Slow Blogging For A While
It's going to be slow blogging for a week or so. I'm in London, walking around humming that armadillos song, attending a conference. This is nice because I don't have to present a paper. I'll chair a session and help run a workshop, but other than that I get to sit and listen to the presentations and see some colleagues and catch up. Monday night will be especially interesting, the conference is sponsoring a debate at the Natural History Museum featuring Richard Dawkins, whose name you might have encountered recently, and Steve Jones and Lewis Wolpert. They will be discussing the emergence of complexity in evolution. It's an interesting question: are modern forms more complex than older ones? If so, why? If not, what does that suggest about the evolutionary process? I love this kind of stuff.
It is a sunny, breezy noontime here in London. I am in the heart of London, near Kings Cross and Euston stations, where there is a lot of traffic, lots of sirens and horns honking, lots of different kinds of people on the streets -- London seems as ethnically diverse as Washington, DC. On the tube yesterday, coming into the city, it seemed every person was a different nationality, every single one, as if the deck had been shuffled perfectly. Like there was a rule that you had to sit next to the person who was most different from you.
It is interesting of course to notice the local response to several recent terrorist attacks ... which is nothing. Apathy. There is not widespread fear, no machine-gun-carrying soldiers in the subway stations or airports (such as were swarming all over BWI when I left). The good guys are catching the bad guys, and life goes on. There are some headlines about the forgotten victims of 7/7, because this is the anniversary of a more successful terrorist attack, but other than that I haven't seen any sign that people are in any state of panic over these most recent ones, or even give it a thought. Last night you had to walk in the street, people filled the sidewalks outside the cafes, drinking their beers and laughing like they have been doing for a thousand years here, maybe two thousand.
While I'm here I have Internet access in the hotel and at the conference, and I will probably have a word or two to say on the blog. Well, don't I always? But I will be preoccupied a lot of the time with the conference. There are also other things going on that I have to give some thought to.
Actually, this is good timing, there's not a lot now that needs to be said about sex ed in MoCo. The state's decision, I think, sealed it. For the past couple of months, the CRC's statements have been that they don't like the new curriculum but they are "weighing their options." The promised fight at the state board never materialized, their last appeal was half-hearted to say the least, and I hope they realize that the curriculum is going to go forward in the fall. They might sue again, but the only point would be to prove that they haven't given up. They are starting to seem a little like Monty Python's Black Knight, fighting against all reasonable expectation of winning.
If they want to make the MCPS health curriculum more conservative, I don't mind that, I only hope they will find a better way to go about it next time. I think it has been shown that they can't intimidate Montgomery County into giving in to their demands. But there is no reason they can't sit at the table and propose things in a calm tone, I think people are open to rational discussion.
It is a sunny, breezy noontime here in London. I am in the heart of London, near Kings Cross and Euston stations, where there is a lot of traffic, lots of sirens and horns honking, lots of different kinds of people on the streets -- London seems as ethnically diverse as Washington, DC. On the tube yesterday, coming into the city, it seemed every person was a different nationality, every single one, as if the deck had been shuffled perfectly. Like there was a rule that you had to sit next to the person who was most different from you.
It is interesting of course to notice the local response to several recent terrorist attacks ... which is nothing. Apathy. There is not widespread fear, no machine-gun-carrying soldiers in the subway stations or airports (such as were swarming all over BWI when I left). The good guys are catching the bad guys, and life goes on. There are some headlines about the forgotten victims of 7/7, because this is the anniversary of a more successful terrorist attack, but other than that I haven't seen any sign that people are in any state of panic over these most recent ones, or even give it a thought. Last night you had to walk in the street, people filled the sidewalks outside the cafes, drinking their beers and laughing like they have been doing for a thousand years here, maybe two thousand.
While I'm here I have Internet access in the hotel and at the conference, and I will probably have a word or two to say on the blog. Well, don't I always? But I will be preoccupied a lot of the time with the conference. There are also other things going on that I have to give some thought to.
Actually, this is good timing, there's not a lot now that needs to be said about sex ed in MoCo. The state's decision, I think, sealed it. For the past couple of months, the CRC's statements have been that they don't like the new curriculum but they are "weighing their options." The promised fight at the state board never materialized, their last appeal was half-hearted to say the least, and I hope they realize that the curriculum is going to go forward in the fall. They might sue again, but the only point would be to prove that they haven't given up. They are starting to seem a little like Monty Python's Black Knight, fighting against all reasonable expectation of winning.
If they want to make the MCPS health curriculum more conservative, I don't mind that, I only hope they will find a better way to go about it next time. I think it has been shown that they can't intimidate Montgomery County into giving in to their demands. But there is no reason they can't sit at the table and propose things in a calm tone, I think people are open to rational discussion.
posted by JimK at 8:03 AM
45 Comments:
Jim writes,
If they want to make the MCPS health curriculum more conservative, I don't mind that, I only hope they will find a better way to go about it next time.
You "don't mind"? LOL!!! Yeah, keep telling yourself that one.
Orin, were you a very lonely boy just like Anon?
I most certainly WOULD mind if the curriculum became more conservative. It would be so biased it would make a lot of teachers upset. TEACHERS, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MAY BELIEVE, ARE NOT POLITICAL FOOTBALLS!!!!!! STOP USING US AS SO! Public schools are just that, PUBLIC. If you want to push your conservative agenda upon impressionable and good-spirited minds, go do it at a Catholic (or another denomination)school where there really is no separation between Church and State. Smart and intelligent people don't agree wit you, Orin. You can give me all the names of doctors, lawyers, policy makers and the like.... but just because they have a title does not make them smart or intelligent... if they agree with you, it makes them just as hateful and bigoted as you are. SHAME ON YOU!!!!
Orin
I would disagree with a more conservative curriculum personally, but to tell you the truth, our society in general does not reflect my personal values, and I don't worry about that. If the decisions had been made in a reasonable and collegial manner, I wouldn't bother to get involved. The problem here is not a matter of how liberal or conservative the curriculum should be, but whether it is to be determined by collaboration, discussion, compromise, and negotiation or by disrupting the system so no decision can be made. I have said that from Day One.
Of course I have my opinions, and I like it when people agree with me, but I don't expect it, and normally don't get involved if people come to a consensus opinion that differs from mine.
That seems easy enough to understand, isn't it?
JimK
Orin, so we're still waiting for an answer, how does allowing gays to marry keep men and women apart, excuse me, I mean how does "doing violence" to the meaning of marriage keep men and women apart? Take a hypothetical male/female couple and walk us through it.
On this thread
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9797121&postID=2270148220535665745
I said "The bible demands that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."
and Anonymous responded "Never."
Always. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
I will both agree and disagree with Jim on this. I would fight to make the curriculum more progressive and prevent any rollback. However, I would work to be part of the process, and if necessary, run for the Citizens Advisory Committee or school board or whatever is necessary to see that it happens.
I wonder, Orin, if you truly believe that a sex-ed class which discusses people like me for, what, ten minutes, is really a threat to you or your beliefs? I know it is to Anon, and to the CRC and PFOX that fear the expansion of unisex bathrooms from private homes to the public sphere, where they keep cropping up for a variety of reasons.
You, however, are generally a reasonable fellow, so I'm just wondering.
Dana, as I said, my personal preferences are clear from the blog and everything else, and I think we mostly agree on what should be in the curriculum. What I am saying, in my awkward way, is that I wouldn't have gotten involved in this if it was just a matter of setting the thermostat. I have private opinions about everything, and rarely expect anybody else to agree, and I don't worry about it if they don't, except for extreme cases such as we've seen in the past few years, where it seems the whole country is taking a nosedive.
Yes, that was an example of a run-on sentence.
In this particular case, I got involved because a small group of extremists were planning to hijack the process. If the people of MC wanted to have a more conservative curriculum, I would not have set out to change their minds. But they didn't. So when the CRC etc tried to cancel the whole school board out, overrun the will of the actual citizens of the county, that's what set me off.
JimK
Jim makes a very good point here.
The most disturbing thing about the the last few years has been the actions by opponents of the curriculum revisions that involved lies and misrepresentations. It is one thing to have a disagreement and then engage in civil and honest discourse, through which a community can decide the best course to take. That is the way democracy can work.
But it is quite another when one side repeatedly and consistently engages in prevarications because they seem to believe that their desired end justifies any means.
It would be nice to hope that they have learned that such tactics will not prevail in Montgomery County. But that cannot be assumed. Indeed, I now understand why Jim named this the Vigilance Blog.
Our MCPS students, teachers and parents are fair-minded and do not believe that anyone should be harassed, no matter their sexual orientation. MCPS has sexual orientation in it's non-discrimination clause for both students and staff. Go MCPS! :-). I am proud do live in Montgomery County, where I am treated as a citizen rather than an outcast, as PFOX, CRC, Orin and Anon would LOVE to have it. Shame, shame, shame... it exists in all of your names!
Hey, PFOX, CRC, Orin, Anon, etc... when was the last time you had sex with me????? Oh, wait, you NEVER have...that is what I thought. So what does MY sex life have to do with YOUR lives? Bud out, jerks.
It's not ALL ABOUT SEX, either. Whenever you think of "gay or homosexual", the first thing that comes to your mind is man-on-man or woman-on-woman action... Don't you think YOU are being a bit perverse??
When I think of "gay or lesbian or homosexual" I think of two people in a committed, loving and lasting relationship who are ALSO human beings, just like YOU and deserve to be treated as such, just like straight people. I say it again, shame on you. Oh, and again, bud the hell out of my life.
teach writes,
Orin, were you a very lonely boy just like Anon?
LOL...now THAT IS so very funny. And the answer is no, I was not lonely as I had 6 other sibs to keep me occupied - my oldest sib became my inspiration and mentor and a part of the reason I went to and graduated from college. Now I know for a fact that it drives my sister nuts that I turned out so conservative, but she has taught me that while liberals may be mistaken, they are good people.
I most certainly WOULD mind if the curriculum became more conservative.
So Teach, are you a teacher?
It would be so biased it would make a lot of teachers upset.
Why would they be so upset, because it is "biased". Please, I beg you, don't tell me it is not now already biased.
TEACHERS, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MAY BELIEVE, ARE NOT POLITICAL FOOTBALLS!!!!!! STOP USING US AS SO!
Are you new to the internet?
Truth be told Teach I have a great deal of respect for our public school teachers. I have been a parent volunteer that has assisted with putting on teacher appreciation functions like lunches (where real cooking was done), reading in kindergarten classrooms, assisting with field trips (some as far as 120 miles away), etc. And having taken the time to talk to, ask questions and listen, I have an idea of what they are up against, and it is not easy. What are they up against? In three simple words:
Too Many Distractions.
Public schools are just that, PUBLIC.
Here, here...I could not agree more. I am considering running for the local school board here; were that to happen I would not entertain a single minute discussing some sort of hare-brain idea of trying to bring prayer back, or trying to teach ID as a balance to evolution. These would be highly disruptive, not to mention controversial - I want to help, not hurt the educational system. So, where would my conservative POV come in? I would vigorously oppose the mission creep of what appears to be passing for sex ed in MCPS in my own backyard.
If you want to push your conservative agenda upon impressionable and good-spirited minds, go do it at a Catholic (or another denomination)school where there really is no separation between Church and State.
I know they are impressionable, but what makes you think they are "good-spirited" - just because they are young?
And please...read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, paying special attention to the First Amendment, then explain to me how either mandates a "Separation of Church and State". I know, I know...Jefferson once offered his private opinion on the matter and a Supreme Court Justice, in error, incorporated that personal and private opinion, but that does not mean this notion has any constitutional basis whatsoever. Remember, even Supreme Court Justices makes mistakes...Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell...to name a few.
Smart and intelligent people don't agree with you, Orin.
If you have been reading anything I have written here you would already know that while I appreciate "smart and intelligent people" I don't hold that as my highest value. So, what do I value? Goodness and wisdom. Karl Marx is an excellent example of someone who was both "smart and intelligent" but he was not wise. Pity that...and the 100 million human beings that met with violent deaths from political movements spawned from his writings.
You can give me all the names of doctors, lawyers, policy makers and the like.... but just because they have a title does not make them smart or intelligent... if they agree with you, it makes them just as hateful and bigoted as you are.
There you go...anyone that agrees with me is "hateful and bigoted" (have you been taking lesson in logic from Randi?). Sorry to disappoint you, but that sort of speech does not send me cowering and quaking in fear.
SHAME ON YOU!!!!
Oh really? Obviously you have mistaken me for someone that cares much about the ill thought out remarks of someone like yourself. I don't.
JimK writes,
Orin
I would disagree with a more conservative curriculum personally, but to tell you the truth, our society in general does not reflect my personal values, and I don't worry about that. If the decisions had been made in a reasonable and collegial manner, I wouldn't bother to get involved. The problem here is not a matter of how liberal or conservative the curriculum should be, but whether it is to be determined by collaboration, discussion, compromise, and negotiation or by disrupting the system so no decision can be made. I have said that from Day One.
Of course I have my opinions, and I like it when people agree with me, but I don't expect it, and normally don't get involved if people come to a consensus opinion that differs from mine.
That seems easy enough to understand, isn't it?
Fair enough. I will take you at your word and apologize for the assumption present in my first entry here. And yes, you are correct, the process must be fair and reflect the values of the community, which is what the newly adopted curriculum appears to represent, and not the narrow views of one group alone.
Randi writes,
Orin, so we're still waiting for an answer, how does allowing gays to marry keep men and women apart, excuse me, I mean how does "doing violence" to the meaning of marriage keep men and women apart? Take a hypothetical male/female couple and walk us through it.
Randi, Randi, Randi...I have tried to answer your "question(s)" but to no avail. In all the back and forth I cannot shake one particular verse from that so-called book of ancient hebrew and christian myths - Second Timothy 4:3.
Dana writes,
I will both agree and disagree with Jim on this. I would fight to make the curriculum more progressive and prevent any rollback. However, I would work to be part of the process, and if necessary, run for the Citizens Advisory Committee or school board or whatever is necessary to see that it happens.
I wonder, Orin, if you truly believe that a sex-ed class which discusses people like me for, what, ten minutes, is really a threat to you or your beliefs? I know it is to Anon, and to the CRC and PFOX that fear the expansion of unisex bathrooms from private homes to the public sphere, where they keep cropping up for a variety of reasons.
A good question and a fair one as well, and I assume this is related to the issue of those that are transgendered, correct? Well, assuming that that is so, then I can answer that question.
Is it a threat to me or my beliefs? The simple answer to that is no, it is not. However, if you were to ask me if I think a sex ed curriculum needs to include every possible issue of human sexuality then the answer would also be no. Please keep in mind that my reasons for this are as practical as well as moral/theological. Absent expanding the school calendar beyond what is usually 180 days, say to something along the lines of 220 days in other parts of the world (or even making the school day longer, heaven forbid!), there is a limited (ok, call it finite) number of days of instruction. Add to that fact a student population that is more distracted than ever before. And what do we have at the end of the day when still more is added to the instructional calendar? Too much to cram in with the alloted time, or worse still, educational basics that get shortened instructional time.
It does not help, IMO, that what is being added is of dubious educational value (for example, how to use a condom; please, Google "how to use a condom" - good grief, the information is out there *IF* students want to "express" themselves sexually). And please, don't take my word for this, read the much ballyhooed Mathematica study that was released in April of this year,
http://mathematica-mpr.com
/publications
/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
paying careful attention to the Executive Summary. This part on page xvii (page 17 of the PDF),
IMPACTS ON BEHAVIOR
Findings indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex,
they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.
Contrary to concerns raised by some critics of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence funding, however, program group youth were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than control group youth. Specific findings follow.
What this tells me is twofold. First, contrary to the condom pushers like to say, youth are not being put at increased risk by abstinence education. Second, the difference in effectiveness between abstinence education and other sex ed curricula were negligible.
I could go on, but I think you understand enough of where and why I come at this issue.
You, however, are generally a reasonable fellow, so I'm just wondering.
I try to be...
Stripped away from all the derivative side issues, questions and controversies (like that of the "unisex" restrooms, which I don't particularly care about one way or another - I like using them because they were generally CLEANER), what I think is this: while it is good that the MCPS curriculum has abstinence related material in it, in the culture that we live at present that is not what is likely to be remembered as much as a condom demonstration and the message conveyed implicitly by it.
"I said "The bible demands that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."
and Anonymous responded "Never."
Always. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."
OK, Randi, you've established that part of the Mosaic covenant God made with the ancient people of the promised land was to stone any member of their family who tried to encourage them to worship idols.
Now where does the Bible "demand that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."?
Here's some other questions:
Was there any such thing as a "nonbeliever" among those who witnessed the miraculous triumph of justice over the Pharoah?
Can you describe the false gods being worshipped in the lands around Israel?
How many offenses in the OT were punishable by death?
How many major figures in the OT committed one of these offenses?
What does the NT say about the laws in the Mosaic covenant?
BTW, aside from the idea that right is might, another revelation of Judeo-Christianity is that God is merciful.
It may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
Pastafarians know the Truth. Faith is believing "that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe" and that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s."
Ramen
"where does the Bible "demand that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."?"
Right here: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
...13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him;
That's not what that verse says.
Idiot, that's exactly what it says.
Great technique, though, denying the obvious when it's sitting right in front of you. This sort of filters out the faithless, doesn't it.
Merle
Perry the Pirate writes,
(unoriginal cut & paste verbiage deleted)
Pastafarians know the Truth. Faith is believing "that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe" and that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s."
Ramen,
When you post such drivel you make people like me take you less seriously...time to pick up a good book and learn something more than how to use the cute and paste function on a text editor.
Better technique: reading a small part of a story and making unfounded assumptions.
Baby, you can't guess the rest!
Alot could be said here, but let's start with the obvious:
I don't see where these verses mentioned "Christians" or "non-believers". Explain why you think this verse is directed at Christians or is referring to non-believers.
"When you post such drivel you make people like me take you less seriously"
To me, Orin, when they post these types of comments, they are tacitly conceding that the evidence shows clearly that there was a Creator and that their only possible avenue of argumentation is that purely physical evidence can't reveal the identity of this intelligence.
BTW, Jim, be sure to share a summary of the debate you attended about how long DNA has been complex. You guys are a riot!
Orin,
Thanks for your serious response. I, for one, agree that the school year should be extended as well as the school day. As a child I attended school from 7 am to 5 pm, M-F, sometimes staying until 7 pm. When I reached high school those were still my hours, though four of them were taken up by commuting. The extra time at school or commuting didn't do me any harm.
I really don't believe ten minutes on gender identity is too much, and I think you miss the point I've made several times here: this isn't about me or a small group of people, per se, but about a much more detailed understanding of human sexuality in general which can only benefit all of us who are willing to learn. Ask any doctor and she'll tell you that we learn the most about the human body and human condition, in general, when we study variations and diversity and disease states.
For instance, most men think that it is their penis that makes them a man. That without it they would no longer be men. Sounds pretty ludicrous, no? I've run into it time and again. So teaching about brain sex and gender identity and sexual orientation has the primary effect of helping the plain vanilla men and woman out there better understand who they are and why they behave as they do. To me that's an important part of education, proibably a lot closer to your belief in wisdom as opposed to simple knowledge.
Arrghh this pirate has as much right to post the tenets of my faith as the Anons who come here and post theirs. You don't like it? Get in the very long line!
And to the swabby who can't figure out "...where these verses mentioned "Christians" or "non-believers". Explain why you think this verse is directed at Christians or is referring to non-believers," the verse reads "secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known."
Any sailor worth his salt knows anyone who serves "other gods" is a non-believer in the god of the Bible.
"Arrghh this pirate has as much right to post the tenets of my faith as the Anons who come here and post theirs."
Aye, matey. The right be yours.
No Anon denied it.
After all, that Spaghetti thing is no more ridiculous an explanation than random chance. As a matter of fact, it's less ridiculous.
"And to the swabby who can't figure out "...where these verses mentioned "Christians" or "non-believers". Explain why you think this verse is directed at Christians or is referring to non-believers," the verse reads "secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known."
Any sailor worth his salt knows anyone who serves "other gods" is a non-believer in the god of the Bible."
You must know yourself that even a believer could sucuumb to the temptation to serve false gods. Indeed, it happens all the time.
Now, where were the Christians ordered to kill somebody?
Orin said "read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, paying special attention to the First Amendment, then explain to me how either mandates a "Separation of Church and State".
It says the government shall make no law establishing a religion and shall not interfere with the free exercise thereof. That's where it mandates a seperation of church and state. One can use different words to describe the same concept Orin, and that is the case here.
Orin said "So, what do I value? Goodness and wisdom.".
Obviously you don't value those very highly or you'd support people's right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others, you'd support the right of children of gays to have legally married parents, you'd "see yourself in the other" as you claimed is important to do when it comes to gays. You don't do that, you don't believe in equality and fairness and by extension you don't particularly believe in goodness.
Orin said "if you were to ask me if I think a sex ed curriculum needs to include every possible issue of human sexuality then the answer would also be no... Add to that fact a student population that is more distracted than ever before....Too much to cram in with the alloted time, or worse still, educational basics that get shortened instructional time.".
See Orin, this is where you highlight your lack of goodness. LGBTs have been the target of harrassment and demonization to our detriment and you couldn't care less. You don't believe in doing something about this, you'd just as soon leave a minority group under attack and even 10 minutes of lesson time to address it is somehow too much for you, somehow that shouldn't be accomodated. Until you accept that all people should be valued and protected as the majority is your claims to value goodness ring incredibly hollow.
Orin said "Randi, Randi, Randi...I have tried to answer your "question(s)" but to no avail.".
No, you haven't tried at all. I've repeatedly asked you to take a hypothetical man and woman and tell us cause and effect step by step you allowing gays to marry keeps them apart. You haven't because you can't actually conceive of how that would happen in the real world and you aren't man enough to admit it. Instead you give these nebulous diversions to avoid reality.
Anonymous said "where does the Bible "demand that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."?".
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, read it again and drop the willfull blindness. Obviously when god demands that you kill your non-believing friends and relatives if they try to convert you he's not excluding people you have less reason to show mercy to from that commandment.
Anonymous said "Was there any such thing as a "nonbeliever" among those who witnessed the miraculous triumph of justice over the Pharoah?".
Justice?! God heardened Pharoah's heart so he wouldn't let the Jews go and then killed thousands if not millions of innocent egyptians for that which only he himself could be held responsible for! That most certainly isn't justice! Apart from that your question is irrelevant to the fact that your god demands you kill non-believers that try to convert you to their gods.
Anonymous said "Can you describe the false gods being worshipped in the lands around Israel?".
Irrelevant to the fact that your god demands you kill non-believers that try to convert you to their gods.
Anonymous said "How many offenses in the OT were punishable by death?"
Irrelevant to the fact that your god demands you kill non-believers that try to convert you to their gods, but quite a few.
Anonymous said "How many major figures in the OT committed one of these offenses?"
Irrelevant to the fact that your god demands you kill non-believers that try to convert you to their gods.
Anonymous said "What does the NT say about the laws in the Mosaic covenant?".
Jesus said not one jot, not one tithe of the old law shall pass, as he has come to fulfill the old law, not to abolish it.
Anonymous said "I don't see where these verses mentioned "Christians" or "non-believers". Explain why you think this verse is directed at Christians or is referring to non-believers."
This is part of the Christian bible, the bible is aimed at Christians, its instructions are to Christians themselves. These passages refer to people who follow other gods, people who follow other gods are non-believers in the Christian god.
Be an adult and face reality - despite your adamant assertion that the bible would never say such a thing, it clearly demands that Christians kill any non-believers who try to convert them. Your childish attempts to deny this are completely ineffective and transparent.
Anonymous said "another revelation of Judeo-Christianity is that God is merciful.".
Most certainly not. Your god supposedly tortured and murdered the perfect and innocent Jesus because of the wrongdoings of others, that most definitely is not merciful.
According to your bible your god is eternally torturing the majority of humanity that ever lived for behaving exactly as he knew they would when he created them. That most certainly is not merciful. Infinite punishment for the harmless act of failing to believe in the Christian god can only be described as evil. Your god is the most despicable being in all of literature.
Reports show that abstinence-only programs are ineffective and inaccurate:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abonlyreports.htm
"To date, no education program focusing exclusively on abstinence has shown success in delaying sexual activity.
There is no question, however, that increased abstinence—meaning delayed vaginal intercourse among young people—has played a role in reducing both teen pregnancy rates in the United States and HIV rates in at least one developing country. Research by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) indicates that 25% of the decrease in the U.S. teen pregnancy rate between 1988 and 1995 was due to a decline in the proportion of teenagers who had ever had sex (while 75% was due to improved contraceptive use among sexually active teens). A new AGI report also shows that declines in HIV-infection rates in Uganda were due to a combination of fewer Ugandans initiating sex at young ages, people having fewer sexual partners and increased condom use (see related story).
But abstinence proponents frequently cite both U.S. teen pregnancy declines and the Uganda example as "proof" that abstinence-only education programs, which exclude accurate and complete information about contraception, are effective; they argue that these programs should be expanded at home and exported overseas. Yet neither experience, in and of itself, says anything about the effectiveness of programmatic interventions. In fact, significant declines in U.S. teen pregnancy rates occurred prior to the implementation of government-funded programs supporting this particularly restrictive brand of abstinence-only education. Similarly, informed observers of the Ugandan experience indicate that abstinence-only education was not a significant program intervention during the years when Uganda's HIV prevalence rate was dropping. Thus, any assumptions about program effectiveness, and the effectiveness of abstinence-only education programs in particular, are misleading and potentially dangerous, but they are nonetheless shaping U.S. policy both here and abroad (see related story, page 13).
To date, however, no education program in this country focusing exclusively on abstinence has shown success in delaying sexual activity. Perhaps some will in the future. In the meantime, considerable scientific evidence already demonstrates that certain types of programs that include information about both abstinence and contraception help teens delay sexual activity, have fewer sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they begin having sex. It is not clear what it is about these programs that leads teens to delay—a question that researchers need to explore. What is clear, however, is that no program of any kind has ever shown success in convincing young people to postpone sex from age 17, when they typically first have intercourse, until marriage, which typically occurs at age 25 for women and 27 for men. Nor is there any evidence that the "wait until marriage" message has any impact on young people's decisions regarding sexual activity. This suggests that scarce public dollars could be better spent on programs that already have been proven to achieve delays in sexual activity of any duration, rather than on programs that stress abstinence until marriage."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html
Andrea- not anon
Perry, I have also been touched by his noodly appendage! I am among those who celebrate the Pastafarian communion using vegan meatballs- although I know some say only beef can be used. Also in my family are those who commit the heresy of using aglio olio instead of red sauce(I was once one who used pesto but have learned the error my ways- and will sin no more)
Ramen, my brother.
Dana writes,
I really don't believe ten minutes on gender identity is too much, and I think you miss the point I've made several times here: this isn't about me or a small group of people, per se, but about a much more detailed understanding of human sexuality in general which can only benefit all of us who are willing to learn.
I do understand...it is just that the curriculum is already overloaded (and with a present day student population that is not at all intellectually curious; amuse them...entertain them...but do not attempt to exercise their brain) and is riddled with so many social and political agendas, mostly of the liberal/left-wing variety.
If the politics could be removed from it, and the school day extended then I would not necessarily have any problem with it - just like I have no problem with evolution being taught.
Randi,
Please read Second Timothy 4:3...
Oh, and Randi, take time to read the Mathematica Study...
Reports show that abstinence-only programs are ineffective and inaccurate:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abonlyreports.htm
Advocate for Youth?!!! LOL!!! Now there is some irony in the title of that outfit, a subsidiary of Planned Parenthood and a hardened political partisan that sees a condom and birth control pills (and failing those, abortion) as a solution to excess teen hormones, not discipline, self-control or abstinence.
Randi
Your hatred of Judeo-Christianity is really getting a work-out. Here's a quote from Jesus:
"If they hate you, remember they hated me first. They hate me because I tell them that their deeds are evil."
Sound right?
Anyway, you've written so things that I only have time to respond to one at a time.
""Anonymous said "where does the Bible "demand that Christians mercilessly kill any non believers that try to convert them to other religions."?".
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, read it again and drop the willfull blindness. Obviously when god demands that you kill your non-believing friends and relatives if they try to convert you he's not excluding people you have less reason to show mercy to from that commandment.""
You'll have to explain why you think God is directing this commandment at Christians. It was part of the covenant God made with the Israelites that he rescued from slavery to the Egyptians.
As far as the people it was directed to, the people didn't generally start worshipping false idols because they lacked belief. They had seen God'd miracles firsthand. They knew he was real. They succumbed to carnality and materiality.
Solomon, by the way, served false gods late in his reign and no one stoned him.
Anyway, the command wasn't directed at Christians and it didn't talk about non-believers.
Orin said "Randi, Please read Second Timothy 4:3".
Orin, your bible repeatedly breaks the foundational moral law of "Do whatever you want as long as you harm no one" - it has no authority for that reason. Nevertheless I read the passage and fail to see what it has to do with anything discussed here.
Now that I've fullfilled your request in reciprocity how about you fullfill mine":
Given a hypothetical man and woman explain cause and effect step by step how allowing gays to marry (or "doing violence to the meaning of the word") keeps that couple apart. Explain it or admit there is no truth to your assertion - be forthright and honest for a change and demonstrate some of the goodness you have until now disingenously claimed to value.
Anonymous said "Your hatred of Judeo-Christianity is really getting a work-out. Here's a quote from Jesus:
"If they hate you, remember they hated me first. They hate me because I tell them that their deeds are evil."".
I don't hate the Jesus character, I'm quite fond of him. He never spoke against gays in anyway, you could learn a lot from him. Rather than disingenously claiming to be a follower of him how about you take up his example and stop all your badmouthing and demonizing of gays?
Anonymous said "You'll have to explain why you think God is directing this commandment at Christians. It was part of the covenant God made with the Israelites that he rescued from slavery to the Egyptians.".
God says throughout the bible that he made his convenant with his people FOR ALL TIME. The old testament is part of the Christian bible and you cannot deny it if you accept Christianity. Jesus said not one jot, not one tithe of the old law shall pass, as he has come to fulfill the old law, not to abolish it. What applied to the Jews applies to the Christians as well.
Anonymous said "As far as the people it was directed to, the people didn't generally start worshipping false idols because they lacked belief. They had seen God'd miracles firsthand. They knew he was real. They succumbed to carnality and materiality.".
No miracles took place, that is all fantasy. Everyone who worships a god, christians included, worships a false idol, there is no such thing as the supernatural. People worship other than the Christian gods because cultures were seperate and developed their own god myths which placed their particular group at the centre of the universe and proclaimed all others to be inferior. That's the essence of what's wrong with religion, at its heart they are all destructive "us versus them" philosophies that impede progress to a truly fair and just world of equality.
Anonymous said "Anyway, the command wasn't directed at Christians and it didn't talk about non-believers.".
Grow up and accept reality. People who believe in other than christian gods are non believers in the Christian god. The old testament is part of your bible, if it didn't apply to Christians it wouldn't be part of your bible. The fact is your god demands you kill non-believers who try to convert you, I'm not surprised you're ashamed of the truth of your holy texts and want to disown them, but you can't. This demonstrates the fatal flaw at the heart of "judeo-christianity" and why it can never be a valid source of morality.
"I don't hate the Jesus character, I'm quite fond of him. He never spoke against gays in anyway, you could learn a lot from him."
Glad to hear you are fond of the Jesus "character". As you pointed out though, the real Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and the law clearly talks about homosexuality.
"God says throughout the bible that he made his convenant with his people FOR ALL TIME. The old testament is part of the Christian bible and you cannot deny it if you accept Christianity. Jesus said not one jot, not one tithe of the old law shall pass, as he has come to fulfill the old law, not to abolish it. What applied to the Jews applies to the Christians as well."
Randi, you clearly haven't taken my advice and read Romans or any of the rest of the NT so you can continue to say things that simply aren't true.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said he came to "fulfill the law"? Consider Romans 8:3-4:
"For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be FULFILLED in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to he Spirit."
"God says throughout the bible that he made his convenant with his people FOR ALL TIME. The old testament is part of the Christian bible and you cannot deny it if you accept Christianity. Jesus said not one jot, not one tithe of the old law shall pass, as he has come to fulfill the old law, not to abolish it. What applied to the Jews applies to the Christians as well."
As for whether the Law applies to Christians, how do you, with your brilliant grasp of theology explain this from Romans 7:4-6:
"Likewise, my brothers, you have also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. BUT NOW WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW, having died to that which held us captive, SO THAT WE SERVE NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE but in the new life of the Spirit."
"No miracles took place, that is all fantasy. Everyone who worships a god, christians included, worships a false idol, there is no such thing as the supernatural. People worship other than the Christian gods because cultures were seperate and developed their own god myths which placed their particular group at the centre of the universe and proclaimed all others to be inferior. That's the essence of what's wrong with religion, at its heart they are all destructive "us versus them" philosophies that impede progress to a truly fair and just world of equality."
Miracles did take place. This is why Christianity grew despite extreme persecution. People saw the miracles and knew Jesus was worth dying for. Do you really think people would stick with Zeus under threat of death?
You could use the "us vs them" rhetoric for any conviction, belief or commitment. Christianity is open to all regardless of race, ethncity or culture and is unusually flexible in its ability to reach out.
"People who believe in other than christian gods are non believers in the Christian god."
The verse didn't discuss someone that believed in false gods, it discussed those that serve other gods. In the story of Solomon, he served other gods under pressure from his foreign wives not because of lack of belief in the true God. Check out the story.
"The old testament is part of your bible, if it didn't apply to Christians it wouldn't be part of your bible."
See the last few posts.
"The fact is your god demands you kill non-believers who try to convert you, I'm not surprised you're ashamed of the truth of your holy texts and want to disown them, but you can't."
Sorry, you're wrong.
"This demonstrates the fatal flaw at the heart of "judeo-christianity" and why it can never be a valid source of morality."
Not only can it be, it is the source of morality in the world. Facts are facts.
OK Orin, I read the Mathematica study, not just the executive summary. You seem to have left out some important details.
This study involved four abstinence-only programs offered in elementary and middle school, that is, it did not include classes offered at the high school level. The four ab-only classes were set up very differently. One met every day for one entire school year, another met 52 times over a three year period, another met once per week for two years, and the last met 2.5 hours everyday for up to four years (if students remained enrolled that long).
The control groups received the regular school classes on health, which like the four abstinence-only programs they were compared to, were also quite different. Two of them included absolutely NO information about contraceptives or STDs. One control program included information about contraceptive use, STDs, and the benefits of abstinence. The last control program provided what it called grade-appropriate coverage of comprehensive health education; sexuality and HIV/AIDS; drugs, alcohol, and tobacco; and violence prevention. Abstinence and contraceptive use were covered beginning in fifth grade. (PDF Pg 34)
Since half of the control groups did not receive comprehensive sex education, this study did not compare ab-only to comprehensive programs.
What results did these authors find? Well, even though one abstinence-only program met for 2.5 hours every day for up to four school years and another met every day for one school year, the results indicated:
youth in the program group were no more likely to abstain from sex than their control group counterparts (PDF Pg 53)
None of the individual programs had statistically significant impacts on the rate of
sexual abstinence, whether measured as either always remaining abstinent or being abstinent during the last 12 months. (PDF Pg 54)
Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex. About one-quarter of all youth in both groups had sex with three or more partners and about one in six had sex with four or more partners. (PDF Pg 55)
Based on a question asking non-abstinent youth the age at which they first had sex, the reported mean age at first intercourse is identical between the program and control groups, 14.9 years. (PDF Pg 55)
Forty percent of program group youth reported that they expected to abstain from sex until marriage compared with 37 percent of control group youth, a difference that is not statistically significant (Table IV.2). This pattern is similar for the other two measures -- expectations to abstain from sex through high school and as a teenager (until age 20). On each measure, program group youth had slightly higher expectations than control group youth, but the differences are not statistically significant.
Eight percent of all control group youth and seven percent of all program group youth reported having had sexual intercourse and not using a condom the first time (Figure IV.2). There are similarly no differences when measured over the last 12 months, 17 percent of youth in both groups reported having had sex in the last 12 months and using a condom only sometimes, and 4 percent reported having had sex in the last 12 months and never using a condom.
Did you notice the frequent use of the word "reported" in the results? That's because unlike the Bearman and Bruckner study (http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/people/downloads/after_the_promise.pdf) which collected urine samples and/or HPV assays from over 11,000 teens, this study of fewer than 3,000 students relied solely on a final follow-up survey. (PDF Pg 53) And we all know how reliable self-reports about sexual behavior of teenagers is, don't we? What did Bearman and Bruckner find when they compared self-reports to medical tests for STDs? They found that medically determined STD rates were signficantly higher than what was reported by kids in the ab-only programs.
I hope you realize Orin, that your own federal government, specifically the Centers for Disease Control are also "condom pushers" and they push them for a reason -- to save lives.
Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf
Condom withholders are like Denny Pattyn, the founder of The Silver Ring Thing abstinence program that has been found to have an 88% failure rate and which no longer applies for federal funding. Mr. Pattyn had the following conversation with Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes.
"We spoke with some of the kids after the show in Fort Myers and they said that going into the program they thought that condoms did work, but your show convinced them that they didn’t," says Bradley to Pattyn.
"Right. Well, that’s good because we believe that condoms aren’t the answer," says Pattyn.
"You’re telling kids not to have sex. But some kids are going to have sex," says Bradley. "What do you tell those kids. You tell them not to wear a condom?"
"What I would say is: If you choose to use a condom, don’t think you’re getting the protection you think you’re getting," says Pattyn.
"A kid’s part of your program, and he comes to you and says, 'You know, I’m going to have sex. I’ve reached a point and I’m going to do this. Should I use a condom?' What do you say?" asks Bradley.
"My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom," says Pattyn. "I don't think it'll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom."
But wouldn't his daughter be more protected with a condom than without? "Not long term," says Pattyn.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml
How long term does he think HIV is? He's willing to risk his daughter's HIV status because of his beliefs. Am I the only one who finds this to be outrageous?
No one claims condoms protect hearts or emotional lives, however, our leading medical experts have determined that condoms do, when used correctly and consistently, protect people by reducing the risk of HIV/AIDs and other STDs. I am glad that our public schools present the findings of the CDC condom pushers rather than condom withholders like Dennis Pattyn.
Anonymous said " As you pointed out though, the "real" Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and the law clearly talks about homosexuality.".
And therefore case closed. You are by your own admission commanded by Jesus to kill non-believers who try to convert you to other gods.
Anonymous said "how do you, with your brilliant grasp of theology explain this from Romans 7:4-6:".
Paul was a self-loathing gay man, he was not Jesus and did not speak for Jesus, he didn't even know Jesus. Paul was an imperfect human and what he said doesn't override what Jesus said. If there was any truth to this idea then the 10 commandments would no longer apply as they are part of the "old law". To be consistent you'd have to claim that its no longer wrong to kill because you are no longer under old law.
Anonymous said "Miracles did take place. This is why Christianity grew despite extreme persecution. People saw the miracles and knew Jesus was worth dying for. Do you really think people would stick with Zeus under threat of death?".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have none. Words written on paper count for nothing by themselves. By the same logic Islam must be true because many more Islamists are willing to die for their religion than Christians, just look at all the suicide bombers. Islam must be true because many more the crusades were a much more extreme persecution of muslims than any persecution Christians faced. They must be convinced by the miracles of Mohammed and Allah or they wouldn't be willing to die so much more readily than Christians. By your own logic you're following the wrong religion.
Anonymous said "You could use the "us vs them" rhetoric for any conviction, belief or commitment. Christianity is open to all regardless of race, ethncity or culture and is unusually flexible in its ability to reach out.".
No, the ultimate social goal is to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion. This is not an "us versus them" philosophy, that is the goal of decent people everywhere regardless of whether those we seek to help accept it or not. Christianity on the other hand is an "us versus them" philosophy, it teaches that people should be eternally tortured for the irrelevant difference of religious beliefs. Your statement is just as "true" of Islam. "Islamis open to all regardless of race, ethncity or culture and is unusually flexible in its ability to reach out.".
That's the difference between the philosophy of the righteous and the philosophy of the religious. The righteous believe in fairness for all regardless of their beliefs and the religious believe in eternal torture for anyone who won't be subservient to their religion.
Anonymous said "The verse didn't discuss someone that believed in false gods, it discussed those that serve other gods.".
That's one of the most childish statements I ever heard. You don't serve other gods if you don't believe in them. What profoundly trivial nit-picking.
Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. In other words then your god demands that you kill anyone who tries to get you to server other gods. There, that's a whole lot better now, that excuses all the evil...Idiot.
Excellent job Aunt Bea, you're the greatest.
Thank you, Randi, for all your efforts to bring "fairness for all regardless of their beliefs." You are golden!
"Anonymous said " As you pointed out though, the "real" Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and the law clearly talks about homosexuality.".
And therefore case closed. You are by your own admission commanded by Jesus to kill non-believers who try to convert you to other gods."
He didn't abolish the law. It is still there. Doesn't mean it was directed to Christians. Christians are part of the new covenant prophesied by the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah:
"Behold the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke.."
Jesus spoke of this new covenant at the Last Supper in Matthew 26.
It is explained in more detail in Hebrews 8. Here's Hebrews 8:13:
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete."
Problem is, no one is qualified to carry out that stoning. Everyone has broken the law and encouraged others to do so.
BTW, you continue to misrepresent the verse you refer to. It doesn't say "non-believers". It says members of your household that entice you to serve other gods. At this time, that would represent a traitor to the nation that was founded by a miraculous deliverance of God. Similar to an Anerican recruiting for the Taliban. There are other reasons someone might break this command other than disbelief.
Finally, you fail to distinguish between the Law and the penalty for breaking the Law. There is no penalty mentioned for not stoning the lawbreaker.
"Paul was a self-loathing gay man, he was not Jesus and did not speak for Jesus, he didn't even know Jesus."
Paul was an imperfect human and what he said doesn't override what Jesus said. If there was any truth to this idea then the 10 commandments would no longer apply as they are part of the "old law". To be consistent you'd have to claim that its no longer wrong to kill because you are no longer under old law."
Uh, Randi, you once posted some malarkey arguing that Jesus was gay. Now, you're saying the same about Paul. I assume your evidence for this claim is similar to your evidence for that one.
Interesting how a common way for gays to attack others is to say the target is gay. Are you conceding that there is something wrong with that?
Also, interesting that you claim to believe Jesus is fictional but then say Paul didn't really know him. If you're saying the Bible is fictitious, you have to accept on those terms.
Anyway, the book of Acts, which I believe is a historical account penned by the apostle Luke says Jesus appeared to Paul and called him "a chosen instrument to carry my name".
Paul didn't override Jesus and he didn't contradict him. You assume you know what it means to "fulfill" the Law. Jesus fulfilled it by paying the penalty for those who broke it. The moral principles remain but the penalty has been fulfilled.
"Anonymous said "Miracles did take place. This is why Christianity grew despite extreme persecution. People saw the miracles and knew Jesus was worth dying for. Do you really think people would stick with Zeus under threat of death?".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have none. Words written on paper count for nothing by themselves."
What more proof could you be seeking? Jesus was rejected by everyone and yet shortly after these same people were willing to die for him. His death was publicly observed and he appeared to hundreds after his death. Four eyewitness accounts of both his death and subsequent appearance exist.
"By the same logic Islam must be true because many more Islamists are willing to die for their religion than Christians, just look at all the suicide bombers."
Not the same at all. They are trying to preserve a way of life that has existed for over a millenium. Christians in the first century were at beginning od something.
"Islam must be true because many more the crusades were a much more extreme persecution of muslims than any persecution Christians faced. They must be convinced by the miracles of Mohammed and Allah or they wouldn't be willing to die so much more readily than Christians. By your own logic you're following the wrong religion."
Muslims were defending what they thought was their homeland. Again, no comparison to early Christians who trusted in God and didn't band together to fight the Emperor and the Pharisees by force.
"No, the ultimate social goal is to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion."
Unfortunately, as soon as you have any idea of how to do that, you become an "us" and those who don't agree become a "them". Religion isn't the only thing people disagree about. They disagree about virtually everything.
"This is not an "us versus them" philosophy, that is the goal of decent people everywhere regardless of whether those we seek to help accept it or not."
?
"Christianity on the other hand is an "us versus them" philosophy, it teaches that people should be eternally tortured for the irrelevant difference of religious beliefs."
Beliefs aren't irrelevant. They guide actions.
"Your statement is just as "true" of Islam. "Islamis open to all regardless of race, ethncity or culture and is unusually flexible in its ability to reach out."."
Each person can evaluate this on their own.
Anonymous said "It is still there. Doesn't mean it was directed to Christians.".
Obviously you don't believe that yourself. If you do lets hear you say unequivocaly that its not a sin for a Christian to be gay, that its not a sin for a Christian to murder or steal - that's all a part of the old covenant and you still follow it. You can't pick or choose, either you are bound by all the old covenant or none of it.
Anonymous said "Jesus spoke of this new covenant at the Last Supper in Matthew 26.It is explained in more detail in Hebrews 8.".
Jesus didn't say anything about the old testement no longer being in effect in Matthew 26 and didn't speak at all in Hebrews 8.
Anonymous said " you continue to misrepresent the verse you refer to. It doesn't say "non-believers". It says members of your household that entice you to serve other gods.".
The idea that people who encourage you to serve other gods believe in the Christian god is absurd, only a fool would think that a realistic possiblility. You don't believe this yourself, you're just desperate for an excuse to deny what your bible tells you to do.
Anonymous said "Finally, you fail to distinguish between the Law and the penalty for breaking the Law. There is no penalty mentioned for not stoning the lawbreaker.".
Its irrelevant what the penalty is. Your god commands you to kill non-believers who try to convert you. It is your obligation as a christian to do your best to carry out your god's wishes, once again, your belief is shown to be non-existent as you don't do as you are commanded.
Anonymous said "Interesting how a common way for gays to attack others is to say the target is gay. Are you conceding that there is something wrong with that?".
The problem with Paul was not that he was gay, but that he was self-loathing and didn't accept himself as he was. I never said there was anything wrong with Jesus being gay, in fact this is a point in his favour.
Anonymous said "Also, interesting that you claim to believe Jesus is fictional but then say Paul didn't really know him. If you're saying the Bible is fictitious, you have to accept on those terms.".
Obviously as Jesus is fictitious Paul didn't know him.
Anonymous said "Jesus fulfilled it by paying the penalty for those who broke it.".
One person cannot take responsiblity for the wrongs committed by others - that's just crazy talk and since its at the heart of Christianity shows the insanity of this yet again false religion.
Anonymous said "What more proof could you be seeking? Jesus was rejected by everyone and yet shortly after these same people were willing to die for him. His death was publicly observed and he appeared to hundreds after his death. Four eyewitness accounts of both his death and subsequent appearance exist.".
That's no proof at all. I could write on paper that four people witnessed miracles and that most certainly wouldn't prove that any of it took place and its the same with your bible. All the other religious texts claim miracles and point to themselves as proof of that, why don't you believe them?
There are no historical accounts of Jesus apart from the bible and there were many writers at his time who recorded all manner of obscure people, the thought that they would have failed to note such a supposedly major figure and the return from the dead of a large number of people simply isn't credible. Other biblical and very minor figures are recorded by these historians and not Jesus, there's a reason for that - he never existed, and nor did all these supposed miracles. All made up, like the book of Mormon, like the Koran, like Hinduism's sacred texts.
Anonymous said "Not the same at all. They are trying to preserve a way of life that has existed for over a millenium. Christians in the first century were at beginning od something."
Absolutely the same. They are just as convinced, if not more so, as the Christians that their religion is the one true religion and they are far more willing to die for it than Christians are. By your logic that means its the truth. The Heaven's Gate cult members were willing to die for their beliefs right at the beginning of their cult, by your logic that must mean it was true that there was a spaceship following the comet Halebob and they are all now in a better place. Just because people are willing to die for a belief doesn't offer the slightest evidence for it being the truth.
Anonymous said ""No, the ultimate social goal is to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion."
Unfortunately, as soon as you have any idea of how to do that, you become an "us" and those who don't agree become a "them". Religion isn't the only thing people disagree about. They disagree about virtually everything."
No, those of us who accept this philosophy include all in our goals regardless of their beliefs. I am determined to make the world a better place for you and me regardless of your belief that I should be tortured for an eternity. I've risen above your petty religion to make you my equal.
Anonymous said "Beliefs aren't irrelevant. They guide actions.".
Wheter one believes in the Christian, Islamic, or Hindu gods is irrelevant to whether or not they are a good person. Its irrelevant to the fact that no one who has not harmed others deserves to be tortured for an eternity as your religion suggests.
Post a Comment
<< Home