The Funny Farm: Taking It Outside

June 22, 2005

Taking It Outside

^{Humpday, 28 ForeLithe, 2005}

We have been somewhat engaged in a slight debate with one of the religiously ~~insane~~zealous over at the War Liberal's site. We refer to it as a slight debate in order to show some Christian charity towards the God Squad member who seems to think that proving a point in a debate can be done by saying it's in the Bible! and expecting whatever was said to be considered a fact.

The entire kerfluffle began with an offhand post by Mac Thomason the War Liberal about the religious insanity of Carl Everett, who doesn't believe in gays being gay. Good for him! As one of my faith-based brothers would say*, that's okay - gays believe in him. Anyways,...

There was a nice discussion going on comparing the homopobic bias in Everett's statements to the racial bias in statements made by another baseball player, John Rocker, that were particularly offensive** and noted by the usual media whores. And then a new voice came along, and led off with this comment:

[Varied types of emphasis courtesy of the Funny Farm News Burro. We will be showing you some, not all, of the comments made, and we understand that some of it may be difficult to follow. We really don't want to cut and paste the entire comments section, so we apologize for any confusion we might generate. We're going to try and show you the portions relevant to our current ramblings here. It would be advisable to read the whole set of comments in their entirety at some point by clicking on the link above.]

[The stuff outside the boxes is our own commentary on the whole affair after the fact. We have left out a number of other comments from this person in the comments to Mac's original post as well. The ones we kept were directed more towards the things we were saying and the personal jabs against what we were saying to this individual in the give-and-take, as it were. The perpetrator and a supportive fellow commenter have been anonymized for privacy concerns on our part (not theirs).]

I know I am entering into a discussion that I have not been a part of but I have read the entire discussion and would like to clarify something. Let me also point out that I am a regular reader of the Braves Journal.

Any Christian who unites gay couples simply is not a Christian or does not follow the Bible. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin period. God loves people who are homosexual, as Christians should, as he loves everyone but he abhors their sin.

We would first debate this clarification (cough) by saying that, yes, we have read the bible too (so we have some basis for our allegations and beliefs in the matter). But we don't see the place where it says that homosexuality is a sin. We see some sort of dialogue about abominations, but we also see the eating of shelled fish, tarot readings, glancing at your horoscope, trimming one's beard, charging or paying interest, and getting a tattoo (among other things) are also considered abominations. Amazingly we have failed to note the huge usury is a sin movement out there from all of those Christians intent on demonizing all things non-christian. Nor do we note the sweeping protest against making and taking loans emanating from the (coincidentally usury-friendly) pious sorrowfully persecuting their fellow man should he like his fellow man a little more than we can discuss here in polite society. But we do see the rampant hypocrisy emanating from these so-called christians on a regular basis regarding their fellow humans who engage in same-sex relationships. So we kinda figured it was par for the course, and decided to chuckle a bit and then move on.

Unfortunately, that was only the beginning of the blatant falsehoods, abuse of the bible to try and prove things, and condemnation of others coming from this individual:

Wow you seem to know a lot about (what) God is thinking about. Have you tapped into his thoughts. Maybe you should give this a try. Read his thoughts in the Bible. God hates many things.

This example of questioning the statements of others who claim to speak for the Invisible Cloud Being while simultaneously making statements about what the Invisible Cloud Being is thinking yourself (by making the assumption that your belief that the bible is the word of your deity is a fact) set off the frelling irony alert sirens around here something fierce.

I believe the Bible is inspired by God but it is almost useless for me to say that because you will just ridicule me for that. I guess since you don't believe in the Bible we must ask someone who knows everything these questions. Who would that be...hmmm.....oh that's right, you know everything. We must ask you xxxxx.

Actually, no - no one is ridiculing that belief. However, some might be inclined to say that it is a belief, not a fact, and as such cannot be a fact with which you can base a logical argument upon.

But wait - it gets better:

I'm tapping into this thoughts? No I actually read it in some literature. You're the one who claims to "know" what God or any higher being thinks. And you think homosexuality is logical. Think about it. It's not that logical.

Aside from the bold assertion that homosexuality is not logical, the main problem here is that, once again, this person makes statements about the claims of others that are not based on what the others said, while simultaneously claiming the same thing (that they know what the Invisible Cloud Being is thinking) themselves. Somehow, because they read it in a really good piece of fiction that has been around for a long time, their claims are now held to be incontravertable fact.

I have no intent to attack you personally. I just find it interesting that you know so much about God. How do you know these things if you don't believe in the Bible?

============

I'll answer your question if you will answer mine. The year is 2005. Now what year did the Bible become fiction?

And yes the pressure is on you to substantiate. If someone claims to know God's thoughts, they better give a pretty good reason and you haven't given an attempt at a reason yet. I'm sure you won't answer this question because you can't.

Apparently, the only way to know what The Invisible Cloud Being is thinking is to read the bible. Forgive us if we fail to see any logic here, and merely some faith-based pseudo-factoids.

We attempted to toss a little thought experiment into the mix, for the benefit of those who might understand the asininity of the arguments (cough) being made above:

I wonder what you christians would say to someone who publicly stated "Christians being christian is wrong"? And pointed out all of the persecution, bigotry, and vile actions that have been committed by christians in order to 'save the souls' of those who they consider to be heretical?

We received the following response from said individual:

Tom you must not understand what a Christian is. A Christian who obeys what God says in the Bible would never persecute anyone, be a bigot, or commit any vile acts in the name of God. Some crazy people might but a true Christian would not. Please don't lump Christians into that category.

Then the gloves came off here at the Funny Farm:

Tom you must not understand what a Christian is.

Excuse me? Maybe you missed the following from those Christians you are so enamored of:

Pope Ratzinberger hiding known pederasts in the Roman Catholic church (a sub-genre of Christianity), and requiring that any further reports of pederasty be hidden from public scrutiny;

Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, and a host of other christians saying that God told them to persecute and disparage homosexuals (in much the same way you told the rest of us that the Bible is not fictional);

the christian minister who told his congregation that they needed to 'repent' the sin of voting for John Kerry, or be banned from the congregation;

the Illegally Installed Usurper speaking on behalf of God to the American people on a regular basis (while lying his ass off and practicing public hypocrisy in his actions);

churches all across the country exhorting their parishoners to vote for said Illegally Installed Usurper (in direct contradiction with both the seperation of church and state provision in the Bill of Rights and the terms of their tax-free status requirements);

and a host (cough) of others that I'm sure your faith-based religious insanity will not allow you to accept as true.

I would also like to point out that:

1) the Bible has never been proven either. One would think that the burden of proof would be on those who claim that it is the literal word of the Invisible Cloud Being to prove the validity of the argument, not the other way around. You can beg to differ all you want, but until you provide some sort of rational argument to support your beliefs, that's all they are - beliefs. I believe in Santa Claus*. Can you prove that he doesn't exist?

2) do you have any proof of your unsupported assertion that the Bible was written before the Jesus fable was cobbled together from the common elements of other religious beliefs of the time?

3) there are inconsistencies between the four gospels (as well as the writings of Paul). There are also inconsistencies within the books of the old and new testaments, and within the old testament books as well. According to your beliefs, then, none of these books (or only one of them) was inspired by that unproven magically omniscient being you believe in. As an example, I believe in one place it is said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and in another, the Jesus fable tells his sycophants this is not right.

There is also the issue that not all of the words in the Bible are adhered to, or believed in, by those who profess to be christian. See the shellfish comment above for an example of that.

You have the right to believe whatever you like. However, you do not have the right to foist those beliefs on society because God told you to. You should also be denouncing those who abuse your holy writs, loudly and fervently, instead of allowing their abuses to be attributed to the rest of the flock. Funny how that never seems to be the focus of christians.

* - actually, I believe in the spirit of Santa Claus. But you still can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Tom, I find it hard to talk with someone when they say things that cause them to lose all credibility. "Illegally installed usurper". Come on now. I know you're bitter but that's just shows your mindset. I will try to look past that. Many people have gone on archeological expeditions in order to disprove the Bible and you know what happens. 1) they come back empty handed or 2) they convert to Christianity. Jesus used many metaphors when he taught. In fact, he almost taught exclusively in metaphors. "Eye for an eye" , it's a metaphor. Yes, I do not follow the traditions of the Old Testament. Why did they follow these traditions in the Old Testament? Because God instructed them to and this is how they were able to be with God in heaven. When Jesus came, these laws and traditions were abolished when he died on the cross for everybody's sins. In fact, the curtain of the tabernacle where many of these feasts and traditions took place was torn in two when Jesus died. No longer do we have to obey strict traditions. We must love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind.

Right back at ya, zzzz. You lost credibility once you said "I love debating with "intellectuals". You can't debate them becaue they "know" everything.. I would say the same thing about debating with Christians. And your arguments went downhill from there.

The reason I talk about the Lying Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter while using descriptively accurate nicknames for him is that he's earned them. Try and tell me he was legitimately elected either time - then try and fit your "theory" in with the Democratic voter purge in Florida for the 2000 elections (based on a databse provided by - surprise! - GeeWhatADumbAss) and the Brooks Brothers Riot, where those Publicans you are fellating flew in GOP operatives who didn't even live in Florida to shut down the recount until they could get the Supreme Court to illegally declare Pinhead, the Thief of Crawford as the winner of the electoral votes in Florida. Then - surprise again! - the Publican secretary of state for Florida refused to do her job and verify the vote. For a supposed christian, you seem to be okay with all sorts of immoral acts - as long as it's you and yours who are doing them.

In Ohio in 2004, the Publican Secretary of State first promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to his own party over a year before the election, then went to the churches to get the leaders of the church to pressure their congregations to vote for Putsch. Then he and his minions engaged in systematic intimidation and confusion of voters in traditionally Democratic precincts, manipulation and alteration of the actual votes in precincts where Diebold (who employed - surprise yet again - this secretary of state) machines tallied the votes. And those are just the highlights of the illicit and immoral shenanigans that the Publican administration engaged in when fixing the election in Ohio in 2004.

Is it bitter to get upset when, through cheating, fraud, intimidation, and other immoral and illegal acts, the Repugnicants have stolen the last two federal elections? Or is it a cry for justice?

I would also like to say thanks to the others here who don't blindly follow all of the lies spewed by the faith-based abominations heretically twisting the concept of a higher being into screeds manipulating their fellow humans. This is one of the most blasphemous things that can be done with those christian beliefs (which after all were stolen and adapted from the pagan rituals of the time) in my eyes.

I hope one day the Christians' diety calls them to task for the abuses they have engaged in in its' name.

I don't have time to thorougly respond as I would like so here is a quick tidbit before I get a chance to sit down.

Tom, you lose credibility when you say false things. I have not said anything that is blatantly false as was your entire last post. Don't even get me started on how completely wrong you were. You are obviously being led astray by someone and I hope you discover the truth someday. Just one thing about Florida. When the media declared Gore the winner in Florida, the heavily pro-republican panhandle was still voting. How many votes did the Republicans lose there. And Jesse Jackson has been ranting and raving about voter suppression but when asked to provide one, just one piece of evidence, he has never come through.

Some intervening comments from others about the large number of comments to this post (the most Mac has got so far) and Mac despairing of it having any value whatsoever take place between the comment above and our next comment to this post:.

Wow. I'm afraid i have to agree with you, Mac, after that last tirade. I sure hope Zzzz hasn't gathered the congregation to brand a scarlet letter on me for saying "false things". Funny how that is the whole of his argument here, that I say false things, without managing to find a shred of proof for his contention. I would love to see him try to prove that they are false. If the proof is anywhere near as rigorous (cough) as his proof that there is indeed an Invisible Cloud Being, it would be much more Christian of him to question his own honesty rather than that of others and examine his own arguments and see where (if at all) logic is present. If you choose to call me a liar to my face, Zzzz, if I were you I should be prepared to back up my words with something more than Putsch supplied faith-based talking points. You could work on being a little less ostentatious with the thirty pieces of silver, too...

The evidence that I present to support my claims comes from a book that you consider fiction, but here are the facts. Millions and millions of people around the world believe the Bible is true so my evidence can't be dismissed as crazy when it has so many supporters around the world.

And your evidence for voter suppression, illegal Supreme Court rulings, democratic voter purge, confusion, manipulation, alteration, and fixing elections consists of "others who were seeing yet another example of Repugnicant hypocrisy in action". Where are these people who were manipulated? Where are these altered votes? Which voters were suppressed? You make claims wich, if true, should be easy to corroborate.

And I have to mention something about this. You said Republicans went to churches and told people they must vote for President Bush. How about the Democrats who went to black congregations and told them that President Bush would burn their churches down if he were elected?

At one time, almost everyone on the planet believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Billions believe the Koran is true. Billions also believe in Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Each of those faiths have more adherents than those who believe in the Bible. And some tenets of their faiths directly contradict those of the Bible! I guess that means that those beliefs can't be dismissed as crazy, either. And their contradictory beliefs are a reason to question those of Christians, too. Right?

And, right at this very moment, there are billions of people who believe that the Chimperor and his junta are lying murdering hypocritical sacks of kimchee who should be tried in international court for war crimes. When will you be holding those claims in the same high regard as those in your holy book?

For the record, I have no idea if there is a God, or if he inspired the Bible or any of those other religious works. I maintain that no one has that knowledge - they might believe, but they do not have proof. Until they do, they should stop trying to pretend that they are discussing facts, and acknowledge that they are talking about their beliefs. And try to use logic and facts when they are trying to rationally debate something.

I provided no evidence for my assertions. I merely made some faith-based statements of my own. Since I belong to the church of reality, my beliefs are backed by the facts as best I can determine them. I'm always willing to consider that I might be wrong. But I need some reality-based proof in order to change my beliefs.

Google shows me almost 5,500 links to "voting irregularities in ohio", and over 4,200 for "voting irregularities in florida" (the specific phrase, not the combination of words - those links number well over 100,000 in each case). It also shows me zero links for "President Bush would burn their churches" (and, by extension, "Democrats said President Bush would burn their churches down"). Could you please provide some sort of factual support for your allegations if you continue to try and push them on others as facts?

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005024.html

http://www.electricvenom.com/index.php?p=4694

http://politics.abovetopsecret.com/thread145714/pg1

Here are a few links that support my statement about democrats going into churches and threatening them. This was also in the main stream media because that is where it was first brought to my attention.

You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs. Just don't criticize me and call me an idiot for having my own beliefs.

"You can't really change adults who think the Bible is literal. Only Christians who acknowledge the Bible as having symbolic and SOME historical importance are worth talking to about politics and morality. Simply put, these people who believe the world, or even the universe, was created in seven days and deny the obvious evolution of our world over millions and millions of years have the minds of children."

I'm sorry you feel this way xxxxx. Let me say this though. These Christians who are "not worth talking to about politics" and with "minds of children" are the same people who created our government and our constitution. Our entire society and government was based entirely on the laws of God. So remember when you demean Christians like you have, you are talking about the founders of this great nation which allows you to express your opinions.

And it's not that I am above being wrong. But I keep poking holes in every claim that you guys make and provide evidence whenever asked.

First of all, thanks, xxxxx - you are one of the ones I was talking about. We have probably done more than we should - and I thank Mac for allowing us this waste of his bandwidth. I would like to take this discussion back to my own blog so's I can waste some of my own bandwidth, as opposed to that of others. There should be some sort of post summarizing and linking to this comment thread soon...

I would also like to ask zzzz that he hold on to any comments about what I am going to say here, reflect on what he has to say a bit, and bring those comments over to my zone if he still cares to throw about his allegations some more.

Finally, I would like to point out the flaws in his latest feeble attempt to make some sort of rational point here: I looked at one of your links (the last one from abovetopsecret - I can't get to the others right now, but I should be able to later this evening, and examine them further) and I see someone else making the same allegations that you are making about "if you vote for Republicans black churches will burn" (the exact quote from the site). Only one problem, zzzz - you still haven't shown me any place where a church leader has made those statements. You show me a partisan web site (ironically named Above Politics, it seems to be intent on impugning liberals) where the blog author makes that statement. I have seen a few quotes from black church leaders endorsing Kerry, but none where they demand or advise that their flock vote Democratic.

Here are some links that I found rather easily from actual news organizations about a request from the GOP to "Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041005/NEWS01/41005004/1075

and one from a partisan liberal organization:
http://www.redeemthevote.com/pr15.html

Please note how, even in the partisan liberal site, there are actual quotes from actual church officials, not some sort of rumor that somebody heard from somebody else.

And, zzzz, you still can't help but throw out another wrongwingnut point at the end. The people who wrote the constitution and created our government did not blindly follow the rules of their faiths - it seems to me that they bent over backwards to allow all faiths to be able to be practised (and heard) here in America. When you put the founding fathers in the same class as Falwell, Phelps, Robertson, or any of the other religiously insane who claim to know what's good for us based on what the voices in their head told them, you are demeaning our founding fathers.

And you still have provided no evidence of any of the false witness you are bearing on behalf of the Idiot in Thief. That you seem to think that wild unsubstantiated faith-based flights of fancy are equivalent to hard facts is quite comical...

It's not that you're above being wrong. You're just congenitally unable to admit it - even to yourself. You should be ashamed.

Feel free to visit my site tomorrow. There should be a place for you to show the rest of us how foolish it is to consider one's faith to be knowledge, or based on knowledge.

Notice any sort of pattern? Like, for example, one side freely admitting that they are making assertions based on their beliefs, and the other doing the same thing, but refusing to admit that they are trying to claim that their beliefs are really fact?

This is the religious insanity that we have such a problem with here at the Funny Farm. And it is so sad to see - we think that this person has a good, kind heart for the most part, and has the best intentions toward helping his fellow humans get through this mortal coil successfully. Unfortunately, his faith has blinded (or atrophied) his reasoning to the point where anything his religious leader says while using scripture to prove (cough) the point is automatically accepted as fact. If he were to make a few qualifications in his language, such as instead of saying homosexuality is not logical, say I believe homosexuality is not logical, we wouldn't have nearly the problems with this discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. No one is entitled to force others to accept their beliefs as fact. Nor are they entitled to force others to believe the same thing they do.

We also notice that, while stating that they have been poking holes in every claim that you guys make and provide evidence whenever asked, this individual does nothing of the sort. We notice that he says that those of us who question him should not criticize me and call me an idiot for having my own beliefs. We are not calling you an idiot for having those beliefs. We are saying that we think those beliefs are idiotic, and we strongly disagree with the use of those beliefs as justification for the persecution of others. We think that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want - but they are not allowed to use those beliefs to justify action against others. Almost a hate the sin, love the sinner type of thing when you think about it a bit.

We also find it quite amusing that the thing that we said that was siezed upon as making us lose credibility was when we referred to the Lying Drunken Cokheaded Deserter as a Lying Drunken Cokheaded Deserter. Not our questioning of the scriptures as being faith-based. Not our questioning the use of belief as fact. No - it was when we used a factually accurate nickname for Putsch that we were told that we no longer had any credibility. Funny - our unwavering ability to see Drinky McDumbAss for what he truly is makes us credible in many others' eyes.

Funny how, after making the statement Millions and millions of people around the world believe the Bible is true so my evidence can't be dismissed as crazy when it has so many supporters around the world. the counter-argument that there are many more upon the planet who have different beliefs regarding various religious texts as well as the veracity of pRezNit Do As I Say, Not As I Do went unchallenged and unspoken of. Coincidence? Sadly, No! (No! skippy did not coin that phrase)

Anyways,... to sum up***:

- we believe that Chad Everett arguments on the subject of homosexuality should not be listened to when he makes statements such as gays are wrong.

- we believe that, if there is an Omniscient Uber-Being, he wouldn't persecute gays for being gay for all eternity. If anything, we believe that gays were put here as an object lesson in tolerance and acceptance of diversity - and that the religiously insane are failing the test badly.

- we believe that faith-based policy is morally wrong if tried to be enforced as law. At the same time, we believe that it is in the best interests of all humans to treat each other with kindness, compassion, and consideration - triats common to most religions. You know, that whole do unto others as you would have them do to you philosophy. Some might get a bit further ahead in the short run with a more callous attitude towards others, but in the long run such a philosophy as basis for the laws of the land will lead to ruin. And any society based solely upon any religious text available today would have too many flaws to be acceptable to us.

Our beliefs might be a little closer to reality if those who abused and exploited the system were punished for such abuses - as we believe they should be.

- and, finally****, we believe that it would be everyone's best interests if those who do not agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle avoid those who do as opposed to trying to prevent them from pursuing it. Boycott all those shows you don't like if you want (we boycott lots of things because we don't believe in them, but we don't forcibly cause others to boycott them too*****). Tell us all about why you believe you are right in what you are doing. But, please, don't tell anyone else that you are right and they are wrong because the sky fairy says so. Tell them you believe they're wrong and you're right, but do not harm them if they do not share your beliefs.

Please feel free to let us know what you think about this subject in the comments to this post.

Post script: While we were busy putting this post together, we noticed that Mac is pointing out yet another example of religious insanity in action: Falwell says church must work to defeat Hillary Clinton in '08. Leaving aside the fact that she hasn't even declared here candidacy for president in 2008 yet, and instead has publicly stated that she's not running for president in 2008, on what basis are statements like this made? This could be considered an unjustified personal attack in some circles. And on what basis are these comments considered newsworthy, as opposed to certifiable, reprehensible, and/or legally actionable?

Post post script: While we're at it - Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell
Jerry Falwell

* - the usual form of the conversation is:

Your humble Narrator: I don't believe in God!

Brother Mine: that's okay - God believes in you!

** - we would like to point out that these sorts of statements are not unusual from the more callous in the baseball world; you can read about the same sort of thing coming out of Curt Shilling, Nolan Ryan, and a host of others if you are really interested in that sort of thing.

*** - and the crowd (cough) screams with enjoyment!

**** - for the purposes of this post. Our belief system is considerably more complicated than we have detailed here - but we're not quite ready to devote the time and effort into spelling the whole thing out. Maybe tomorrow. then again, probably not...

***** - we will even still talk to people who shop at Wal-Mart!

Posted by (: Tom :) at June 22, 2005 06:47 AM

Comments

[Editors' Note: This comment moved to the proper post. It was originally left in the comments for the song parody written a few days earlier, and brought here without editing or off color commentary*.]

======

First of all I am not forcing my religion on you. You have every right to believe what you believe. If you read my initial posts I was just responding to some false statements about my religion. I don't claim that my religion should be a fact but I will defend it when people attack it.

As far as our beliefs go here is the difference I see. The basis for my beliefs is the best-selling book in the world which has had continuos yet unsuccessful attempts at disproving it. This does not make it true or fact nor is that my point in saying so. My point is I'm not as insane (using your words) as you make me out to be. And let me sum up the basis for your beliefs as best as I can tell................... Because thats what you think. I'll stick with the former rather than the latter.

One more thing:

I think you missed my point about our founders. Yes they did want people to be free to voice their opinions but I have already mentioned that.

"you are talking about the founders of this great nation which allows you to express your opinions"

I was simply responding to this charge:

"Simply put, these people who believe the world, or even the universe, was created in seven days and deny the obvious evolution of our world over millions and millions of years have the minds of children."

"These people" he mentions with "minds of children" includes our forefathers. That offends me more than anything else he has said.

======

* - other than to note that we had to move it to the correct spot in order for it to be applied to the proper post.

Posted by: Zach at June 22, 2005 04:56 PM

Hey Zach!

I moved your comment to the proper place for it. Can you please stay here when you respond to this?

What false statements might those be? I have been pointing out for some time that you should be examining the disorder in your own house, and the religiously insane* among your religious group, and denouncing them instead of letting their sanctimonious heresy** fill the ears of their brethren. Then they won't publicly ask for millions of dollars or the Lord will take them to heaven***. When you fail to preach, or be concerned about, the false prophets within your own sects leading many of your brethren astray, and instead worry about the hordes who will always try and destroy you because of your faith, you lose your focus and start to react improperly. On the other hand, when you refuse to consider the arguments of others and instead merely denounce them and say that they are making false statements, it's hardly a starting point for this sort of discussion.

I'm not attacking your religion - I'm attacking the blind reflexive faith-based reaction that caused you to flame me because I described the forty-third chief executive's state during his extended summer vacation of 1972-73 in a manner that was less than flattering, while retaining its' essential truth.

I have tried to avoid much mention of my beliefs when using logic to engage in rational debate. I do not wish to engage in a discussion of comparative beliefs.

One more thing:

I think you missed my point about our founders. Yes they did want people to be free to voice their opinions but I have already mentioned that.

"you are talking about the founders of this great nation which allows you to express your opinions"

I was simply responding to this charge:

"These people" he mentions with "minds of children" includes our forefathers. That offends me more than anything else he has said.

Have you considered that, whomever this person is who made these statements:

they might have been trying to caution against people using their faith to blind themsleves to the facts when they discover them, and they don't quite agree with that faith? Can you not get past the perceived persecution of your beliefs?

And how do you get from there to saying that logic (or lack thereof) has anything at all to do with sexuality of any kind?

* - heresy by thought

** - heresy by word

*** - heresy by deed****

**** - I hope you get the Monty Python reference...

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 22, 2005 05:46 PM

I was responding to false statements made about the God of the Bible by a person who doesn't even believe in the Bible.

"Someone who makes archaic and oppresive remarks about people of a particular sexuality is not a good Christian"

"Also, Zach, "God" doesn't hate anything"

If he was speaking of the God of the Bible then I felt the need to correct his assumptions about the Bible.

And I don't know why you decided to talk about the "disorder in my own house". That is not what we are questioning here. In fact, it is an entirely different discussion.

You say you haven't attacked my religion. Here is what I consider an attack on my religion.

"And pointed out all of the persecution, bigotry, and vile actions that have been committed by christians in order to 'save the souls'"

"religiously insane"

It would be insane for my to force my beliefs on you but it is not insane to believe what I believe and you can't deny that.

Also you didn't really address the differences between our beliefs. Here is one of your quotes.

"my beliefs are backed by the facts as best I can determine them"

Sounds about right. You determine for yourself what is a fact and what is not. That is where I have a problem. At least my beliefs have a background of resiliency and helped provide the foundation for this great nation.

And you don't seem to have a problem with people saying that our forefathers have "minds of children". You can spin it anyway you want but the facts are the facts. He mentioned a group of people which includes our forefathers and said they have "minds of children" It doesn't bother you when people demean the men who helped found this nation and it's laws?

I have to admit that I was not impressed by your response Tom. It seemed a little off track.

Posted by: Zach at June 22, 2005 06:27 PM

I was responding to false statements made about the God of the Bible by a person who doesn't even believe in the Bible.

"Someone who makes archaic and oppresive remarks about people of a particular sexuality is not a good Christian"

"Also, Zach, "God" doesn't hate anything"

If he was speaking of the God of the Bible then I felt the need to correct his assumptions about the Bible.

Who exactly are you to tell others whether their interpretation of the god of the bible is correct or not? Why do your assumptions regarding it hold more weight than anyone else's? Why do your beliefs become so threatened by his opinions about the bible? Why is what he said an assumption, as opposed to an opinion based on reading the same words you did, and coming to a different conclusion? It seemed to some of the people involved that he had some knowledge of what he was talking about. Perhaps more than those he was debating with...

You say you haven't attacked my religion. Here is what I consider an attack on my religion.

"And pointed out all of the persecution, bigotry, and vile actions that have been committed by christians in order to 'save the souls'"

"religiously insane"

It would be insane for my to force my beliefs on you but it is not insane to believe what I believe and you can't deny that.

Also you didn't really address the differences between our beliefs. Here is one of your quotes.

"my beliefs are backed by the facts as best I can determine them"

Do you deny that religion has been for most of its' history, and is now to a great extent by Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, etc., abused for partisan political purposes? Is this not of some concern to a person of faith such as yourself? Perhaps I used a bit of sarcasm in my responses, but can't you see that I am pointing out that this is the attack on your religion that is the problem - to use your beliefs in a way that is contrary to their very tenets? Which is what I am talking about when I use the term religiously insane. If the show fits, then perhaps some of those who claim to have faith in god should be called upon to renouince some of the things they have said in their god's name.

I did not specifically say that you were insane for believing what you believe. I am saying that some of your fellow christians seem to me to bit inconsistent in their beliefs, inconsistent to the point where I question their sanity.

Now, let me repeat myself from the previous comment:

I have tried to avoid much mention of my beliefs when using logic to engage in rational debate. I do not wish to engage in a discussion of comparative beliefs. What I believe in is not the topic of this debate at all. Let's debate about facts and maybe you can try and find some logical way to prove that homosexuality is illogical.

I believe that each and every one of us has a responsibility to determine the facts of the world around them to the best of their ability. I also believe that because I say god says it, it is so and because the bible says it, it is so are not logical arguments. And I believe that anyone who tries to debate something by using quotes from a resilient text is not going to make many rational arguments.

I have to admit that I was not impressed by your response Tom. It seemed a little off track.

Right back at ya again. I am not impressed whatsoever in what you consider to be any sort of argument. There are a number of other similarly resilient texts which have been the basis for thousands of years of persecution. You are aware that slavery was frowned upon in some of the pages of that bible you hold such stock in, but nowhere is it considered the abomination that is the giving or taking of interest on a loan?

I have a problem with anyone willing to dismiss evidence or facts determined through any of the scientific processes including but not limited to deduction, analysis, and trial and observation, because it contradicts tenets of their faith. I have no problem with criticism of the founders of this nation; they were human and subject to numerous human failings. I also have no problem with considering that any people who believe the world, or even the universe, was created in seven days and deny the obvious evolution of our world over millions and millions of years have the minds of children. Let alone how I would consider them should they choose to tell others that they believe it to be true.

Let me know when you are ready to find some logical way to prove that homosexuality is illogical, okay?

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 22, 2005 07:37 PM

All I am saying is that he was misrepresenting what most Christians believe about God. He should have just said that he does not agree with what the Christians believe rather than assuming that I was forcing it on him. If he was speaking to Christians then I was just telling him how the majority of Christians interpret it. I am really not trying to force anything like you continue to say over and over. I just felt that Christians were being misrepresented.

I feel like we can now agree on a few things:

1) Religion should not be forced on anyone
2) Attacking someone because they believe certain things is wrong

I do think however that you let your hatred for a few people blind your views of reality.

I also want to ask you one more thing and I just want a simple answer. Did you call Bill Clinton names that he "deserved" for his indecent acts like you do with President Bush. If not what is your reasoning. Just curious.

Posted by: Zach at June 23, 2005 01:29 AM

I would ask you to provide some answers to the many questions I have already asked you, before expecting that others will answer yours.

Do you deny that Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, and Bush specifically, as well as others who claim they are christian and speak on behalf of your god, are abusing christianity for partisan political purposes? If not, why are you not railing against this blasphemy?

Are you ever going to try and provide some sort of justification for your belief that homosexuality is illogical? Or will you ignore the question that I have asked you once again, and insist on more answers from me instead?

Who are you to claim that anyone else's statements are a misrepresentation of the beliefs of the majority of christians? Who are you to claim to speak on anyone else's behalf besides your own? And why should your opinions be held in higher regard than those of anyone else?

Once again you have disappointed the studio audience by refusing to prove anything, speaking on others behalf, and dragging off-topic subjects into the discussion. I didn't think you would get to the Clenis Corollary to Godwin's Law so soon...

I think the more pertinent question would be: did you use the type of language that I have been using to describe the Giggling Murderer when you talked about the last legally elected president of the United States?

Maybe if you could find the time to answer questions, instead of resorting to tradtional christian inquisitional methods, this discussion could get somewhere. Otherwise it will only (hopefully) serve as an example of how to hold one's ground against religious, er, fervor.

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 23, 2005 08:11 AM

I will gladly answer your questions for a chance that you might answer mine.

1)I do deny that President Bush is abusing Christianity and I don't know enough about the others you speak about to have an opinion. I've actually never even heard of two of them.

2)I actually was ignoring the question about homosexuality because I've said all I need to say about it and we disagree. Nothing else I can say.

3) There are certain parts of Christian doctrine that are widely accepted. This is a fact. I don't hold my interpretation in a higher regard as you claim, but it is a more widely accepted view. This is a basic Christian belief.

4) No I did not use that type of language when referring to President Clinton because I respect the men who lead our country even if I disagree with them. Let me make a bold prediction here. President Bush doesn't deserve respect because he was elected (gasp) illegally. I know you are bitter but at least you could take a loss like a decent human being.

Are these satisfactory?

Posted by: Zach at June 23, 2005 09:42 AM

Not really. But it's better than your previous brushing aside of others' requests in favor of pursuing your own inquisitional questions:

1) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I cannot understand how any christian would be able to state that Bush does not abuse christianity with his talking points or his naked appeals to bring faith based theology into American law.

Which ones of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Fred Phelps are you unaware of? Phelps runs www dot godhatesfags dot com in case you want to look at the worst of the three. Robertson declared that he needed millions of dollars or else god would take him up to heaven. And Falwell said that 9-11 happened because America allowed homosexuals and adulterers (among others) to live. Oh yeah - and he just said that the church should work to defeat a politician.

I notice that you are still unable to condemn any of these people for their blasphemous use of religion in order to advance partisan political agendas. This makes me believe that you are only interested in punishing those who do not use religion to push the partisan political agenda in ways that you agree with, as opposed to being against any use of religion to advance any partisan agenda at all. Perhaps you could enlighten me in this regard?

2) You still haven't backed up this statement with factual evidence to support it. This is the entirety of the debate and you choose to refuse to discuss it. I guess we are done here, then...

3) There are certain parts of many doctrines that are widely accepted. What does that have to do with their accuracy, or whether they are true or not? Beliefs are not facts.

Many parts of Muslim belief are widely accepted. some of them are actually the law of the land in other parts of the world. Does that make it right to force everyone in the country to follow those religious beliefs regardless of their religion?

4) For the record: yes, I did use disparaging terminology to remark upon Clinton's breaking of his wedding vows. I also stated repeatedly that this was a private matter between him and his wife. Adultery is not a crime, and it's quite frankly no one else's business. It is considerably different than:

- engaging in a frivolous lawsuit in order to be awarded the presidency;

- lying to the American people on numerous occasions during state of the union addresses;

- using those lies to try and justify an illegal war based on fraudulent rationalizations;

- using the mechanism of government to try and justify torture of innocents, lack of due process, and violation of international laws;

- persecuting those who try and expose any of the deceit that these people have been engaging in since before they were illegally installed;

- stealing the designed Social Security overages in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy elite;

- gutting all of the oversight administration in place and staffing it with partisan political operatives;

- and a plethora of other illicit and immoral activity that is at least 50 times worse than anything that was done by any previous administration (including tricky Dick) which you won't believe anyways because it is in disagreement with your faith based sycophancy for the current junta.

If there would have been a loss I would be able to handle it. I am still skeptical that either of the last two federal elections were awarded to the actual winner, and I hypothecize that they were not won by the Republics either time. So far I have seen no evidence to contradict my hypothesis.

If you have nothing further to say, other than homosexuality is illogical because I (and the book that I believe in) say so, then we are in fact done here. My beliefs are none of your business and are not on trial here. It would be preferable if you could manage to leave your religious beliefs out a rational debate (as I have asked you to do repeatedly), but your inability to do so has provided me hours of entertainment. Let me know if you have any desire to pursue a logical discussion about any of these topics, otherwise thank you for your input and I hope you can live with the heresy you implicitly condone when you support pRezNit Never My Fault.

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 23, 2005 10:35 AM

"but your inability to do so has provided me hours of entertainment"

Same here.

Looks like we've closed 1,2, and 4. However let me explain #3 to you again. I never said that my belief is a fact nor did I say it is accurate as you continue to accuse me of. All I'm saying is if you are going to misrepresent what the majority of Christians believe, I'm going to call you on it. Nothing terrible or hurtful or wrong. Let me tell you again that this is a basic belief which was actually shared at the SBC.

"Which ones of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Fred Phelps are you unaware of?"

Way off topic but I have no objection to obliging. Falwell and Phelps.

"- lying to the American people on numerous occasions during state of the union addresses;"

I am however curious as to what you consider lies.

"- using the mechanism of government to try and justify torture of innocents, lack of due process, and violation of international laws;"

Congratulations on falling into the trap that the Islamic extremists have set.

"If there would have been a loss I would be able to handle it. I am still skeptical that either of the last two federal elections were awarded to the actual winner, and I hypothecize that they were not won by the Republics either time. So far I have seen no evidence to contradict my hypothesis."

Bitter, simply bitter.

Posted by: Zach at June 23, 2005 09:24 PM

Looks like you have kept your mind closed about most everythig and require some answers from me to salve your conscience. I would respectfully suggest you examine your own reflection when making the comments about bitterness, falling into traps and inability to make a ratinoal argument in a civilized debate. Your own lack of logic in your comments speaks more eloquently than anything I can add.

Thanks for the object lesson in religious tolerance (or lack thereof)...

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 23, 2005 09:47 PM

I am dissapointed in your unwillingnes to answer my questions even though I obliged you. Maybe your hidings something?

And what were your feelings on question 3? Did you understand my explanation?

"Thanks for the object lesson in religious tolerance (or lack thereof)..."

I guess you are just not going to get it despite my reiteration time after time after time.

Posted by: Zach at June 23, 2005 10:10 PM

But you never obliged me. You made no answer to any of the arguments I made, all the while talking of imagined offenses to your religious sensibilities. And all the while maintaining that homosexuality is illogical while refusing to rationally justify your logic.

You made no answer to any of the questions and comments I gave you, all the while demanding that I provide replies to your satisfaction. It is your unwillingness to engage in ratinoal debate that is the main diificulty here.

I get it all too well. It's the same old song that the religiously insane have been singing since civilization began.

No matter how often you sing that warped tune, it will not make sense. I'm sorry you are offended by hearing the truth about what you believe in.

Please take your incessant drone to other more receptive ears. It is nothing that we haven't heard over and over and over again from mindless brutes even when they shold be more than aware that their brainless prattle is no longer welcome. Buh-bye!

Posted by: (: Tom :) at June 23, 2005 10:42 PM