times, I hear from parents, “I cannot wait until summer is over and the kids are back in school.” How sad! I love my children and I love being with them. I was estatic to see them crawl, walk and speak for the first time. I want to be here to see their faces as they learn to read and write. The one thing that home schooling does not provide is NEGATIVE peer pressure. How is this a detriment to my children? Why should I subject them to bullying, swearing, fighting, sex, drugs and ignorance? My children are interested in getting a good education, not trying to buy the most expensive clothes so they can fit in the best social group in school. My children will be better able to handle situations later because of not overexposing them when they are small. What constitutes skill for teaching your child? I raised my children from birth and have been teaching them from the first time I laid eyes on them. We as home schooling parents, must be doing a better job “teaching” the children than the actual public and private school teachers since homeschoolers are more advanced than them. There is no argument to be made with teaching gaps. There are more opportunities available to homeschoolers than there is to public and private school children including non-credit college courses, tutors, institution classes (Science Center, Zoo, Music Studios, Art Studios, etc…), enrichment days, online curriculum with tutors, etc… What exactly is the public and private schools teaching? How come these children are graduating without knowing how to even balance a checkbook or know who the current President and Vice-President is? Homeschoolers in PA have to jump through hoops with the state to prove that an education is taking place. We are double evaluated, have to produce a portfolio of work and take the standardized tests just like the public and private school children. I do not want to take away from the teachers that are really good; unfortunately, they are rare. The public school curriculum is teaching gay lifestyle, false truths in history and science and sex education classes. My husbands hard working money for school taxes goes towards this garbage. Homeschoolers have to purchase all of their own home schooling materials and are not compensated for anything. Homeschoolers are not missing out on somethings valuable to their future, they are personally in control of their future. In my opinion, the decline in the school system is a no brainer. Homeschoolers are pulling ahead and the public and private schools are threatened. Colleges and Universities are seeking out the homeschoolers because they are the outgoing, think for themselves, self-sufficient and good moral students. You state that home schooling doesn’t help the public good, just the individual. If the individual is good, don’t they help the public? Homeschoolers are very active in public works. Isn’t it good to help people in need? If the future is made up of all of our children, don’t you want it to consist of higher educated and morally right people leading the country than people that were raised without good morals and values? You should be thanking us home schooling families to help balance out all of the bad that is going on in this world. I do not want the future presidents to be elected because of the popularity that they had in high school and college. I want them to be qualified educationally, as well as, have a firm strong belief in God in order to keep this world from deteriorating any further than it already has. If this is not passion, then I do not know what is! If we have to give the schools a chance to respond to public needs, I feel sorry for the people, including myself, that had to be the guinea pigs along the way until they can actually get it right.

Sincerely, Nikki

By The72John

December 1, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Gee Chuck, so you’re saying that because a ziggurat appears in the mythology of a culture that actually built ziggurats, then the stories must be true?

Guess what - the Parthenon is a temple to Athena. It appears in Greek mythology. Athena must be real!

It’s very sad that you’re allowed to teach children. Your grasp of logic and, god help us, history is patheticly flawed.

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

JBM…I agree with RF…put up the tree. It’s one thing I miss about not going to visit my parents every year. I know without doubt that there will be a lopsided, ugly, little white plaster ‘ball’ that has little to no glitter left on it that I made at 3yrs old while in our church’s nursery school hanging on that tree. Every year my brother and I go back and forth between his moving it to the back of the tree while calling it ugly and me back to eye-level in the front saying it represents the love of a child a christmas. I can’t help it if the cheesy candle holder he made broke after the pine cones disintegrated and my little ornament will probably survive a nuclear blast.

If someone will pay for the pitcher of beer I’ll buy the pitcher of cosmopolitans! Or do we want Peppermintinis with candy cane swizzle sticks since it is the holidays?

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

I most certainly did not make any hate statements directed at Christians, Chuck.

By The72John

December 1, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Just remember, NetB - Chuck lives in Bizarro World. He claims to be Christlike, yet is hateful. Therefore, he confuses all of those emotions and such.

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

I tried to read Chuckie’s history lesson, but it’s making my head hurt. I guess I’ll just have to have faith in a loving God and a mighty Creator, instead of listening to what angry MEN tell me!

By kimberly

December 1, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

NetB: You’re not giving those Cosmos and Peppertinis to your partner, are you? Seriously. Gut bombs are bad for owwie tummies.

By RF

December 1, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Okay, raise your hands if you read that long post of Chuck’s. Anyone??….Bueller?…..

Net- make it a pitcher of Tom Collins with green and red cherries and you got a deal.

Gotta run. Have a good evening all!

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

I snuck into the Acropolis many moons ago and celebrated New Year’s Eve in the Parthenon while watching the fireworks over the Athens harbor. AMAZING Experience! Didn’t see Athena, but there were probably 50 other people who did the same thing as my little band of 3 ninjas.

Chuck..I understood perfectly well about the trees and customs, but my point was the same as JBM’s in her response. It doesn’t really matter because God made the tree and the pagans were worshiping the maker of tree…they were just using a different name.

Have a good evening, kids! I’m outta here early to avoid traffice and do some work at home instead of sitting in my office.

By Richard

December 1, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Chuck, If I want to know the history of France I’d ask a German. If I want to know the history of Germany I’d ask a Russian.

If I want to know what God thinks I sure wouldn’t ask a human or try to find it in a political document which has been assiduously reworked for over 2000 years.

By Randy

December 1, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

We are discussing God and faith on this forum, however, we need to keep in mind that you find Jesus with your conscience not your intellect. Example you didn’t fall in love with your mate thru intellect. You fell in love with them with your heart and soul(Huey Lewis, because your heart and soul). It works the same way with God. If you don’t feel Jesus in your heart, means you are not right with the creator. Ask yourself this question, if heaven exists and I die tonight. When I stand in front of God will he judge me innocent or guilty(how many of the 10 commandments have I broken) and will I go to heaven or not. This should concern everybody. Some of you say you don’t believe, OK, have you been right about everything in your life(never made a bad decision, or judgement?) Because if I’m right, you are in trouble.

By Netbanker

December 1, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly…goodness NO! All alcohol for him is verboten until he gets the OK from the doctors. We aren’t drinkers anyway so it’s not a hardship giving up alcohol for a while. Sadly I can’t follow the stay out of Florida advise…we own a home there and I LOVE the beach. My personal happy place is on a beach enjoying the sound of the waves, the salty smell of the air, the warmth on my skin…ahhhh.

RF…you got it on the Tom Collins.

By Randy

December 1, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Talking about logic, logically, I should have married Sue, instead I married Nancy(made up names) why, because I love Nancy, but Sue would be more logical as a wife. So logic doesn’t play into finding God. Although, I think it is logical that a creator exists, as the universe didn’t just appear out of thin air in the beginning(without help). But logic is not needed to find God, there as I have described before, love and conscience is needed. It’s a emotional experience, a conversion if you will. A changing of your heart. As the song goes, I was blind, but now I see, I was lost, but now I’m found.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB. bring ‘em over to my place!

And, RF, I have ADD. There’s NO WAY UNDER THE SUN I was going to read that long post of Chuck’s…. no way!

By The72John

December 1, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Your only reason for your unreasoning fundamentalism is fear of punishment, Randy? That’s kind of what you’re saying.

Of course…what if YOU’RE wrong. What if you should have been a Hindu instead. Woops!

That’s equally as logical a statement as your own.

By Just Being Me

December 1, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Randy, were you blind when you married Nancy?

By Randy

December 1, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

72John, No fear of punishment is the least of my motivations. I have had an actual conversion(spiritual). I was raised to be a warrior, my dad was like a sargeant in the marines. I have no fear of death etc. I’m probably not a fundamentalist either, although I have no problems with them. I believe women should be pastors/priests if they are called just like men and a few other differences from what most would call a fundamentalist. I pray that more people than just Christians will enter heaven, although I wouldn’t bet my immortal soul on it. To big a chance for me, but If they never go that route, I want them in heaven also. Unfortunately, that’s not my decision to make and I am taking the sure route.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

Wow, I missed a lot yesterday, I won’t even try to touch on it.

I read in the AJC today that Sandy Springs put a moratorium on licenses for adult stores and strip clubs. I found that to be very interesting. Hope everyone is well. The snow is starting again for me.

By Jack

December 2, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Chuck you are such a fool. Like someone is really going to read that post. Idiot, moron, sasquatch. You are a waste of carbon.

By Jack

December 2, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Hi Renee’. Yes we had some fun yesterday. Chuck and randy are going to save us all. All we need now is Zack.

By Randy

December 2, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Leave Chuck alone, lighten up Jack.

By Randy

December 2, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

I got a question for the non-Christians. Give me your perspective on why you don’t want to bond with the creator. I see no downside. From my perspective it a major win/win for me and the other Christians.

By Randy

December 2, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

I do have to do some work today so I will be in and out. If you don’t get an immediate response.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Whose to say we aren’t bonded with the creator. Christianity alone doesn’t guarantee a bond with God. Furthermore, because one doesn’t meet what your standard of a Christian is, doesn’t mean that one isn’t a Christian.

By Jack

December 2, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Tell Chuck to stop cutting and pasting and wasting our time. He probably didn’t bother to read his own post. BTW. I lighten up plenty.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

NetB, I believe your exact words were:

I don’t get the curriculum issues here in GA. Why do we keep going through all these blessed exercises over it? Pick a state that has been in the top 5 for 10 years and use theirs! Oh wait! That means we’d have to use one of those godless-librul-wimpy-gun control-environmentalist-socialist-baby killing-sex education advocating BLUE state cirriculums. Can’t have that!

Sounds pretty hateful to me.

John your first of many on this topic was:

Yeah, JBM, but the religious fanatics who homeschool their children do so exactly because they DON’T want their children exposed to ideas other than the ones they are trying to indoctrinate them with. They aren’t insterested in intellectual curiosity, only dogmatic acceptance.

BTW, john, I know it is difficult for a man of your limited intelligence to read the whole study of archaelogical evidence, but you could have at least gotten past the first 2 paragraphs.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Which part of FANATIC are you having a hard time with, Chuck? I hate FANATICS. I think FANATICS are the root of all evil done in the name of religion.

And I didn’t need to read beyond the first two paragraphs of your “article” to recognize it for the fiction-masquerading-as-scholarship that it is.

I promise you Chuck, my intellect eclipses yours so much that you might as well be an insect.

By Jack

December 2, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

72John. Insect is to high on the chain. So is pond scum. Maybe the bacteria that lines sewer pipes.

By Lyrazel

December 2, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

…ask yourselves if this blog does not provide proof enough why Georgia schools fail the children they are educating? We have one self-declared educator here who spends a disproportionate amount of time defending his religious opinions by copy-pasting text scanned from internet sources without reference to original writer of articles. Shame on you nameless educator, that is plagiarism! Next time, please provide the link so people can visit your source of your information, or at least provide reference to the writer who spent untold hours getting his facts, references and quotes. My comment may seem a bit cavalier toward this educator, but its just a big example of where the failure is here in GA. Too many in education have missions but few teach.

Anyway…. Joke: what goes clop…clop…clop…clop…bang…clop…clop…clop….clop.. A drive-by Amish shooting.

A Friday quote from the Bhagavad Ghita: Abandon all dharma and come unto me alone Anyway, happy Friday. Enjoy life!

By Jack

December 2, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I asked him earlier if he was a teacher and gave no response. if he said he was, I was going to ask himwhat his pupils were doing while he tries to save us on the blog.

By HeeHaw

December 2, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Randy - based on your previous posts about why YOU need religion, and this may come as a Shock to you, but not all of us suffer from “My life was all messed up until I met the Lord.

The problem many people have with you and Chuck is your guys’ view that YOU need something, so obviously EVERYONE needs the same thing. No, YOU TWO need.

and Chuck’s EMPHATIC “There IS a hell” a few days ago. FAITH says there is a hell. FAITH. faith is not FACT. (why it is called FAITH)

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

my intellect eclipses yours so much that you might as well be an insect.

Hilarious! Renee would appreciate that one.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

my intellect eclipses yours so much that you might as well be an insect.

Hilarious! Renee would appreciate that.

By Randy

December 2, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

HeeHaw, My life has never been messed up. I’m not one who was bad, and sad, then found the lord. I’ve always known him(since childhood) and have lived a truly blessed life. I’ve heard happy-go-lucky referring to me, hundreds of times. The search here is for the truth. Just trying to help.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Liarzel, the Author and copyright information are at the bottom of the Article.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, John that was a good one. Hey JBM!!

By chuck

December 2, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

“copied and pasted for the lazy”

Author: John H. Walton, reprinted by permission from Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 [1995]: 155-75. Supplied by Associates for Biblical Research Copyright © 1996, 2001, Associates for Biblical Research, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright� page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Yes, Lyrazel, how could you MISS that citation of the super-fundamentalist Christian website? It’s the one that Shmuck always goes to when he needs to search for a cut-and-paste answer to defend one of his crazy religious beliefs.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools

LOL. What freaks.

By Randy

December 2, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

Actually faith could be fact, just not a tangible thing. Like I have faith, I can pass college, or I can cross this street and not get hit by a car. Faith is the basis for all positive things we do in life, without it we would stay in bed all day and sleep, afraid to get out. On needing God, I could probably do without him here on earth(although my standard of living would probably go down drastic). But, I like to prepare for the future and for eternity(which does exist, reguardless of what you believe). If you want to have the kind of faith you are talking about, atheists have that, believing the universe just appeared out of thin air in the beginning, without help.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Jack, coming from you, I consider that a compliment. Your biggest contribution to this blog was bathroom humor. I’m sure you and 72john, who I believe you referred to in an earlier topic as a “bedwetter”, will be very happy together. Invite me to the wedding?

By Jack

December 2, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Now the spin as faith as fact. The Earth is flat & the moon is made of cheeze.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

If you want to have the kind of faith you are talking about, atheists have that, believing the universe just appeared out of thin air in the beginning, without help

That is not necessarily what atheists believe.

But, I like to prepare for the future and for eternity(which does exist, reguardless of what you believe)

This, again, is your belief. Religion itself is faith based, not fact based. Faith based upon what may or may not be previous facts.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

You guys are really annoying me.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Which one of us??

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

LOL Renee.

Chuck and Randy - and most other Christians I come in contact with.

I’m really (seriously) annoyed. I nearly gave my mother a heart attack the other day when I told her that I’m not “Christian,” and that she shouldn’t want to be called that either.

I’m just p**, and I doubt I’ll be saying much else on this today.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

JBM - I responded to you this morning via email, read when you get a chance.

So JBM - is the forum annoying you or do you just feel annoyed. We wouldn’t want to misconstrue (sp?) your statement lol (referencing your earlier conversation this week or last week with Deltax and the depressing forum).

By Jack

December 2, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Oh that hurt Chuck. Though 72John and myself have gotten into arguements on this blog we do agree on one thing. You and Randy give the rest of the Christians a bad reputation. I don’t have the luxury of placing my responsibilities on the back burner To voice my opinion. Like I said before, when jesus does come back, you will be the first to say he his a false prophet. You may be the one who is surprised after you die and leave this world. I would also prefer the company of 72John over you two any day.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

LOL@ Renee… touche!

No, it’s not the forum that’s annoying me, it’s Chuck and Randy - and most other Christians I come in contact with.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Oh, and believe it or not, I got your e-mail and responded - an hour ago!!! :-)

By Renee

December 2, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Wow JBM - you are on the ball today!!

By chuck

December 2, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

JBM, maybe what has begun to sink in is your answer to an earlier post.

I also find it odd that Jesus, my reference point, never once taught about homosexuality, despite others’ references to problems in this regard.

Maybe that is why you are annoyed. Could it be conviction?

Secular psychologists assure us that ‘children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity’.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it’ (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

‘For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…’ (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means ‘men who sleep with men’. It is the same Greek word used for ‘homosexual offender’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

‘Liberal’ churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of ‘love’. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, ‘because they can’t help it’. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the ‘liberals’ tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13

As for what Jesus said or didn’t say about homosexuality, you cannot deny the fact that JESUS DID TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE.

What Jesus taught

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’” -Matthew 19:4 (NKJV) “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” -Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

If JESUS DEFINED MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, YOU CAN’T BE MARRIED TO YOUR PARTNER. IF SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS SIN, THEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, ACCORDING TO JESUS

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Chuck, it’s definitely not conviction: it’s ANNOYANCE.

And, I asked you earlier not to discuss that particular subject with me, as it is a moot discussion, since we will never agree. I assure you that for every 1 valid point you make, I can make 2 valid points - with Biblical references. It just wouldn’t be worth anyone’s while for us to go back and forth, neither convincing the other.

Thank you for respecting my wishes.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

So what is the rule for an abstinent homosexual? Are they a sinner?

By The72John

December 2, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Don’t get this topic started. This is when I lose my temper and start calling these self-righteous folk out for the hateful, self-righteous bigots they are. Then the start that crap about how they don’t HATE us, they just don’t want us to be able to live our lives in peace, blah, blah, blah. I completely lose all sense of reason and explain to them that the world would be better off if a meteor obliterated them from the face of the planet, and it goes on and on and on until the whole day is just shot.

All because the dwarf intellect known as Chuck needs religious justification for his personal prejudices.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Renee, “Christians” like Chuck tend to believe that homosexuality itself is not a sin, but committing homosexual acts is.

So, the abstinent homosexual is not in sin. However, by not being “delivered” from his “ailment” he is not living up to his full privilege of spiritual freedom and liberty.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

It just cracks me up…stealing, adultery, dishonesty, etc. etc. etc. These things actually hurt people. “Christians” around the world do these things every day. The Bible is FULL of condemnations of this kind of behavior, but there are what, four or five references in TOTAL to same-sex behavior?

Yet what do these people fixate on? Gays! Why? Because we’re an easy target. There’s already a prejudice, so people like Chuck play on that to generate fear and hatred. Fundamentalists always need an enemy. We’re it.

They are SUCH loving people, aren’t they?

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

John, don’t even bother. Those people you describe aren’t like Christ, they’re just “Christian.”

I guess that’s why my mom always said, “You have to know Him for yourself.”

By RF

December 2, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

You know, it amazes me that people who claim to be doing God’s work always pick and choose which parts of the job they want to do. Chuck, you are free to point out sin when you see it, but you cannot continue with the holier-than-thou attitude about it. Jesus convicted without judgement or trying to bait someone into arguments. Before you quote us how wrong we all are, sit in judgement on yourself. “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and all that, you know?? What is the deal with the baptists and homosexuality? They never miss a chance to judge that sin. What about the sin of ego? What about the commandment “love thy neighbor as thyself”? That doesn’t mean to hug him while you’re listing his sins and ‘convicting’ him…. I’m glad it’s Friday!!!!

By Renee

December 2, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Of course they focus on gays. To some Christians, being gay is the worse, intolerable sin ever. The hatred that brews is really amazing. Then they try to prevent us from having certain human rights (i.e. marriage), because of their individual beliefs. But to know I will be accepted only if I stop my homosexual behavior makes me feel much better (being sarcastic). Christianity which is supposed to be full of love, seems to be full hatred and judgment so much of the time.

On another note, John I don’t know if I have been sleeping through all the forums, but I didn’t realize you were “family”.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Renee,

Yup :-)

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

RF - I told him the same thing yesterday - about not being able to continue down that holier-than-thou path. With it, he does more harm than good… alienates the Christians and the non-Christians.

By RF

December 2, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

The fundies need to be watching the bathrooms at church. That used to be the place the guys hooked up for a little sin when I was a youngster. And the church buildings are still standing. If Chuck’s right, they should have been struck by lightning or flood years ago!!

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Renee, homosexuality is an act, not a state of being. One who does not practice homosexuality is not a homosexual. If you have those urges but don’t act on them it is not sin. Lust, whether it is hetero or homosexual is sin. The best explanation I’ve heard on that topic is that it is not lust, when you look, it’s lust when you look again and begin to see yourself participating in the act with that person.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Renee - I think that was the week you were MIA when John nearly bit my head off about a comment I made until I told him I was family too… lol.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Fundies have tunnel-vision. They look at one thing and see only what they want to see. Look at Chuck - earlier he accused me of wanting to exterminate all Christians. I called him on it, and he pasted this quote:

“Yes Randy, I’m hostile towards fundamentalist fanatics. Glad you noticed! You are damn right. I think they - and therefore you - are one of the most dangerous groups on the planet today. I think we would all be far better off if you could just be exterminated off the face of the planet.”

Now, granted I was a little mean to Randy here, but no where do I say “Christian”, I say “fanatic”. However, Chuck reads this line and says that I want to exterminate all Christians. Tunnel vision.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck: You’re 50% right. Homosexuality is an act, not a state of being for some people. But, for others, it is not an act, it is a state of being.

That misunderstanding is why so many hetero or closeted “Christians” are so intolerant towards gays.

By RF

December 2, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Soooo, is looking but not touching okay?? That’s all I get to do these days anyway! I thought lusting was the same as doing. Glad we cleared that up! Now I feel alll better. I’m not practicing so I’m okay (full sarcasm intended!)

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

JBM if you don’t want me to talk to you about this, why do you keep engaging me in the discussion about it?

There is a web page you should go to: http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

In part, it says:

*Homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2—Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results”.6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states ‘that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.’7 The report affirms that ‘the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin’.7*

By HeeHaw

December 2, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

The Persecution of the Holier-Than-Thou-Anointed-Ones continues. Can the end of the world be far behind?

They same END they were eagerly anticipating in 999 A.D.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I don’t “keep” engaging YOU. I offered one response to you on this subject at 12:07p - because I feel compelled to correct the false information you’re providing. Souls are at risk, and I take that seriously.

In response to the rest of your post, I have two comments:

By Jack

December 2, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

I can’t take any more of the manure producer. Everyone have a good weekend. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do!

By The72John

December 2, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

She’s not engaging you in the conversation, you bigoted a*****. She’s talking about her partner who is part of her life. How dare you suggest that she not have the right to talk about her in the same way that you talk about YOUR wife.

And Chuck, your “Christian Answers” crap is just that. Crap. It’s about as BIASED a source as you can possible quote.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

For the most part JBM, I quote the Bible, which you are supposed to be an authority on. Reread my 11:14 post and tell me logically, how I’m wrong.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Oh my gosh! Gay people doing research on being gay! Gasp!

I suppose that black scientists who did work to debunk the idea that blacks were genetically inferior were also similarly “biased”?

Your conclusions are so flawed as to be laughable. But then, you are laughable yourself, along with despicable, hateful and evil.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

JOHN, BITE ME

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

So Christians doing research on the BIBLE is BIASED, but gays doing research that would help them to gain the same protected special rights as minorities is NOT BIASED. I see.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Well, scum, the scientists were scientists. Objective. And just for the record, human garbage, we don’t want SPECIAL rights. We want the SAME rights as everyone else. Bite ME, excretement.

Your psycho-Christian web site, on the other hand is done by people who ignore anything and everything they don’t want to see and make everything fit your fantasy mythology, no matter what the real truth.

Rot in hell where you belong, Chuck.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

If there is any justice in the world, Chuck, your perfect son will come home from college one day and say “Dad, I have to tell you something.”

Then you’ll throw him out of the house, because that’s just the kind of man you are. He’ll go away, and you’ll never. see. him. again.

I think I will pray daily that this happens so that you can appreciate just a little bit of the crap that you wish on others, you vile piece of filth.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

That’s very rational john. You are a great thinker and express yourself so wonderfully.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

John, bless your enemies. Don’t curse them.

Chuck, you said:

“For the most part JBM, I quote the Bible, which you are supposed to be an authority on.”

Who said I was an authority? Oh, I get it. Because I’m a minister, I automatically become an authority on the Bible, right?

“Reread my 11:14 post and tell me logically, how I’m wrong.”

First, I can’t re-read your post, because I never read it in the first place. I’m not interested in reading your copy-and-paste text, because it is of no value to me. However, as I stated, when you read my “suggested reading,” I’ll read yours.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I’m no longer attempting to be rational, Chuck. I’m giving in to the seething hatred I feel for you and your ilk.

I’ve been rational for days now, and your only response has been to cut-and-paste either Bible verses or faux science articles from a fundamentalist apologist website.

Therefore, rationality has been abandoned with you, Chuck. You’re a man who believes that all the animal species in the world could have fit on an arc. I don’t really think your able to think rationally.

So, I’m just going to keep letting you know what a horrible human being you are. Thanks!

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Can’t we all get along?

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

Oh, sorry. I was just dreaming again. Well they tell me I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Dreams are better than the reality of THIS world, that’s for sure. Well, let me tell you about ANOTHER dreamer….

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

JBM, I appreciate the advice, but I don’t pretend to be a Christian. I don’t wish blessings on Chuck - I wish him misery. I wish that he suffers the indignity and degradation that he wishes on us.

Maybe that makes me as bad as him - I don’t know. I like most people, and wish ill on very few. For Chuck, I’ll make an exception.

You keep on blessing, though - we need more good folks like you obviously are. I just can’t bring myself to be one of them right now.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

OMG!! I have missed everything.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but homosexuality is a state of being for me. A state of being that I have come to accept over a period of time. Being in that state of being I commit the acts. If you can be an abstinent heterosexual, why can’t you be an abstinent homosexual? And homosexuality can be an act for some people for others it’s a state of being.

Take the Girls Gone Wild Videos. We see the commercials all the time, and yes, the girls kiss other girls (hence homosexual acts). But if you ask the majority of them, they aren’t gay. Now if I kiss a girl, that is me (a lesbian) kissing another girl which is a perfectly natural act (for me anyway).

By DeltaX

December 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Have you already provided the OT references of males and males together sexually? Have you studied at all to find out the true translation was referring to the practice of men+LITTLE BOYS that was prevalent in that era?

Or does the true word not matter to you when it threatens your sinful prejudices?

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

That’s very rational john. You are a great thinker and express yourself so wonderfully.

So is “BITE ME”

By chuck

December 2, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

RJ Reynold’s “scientists” were saying that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer back in the 50’s. They weren’t biased were they?

As a man I have the right to marry a woman. So do you. We currently have the SAME rights. You can vote, nobody restricts where you go. You haven’t been put in a concentration camp. What you want is special rights. You want to take the abnormal and make it normal. It is not going to happen. I will say this, for the record. I have NEVER ADVOCATED VIOLENCE TOWARD ANY GROUP…unless you include convicted murderers…and would NEVER DO SO.

Some people are just incapable of rational discussion of important issues. If it bothers you that much IGNORE ME. I’m not going to change my beliefs or my posts because you want to call me names. It really just makes you look foolish and immature. Besides, you are actually doing me a favor:

Matthew 5:10-12 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before

So KEEP IT UP JOHN.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

It’s not making me look immature, Chuck. It’s expressing my rage towards you.

And just for the record, saying we both have the right to marry is woman is like saying we have freedom of religion as long as we are Christian.

You have the right to marry THE PARTNER OF YOUR CHOICE. I do not. My RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is being trampled on by you and the rest of the bigots. My marrying has absolutely NO EFFECT on you and your life, so why don’t you keep your NOSE OUT OF IT.

And you can take abnormal and shove it…

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

By the way, Chuck, you are the PERSECUTOR, not the PERSECUTED.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Chuck, it is unAmerican, in my opinion, to tell someone else whom they can or cannot marry, as long is that person is over the age of legal consent.

Chuck, gay people raised by religious authoritarians marry straight people all the time. Do you know what happens then? Everyone goes to heaven? NO. Just the opposite. The people in the marriage ends up MISERABLE. You can’t FAKE that kind of love, Chuck. Even if the straight bride or groom was an inexperienced virgin, he or she will eventually come to realize something is WRONG. These innocent people blame themselves and wonder what is wrong with them that their spouses don’t really love them. Have you ever seen a beautiful 35-year-old woman cry because her husband won’t make love to her, and she’s done everything she can to be a good, godly, and desirable wife? Have you ever seen her face when people badger her with the issue of when she will bear children, when you know the reason is that there is no physical love in her marriage?

Chuck, why do you want MORE pain in the world?

By chuck

December 2, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Delta, You’ve got to put that crack pipe down.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

As a homeschooling father, I’m proud to state that my childrens’ educational experiences far exceed those in the public school system.

1) They have a better grip on reality (or the REAL world as many call it). Ie, they are not subjected to actions/behaviors that WOULD NOT be tolerated in the workplace.

2) They are better disciplined. Evidence: The praises of adults that do not know my children are homeschooled. Ie, business owners by the truckload.

3) They are not indoctrinated into false history.

Now, if we push the petty arguements aside and get to the crux of the matter, we can see two sides on opposite sides of the fence. And if we’re honest, the fence mostly has to do with RELIGION.

Most FOR homeschooling are so because it gives them a chance/choice to raise their children like those of the past.

Most AGAINST homeschooling are so because they don’t desire any children to be raised with fundamental, conservative Christian values… They just won’t admit it. Instead, they will harp on the EDUCATION of the child, when the fact of the matter is many don’t give a rat’s behind about another child’s education. But, this is not meant to be offensive, because in the end, I don’t really care about any of YOUR children’s educations.

By Jennifer

December 2, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Quote from Chuck, Dec 2nd “What you want is special rights. You want to take the abnormal and make it normal.”

Chuck, What gives you, or anyone, or the government for that matter, the right to define what is “normal”? Are you saying that because the majority of people are straight, that makes it normal? That argument just doesn’t work.

Also, do you believe in slavery chuck? As I recall, the bible was used to justify slavery.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, what do you consider “false history”, or do I dare ask?

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck - you really make me sad. Not just you, but knowing that so many other Christians think just like you do, is really saddening to me.

The key in v.11 is “…say all manner of evil against you falsely” Which hasn’t been done, so you are, in this case disqualified from that promise. You’re not being persecuted for the sake of righteousness, you’re being attacked for being un-Christlike.

Secondly, gays do not have the same rights heteros have. I know this because I’ve been on both sides. I began my first and only gay relationship 3 years ago after dating only men, and being engaged to one. Then, I had the right to marry the person I fell in love with. Now, I do not.

As I said, I won’t discuss with you whether, Biblically, it’s right or wrong. However, you should know that one major problem I have with this whole issue is that our country is not a Christian country. People who do not believe in the Bible should not be forced to conform to laws and/or rules that come only from the Bible.

Many of today’s laws are derived from the Bible because they are logical, and protect the citizens of this country from hurt, harm, danger, etc. However, laws against family living that doesn’t hurt others, are just plain wrong. And, I always felt that way. Long before I entered a gay relationship, and long before I accepted homosexuality as “okay”, I felt the same way: that Christians should NOT be forcing their views on non-Christians.

Imagine if one day our country became majority Hindu, or JW, or Buddhist, or Muslim. How would a Christian feel if laws were enacted based on the sacred texts of those religions?

You can feel however you want to feel about gays. But, don’t try to push those beliefs on people who disagree. Granting a man the right to marry the man he loves does not cause any danger or harm to anyone, and should be lawful. Frankly, I find it reprehensible that I actually have to fight for a right to marry whomever I choose.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Kim, that’s not the issue. If that happens, and I’m not convinced that it does, it is indeed a sad situation. It does not rise to the level of tragedy that should cause us to go down the road of Sodom and Gomorah. God will take care of that Christian wife who finds herself in that situation just as he does the wife of a man who dies at an early age or the wife of a sorry reprobate that walks out and leaves his family. God is able to overcome ANY tragedy that occurs in our lives. We just have to remain faithful and put our trust in Him.

By DeltaX

December 2, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

As usual, your reply is gross and stupid - and further proof you do not CARE if you mistaken; bc it serves you gross ways.

Try reading what God and Jesus meant for you to learn, and not the men who looked to control via the word.

You know there is a special torment for you and your followers that alter the bible, right? I bet you are living it now.

Take care all - he is a lost cause until he opens his mind/eyes/spirit; but currently they are controlled by his evil predecessors.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck lives in fantasy land. Apparently he doesn’t have any idea how many men there are in gay bars on the weekends with tan lines on their left hand.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

JFredrick, I was with you right up until the end. While I would not homeschool my children, I am all FOR your right to do so with your own kids. As long as the children are being educated to or beyond the [sad] standards of our public schools, I defend your right to do it.

I’m saddened by the sentiment you express: “I don’t really care about any of YOUR children’s educations” because I know this is common. The truth is that ALL our children are better off when more of them are educated — individually, and as a generation and a society in which they will raise future generations. You don’t give a darn if your “neighbors” can read or not? You should, if only for the benefit to your own children and the world they have to live in when we’re gone.

By DeltaX

December 2, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

you = your in both instances

Heading out for the day.

“All in all you were, just another brick in the wall”

And bricks are inanimate/non-thinking structures that block progress; ie. Chucks.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

*Most AGAINST homeschooling are so because they don’t desire any children to be raised with fundamental, conservative Christian values… *

Just curious, what public school do you know of that provide children with fundamental, conservative Christian values? Please let me know. I’d love to get my daughter out of her current school.

…because in the end, I don’t really care about any of YOUR children’s educations.

That says a whole lot.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you said that my example was not the issue. What you mean is that it’s not YOUR issue. (It may, however, be your wife’s issue, but I won’t go there…)

If God doesn’t make mistakes, and God made everybody, then God made men who love men and women who love women, and God made ME, kimberly, to tell you to mind your own beeswax and stop hatin’ on people just because they’re different from you. And don’t start on ME, either, ‘cause I’m straight, and men like YOU give women like me absolutely NOTHING to believe in. In fact, and I state this with great authority and absolute verification, you buttoned-up, bible-thumping, religious types are THE biggest freaks in the bedroom, BAR NONE! Pervert.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

JBM, It harms society as a whole and weakens AMERICA.

Andrew Lansdown points out that ‘homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.’1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Secular psychologists assure us that ‘children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity’. The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it’ (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, thanks for the comment.

In regards to children NOT being able to read and write, this point is moot in my mind because that is a matter of law…

I was speaking in reference to one child learning a ‘watered down’ version of the truth which is legally right in America versus the child who learns something slightly, yet legally, acceptable… In that regard, I don’t personally care if someone desires their children to learn some pointless aspects of history (which are trivial in nature) for the sake of political correctness.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

TO: JUST BEING ME

As I stated: *Most AGAINST homeschooling are so because they don’t desire any children to be raised with fundamental, conservative Christian values… *

This statement is saying that many people who are AGAINST HOMESCHOOLING desire children to be thrust into an atmosphere were Christian values ARE NOT taught.

In the end, it would help a certain political party in the voting booth.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Kim, that’s not the issue. If that happens, and I’m not convinced that it does…

Now THAT says a lot. That’s the most loaded statement you’ve made all week, Chuck. You have no idea how many straight people are married to gays. I can count about 50 couples that I personally know right now that has a straight spouse and a gay or bi spouse.

For you to “not be convinced” that this occurs, says a lot about your awareness of the world around you. Pull your head out of the clouds, dude.

Just now, a passage crossed my mind. I read this on the train a few months ago, I think it was in I Corinthians. Paul was teaching the Corinthians (I think) how to win souls. He told them that to win the Jews over, you have to go among them, find commonalities, and build on those things. He said (paraphrased), how can I win the Gentiles except I be like them? He wasn’t saying that you have to compromise (i.e. go to the club and smoke a joint in order to witness to the weed-heads). He was saying, don’t magnify the differences, but build on the similarities.

I thought that was a pretty good lesson for me, and for all witnesses. You don’t win people by pointing out all their flaws, or judging them, or offending them. You win them with lovingkindness (sorry for the redundancy - I know I’ve said that a zillion times this week) and by befriending them. By showing them the light that shines in you (Matthew 5:17) Let your light shine so brightly before men, that they may see your good works and give the credit to God.

I digressed.

Anyway, trust me, darlin. There are THOUSANDS of straights married to gays. THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

JBM, John, your arguments are futile. Please stop!

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

JFrederick, good point. The education I received in public school certainly watered down a LOT of information. The white settlers broke some of their treaties with the Indians. Then in the next century…. Haha..

I wish Americans would get together on the idea that schools should be good.. all of them… and that it’s WORTH the time, money, and effort to recruit and pay smart, caring teachers and equip them with what they need. Science, engineering, bio-technology, math, languages… We’re getting our butts kicked by Japan, India, and Europe. WHY?

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

To: The 72John

False history? I could bring up science, but, since neither of us can provide 100% certainties on our views, all we can do is wait until we die… Then, whoever passes away first will no the answer, yet be unable to tell the other.

Children are learning theories as FACT…

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Andrew Lansdown points out that ‘homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.’1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.

All of which has been exceeded by…heterosexuals; besides anal herpes, but colon cancer has in its place.

Once again, by applying your failed logic you are worse than what you throw your stones at.

Funny stuff - except you are supposedly a teacher…but you lie about that; I am sure.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Typo: KNOW not NO

By chuck

December 2, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

What about the rest of that post JBM. Do you as a Christian believe that God is able to help us overcome the difficulties in our lives?

I don’t see that particular occurrence as being nearly as tragic as the loss of a spouse through an untimely early death, or the loss of a child or parent. Yet God comes in and encompasses us with His love and He gets us through it. So whether or not it occurs is moot. It doesn’t make homosexuality any less a sin and it doesn’t make it any less harmful to society.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck, as I mentioned, I will read your copy-and-paste texts when you read Daniel Helminiak’s “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality”. Until then, please don’t post any quotes to me. I won’t read them.

Now, homosexuality - in and of itself - does NOT harm society, nor does it weaken America. That’s ridiculous.

Chuck, I’m finished with you. I really can’t bear to continue this conversation because your inability to demonstrate God’s love toward others unlike you is just so devastating to me. It just reminds me of all the many people who are church “drop-outs”. You should do some research on that. Read the stories of the millions of people who vowed never to step foot in another church again because of people just like you.

How do you justify that?

How can you honestly say you’re doing good?

How can you run someone away under the guise of standing up for what’s right?

How can someone who claims to lvove God, be so offensive to others, and not care? Brush it off as “their problem….”

How could you do what you’re doing?

The others are just angry at you. I’m really hurt. Not just at you, but at the whole body of believers who think and act just like you. This goes beyond homosexuality. I just had the same argument with my mother about being judgmental, and it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

How did we evolve into such a judgmental body of believers?

This is so devastating.

We’re losing souls, and are so busy destroying people’s hope, that we can’t even see the thousands of people turning away.

I’m really, truly finished with you, Chuck.

I pray often that God will reveal my faults and flaws to me; and I will now pray the same for you.

By Jennifer

December 2, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Are you saying that men marry women, not realizing that they’re gay???!

I knew it! I should have taken the hint when I saw my husband rubbing his best friends butt!!

Oh well..guess I’ll just have to learn to share my husband now.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

I know countless gay men married to straight women. I can’t even find the energy to comment on homosexuality being notoriously disease prone.

Okay, well I will say this. You have consistently parroted studies, findings, biblical verses but are not saying anything of your own. You did say you found it hard to believe that gay people are married to straight people which I think everyone can agree is a fact. But other than that, without parrotting, is there anything factual points that you have failed to bring up?

By The72John

December 2, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

It’s more of an educational experience. Chuck keeps claiming he doesn’t “hate” gay people, but every time we goad him a little more, a little more of his venom leaks out. His “gays are more prone to disease” garbage sounds a LOT like the propaganda of the Nazis, or of racist America.

I just want to see how much of that hatred we can bring out.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Face it… In the end, the issue is about MIND CONROL…

If I want to mold my children into athiests, I can choose to do so and have a great chance in succeeding. If I want to mold them into secularists, I can choose to do so and have an equally great chance in succeeding. And, if I want to mold them into Christians, I can choose to do so and still have an equally great chance in succeeding.

SO, what’s the point of this arguement… Everyone has an agenda for the future of this nation. Everyone has a goal… A vision.

Who are the proponents FOR the public school and why do they DISLIKE homeschooling? Only a fool would think that a quality education SIMPLY tied to reading, writing, and math are central issues… What is at stake here is not WHAT THEY LEARN IN REGARDS TO THE BASICS, it is how they will VOTE and THINK in regards to the SOCIAL (moral) ISSUES which our nation has been battling over for the past few decades.

Abortion. God in Law. Homosexual Marriage.

Plus, you have a UNION that is very interested in keeping its power. A UNION which places political pressure on legislators who desire to keep their POWER by being re-elected.

It’s quite comical to think that some would portray those AGAINST homeschooling as being interested in our children learning the basics of life.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me, deep breath, Hon. Don’t let Chuckie get to you. I’m not the only one who believes that judgmental CRAP is wrong. Christ said “judge not” and I feel deep in my heart that’s a BIGGIE. You be you; I’ll be me, and Chuckie will be the hatemonger (did I mention pervert?) that he is. (Trust me. I know his kind. Perverts. Seriously.)

By blablabla

December 2, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Now, homosexuality - in and of itself - does NOT harm society

JBM - would you argue that homosexuality helps society, or would you say it’s neutral? just curious.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

well blablabla - you didn’t ask me but I’ll answer anyway. I don’t think it hurts or helps society, and I feel the same about heterosexuality. Definitely neutral. Perhaps the acts done by people on either side could hurt or help society as a whole.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Hey everyone - I think Chuck may have a new ally. I’m betting “false” history means anything that disagrees with the Bible.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

It’s not hatred to speak the truth.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

JFrederick, you said: Face it… In the end, the issue is about MIND CONROL…

Um…. If I were attempting to control someone’s mind, would I have a better chance if I (a) reduced the number of people they came into contact with each day, or (b) increased that number? Now I’m very curious as to what you are telling us about home schooling!

I send my kids to school to learn what I cannot teach them: science, advanced mathematics, languages beyond the two I speak, (although I always pushed literature and language skills on them since infancy), and am thrilled that they study history (though incomplete), geography, and social studies (ditto), technology, music, art, and occasionally, home economics. ARE THEY NOT GETTING THAT IN SCHOOL? ‘Cause I need to make some phone calls if they’re not. I shove my social and moral beliefs at them at dinnertime, which is family time.

Was I supposed to implement mind control, and how many hours a day should I spend on it to be effective?

By RF

December 2, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

I said to Chuck yesterday “judge not or you will also be judged” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. He never responded to that. It’s easy to quote Bible verses and leave out the ones you don’t like.

I know several homosexuals married in an attempt to appear socially correct. One was actually a minister of a growing church. Made a few waves when he finally admitted his sexuality. A lot of people marry and convince themselves they can deny the truth when they’re young, ignorant and uncomfortable with reality. That does a lot more damage to society than just being able to admit the truth and be guiltless about it before you try to ‘do the right thing’ and deny it.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

It’s not hatred to speak the truth.

Spoken like a true hatemonger, Nazi.

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Bla,

would you argue that homosexuality helps society, or would you say it’s neutral?

One could argue that since the percentage of homosexuals increase with population size {note % goes up and # goes up; different than # and #, for that would be linear and mean nothing}; that it does serve as a biological poplulation control and does GOOD. And if love is love, people are still able to have a relationship.

At least that has logic going for it instead of stupidity or ignorance.

By RF

December 2, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Sounds like hatred when you type BITE ME. I never read that in the Bible anywhere… maybe it’s just not translated properly.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

that would be “go hither and biteth the first man you see”

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

RF,

I am quite sure that BITE ME is in chuck’s bible - as he has proven he can interpret it infallibly and believes to know absolutely what TRUTH is in all matters.

SCARY!

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

EVIDENCE: DIANE GLASS’s REBUTTAL against homeschooling

“You have to think about the long-term affects of what this trend means for the future of education and the segregation of our school system over ideology.”

Really? Different ideologies in AMERICA is a BAD thing?

America, the country where we are being pushed to teaching our children TWO languages? America, the country where DIVISERSITY is supposed to be a good thing?

Let’s face it… The ideology that wants to be taught is the ideology of ME having to accept someone else’s belief, while THEY DON’T have to accept ME for mine.

Basically, SELECTIVE toleration is being taught from both sides; but one side won’t admit it.

By blablabla

December 2, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

moose - is that true? does the % of people that are homosexuals goes up as the population grows? i’ve never read that anywhere. where did you see that?

By The72John

December 2, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Basically, SELECTIVE toleration is being taught from both sides; but one side won’t admit it.

Correction. Tolerance is being taught by one side, while the other side, the one I’m guessing you are on, wants nothing more than to institute a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy in this country, and force everyone to live under its rules. Your idea of “tolerance” is “if you believe differently from me, we’ll let you keep living here as long as you shut up about it”.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I was talking about MANY who are AGAINST homeschooling. Now, if your against homeschooling UNIVERSALLY, then why?

Certain many members of society want to merge the children into one think tank… Sure, they’ll learn the BASICS of education; but they will ALSO be steered into becoming individuals that their parents don’t want them to become in regards to morality and biblical beliefs.

Now, in regards to teaching your children your moral beliefs at the table? Yes, you ARE using mind control… Though it sounds harsh, wrong, and negative, I don’t mean this as an insult… Everyone does it! On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it! However, in the end, WHAT you teach (whether it be true or false) is the barometer to measure by.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Saying BITE ME is not hatred, it’s anger which by the way is also wrong.

Let me ask you this though, RF: I noticed no outrage when I was referred to as a “vile piece of filth, dispicable, Nazi, scum, hateful, evil, excrement” Are you okay with that?

I’m not trying to justify what I wrote, I’m just wondering how you justify calling me down on ONE moment of anger, and yet ignore all of those other comments from john.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

ROFL @ Renee!

Blablabla - to satisfy your curiosity: I actually believe that homosexuality falls somewhere between helping society and neither hurting nor helping society (neutrality). I think it helps only because it adds to diversity. Other than that, I’d say it neither hurts nor helps.

RF - With no exaggerations, I can honestly say that if I had $100 for every pastor I know who is either “in the closet” or “on the DL,” I could retire today.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Quote from the 72John.

“Correction. Tolerance is being taught by one side, while the other side, the one I’m guessing you are on, wants nothing more than to institute a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy in this country, and force everyone to live under its rules. Your idea of “toleranceâ€? is “if you believe differently from me, we’ll let you keep living here as long as you shut up about itâ€?.”

Then I ask, if that’s the way you feel… If you are the TOLERANT-minded person, then you should support homeschooling despite my beliefs… For, if you don’t support me, you (the so-called tolerant-minded person) would be a liar and a hypocrite.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

America, the country where we are being pushed to teaching our children TWO languages?

Are you kidding me? I’m appalled that it’s ONLY two! Children should should have foreign language education(and not JUST Spanish) beginning in Kindergarten when their brains are most receptive to it. Most educated people in the world speak more than one language. Their capacity to learn is quadrupled by that factor alone! My kids had ONLY the option for Spanish, and then ONLY from the 4th grade. They should be able to study French, German, Japanese, and other foreign languages as well, so that they can grow up to function in the American companies that export jobs and commerce around the world, and to trade and negotiate with those nations (like China) to whom we, the American people, owe BILLIONS in debt!

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

I will look it up again and post where I got it.

It was a few months ago when I brought up to my GF: “Wouldnt it be interesting if…” and I did a search. There were a number of studies [three I believe] on the frequency of m/m f/f relationships; and they all followed the curve of popultaion.

The only exceptions were a few cultures, which punish homosexuality severely - so the admission of accurately volunteered data is questionable.

Separately, the number of cultures that have handmaids that are non-gender to ensure population growth conversely rises. Meaning that as the poplutaion get smaller, the odds of handmaids increase.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Gee Chuck, because you are those things. YOU’RE the one who judges an entire group of people based on nothing more than your religious prejudice. My hatred of you comes from the way you personally have CHOSEN to treat me and anyone like me. I would have nothing against you personally were it not for the bigotry that you vomit forth on a regular basis.

Don’t get all self-righteous because the persecuted has struck back at the persecutor. You haven’t earned the right.

By RF

December 2, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Renee- don’t forget about Leviticus though. That might be wrong if you’re a man biting a man. Now according to Chuck and the websites he’s listed, it’s okay to WANT to bite another man just so long as you don’t act on it. You know, I think a lot of the fundies are just plain jealous and sexually frustrated. Their love lives have fizzled and their just plain-out jealous of anyone who seems to be happy and fulfilled. Explains most of the baptists I know!!

By The72John

December 2, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Yo, JFredrick…if you actually READ the first couple of days discussion on this blog you’ll see that we ALL pretty much supported the right of a parent to homeschool. No one is opposed to you homeschooling your children. A dislike for certain motivations for homeschooling doesn’t mean you’re opposed to the whole concept.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Quote from the 72John: “the one I’m guessing you are on, wants nothing more than to institute a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy in this country, and force everyone to live under its rules.”

Though you may not admit it, your lack of tolerance is showing… But, anyway, in defense of myself, as I’ve said I don’t care what YOUR children learn; just my own.

Hopefully, time will tell who choose wisely. Then again, since there is an agenda to STOP homeschooling from political, union, and liberal circles, your side may (one day) succeed in stamping out those they can’t tolerate… But, I doubt it.

By Scalia

December 2, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Jack, Kimberly, JBM, Renee, 72 John, have a fabulous weekend.

I can’t wait for college football tomorrow to look at some tight lycra and even tighter bodies. I’ll be having a beer for you, Chuck and one for you, too, Randy.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

I support your right to home school. No question. As a mom, I worry about kids who are “too sheltered” (not saying yours are, just a generalization) because I’ve seen sheltered kids become young adults that fall on their faces when the world they land in doesn’t match the fairy tales on which they were raised. Again, this is based on observations, not how I think people should behave. As a mom, I want to empower my kids with knowledge and the understanding that there ARE many beleif systems out there. Knowledge empowers them to understand, react to, and help define their situations, and to adjust as needed to survive in the world. Teaching them to automatically condemn (instead of listen to) anyone who is different will not help them in the long run, in my opinion — even if those who are different are right-wing perverts.

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Bla, I cannot search here at work, the blocker prohibits it - but look out there and you should be able to find it; otherwise I will find it this weekend and post monday if still interested.

The repeatedly proven science behind it is that the mother creates ‘adr*ine’(cannot remember the chem name w/o the reference - but do not think it adreniline, yet similar) and this disturbs the Hypothalmus’(sp? not going to worry about spelling - to rushed) growth and it does not form into a males Hypo. And this is where sexual orientation lies.

So, the theory is that stress from overpopulation triggers this event on a biological level within the first trimester or so.

Lets hear it one more time for the sense in evolution!

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

John,

But the motives many disagree with are the primary reasons for homeschooling existing.

Granted, if the ideology taught in public and homeschooling were the SAME, few would complain… But, this brings us back to the crux of the arguement — MIND CONTROL, AGENDA, LEGAL RIGHTS, and TRUTH.

In the end, political and social activists push what is to be learned and what is to be unlearned and forgotten. Sadly, what worries many of these individuals is that HOMESCHOOLING will NOT allow this happen because it is not under their control.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

RF - Too funny!

By RF

December 2, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck—-Never said he was right either. You sound like my seven year old, who immediately wants to make sure he’s not the only one getting in trouble. I definitely don’t think he’s right to call you names. I just wanted to see if you could admit your error. You did, and I have to respect you for that. I’m not totally against you Chuck. I agree with a lot of what you say and you’ve had me digging through my Bible, which is a good thing. A lot of the problem I have is with tone and apparent attitude in what you post. Like many, you need to find some balance in your approach. The zeal combined with love and patience is the most powerful thing to help people grow and change. Think about Mother Teresa for example. I don’t recall reading about her storming around angrily anywhere. Think about that in your prayer time and see if God gives you any ideas about it. I have very strong convictions, but I know I can’t persuade anyone by constantly shoving my views at them. That just makes people all the more stubborn about their views. You can’t save the world-you just have to live and let the light shine so others can see it and want to be a part of it. You can’t force it on them or condemn them for their views. Even if they throw things at you, or nail you up for it, you can’t throw stones at them in return.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

*Quote from the 72John: “the one I’m guessing you are on, wants nothing more than to institute a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy in this country, and force everyone to live under its rules.�

Though you may not admit it, your lack of tolerance is showing…*

I’m…sorry…it seemed for a minute that you were implying that because I think a theocracy is wrong, that I’m intolerant…but surely you wouldn’t be suggesting that.

Because, JFredrick, if you WERE implying that by rejecting the idea of the rule of a single religious doctrine over an entire nation I am displaying intolerance, then you would clearly be demonstrating your utter LACK of understanding of both the history and purpose of this nation.

If you WERE suggesting that my abhorence of a totalitarian, ideologicaly-based form of government that throughout history has proven to encourage the worst kind of imaginable abuses of human rights among those it rules represents some kind of intollerance, then I would be forced to ask what kind of CRACK you were smoking.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

As far as my children, rest assured they will not condemn people… I, myself, as a business owner and Christian can safely say that my best friend for over 12 years is a Muslim from Iraq. His family was put to death by Saddam.

I have a friend who is homosexual, as well.

In the end, their choices will determine their outcome. I do not judge them. I do not hate them. IF anything, I love them… But, I will STILL teach my children the truth of the Bible without teaching them to tolerate SELECTIVELY…

That’s right! I will teach them to tolerate SELECTIVELY… They will tolerate those of different beliefs, but they will NOT tolerate those who staunchly, hypocritically teach tolerance for everyone except Christians.

By Brent

December 2, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

I agree with you, Kimberly, that foreign language should be taught. Spanish (fastest growing population), German, and French. German should be taught because English is a Germanic language. “Ich” and “I” are so similar. Not to mention “haben” which means “have” in English. “Guten Morgen” “Good morning” And French because of all of the borrowed French phrases and words, such as, “RSVP” “repondez s’il vous plait”, “Hors d’oeuvre”, “rendezvous”, etc.(et cetera is Latin).

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

John,

Come in a little bit from your left field position.

You are now suggesting that CHRISITIANS (as a whole) want “nothing more than to institute a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy in this country, and force everyone to live under its rules.â€?

Because, you are implying that I believe such a thing and you know so little about me (except that I’m a homeschooling Christian)… Thank GOD (I can still say that can’t I?) I can teach my children without interference from those who are either blinded hypocritics or slick-talking snakes that try to paint a picture of one side as being intolerable when they are on the same canvass.

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

JFred, I’m sure your children are and will continue to be lovely and smart. What I’m detecting here, and not just from you, is a paranoia regarding the persecution of Christians. As a Christian (although not a “good” one, I’m told) I have heard this over the years, but more so in recent years. Now don’t get me wrong, I am an EXTREMELY paranoid individual! I think some of the false prophets of our time are feeding this paranoia, and using it as an end to things that are not so Christian. The most common criticism I hear of C’s from non-C’s is that the C’s are persecuting THEM for not being C’s. You see, the paranoia is flowing BOTH ways. You jumping into the home-school debate with this is just one more example. Home school your kids if you think it will be best for them. But the rest of us aren’t burning crosses in your yard because you do! People develop fear and loathing for “christians” when they are being persecuted by them, either directly, or through attempts to use government to control their free will. Not because they oppose the way you choose to live YOUR life! I think what we ALL really need to do is back off the persecution and get back to being who we are.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

RF - Very well said. I’ve been trying to say similar things all week - but I don’t think the point is getting across.

Also, I’ve taken note that you had to specifically confront Chuck about his “bite me” comment before he would acknowledge it was wrong. This leads me to wonder if he thought that was okay? Or, if he knew it was wrong, but was hoping no one else mentioned it? Or, if he was just being stubborn until you backed him up against a wall.

You weren’t the first one to make mention of the un-“Christian” aggression in that comment, but he didn’t express any remorse about it until you put it in his face. And, then that whole thing of admitting your fault, but making sure someone else gets in trouble with you…

~shaking my head~

By FatMoose

December 2, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

JFrederick,

You homeschool but do not know the definition of Scientific Theories - which are based on facts. {re-read your post regarding if confused}

You prove johns views yourself. We need not assusme much with people who do such ignorant postings.

by all - out…

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

In the end, John, people who want to stamp out CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGY (labeled universally as the intolerant)— on the battleground of homeschooling — are EQAULLY as guilty of trying to mold a totalitarian, ideologicaly-based form of government.

Get the children to the class room… Teach them ALL that two mommies and two daddies are OK… Teach them ALL that abortion is OK… Teach them ALL that we evolved from a missing link to ape-like creatures… Teach them ALL these things… EACH AND EVERY ONE!

YEAH, we are in agreement… I can’t stand such people either.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Fatmoose, That study that you are sort of quoting from was done by a gay activist. LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus. It had a number of methodological flaws and was widely discredited by MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS. And no I am not talking about Christians, I’m talking about SECULAR MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Jfred, buddy, you are hopeless. I am absolutely TOLERANT (If you are going to homeschool, maybe you should brush up on your vocab. Intolerable is the wrong word choice.) of your ability to teach your child, to worship as you choose, to believe as you choose. I do not believe that a single law should be passed to limit your ability to do so.

On the OTHER hand, my perception of you has been formed by this particular remark:

*What is at stake here is not WHAT THEY LEARN IN REGARDS TO THE BASICS, it is how they will VOTE and THINK in regards to the SOCIAL (moral) ISSUES which our nation has been battling over for the past few decades.

Abortion. God in Law. Homosexual Marriage.*

Now…which of these statements would make me think that you believe that Christian belief should be written into law?

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Hey, FatMoose…

Now, I don’t disagree with facts… IT’s when FACTS are used to build THEORIES and these THEORIES are THEN taught as FACT, I have a problem.

In theory, you seem reasonable enough to understand that.

By RF

December 2, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

JBM- I had to laugh. I was sitting here picturing my baby pointing his finger and saying “but he did it toooooo”. I guess we never really grow up that much when it’s all said and done! (I hope not, because I don’t like most of the ‘grownups’ I know!) ;- )

By The72John

December 2, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Now, I don’t disagree with facts… IT’s when FACTS are used to build THEORIES and these THEORIES are THEN taught as FACT, I have a problem.

In order to understand the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the general use of the word theory, please refer to the two weeks worth of Unintelligent Design discussion.

I pity your child if this is the kind of education he or she is getting.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

I think all children should be taught that two mommies or two daddies are ok. Doesn’t mean that everyone has two mommies and/or daddies, but if they do, it’s ok. Now I’m sure that you feel children should be taught 1 man + 1 woman = marriage, and that’s fine for you to feel to. My opinion is right to me, yours is right to you. Now if I try to pass a law to demand your children be taken to hommosexuality awareness seminars on an semi annual basis, and have a summer retreat in a homosexual household, then I am trying to push my ideas on you, which is not right.

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Well said, Renee.

John, I was feeling the same pity.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

John, despite your jab at my vocabulary (no doubt used to portray yourself as being better educated to all those reading), I will respond to your post by pointing out that you may be short-sided in your judgEment of others.

As I’ve stated:

“What is at stake here is not WHAT THEY LEARN IN REGARDS TO THE BASICS, it is how they will VOTE and THINK in regards to the SOCIAL (moral) ISSUES which our nation has been battling over for the past few decades.”

“Abortion. God in Law. Homosexual Marriage.”

Now, to me, this is true… Makes no difference what you believe in regards to this matter.

In regards to God in Law, I am speaking of 1) taking God from the Pledge, 2) Taking “in God we trust” from our currency, 3) pulling down the Ten Commandments from the courthouses.

It was not MY doings which led to these three things being implemented… It was the IDEOLOGY of one sector… Now, if these are removed, then it is by the IDEOLOGY of another.

So, if these small things are to be considered as a totalitarian, ideologicaly-based form of government to a government that allows freedom of religion and voting, then we’ve lived under such a form that you dislike for quite some while… In this case, it is not my fault.

But, to deny that a battle is being waged over the future minds of our children is dung.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

RF, there is nothing in your last post that I disagree with…except I make an exception as to dealing with militants like John.not as far as the name-calling. I shouldn’t have done that, but as far as making it plain what the Bible says about sin. I don’t think that john is ever going to change his mind or his orientation, but I seriously think that he needs to be confronted with the truth. I honestly think that one of the posters who asked me not to address her on this issue is struggling with this issue. I honestly believe that she is a Christian and is conflicted because she knows in her heart what the Bible says.

I don’t hate her OR john. I hate that they are caught up in this lifestyle. I hate that something happened to push them in that direction, but I don’t hate them.

I honestly see what I do on this blog as moving the ball forward. Not getting a first down every post, but moving a little farther toward the goal. There are perhaps thousands of people (maybe) who read this blog and never respond. They need to be confronted with the truth also. They may read this, but they may never darken the doors of a church. As far as I am concerned this is my mission field for 20-30 minutes each day. That’s why I do it what I do.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Now, to me, this is true… Makes no difference what you believe in regards to this matter

Yeah, I KNOW that’s what you believe. That’s WHY I think you are one of those Taliban-in-America types.

So, if these small things are to be considered as a totalitarian, ideologicaly-based form of government to a government that allows freedom of religion and voting, then we’ve lived under such a form that you dislike for quite some while… In this case, it is not my fault.

Reading comprehension again, buddy. I was referring to what you and your Taliban buddies want to turn this country into.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

LOL…now I’m a MILLITANT because I refuse to let Chuck-the-schmuck relegate me to a 2nd-class citizen.

Chuck, you confront me with your “truth” and I’ll confront you with my fist.

By chuck

December 2, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Earlier in the day I would have said name the time and place, but I really have started to pity you now and it just wouldn’t be right to take you up on that.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

John, your insult of trying to point out that I don’t know the definition of theory is pitiful.

In the end, despite what is taught in the classroom, many children (who become adults) speak of THEORY as being FACT. Everyone knows this.

In the end, the left can SAY the children were taught correctly in regards to concepts they can barely comprehend; but they are more pleased that the child’s belief has been transformed into one that goes hand-in-hand with their social agenda.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

I hate that something happened to push them in that direction, but I don’t hate them._

What happens to any of us to push us in that direction. I guess you are not under the belief that God possibly created us this way. Some people do make a conscience choice to live this lifestyle, for others, this is who we are. From birth until death.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

NOTE: The following contains WORDS OF FEAR which soon turn into a lack of tolerance:

“Reading comprehension again, buddy. I was referring to what you and your Taliban buddies want to turn this country into.”

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Oh Chuck, I pity you more than you can ever pity me. Your world is so tiny and pathetic, and there are so many people that you will never know and experiences you will never have because your narrow religion prevents it.

JFredrick, OBVIOUSLY you don’t know the SCIENTIFIC definition of a theory, or you wouldn’t be using the ID saw of “They’re teaching a theory, oh my god!”.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

NOTE: The following contains WORDS OF FEAR which soon turn into a lack of tolerance:

YES JFREDRICK! I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO TRY TO FORCE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO LAW. CONGRATULATIONS!

By RF

December 2, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

I guess what I’ve been trying to say Chuck is that it doesn’t, to me, seem to be a matter of ‘moving the ball forward’ and confronting those who appear lost. I think in your earnestness to do the work you feel called to do, you lose sight of the real goal, which is to share. I was trained to witness and try to convert people. I had a problem with that because it pressured people into doing something. I think, as Jesus did, we do better to live the life, tell the truth, and let the spirit work. We share and let the truth convict if it will. We tend to turn people away with pressure and conviction. In the Bible, Jesus said, and that was usually enough. He didn’t confront (with one notable exception), argue, or debate, he simply said. Now, you will get attacked by those who disagree. If you notice, they quite often disagree and enjoy picking at others until they get a show of anger. You just have to learn when to quit and let God do the rest. My experience has taught me that my demeanor of love and my patience tend to be a more potent witness than anything I try to convince people to believe. They see I’m happy, they ask me why, and I can tell them. Just my thoughts for what they’re worth. Have a restful, peaceful weekend!

Everyone have a wonderful weekend. Interesting this week as always!

By kimberly

December 2, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Fear and Loathing. What would [the late great] Hunter S. Thompson say about all this?

I think he shot himself because he knew we are all f——-, that America is f——-, that there will never be enough love or tolerance for people to pull together to solve ACTUAL problems, the uber-rich will keep screwing us without foreplay first, and the drugs that kill the pain keep wearing off.

By Eirik

December 2, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

I’ve been sitting on the sidelines reading and it’s mostly the same lines that you’ve been saying for as long as you have frequented this blog, but you are delusional if you think you are influencing anyone to believe your brand of religion. Are you that arrogant? I don’t know any person that has made me abhor religion more than you.

We need to be confronted with the truth? What makes you think you know the truth more than I…because you believe a 2000 year old fairy tale?

And this is your mission? Please…you come on this blog to vent your frustrations and wallow in your self-serving sense of piety…go back and read your posts for this week…talk about sin of pride.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Well, you have been a hoot…

But, now, the weekend is here… I’ll be taking my children out to hunt, beat, and kill something.

In closing, it’s good to see John finally admitting he can’t tolerate something — AMERICAN history! So, good luck and God Bless you in your attempt to change it.

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

LOL JFred. I guess you read what you want to read. American History is one group trying to force its religious beliefs into law? Funny, I thought it was just the opposite.

By JFrederick

December 2, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Geez… I last note to John’s last post…

NO RELIGION IS A RELIGION! So, in the end, someone will have their beliefs put into law.

See you on the battlefield.

By Netbanker

December 2, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

WAAAAYYYY Late today. Chuck…you said I made hate statements toward Christians. That statement does not mention any religion whatsoever. Besides, can you not discern sarcasm?

HAHAHAHAHAHA…I just LOVE it when a straight person defines what it means to be homosexual to gay people. Geez, Chuck, next thing you now you’ll tell Renee what it’s like to be a black woman. (That’s sarcasm again…I’m hoping you’ll start catching on to it so we’ll have to stop labeling comments)

Lastly…any place you see the actual word homosexual in the Bible can’t be a correct translation. The word wasn’t invented until the 19th Century.

By Renee

December 2, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

NO RELIGION IS A RELIGION

ROFLMAO!!!!

By The72John

December 2, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

No religion is…a religion. Now THAT is funny. Oh wait, no, it’s one of those catch-phrases that religious fanatics use to justify their attempts to force their beliefs on everyone else.

By Netbanker

December 2, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

“One who does not practice homosexuality is not a homosexual.” No, no, no, no, no! They’re still homosexual, they’re just LOUSY in bed!

By Renee

December 2, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - stop…lmao, lmao..too funny!!!!!!!

By Just Being Me

December 2, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck - do NOT refer to me indirectly. If you are talking about me, use my name.

And THIS is the problem: “I honestly see what I do on this blog as moving the ball forward. Not getting a first down every post, but moving a little farther toward the goal. There are perhaps thousands of people (maybe) who read this blog and never respond. They need to be confronted with the truth also. They may read this, but they may never darken the doors of a church. As far as I am concerned this is my mission field for 20-30 minutes each day. That’s why I do it what I do.”

If you had the right approach, this would be great. But, there is no way you are moving farther toward the goal. Why don’t you measure your success? You are judged by the fruit you bear, right? So, why don’t you, say every month or so, determine how many people have been positively influenced by what you’ve had to say. Determine how many people are one step closer to Christ because of you.

Here, I’ll start you off. RF said you’ve pushed him to read the Bible a few times. That’s a point for you. Start counting.

Otherwise, you just will continue on with this false perception that you are doing good, and all you’re doing is destroying God’s children.

If your “mission” is to confront people with truth, try doing it with lovingkindness. If you want to convince gays that they’re wrong, try something like, “Hey JBM, did you just say you’re gay? Well, listen. I just want you to know that Jesus didn’t create you to be gay, but he sent me to tell you that He loves you anyway and so do I. He’s waiting for you to come to Him with outstretched arms.” If you feel like quoting a few scriptures that you believe prove that he shouldn’t be gay, fine. Do that. But, do it in love, not condemnation. Otherwise, you’re just making enemies. And, everybody knows you can’t win over an enemy. By offending your brother, you’ve lost your ability to witness to him.

THENNNN, when John comes to Christ because of the wonderful example you’ve set, because of your witness, because of your light shining. He may come as a homo, but then YOU need to trust GOD and the power of His WORD to convict, change, and set free John. YOU can’t do it. Let GOD do it.

And, concerning your comment about me. I DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH THE LABEL “CHRISTIAN” AND I AM NOT STRUGGLING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. THIS IS NOT IN SPITE OF MY KNOWING THE BIBLE, IT’S BECAUSE I KNOW THE BIBLE. I am one of the few who “chose” the lifestyle. I wasn’t born this way, as many others were. So, believe me, if I was conflicted or struggling with it, I would put it down. Just like when I used to smoke weed and I knew in my heart it was wrong… after a while, I put it down. Long after my acceptance of Jesus, and licensure into the ministry, I picked up a terrible habit of cursing. Knew in my heart it was wrong. Put it down.

I was not born gay. I chose to be gay. And, I don’t struggle with that choice one bit.

Oh, and one last thing: the only thing that “happened to push me in this direction,” was that one day I realized I was romantically in love with my female best friend.

By Netbanker

December 2, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

JBM…Great Book! Cleared up a lot of things for me.

FatMoose…I used that argument in a college psch class that was discussing whether homosexuality was naturally occurring or not. You could have heard a pin drop!

Chuck…most recent former Governor of NJ.