Don Lemon, CNN's Gay-vangelist: Opines That Literal Bible Reading is 'Naive' and 'Dangerous'
Promoted in the top left of CNN's Belief blog is an article by openly gay CNN anchor Don Lemon on "How I Learned to Stop 'Praying Away the Gay.'" Lemon spent this childhood praying for God to change his sexuality, but then he went to college and "common sense began to take hold and I realized that no amount of prayer would change me into something that wasn't natural to me." He "learned" that the Bible should never be taken literally:
As I got older I began to realize that all these people and institutions interpreted the Bible somewhat differently. I had a sort of epiphany: the Bible was about the lessons you learned, not about the events or words.
When I became old enough, intelligent enough and logical enough to discern the difference between metaphor and reality, everything changed. I realized that Jonah living in the belly of a whale was a parable written in the same vein as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. saying that he had "been to the mountaintop."
Neither Jonah nor King had actually been to those places. They were metaphors for lessons for those of us who cared to absorb them.
So many of us, especially in the black community and in churches, tend to think that religious teachings happened word for word as they were written in Scripture. I think that's naïve, even dangerous.
That type of thinking - or non-thinking - keeps many religious people enslaved to beliefs that they haven't truly stepped back from and examined.
That type of thinking causes people who are otherwise good to shun and ostracize young gay people.
It causes people to want to control and change people who aren't like them. And who wants to be like someone else?
It naturally follows that Lemon compared gay acceptance to slavery, segregation and female suffrage:
Imagine if we had allowed Christian doctrines and teachings that supported slavery, segregation and the subjugation of women to pervade our society all the way up until the current moment. What kind of world would that be?
Instead, we got on our knees, just as I did as a little boy, and prayed that slavery, segregation and the subjugation of women would end. In the United States, at least, those prayers have largely been realized.
I'm no longer the member of any church but I do believe in a higher power.
It's time for us, especially black people, to stop trying to pray the gay away and to get on our knees and start praying that the discrimination of gay people ends.
What we're doing to our young gay people now is child abuse. It's plain old bigotry and hatred. And if African-Americans don't know what that feels like in America, I don't know who does.
# # #
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What's this idiot going to do
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 10:37pm.
What's this idiot going to do if Sharia law passes here? Those people EXECUTE gays, and he's worried about Christians? Maybe it would be in HIS best interest if he not cheer-lead for the left that supports Islam?
Iran's leader
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 10:49pm.
he should watch that video of Ahadinnerjacket when he visited that university(Columbia U if I remember right?) when the question was posed to him about the absence of gays or whatever that question was, and he replies saying they don't have this "phenomenon" of gay people in Iraq. Well, of course not, they practice Sharia and they kill gays.
-Jon
"What's this idiot going to
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:09pm.
"What's this idiot going to do if Sharia law passes here?"
A question with an equally likely premise: What will he do if aliens bent on planetary destruction land tomorrow?
(And to point out a big, obvious fact, Sharia law--the product of right-wing Islamists--is about as beloved by the left as cancer.)
Be careful...Sharia law
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:57pm.
Be careful...Sharia law already has a toehold in Dearbornistan, MI.
STOP REPEATING OTHER PEOPLE'S SUBJECT LINES, DUMMY
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:01pm.
It's almost as annoying as the content of your posts.
"...right-wing Islamists?"
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:20pm.
LOL - Sorry, but no such animal exists except in the minds of those who have been brain-washed into believing Hitler was a right winger.
And for a bunch of people who claim to hate Sharia law, libs sure are enthralled with the backward, illiterate primitives that brought it about.
Sharia law is Islam.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Wrong Word
Submitted by ELCore on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 10:49pm.
Lemon's diction is incorrect: instead of epiphany he should have said lobotomy. Considering the business he's in and where he works, though, I can easily understand why he'd confuse the two.
literal Bible interpretation
Submitted by Demonhunter on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 10:55pm.
Clearly Don Lemon is neither a deep thinker, nor a serious reader of the Bible. A "literal" reading of what is main and plain in the Bible does not "support" slavery, segregation and the subjugation of women. It is in fact Lemon's preferred method of reading into the Bible as metaphor that produces such stupid ideas. He might be enlightened if he learned to read and think about Bible passages in context. Out of context, the Bible can say anything; it says, "there is no god" in a couple of places.
He might also learn that Christ does not want us "to want to control and change people who aren't like them (us)." It is about God and us changing ourselves to be more like Christ.
Why oh why do so many morons like Lemon read half the Bible and then think they are experts who have found some profound truth that nobody else noticed in nearly 2,000 years?
Thanks for...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:25am.
saving me a lot of typing.
Cowboy
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:28pm.
I've been taught all my life that the Bible was spiritually written so it had to be spiritually discerned. I believe that. If it not the Holy Spirit teaching us then who is it? I vote for the Prince of Darkness. That is where this idiot is getting his interpretation. Satan knows the Bible from cover to cover to be the truth. It is his job to mislead.
→ No, Lemon
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 11:12pm.
What bothers you is the down-low.
Interpretation ?
Submitted by xraynova on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 11:27pm.
Lemon: "So many of us, especially in the black community and in churches, tend to think that religious teachings happened word for word as they were written in Scripture. I think that's naïve, even dangerous"
Christians I know, insist on a contextual-literal interpretation of Scripture... the meaning is based on who said what, when and where, and for what reason. There is no honest contextual way to misinterpret the statements about the perversion of homosexuality written in the New Testament.
II Tim. 3:16 (NIV): All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I Cor. 2:14 (NIV) : The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
[my emphasis]
Homophobia is an irrational
Submitted by Giygas on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:22am.
Homophobia is an irrational bronze age fear that we should have long conquered.
Ignorance of human psychiatry and how nature functions led nomadic tribesman to create fables to make sense of these gaps in their knowledge in ancient times. Homophobia was one such article of faith made up to enforce the order that tribesman believed was the will of a deity. Today we use the scientific method to investigate the natural world and provide the answers that only our dogma could answer. Modern science has concluded time after time that homosexuality is a natural occurring sexual orientation, and it's not a choice, but rather, an intrinsic component of a human's personality that cannot be changed.
We're now in the 21st century and we still believe in these hate-mongering bronze age myths. The whole idea that homosexuality is an abomination encourages bigotry, hatred, and hostility.
The latest gallup poll found that the acceptance of gay marriage in America has crossed the 50% threshold, continuing the decades long upward trend. The poll also found that the largest increase in the acceptance of gay marriage was in people under the age of 50, indicating that the acceptance of gay marriage will go much higher as the baby boomers grow old and die over the next few decades.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx
So, the homophobes have already lost their unscrupulous war against gays and individual liberty. Enjoy the illegality of same sex marriage while it lasts!
Choices
Submitted by xraynova on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:36am.
"The latest gallup poll found that the acceptance of gay marriage in America has crossed the 50% threshold, continuing the decades long upward trend. The poll also found that the largest increase in the acceptance of gay marriage was in people under the age of 50, indicating that the acceptance of gay marriage will go much higher as the baby boomers grow old and die over the next few decades."
hmmm... what to accept... Gallup Poll, or God's Word... Gallup Poll, or God's Word. I'll stay with the latter.
gays making inroads in their attempt at re-definition of "marriage," does not make it right. The same goes for the gay effort at re-defining the meaning of "phobia." Denigration of the opposing point of view (i.e., the one supported by the Bible) does not constitute a justification for such re-definitions.
For liberals, there's no such
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:55am.
For liberals, there's no such thing as right or moral. It's about what's "legal." Once something is legal, you have no right to be opposed to it.
They did the same thing with abortion. Failing to convince people that it was a good thing, they fought to have it made legal. We see where that led. Their only argument for abortion now is It's a woman's right, and it's legal, so shut up!
horsecrap
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 8:47am.
For liberals, there's no such thing as right or moral.
For conservatives, there's no such thing as a functioning brain.
Har Har Har
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 8:51am.
What a zinger that was. That's all your functioning brain could produce?
Yeah, well
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 8:52am.
It's clear both you and the poster above suffer from delivery room lobotomies.
Oh yeah, well...
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 8:57am.
my dad can beat up your dad. Try again.
OKay
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:19am.
Where do you believe we find our roots of moralism? If you say the Bible and/or Christianity you're making a false claim.
Ask motherbelt
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:04am.
I was simply mocking your attack of what you believe to be a ridiculous comment with...an even more ridiculous comment.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:21pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:20pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:21pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Bought "modern" science with an agenda.
Submitted by Talentonloan2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:13am.
There is no condition as "homophobia". It is entirely a word created by the gays to be used as a derogatory term for those who do not condone or agree with the gay lifestyle. It is used and said with the same spirit and intent to degrade as the homosexuals claim the "f" word is. Throwing the "phobia" tag on there makes it seem as if there is a "scientific" basis of inter "fear" that people who find homosexuallity immoral must possess. Newton said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where is the word "straightophobe" or "normalphobe" ? There has not yet been one shred of undisputed "proof" in "modern" science that someone is born gay. Only theory. And if so, then why isn't possible that someone can be born "anti-gay" ? That the possibility of that feelling is not a choice? Does that only work one way ?
If you think we have a problem, Giygas....
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 7:23am.
...you should really talk to the Muslims. As jon_torlin mentioned above, there are no homosexuals in Iran.
I suppose if we ever legalize homosexual marriage, it will be one more reason for Muslims to hate us, proof of our immorality.
Sorry, Gasbag, but homophobia is hardwired into all species.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 8:34am.
This is a very simple concept, really.
See, biologically speaking, all species, including humans, are hardwired at the cellular level to want their species to survive, and accepting an aberrant nonreproductive (AKA biologically unproductive) segment of the population is overall, antithetical to the survival of said species.
This is why homosexuality has always been described as "against nature." This cannot be legislated. Now while certain ancient civilizations tolerated homos to varying degrees, all ultimately collapsed.
Now, on the other hand, if nature had decided to include a mechanism whereby male-male or female-female pairings COULD reproduce, that would be different. Unfortunately, nature decided that only a few odd spores and plants would be capable of that.
And that, Gasbag, is the science behind hoho-homophobio. I hope this lesson has been an eye-opener for you.
Now I think I know why Giygas
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:17pm.
Now I think I know why Giygas hates Sarah Palin so much. Maybe his boyfriend saw her and "switched teams" ?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
yawn
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:11pm.
After one sifts through all the Alinsky tactics of using ridicule to marginalize the opposition, the few rational arguments contained in the above post have been debunked here on NB time and time again.
Clearly, this troll-bot has swallowed the decades-long propaganda campaign controlled by elites in media and in our "unparalleled" public education system, and is well "assimilated." Good for her!
Unfortunately for her, and her ilk, others here, on independent rational grounds, beg to differ. And they despise it.
Homosexuality as irrational
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:36pm.
The incontrovertible fact is that the human body was not designed for gay sex. Particularly of the male variety. It does great harm to the body, thus it is not healthy, and since evolution promotes continuation of the species, on many levels, it is not a bronze age myth to deem it harmful. And from a scientific viewpoint, it does nothing to perpetuate the species, indeed it moves in the opposite direction, it is scientifically an aberration.
Promoting something as good because it is popular does not make something good. Didn't your mother ever ask you if you would jump off a cliff if everyone else did?
Giygas = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:59pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Lemon's Law
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 7:33am.
I guess Donny also chooses not to take Proverbs 3:5 in the literal when it says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on you own understanding."
Typical response from a non-believer
Submitted by iamsaved on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 8:41am.
Non-believers will do all they can to justify their sin, even to the extent of denying the diety of Jesus. To believe in Him means they are no longer the gods they think they are and may have to discontinue their sinful ways.
Homosexuality is just one of many sexual sins but was important enough for it to be called an abomination in God's eyes. The gay agenda is nothing but a satanic effort to make sin acceptable. Satan knows that the foundation of any society is the family. He's been on a long crusade in this country to destroy it whether its by homosexuality, feminism, divorce laws, removing any vestige of Christianity from the public square. And, the lost are more than willing to accomodate.
All people sin. The difference between homosexuals and those who commit the "other" sins is they are demanding that everyone find it acceptable and condone their behavior. Most people hide their sin because they know it to be exactly what God calls it. It used to be called shameful.
I guess one could say that pedophiles could unite and start a campaign to have everyone believe it's not so bad. The same for adulterers and any of the others. Then demand the same rights homosexuals are starting to get.
Homosexuality is an abomination and has been considered such for thousands of years. I'm sorry, but modern day man has not become so intelligent and advanced that they know better then our ancestors. Sin is sin. All the theorizing and pontificating isn't going to change that truth.
To the politically correct crowd, go jump in a lake.
Most of the bible is based
Submitted by Giygas on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:00pm.
Most of the bible is based hearsay passed down by nomads. Who says that the bible is the "word of God"? Anyone could have made that claim and had their followers pass it down generation after generation until it became accepted as gospel.
If the bible really is written by God, then why are so many passages in the book false. There was no Garden of Eden, we can trace our ancestry back to east Africa. The universe wasn't created in seven days 6,000 years ago; we can observe galaxies that are so far away that it has taken their light billions of years to reach us.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870420680457546792160902424...
There was no great global flood, geologists have dug and drilled through billons of years worth of rock and the evidence of such a flood just is not there.
Non-believers are not necessarily immoral please watch this video and open your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM
Gyggles
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:03pm.
I must have missed the part about the universe being only 6,000 years old.
~It doesn't seem to occur to these geniuses
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:11pm.
That God didn't have to flood a very large percentage of the earth to wipe out all the humans of the era.
→ Or
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:25pm.
That time, as humans measure it, did not exist until the 4th day.
Gyggles is into self-justification of his homosexuality. Thinks it's perfectly natural to enter at the exit.
Do not get the impression
Submitted by Giygas on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:35am.
Do not get the impression that I am gay. I"m a heterosexual who believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry the person they love.
Homosexuals like people of the opposite sex?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:26pm.
You got cold busted lying to us last week? You now think you have some little shred of respect here? Shut up and go away.
You
Are
A
Liar.
No little petulant child. You can't have any candy. Nor can you marry your butt buddy.
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Ha Ha. We win. GayGas loses again
GiyGas shows up on the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:52pm.
GiyGas shows up on the weekends. Perhaps the asylumn has a weekend release program . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Giygas = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:16pm.
Do not feed the trolls. Giygas knows not of what he writes.
More nonsense
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
"Most of the bible is based hearsay passed down by nomads. Who says that the bible is the "word of God"? Anyone could have made that claim and had their followers pass it down generation after generation until it became accepted as gospel."
Actually, "most of the Bible" was written either in the period of the kings or 20 years or so after Christ's death; no nomads involved. But you are willing to swallow any swill that would allow you to justify your sin.
It's the word of God because of fulfilled prophecy. Hundreds of years before Christ's death, both the time and nature of his execution were predicted. The method used did not even exist when it was written about, and that specific form of crucifixion was only used for a few years.
BTW, there is much evidence for the flood, but fools like you ignore it and/or try to explain it as something else. The ongoing dishonesty of those trying to sell Darwinism is very similar to the AGW dishonesty.
It takes a flat-earther like
Submitted by Giygas on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:53am.
It takes a flat-earther like you to deny both evolution and anthropogenic global warming. There is no debate in scientific literature over the validity of evolution; there is a universal consensus. Evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics, and the evidence is all 360 degrees consistent with each other.
This study found that the reason why so many people deny evolution is because of death anxiety.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110330192201.htmno
Are you seriously putting
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:30am.
Are you seriously putting forward the erroneous notion that science progresses by "consensus."
I suggest you read Karl Popper and you might pick up something about the actual scientific method, hint: science progresses by attempted falsification not by consensus of the majority..
You could not be more misinformed.
In addition, you are extremely one dimensional. You DO understand that it is possible to accept the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin's On The Origin of the Species...
That one can accept the Earth is not 6000 years old (though I personally know of no Christian who believes that.)
....That the dinosaurs lived 60 million years ago -- and THAT the Earth's climate has changed relentlessly over 4 billion years, and that man has nothing to do with it.
That this hypothesis is a perversion of science by politics? That so-called manmade global warming is not a true scientific "theory" but a political nostrum.
(One way we know that it is junk science, is because it is not open to falsification. Every climatic event -- from one end of a scale to another, heat. cold, wet, dry, windy, not windy -- is explained by one idea: manmade global warming. That's what makes it non-science, no matter how many people claiming to be scientists consensus around it.)
You do understand that simple point, right? I guess you don't.
You might also understand the the Nazis (a very scientific bunch, I think you will agree) also used science a lot. For instance, they constructed and launched Ballistic Missiles (before anyone else), they ran a nuclear bomb program (not to fruition, thank God)
...and they also used science to prove that Jews were sub-humans who could be exterminated with impunity.
You see, lots of people claim that they have science on their side. Especially when they have political power.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Unless your a scientist
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:34am.
With an emphasis in climate science your opinion makes no difference.
Scientists overwhelmingly believe in Global Warming. They're the experts.
Believing in "global warming"
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:42am.
Believing in "global warming" is like believing in "hurricanes" or "rain."
So what?
The earth may, or it may not be warming, cooling or remaining the same at the present. Whatever, it has nothing to do with us, mankind.
Shove it up your arse, you tedious drone.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Unless you're a biologist or doctor...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:45am.
you can't comment on homosexuality because they are the experts. Unless you're in the military, you can't comment on gays in the military because they're the experts.
Interesting philosophy there Hunter. I'm not going to ask you're qualified to comment on, because I have a feeling it would be to explicit for me.
Just stand tall
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:28am.
Stick to your guns. You know more than the scientists.
Yes. Hunter S. LIES AGAIN. 77 self selected scientists.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:57am.
LIAR.
The phrase “97 percent of the world's climate scientists” sounds very dramatic and overwhelming, but the truth is somewhat different. According to the figures presented in the paper, 90% of the scientists were from the US, including federal and state bodies, 6% from Canada and 4% from 21 countries around the world
We are also told that only 5% of the original sample responses were climate scientists, so if we pragmatically apply those proportions we end up with just 141 from the US, 9 from Canada and just 6 from 21 countries around the world, hardly a global consensus.
We find that they originally contacted 10,257 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded, less than a 31% response rate. “Impending Planetary Doom” was obviously not uppermost in the minds of over two thirds of their target population. Of that number, only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduce that by half by only counting those who they classed as “specialists”.
It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.
2.38% LIAR.
good source for fools
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:35am.
You think a right-wing website with a mission of disproving global warming has any validity in real world practice? Next time you call someone a liar you need to back it up, kiddo. This kind of sourcing is little more than an opinion piece. The pdf offered no quotes from actual scientists, no working links, and only the wording "It was roundly de-bunked at the time by several commentators " to disprove the facts of the links I presented. Commentators? Your a commentator. I guess you just disproved global warming all by yourself.
You think we are having a conversation Dead Zippers?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:55am.
I proved you LIED by bringing a completely discredited study that sent a questionaire to 10,000 scientists then discarded more than 3000 actual returns to sqeeze out just 77 out of the total. Then has the gall to claim 97% of scientists agree.
You then have the gall to claim it is valid years after it has been completely debunked.
I am not here to have a conversation with you. I am here to show everyone you lied.
And that I did.
Now piss off.
you have no source
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:19am.
You linked me to blogs and opinion pieces by "commentators" on right wing anti-science websites.
What is dead zippers mean?? No I'm not having a conversation with you obviously because I'm the only so far to bring anything to the table. As far as I'm concerned your not worth the time because your proof seems to be only opinion. And that hasn't exactly worked our so well so far in your favor, now has it?
I don't care.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:31am.
Prove you lied. Proved your study was a bogus lie. Now piss off like I told you.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:21pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:19pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:54pm.
Well, at least I know I'm honest, can't say that for the scientists. Which you didn't disprove by the way.
And I also know more than you do, so I'm good.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:25pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter is serving up Liberal Smores today:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:00am.
Gay Rights PLUS Global Warming in one delicious treat. Yummy.
Be careful not to bite off more than you can chew.
→ There must be a connection, SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:21am.
Maybe gay sex causes methane release?
But seriously, SOL. Mentioning smores and gay rights in the same post is a bad visual.
Soon as a Palin thread shows up
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:23am.
I'll start dissing her too.
→ Of course you will
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:05pm.
Your disaffection for women is a known.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:26pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. LIES RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:23am.
Your bogus linked study was debunked long ago. YOU LIE.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.
What part of self-selected confuses your tiny brain?
Another troll blows any credibility he has right out of the water by lying to our faces.
Speaking of lies
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:25am.
Your link is made up.
The Vet's links are never made up
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:28am.
Sometimes the "link" function goes out of whack.
No worries, libtroll.....Vet will soon re-post the link that refutes your stupidity.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
i may be stupid
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:44am.
But at least my links work.
→ Big Deal, Hunter
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:03pm.
But according to your posts, your "links" don't function quite in the manner intended by creation.
You should have stopped after the Subject Header
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:11pm.
That's the only thing we need to know from you.
I don't want to hear about your links.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Oh look
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:29pm.
I used the functioning brain I supposedly don't have and found The Vet's source.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:26pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
You got me Blonde. The link should be true.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:19pm.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.
You copy out the shortcut. They are both the same.
Yes GayAss, a broken link magically turns your every lie into the truth. That is how the internet commenting works. Boy we learn something every day.
well done sir!!!!!!!
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 9:44am.
You replaced a broken link with a blog from hockeyschtick. LMAO!!!!!!!! Did you write that blog yourself????
In other words...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:25am.
Hunter has no logical argument to refute The Vet's link with. So very unimpressive Hunter.
The link is an opinion piece
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:40am.
The Vet is obviously not an internet vet or he would have provided a link with a valid argument. Don't waste my time.
I've got news for you,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:52am.
GW is opinion, based on falsified data.
BTW, you obviously didn't read the link.
where did you read that?
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:54am.
Newsbusters? LMAO
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:23pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Well Hunter
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:32am.
If you are "LMAO" your brain is in your @ss because you don't argue anything, you just deny, deny, deny. When you pull your head out look around, the world is a beautiful place.
Still LYING. Hurts beings smacked upside the head with the truth
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 11:29am.
Yo, Dead Zippers idiot. You think a bogus study will only be noticed by 2 people? You lied. You got busted. Live with it.
Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed.
Self-selection here more likely refers to the act of getting one’s name on to one of the lists from which the database was constructed. In the ordinary course of events what sample surveys try to do is give everyone in a given population – here, the population of (North American) earth scientists – an equal chance of being approached.
Whoops. Send out a survey to 10,000 people that already are on a list of scientist that buy into the AGW myth. Then let idiot internet commenters continue to spread it for years.
While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.
It was roundly de-bunked at the time by several commentators and it would have been forgotten and consigned to its proper place in the dustbin, if it hadn’t been continually quoted by activists as fact.
That is you idiot.
We openly acknowledge in the paper that this is a “credibility” study and only captures those researchers who have expressed their opinions explicitly by signing letters/petitions or by signing their names as authors of the IPCC AR4 WGI report.
Let's see. Speak out in favor if AGW. Then answer a questionnaire asking if you favor AGW. Surprise. 97%. I sent a questionnaire to 100 owners of Betamax machines and asked them if VHS sucks. Surprise. 97% of people believe VHS sucks.
You LIE. Again.
Do you think you are the only one reading this? Idiot.
I'm still waiting on some depth to your answers
Submitted by Hunter S. on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:46am.
Still waiting. I'm like the energizer bunny except I'm not still going, I'm still waiting. Waiting for you to come up with an actual argument against the fact that the majority of climate scientists support global warming theory. Dead links, made up links, blogs...........what are you going to quote next? a report from Newsbusters??LOL If you're skills got any worse they'd banish you to townhall.
Hunter
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 9:32am.
You obviously have the brains of the energizer bunny too, since you just keep sticking in your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la", as you spin in circles.
Try that over at Dos Kos. We don't play those games here.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:22pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 3:22pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:26pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:24pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
"That this is false
Submitted by Giygas on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:51am.
"That this is false proposition is a perversion of science by politics? That so-called manmade global warming is not a scientific theory but a political nostrum."
The science of man-made global warming dates back to the 1850s when carbon dioxide was found to be a greenhouse and that changes in the concentration change the climate. Carbon dioxide is transparent to incoming solar radiation, but it absorbs outgoing infrared radiation from the earth. Hence, if the amount in the atmosphere increases, a larger portion of the outgoing infrared will be absorbed, and global temperatures will be obliged by the laws of physics to rise. The physics of this is as real as gravity.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
If our understanding of radiative physics is wrong, then could the "skeptics" please publish the alternative theory in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, instead of publishing exclusively on blogs and opinion sections of newspapers. In the process of refuting the warming effect of CO2, you would overturn over 100 years of physics and chemistry, and win a nobel prize for your science. The incentive is there.
The complete lack of credible research by the skeptics points to a complete inability to successfully argue their case in scientific circles. If the science is as flawed as you say it is, why haven't the deniers used all of the funding they receive from the fossil fuel industry to formulate their own scientific research to debunk the conventional wisdom. Instead, they use their corporate funding to unscientifically attack the science of other climatologists and confuse the public.
The theory of man-made global warming is a sound scientific theory, but denial is a political nostrum.
Utter shite.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:05am.
Utter shite.
But who cares what a SCIENCE DENIER witch burner like you thinks. Your farrago of flotssum is full of one lie after another.
Get it through your thick skull that CONSENSUS is not a science. And that a so-called "theory" -- not that it even rises to theory -- which explains opposite outcomes is NOT science. It's a religion.
As we all know, by a factor millions, the predominant "global warming" gas is WATER vapor. Thank God, else we would be frozen.
So do your bit science denier, THROW AWAY YOUR KETTLE and drink cold coffee.
also, read Popper, then come back, Until then, stick your unscientific crap-trap up your arse. You read like some sort of Nazi.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
The denialists' motivations
Submitted by Giygas on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:51am.
The denialists' motivations behind all of the conspiracy theories against climate science, the hostility towards real climate scientists, and the denial of evidence can all be traced back to this line of reasoning:
1) I dislike 'big government', 'environmentalists', and 'liberals'
2) Carbon regulation is a 'big government' solution supported by 'environmentalists' and 'liberals'
3) Therefore I oppose carbon regulation
4) But if humans are causing dangerous global warming, I can't oppose carbon regulation
5) Therefore humans aren't causing dangerous global warming
Denialists don't care about using consistent scientific arguments against climate science, they'll use any argument they can possibly find, even if one argument is mutually inconsistent with the other argument.
How about falsified data?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:51am.
Scientists have been falsifying data to prove their claims,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1314806/Global-warming-...
http://www.darrelldumas.com/united%20nations%20falsified%20global%20warm...
→ Well, besides that
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:56am.
Those pesky fabrications again?
It's getting to where the UN can't impose a tax on thinking Americans without proving a basis.
Sheesh!
You're a real science denier
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:35pm.
You're a real science denier peddling junk science and cultish pseudo-religion.
Read Karl Popper, and try to get an actual understanding of the scientific method.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
GayGas LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:25am.
The CO2 currently in the atmosphere is already converting all that can be converted. Adding more does next to nothing. Unless the already converted outgoing radiation can somehow be lit on fire by adding more CO2.
YOU LIE AGAIN.
→ GayGas hates trees
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:03pm.
GayGas wants to starve trees and plants of their basic nutrient, carbon dioxide.
Coming up next? GayGas condemns an even greater greenhouse gas - water vapor.
Humongous clouds of this demonstrably lethal chemical rise into the atmosphere daily, and literally rain down on life forms around the world, changing the behavior of these life forms dramatically, even killing some.
The Gasbag only speaks for the Truffula Trees.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:50pm.
The other trees can go scratch.
How many times to I have to debunk this idiot?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:48pm.
Giygas LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:55am.
The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.
Screw you retread lying troll. Go back to troll hell.
Most of the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed.
Ten beams of longwave radiation coming in, 10 CO2 molecules to absorb them. WHAT WILL THE ELEVENTH CO2 MOLECULE DO?
Until I see it! Thanks Vet.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 1:41pm.
Until I see it! Thanks Vet.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
genetics
Submitted by Demonhunter on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:50am.
To take just one of your specious claims, re:genetics. Please explain why commonality in DNA between a chimpanzee and a human is evidence for common origin, but not evidence of a common designer. That is one of many so-called proofs of evolution that is ignored as proof of intelligent design. And, it is ignored solely because evolutionists cling to their failed religion.
I suggest you also consider recent developments in microbiology which show how complex and rooted in DNA linked manufacturing the processes are at the cell level.
As to AGW, the jig was up with Climate-gate, but people like you choose to ignore evidence that proves you are wrong. Yes, I saw at least 100 articles claiming "trick" was just a euphemism for "clever proof". All that was missing was one article explaining which clever proof it referred to and what "decline" it was hiding.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Giygas = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:23pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Since no one will read this,
Submitted by 4eyes50 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:06am.
I'll just get this off my chest. Mr. Lemon is typical of every gay activist out there: God didn't mean everything He said, He didn't say it, men did or it's just a parable. In Leviticus 18:22, God gave his definition of homosexual behavior: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable." Written under the Sinaitic covenant, it describes the physical act that is abhorred by God. Jesus went further. In the book of Mark He says this: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality...All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'."
Homosexuals always quote John 13:34, "A new command I give you: Love one another," thinking that He is giving them a pass to continue in their abberant behavior. Well, I hope one of them reads this and actually takes something away from it.
I have struggled with this my entire life, and after several suicide attempts and many counselling sessions, I finally found someone who was able to make sense of this matter. You can be predisposed to homosexual tendencies, yet not be a homosexual and still be a Christian. "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the Kingdom of God." What he made me see was that those who were actively pursuing these sins and living the lifestyle were the ones who were in danger of damnation.
I can't change the way I am or the way I feel - I know I wll never marry and I know that I wll be single all of my life. I don't act on my tendencies, nor do I actively seek out other homosexual men to hang out with. The only reason I "came out" to my family is that as I got older and still had no wife, I was running out of excuses. When I signed up for this blog, I was honest about myself so that the operator could make a decision about my membership without deception. I won't bring this subject up again, for I do not like to wear my "homo-ness" on my sleeve.
I just want to go on record as saying that gay marriage is a farce. I think gay rights are a shame - I believe in the rights of every individual as outlined in the Constitution.
Sorry for taking up so much space, but I felt it had to be said.
... and well said, 4eyes50.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:33am.
Very well said. Thanks for adding your insight to this blog.
As for Lemon, gay or straight, he is an idiot.
You Have It Correct!
Submitted by iamsaved on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:53pm.
No need to apologize. Your comments are spot on. All humans are sinners. Most don't try and convince the world that their sin is actually good, healthy and clean as the gay agenda is doing. If they ever have a personal encounter with the living God, there will be a time of repentence and will "go and sin no more".
Simply put: Lemon is clueless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:22am.
Simply put: Lemon is clueless about the Bible and what God reveals in the whole of Scripture.
4eyes, Thanks. Finally,
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:23am.
4eyes, Thanks. Finally, someone who gets it. God does not hate gays, he hates the behaviors. But...he hates that no more than adultery, and other immoral behaviors.
And we all fall way short of God's expectations in one way or more.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
"we got on our knees, just as I did as a little boy"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 9:34am.
Sounds like Donny Boy started training early in life.
Reminds me of a anthropology class
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:43am.
in college many years ago. The prof started his sermon about how prehistoric man was fine with homosexuality before Christianity and those intolerant bigots ruined everything. He even went into a fantasical speech about how homosexuals were a special part of the tribal make up of ancient man. Get this...They could hunt with the men then cook and gossip with the women telling them which man would make the best mate (I KID YOU NOT!). A guy in the class raised his hand and asked for the recorded data on this phemonenal acceptance of prehistoric man and the prof arrogantly replied that we know this happened because hommosexuality was completely accepted in every culture up to the advent of Christianity. Five of us got up, walked out and dropped his class that day.
The sad thing
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:01am.
is that only five of you walked out, Mike.
The rest decided to put up with him
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 4:19pm.
and get an A by regurgitating his liberal crap back to him. Unfortunately, I've had to do the same thing in some other classes in college because I needed the grade. It's sad our colleges have become plagued with morons posing as educators.
And this is the saddest part of all....this happened in a well known university in Mississippi, the buckle of the Bible Belt! This shows you how far things have really gotten in liberals corrupting institutions of higher learning.
Which university? I graduated
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 4:43pm.
Which university? I graduated from one of them.
Southern Miss
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:22am.
in the late 90's. I went back to college in my twenties after I worked and saw the world a little. I went back a staunch conservative but I learned very quickly that if you don't tote the liberal line with these closed minded, mentally isolated profs then you will be lucky to get a C out of the class. I had only one prof that was out of the closet as a conservative on campus and she caught Hell a lot from her peers!
holy moly
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:30am.
Did you just call liberals close-minded? You know what liberal means, right?
Somebody want to handle this one?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:36am.
I'm worn out.
I would help but I'm afraid it's too late
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:39am.
Is it because you opened up your dictionary and discovered liberal actually means "open minded?"
Liberal definition versus tag
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:46am.
Remember the woman who calls herself a man who had a baby? She called herself a man, but her anatomy was female, uterus, ovaries, etc. So although she and the media called her a man, she really wasn't.
Calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal. It usually makes the person rigid and inflexible on many many issues, including abortion and Kennedy worship.
Not really following your explanation
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:54am.
What does a man who thinks he's a woman have to do with liberal thought? Okay, maybe that's REALLY LIBERAL THOUGHT. A man who thinks he's a woman is still a man.
But now I guess you've got a dictionary comprehension issue as well.
I'll make it easy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:07am.
Calling yourself a man doesn't give you the anatomical attributes of a man. Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you open minded.
How philosophical!
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:10am.
So in your world liberal means conservative, conservative means liberal, and your the best and I'm the worst. Did I get that right?
Hunter
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:39am.
Project much?
I didn't say any of that. All I said was claiming to be liberal does NOT mean you are "open-minded". But you knew that didn't you?
They why bother?
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:56am.
Why do you suppose you refer to liberals as liberals?
For the same reason I refer to democrats
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:48am.
as such, instead of as demorats. Sheer politeness. Also, "people bent on destroying our country by giving it to those who choose not to work and contribute" is to long. For the same reason I refer to muslims as such instead of as "fifth century sexist savages with no brains."
Well Hunter,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:31am.
maybe we refer to close-minded liberals, because they are? Just a hunch, but go pick any topic on any page, and I'm sure you'll get educated on "close-minded" libs.
Never mind, you're a lib, you can't be educated.
And for further explanation, see liberalsarefunny's comment down thread.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:30pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:27pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:29pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Liberal doesn't mean what you
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:52am.
Liberal doesn't mean what you think it means.
Just because American leftists decided to co-opt the term century ago and pervert its meaning.
Leftists are not liberal in the classical sense. They are libertines. Libertine socialists ususally. Look up the word.
But the term "liberal" has become a handy one-size-fits-al tool for conservatives, like me, to beat down leftists. And make it a term of easy abuse.
Shame really because the real liberals like Adam Smith are probably turning in their graves.
The same with "progressive" -- it's not possible to be a progressive based on political theories at least 200 years old originally put forth by dead white European men with bushy beards.
Reactionary is the correct term for so-called "progressives."
Progressive rock sucks to.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Captain Jack
Submitted by Hunter S. on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:16am.
I actually agree with you. At least your last sentence. Okay only your last sentence.
Using a definition of liberal to mean one who is open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values, what is anti-liberal in regard to the following:
Same sex marriage
Atheism
Alternative Energy Resources
Multicultural populations
Innovation over tradition
two cents
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:36am.
Same sex marriage - Done without involvement of the federal government and properly through state legislation then it doesn't concern me - though I will note that many companies and programs will need time to adapt. One thing about this always has bothered me though - of the several gays couples and singles I knew, none of them wanted to get married, EVER! They even used to joke that it was the biggest advantage of being gay.
Atheism - don't look now but there a lot of atheistic/agnostic conservatives who recognize the validity of being founded on principals of Christianity and Judaism. While not mainstream we have certainly not been cast out. However, I have been cast out from liberals for talking about statistic realities and the need for personal responsibility and acceptance.
Alternative Energy Resources - (False liberal argument) conservatives are not against alternative energy resources but conservatives want to use them responsibly and in such a way society is not damaged by over reaching and infrastructure is lost or neglected.
Multicultural populations - (False liberal argument) Conservatives are not against multicultural populations as long as the primary identification of the population is American and legal.
Innovation over tradition - it is not either/or - you can have both.
Hunter S. = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:27pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
My brother graduated from USM
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:28pm.
My brother graduated from USM and both my brother and my sister-in-law received their master's at USM.
I was smarter...I chose MSU. ;-)
GO DAWGS!!!!
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:33pm.
I've been a Bulldog fan all my life! It just so happened my fiance had some old boyfriends at State and that would have been a very bad idea to go there at the time!
Hey Dawg
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:41pm.
I have just one thing to say to you.
GO GATORS!!!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
LOL!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:45pm.
LOL!
So Beuke
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 2:56pm.
What color do you wear to the WLOCP (world's largest outdoor cocktail party for those who are not in the SEC)?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well it's with literal Bible
Submitted by wiwf on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:19am.
Well it's with literal Bible teaching that we get people like Harold Camping, ideas that the earth is only 6000 years old, the water canopy theory, and other zany thoughts.
Are you intentionally
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:31am.
lying or are you really that ignorant?
Litteralists (such as Norman
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:34am.
Litteralists (such as Norman Geisler) point out that the Earth *might* be 6,000 years old, but the Bible in no way states this and the assumption that it is comes from adding up the geneolegies, which is a posible mistake as they are not necessarily complete.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
And without the Bible we got
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:14pm.
And without the Bible we got people like Stalin, Pol Pot and other atheist despots who slaughtered millions of people.
If you're going to be foolish enough to rely on non sequitur fallacy to support your point you better be consistent and thorough.
"Illustrating idiocy"
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:38pm.
Well, you are certainly illustrating it with that comment. Please explain what part of the Bible when read literally produces Camping's "prophecy. I can hardly wait for your reply. I won't be holding my breath.
Ditto for age of the earth and the water canopy theory.
I can save you some time. You won't find any of that in the Bible.
Are you really that ignorant, or are you just blowing smoke out of a body orifice you should need a mirror to see?
Thank you NB contributors.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:33am.
Reading the posts today really lifted my spirits - not that I was down. But, to see so many knowledgeable posts reinforced the fact that we people of morals are the real hope for America.
Keep in mind that regardless
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:15pm.
Keep in mind that regardless of what the liberal MSM claims, we outnumber them. So keep your hope alive.
liberalsarefunny
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:11pm.
This is what happens when your mama nurses you until your 15th birthday...
My faith
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:47pm.
in my religion and my appreciation of our right to religious freedom in this country are so deep that I can respect and appreciate the fact that others, including Mr. Lemmon, might have a different belief system than I have. Mr. Lemmon has the right to interpret God's word in his own way.
God loves all of his children and if there is one lesson that Jesus teaches us, it's that He expects all of us to love and respect one another equally - even if you don't agree with them. It's sad that so many, who claim to love God, claim to love the Constitution, allow themselves to get worked up and angry over the fact that someone interprets God's word differently. At some point, outlets like Newsbusters needs to take the high road and stop inciting hateful comments from people who obviously don't understand Jesus' message of love and acceptance, and clearly don't respect the God-given American right to practice whatever religion suits one's fancy.
MissMinPhx
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:42pm.
Are you suggesting we are to condone and accept all kinds of sinful behaviors? And all religions? So when a muslim religion practices a mercy killing we accept in because it's part of their religion?
Where are gay people accepting my belief that homosexuality is wrong and a sin when it comes up in public schools? Their religion seems to usurp mine in that respect.
You stand for people to express their pro-gay belief, but against those of his who believe it's a sin.
Yes, without a doubt or hesitiation.
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:01pm.
We are compelled by our faith in the constitution to be tolerant of all other religions - or even break off sects of a main religion - as long as they do not violate the laws of the land. That is the way the constitution was designed and it was the basic premise for the founding of a nation.
Obviously, killing violates the law and can not be tolerated. Living a gay lifestyle does not. As a Christian and as an American, you are required to be accepting and loving to all your neighbors - not just the ones who believe the same things as you.
MissMinPhx
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:09pm.
What if what is being taught in schools violates what I believe? That homosexuality has dire consequences on a spiritual and physical level? The schools teach that it does not, ignoring the physical harm gay male sex causes to the body. Yet I am supposed to accept that?
Schools have a responsibility
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:35pm.
to encourage their student body to be accepting of everyone - and again, being accepting and open-minded of other faiths is required of anyone who claims to be a Christian or anyone who claims to have faith in the constitution. You don't have to agree with those other beliefs, but you have a moral responsibility to be tolerant and to protect religious freedom.
As for the consequences of being gay and how a gay person handles those consequences in regard to his/her relationship with God, well, that really doesn't have anything to do with you unless you yourself are grappling with this issue. It's between that person and God, just like your spirituality is between you and God.
That said, I do not know of any schools that that teach courses in gay sexuality, but I send my kids to private Christian schools. When we were in the public schools, however, we always had the right to decline allowing our kids to participate in activities or lessons, but .... we encourage our kids to be open minded and find common ground with kids whose belief system and faith might differ from theirs (we don't teach them to focus on the differences). We have friends and family members who are gay. Some of them have kids. Most of them are Christian. Unless you live in a bubble, you can't go through life associating only with people you agree with, and kids need to learn that at a young age.
Your post doesn't pass the smell test IMO.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:48pm.
What public school system allows parents to opt out their kids from particular lessons they disagree with?
The curriculum is the curriculum. And unless you're in the classroom with them daily, you have NO idea of what ideas are being implanted above and beyond what appears in the textbooks.
For goodness sake
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:17pm.
Where do you live where the schools don't let you opt out of controversial lessons? Half the people I know home-school or send their kids to private school as their way of opting out. When our kids were in public school, we received permission slips for anything that might be construed as controversial - everything from sex ed classes, talking about body odor or watching a pg movie in class. The schools would send home permission slips giving us the option of allowing our kids to participate or expecting them to do some other activity or lesson that day. Not only that, but we make it a rule to be in constant contact with the teachers and principals so we know for a fact what our kids are being taught.
that said, if they are taught something we don't agree with, that's ok (kids need to learn what they believe for themselves), we use it as an opportunity to discuss the issue and explain how we feel. I feel rather sad for the kids whose beliefs are never challenged, who never have the opportunity to defend their beliefs.
Well, I don't know where you live,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:29pm.
but I can assure you your experience with 'opting out' on a regular basis is not the norm... far from it.
And both of my kids are now out of school and my wife was PTA president for 3 years, and an officer for another 6. The only time we ever discovered objectionable things were from homework, reviewing the textbooks or from the kid mentioning what they did in class.
But really - your kid came home with a permission slip to talk about body odor?
Schools are not run like cafeterias
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:35pm.
Parents are not allowed to individually pick and choose what their children will learn in a public school. Curriculum is decided by local school boards in accordance with state regulations. No, you may NOT pick and choose what your children will learn.
At what age would you expect a child to defend their beliefs? And against a teacher? Children can be guided into critical thinking, but until the brain reaches a level of development, they cannot be expected to defend their beliefs without the proper tools.
I do wonder with all of your defense of these ideas children must be exposed to, you have chosen for your children to go to private school. On the whole, children in private schools are exposed to less diversity and have to defend their beliefs much less.
This political correctness of
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:09pm.
This political correctness of being accepting of everyone has got to go. Are you really saying we have to accept muslims who want to kill us? Or people who behave in a way we find morally reprehensible?
Actually since gay people now insist on it, their relationship with God is my business. They feel we must not just tolerate them, but accept them. I have the freedom NOT to accept them. It's why I live here.
You are rather insulated since your children are in private Christian schools, let me petell you, they are being taught many things that are biased against Christianity.
And although I come into contact with people I don't agree with, I tend to associate only with people I agree with on issues of morality. I don't want to have to check my silver after having company for dinner because I have different morals than my guests.
are there
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:21pm.
any other parts of the constitution you'd like to do away with while you're at it? Religious freedom is the cornerstone - the very essence of America. It was founded by people who simply wanted to be free to believe what they believe. Yet according to you, they should only be free to believe what you believe?
Clearly you didn't actually
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:14pm.
Clearly you didn't actually READ what is written in the constitution concerning religion. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such IGNORANT comments about it.
Political correctness does not equal Consitutionality
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:29pm.
You have completely missed the boat on acceptance and tolerance. Have I said anyone has to believe what I believe? Yet in public schools my children were taught that homosexuality is o.k., pre-marital sex was o.k., and other things I don't believe.
No, I don't have to accept gay people into my home or my church. That doesn't stop them from believing what they want or doing what they want. But I don't have to like it, which is now what political correctness is telling us.
Why are your children in private school if not to insulate them from being exposed to things you don't believe in?
"Religious freedom is the
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:30am.
"Religious freedom is the cornerstone - the very essence of America. It was founded by people who simply wanted to be free to believe what they believe. Yet according to you, they should only be free to believe what you believe?"
If you're talking about the original American colonies, those who founded them were the ones who thought you should only be "free" to believe what they believed. They established squalid theocratic authoritarian regimes where the state violently enforced religious orthodoxy. One of the things that made America special was the move away from that entire way of thinking and toward religious liberty--the separation of the church from the state. It was a gradual process that wasn't even finished by the Revolution. In a sense, it isn't finished to this day, because you still have advocates of everything from the mere "tolerance" regime of the sort rejected by the founders to outright theocratic dictatorship. A cornerstone of the great American experiment is religious liberty. Too many Americans (principally the "religious right") hold it in contempt.
Shut up Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:46am.
What makes you think the LIES of an anonymous moniker, one LIE after another LIE, is convinceing anyone here?
How many LIES do we have to catch you in before you realize we will not stop?
You are incredibly stupid, aren't you 007memo?
→ ClasslessLiberal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:52am.
Are you back in here to again cry about when your family molested you?
Sure, we feel sorry for you, but from the way you talked about it, it sort of seemed you accept it as normal.
So, you're perfectly
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 11:38am.
OK with accepting muslims who want to kill us? We should embrace them, because they're just practicing their religion.
.
Maybe this is why the Roman Catholics banned it
Submitted by Russian55 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:26pm.
For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church forbade lay people to from reading the Bible because they might "misinterpret" it. Only a Church-Educated scholar (such as a priest or bishop) could do that sort of thing.
However, maybe they had other reasons. After all, we now know that whole chapters of the Old Testament are fiction, which may lead us to believe the entire Christian mythos is in question.
(Exodus never happened since there were no Jews held as slaves in Egypt, no historical account of Moses can be found, hence the Ten Commandments -- while a good set of laws -- did not come down from God as the Bible would have us believe.)
Yes, now I will get huge detractors calling me names and such, but I am neither a Liberal nor an atheist. I believe that any omniscient, omnipotent god would be far beyond the ability of man to even begin to understand. Whatever being brought into reality our universe with working scientific laws is far more powerful than the "making man from mud" version the clergy would have people believe.
I have read the Bible. It is full of contradictions internal and external. The very fact that the New Testament is inconsistent from version to version (it would have helped if all 11 of the disciples had written one or better yet, cross-checked with each other to have one consistent version) and the fact that it was written nearly 100 years AFTER the time when Christ died brings about questions.
In point of fact, you'd think there would've been some sort of report to Rome by the local Roman officials of a dead prisoner who rose from the dead...
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
~Historical illiterate
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:34pm.
.
Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:49pm.
That is putting it mildly. We see now the downfall of a Soviet education.
The Disciples should have had an editorial board?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:42pm.
OMG.
And where do you get this absurd notion that the Good News did not make to Rome?
Show me the historical record
Submitted by Russian55 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:56pm.
If you have a historical record of Pilate sending in a report on a resurrection, I am certain their are many people who would like to see it.
At the same time, you can accept the other positions the Church has put out such as:
+ The Earth is only 6,000 years old
+ The Sun moves around the Earth
+ The Divine Right of Kings (which would make the US a violation of God's will)
+ Witches
+ Marriage is actually for the weak, the righteous man remains celibate
If there is One God and One Truth, why are there so many variations? God obviously doesn't do a very good job of making His truth known.
The fact is, for most of the time man has been around, there was no Church. However, then one clever guy who wasn't good at hunting and gathering figured out how to make a living off his fellows by telling them that there was a great being who had shared "the Truth" with him.
Grow up.
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
Tread softly Russian
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 7:02pm.
We are totally over bull**** trolls...and you are certainly shaping up that way.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I should grow up, Comrade?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 9:28am.
I also cannot lay my hands on Pilate's grocery shopping lists, but that doesn't mean he never ate food.
In deference to you though, I will go to his website and see if I can dig up the missing documents. I'll also review his cell phone records - you never know.
another fact challenged Biblical illiterate
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:53pm.
One hardly knows where to start, you really read the whole book?
The earliest parts of the New Testament were written in the 40's AD, the last book, Revelation, was written by 90 AD. 90-29=61; thus the entire NT was written within 61 years after Christ died. That's not even two thirds of 100.
Re: Moses being a myth. The fact that there is no archeological evidence proving his existence is not proof that he did not exist. You might note that skeptics like you claimed the Davidic kingdom was a myth for that same reason. Please note my use of the past tense. Ditto for Solomon's mines and construction projects. Ditto for hundreds of other details where archeology has proved the Bible was accurate. Please point out one archeological find that has proved the Bible was inaccurate.
The Bible is not "full of contradictions". If it were, you could easily supply a list of thousands of them. I bet you can't name three. I also bet you don't even know what a contradiction is
I think
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:55pm.
that anyone with even a basic knowledge of Christian history and how it relates to Roman history will agree with you. The fact is, the Bible we know and read today came into existence at a time when a certain Roman emperor was grappling to hold onto power while trying to convert his people to Christianity. To appeal to the masses, the emperor (this at a time when all previous emperors thought they were, in fact gods), incorporated pieces of Roman mythology into the tale of Christianity (anyone who has read the stories of Ceasar and Cleopatra's birth can't deny the similarities it holds to the Jesus birth story). That for some reason scares some Christians who want to take the Bible as literal and the final word of God rather than focusing on the overall message of love that Jesus teaches us.
Truth is, the texts that didn't make it into the Bible that have resurfaced in recent years are probably more in line with Jesus' teachings than the Bible is.
The simple fact is, Christians often disagree with each other, and it's OK. People, thankfully, are free to believe what they want and to interpret God's word their own way.
MissMinPhx
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:01pm.
You aren't really mamabear using a different name are you?
?
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:13pm.
No. I only have one name.
"The fact is, the Bible we
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:14pm.
"The fact is, the Bible we know and read today came into existence at a time when a certain Roman emperor was grappling to hold onto power while trying to convert his people to Christianity. To appeal to the masses, the emperor (this at a time when all previous emperors thought they were, in fact gods), incorporated pieces of Roman mythology into the tale of Christianity (anyone who has read the stories of Ceasar and Cleopatra's birth can't deny the similarities it holds to the Jesus birth story)."
That is the biggest pile of pigeon poop that has no basis in reality whatsoever. You haven't a clue.
Try educating yourself with legitimate scholarly works. Such as:
From God To Us (How We Got Our Bible) by Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix
The Ancestry Of Our English Bible by Ira M. Price
The English Bible (From KJV To NIV) by Jack P. Lewis
The Books And The Parchments by F. F. Bruce
The History of the English Bible by F. F. Bruce
A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger
The Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner
Your statements here are unfactual and made from sheer ignorance.
Beukeboom
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:46pm.
I respect your right to believe what you believe and to interpret history and Biblical texts the way that best suits your belief system. It is your right as a Christian and an American. I believe you are incorrect, but I respect that your beliefs are the result of extensive reading, discussions with clergy and intensive soul-searching. It is my responsibility as a Christian (yes, I am a Christian, I follow the teachings and the loving message of Christ) to be tolerant and accepting of your beliefs. In turn, it is your responsibility as a Christian and an American to be tolerant of the beliefs of others and to assume that their beliefs are also based on study, reflection and soul searching. Our faith in the constitution demands religious tolerance as does our adherance to the teachings of Jesus.
Ignorance remains ignorance no matter how you try to justify it.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:18pm.
However when you wrote "basic knowledge of Christian history" you then reveal you don't even have a "basic knowledge of Christian history" when your claims are factually untrue. This isn't mere belief nor an interpretation of history but documented historical facts of which I cited several scholarly sources. I noticed you cited none.
Another portion of your post: "the Bible we know and read today came into existence at a time when a certain Roman emperor was grappling to hold onto power while trying to convert his people to Christianity" is completely bogus no matter how one cuts it. What is your source for this? Please be specific. And to which Roman emporer specifically do you refer?
And no, there is nothing in Scripture nor anywhere else that instructs that I have to be tolerant nor accepting of others' beliefs. For example, I don't have to tolerate nor accept those who believe Jesus was merely a prophet of Muhammed (Islam) or a human with alien (outer space) origins (Scientology). In fact, Scripture clearly teaches to be INTOLERANT of such false teachings. I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those who want to take my money away from me to redistribute to others they deem less fortunate (socialists/liberals). I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those who believe that murder is acceptable (radical Islam/terrorists in general). I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those idiots up in Vancouver who rioted after the Bruins won the Stanley Cup over the Canucks.
So you blanket mantra of tolerance and acceptance is irrational, unScriptural, ignorance, unreasonable, and flat out wrong.
Out of curiosity, what is the name of the church you attend? What religious affiliation within Christianity would you say you belong to?
again ....
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 5:58pm.
one of us is tolerant, the other not so much. (fyi --- I am comfortable in my own belief system without feeling any sort of need to "prove" myself to you by listing the books I have read through my many years of Biblical study).
I might add that you are typical of what is wrong with the republican party. There are many of us who consider ourselves God-fearing Christians who follow the loving, tolerant example set by Jesus, yet we are made to feel somehow "wrong" or "unwelcome" for our beliefs by people, like you, who simply cannot accept that people might not agree with everything you believe, they might not live like you, look like you or think like you. It's people like you with your insistence that every one live and think like you, that is ruining the party. You have trouble believing that one might be gay, republican and Christian, so you push them away ... and to whom do you push them? you push them to a party that might share the religious tolerance but lacks the fiscal conservative values. When republicans keep losing elections because they will only accept straight, mainstream Christian candidates, you have only yourselves to blame. My advice to you, as one life-long republican to another, lighten up and find your grounding in the constitution. This is America, the home of religious tolerance.
Once again you know not of
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:34pm.
Once again you know not of what you write and reveal marked ignorance on your part. I contend your Bible studies aren't. Your revealed ignorance of what Scripture reveals strongly indicates you've never truly studied the Bible with sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis. In fact I have a feeling that your boast is simply a lie. An exageration at best.
Secondly, you also reveal your ignorance concerning me. I am not nor ever have been a Republican. I am conservative. Plain and simple. Frankly, I doubt you're Republican.
Thirdly, you avoided each and every issue I raised earlier indicating your avoidance and attempts at equivocation.
Let's recap:
When you wrote "basic knowledge of Christian history" you then reveal you don't even have a "basic knowledge of Christian history" when your claims are factually untrue. This isn't mere belief nor an interpretation of history but documented historical facts of which I cited several scholarly sources. I noticed you cited none.
MissMinPhx, I contend you have no scholarly support for your claims and your coput is a weak attempt to cover up your fabrication of your claims or to cover up the source for your claims.
Another portion of your post: "the Bible we know and read today came into existence at a time when a certain Roman emperor was grappling to hold onto power while trying to convert his people to Christianity" is completely bogus no matter how one cuts it. What is your source for this? Please be specific. And to which Roman emporer specifically do you refer?
Answer the questions MissMinPhx. You made the claims therefore the onus probandi rests squarely upon you to actually prove them. You have failed to do so.
Furthermore I reiterate that there is nothing in Scripture nor anywhere else that instructs that I have to be tolerant nor accepting of others' beliefs nor can you show such Scripture. For example, I don't have to tolerate nor accept those who believe Jesus was merely a prophet of Muhammed (Islam) or a human with alien (outer space) origins (Scientology). In fact, Scripture clearly teaches to be INTOLERANT of such false teachings. I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those who want to take my money away from me to redistribute to others they deem less fortunate (socialists/liberals). I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those who believe that murder is acceptable (radical Islam/terrorists in general). I don't have to be tolerant or accepting of those idiots up in Vancouver who rioted after the Bruins won the Stanley Cup over the Canucks.
You have made claims as to what Scripture teaches yet you cannot present any properly exegeted Scripture to support your claim. Thus your mere opinion means nothing.
So your blanket mantra of tolerance and acceptance remains irrational, unScriptural, ignorance, unreasonable, and flat out wrong.
Also I asked you directly, what is the name of the church you attend?" and also "what religious affiliation within Christianity would you say you belong to?"
I expect direct answers to both of those questions. Your avoidance is leading me to believe that you lied about being Christian and either are a nonbeliever or perhaps a cultist. Either way, you give absolutely nothing substantive to indicate you are Christian nor even understand what Christianity is according to the whole of Scripture.
A website that would educate you as to what Scripture actually teaches on many topics is found at http://www.monergism.com/
It would behoove you to actually go there and read the materials to correct your errors and falsehoods. But somehow I expect you to come up with some lame, pathetic excuse to avoid the site.
It would also behoove you to obtain and actually read as many of the following as possible:
How To Read The Bible For All That It Is Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stewart
New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Gordon D. Fee
Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stewart
Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge
The Hermeneutical Spiral (A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation) by Grant R. Osborne
Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson
Biblical Hermeneutics by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, & Grant I. Lovejoy
Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy
Let The Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton
An Introduction to Christian Apologetics by Edward John Carnell
From God To Us (How We Got Our Bible) by Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix
The Ancestry Of Our English Bible by Ira M. Price
The English Bible (From KJV To NIV) by Jack P. Lewis
The Books And The Parchments by F. F. Bruce
The History of the English Bible by F.F. Bruce
The Journey From Texts To Translations by Paul D. Wegner
A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger
Systematic Theology by Norman Geisler
The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns
Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
The Fundamentals by R.A. Torrey
Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge
All the Doctrines of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Reference Library) by Norman L. Geisler
Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking by Ronald M. Brooks and Norman L. Geisler
True For You, But Not For Me by Paul Copan
That's Just Your Interpretation by Paul Copan
The Death of Truth by Dennis McCallum
Logic & the Bible by Thomas B. Warren
Fallacies by C. L. Hamblin
Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson
A Body of Doctrinal Divinity by John Gill
Most of these books can be found inexpensively on ebay and Amazon as well as various online used book resellers. They also can be obtained via intralibrary and interlibrary book loans which will be free of charge (unless, of course you are late in returning the books to the library).
Also a good study Bible would be beneficial to you as well. Some I have that I feel would help you immensley include, but are not limited to,
The King James Study Bible
The NIV Study Bible
The ESV Study Bible
The Apologetics Study Bible
The Quest Study Bible
The MacArthur Study Bible
The Blackaby Study Bible
But as it stands, it's clear you know not of what the whole of Scripture teaches.
You keep referring to the loving, tolerant acceptance of Jesus
Submitted by panzerakc on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 1:30am.
You do remember that Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple with a whip?
And that he told the parable of the sheep and the goats, that Judgement Day when some will be eternally separated from God?
And that Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword!"
None of that sounds particularly tolerant to me.
more Bible ignorance
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:17pm.
The Bible we have today comes from manuscripts older than Rome's acceptance of Christianity. In addition to that, the majority of scripture is also available from the letters of the early church fathers. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-dated our previously earliest copies of the Old Testament by about a thousand years, and proved that they had been accurately preserved.
You are free to interpret God's Word as you like. But, given your ignorance of the facts, I suggest you consult someone with a better grasp of the facts and logic.
If the Bible were as unreliable as you claim, why on earth would you use it at all? And, if it were, you would have no idea what the truth is about Jesus. You, on the contrary, would be and in fact are following uninformed opinions about Jesus. I can see logic is not your strong suit, but either the Bible is accurate, or no one knows the truth about Jesus.
"we now know that whole
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:07pm.
"we now know that whole chapters of the Old Testament are fiction"
Your statement is fiction.
Sounds like you got your info from the discredited "Jesus Seminar" folks or some similar organization.
"I have read the Bible. It is full of contradictions internal and external. The very fact that the New Testament is inconsistent from version to version (it would have helped if all 11 of the disciples had written one or better yet, cross-checked with each other to have one consistent version) and the fact that it was written nearly 100 years AFTER the time when Christ died brings about questions."
Nope. no contradictions. Those, like yourself, claiming contradictions are actually applying unsound hermeneutics or improper exegesis and as such misinterpret or misunderstand Scripture. These alleged "contradictions" have long since been debunked. Books that effectively answer critics’ claims of contradictions in the Bible include, but are not limited to:
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer Jr.
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties by Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe
When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences by Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell
Hard Sayings of the Bible by Peter H. Davids, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, and Walter C. Kaiser
The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes
As to your claim that you read the Bible, I have a hard time believing that especially when in the same paragraph you write "would have helped if all 11 of the disciples had written one or better yet, cross-checked with each other to have one consistent version" which reveals you don't even know who authored the books of the New Testament. Furthermore, your claim that the NT is inconsistent from version to version is also quite ignorant.
In short, you know not of what you write.
Some books of which it would behoove you to read:
From God To Us (How We Got Our Bible) by Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix
The Ancestry Of Our English Bible by Ira M. Price
The English Bible (From KJV To NIV) by Jack P. Lewis
The Books And The Parchments by F. F. Bruce
A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger
The Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner
The History of the English Bible by F. F. Bruce
How To Read The Bible For All That It Is Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stewart
New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Gordon D. Fee
Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stewart
Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva
Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon by D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge
The Hermeneutical Spiral (A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation) by Grant R. Osborne
Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson
Biblical Hermeneutics by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, & Grant I. Lovejoy
Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy
Let The Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton
An Introduction to Christian Apologetics by Edward John Carnell
well done
Submitted by Demonhunter on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:34pm.
Oh, well done. Make me look like a rank amateur, and give away most of my best resources.
Point of View
Submitted by Russian55 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:25pm.
And how many of these works were written by people who did NOT have a religious point of view?
The problem has been that in a century of digging, archaeologists had found no physical evidence that Israelites were in Egypt in the second millennium B.C.--said to be the time of Exodus. So far they have found nothing to indicate that masses of Israelites lived in Egypt. They have found some limited evidence of a few Jews there, but nothing to support the basis that there was a large class of slaves.
You'll forgive me if I choose not to believe in magic.
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
"And how many of these works
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:41pm.
"And how many of these works were written by people who did NOT have a religious point of view?"
There is not a person alive who doesn't have a religious point of view of some sort. Even atheists have a religious point of view.
Also your statements re archaeology are simply ignorant.
You'll pardon me if I don't respect your ignorance and dismiss your trolling.
On second thought I couldn't care less if you pardon me or not. I just know you haven't a clue.
Now do yourself a favor and troll somewhere else. You'll only embarrass yourself if you keep this nonsense up and find one day that your NB account has been terminated.
Me thinks Don Lemon is going to be replacing Red Ed
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:52pm.
...before long.
Even CNN will get tired of this at some point.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Let's consider one part of his argument
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 6:43pm.
That type of thinking - or non-thinking - . . . causes people to want to control and change people who aren't like them.
Indeed. it is the sort of thinking that makes liberals shun and ostracize those who dare deviate from their belief system, and try to coerce them into compromising or changing those beliefs. Sort of like What Don is trying to do with his gay-vangelism.
Afte rall, implicit in his entire column is that he and those who believe like him are morally, spiritually, and intellectually superior to those who differ -- and they must do all in their power to make the sinners repent or are marginalized.
gayGas and Hunter S. (Dead Zippers?) can't even LIE right.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 12:16pm.
I already debunked this long ago.
15. Claims 95-97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and caused by man-made activity. - LIE. ...close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW.
The Collected Stupid and Lies of the Stupid Lying Garlock Troll. January 30 2011.
Hey GayGas and Hunter S.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 1:07pm.
I have been exposing the AGW lies long before you both got here and I will continue long after you both are sent to troll hell where you belong.
Troll hell? Sounds like
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 1:41pm.
Troll hell?
Sounds like Satan-made Hellish warming is taking place... must be all that sulfur in the atmosphere
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.