Would Muslim-Owned Bakeries Bake A Wedding Cake For Ben And Steven?
[guest post by Dana]
So, the question of whether Muslim bakeries would bake wedding cakes for gays came up several times in the comments at the Indiana Pizza Place post.
Steven Crowder went to Dearborn to find out:
For these Muslim bakeries, the answer is “no”.
Conservative podcast host Steven Crowder posted hidden-camera video Thursday showing employees at several Muslim-owned bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan, declining his business or referring him to other shops when he asked for a wedding cake with the message “Ben and Steven forever.”
Which was fine with Mr. Crowder. “I’m not even saying these Muslim bakeries shouldn’t have a right to do whatever they did — they absolutely should — and many more of them would than Christian bakeries,” he said in his podcast on the website Louder with Crowder.
His video makes a point that has long rankled the right: That Christian-owned shops have been targeted for legal action and derision for refusing to serve same-sex weddings even as gay-rights activists and media outlets ignore business owners of other faiths known for their conservative social views, notably Islam.
No word of the MSM trolling the bakeries in Dearborn, nor outraged social justice warriors crying DISCRIMINATION!
Because it’s Easter weekend, I guess.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:01 pmi don’t get it
is this really where failmerican orthodoxically (small O) anti-gay christians wanna set the bar?
oh hey check it out muslims discriminate too
this is just getting weird
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:07 pmI would like to say though that I wish Ben and Steven every happiness
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:15 pmThey are pointing out how damn hypocritical you and yours are, Happyfeet.
JD (a1f721) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:22 pmI wonder if they would make communion wafers? Or Passover matzoh?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:22 pmHappy, you still don’t get it. It’s not about gays at all. It’s about being free to follow your own religion. Last I looked that was actually written down in the Constitution, while the right to marry some one of the same sex is just now being scribbled into the margins. And even then, the right to have a certain person make you a cake, mostly out of spite, is still not certain.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:26 pmi don’t understand how am i hypocritical
i’m hurt that you seem so mad at me
I never said anyone should be forced to bake cakes muslim or christian or buddhist or vegan i said that’s their choice and boy do I take a dim view of it
what’s more hypocritical I think is those ones what fought fought fought to keep gay people from having the freedom to marry turning around and whining about how some picayune baking-related freedom is being trampled on and now their kids have to go to special summer camps
god bless everyone’s hearts though
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:28 pmI wonder what happens in the summer when the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage and vacates all the federal court rulings.
I have supported SSM for about 20 years now, but this pizza thing may be the last straw. It is no longer about tolerance, it is about submission, and if that’s what it is, I’m dead against it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:30 pmwtf
that is so not america
but anyway that’s to explain the summer camp reference in #7
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:32 pmI am angry because your position is about forcing conformity in a most destructive way.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:32 pmwell don’t be angry picklehead
i just make comments on the internet
i’m not an activist or nothing
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:33 pmNothing like the occasional beheading to make people respect your right to make your daily bread in peace.
Actually, it looked like the little guy was willing to bake, just not write or decorate with gay imagery. “Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No!” “Make pictures over there.”
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:38 pmWhat are those poor gay observant Muslims going to do? Where will they get their halal wedding cakes?
Maybe if their imam has a talk with the baker it’ll all work out OK.
Maybe the local news station could set that up? They’re there to help.
Pious Agnostic (4e1a81) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:50 pmi also never said anybody should boycott indiana least of all me
i never said anyone should burn anything
i didn’t make any nasty yelp comments
i never even tried to dissuade anyone from donating to the we hate gays super showcase showdown trust fund
i said lady you and your husband particularly your husband make me sick to where i think I’m a barf
and here you people are declaring a fatwa on my little head
like me I’M the problem in America
well I’m not
my number one chiefest foremost interest is wanting so badly to have a Team R that keeps its eye on the ball that I can support
and through all this Mr. Governor Scott Walker has done this
whilst Mr. Senator Cruz to my disappointment has joined Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W. Bush, grandson of his eminence George Herbert Walker Bush, former governor of Florida and Duke of the Lesser Spratly Islands, in full-throatedly pandering to the most base socially retrograde elements of the Team R coalition
i know i know
this too shall pass
but there’s just so much going on right now of import and portent
and while Team R pulls the family truckster over cause the kids are squabbling in the back
the whirl is just passing them by
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:51 pmThat’s politics, happyfeet. In the primaries, candidates go to the right to get my vote and in the general election move toward the center to get yours. Triangulation?
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:56 pmBut I like Walker too. More than Cruz. More than Rubio. More than Jeb. More than beans, even.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:57 pmgrandsoni slept through dynasty class
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 5:57 pmMr. nk i’m beginning to appreciate Mr. Cruz an awful lot for what his NOT getting the nomination will mean
cause if him with all his smarts and smoov talking can’t gitter done
it’s game over for the whole Reagan 2.0 fantasy
and then maybe we can all move on
together
towards a wondrous albeit uncertain future
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:00 pmIt is no longer about tolerance, it is about submission.
This. In a nutshell. An ugly, horrible, anti-American nutshell.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:01 pmi have oodles of religious freedom
oodles, Dana
you need to borrow any just back up the chevy I load her up
I practice my religion on a train I practice it in the rain with a house with a mouse
here there box fox
god bless america
this drama queen I are oppressed nonsense among people whose lives haven’t been affected one whit cause some profoundly statistically insignificant number of people in wedding related industries are having trouble adjusting to reality is
the height of ridiculousness
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:07 pmDon’t be all down on Reagan. He appointed Anthony Kennedy. We wouldn’t be having this conversation without Anthony Kennedy. And then what would I be doing to pass the time this evening?
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:08 pmhah that made me smile
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:08 pmIf the left came down on these businesses, hacking their Web sites and threatening them with death, would conservatives send them $800,000?
I think it’s a fair question.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:18 pmI could never support SSM because I could never convince myself it was ever about tolerance. There was no live-and-let-live involved. It was always about the left coming up with a rationale to impose it’s views on anybody who isn’t a leftist.
Watching the evolution of the Big Lie was fascinating, as leftists openly discussed the Big Lie as a lie. Normally if a lie is exposed as a lie it loses its power. For instance, after the Lawrence decision gay marriage advocates pushed for legal recognition of civil unions. And one of their ploys was to deny they were in fact gay marriage advocates. They would angrily denounce “right-wingers” for claiming they had the views and the objectives that they themselves would proudly claim to have under different circumstances.
The next increment on their agenda was always a paranoid, right-wing, nutcase delusion. Until it happened. Then it was always inevitable and necessary. But the next step, that’s still a paranoid, right-wing, nutcase delusion. Until it happened. Etc.
Oh, and those paranoid right-wing nutcases? They deserve everything that’s happening to them.
Rod Dreher at The American Conservative calls it “the Law of Merited Impossibility.” It’s always just tea-bagging crazy talk to claim that anybody is going to have their rights trampled or that their own marriages will be effected as the left demands all sorts of concessions as they advance the cause of SSM. That’s just impossible. Until they make their next move. And those xtofascist h8ers brought it on themselves anyway.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:21 pmThey’d probably get a $1 million right off the bat from Prince Bandar alone, Patterico. Christian conservatives, who knows? The indications from this group of commenters is that they hate Muslims more than they hate gays, atheists, and broccoli. If it were Orthodox Jews, now, instead of Muslims, it might be a different story. Which leads to another question — why haven’t Jews been targeted either?
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:30 pmIt is no longer about tolerance, it is about submission.
No wonder the Left is so fond of Islam.
Edoc118 (ffe670) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:33 pmmy muslim friend M pinged me friday to say happy easter
i said happy easter to you too i hope you find the golden egg
and he said yes yes and then I retire!
me I’m so on the same page
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:38 pmBull, happy.
Quote and link. Show me where Ted Cruz said anything objectionable, with specifics.
You won’t.
You can’t and you won’t.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:39 pmAs I said before, the intent was to codify a moral conviction into law, that ss behavior was equivalent to heterosexual behavior,
so to disagree with that moral conviction would become illegal.
And it’s been all lies down the line, ever since Hillary said there was no need for a constitutional amendment because of states rights and DOMA.
Of course, not everyone was lying, and even now not every gay or other non-hetero person is at all happy with these events.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:41 pmI’m shocked the Muslims didn’t just take the money. The Persian people I have dealt with would have charged double and never worried.
steveg (794291) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:42 pmThe Syrians I know would have done the same. Economics 102… “sure I’ll do that….”
But when you get to conservative muslims, yeah, they won’t do it…. so make your point and then leave them alone to practice their religion the way their conscience demands
i said pandering
i never said he said anything objectionable
in fact i explicitly said he was smart and smooth-talking
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:43 pmPerhaps that’s why no one is noticing the egg on their faces.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:43 pmThe indications from this group of commenters is that they hate Muslims more than they hate gays, atheists, and broccoli.
Which group of commenters where, nk?
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:45 pmThis group of commenters, here. I could be wrong about the broccoli.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:46 pmi got two heads going to seed in the fridge
i was gonna do pasta salad
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:47 pmBut you said you weren’t against the law.
Now you seem to imply you are.
What is your position, happy?
What did Cruz say at the link you just provided that is objectionable?
Stand up and be heard. Show some spine. Say you disagree with the law. Proclaim your desire to point government guns at bakers and pizza-makers, forcing them to do what the government says. Quit pussy-footing around and stand up for the lack of freedom you believe in, man.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:47 pmThe indications from this group of commenters is that they hate Muslims more than they hate gays, atheists, and broccoli.
I think George W. should have forced a Constitutional crisis by making an executive order, based on Wickard, IIRC, that no broccoli would be allowed to grow in this fair nation, not even in your own garden.
And everyone would have gone crazy and made law saying that Wickard or no, you can do whatever you want in your own garden.
And then we could say you can do what you want in your pizzeria.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:48 pmBe the fascist you wanna be!
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:48 pmGood grief, are you referring to “here” in this thread??? Because I don’t see any indication of hate anywhere.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:48 pmI keep making this argument and yet no one else seems to ever pick it up and run with it:
This is not about “what people do in the bedroom is their own business”. I have little issue with that — it’s between them and God.
This is about MARRIAGE, which has social implications, outside the bedroom.
If two people are married, then SOCIETY is obligated in any number of ways, which has nothing to do with keeping jack or his smelly companion in the bedroom.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:49 pmLet’s go, happy. Say what you’re thinking. The State Must Make the Foodmakers Do What the State Demands.
Embrace your inner fascist!
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:49 pmWe all know what you want, happy. You want men in uniforms standing over food makers, pointing guns at them and screaming “MAKE THE DAMNED FOOD YOU BIGOT!!!”
Just admit it. Admit it. Go ahead. Admit it.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:51 pmNo, not this particular thread. Yet. But many others — old, middlin’ old, and recent.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:52 pmmy position is this is so not the hill and now is so not the time
that is my position
me I’m just so over Team R and its perennial issues with gay people
moveon.org.com.gov.edu.co.uk for the love of pete
I’ll grant you that reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it’s fair to characterize what the good senator has said on this matter as “pandering”
but yes I think I “pandering” is apt in this case
if you browbeat me enough though I can say ok yeah he’s not pandering he’s just expressing his heartfelt principled opinion on this most controversial of issues
but I wouldn’t really mean it I’d just be saying it cause of I want you to have a happy Easter
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:55 pmHow does your Muslim friend M feel about the gay marriagings, happy?
I hope he is open-minded like you. Is he having any discussions with his bigoted bigoted fellow Muslims about it? I hope you are leaning on your Muslim friend M and asking him to call his friends bigoted bigots like you know they are.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:56 pmbut yes I think
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:57 pmI“pandering” is apt in this casei think he’s cool with it he’s a HUGE obama fan
maybe a lil disappointed in O’s response to
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:58 pmHurricaneSuperstorm SandyWhether my Easter is happy or not won’t depend on whether you are willing to substantiate what you have said, happy. Please, please, don’t hold back on my account.
I sense a distinct unwillingness on your part to give specifics. What, specifically, did Ted Cruz say that is pandering, happy?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:58 pmStand behind it, happy. How?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:59 pmI don’t mind at all what feets thinks, he’s welcome to think I’m an evil bigot if he wants and that my peeps should be told to make that pizza or close.
What irritates me is how he doesn’t acknowledge that maybe people have a reason to disagree.
It’s kind of like “discussion nullification”.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 6:59 pmThe other thing irritating is how he always presents things as if it is the conservatives who are going out of their way to make a fuss.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:02 pmwell i thought this bit was interesting, though we’ll have to circle back on exactly how we want to characterize it… I’m a throw in some bold type for emphasis
even you yourself noted that people don’t seem to evince any real desire to “persecute” ANYONE who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament (that’s how I read comment #23)
but here Cruz is unabashedly stating a maximally dire scenario
to my reading
and like I said I think maybe there’s some other characterization than “pandering” what might apply
I’m stumped though for the nonce
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:04 pmI am going to quote the whole story that happy said is “pandering” by Cruz.
Does happy think religious liberty is a fringe view?
Does happy think the state of Indiana did the wrong thing? Let’s hear the specifics.
Does happy think signing the legislation was wrong? That forcing bakers to bake the cakes at gunpoint is the right thing?
Does happy think religious liberty is a cockamamie new theory?
Does happy think the country was legislating on the gay marriagings in the late 1800s when it passed the Equal Protection Clause? “All hail the gay marriagings” was the unspoken theme of the 14th Amendment, says happy?
happy, you don’t have a leg to stand on. You have no way to dispute what Cruz said, so you will give us cutesy dodges. Go!
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:06 pmWrong.
What was all the crap directed at Memories Pizza if not a desire to persecute people who have a good faith religious belief that marriage (between a man and a woman) is a holy sacrament?
I just think that leftists will excuse any belief by Muslims, no matter how atrocious, because, hey, they’re Muslims.
And the right won’t support backwards beliefs by Muslims that they would readily support if held by Christians.
I don’t want the government involved in either situation.
And I see zero pandering by Ted Cruz.
And I see zero proof by you that Ted Cruz was pandering.
But your emotions will trump logic, reason, and evidence, every time.
Won’t it?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:11 pmi guess my question for you is, can we really help our friend Mr. Senator Cruz substantiate his assertion that “they” also want to “persecute” “anyone” who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament?
So far the “persecution,” such as it is, what we been talking about, has been narrowly confined to a very small number of people who work in wedding-related vocations for example cake baking trades and hypothetically wedding-catering pizzerias.
I’m not 100% I can adduce evidence what will show that “they” are casting a net of persecution as widely as Mr. Senator Cruz is alleging.
So I think maybe Mr. Senator Cruz is framing the issue in a way that will especially resonate with a particular audience, but we’ll have to discuss whether or not this can fairly be said to be an example of “pandering” per se.
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:14 pmI just think that leftists will excuse any belief by Muslims, no matter how atrocious, because, hey, they’re Muslims.
Possibly. And then there’s also what mobs in Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, just to mention a few, would do to the employees of those “Fortune 500 companies” if they pulled the same stuff on Muslims that they pulled in Indiana. And the MSM would have to bring all its international reporters back home.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:18 pmFer cryin’ out loud, feets,
what the h*** has to happen before you call it persecution, blood?
Death threats and attempts to close your business isn’t bad enough?
Are you serious??
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:20 pmSo Cruz is pandering because . . . the left does not extend its persecution of gay-haters to Muslims?
Is this your contention, happy? It sure sounds like it. And I am not terribly convinced, if that is truly the argument.
I bet you Sen. Cruz would be willing to concede this obvious point if it got you to admit that he is not a panderer.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:20 pmAsk the contributors to prop 8, the huntress who had her church set ablaze, each who had to give up the company he founded.
narciso (e6517f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:21 pmis this a true statement?
Good gracious pickles I sure hope it isn’t.
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:23 pmThe mobs directed by Bryan and Marino have not made this clear.
narciso (e6517f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:25 pmLet’s put the left’s unwillingness to harass Muslims to one side for the moment.
Are you saying . . .
Are you saying that the supporters of Prop. 8 in California . . .
. . . who weren’t confining their opinions to the cake baking trades and hypothetically wedding catering pizzerias . . .
. . . but were expressing a more generally applicable opinion about the gay marriagings in general . . .
. . . are you saying those people weren’t persecuted by the left?
If that is your contention, could you please kindly define the word “persecute” for us?
Thanks!
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:26 pmGood gracious pickles it obviously is. As anyone who lived through the Prop. 8 fiasco here remembers.
I voted against Prop. 8. But I hate the mafia who persecuted its supporters. And I have contempt for anyone who wants to pretend that persecution didn’t happen.
Please tell me I don’t have to feel compelled to have contempt for you, to feel intellectually honest.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:27 pmFrom the WaPo:
Which of these would opponents of the law favor punishing someone over?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:30 pmis this a true statement?
Good gracious pickles I sure hope it isn’t.
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:23 pm
I thought you were brighter than this, feets,
that is exactly what the truth is
the only way it isn’t true is if you say people are allowed to believe whatever they want for 1, maybe 2 hours a week,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:30 pmthe rest of the week,
agree with us or else.
I think #2 should apply to all businesses. This will become clear after the first rape.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:31 pmeven if all the supporters of Prop 8 were persecuted like Anne Frank or, if you will, Anita Bryant
that doesn’t get us to where we can unequivocally say that Mr. Senator Cruz’s assertion that “anyone who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament” is a target for “persecution”.
You know who often gets persecuted in failmerica?
Witches!
I read a play about this once.
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:32 pmsorry sorry
that doesn’t get us to where we can unequivocally say that Mr. Senator Cruz’s assertion that “anyone who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament” is a target for “persecution” is true.
i knew that period outside the quotations looked funny
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:33 pmYou’re absolutely right. Those who have that good faith belief, but keep their fucking mouths shut? They might escape the persecution. As long as nobody finds out what they really think.
Hooray for happyfeet’s fascist failmerica! You may have your beliefs as long as you don’t say them out loud!!!
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:34 pmJust like the whole pizza thing has proven to be a bridge too far for most folks, so too has feets passive aggressive cutsey schtick finally reached a tipping point. ’bout time too.
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:34 pmi got a belief right now in my head I’m not saying out loud
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:35 pmMaybe if you can show a counter example but you’re with that constitutional scholar Miley cyrus
narciso (e6517f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:36 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:30 pm
They definitely punish #1
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:37 pmThey can punish a school for #2 in MA and CA, and precedent in CO
#3 is not yet,
except maybe on a college campus where a religious group gets its share of student fees
That might be for the best. We all know it’s dangerous to say what you really think. And should be. Right?
Of course, on the outside that’s because your fascist friends will mob you for felony thoughtcrimes.
Here, it’s because someone might challenge your logic. And that’s way more scary, right?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:39 pmHe barely started to come out of it when he felt the need to defend his B.S.
Didn’t last long . . .
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:40 pmHappy, do you think the main reason committed Christians won’t have anything to do with a SSM ceremony is
1) they believe that marriage is sacred and calling a same sex union “marriage” is a desecration and blasphemy, which they want no part of?
2) they just hate fa**ots.
You seem to argue for
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:40 pmnumber 2the second one.We wouldn’t want you to have to stand behind what you say.
That’s what men do. Whether you choose to live up to that standard is your choice, not ours.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:41 pmi’m not as logical as you guys I’m a freely admit that
some of this is just very intuitive to me
for example this idea that the whole of western civ hinges on this teensy handful of oppressed hyper-religious folks in low-skilled mostly food-related service industries
just strikes me as kinda kooky, apart from any logical reason why it might be kooky
for me it’s just kinda prima facie kooky
i don’t even know why i think that
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:44 pmhappy,
Your evidence that people can believe in marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman, and make that belief known, yet are left alone by the left . . . is what, again?
Or is your Big Argument honestly that people can privately hold a belief and not be persecuted as long as they say nothing?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:44 pmHow much of this is battlespace preparation for the Supreme Court if they dare to chose unwisely? Or is it intended to produce that result, so that gays and their single-issue supporters can be welded into the Democrat Party for the next generation?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:45 pmThat sounds like a combination of
a) Arrogance towards the pizza parlor owners based on your perceived class superiority, and
b) a transparently phony exaggeration of the importance of this debate.
Is that all you got? Really?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:46 pmPatterico,
It’s not that bad. They can hold that belief AND espouse it, just so long as they bring the lube up to the honeymoon suite.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:46 pmDid you ever stop to think that, when you place your cutesy little way of phrasing things to the side, there’s not really much left?
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:47 pmfor example this idea that the whole of western civ hinges on this teensy handful of oppressed hyper-religious folks in low-skilled mostly food-related service industries
Why are they “hyper” religious? And what difference does it make whether they are low-skilled or otherwise? Isn’t freedom, freedom, no matter who it applies to? Or at least, shouldn’t it be?
This isn’t just about a teensy handful of oppressed religious people. Look at the bigger picture and the possible consequences to everyone’s freedom.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:49 pmwell it’s all i got right now it’s been a long day Mr. P
and you got two hours on me remember
it’s time for me to go meemees really
or at least start winding down
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:49 pmI know that’s a little harsh — and if only you weren’t constantly as harsh as you are to people you seem to hold in contempt, happy, I might feel a little guilty about it.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:49 pmsome of this is just very intuitive to me
Yes, it’s always about feelings with your type. No facts to intrude upon your communal fantasy world.You just know what’s right and you know you must force others to conform. Because-intuition!
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:49 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:40 pm
Definitely #2,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:50 pmand #1 doesn’t count because that is a really stupid way for Christians to think
so they shouldn’t believe that,
and if they do, they should be too embarrassed to let on
Harshness is one thing. But willful dishonesty about is another thing entirely.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:50 pmDid you ever stop to think that, when you place your cutesy little way of phrasing things to the side, there’s not really much left?
nonono
No!
I been watching CW programming way too long not to know I have to believe in myself
it’s like the first thing they teach you
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:51 pmI said to one of Ace’s people today on Twitter that I think a sense of self-righteousness is one of humankind’s most dangerous emotions.
It’s true even if the self-righteousness is expressed in a cutesy, cornpone style. Think about it.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:51 pmWithout a hint of irony…
Did you ever stop to think that, when you place your cutesy little way of phrasing things to the side, there’s not really much left?
nonono
No!
I been watching CW programming way too long not to know I have to believe in myself
it’s like the first thing they teach you
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:53 pmI know that’s a little harsh — and if only you weren’t constantly as harsh as you are to people you seem to hold in contempt, happy, I might feel a little guilty about it.
i’m not harsh to real people just to them ones what become cable news fodder, who I freely admit I’m not very nice to
but I’m extremely ecumenical about it
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:53 pmMr. Jeff always called me cornpone when he got mad at me
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:56 pmKevin, I believe this whole thing is preparation for 2016. It’s low hanging fruit, if you’ll forgive the pun, which traditionally trips up Repubs. The current crop seem less inclined to soil themselves. Could they be learning? Nah!
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:56 pmDo you subscribe to the Pizza Trutherism that these people sought out the publicity, for to collect the hundreds of thousands of monies for their mouthings on the gay marriagings?
Or did they just have some asshole reporter come in looking for a cheap story, and happen to tell the truth about their beliefs to said reporter?
If the latter, then God help anyone who guilelessly tells the truth to some Big Media Scumbag who comes in looking for a cheap story. For they then become fodder for the contempt of Cornpone Happy, whose Self-Righteous Proclamations Are Deserved when directed at someone who Became Cable News Fodder.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:57 pmOh, well then I take it back, because if he said it then it’s automatically wrong.
Or maybe the truth is the truth whether said by me or by . . . someone else.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/4/2015 @ 7:59 pmLuke 18:9-14
Jesus told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ … Self-righteousness dooms us because we cannot see our place before God, or even before other men. It’s the great delusion, and it’s the cloak we wear to prevent us from seeing ourselves honestly – lest we be found wanting.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:03 pmDo you subscribe to the Pizza Trutherism that these people sought out the publicity, for to collect the hundreds of thousands of monies for their mouthings on the gay marriagings?
no that’s silly
crystal and clem don’t orchestrate stuff
things just happen or don’t happen
Or did they just have some asshole reporter come in looking for a cheap story, and happen to tell the truth about their beliefs to said reporter?
yes yes yes the reporter was sleazy
but still
you don’t exactly need a high school diploma in failmerica to know that you talk to reporters at your own considerable risk
***
you kinda lost me at the end there but we can circle back for that stuff later
hey you know what’s insanely prominent in these northside neighborhoods here in Chicago?
bunnies!
I never seen so many damn bunnies
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:04 pmand they’re not scared of people
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:05 pmcrystal and clem don’t orchestrate stuff
things just happen or don’t happen
Like without anyone willfully seeing to it that it happens? Without *intent*??
you don’t exactly need a high school diploma in failmerica to know that you talk to reporters at your own considerable risk
That’s the thing, I think that the pizza owner didn’t have any reason to think that she was being set up by a professional troller only to be later smeared. Why would she? The reporter likely presented herself as a curious commentator who *really* wanted the small business owners’ perspective on all this craziness going on. I think it speaks of a naivete of the pizza owner, which I find refreshing, albeit dangerous. But not everyone is cynical, not everyone sees the charade. Unfortunately, the pizza owner now sees behind the screen, doesn’t she?
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:09 pmOnly hunt rabbits when there’s snow on the ground, happyfeet. You’re taking an awful chance with horrible rodent diseases otherwise.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:09 pmgot it Mr. nk I’m a tell katniss our foray outside the fence tomorrow is canceled
Dana I’m not sure that lens is the one I would choose exactly
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:15 pmIt can also be understood metaphorically for a broader context.
nk (dbc370) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:22 pmin this thread though i kinda felt like the rabbit
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:24 pmDuke? Wisconsin? Either one gives us a class act champ and that sleaze Calipari is GONSKI!
Matador (996dab) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:24 pmin closing i’ll just say that the dude in the video has freakishly large arms and then he wears cable sweaters what make them look even more hulkish
good god those are some hooker-strangling arms
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:26 pmAnd so predictably, clown nose back on.
hey you know what’s insanely prominent in these northside neighborhoods here in Chicago?
bunnies!
I never seen so many damn bunnies
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:30 pmit’s easter Mr. Gazzer
what if one of these bunnies is The One ever think of that in your rush to denigrate my commentings?
no you obviously did not
and you know what?
peace be with you
that’s what I say
happyfeet (831175) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:32 pmI sent a few bucks to the pizza folks. If the SJWs attacked a Muslim bakery in a similar manner then I’d send them the same amount. Of course there’s no reason to set that money aside, as the SJWs would never have the stones to punk the Muslims. Case in point: Cook’s tussle with Indiana and silence towards his Middle East retailers and Chinese manufacturers.
Beasts of England (837c0b) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:34 pmSelf-righteousness dooms us because we cannot see our place before God, or even before other men. It’s the great delusion, and it’s the cloak we wear to prevent us from seeing ourselves honestly – lest we be found wanting.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:03 pm
A few weeks ago a friend said something that I thought odd, but have come to see the sense of it.
Self-righteousness comes from a person thinking they are better than others by whatever their standard is. Hence, there is liberal self-righteousness as well. They think they are the good people for being “tolerant”, and in their “tolerance self-righteousness” look down on those they think are inferior.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:36 pmAnd yet they are some of the least tolerant amongst us. To the tolerance is group think and conformity and that’s it. Try disagreeing with a NYT reader on anything. They are scared to. Future cocktail party invites depend on it.
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:39 pmDuke beat Wisconsin early in the season at Wisconsin, which is very hard to do,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:41 pmbut they had to shot a stadium record 67% from the floor to do it.
I have always maintained that there is no more bigoted sanctimonious group of people than liberals. I think we are supposed to be thanking them for tolerating us, the barely tolerable.
Dana (86e864) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:43 pmIt is the foolishness which necessarily and logically results from denying objective morality. There either is an objective morality and terms that everyone can agree on in their discussion,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 8:46 pmor one denies objective morality,
and once there is only subjective morality,
then, well,
everything is subjective
and truth is no longer an important thing,
only who yells the loudest in a “participatory democracy”
This was interesting (thanks to PowerLine)
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/4/2015 @ 9:11 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416421/church-left-yuval-levin
#68
hf
not trying to pile on.
I think the use of the global “anyone” muddles things a bit, but when some poor thing in Northwest Nowhere Population 2875 gets bitched out by a few hundred thousand activists over a clear act of religious conscience, yeah I start to agree that “anyone” who gets into the crosshairs of the press will be attacked. The press went looking into small towns for people who naively thought their religious beliefs precluded participating (in any way) into a gay marriage.
This isn’t team R against gays, it is team R deminding tolerance for those whose conscience says “no can do the pizza at the wedding”. Yeah I want that for Muslims too, I just don’t want to find that one religion is protected and others like Christianity, not so much.
My personal opinion is that in the end this is a win for the GOP as long as they say that absent threat of violence, everyone ought to have the right to live their own life without government interference.
I was reading a student letter to a university paper regarding the need for “safe places” for students to go to whenever there was a speaker invited to campus that another might disagree with. Evidently the “safe areas” had been rated and found lacking for strange reasons like some vague oppressive feeling due to all the white priveledge vibe in the building etc. The writer wondered aloud if maybe the affected student should not attend the speech, or maybe retire to ones dorm room for safety.
I guess the lesson is that sometimes you don’t get the pizza you really didn’t want anyway and you have to be satisfied that you made some small town girl with a religious conscience look like a bigot. Yea Team D!!!!
steveg (794291) — 4/4/2015 @ 9:12 pmR.I.P. Bob Burns, drummer on the first two Lynyrd Skynyrd albums
Icy (d962d5) — 4/4/2015 @ 9:40 pmI know this was directed at Happy, but I feel like I can chime in here.
To me neither reason you mention here is valid. In reverse order then:
2 – I think were both on board why this is wrong.
1 – It does not matter one iota how sincere or “good faith” a belief is when it is not based on reality. Somehow we have jumped right off from saying that someone has a right to believe whatever they want to everyone else must make sure they can go on acting in whatever way they want.
If I have to choose on one hand between allowing people to believe in and organize their businesses around fairy tales, and on the other hand, treating people fairly, I will choose the latter every time.
Gil (febf10) — 4/4/2015 @ 10:47 pmSure, it’s not like the first settlers of the new world came here to escape religious persecution or anything.
I don’t know why I bother.
NJRob (d36337) — 4/4/2015 @ 10:53 pmYou press the point with a Christian baker, and he responds with a lawyer to answer the charges drummed up by the State.
askeptic (efcf22) — 4/4/2015 @ 11:35 pmYou press the point with a Muslim baker, and he responds with a very large knife – or, you get your cake with an explosive vest baked into it.
Either way, that Christian baker starts to look pretty good.
I posted a link to this clip on my Facebook page, and a couple of people declared themselves interested in seeing the whole, unedited clip.
Not sure if they have anything like a similar level of interest in viewing the unedited film of the Memory Pizza report.
Karl L (cb2ce3) — 4/4/2015 @ 11:48 pmPatterico asked:
Since I’ve given small amounts to Memories Pizza and Mandy Nagy, and wouldn’t to the Muslim businesses unless certain conditions were met, I thought I’d take a stab at it. To lay the religion cards up front, I’m Jewish, which may affect how you interpret my view of Islam in particular.
In the cases I gave money to, someone I trust has vouched for them (Ms. Nagy), or I at least have a basis for believing that I probably find the people broadly sympathetic (the O’Connors). If I found out that the pizza sellers were Westboro types, I would regret my donation. If Westboro was my idea of a typical Christian, in the absence of other information I wouldn’t bet that they were people I want to support.
With Muslims, I may feel sympathetic to their individual position, but unless somebody like M. Zuhdi Jasser vouches for them, my bet is that a donation is going towards folks who would just as soon turn around and make it zakat for jihad. Is that unfair? Maybe, but Dearborn, UC Irvine, the blind sheik, and the habit of American Muslim leaders to rush to denounce us all as Islamophobes every time one of theirs commit an atrocity make me reluctant to bet the charitable way. Our Christian population anathematizes its worst excesses; our Muslim population excuses theirs. Given that, I’d have to know a lot more about them — details I realize our media is unlikely to provide — before I’d open my wallet.
Eliot (fdf2d8) — 4/4/2015 @ 11:59 pmin this thread though i kinda felt like the rabbit
Closer to the fox.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:29 amConservative podcast host Steven Crowder posted hidden-camera vide
And why does it have to be a conservative instead of a liberal pointing out not just the anti-SSM nature of Islamism, but, more crucially, also the reactionary and even violent (eg, Mohammed ordering those who merely mocked him to be killed) characteristics of it?
The mindset and sympathies of the left are often so ridiculous and contradictory, they’re another example of why it’s not pure sarcasm to describe liberalism as a form of mental illness.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:30 amIt does not matter one iota how sincere or “good faith” a belief is when it is not based on reality. Somehow we have jumped right off from saying that someone has a right to believe whatever they want to everyone else must make sure they can go on acting in whatever way they want.
And what? That your belief is reality and they should just accept that?
Liberal: SSM is fine, legally and in the eyes of God, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Conservative: No it isn’t, it is a sin for me to participate, and my faith is important to me.
Liberal: Don’t worry, God is a figment anyway, so follow the law! Here’s the men with guns now!
Do I have your argument right?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:35 amIf Richard Dawkins ran a bakery and refused to make Christmas cookies because religion is a crime against all mankind, is he discriminating against Christians?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:37 ami got a belief right now in my head I’m not saying out loud
happyfeet, you apparently believe there’s absolutely no reason why homosexuality should be perceived any differently from heterosexuality. If so, would you be as nonchalant and non-self-censoring to say you have a boyfriend, much less a husband, as your saying you have a girlfriend or wife?
The very fact a variety of pro-SSM, dyed-in-the-wool liberals would deem such a question as unfair, inappropriate or a violation of your privacy, but wouldn’t respond in a similar manner to the question regarding a female love interest speaks volumes about, yes, there really is a difference between gay and straight.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:53 amMark, that’s really pretty circular, possibly Moebus.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 1:08 amWhat I don’t get is how come a gay couple, who’ve been oppressed, suppressed, depressed and repressed their whole lives by evil Christian meanies go out to find and evil Christian meanie to do their wedding.
Richard Aubrey (f6d8de) — 4/5/2015 @ 4:21 amI was wondering why you had not shown up earlier, Gil. Are you well?
It does not matter one iota how sincere or “good faith” a belief is when it is not based on reality. Somehow we have jumped right off from saying that someone has a right to believe whatever they want to everyone else must make sure they can go on acting in whatever way they want.
1. The belief, shared by maybe 3% of the population, that a man’s anus is as good as a woman’s vagina is right;
2. The belief in a Higher Power, shared in many forms, through all the history of Mankind, by 97% or more of Mankind, is a delusion.
I am the Emperor Napoleon or maybe Cleopatra. I’m right, you’re deluded. Thanks, Gil.
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:43 amI have supported SSM for about 20 years now, but this pizza thing may be the last straw. It is no longer about tolerance, it is about submission, and if that’s what it is ….
That is what it has always been about. Forced acceptance. Just the way Gil wants it.
JD (962b99) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:52 amI didn’t read all the comments but this one struck me as indicative of the left’s present attitude.
If I have to choose on one hand between allowing people to believe in and organize their businesses around fairy tales, and on the other hand, treating people fairly, I will choose the latter every time.
You define “fairly” and consider all religion (except perhaps global warming) to be “fairy takes.”
Have I got that right ? You choose to “allow” people to believe and organize their business ?
I suggest a reading exercise.
A hint of the topic:
A feature of those historical origins was the “correct” understanding of social conflicts in the period from which those original movements emerged. The fact that at the very core of this “correct” understanding there was a genetic disposition toward the monstrous alienation characteristic of its subsequence development is not essential here. And in any case, this element also grew organically from the climate of that time and therefore can be said to have its origin there as well.
One legacy of that original “correct” understanding is a third peculiarity that makes our systems different from other modern dictatorships: it commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion.
I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. I doubt you will read it, though.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:32 amIf I have to choose on one hand between allowing people to believe in and organize their businesses around fairy tales, and on the other hand, treating people fairly, I will choose the latter every time.
Gil (febf10) — 4/4/2015 @ 10:47 pm
and here I thought we were riddansed of him…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:35 amI was reading about a lecture that Ann Coulter gave a few years ago in front of a group of conservative Republicans — who happened to be gay — and they applauded when she said her primary concern was upholding the social-cultural norms and stability of this society — including to make things as balanced as possible for kids — and that was a major reason why she was opposed to things like SSM. I was so impressed when her audience applauded her.
If 70 to 80 percent of the GLBT shared the ideology of the audience in that room instead of being just the polar opposite — instead of being dumbed-down liberals — I’d consider such people among the most selfless, sensible and caring members of American society. I’d also be confident that they were being fully honest if they said their way of life wasn’t a matter of choice—or analogous to a person who gets nose piercings, puts metal studs in his tongue, and favors over-the-top tattoos, and claiming to do otherwise wouldn’t be a good choice for himself and would impinge on his happiness.
Chicken or egg question: Does homosexuality push a person to the left or does his/her liberalism push him towards homosexuality—or certainly bisexuality? I think of that question when it comes to folks like Andrew Sullivan, the daughter of Dick Cheney, perhaps one of the regular posters to this forum (who takes the anti-SSM position way too personally or with way too much indignation), KABC’s Al Rantel (a gay Republican commentator who voted for Obama in 2008), etc.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:48 amThat is what it has always been about. Forced acceptance. Just the way Gil wants it.
What I find fascinating is the various liberals (perhaps Gil too?) who are big supporters of SSM but who cringe when it comes to the idea of sanctifying polygamy. I’m surprised that even with their “everything is equal!” ethos, they still pause and feel perturbed when it comes to a person being married to more than one person—and historically mostly one guy hitched to more than one wife. That dichotomy truly puzzles me.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:56 am@ nk,
Okay, nk, I went through the other gargantuan thread and read the comments. I also re-read the comments here and frankly, I don’t see where your use of “hate” is accurate. At all. Can you point to a comment that you believe espouses hatred toward Muslims, gays and/or atheists? I may be quibbling about it, but I am so tired of seeing media misrepresentation of average joes and/or Christians expressing unpopular views on the matter, that I am loathe to see it happen here.
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:38 amOne of the things that strikes me about militant atheists like Dawkins or “Gil” is that their perception of what people call “God” is cartoonish at best. They’ve never given actual thought to the idea of a Higher Power, except to sneer, and so their strawgods are things that would make “Old Man with a Beard” look sophisticated.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:05 amLeft to itself, SSM would strengthen society the way marriage always has — it gives couples an incentive to reduce risk taking and seek stability. Children add to that incentive, but it is there in their absence. This is the main reason I have supported SSM.
But the advocates of SSM increasingly seem to be not those who would actually marry, but those willing to use it as a tool to tear society down. The desire of many gays to marry is valid, honest and worthy. The chaotic elements that have always existed in the gay community, however, seem to be using this to their own ends.
This gives me pause.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:13 amI hate broccoli more than anything.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:15 amMark–
There are several problems with polygamy, that distinguishes it from SSM (or traditional marriage).
1) Polygamy is never balanced by polyandry. It always results in a shortage of available women. The only large culture that practices polygamy today (and NEVER polyandry) is the Muslim one, and they have real problems with disaffected young men. SSM mostly balances.
So polygamy decreases social stability markedly, rather than adding to it.
2) Polygamy is never about free choice, or at least free choice on the part of the woman. To the degree that there is any truth in the “patriarchy” meme, polygamy squares the problem. The men who end up with extra women are, pretty much by definition, the ones with the power and the woman is an unequal partner at the get-go. See the Mormon offshoot cults.
So polygamy can never be about free choice. Even if there is a balancing polyandry, it just matches up the mirror-image inequality; the individuals relationships are still quite one-sided.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:25 amThe desire of many gays to marry is valid, honest and worthy. The chaotic elements that have always existed in the gay community, however, seem to be using this to their own ends.
I have reservations about this. I think the whole gay “marriage” thing is an artifact of the AIDS crisis. One of the most common characteristics of male gay life is promiscuity. Two doctor friends of mine used to brag about all their sexual feats. I remember one who suggested anal intercourse as a treatment for hemorrhoids ! He wasn’t kidding. They were among the early victims of AIDS and I liked them, one of them especially. He was a terrific anesthesiologist and I had known him for years.
I had the very unpleasant experience of having to tell a 35 year old nuclear engineer that he had AIDS back when it was a death sentence, He told me that it couldn’t be so because he had been in a committed relationship for ten years. It was a bit like another patient, a woman with breast cancer who was a Christian Scientist, who told me “I’m losing my breast and my religion at the same time.” Except her situation wasn’t fatal.
Laguna Beach was almost “Ground Zero” in the AIDS crisis and I was doing lymph node biopsies when there was no AIDS test and it wasn’t even yet called AIDS.
My point here is that “Civil Unions,” which I have always supported, should have solved the legal problems for gay couples. The emphasis on “marriage” began as an attempt, well intentioned I am sure, to counteract the promiscuity that was killing male gays. Lesbians were more likely to be monogamous but few gay relationships I am aware of ever excluded one night stands and that was the problem. I knew the guys, brothers, who owned “The Little Shrimp,” a famous gay bar in Laguna that was a well known rendezvous. They sold it and moved to Hawaii shortly after the epidemic began.
The marriage thing has been taken over by hostile elements like the ACT UP types who were invading St Patrick’s Cathedral and throwing blood around. They are hostile to religion and this is part of it. I think this will end with less tolerance rather than more.
It is also another blow to civilization at a time when it needs help not more destruction.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:35 amCircling back…
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:37 amReread Cruz’s statement. Notice the phrase he used.
Holy Sacrament
A phrase that has no meaning outside of Christianity. And even in some forms of Christianity (those that view only baptism and communion as sacraments) is incorrect on at least a technical level. Cruz is demanding that marriage be defined according to Christian doctrine, and what non Christians think is at best irrelevant, even those of us who understand Christian sacraments to be explicitly idolatrous acts done by members of an explicitly idolatrous religion…
“Those of us” being people such as Muslim bakers being asked to provide services for a wedding in a Christian church.
Dana 137
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:44 amIf you want an example, look at Steve’s posts quoting Quran and Hadiths, which he uses to justify his hostile attitude to Islam.
I have a hostile attitude toward Islam, too. I am sympathetic to Muslims who were born into the religion and who are not into the modern jihadi philosophy but the religion was begun by a primitive Arab and spread by conquest over an area populated by mostly passive Christians. The result was a shift in Christianity toward more militancy as Popes organized Crusades because the holy places were barred to Christians.
Finally, after a thousand years of militancy and slaughter, the Thirty Years War exhausted the killers and Christianity acquired a peaceful (mostly) character. The great killers of the 20th century were not religious and most were atheists.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:51 amLeft to itself, SSM would strengthen society the way marriage always has
Kevin M, I think your assumption is analogous to well-intentioned (and naive) teachers or academicians saying that if D- and F-grade students start getting A’s and B’s, that will so help their self-esteem that not only will their scholastic standing improve, but so will that of their classmates and the classroom setting in general.
As for your take on polygamy, arguments that can be raised against encouraging homosexuality vis-a-vie the implementation of SSM are just as legitimate. But instead of applying the notion that polygamy will offset the balance of available females for available males, it can be said that SSM goes against studies or surveys show that gay people do less well socially and economically, so they should be steered towards opposite-sex relationships.
As for the theory that a partner (or partners) are, in fact, often coerced into a polygamous relationship, it can be said that because the different nature of maleness (compared with femaleness) upends the natural balance of dominant and submissive in a male/male relationship, SSM should be avoided.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:59 amTwo doctor friends of mine used to brag about all their sexual feats. I remember one who suggested anal intercourse as a treatment for hemorrhoids ! He wasn’t kidding.
That’s both stunning and disconcerting since one would assume people with MDs next to their name would be smart enough — learned enough — to not be so foolish about basic issues related to health and hygiene. But it makes me think of various studies that show even a surprising percentage of doctors and nurses don’t practice the basic procedure of washing their hands before and after seeing patients.
However, the complexity and contradictions of human nature should never be taken lightly or misinterpreted, which the left has a knack for doing time and time again.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:05 amwhich he uses to justify his hostile attitude to Islam.
And if one knows the ruthless, diabolical, vengeful and bloodthirsty nature of the founder of Islam, Mohammed, then the idea of that religion deserving a bit of hostility, particularly from the left (certainly if it’s consistent and not two-faced), makes perfect sense.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:09 amI propose that happyfeet be banned from all threads on this topic until he stops spewing his simple minded narrative that a Christian photographer or whatever who declines to participate in a SSM ceremony “hates gays” and are “thugs”. I’m not saying this as a joke. It’s obnoxious and idiotic and insulting. Even Gil (I think) understands that’s not generally what’s going on. No effort to point out that this is about a bible based principle has any effect whatsoever on his idiotic narrative. Possibly he also understands that this is about a principle people believe to be true, but he feels for some reason he can’t acknowledge that. His only way of acknowledging that is saying he’s bothered by people using the bible to justify “hate”.
It’s the same totally obtuse “hate” mantra that characterizes the narratives of the Obamas, the Pelosis and the leftist trolls that occasionally pop up here regarding this and other topics (race, immigration etc.). It’s not like he has some logical analysis we haven’t heard before. Maybe someone could even create a happyfeet web bot that pops up and spits out those deep thoughts, even including belittling people who don’t want to bake a SSM cake and calling them thugs at the start of the thread, using his typical lingo. Then we could be done with it.
Gerald A (9d7d51) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:31 amIslam is not, and never has been, tolerant at all, about anything, in any fashion. Islam is about enslaving yourself to Allah, and living your life just as Mohammed lived, and doing exactly as the Koran, Hadith and Sura tell you.
Apostasy, heresy and questioning the word of Muhammed are all punishable by death. Reform is not possible.
If it was possible to eliminate Islam, that would be the best choice. However the West is (rightly) unwilling to be brutal enough to do so. So we will be eventually forced to defend ourselves, and will be bloody and brutal enough to force Islam to retreat, but the cycle will repeat.
gahrie (12cc0f) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:56 amCruz is demanding that marriage be defined according to Christian doctrine, and what non Christians think is at best irrelevant, even those of us who understand Christian sacraments to be explicitly idolatrous acts done by members of an explicitly idolatrous religion…
“Those of us” being people such as Muslim bakers being asked to provide services for a wedding in a Christian church.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:37 am
Was Cruz really demanding that every US citizen view marriage as a Christian sacrament? Or was he saying that for those who believe it a sacrament to their religious views, they should not be forced to violate it?
In my understanding there was never a good reason to advocate gay marriage other than to make a social +/- political +/- moral statement. One of the early arguments had to do with hospital visitation policies. It did not take SSM laws to force hospitals to allow SS partners visitation rights. It did not take SSM laws to allow for joint ownership, or for joint custody of children (I know an unmarried hetero “couple” who adopted children together, one was disabled and there was no physical relationship, but a joint partnership in helping foster kids, and then they decided to adopt a family). And as has been pointed out by opponents of marriage “being special”, nothing about a marriage certificate guarantees faithfulness and exclusivity, and one does not need a certificate to be monogamous.
FWIW, I would not expect a religiously serious Jew to be forced to make a cake for a baptism or first communion celebration if they didn’t want to, either.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:57 amYou know that co-exist bumper sticker the Left is so in love with?
Well one of those symbols is not willing to co-exist with the rest of the symbols. I’ll let you guess which one.
gahrie (12cc0f) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:59 amAs far as advocates for SSM saying they are against polygamy,…
advocates for SSM marriage also said DOMA would protect the rights of those who disagreed.
As I’ve said before, not every person who advocates/d for SSM lied about their intent,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:00 ambut some sure did,
so why would I not expect them to continue to do the same?
Islam is both a religion and a form of government.
Very different from how westerners see “religion” today.
Would we be having the same type of arguments if we where talking about National Socialists, Communists, Imperial, Fascist, KKK (as the former military arm of the Democratic Party) etc. demanding adherence to their views at the point of a gun held by the US government?
BfC (8661e2) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:01 amIn my understanding there was never a good reason to advocate gay marriage other than to make a social +/- political +/- moral statement.
Let me clarify,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:04 amI did not mention the issue of various employment and government benefits that were reserved for “legally married heteros”. That was a legitimate issue, and I guess one for hetero couples who reject the idea of needing a “piece of paper”. But that too did not need a SS Marriage law for resolution.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:57 am
I mentioned previously that the GLBT apparently are associated with underwhelming socio-economic traits, and to clarify what I was referring to, I post the following:
^ Just as the ongoing socio-economic problems throughout the black community can no longer be solely or mainly attributed to INTOLERANCE!, RACISM!, BIGOTRY! — as was in greater evidence decades ago (even though — and ironically — black America in the past was not full of the dysfunction common today) — the same concept applies to the GLBT during a period of time when liberalism and acceptance of homosexuality are far greater today than ever before.
Contradictions and ironies galore.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:15 am#146:
Mark, you are too cunning to be understood. And you clearly didn’t understand what I wrote.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:23 amadvocates for SSM marriage also said DOMA would protect the rights of those who disagreed.
Well, this one said it was a pile of crap, but whatever.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:25 amI’ve said rough things about Islam because I don’t think it is a religion that can reset its compass towards peace and acceptance of others, because its prophet increasingly taught intolerance and murder towards non-believers. Usually if a prophet starts out militant and over time moves towards peace and tolerance, it can be seen as teaching a movement away from violence and towards acceptance.
Maybe those words I’ve used have been hateful in tone, and maybe I’ve actually used the word “hate” towards Islam. I dont really hate muslims beyond those like ISIS and the crazies running around rioting in Europe and stirring up the Palestinian mess, but I am exasperated at times to the point of intemperate speech, and intemperate speech is a big part of one of my largest character flaws. I can move rather quickly to a point summed up by an old saying blacks brought with them from out of the south that goes sorta like “f*** all y’all”… which is very very far from the take home message of Jesus’ modeling forgiveness even while he was nailed to a cross
steveg (794291) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:26 amA lot of people who advocated for SSM weren’t lying; they were lied to.
That was one of the points of the lies. To enlist allies, who wouldn’t have signed up to fight for the cause unless they were deceived.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:28 amThat was one of the points of the lies. To enlist allies, who wouldn’t have signed up to fight for the cause unless they were deceived.
I don’t feel deceived. All of the reasons I “signed up” are still valid. My discomfort is with the hijackers, people who have no real interest in SSM except as a tool to their ends. They don’t care about hundreds of thousands of gay couples wanting to get married. They want to force other issues using this as a club, and they don’t care who gets hurt.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:40 amKevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:25 am
Kevin,
please forgive my lack of clarity. I did say that not all advocates of SSM were lying,
and the people who I had in mind were the political and cultural elite class, the people who made headlines like Hillary
I agree with Steve 57 that some, maybe even most (likely by far most if you were asking Joe and Jane average walking down the street) who advocated for SSM did not intend for those who disagreed to be vilified as the pizzeria and bakery people
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:41 ambut the advocates in the news, the politicians and celebrities, were like Hillary and Obama who deceived to move their agenda forward.
Kevin M, my feeling is if the majority of people who have the attention of the press simply wanted to insure that SS couples could have a legal validation of what they wanted to do,
there would not be the amount of hostility shown to the pizza people, or to bakers and photographers, but “live and let live” would be more the ethos of the conversation
for all of these state officials and Apple and Walmart and the NCAA to go berserk the way they have, it seems to me that it is not just “chaotic elements” and “hijackers” who prefer the totalitarian version, but a whole bunch of people
but then again, maybe that is just the perception made by the social preeminence of a few hijackers and chaotic elements and 90% of those in favor of SSM actually think the bakers and pizzeria people should be allowed to do their own thing, too
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:52 amIf so, I wish more of them would raise their voices. I know a few have.
And there too, many a lot more have than we will ever know because their stories don’t make it into the media.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:53 ammanymaybe a lot moreMark, you are too cunning to be understood.
Kevin M, you talk about my not understanding you, and your not understanding me, but your glibness doesn’t help the former, if not the latter too.
BTW, if one assumes that recognizing SSM will somehow stabilize the culture, I think that’s naive at best, but ignorant in general. But not necessarily even due to homosexuality versus heterosexuality, but due to how a liberal or leftist mindset infuses the whole pro-SSM controversy. For example, I wonder if the following would be as predictable or logical if SSM couples were overwhelmingly socio-politically conservative (or even truly moderate) instead of liberal or even ultra-liberal (socially, not politically, or even visa versa)?
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:55 amKevin, have you ever considered that the SSM movement isn’t being hijacked?
That the original proponents never really cared about this. That it was just an interim step.
This is what I was referring to @24 when I talked about watching the evolution of the Big Lie. Yes, they had to publicly pretend that they really cared that gay people should get married. As long as marriage existed; they were never shy semi-private settings about admitting that there real intent was that marriage should not exist at all.
This falls under the umbrella of what shouldn’t exist at all, which can be summed up as conservative views. “Liberating tolerance” means crushing conservative dissent from left wing orthodoxies. You need a club to beat people with if you’re going to impose liberating tolerance on society. And get rid of that old intolerant tolerance which tolerated all positions
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:58 amno blue bell for easter?
this is not america
happyfeet (831175) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:59 amThe concept of destroying intolerant tolerance can be best seen on college campuses, where the idea is more fully developed.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:00 pm90% of those in favor of SSM actually think the bakers and pizzeria people should be allowed to do their own thing, too
Or aren’t paying enough attention to the lies used to incite the riot. Remember, the media was reporting that countless Indiana businesses were going to refuse service to gays as the result of the bill, NOT that some businesses just didn’t want any truck with gay marriage ceremonies.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:25 pm165: Nicely done.
But are my only choices naive or ignorant?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:27 pmWould a muslim bakery bake a cake for christian wedding?
joe (debac0) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:32 pmTo me not a bit of this is surprising, and I think it is the logical and predictable course of the “new liberalism” of the 60’s and 70’s,
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:39 pmwhich I guess in some ways was not any different from elements of “progressivism” over 100 years ago.
But I think I will spare y’all and myself further pontificating at the moment.
A small study of British cohabiters found that, compared to married heterosexuals, opposite-sex cohabiters were 2.75 times as likely to break up within five years, whereas same-sex cohabiters were 5.25 times as likely as to end their relationship in that time.
And lots of conclusions, including the one you prefer, could be made from this muddled ambiguity.
There is no data on SSS couples to compare as a baseline. There is no real reason to suggest that they would not be as stable, just because the data on unmarried same-sex couples shows greater instability. It’s an invalid control since it is not subject tot he same expectations of progress as with opposite-sex couples.
Perhaps the lack of a SSM possibility means that gays take up cohabitation with much less of a feeling of commitment (or evern intended permanency) among same-sex couples.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:40 pm*SS
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:41 pmS*There is no data on SS married couples to compare as a baseline. There is no real reason
grr.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:42 pmWay off-topic, I have decided to post this link about Customer Service, as a way of giving everyone a laugh this Easter
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:51 pmKevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:27 pm
I’m quite sure you could choose hopeful and presuming of good faith, and would be quite justified,
although of course you don’t need our affirmation,
but if you are asking our opinion,
especially to clarify where I/we have been speaking in generalizations,
that would be it.
You don’t know me from anyone and have no reason to believe what I had to say.
But I certainly have been naive or ignorant, not to mention worse things
Or aren’t paying enough attention to the lies used to incite the riot.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:25 pm
That’s certainly true.
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 12:52 pmLong ago it was written that “one side of a debate sounds good, until one hears the other side.”
My goodness, a lot of things would be much better if we did a better job of remembering that simple truth.
Dana, you see some people here do hate Islam.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/5/2015 @ 1:39 pmThe question is merely whether Mr. Feets was correct in surmising that they hate Islam more than they hate gays and atheists.
that was Mr. nk’s surmising
at #25
but it’s definitely a good question
happyfeet (831175) — 4/5/2015 @ 1:47 pmOne of my dearest friends is gay and married to his long time lover.
Although I am for civil unions and want to keep marriage for male-female couples, friendship and loyalty are more important to me.
I don’t care to know about whether theirs is an open relationship, but I do know some of their vacation photos are a lot different than mine.
This is a man who when I was really struggling in silence with what I thought was a secret addiction, kindly told me he knew what was going on, but didn’t know why… but he did know that I was like family to him and that he prayed for me every morning. And that was just one of the latest of one of his supreme acts of loyalty and kindness towards me.
I am Christian, have a business and I have provided plant materials to gay florists to be used at gay weddings. I have attended otherwise all gay birthday parties, helped stage photo shoots for gay photographers and their gay models, etc etc often being the only straight guy on the property.
I’ve been catcalled and teased, propositioned and invited away for long weekends by some of the other gay guys… I learned to say I’m flattered, but no, rather than running off.
Jesus isn’t going to send me to hell for any of that, and denying them flowers or loyalty isn’t going to help them understand the good news Jesus said he came to bring.
But that is my experience, and where I believe I was “assigned” to open a window or two onto the light…. even with my own darknesses in full play.
Other people of faith have different experiences and some of it is due to simplicity and others are involved in very high principle and others are everywhere in between. Faith isn’t a cookie cutter machine and the state should not be involved in being one either.
I don’t know for a fact what most gay men think about the Indiana pizza people, but I do know that most of the gay men I’ve met do not like to see people bullied. I don’t like to see anyone bullied either, gay, religious, atheist… I don’t mind seeing bullies get a comeuppance, but when I look at this incidence in small town Indiana, the one at the Chik Fil A a year or two back and I think really? Wasn’t there a pastor of a black mega church that preaches against gays, but keeps three mistresses from the congregation and a coke habit to go after? Go get a real pharisee level hypocrite like the pastor in Colo. Springs with the gay escorts and meth problem, they are not hard to find. Instead they go bully the daughter of a family out in a small town that probably sold fewer than 50 pies a day…. yea Team D
steveg (794291) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:04 pmOne of these things is not like the others. Islam is a creed. Gays and atheists are people.
If you’re a Christian, then you should hate Islam. But not Muslims.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:11 pmDana, you see some people here do hate Islam.
You might try rereading my comment #145.
I have a hostile attitude toward Islam, too. I am sympathetic to Muslims who were born into the religion and who are not into the modern jihadi philosophy but the religion was begun by a primitive Arab and spread by conquest over an area populated by mostly passive Christians.
If you’d like that repeated, I’d be happy to. Maybe you’ll be interested in this blog post.
That is not the same as hating Muslims.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:24 pm@ kishnevi,
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:25 pmThis is what nk said:
The distinction is important. Why is why I wanted nk to point to where anyone said they hated Muslims.
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:25 pmhttp://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/moral_bullies_and_the_laws_that_enable_them.html
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:27 pmThis is a few days old; maybe people have already seen it.
People are probably sick of me saying it, but the fact of the matter is the left won’t stop until nobody has a right to their own conscience. If the clear language of the First Amendment can’t protect religious people from living according to the dictates of their own religiously-formed conscience, then nobody will have the right to live according to the dictates of their conscience no matter what the source.
After assaulting and eliminating religion from the public sphere, the clear pattern of totalitarian dictatorships is to eliminate a right to privacy. Because what’s private is dangerous. People who spend time alone might form dangerous thoughts. They need to be kept in the glare of the collective, where they can be monitored.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:38 pmDana, some people like Mike K are at pains to make the distinction. Others like gahrie and BfC upthread seem to be unable to do. At the very least, they do not seem to care if there is one. Love the sinner but hate the sin is a fine line that is hard to walk and in practice is sometimes impossible to walk.
At the very least, an outsider reading this forum could easily decide based on the cumulative intemperate comments that many commenters here do hate Muslims.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:43 pmwell we have a healthy respect for the religion, the unaddorned elements, not the Potemkin image that is presented of it,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:45 pmthe understanding of marriage, is that which was standard as early as 10 years ago, this new veriant, is totally out of character with what the sacrament is about.
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:55 pmnarciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:27 pm
As usual, follow links by narciso
Bigot in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:57 pmit’s eastertime there’s no need to be afraid at eastertime we let in light and we banish shade
plus also chocolate is involved and micheladas and bunnies
and lots of Jesus too
happyfeet (831175) — 4/5/2015 @ 2:57 pmThis is what nk said:
The indications from this group of commenters is that they hate Muslims more than they hate gays, atheists, and broccoli.
The distinction is important. Why is why I wanted nk to point to where anyone said they hated Muslims.
“Indications” does not equal “said”. Broccoli may also give you a hint that I used “hate” loosely.
Most of the anti-Muslim sentiment is expressed on threads on your posts, Dana. One about Ayan Hirsi Ali at Yale sticks in my mind. But there are more than a few others, some older some some more recent. Some commenters more explicit, some tacit. Not all say “muzzies” or “moose slimes” or “religion of pieces” or “pedophile prophet” or speculate that a Muslim is behind any act of violence where the perpetrator’s religion is not immediately identified (trannies crashing into NSA is possibly the most recent thread with one of those). But overall, the sentiment is anti-Muslim.
And I do not accept the hair-splitting between Muslims and Islam, either. I see the antipathy directed against real live people, not religious teachings.
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:06 pmI find the derogatories unnecessary, as the danger the Public face of Islam is distressing enough:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/04/05/01016-20150405ARTFIG00057-dalil-boubakeur-souhaite-doubler-le-nombre-de-mosquees-en-france.php
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:11 pmShould I add NTTAWWT? The question was would Christian conservatives who donated to Memories Pizza donate to a Muslim bakery?
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:13 pmwell the reason is much as with that bakery that destroyed in Ferguson,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:18 pmnk – Does your sister-in-law support the imposition of sharia law in the U.S.?
Does she raise money for terrorist groups?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:19 pmwhat would we say if the tables were turned:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/imam-who-said-ayaana-hirsi-ali-deserved-death-penalty-was-hired-by-doj-to-teach-muslim-classes-to-federal-prisoners/
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:21 pmShe’s never told me, daleyrocks. Does yours?
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:24 pmmy carrot peeler brings all da bunnies to the yard
happyfeet (831175) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:30 pmnk – Why not ask? My sister-in-law is Jewish.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:30 pmNk,
I stand corrected: “indications” does not equal “said”. I missed that. I also did not get your broccoli inclusion as an indicator of using the term “hate” loosely. Too nuanced for me, I guess.
With that, I disagree about your view that the antipathy is directed at real live people and not religious teachings, and in this case, I don’t think it’s splitting hairs re Muslim v Islam. I think there is a large frustration with the teachings as they are at the root of and cause of consequences that so many have had to endure as a result. I also think there is a frustration with Muslims not speaking out against extremists, too. With that, only the people who have made the questionable comments can say whether they were directing them at the teaching or the person and what their intent was.
Also, Were you trying to drive a point home with your mention that it’s on my posts you see this antipathy? If you were, I’ve missed it and will need it explained.
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:49 pmor the fraternity, vandalized because of this:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rolling-stone-and-sabrina-erdely-to-apologize-for-and-take-down-discredited-rape-article/
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:49 pmTrannies crashing into the NSA?
Muslim trannies?
Did they have it in reverse or some other abomination?
On a lighter note for Steve57 http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/entertainment/videos/a25442/video-florida-man-pulls-sons-tooth-using-camaro/
via Instapundit
steveg (794291) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:55 pmHi nk.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 4:07 pmIm not exactly sure what youre doing here – juxtaposing some men’s sexual orientation to the existence of a higher power doesnt seem productive. In any case, we do not determine what is real by taking polls. The scientists at CERN didnt vote on whether certain subatomic particles exist, they measured it in a lab. So just because a vast majority of people may believe in a higher power doesnt make it right. Oh by the way this majority you speak of believe in mutually exclusive religions. Convenient to leave that out.
see it doesn’t matter about the particular issue, it’s the power to impose your belief, through force or threat of same, which precludes debate,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 4:11 pmso the axiomatic reaction to Submission, seems to have been to murder the author, and force the collaborator into exile,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 4:14 pmHi Gerald
First of all, thanks for the accuracy. I do not think people against SSM are against it because of hate. That said, I dont think the way to deal with opinions and statements you dont like is to ban them from being aired. This is kind of going down a similar road to what “The Fairness Doctrine” was trying to do.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 4:16 pmNo.
My argument deviates after the conservative in your example claims to have a firm belief in God and sin as his justification for his actions. I would say that until he/she can demonstrate that belief to be reality, that it has no place being used as justification for positions on matters of policy. Yes I would choose in favor forcing people to comply with reality. Just as a thought experiment imagine a religion that believed the “stoplight god’s” true purpose for the world was to go when red, and stop when green. Should we ticket traffic violations for practitioners of that religion?
Yes it is an absurd example. But no more absurd than saying that you have a personal relationship with the creator of billions upon billions galaxies and he has revealed that certain things we do while naked are unacceptable to him.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:08 pmAnd I do not accept the hair-splitting between Muslims and Islam, either. I see the antipathy directed against real live people, not religious teachings.
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 3:06 pm
FWIW, I do make the distinction.
I guess to some degree it matters what one thinks is “Islam”.
I guess if one thinks “Islam” is what a “Muslim” believes, then there is a broad idea of what “Islam” is.
If one thinks “Islam” is an ideology/religion that teaches jihad (as cut off the infidels heads if you can) and sharia law, but that many people consider themselves “Muslims” who do not affirm those beliefs,
then it makes sense to differentiate between Islam as a religion, and those who practice a version of it who call themselves Muslims.
The discussion would go along the lines of whether there is an objective definition of what the religion teaches through its authoritative texts,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:12 pmor whether people get to say what it is for themselves.
I imagine there is a blur, an overlap.
Gil
Is it possible that delusions run both ways?
I’ve read pieces of Dawkin’s The God Delusion and understand how people come to his conclusions, but like most things in life, there is the yin and yang of tangible dualities.
I was reading about human research that showed God was just a part of the brain firing up in a way that was comforting, causing a delusion.
Like most science, it was very compelling and, at the end, above my intellectual grasp but I think the sentence above captured the essence, and I tend to believe that the brain does fire up over God talk, but it is a chicken/egg problem.
I don’t think science will ever settle that one in my time…
Yesterday I was at a track meet where I was reminded of all the science that had “proved” a human could never run a sub 4 minute mile while I watched a woman at the end of a heptathlon run a 2:07.47 800M http://presidiosports.com/2015/04/sbtcs-fitzsimons-nwaba-win-sam-adams-titles/ (by the way Barbara is a fantastic athlete and a great person and so is Tom)
Sure that doesn’t pencil out to a sub 4 mile for her, but dang it… to run a 2:07 after a second day of running, jumping, throwing? Not bad. Wonder what those scientists would say if they saw her now.
From climate change, to the mile, to the existence of God, science creates delusions as well as solves them.
steveg (794291) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:39 pmmaybe the delusion runs the other way, the denial that there is a greater power in the world,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:41 pmHi steveg
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:50 pmI think your right, anyone can become deluded or mistaken about things to use a nicer phrase. That is why i think it is important we do our best to believe true, verifiable things based on sound evidence. Sure scientists make mistakes, but science is self correcting, and has been shown to be our best way to discover truth’s about reality. On the other hand, studying ancient texts is not, and leads to many more mistakes than truths.
Maybe they do. Let’s explore that possibility.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:52 pmWhat compelling evidence or reason do you have for believing?
the triad of category error, Freud taught dysfunction is the natural order, Darwin that there’ is no design in the universe, as well as Marx,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 5:55 pmCan you clarify? Are you saying that you believe in God because you disagree with 3 people?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:00 pmvery subtle indeed,
http://twitchy.com/2015/04/04/splc-promotes-new-survey-showing-gays-viewed-more-favorably-than-evangelicals/
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:04 pmSo much for Gorebal warming and Evolution. Both being portrayed as “truth” just because a bunch of so called higher up’s believe these fairy tales. So quit lying about science being about fact, when it’s really about the number of those “higher up’s” who “Believe”, logical fallacies and all.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:16 pmscience is that which is provable, the climate change fraud, is based on the falsification of measurement, and peer review, ratifies that process,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:16 pmSome commenters more explicit, some tacit. Not all say “muzzies” or “moose slimes” or “religion of pieces” or “pedophile prophet” or speculate that a Muslim is behind any act of violence where the perpetrator’s religion is not immediately identified (trannies crashing into NSA is possibly the most recent thread with one of those). But overall, the sentiment is anti-Muslim.
I went back and read some threads, nk, and I can’t agree that the the sentiment anti-Muslim (the person). I tend to think it’s more anti-Islam (the teachings). The derogatory terms themselves may or may not be toward the people but often the comments appear to be part of a dismissal and dislike for the teachings of Islam.
And because we don’t entirely see eye to eye on this, to me is an indicator that it’s not splitting hairs. Not at all. There is not a clear-cut delineation: there are those whose antipathy is toward the people as well as those whose antipathy is toward the teachings. How do you discern which is which? Who gets to decide? Mike K. necessary explanation of the distinction between Muslim and Islam makes a serious contextual clarification in his comment.
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:23 pmherr hasenfefer, has really jumped the bunny today,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:29 pmEh, context clarification of his comment…
Dana (86e864) — 4/5/2015 @ 6:39 pmhf reference if I am not mistaken.
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:03 pmAt the very least, an outsider reading this forum could easily decide based on the cumulative intemperate comments that many commenters here do hate Muslims.
Is that observation expressed with regret, chagrin, disapproval, indifference, neutrality or sympathy?
If “Islam” or “Muslim” is replaced with, for example, “Westboro Baptist Church” or “Westboro congregant” (eg, who’s standing outside an event yelling words of protest), does the observation change in terms of regret, chagrin, disapproval, indifference, neutrality or sympathy?
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:34 pmAhh, but the vast majority of people do believe in a higher power. It’s just that the elites don’t believe that higher power is God. They believe that higher power is science. Or perhaps government, or society. The point being is that they worship idols within creation because as far as they’re concerned creation is all that exists. And their faith in their idols require them to attack the idea of God.
This is an article of religious faith on their part. It’s not based upon any evidence. So atheists end up believing as many if not more fairy tales than religious people. Take evolution. The genetic evidence is that it can not work. There is evolution, but it works the wrong way.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/genetic-entropy-john-c-sanford/1121289079?ean=9780981631608
If you go to Prof. Sanford’s Wikipedia page you’ll find a note that says most scientist reject his position. But if you follow the link it simply goes to a site that observes most scientists believe in evolution.
Which is the point of this comment. Those scientists don’t have the evidence on their side. As far as I’ve been able to determine, none of them can refute Sanford’s evidence. They just reject it because it calls their precious theory into question. Which is a very unscientific approach. But as I said atheists, even scientists who are atheists, hold a lot of beliefs that are based upon blind faith. And one of those articles is that their is no higher power in the universe than science.
I’m reminded of the father of the Big Bang theory. And he was really a father; a Belgian Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre. Based upon observations and Einstein’s theory of relativity Lemaitre concluded the universe is not infinitely old. He didn’t call his theory the Big Bang; an atheist scientist named Fred Hoyle came up with the name. Hoyle meant to be derogatory. He immediately grasped that if LeMaitre was right then a moment of creation implied a Creator. And that shook his religious faith in Atheism and science. He spent the rest of his life trying to prove Lemaitre wrong. Which is again a very unscientific approach to evidence, but in many ways believing in atheism requires more faith than believing there is a God. You probably never heard of Hoyle because he never succeeded in proving Lemaitre was wrong about a moment of creation. The evidence continues to support Lemaitre’s theory.
The idea that religion and science are in conflict stems from the Enlightenment. And it wasn’t religious people like Lemaitre who came up with the idea. Religion and science had never been in conflict. But beginning with the Enlightenment atheist scientists insisted on the idea that anybody who believed in God had to be a superstitious idiot. Like Hoyle they have never been able to make the case.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:39 pmInteresting Steve, since enthropy is commonly accepted in the physical world, no reason it wouldn’t be in the biological realm,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 7:46 pmYes, the second law of thermodynamics. The interesting thing has been the reaction of the scientists who insist Darwinian theory must be correct. It can’t be, given the evidence. But they don’t believe in Darwinism because of the evidence.
I’ve talked to other scientists, and heard other scientists talk, and as far as I’m aware no one has been able to square that circle. They can’t account for the fact that over time genetic mutations which by themselves are mostly neutral build up. Together the “mutational load” adds up to the point where it causes real problems for a biological population. They can’t account for that, and explain how this genetic mutation is somehow supposed to lead to the “selection of the fittest” if Darwin was correct.
Which would explain why scientists by and large don’t talk about it. Like Prof. Zaius doesn’t talk about what you’ll find in the forbidden zone in “The Planet of the Apes” but instead acts as the Keeper of the Faith.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:04 pm#212
steveg (794291) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:07 pmI don’t believe in God from studying ancient texts
Hi Steve
Dr Sanford is on record saying he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and is a proponent of intelligent design. There is no scientific basis for either of these claims. Anybody can publish books, and resorting to a barnes and noble product description geared at making sales to state how enormous the implications of his work are is laughable. The man has arrived at a conclusion and is working backward to prove it. His ideas are not rejected because they dont match current theory, they are rejected because there is no scientific evidence to prove them.
On the other hand evolution has on its side the fossil record, DNA sequencing, and readily observed speciation to name a few. Add to that evolution is falsifiable. Just find one human fossil in the same layer of rock as a dinosaur, or one dinosaur fossil in the Cambrian era. But that never happens. Instead we have a very ordered record. Incidentally how does that get reconciled with a worldwide flood that would have jumbled everything up?
A typical accusation is to say that scientists operate on blind faith. It is not true. Scientists rigorously check data and refine their models. You ascribe the opinion that there is no higher power in the universe than science to nameless atheists. I take issue with that. Science isnt a power, but a method used to build predictive models in reality. Observations are made all the time to verify ideas. When was the last observation made that agreed with some clear false ideas from the bible? Heres two big ones, maybe you can enlighten me: Age of the Earth, world wide flood.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:24 pmOk sure, so why do you believe?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:25 pmthey clearly don’t extrapolate the implications of their own beliefs, Freud studied the dysfunctional, and attributed this to the greater society, Marx did a cursory examination of
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:38 pm19th Century Europe, and basically wished a secular apocalypse, the communist revolution,
People have been objecting to evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics for years. This of course is due to a misuse of the law, which says that disorder increases in a closed system. The misuse comes by trying to apply it to Earth and evolution. Problem is, the Earth isnt a closed system, new energy from the sun is continuously injected.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:38 pmFor the record, I think Islam is evil and a mortal threat to Western Civilization, but I have many Muslim friends.
The problem isn’t that there are no moderate Muslims who would like to reform Islam, the problem is, the moderate Muslims are too scared to say anything because they are murdered when they do.
gahrie (12cc0f) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:39 pmBy the way, no one has disputed any of the facts I stated in my “hateful” post about Islam.
gahrie (12cc0f) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:43 pmI’m with gahrie. After all, why would it be wrong to hate a doctrine that says that you either convert, pay a tax, or die?
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:49 pmit is said that islam needs a reformation, that is incorrect, it needs an Enlightenment,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 8:57 pm@234
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:03 pmThat doctrine you are describing sounds familiar…. oh yeah!
Link
the problem is, the moderate Muslims
When the founder of one’s religion is as despicable, radical and ruthless as Mohammed was, and a person signs onto that religion knowing full well about the history of his or her religion, doesn’t that, in effect, make him or her sort of an accomplice to the ruthlessness and extremism? So the only excuse that a Muslim can offer for being both Islamic and moderate is to say he truly is oblivious to and ignorant of the nature of his religion’s history and founder.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:08 pmI would say that the “reformers” are the radicals. Chiefly the Wahabis. The establishment, perhaps because the Ottoman Empire was a diverse bunch surrounded by even diverser, had worn off many of the rough edges until this 20th century resurgence.
nk (dbc370) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:12 pmGil, 1.5 billion Muslims vs Uncle Sy (if that who that is)? Not quite the same.
Gazzer (eae5fa) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:17 pmit’s arguable that on balance, the fall of the Ottomans was not a good thing, it displaced the
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:25 pmHashemites from the two shrines, gave the Sauds entree into the greater ummah, yes Israel arose eventually out of it, but that’s about it,
I would say that the “reformers” are the radicals.
Exactly.
If Jesus Christ acted, spoke and strategized like, say, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church (but to make him more analogous to Mohammed, was even more extreme, vengeful and even bloody), and therefore was an alternative-reality reflection of Christianity, then it would be weak sauce for Christians of today (in an alternative universe) to claim their theology was one of peace and humaneness, and to proudly say they were Christians who followed in the pathway of their religion’s founder.
Mark (9e5f05) — 4/5/2015 @ 9:28 pm@230ish-240ish
Please do continue this oh-so fascinating “My book is better than your book” discussion. For your reference Ive listed a few key items you can use to bolster your arguments:
In the blue corner: The Bible & The Gospels
-Written in the Iron Age
-Written by scientifically ignorant peasants
-Believed to be the word of God
In the red corner: The Quran
Gil (27c98f) — 4/5/2015 @ 10:08 pm-Written in the Iron Age
-Written by scientifically ignorant peasants
-Believed to be the word of God
Yes, I know it hurts to have a guy who believes in weird god-bothering stuff to blow a hole in Darwinism. It must infuriate you.
But while anyone can write a book, not everyone can be a geneticist at Cornell University. Dr. Sanford is. Moreover his work in genetics has not been rejected. While it wouldn’t bother you, apparently, other scientists can’t simply reject it based upon their dislike of his views on the age of the Earth or intelligent design. They have to show their work. He’s still writing peer reviewed articles on the subject, and no one has refuted his evidence. Moreover, other geneticists have discovered the same phenomenon. From that hotbed of Creationist loonies, the US National Library of Medicine at the National Institute of Health, an article by a British scientist at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh.
So, great! The accumulation of deleterious mutations (which are far more common than advantageous mutations) aren’t going to lead to a detectable decline in humans in the foreseeable future. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the neo-Darwinist theory.
When you sort through all the rhetorical poo you fling, you can’t make any substantive criticism of his work. And he’s not alone. That’s the bottom line.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:20 pmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276617/#
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:21 pmWhen you use the term “Darwinism” it would help if you would define what you mean by that term.
seeRpea (c1462d) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:40 pmBy neo-Darwinism I mean the theory that random errors in DNA replication cause mutations, and natural selection acts on these genetic errors to cause evolution.
Basically, rather than trying to find a way to to explain how new species arise, the science of genetics is trying to explain why these mutations don’t cause species (i.e. humans) to go extinct.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:50 pmDarwin himself wouldn’t have known much if anything about genetics.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/5/2015 @ 11:51 pmPerhaps a better definition.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/neo-darwinism-has-failed-as-an-evolutionary-theory/98152.article
I’m late to the party. I used to just blindly accept that the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution was broadly correct. Now I agree with this conclusion:
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/6/2015 @ 12:03 amI have sign in cab No dogs or jews! Dogs are unclean. And I am afraid jews will kill me like they killed the children of gaza. Allah Akbar!
Hamas cabbie (ff496a) — 4/6/2015 @ 1:17 amI would not let ben and steve 57 in my cab either!
Hamas cabbie (ff496a) — 4/6/2015 @ 1:27 ambury the cab and scabby.
mg (31009b) — 4/6/2015 @ 3:20 amThe good news is…
MSL (5f601f) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:25 amCBS: Iran ‘Chants Death to America, But More Habit Than Conviction’
Habits are just hard to break or something.
Here is the problem with the Gil types.
Discovery of Bacteria That Hasn’t Evolved in 2 Billion Years Is New Validation of Darwin’s Theory
It is the same logic or shall we say a lack thereof that is used to “validate” every theory they have. Any and all evidence proves their belief in said theory, even when it doesn’t.
Re: #231
MSL (5f601f) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:51 amWho knew the paint on my truck is fading and my skin can use some protection and all because I was just misapplying the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
i started a gofundme for these bacteria let’s show the gaystapo their THUG TACTICS can only BACKFIRE
NO H8!!!
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:06 amSimon, I can hear you giggling all the way over here.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:06 amWhich Brands Spoke Out Against the Religion Bills
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:26 amThanks, happyfeet. Although, I already don’t do business with any of those people except the rare Amazon purchase — the last thing was a $3.89 cigarette roller before I discovered a tobacco store four blocks away — so I can’t really say I’ll be boycotting them. And that’s the thing. Ain’t nuthin’ them people got that people can’t do without or find elsewhere.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:44 amThat’s $3.89 shipping included.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:46 amAmazon i where i go for so I don’t have to give monies to Apple
which, I’m not really boycotting Apple per se I just hate their stupid guts
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:47 am*is* where i go I mean
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:47 amSeven-year old proudly shows his dad his tin can and string telephone. Daddy smiles fondly, pats his head and says, “That’s great son”. Then he pulls out his iPhone and continues, “But look what kids your age are making in China”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:00 amStop! Back away from the shovel, happyfeet.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:00 amno Mr. Colonel I won’t stop til we win all the social justice for Steven and Ben
i feel just sick about this and i don’t want any other couples to have to endure the same painful demeaning discriminations
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:06 amA fish riding a bicycle… a self-anointed faux-intellectual lecturing his betters about religion and the value of faith.
A: What are funny, incongruous, sad, ironic, and inappropriate, Alex.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:10 amAllahu Aflac!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:13 amNo, but his foray into the field of evolutionary biology has been.
What evidence is there that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that a designer designed the universe and life in it?
This doesnt infuriate me, it amuses me. Does it infuriate you that major sects of Christianity accept evolution, saying it is the way God did things – ie “Theistic Evolution”?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:38 am“What evidence is there that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that a designer designed the universe and life in it?”
Gil – If you are not familiar with Dr. Sanford’s work, how could you have made the blanket statements about it you did in several places earlier in the thread, especially without providing any links?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:01 amGil, it doesn’t infuriate me. Sanford’s evidence is in genetics. The genetic evidence can not explain evolution. No one has come up with a theory that remotely explains how evolution is supposed to work.
So at this point believing in evolution is an article of faith, not evidence.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:11 amA typical accusation is to say that scientists operate on blind faith. It is not true. Scientists rigorously check data and refine their models. You ascribe the opinion that there is no higher power in the universe than science to nameless atheists. I take issue with that. Science isnt a power, but a method used to build predictive models in reality. Observations are made all the time to verify ideas.
This coming from a religious worshiper at the Church of AGW is hysterical.
JD (962b99) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:12 amJeffrey Schwartz is not a creationist. But unlike a lot of scientists who like to pretend to be more certain than they can defend, he is honest.
http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/pitt-professor-contends-biological-underpinnings-darwinian-evolution-not-valid
The takeaway quote:
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:25 amI think Gil’s point is that scientists in the evolution field have enough data points and plausible theories to explain evolution within evolution and not have to worry about the mechanics. sort of like the ‘bumble bees flying’ story (flight engineers said they couldn’t, yet bumble bees fly. turned out the engineers were overlooking something in their formulas)
I was not aware that any serious evolutionists still believed that Darwinism was correct. That Darwin had the basics , yeah but not the flow and structure.
btw: it would really help evolutionist if they would clear up the “man evolved from apes” thing. that is not what evolutionists claim, yet they don’t clear that up.
seeRpea (c1462d) — 4/6/2015 @ 10:16 amThe evidence is broadly compatible with the theory of evolution. But it certainly doesn’t prove the theory. And scientists most certainly do have to worry about the mechanics of evolution. Without a workable evolutionary model then science can’t account for the complexity of life on this planet, and definitely can’t account for the origin of life.
How does it happen is the key question. And science can’t answer that. Professor Schwartz doesn’t believe it can ever answer that question. He isn’t the only one (and again, he’s not a creationists).
Nobody believes in pure Darwinism anymore and they haven’t for nearly a century. That’s why I try to use the term neo-Darwinism as that does still hold sway. It’s basically Darwin’s theory of natural selection combined with the theory and study of genetics.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/6/2015 @ 11:31 amre #272: I don’t want to put words in Gil’s mouth, want to make it clear that this is my take.
And I don’t have that much of an issue with a scientist saying ” do not know “. i have an issue when a scientist says ” this must be how ” when it is not testable. (evolution, universe history, black hole theories, etc)
seeRpea (e6cc4b) — 4/6/2015 @ 11:36 amHi Steve
Theories dont get proven. Theories are a way to explain observable facts. Facts like the ordered fossil record, the similarities in DNA between trees and us, the fact that as species become more closely related their DNA’s match more, and that speciation has been observed in a lab. Yes scientists today are struggling with several ideas about how it happened, but not that it happened. They can account for complexity of life on the planet.
Oh, and evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life, its purpose is not to explain how life started, just to explain the complexity. This is a typical objection / distraction brought up by the misinformed.
Ive offered some basic facts that fit with the theory of evolution. Can you offer the same supporting young earth creationism? Here are two questions to ponder:
1. Why do all of our various dating methodologies point to an earth aged several orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years?
2. Why is the fossil record so organized if there was a worldwide flood that would have jumbled them all up?
@daley
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 3:21 pmYou want links? Just do the most rudimentary honest search and you can find all the explanation you want about evolution. See who has facts on their side and who has Pseudoscientific ideas and objections to the facts. Who is waving their hands up in the air saying “no thats wrong because x” and who has an observable, testable, falsifiable theory. Do it for yourself, dont take my word for it, and certainly dont take a Barnes and Noble summary of a book either. I still cant get over that one….. great reference Steve. Cant believe no1 takes you to task for things like that around here.
I avoid discussions of evolution on blogs. For those who are interested, you might read this book.
My own opinions are on my own blog but debates on general blogs can get ugly fast.
I am comfortable with Intelligent Design as a concept although it is often misrepresented by creationists.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 4/6/2015 @ 3:33 pmCount UC Berkeley among the misinformed.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
In fact, your assertion that evolutionary theory says nothing about the origins of life would shock every single evolutionary biologist I’ve ever met or even come across for its ignorance.
In any case, I want to congratulate your on your faith in theories that can’t be demonstrated about a process that, if Professor Schwartz and others are right, may ultimately be unknowable.
Your faith in the unproven and unexplainable is touching, Gil. Really, your faith is of Biblical proportions.
If you need any more help discovering the central questions that evolutionary theory is intended to address according to the evolutionary scientists themselves who are attempting to address them, please let me know. I’ll be happy to provide the information.
Steve57 (b69525) — 4/6/2015 @ 3:53 pmI’ve been too busy to follow things the last 24 hours,
and I once before came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worthwhile to interact with Gil
(in fairness, maybe he feels the same way about me,
but actually, he seemed happy to occupy my time, as I remember it)
The local small town Ohio newspaper has as main front page headline,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 4:32 pm“Indiana faces long road to restore image”.
Indiana had an image to restore to?
seeRpea (81ed29) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:11 pmMr. Governor Daniels took that lil state a long long way
then Mike Pence happened
happyfeet (831175) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:12 pmIndiana had an image to restore to?
As compared with the notorious dystopias throughout America, including the city of Detroit, dominated for decades by liberals/Democrats?
Mark (33be9a) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:26 pmas the victory girls link, pointed out, men and women of conscience, are in worse shape now
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:54 pmthen before Turtlepence, signed the bill,
SeeRPea – pray tell what exactly is wrong with Indiana.
JD (962b99) — 4/6/2015 @ 5:58 pmyes, that was an ap slug, which furthers their narrative,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:03 pmWow Steve. You must really have a hard time understanding things. That quote you mined says the origin of life is “of interest” but not that the theory encompasses it. Heres a link from Berkeley listing misconceptions about the theory of evolution, and guess what is the number 1 misconception: That evolution is about the origin of life:
LINK
So no Berkely is not misinformed. Talk about dishonest! Way to go Steve. Care to explain yourself?
While we all wait for Steve to explain himself (good luck) here’s a link from the National Academy of Sciences explaining evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:05 pmLINK
Gil’s act is special. Short bus special.
JD (962b99) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:20 pmthat falls into Taranto’s ‘questions no one is asking’ but setting fire to strawmen, re Friedman’s impression of Zack Galifinakis, is just another day ending in y,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:22 pmre #282: aside from its apparent feckless GOP leadership and that they stole the Colts, nothing that I know of. But if you were to ask me to give you an image of Indiana it would be
.
seeRpea (81ed29) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:45 pmWe have Labradoodles, Cockapoos, and seedless oranges. The science is settled.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:46 pmre #288: i think those would all be genetics, not evolution.
seeRpea (81ed29) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:51 pmOr were you talking about why Indiana is so good? 🙂
I don’t think Indiana is a big orange producing state. No, I think that with MDs, engineers, and at least one certified geneticist being regular commenters on this site, some people would hesitate to give lectures on evolution, Darwin, and whether “Romani ite domum” is the proper declension of “Romans go home”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 6:57 pmGil, you’re the one being dishonest. Just your own contradictions in your last comment is enough to demonstrate that. But why restrict ourselves to your own contradictions in just one of your own comments? @274 you said:
Even that theoretical correction to my supposed “misconception” proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You can’t even maintain a consistent lie with your comment @284. After claiming that “That quote you mined says the origin of life is “of interest” but not that the theory encompasses it” what does the correction to my “misconception” say? Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins.
Also, the question of the origin of life is not merely “of interest.” It is “of special interest.”
I didn’t “mine” a quote. There were dozens I could have chosen from an entire section on evolution theory and the origin of life from the UC Berkeley site.
And the origin of life is absolutely central to the theory of evolution, no matter what weasel words UC Berkeley puts in their Q&A about their own straw man “misconceptions.” Their own section on the origin of life (as encompassed by the theory of evolution) explains why.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_04
Natural selection is the mechanism by which change occurs over time. That right there is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Variation, inheritance, high rate of population growth and differential survival and reproduction. That’s not even yet life. But if life didn’t emerge out of non-life from the “primordial soup” via this mechanism then that means some other mechanism was at work.
And if some other mechanism besides natural selection could have produced life than some other mechanism could also have produced all the diversity of life later on as well.
Which is why evolutionary scientists obsess over the origins of life while denying they are doing so.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:22 pmDrooling half-wit progs do not for a moment expect Muslims to give their word to be tolerant let alone keep a pledge in Dar al Harb. They are big, bad men who lust after any unoccupied orifice and progs are scared sh!tless of them.
Better to shame and abuse old ladies in bible belt rest homes. If they fuss threaten them with a pillow crammed over their face.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:24 pmOne doesn’t have to be a scientist at all, one simply needs to understand a bit of logic and some reflection about the nature of existence.
Explain to me how gravity works.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:26 pmIndiana will survive quite well.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:26 pmHow many states have a Gene Hackman film mamed after them, sort of?
And it has the Brickyard.
And two excellent blogs which, if you are not familiar with them, you ought to be.
Tam K.
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/
Roberta X.
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/
(They are actually housemates. Tam was forced to close off comments a few months back because of a cyberstalker.)
Also Indiana is not Illinois.
284. Not that nematodes should care, one of my majors was Evolution(Bio subset), Cell, Micro, Genetics, Invertebrate, Comparative Anatomy, Virology, Ecology, yada, yada.
Having some GED school us on epistemology is so entertaining, NOT!
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:38 pmEvolutionists conflate observed instances of adaptation where nothing new actually evolved at the genetic level, which is one type of “evolution” with a fish developing legs which is something altogether different. It’s actually a type of equivocation. They use the observed cases of adaptation to label “evolution” a fact, then ludicrously apply that to claimed massive genetic and structural changes.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:40 pmMD, aren’t they still trying to grandly unify gravity with the other basic forces?
I was born about midcentury, when the ideas that God guided evolution seemed fairly obvious and that the first 34 verses of Genesis were not to be read in a superliteralist fashion even among fairly Orthodox writers. Perhaps the ideas are quaint, but they still seem the most obvious to me: evolution is the means by which the Intelligent Designer made his design a physical reality. (I have been told by someone here that is a misuse of the term Intelligent Design when I trotted out that idea before, but it is still to me a good way of expressing the fundamental idea: God guides everything, including evolution and human history.)
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:40 pm293, 297. They’re making a little progress:
http://news.yahoo.com/astronomys-search-gravitational-waves-gets-boost-111853373.html;_ylt=AwrSbgY9RCNV9QgAtsRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdHQ2amNxBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNTkzXzEEc2VjA3Ny
Problem is the interaction mediated by the graviton, a boson like the photon of the electromagnetic interaction which we experience in daily life, is 10^-39 weaker than the strong interaction that binds the atomic nuclei together, 10^-19 times weaker than the photon.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:50 pmkishnevi-
I do not know what you mean by “superliteralist”, that God spoke and the universe came into being? That Adam and Eve were historical people? That the earth was created in six 24 hour periods?
What ideas are obvious to who depends upon who you are talking to, and truth is not determined by a vote.
Evolution as the way God created the living creatures has it’s detractors on both the theist and atheist sides of the spectrum.
For the theist, the question is what did it mean for death to begin with the Fall. Did animal and plant life have death, but not humans? The atheist says, if God chose the viciousness of survival as the way to produce life, whio needs a God like that anyway.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 7:55 pm@297
Isn’t saying that we understand evolution as God’s mechanism for designing us like saying that we understand electricity as Zuess’ mechanism uses to throw lightning bolts down from the clouds.
Dont get me wrong, im thrilled you dont take the first 34 verses of Genesis literally. The question now is, where does it stop and who decides how to interpret things?
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:06 pm@296
Hi Gerald, good thing youre here to correct the National Academy of Sciences who have been fooled by “evolutionists'” equivocation errors. Since were on the subject of logical fallacies, you might want to research the “argument from incredulity”
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:09 pm297. I subscribe to what I gather is a similar interpretation.
The emergence of life in Gen. 1 follows roughly but accurately over eras, that of paleohistory.
The word ‘day’, yom, is used in the chapter in at the end of the opening, Gen 2:4 ” This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”
Viz. “when” in Hebrew reads loosely “in the day they were created”. The notion that ‘yom’ stands for a 24 hour period is therefore ludicrous.
The couple on eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge had “their eyes opened”, they achieved a self-awareness, especially with respect to their expectations.
That some still struggle with the imponderables owes more to their failing to have turned their attention to study than a difficulty in the material.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:09 pmThe lighting bolts were in fact photon torpedoes and the Olympians were Jedi fighting against the Sith, Dark Jedi, and Mandalorians, in the pre-Republic period of the Galaxy.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:18 pm300. Who gets to?
Why you, of course. Each of us is responsible to our Creator for the stewardship of our life.
Since your understanding of the religious material stands a middle-school level, we suggest you get your azz in gear.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:19 pmSuperliteralist=6 24 hour periods, including the ones before sun and moon were created.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:23 pmQuestion for such superliteralists. Scripture says Cain built cities. Where did he get the people to populate them?
Your two questions reflect false understandings of Scripture..that death began with the Fall (rather Adam and Eve were punished with the need to work hard for sustenance, instead of having it all idyllically at hand, and for Eve the pain of childbirth), and that we think of as Good is not necessarily what God thinks of as Good. God as “the Source of Existence” is necessarily the Source of what we think of as Good and Evil, but God is neither. “He is the Place of the Universe, but has no Place in it,” as the Rabbis of the
Talmud said.
If you want to pursue the matter further, this book is approximately what I think, and presented in a much better way than I could ever do.
http://zootorah.com/books/the-challenge-of-creation
The author became controversial when some Haredi rabbis tried to ban him as a heretic.
Hi Gerald, good thing youre here to correct the National Academy of Sciences who have been fooled by “evolutionists’” equivocation errors.
Gil (27c98f) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:09 pm
I didn’t say they were fooled. Nice straw man there.
I note they don’t give even a hint as to what makes macroevolution a “fact”. It certainly isn’t the fossils.
I made no argument from incredulity. Straw man no. 2.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:29 pmDNF, that is exactly how I learned it out of this, which was the standard Pentateuch used by Conservative synagogues for much of the 20th century, given out to bnai mitzvahs as their gift from the congregation in my synagogue. I still have my copy, although it needs rebinding now.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:30 pmhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Pentateuch-Haftorahs-Translation-Commentary/dp/0900689218
Hertz himself was definitely Orthodox, a Chief Rabbi of Britian
I don’t personally know any superliteralists.
Your two questions reflect false understandings of Scripture
I assume you are saying that you disagree with my understanding, not that God has told you that I am wrong. I imagine I do the same kind of thing at times.
instead of having it all idyllically at hand,
not at all, work would happen, but it would be fruitful
It’s late, The Badgers lost.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:30 pmGood night
305, 306. Goedel, Einstein’s partner on their strolls to and from Princeton for 16 years, proved in the 1930’s that any meta-language robust enough to include subtraction is inherently ‘incomplete’, it must therefore be capable of producing well-formed sentences that are irreducibly ambiguous.
Language is a created thing and is imperfect for its purpose. This is the bane of the logical positivist and the superliteralist, which Wittgenstein also exhaustively demonstrated.
“All reasonings must come to an end”.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:39 pmMD, sorry about the Badgers.
I was disagreeing with the two questions you posed in the name of theists and atheists. So I can’t even say I was disagreeing with you. I do think “God told me you are wrong”, in the sense that I subscribe to the belief that, in essence, God speaks through Rabbinic tradition.
Sorry for any lack of clarity. Was not the first time I am guilty of that, and doubtless will not be the last time.
I do know some superliteralists.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:42 pm307. Thanks for the hint. I am separated from my library and am only a novice at Hebrew but will try to remember it when I am restored.
In my case reading the Septuagint helped my study as a frosh.
DNF (208255) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:46 pmThanks for the condolences. it’s hard to be on top of your game every night.
Same for Duke, an unheralded freshman was one of their heroes tonight.
Dekker was hot several games in a row, wasn’t tonight.
broenig was sitting out in foul trouble, Jackson brings skill at penetrating the lane, … and shooting too much
I do think “God told me you are wrong”, in the sense that I subscribe to the belief that, in essence, God speaks through Rabbinic tradition.
I guess we are in an agreement to disagree. Your authoritative understanding of the Scriptures is very different from mine,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:50 pmor mine is different than yours.
Hey, Steve. I tried making cuir bouillie today, from these instructions. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Medieval/Articles/Perfect_Armor_Improved.htm I used the simple boiling method. 2/3rds shrinkage in length and width with less than 1/3 increase in thickness. Harder than untempered 01. No knife will penetrate it. Does not float in water. Have not tested it for brittleness yet.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:51 pmFWIW, I recently heard a claim that the verb tenses in the beginning of Genesis are also important in clarifying that the “days” were not 24 hour periods, at least in some of the early days, that the verb tense differed.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/6/2015 @ 8:55 pmBut I know nothing else about that.
The syntax of Genesis 1:1 is especially tricky. When God began to create” is the main alternate to the familiar KJV phrase. And that leaves out more mystical readings that the divine aspect called Bereshit created the divine aspect called Elohim, which reflects the actual Hebrew word order. (Put simply, such a reading understands Scripture to say God manifested himself as God through the act of creation.)
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:09 pmBut “When God began to create…” can suggest that the Biblical account starts in the middle, and things happened before that first verse about which we know little or nothing.
??
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:10 pmMy most recent comment is in moderation?
#313
You lost me at shrinkage in length and width
steveg (794291) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:13 pmAh, I think I know why. I will change one letter, to go from Sefardic to Ashkenazi pronounciation.
The syntax of Genesis 1:1 is especially tricky. When God began to create” is the main alternate to the familiar KJV phrase. And that leaves out more mystical readings that the divine aspect called Bereshis created the divine aspect called Elohim, which reflects the actual Hebrew word order. (Put simply, such a reading understands Scripture to say God manifested himself as God through the act of creation.)
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:13 pmBut “When God began to create…” can suggest that the Biblical account starts in the middle, and things happened before that first verse about which we know little or nothing.
Correct diagnosis. Patrick, you can delete the comment caught in the filter. Bereshis is Ashkenazi, change the last letter to a T for the Sefardic, and it becomes spam filter feed.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:16 pmIt was for the the other Steve, Steve57, but it’s a safe link if you’re interested in medieval armor made from leather.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:19 pmOk, ok, I got it. No, I would not recommend it for that.
nk (dbc370) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:20 pmBrillian job back @284, Gil.
In which you accused me of not understanding what I read. And by lying about what I said and what the quote you linked to in the very same post managed to make my point.
Me, @276:
And the authority you cite to refute me in 284?
So both I and your authority were right. Evolutionary theory does have something to say about the origin of life. Which means both I and, weirdly enough, you in 284 were correct when we said you had your head up your butt @274 when you said:
I feel like the captain of the football team who left the field at halftime with a huge lead. Only to come back and find that your team kept playing. So at the start of the third quarter I’m up by an additional 6 points because while you had the field to yourself and tried an onside kick, and then you ran the ball the wrong way.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:28 pmRabbi Hertz was definitely Religious Orthodox but his translations and commentary were meant as mini guides and not as teachings. Nor was he always particular about the translating.
If you want an English translation that incorporates the Written and Oral Torahs (don’t forget they were given at same time) and thousands of years of Rabbinic interpretation , start with “The Living Torah”.
keep in mind this is much more concerned with translating than interpreting. so you won’t see much expounding on what things mean. Also, some terms or phrases defy a clear meaning and will simply be skipped if it does not damage the narrative.
As to the bigger question: When Rabbinic Sages where setting down the rules of what the basic beliefs need to be, none of them said that the Torah (Old Bible) was to be taken literally. Taking the beginning of Genesis for example: some of the phrases are taken as morals lessons, why there are two different accounting’s of the start of Adam and Eve, and lots and lots more. Suffice it to say that there is no question being asked about Genesis that weren’t already asked by the Jewish People 3500 years ago. They even had the benefit of some answers as the Oral Torah was complete back then. Unfortunately much of the Oral Torah is as gone as the 8 Tribes.
Much more complicated is how long ago and how long it took. The opinions that it was at least thousands of years predate Darwin’s book by a couple of centuries. There is one thing to keep in mind when considering this part of the discussion – thinkable time frames were a bit limited due to vocabulary. The highest number is Biblical Hebrew is 10,000. Still there were people who were considered Great Leaders in their generation who had no problem with the age being well above 6000 by orders of magnitude and the ‘day’s of Genesis Chapter One not being 24 hours.
sheesh , I rambled. Let me finish with a anecdote. A bunch of students in the mid 1800s came to their teacher one morning after a seminar dealing with fossils. “Rabbi, scientists have found proof that the world is millions of year old”. The Rabbi looks up and says
“That is nice. You still have to say Afternoon Prayers today”.
To a large number of Religious Jews (and I would hope Christians and Muslims) , it just doesn’t matter to them how G0d is playing with the rules or set things in motion – there is still a G0d to be cognizant , feared and thankful to.
seeRpea (81ed29) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:31 pm“Who is waving their hands up in the air saying “no thats wrong”
Gil – That would be you, which is why I asked for links. You are not a trustworthy commenter.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:39 pmseeRpea @322, I don’t know anybody who believes the Bible is to be taken literally in its entirety. Primarily because it consists of a number of individual books, written over centuries, and most importantly in a variety of literary styles.
How could anybody read the Psalms literally; they’re written as poetry. Poetry isn’t supposed to be read literally.
Some parts of the Bible can be read literally. The four books of the Gospel of the New Testament actually conform in style to 1st century Greco-Roman biographies which were meant to be read literally.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/6/2015 @ 9:59 pmNobody takes the Bible literally, literally, if they did, they would think God was like a giant bird with wings to cover His children.
A better understanding would be that one believes it means what it says and what it says is true, that what is poetic and metaphoric is understood as such, what is historic is historic (but by no means a complete and detailed history), and little of it is “technical” but a “common man” understanding.
Which then leaves the question at times as to which is which and how much so. Sometimes error is made by reading more into something than can really be done, such as they claim that the Bible taught that the earth was fixed and everything revolved around it. We still talk about “sunrise” and “sunset”, even though we know that technically it is the earth revolving, for example.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/7/2015 @ 5:46 amSome Neanderthal site in Spain, dated circa 39,000 BC had the dead buried in fetal position on their sides with red ochre sprinkled over the corpse along with flower petals.
Reminds me of ‘the life is in the blood’ from Genesis and tells me Adam and Eve date earlier, perhaps much earlier as time passed more slowly then, 100K to 200K BC.
DNF (208255) — 4/7/2015 @ 10:16 amLuke 1
Herod Antipas was the ruler of the ruler of the parts of Judea where Jesus and John the Baptist were most active.
What is written here, and in the other accounts of the Gospel of Jesus is meant to be taken as literally true. Which is why you can read the Gospel accounts and the letters of Paul as you would the accounts of Tacitus or Suetonius and accurately place people and events at a certain time and place.
Scholars have been able to this over the past 30 to 40 years and have been able to demonstrate that it’s possible to know people and events described in the New Testament are historical facts as surely as Tiberius was emperor of Rome at the time.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 10:53 amHerod Antipas was ruler of Judea from 4 BC to 39 AD so he was ruler of the relevant parts of Judea at the time of the birth of both John and Jesus and throughout their lives.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 10:55 amre #326: not aware of the Spainish site you mention, there are a few such sites found around the world (not sure about the fetal position) – Central Europe, Middle East and Australia.
“Red Lady of el Miron” is not dated nearly as old, still interesting that this particular style of burial had such a wide area of use.
seeRpea (7c70fd) — 4/7/2015 @ 11:36 amI don’t know what the deal is but for the longest time I haven’t had a problem with my laptop automatically highlighting and deleting text, or with every letter I attempt to type into a comment actually appearing.
But that’s what’s happening now.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 12:42 pmSteve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 12:42 pm
Applied Quantum theory,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/7/2015 @ 12:55 pmthose little electrons sometimes flip a coin and take a different direction.
😉
#327
When we see all the details included in the Gospels, some of which are not terribly significant, that should tend to convince someone they are meant to be taken as real events. Luke in particular was keen on including a lot of historical information. We also see quite a few details in Genesis, such as the order of the creation of the animal groups, the approximate location of the Garden of Eden, the genealogies etc. If we aren’t supposed to understand those events as actual historical events then the author, presumably Moses, was trying to mislead us.
Gerald A (9d7d51) — 4/7/2015 @ 6:47 pmThanks for the link to the boiled leather armor, nk.
Let me return the favor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL5p5LO8vGbeP2NHFMifyAqgbv13Pk5R_s&v=Sm9-hFwi-aM
As you’ll see, there are a couple of other videos that show you how to make gauntlets.
Which is important, as your sword handles entirely differently when you’re wearing gauntlets as opposed to not. A modern reproduction longsword handle can be entirely comfortable when you’re barehanded, but put on gauntlets and all of a sudden the handle is too short.
I can pinpoint the origin of my weirdness on this point. I lived in Japan for seven years, and Japanese friends would come by my apartment and see my naval officer’s sword hanging displayed in a plaque on the wall. And the Japanese are still nuts about swords (although they control and license them like long guns, although maybe that’s why they’re fascinated with them; forbidden fruit, but the soul of the samurai). And they’d pepper me with questions about western swords and swordsmanship. Which I couldn’t answer, because, who the hell still uses swords? It was just part of the uniform.
So with the advent of the internet I started getting into and the upshot is I belong to a group now that gets together in a nearby park for a couple of hours every Saturday to practice western martial arts. Primarily we use Fior dei Liberi’s treatise Fior di Battaglia for instruction.
http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/FiorDiBattaglia.aspx
It’s a complete martial art as it covers fighting unarmed, with a dagger, sword, or lance, and from foot or horseback (no, none of use have or use horses). But we also study the 1.33 medieval German sword and buckler manual.
What can I say; everybody needs a hobby. At least now when my Japanese friends ask me questions about the sword hanging on my wall I’ll have answers. I won’t send them away with that disappointed look.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 7:08 pmhttp://www.sears.com/mmp-military-sword-wall-display-mount-navy-emblem/p-SPM9902801725?sid=IDx20140425xECNMPFG11&redirectType=SRDT
This is what got their attention. I bought mine from the uniform shop. My parents bought me the sword when I graduated from AOCS, and I didn’t think it should just sit in the closet. It was expensive.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 7:13 pmYou’re welcome, Steve. Keep up what’s your doing as long as you’re enjoying it. It’s all so quaint when you think of tanks with tungsten armor and proximity mines that go off when they detect a missile coming at them, but in a nice way quaint.
nk (dbc370) — 4/7/2015 @ 7:29 pmIt’s an anachronism. Which is probably why I became interested in it and enjoy it, nk.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/7/2015 @ 7:39 pmAll this stupid video shows, if indeed it needed to be shown, is that Colorado and Michigan are two different states with two different laws. Colorado prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation; Michigan does not. Of course Muslims discriminate against gays in states where they legally can. Christians do, too. The question is whether Muslims do so in violation of law, as the Cake Nazi, the Photo Nazi and the Flower Nazi did in Colorado, New Mexico and Washington State, respectively. Those states are all a good drive from Ann Arbor, Michigan but Illinois is not, so why didn’t he shoot the video there? Or did he, but couldn’t find any Muslims willing to break the law?
Jeff (afb610) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:10 pmSQUIRRELS!!!!
JD (c90ab3) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:18 pmGODWIN !!!!! If you don’t want to participate in someone else’s nuptial ceremony you are a NAZI !!!!!!
JD (c90ab3) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:19 pmOr did he, but couldn’t find any Muslims willing to break the law?
Are you one of those liberals who finds himself, for any number of reasons, often giving a peculiar dash of benefit of the doubt to Muslims, in spite of their reactionary nature, far above and beyond what you’re willing to give Christians?
Mark (77395a) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:21 pmI’m surprised it took a leftist so long to bring in Godwin’s law.
it brings home the point that a conservative is much more likely to treat a reasoned opposing view with respect then a libleftist will.
the pizza place sits at 842,442 from 29,161
seeRpea (bf1eb5) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:32 pmthe florist is presently at 144,990 from 3920 donors. I think she gained a lot from the pizza place.
JD, nice try on Godwin but the Soup Nazi predates him. The Soup Nazi doesn’t murder people, either – he just denies soup to people he irrationally hates. Just like the Cake Nazi, the Photo Nazi and the Flower Nazi.
Mark, no I am not a liberal at all, nor anything close, but I do know bullshit when I see it, and this vid is obvious bullshit. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Try making a vid like Crowder’s in Colorado, or any other state where Christians have gotten in trouble for doing the same.
Jeff (afb610) — 4/7/2015 @ 9:33 pmColorado, New Mexico and Washington State,
I thought we were talking about the pizza place in Indiana…
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/8/2015 @ 6:10 amA cake Nazi, a photo Nazi and a flower Nazi? Really Jeff? You do realize that a real Nazi is one who forces others to do things against their will? You’re projecting your leftist, fascist ideals onto harmless Christians who prefer not to participate in your debauchery. It is people like you who want to force people like them to do things against their will. So who’s the real Nazi? Methinks you are.
Hoagie (58a3ec) — 4/8/2015 @ 6:29 amJesus Herbert Walker Christ, am I the only one who has ever watched Seinfeld? The Soup Nazi, both on the show and in real life, doesn’t run around murdering people, either. All he does is unreasonably deny soup to people he irrationally hates (including Seinfeld himself in real life, who is banned from the story despite all the free advertising). The Cake Nazi, the Photo Nazi and the Flower Nazi are exactly like the Soup Nazi.
One side of me wants to be surprised. Another figures if you’re dumb enough to confuse Michigan with Colorado, or me with a leftist, is probably not in a good position to differentiate Soup Nazis from actual Nazis, either.
Jeff (0506f5) — 4/8/2015 @ 10:32 amMore lies. The Muslims didn’t “discriminate against gays.” They refused to do everything a dude posing as a gay man wanted them to do to create a unique wedding cake.
This falls into the category of compelling speech, which people like Jeff want to be able to do to Christians. The last time I sold a house I was presented with a contract from the realtor who represented me. And in the contract there was a clause about celebrating diversity, including homosexuality, declaring it all wonderful. I crossed it out before I was willing to sign it. It was boilerplate from a large national realty company, and my realtor accepted my refusal to sign it as written.
For all I know I sold my house to a gay couple. I never met the people who bought my house. For all I know my realtor was a lesbian. That wasn’t the point. I was not going to sign a contract that says I celebrate something and think it’s great when I don’t celebrate it and I don’t think it’s great.
Jeff wants to make me sign that contract.
As far as people like Jeff and Sally Kohn are concerned, you can have your religion. But your business is a creature of government, and can’t have your religion. Why? It already has a religion. Jeff’s and Sally Kohn’s religion. The First Amendment is a barrier to abolishing people’s religions but they have figured out a way to prevent the free exercise of religion supposedly guaranteeed by that same First Amendment by creating a competing claim by statute. So once you leave the door of the church or your home they can assert their claim of ownership over you. It’s all voluntary, they say. You don’t have to go into business. You don’t have to work. You don’t have to eat. But if you engage in commerce so you can put food on the table you have to do things their way.
This totalitarian leftist mindset that the controversy over the Indiana law has exposed should give even gay people pause.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/8/2015 @ 6:55 pmIs anyone aware of a Christian or Jewish baker being sued for refusing to bake a cake for an interfaith marriage?
seeRpea (bf1eb5) — 4/8/2015 @ 7:13 pmI’m aware of rabbis who won’t do interfaith marriage services. Which is important as they make part of their livelihood by performing marriages. Which makes them subject to the “public accommodation” laws.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/20/hitching-post-wedding-chapel-ordered-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/
Apparently attacking Judaism and Islam and forcing them to conform to the liberal ideology is lower down on the things to do list.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/8/2015 @ 8:02 pmSteve57:
The video isn’t entirely clear on that point. From his commentary, Crowder certainly wants you to believe they wouldn’t sell a wedding cake to a suspected gay couple at all, thereby making his case indistinguishable from Masterpiece Cakeshop. [Indistinguishable, that is, but for the one teeny-weeny distinction that one is legal and the other illegal.] But you are correct that the undercover portion of the video at the cake shop doesn’t necessarily support that. If the Muslim cake store owners were indeed willing to sell him a cake, knowing it would be used in a gay wedding, and the only thing they wouldn’t do is scrawl a pro-gay message across it, then their case is nothing at all like Masterpiece’s, and probably would have been legal even in Colorado.
That said, you are the one lying by calling it a “lie” that they discriminated. The absolutely did discriminate, in that they refused to offer a service to Crowder because he was (believed to be) gay that they do offer to others who are not. Do you seriously doubt they would have refused to do anything he asked if he had posed as a straight guy to the cake shop posing as a about to marry a woman – and otherwise asked for exactly the same thing on a cake that he did ask for? If not, then is by definition discrimination. Whether it is illegal or bad discrimination is a tougher question, but it strains credulity to say it is not discrimination at all. Of course it is.
Nope, Jeff wants you to stop being a presumptuous prick who tells other people what they supposedly want. I’ve sold four houses myself in three states, most recently this past January, and never once seen a contract requiring me to celebrate anything. So without seeing the actual contract in question I frankly don’t believe you. Without seeing the language in question I have no opinion on whether it should have been there to begin with, whether every seller should be required to sign it, or whether the laws of your state make it purely irrelevant whether you sign it or not. The only thing I will say is that the realty company probably was not breaking any law by having that language in the contract, so they probably would not have been breaking any laws if they had insisted that you sign it as a condition of doing business with them. Freedom of contract is one of those things we “totalitarian lefties” have been known to champion.
Yes, that’s how businesses work. You have every First Amendment right to believe you are superior to black people and that you should not have to serve them if you don’t want to. You do not have a First Amendment right to run a business that way. And why should I care more about the free expression rights of a business owner than I do for anyone who works at that business? Am I to understand there is not one employee at Masterpiece who would have been perfectly fine with decorating a wedding cake for cakes, and not one employee at Arlene’s who would have been delighted to arrange flowers for the gay couple? Or is the owner of the business the only one who is allowed to have a so-called conscience in the public square?
Jeff (5bcfe0) — 4/9/2015 @ 4:02 amthose are very very good points you make Mr. Jeff
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/9/2015 @ 5:47 amAnd every single one an easily refuted lie. Beginning with this:
Last I looked it wasn’t me hunting down gay people to tell them what they should want. It’s the other way around. No amount of lying will hide that reality.
And apparently Jeff doesn’t read contracts carefully.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 1:51 pmJeff also demonstrates he believes there is no such thing as private property.
Jeff is all kinds of twisted.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 1:53 pmI enjoy being falsely accused of being a presumptuous prick who tells other people what they supposedly want, by a presumptuous prick who then proceeds to tell me what I should want.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 1:56 pmthe more y’all disagree the further away you guys get from achieving a consensus
and that saddens me
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/9/2015 @ 1:59 pmI’ve noticed a similar phenomenon in the “gay christian” movement. Which is in scare quotes as it’s an oxymoron.
They’ll come into a church and say something about their personal experience, say that their experience can’t be wrong, and since it conflicts with scripture the scripture must be wrong.
And then the Christian response is, no, what you are saying is that scripture is not your ultimate authority. And if that’s the case, you can’t be Christian. And to agree with what you are saying would be to adopt another Gospel instead of the one Christ gave us.
At which point the Christians become presumptuous pricks.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 2:06 pmA consensus about what, exactly?
The answer to that question is the key.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 2:07 pmSteve57:
I have no idea what you are babbling about. If some gay guys kidnapped you and told you what you’re supposed to want, call the cops. It has nothing to do with me, nor does it excuse your claiming to know what I want. You don’t, and are an ass for talking as if you did.
Either that, or Steve57 doesn’t understand them. Or Steve57 is making this crap up out of whole cloth. Since Steve57 won’t cite the offending language (or better, the entire form) I’m inclined to suspect the latter.
Lie, you’re obviously pissed off about whatever it is you’re hallucinating. Or maybe not. Maybe you really do get some sick pleasure out of spewing angry, dishonest bile toward people you don’t even know. So for all I know maybe that part wasn’t a lie after all. The rest was, though:
You weren’t “falsely” accused of anything. You, not I, are the one who posted this:
“This falls into the category of compelling speech, which people like Jeff want to be able to do to Christians.”
And this:
“Jeff wants to make me sign that contract.”
And then, even after being called on being a presumptuous prick who tells other people what they supposedly want, proceeded to write this:
“Jeff also demonstrates he believes there is no such thing as private property.”
Your words, not mine. Don’t like being called a presumptuous prick who tells other people what they supposedly want? Then more generally, stop acting like a presumptuous prick and more specifically, stop telling other people what they supposedly want.
Not necessarily a lie, as that’s more of a statement of opinion, but geez, couldn’t you at least get a bit more creative with the insults rather than firing back the exact same one? Most of us outgrew Rubber v. Glue a long time ago.
I said nothing about what you should want. I focused on what you said that you do want, and why it is unreasonable. While your comments are rife with “Jeff wants this” and “Jeff doesn’t believe in that,” none of mine say word one about what you or anyone else should want. I couldn’t’ care less what you want, as long as you don’t get it. And in the long run, I’m pretty confident you won’t. Could it be you realize that yourself, and that’s why you’re so angry?
Wow, you’re an even bigger prick than I thought you were. It was bad enough pretending to know what I want / don’t want / do / don’t believe in, but now you’ve set yourself up as the arbiter of who is or isn’t a “real” Christian. You have quite a gall.
Experiences aside, of course the scripture is wrong. Not all of it, but quite a bit. No one believes the whole Bible, and anyone who thinks they do probably hasn’t read much of it, and certainly hasn’t understood it. So by your “no true Scotsman” logic, no real Christians exist, including you. But I presume you consider yourself a Christian, so query why those who believe the same parts of the Bible as you should have a better claim to the name than those who believe other parts you choose to ignore.
Hate to break it to you, but Christ didn’t give you any gospel. There is no Gospel According to Christ, and the four gospels we do have – written generations later by people who didn’t even know Jesus or speak a common language with him – don’t have him saying word one about homosexuality. Two of them do say quite a bit about divorce and remarriage, though, the latter being defined as adultery. It sure is a good thing these Super-Christian bakers, florists and photographers won’t service “adulterous” second marriages. That would make a hell of a lot more sense, from a Biblical standpoint, than unilaterally dissing the gays.
As to your ludicrous notion that the only Christian view is to accept the Bible as the “ultimate authority” on everything, you do realize you’re not reading the entire Bible, don’t you? Gutenberg’s Bible, and every other pre-Luther iteration has 73 books; yours omits the 7 Luther didn’t happen to like. So I guess Luther is your ultimate authority. I’m going out on a very short limb and assuming you’re Protestant, as that rubbish about [Luther’s] Bible as sole ultimate authority is peculiar to Protestantism. Catholics freely admit to having authority other than the Bible (though those authorities tend not to be very gay-friendly, either).
Nope. At which point chauvinists like Steve57 show their own narrow-minded brand of Christians to be the presumptuous pricks that they are. Don’t pretend all or even most Christians fall into that category. They do not.
Jeff (afb610) — 4/9/2015 @ 5:35 pmJeff continues to make my point.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 5:55 pmQuite.
Genesis 19:9
You’ll see I got that from a particular place, Jeff.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:00 pmA consensus about what, exactly?
I think we all agree that some gays are f***ing a**holes.
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:10 pmVery funny, nk. Yeah, I got it.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:20 pmThe sins of Sodom, the Bible makes clear in the prophets, were oppression of the poor, hatred of strangers (the motive for the attack on Lot’s visitors), rampant corruption and injustice, and love of wealth. Sexual sins, whether hetero or homosexual, were way down on the list.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:26 pmIn fact, take the Leftist caricature of the Tea Party, and you have a picture of Sodom in modern dress.
You are correct, kisnevi. If you read Ezekiel up to verse 49. If you read it through 50 then you know Sodom was destroyed because they committed toevah before God’s eyes.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:35 pmkishnevi.
Damned keyboard!
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:37 pmYes. The abominations being the sins listed in verse 49…which does not mention sexual sins. If Zeke meant abominations to mean sexual sins, he would have mentioned them in 49.
When reading Scripture, it is always good practice to pay attention to what Scripture says, and not what you want it to day.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:44 pmThat’s better. God’s list of Sodom’s sins didn’t hang entirely on the men of Sodom’s desire to rape angels.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:44 pmwanted to say.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:45 pmOur keyboards are equally abominable. 🙂
But Leviticus 20:13 does. Leviticus most definitely mentions sexual sins, and declares one to be toevah.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:49 pmJeff seems to be oblivious about this uproar over a certain pizza parlor in Indiana. No telling what else he’s oblivious to.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:56 pmThe keyboards be damned. Full speed ahead!
Good advice. I don’t like what scripture has to say about me. What I know is true.
So gay people come along and say it couldn’t possibly be talking about them.
Why not? It talks about the rest of us.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:01 pmI’m pretty sure happyfeet will agree with this. http://imgur.com/AMmKejX Safe image
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:19 pmThe sins of Sodom, the Bible makes clear in the prophets, were oppression of the poor, hatred of strangers (the motive for the attack on Lot’s visitors), rampant corruption and injustice, and love of wealth. Sexual sins, whether hetero or homosexual, were way down on the list.
Yea, when Lot is being intimidated by the male townspeople of Sodom, banging at his front door threatening to rape his two male guests (ie, angels masquerading as humans), so desperate he’s willing to sacrifice his 2 daughters in order to distract the crowd and protect his guests, that’s “way down on the list.”
Such an assessment could only come from an observer who’d also say:
“And other than THAT, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?!”
Or:
“And other than THAT, Mrs. Kennedy, how was Dallas?!”
Mark (9a387b) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:23 pmThat’s why it’s safer to live in a large(ish) city or town. It gives Abraham a better chance to find ten good men.
Which is my take on the real meaning of that story — God allowing Abraham to negotiate with Him.
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:38 pmIf you go back and read the Bible, you will notice that Sodom was already condemned before the angels appeared to Lot. Meaning that incident had no actual impact on the destruction if the Five Cities. (Also note that Gommorah and three other cities were also destroyed, and they had nothing to do with the riot in front of Lot’s house.)
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:43 pmThe men of Sodom hated the strangers, so they attempted a form of prison rape to demonstrate that xenophobia. Hate of the outsider was the underlying sin, not lust.
nk, the Rabbis agreed with you.
kishnevi (6cacaf) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:44 pmI have gone back and read the Bible.
Really, kishnevi? Their desires had nothing to do with God’s condemnation?
Romans 1:24 – 27
Is this your final answer?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 7:58 pm? St. Paul is talking about Sodom and Gomorrah, there?
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:03 pmJust saying. There’s a certain continuity here, if you let the scripture speak for itself.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:04 pmSteve, remember I am Jewish. Saul of Tarsus has no more authority for me than Mohammed of Mecca.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:05 pmLess in fact, since Mohammed did not preach worship of a created being in the place of the Creator. Mohammed merely rejected the Torah. Paul rejected both the Torah and the Giver of the Torah.
He is talking about what happens when one subtitles man’s truth for Gods.
narciso (8f80b4) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:07 pmHate of the outsider was the underlying sin, not lust.
Yea, kishnevi, it’s pretty much a universal symbol of hate of strangers — very much in keeping with human nature since time immemorial — that haters (certainly if they’re male) express their hate by wanting to go out and rape other males. Hate perhaps or most definitely a sign (and sin) of in-hospitality as envisioned by filmmakers of, say, gay porno in San Francisco.
Mark (9a387b) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:09 pmkishnevi, I get where you’re coming from. But.
1) I think that there’s an argument to be made that there’s nothing unjewish about Christianity. All of Jesus’ initial followers were Jews.
2) Irregardless I could argue from general revelation
3) My First Amendment argument rests on, dunno, the First Amendment.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:27 pmSnicker.
2″I will send an angel before you and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. 3″Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, and I might destroy you on the way.”
People haven’t changed.
nk (dbc370) — 4/9/2015 @ 8:39 pmSteve57:
Yes, you get it from one of the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in. I think the whole book is a great big pile of steaming crap, but at least some of it must be. Like this part:
Leviticus 20:13 also says you are supposed to murder them if they do. Do you believe that?
Oh please. There’s about as much “continuity” between the New and Old Testaments as there is between either and the Book of Mormon. Here are just a few of the things un-Jewish about Christianity:
Worshiping any man, including the messiah, is idolatry.
Matthew and Luke offer two mutually conflicting genealogies of Jesus. Both can’t be true, but neither, if true, would qualify him for the throne or therefore, as messiah.
Too many unfulfilled prophecies to count.
The messiah comes only once, not twice. No take-backs or mulligans for unfulfilled prophecies.
No man can die for another’s sins. Deut 24:16, see also Exodus 32:30-35, Ezekiel 18.
God can’t die, so if Jesus as a hybrid God/man, all that died on the cross was Jesus the man. For the Jewish God’s views on human sacrifice, see Deuteronomy 12:30-31.
Just to name a few. Plenty more where they came from. But again, like any other Christian you believe the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in, ignore the parts that don’t fit, and wonder why anyone else who does the same could have the nerve to call himself a Christian.
Jeff (afb610) — 4/10/2015 @ 4:57 amPatterico:
Can’t speak for happy, but speaking only for myself I think the idea that everyone gets to ignore laws they don’t like is the wrong thing. A reasonable debate can be had over whether everyone should be allowed or forbidden by race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc., but whatever the law is should apply to everyone.
Again don’t know or care what Happy thinks, but yes, the idea that “religious liberty” privileges anyone to flout laws they don’t like (provided their imaginary friend conveniently doesn’t like those laws, either) is cockamamie theory. It’s not a very new one, though, I’ll give you that. It’s one that the ultra-liberal Warren Court made the mistake of adopting in Sherbert v. Verber (1962), only to have a more sensible, center-right Rehnquist court jettison it 30 years later in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). The resulting rule – that a neutral law of general applicability does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment solely because it conflicts with someone’s religious views – was wildly unpopular at the time but in the end, sound. Congress should have left well enough alone in 1993. Indiana should have, too, in 2015, albeit for reasons unrelated to discrimination (which was overblown to begin with, but in any event addressed by SB 50).
Jeff (afb610) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:12 amJeff then proceeds to accuse me of selectively quoting from this book. Which is, in it’s totality, a great pile of steaming crap.
No, really. I can’t make this stuff up. This is as close Jeff can get to scholarship. And I’m supposed to be the dumb one.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:30 am387
Steve,
I thought I was the official dumb one?
EPWJ (acb2d0) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:32 amAnyone care to try and decipher that?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:34 amNot any more, EPWJ (@388). You’ve been dethroned.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:37 amWhich part of the great big steaming pile of crap should I be adhering to, Jeff?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:43 amand Jesus said “bake them a cake don’t be a tool” and there was much rejoicing
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:23 amIs that after the “repent” part?
It seems to be missing from the big pile of steaming crap I’m reading wrong.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:32 ami can’t remember where I read it they said it wasn’t gonna be on the test
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:34 amYou wanna borrow my Bible? My Bible says there will be a test.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:39 amReally. I can highlight the relevant parts.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:42 amnonono I’m good I’m good
but thank you
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:45 amIt’s in Peter’s Second Epistle to The Eutychopodians.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:47 amthank you thank you I never woulda got that
happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:52 amYes, thank you nk.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:14 amYes, you get it from one of the parts of the Bible you choose to believe in. I think the whole book is a great big pile of steaming crap, but at least some of it must be.
So forget the supernatural or spiritual aspects of the text and view it as a window into (and forewarning of) human nature for thousands of years. What other writings offer that much of a glimpse into history, and which go back far enough in time to not have been influenced by new-age historians with all their political baggage–eg, attempting to downplay the astonishingly decadent aspects of the city of Sodom?
The Bible at the very least is an illustration of “what goes around, comes around,” “there’s nothing new under the sun,” and “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.”
Mark (9a387b) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:43 amSteve57:
None of it, of course. But given that you choose to believe some parts of it, while casually ignoring others, you might want to go easier on others who do the same.
happyfeet:
Unless you went Luther yourself and physically removed the parts you don’t like, surely Matthew 5:38-42 is still there. It’s just one of the better parts of the not-so-good book you pretend to believe in, so it comes as no surprise it’s one of the parts you ignore.
Here’s a Bible quiz for you (open book):
1. Who inspired King David to conduct a census that led to the untimely deaths of 70,000 innocent Jews?
A. God
B. Satan
C. Adolf Hitler
D. Kanye West
2. Why did Jesus’s parents take him from Bethlehem to Nazareth?
A. To escape a crazed Jewish king’s mass-killing of infant babies, which historians forgot to record.
B. Because they were originally from Nazareth, and were only visiting Bethlehem in the first place to comply with the world’s worst-planned census, which historians forgot to record.
C. Because they had read some long lost scripture (appearing nowhere in the Old Testament, but referenced in Matthew as though it were) that their new messiah was supposed to be a Nazarene.
D. Because they thought Kanye West was opening for them.
3. What did Judas do with his 30 pieces of silver?
A. Gave it back to the priests.
B. Bought a field.
C. Invested in no-load mutual funds.
D. Bought front row seats to see Kanye West.
4. How did Judas die?
A. By hanging himself.
B. By falling down in the field he had bought with the bribe money and splitting open.
C. Of old age.
D. He didn’t. He was one of the few people in the crowd Jesus was addressing in Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 who would not taste death before he came back. He’s currently living under an assumed name, “Kanye West.”
5. Whose blood was the potter’s “Field of Blood” named after?
A. Jesus’s.
B. Judas’s
C. Herod’s.
D. Kanye West’s.
6. In what order did God create the living beings on our planet?
A. Man first, lower animals second, woman last.
B. Woman first, who gave birth to the first man.
C. Lower animals first, man and woman last (simultaneously)
D. On the seventh day, God created Kanye West, and couldn’t have have rested on that day instead?
7. When is it permissible to divorce your wife and remarry?
A. Never.
B. Only if she cheats on you.
C. Only if you suspect she’s a closet lesbian.
D. Only if she abuses you, either physically or emotionally, such as by making you listen to Kanye West.
8. Who did Jesus tell it’s more blessed to give than receive?
A. The apostles and the crowd, during his inaugural sermon that was either on the mount (Matthew 5) or on the plain (Luke 6:17 & 20).
B. Pilate, to make an ironic point about the death penalty.
C. Paul, who never met Jesus during his lifetime.
D. Kanye West.
9. Who was Joseph’s father?
A. Jacob.
B. Heli.
C. Moses.
D. Kanye.
10. Can all sins be forgiven?
Jeff (0506f5) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:42 amA. Yes.
B. No.
C. Maybe.
D. Kanye.
Herod was not especially Jewish, and among the kids he killed were two of his own. Augustus Caesar mentioned it, among others. But this is the only piece of your atheist bulls**t I’ll address. Take the rest, roll it up, lube it real good, and have your boyfriend stick it in your a*s when he can’t get it up.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:54 amAnd I apologize. That was very intemperate and I’ve grown way too thin-skinned and thoughtless in my comments.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:56 amJeff, meet Gil. Gil, Jeff. You haters would love each other.
JD (c90ab3) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:00 amJeff (0506f5) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:42 am
You miss the point of the New Testament even more than the fundamentalists do.
It is not history, it is hagiography. So trying to read as modern academic history, like it was Manchester’s biography of Churchill, doesn’t work. Even secular historians of that era did not keep modern standards of accuracy. Even Thucydides, the most modernlike of ancient historians, invented speeches (although he did not invent events) to present what the people he was writing about thought and said…not literal transcripts.
Three decades or more after the crucifixion, early Christians started committing to writing what they thought were the most important oral traditions of what Jesus said and did. Later generations settled on the four they thought were most authoritative.
Which is why the Sermon on the Mount is probably a conflation of several discourses ascribed to Jesus, and like many preachers he probably repeated the same ideas in different sermons in different places.
kishnevi (870883) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:09 amBesides, if you were ever in the Galil, you would understand that whichever mount it was, it was more of a hill, and a large enough crowd would naturally gather on the “plain” below. So Matthew and John don’t conflict with each other.
JD, my real name is Jeff, This atheist Jeff is pure embarrassment for me.
kishnevi (870883) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:10 amI hope Jeff feels better, as that was a lot to get off his chest.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:47 amSteve, Kanye can do that to a man…..
kishnevi (870883) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:50 amNo, I was out of line, especially on a Day like today.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:02 amKanye is the reason I can look at Kim Kardashian’s @$$ and feel no lust whatsoever. And I don’t go out of my way looking for her @$$. It’s unavoidable.
I suppose on some level he’s performing a service for mankind.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:08 amThe Kardashians have always been a stench going back to OJ Simpson times. Kanye married down.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:11 amStill, Kim had a nice bedonkedonk. And then everyone, and I do mean everyone, moved in and ruined it.
I’ve never been able to view the potential sex video that is the world in quite the same way ever since.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:20 amkishnevi,
Indeed, Saul of Tarsus means no more to you than Mohammed of Mecca,
and the flip side of that coin is that no Christian takes as authoritative the teaching of any rabbi who does not acknowledge Jesus was the Messiah.
(Of course, such a rabbi can be authoritative as to what he thinks and what the tradition he belongs to thinks).
As far as the verse in Ezekiel goes, and this has been talked at before at great length, and I will repeat a too obvious point:
I’ll just say that a given sentence means what it means, no more and no less.
If someone asks me why I don’t trust President Obama, if I am in a good frame of mind I will simply say, “I’m still waiting to fulfill his promise to list on a website where all of the stimulus money went, that Joe Biden was to keep track of”.
That does not mean that is the only reason I don’t trust him, in fact it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the main reason I don’t trust him (and it isn’t).
So, as a matter of logic, it is clearly true that God had issues with Sodom and Gomorrah that were not explicitly and directly linked to sexual conduct. But from that verse alone, we cannot conclude that God was approving of the sexual morality in those places, and it is left open to what the Scriptures say elsewhere.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:23 amBy the same token we can’t conclude God approves of incest. Yet it is in the Bible. Lot’s daughters do get him drunk so they can sleep with him.
Which I guess has a certain logic to it. If you’re going to bring up your kids in Sodom. That’s the kind of headwork you’re going to get.
So, sure. Why not a gay wedding cake?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:36 amThey thought the entirety of humanity had been destroyed, I mean.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:38 am==Indeed, Saul of Tarsus means no more to you than Mohammed of Mecca,
and the flip side of that coin is that no Christian takes as authoritative the teaching of any rabbi who does not acknowledge Jesus was the Messiah.==
I don’t know how Kish feels about Saul of Tarsus in relation to Mohammed, do you? Has he ever said, or are you theorizing?
elissa (94cfb6) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:39 amAlso, as a practicing Christian I am quite able to take “as authoritative” any number of teachings by Rabbis on events that preceded Jesus’ time on earth. The 10 Commandments are a favorite of mine, for instance, and there are others. Tonight’s observance of Passover is another.
https://patterico.com/2015/04/04/would-muslim-owned-bakeries-bake-a-wedding-cake-for-ben-and-steven/#comment-1755080
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:44 amelissa @417, I’m a practicing Christian, too.
Which as many have pointed out must mean I’m not very good at it. So I guess I’ll keep practicing until I can turn pro.
This is coming from a very flawed human being. But if Jesus says something, is that not authoritative? All kinds of rabbis can interpret the text, but if He who inspired the text explains its meaning shouldn’t that settle the matter?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:07 amwell i’m fairly certain, that account is not supposed to be approving, but to show the deep depravity of the milieu, just as with the Golden Calf,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:10 amelissa, as nk linked, kishnevi said it above
My understanding of the OT is largely influenced on how Jesus interpreted it.
Given a choice between a traditional Jewish interpretation of a passage,
and an interpretation given in the teaching of Jesus,
I would choose the interpretation of Jesus.
Of course, as I said above, sometimes two points could be made from one passage.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:13 amElissa, he was referring to my comment at 380, which nk linked to just above.
Remember that I, being Jewish, look at any religion that talks about Jesus as Son of God or Jesus is Lord as inherently idol worshipping. Paul’s talk in the quote from Romans about “worshipping and serving created beings” is ironic from the pov of Judaism, since he was condemning himself out of his own mouth. To say a human being is God is by definition idol worship. And that is before you get to talking about Holy Trinity, Eucharist, etc.
And before I forget, nk, have a good Easter.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:17 amwell it was certainly not viewed as hagiography for the previous 19th Century, but heck we’ve gotten a much better view of the world, in the last century, so lets go with that,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:23 amThank you, kishnevi. I see yours is over today but Chag Sameach to you too.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:31 amA similar accusation was directed at Paul in Acts, there truly is nothing new under the son,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:31 amSteve57,@409– Perhaps you missed that I was addressing an entirely different matter in my response to MD. I don’t come here to this blog to discuss religion so I rarely, rarely do. But in reading it I thought his comment to Kish, a Jew, was both off the mark and somewhat presumptuous. I understand that others may view it differently but I think Kishnevi deserves respect– as does MD. Rabbis interpret Old Testament text. That’s what they do. Faulting them and other Jews for NOT interpreting New Testament text or not accepting Jesus as Messiah seems mindless.
elissa (94cfb6) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:33 amkishnevi @422, I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. But to several Jews the idea that Jesus was the Messiah didn’t mean to them they had stopped being Jews.
For a long time in the early Church the main question was, can you even be a Christian if you are not already a Jew?
I mention these things because when Paul was hauled before the Sanhedrin, he wasn’t condemned outright. He had supporters, who held that he could believe what he believed and still be a Jew.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:40 ami mean @419
elissa (94cfb6) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:41 amSo this lady calls her husband on his cell phone, “Honey, the radio just reported that there’s a maniac going the wrong way on the Dan Ryan. Be careful”. And he says, “One? There’s hundreds of them”.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:42 amnk, actually tomorrow is the last day. I can go back to eating regular bread and waffles at approximately 8:15 PM tomorrow. If I was in Chicago, it would be about five minutes earlier…difference in sunset times and the official start of nighttime (which comes when it is almost completely dark, almost an hour after the sun disappears under the horizon)
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:50 amelissa @426, I shall attempt to confine my comments in the future as to why the Kurds should have armed crop dusters like the Air Tractor 802U.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/1/9/6/2443691.jpg
Which, obviously, can be used to deliver other pesticides once ISIS is exterminated.
I’ll try not to provoke you.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:56 amThe gophers around Mosul are really dug in…
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/10/2015 @ 12:01 pmThat plane being actually armed, I assume it is in real, if limited, use?
You’re not provoking me Steve57. But when you respond to a comment that I’ve addressed to another commenter, and yours took a different direction, then I thought it was reasonable to assume that I might not have been clear– and that as a result you may have missed the point I was hoping to make to MD.
elissa (94cfb6) — 4/10/2015 @ 12:04 pmelissa,
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/10/2015 @ 12:28 pmspeaking of the point you were making to me,
you have seen, yes, that I was indeed quoting kishnevi from earlier on this thread?
Yes, MD. As to the first point I had absolutely missed that comment at 380, which is why I specifically *asked* if he had said something like that? Kishnevi, you, and others immediately responded and pointed out that indeed he had said that.
As to my second point about Rabbis’ having differing responsibilities to interpret Texts –and our need to accept that Jews do not view Jesus in the same way as Christians– I continue to think that Kishnevi is a sincere and thoughtful Jew who often gets more grief from people on this site than he deserves just because his belief system differs in a fundamental way. Yet the belief system the two religions share is substantial.
elissa (94cfb6) — 4/10/2015 @ 1:00 pmunderstandable, but the point about hagiography vs. evidence has to be applied equally, you would think, Tom Holland did a survey of the three religions on that point, and they didn’t come off great,
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/10/2015 @ 1:11 pmelissa, I’m happy to know I’m not provoking you.
kishnevi, yes, the plane is armed. There are a number of ways to meet the spec for a light attack aircraft, and that’s one way. My only problem would be with the limited visibility.
Which is fine, I guess for crop dusting. Or any situation where an enemy combatant like the bugs you’re out to kill won’t get behind you and shoot at you.
Which is a bad thing, if you haven’t read Sun Tzu.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 1:13 pmSo yes the plane would be of limited use.
But within its limits it should be fine.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 1:15 pmand our need to accept that Jews do not view Jesus in the same way as Christians– I continue to think that Kishnevi is a sincere and thoughtful Jew who often gets more grief from people on this site than he deserves just because his belief system differs in a fundamental way. Yet the belief system the two religions share is substantial.
I agree that kishnevi is a sincere and thoughtful Jew who has made it clear that he thinks I’m an idolator along with all Christians and that the NT is hagiography, which I take to mean at the very least it was written from an overly positive point of view, if not untrustworthy fiction.
I’m not aware that I’ve any time given him grief over his beliefs, if you can point to something specific I’ll be happy to reconsider.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/10/2015 @ 3:00 pmyes, I don’t know why we would take exception?
narciso (ee1f88) — 4/10/2015 @ 3:06 pmIs this Jeff dude an atheist?
Cuz I think it’s super cool to point out how atheists do not discriminate against homos.
Vlad Putin just loves him some butt sechs.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2015 @ 3:10 pmI wonder how our Jewish friends understand Isaiah 53?
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 5:02 pmIt is good for you to remind of this, MSL.
Forgive me for being out of breath. I just did 30 dive bomber pushups. The latest massacres in Kenya show you can’t rely on being out of shape when you go to the mall.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:12 pmI wonder how our Jewish friends understand Isaiah 53?
Err … who cares? How does your Church teach it? Christ would not have needed to come to Mankind if the Jews were following the Law and the Prophets.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:33 pmThe French never fail to disappoint. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11527987/Pope-Francis-refuses-gay-French-ambassador.html
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:52 pmMD, I certainly don’t remember you giving me any grief.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:00 pmIf anything it is I who is sometimes rude and offensive.
Hagiography is not untrustworthy fiction, but it is meant to present a certain picture if its subject, and should not be taken as literally accurate. The Gospels present not the life of Jesus, but what the early Church thought was important to know about Jesus. They are documents of faith, not factual accounts. Not a single one of the canonical gospels mentions anything about his education, any possible marriage, or how he earned a living before he went off to be baptized by John the Baptist. To the Church, those matters were not important. He knew enough to teach out of the public scrolls read in synagogue, but did he learn anything of the legal traditions later to be set down in the Mishnah? Was he what the Mishnah calls an am ha-aretz, an ignorant peasant who did not bother with the demands of the Mishnaic tradition and looked at that tradition skeptically if not antagonistically? Given what he is recorded as saying, he may well have been one…but that is my personal guess. The Gospels offer no hard data on the point. And then there are other problems. The Synoptic gospels say Jesus died on the day before Passover, John says he died on the first day of Passover. Both can not be right. (If the Synoptics are right, the Last Supper was not a Passover Seder. If John is right, it may have been, but only if you assume Jesus and the disciples ignored some important rules that would have required their presence inside the Temple earlier that afternoon.) To the early Church, the important point was Jesus’s death and its symbolic link to the Passover sacrifice, not the exact day of Nisan on which it happened. We are told where the Crucifixion took place, but oddly, not the actual location of the tomb and therefore of the Resurrection. We are only told it was a tomb owned by, or at least accessible to, Joseph of Arimithea. Was it a place well known to early Christians and therefore not necessary to identify? Did they think that Resurrection transcended physical locale and did not identify it because that point was trivial? There is evidence an earthquake happened in close proximity to the Crucifixion. The Gospels mention it not to provide a full depiction of the day’s events, but because they viewed it as symbolically important. And so forth.
The Gospels mention people, places and events of that time and place, but that does not prove their accuracy of detail. I could use that argument to prove Scarlett O’Hara was a real person and Gone With The Wind true history.
I am not saying not to believe the Gospels. But understand that if you believe them, it is because you believe in the truth of Christianity, not the other way around.
443. Steve, I work in a mall. A mall with rich brand name stores appealing to tourists from Europe and South America.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:14 pmA mall with a completely laughable security force and minor police force to back them up. Fortunately for me, I work in a large department store with multiple exits, and the odds are that the terrorists would not cover them all.
In answer to MSL’s question, that chapter in Isaiah is usually taken to refer to the Jewish people itself and all we have endured from Babylonians onward. Rashi for example presents it as the nations confessing their sins in persecuting the Jews, when they see the Redemption of the Messianic Era.
That is the standard rabbinical interpretation of it. It doesn’t make any sense.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:33 pmDudeski, for your own sake assume that they are. One thing we can learn about our common adversary is that they can learn. And do. Yes, they will map out the exits. And have them covered.
Sincerely,
Your perpetually and obstinately stupid friend,
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:37 pmSteve57
The terrorists who have been planning or months to attack a mall will not have walked in and looked at the great big block of plaster that says “you are here?”
That’s the first thing I would do, if I were evil.
And, yes, that’s not the whole story. Which leads to the second thing I would do, if I were evil.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:46 pmYes Westgate mall, be slab nord or St you think they aren’t all scouted out.
narciso (8f80b4) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:47 pmIf by “Mishnaic tradition” you mean the Oral Torah going back to Moses, it’s doubtful such a thing ever existed.
It’s the Synoptics that seem to indicate he was killed after the Passover meal while John seems to indicate prior to it.
The problem with all these “the bible is loaded with contradictions” people, and there are a lot of them, is they don’t look into any possible solutions at all. I assume that’s because they want there to be contradictions. This seeming contradiction has a fairly simple and plausible explanation. John is referring to the Passover proper on the fourteenth of Nisan while the Synoptics refer to the seven day feast of the passover that begins on the fifteenth of Nisan. This explains what the difference is from Numbers 28:16-25.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:03 pmMy post #452 is in response to Kishnevi’s post #446.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:05 pmDamage Control Central, narciso. Bring order out of chaos. Estabish a command post, then turn to and do what needs to be done. From Beslan to Nairobi I’m seeing people left to their own devices.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:07 pmThey would need at least a dozen people merely to cover the public exits in my store. There are others, but you need either building plans or someone who can pose as a contract worker for repairs or inspection, which would in itself take some planning. And that is only my store. There are four others of our size, plus two levels of smaller stores and restaurants, some with their own outside entrances(supposedly 200 in all),and a cinema on the smaller third level. To cover the entire mall, you would probably need an attack force of at least sixty, unless your attack plan assumed most people would escape in the initial panic.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:09 pmDo not know offhand how Westgate compares in size.
How hard was it, kishnevi, for you to produce that guesstimate?
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:18 pmAs it stands I use the same form of calculation to determine how many latrines I’m going to need after a tsunami, to service the populace.
I could use the same math differently, if I had a different intent.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:25 pm#452
John is referring to the Passover proper on the fourteenth of Nisan while the Synoptics refer to the seven day feast of the passover that begins on the fifteenth of Nisan.
Now I got it backward. I meant it the other way around.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:29 pmGerald, the Mishnaic tradition of ritual and civil law was well developed by the time of Jesus. He is quoted in the Gospels as referring to various particulars of halacha, usually in a negative way.
Your source about Passover dates is all confused. For one thing, the date changes at nightfall, and he seems to think chametz was removed only after the seder
Taking Thursday as 14 Nisan…
Thursday AM cleansing of chametz
Thursday PM Passover sacrifice
Thursday night 15 Nisan starts at nightfall. Passover sacrifice is eaten (the origin of the Seder). No one who still possessed chametz could participate in the Passover sacrifice, and the Seder that followed, which is why chametz was removed before the time of the sacrifice. To eat it, one had to be ritually clean for both the meal and the sacrifice, and one needed to participate in the sacrifice first to be able to eat the meal.
John says Jesus died on the day of preparation, meaning the 14th. If Mark says the Last Supper was the Seder, then Mark is saying Jesus was very much alive by the time the day of preparation ended, and thus flatly contradicts John. (Mark is flatout wrong to say the day the Passover sacrifice was offered was the first day of unleavened bread. That is like saying 24 December is the first day of Christmas. The day of the sacrifice was the day before, day 0 if you will.)
Most probable explanation is simply that over the decades between Crucifixion and the Gospels, oral history among early Christians got the dates mixed up. The author of Mark put in writing what he heard, ditto the author of John. And once you accept the Gospels are compilations of oral history, not eyewitness accounts, the superficial contradictions fade in importance.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 8:55 pmThat was very intemperate and I’ve grown way too thin-skinned and thoughtless in my comments.
If Jeff’s post #402 triggered your reaction, that surprises me since I thought it showed humor that although sarcastic about the Bible, also showed what appears to be humor directed at the increasingly shallow and cheap nature of our culture. All the references to Kanye West did make me chuckle. IOW, even Jeff must sense that the hip-hop, rowdy social trends increasingly popular with way too many Americans are helping both dumb down and coarsen this society. However, come to think of it, Hillary “sniper-fire” Clinton (aka Bill’s bisexual doormat) therefore will be a fitting figurehead for the US in 2016.
Remember that I, being Jewish, look at any religion that talks about Jesus as Son of God or Jesus is Lord as inherently idol worshipping.
I can deal with that, but the difficulty you have in using a non-left-leaing filter when interpreting at least certain aspects of Scripture does make me wince.
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:09 pmSteve, I was essentially counting doors.
Three public exits on the first floor, four on the second, the loading dock, and at least one exit to the roof. That means nine men to block every exit, and no one gunmen could place himself in a position to block more than one exit, because of line of sight and distances between exits.
To block off only one floor would require about the same number, because of stairwells, the escalator and elevators, etc.
Then add a minimal number to hold hostages, etc.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:12 pmAnd that is just my store, not the mall at large.
Mark, the filter I use is Jewish tradition.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:26 pmWhen you study the social legislation of the Bible, you realize the Torah takes a skeptical view of free markets and what we call capitalism. A major reason for that is the Bible’s scale of values, which is not economic at all. Material prosperity is not a goal, but a reward for living justly, and Heaven allots riches to men not so they can live comfortably but so they can help others less fortunate.
God is neither Democrat nor Republican, but the only issue on which it is easier to align the GOP agenda with the Bible than the Democratic agenda is abortion. Everything else is easier to match with the Left.
Yeah, I mistook Jeff for one of the Gil clones, that’s why I was such an a**hole.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:27 pmActually, add gay marriage to abortion. Two issues.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:27 pmHe may be wrong in thinking that unleavened bread had to be removed only after the seder but that’s irrelevant to his point anyway. John doesn’t say anything about the preparation for the Passover. It’s the other Gospels that do that.
If what he is calling the evening of the fourteenth is actually the 15th of Nisan that’s also irrelevant to his point. His point stands, that John is referring to the seven day feast of the passover that begins on the 15th of Nisan (or 16th whatever). Note also that John only refers to “eating” the Passover, not any preparation or killing the Passover.
So his theory it totally consistent with the two Gospel accounts.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:34 pm#447 – kishnevi
That is interesting.
I do notice that Israel is typically referred to in the feminine form such as in Isaiah 51:3
and in chapter 52 also with the end of chapter 52 being most interesting. So it is curious that Isaiah 53 would be seen as referring to the nation of Israel instead of a certain individual.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:35 pmYes everyone is aware that he was very critical of the Pharisees and many of their interpretations. I’m talking specifically about the notion that those interpretations went back to Moses who received them pretty much as they existed in Jesus’ time. The rabbinical system at that time was probably a couple hundred years old.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:38 pmbut the only issue on which it is easier to align the GOP agenda with the Bible than the Democratic agenda is abortion.
But, Kishnevi, your take on the story of Sodom and Lot really is tilted with rationalizations or excuse-making processed through the prism of your liberalism. I don’t say that to be critical (although I’m not a fan of such bias), but to be totally descriptive.
By the same token, you could easily chastise me and my form of ideological filter if I interpreted the phrase of “let he who is without sin…” as meaning the bigger the sinner, the more one should condemn and snipe at other sinners.
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:43 pmI am probably confused. But one gospel seems to say Jesus was killed on the day of the sacrifice(Fortenberry quotes John 19 to say it is), and the other gospel says it happened on the day after the seder (Last Supper), and therefore the day after the sacrifice.
So they can not both be right.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:46 pmMark, on the subject of Sodom I am merely describing it the way Rabbinic tradition viewed it. I was channelling not the MZSM but Rabbinic sources, which barely notice the sexual crimes, and focus on corruption, rampant injustice, and systemic oppression of the poor. Among other things, the Midrash depicts a girl being executed (by insect stings and bites) for the “crime” of giving food to a beggar.
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:53 pmMZSM…MSM
kishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 9:54 pmRe: # 462
Except that God compels me to to love my neighbour as myself because of my love for God and they are also His children. But more importantly He wants it to come from my own volition, whereas American Democrats want to force me to do all sorts of actions against my own free will and against my better judgement.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:10 pmwhich barely notice the sexual crimes,
But do they, when dealing with the story of Lot and the 2 angels in particular, describe that as symbolizing the wrongness of in-hospitality, which some biblical scholars have done. I hope not.
In the thread about Hillary Clinton announcing her run for the presidency, someone mentioned Charles Manson (and said very sardonically that even he’d be a better president than Hillary).
Manson back in the 1960s was known to believe that a race war was coming to America, predicated on his apparent antipathy to blacks. If one stretches his role in a case of brutal murders and his apparent racism the way a person can stretch the story of Sodom and Lot, one can characterize the tale of the killing spree by the Manson clan as a lesson in the wrongness of racial prejudice.
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:12 pmMSL, Democrats pay for ABORTIONS with YOUR MONEY.
Gus (7cc192) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:12 pmAnd, what?
The “settled science” was so settled it didn’t need re-mentioning?
It’s entirely possible that the Bible doesn’t keep harping on an issue not because it’s unimportant. But, having decisively disposed of it once, there is no need to revisit it.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:35 pmGus
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:39 pmExactly, beside all the other stuff. So much for my liberty and all the rest.
Steve57
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:44 pmI was under the impression that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed precisely because of their sexual sin. Our former Sodomy laws being and example, perhaps?
The sexual sins do not usually stand alone. Not once they become a public thing.
I can’t speak to what kishnevi is citing as rabbinic tradition. But I know what this meant to the early Church fathers.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/10/2015 @ 10:58 pmSteve57
Good points.
Which also points the fact that Israel as a whole is always depicted in the feminine form. (comment # 466) and almost if not always being depicted as an adulterous wife.
I would pretty much lump all the sin together as equal, except sexual immorality does seem to rise above slightly, in my mind.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/10/2015 @ 11:47 pmI’m going to give what you say a great deal of thought. And your comments are timely; this is probably the second time in my life I’ve read the Bible cover to cover.
Parts of it, sure.
Steve57 (cd6f9a) — 4/11/2015 @ 12:02 amI hear that Steve57.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/11/2015 @ 12:14 amSad to say 1st time in my life I read the whole Book (ok I did listen to 1/4 or so of it)
Sad as in I wasted so much time in doing so. I did this reading/listing in this past year.
I will say I don’t have a great in depth knowledge, but I finally did get a good overview of it.
And I could be wrong about the sexual immorality part, maybe that part just speaks to me more than the rest.
And your comments are always insightful and very thought provoking. I never knew I would learn so much by just reading this great website.
MSL (5f601f) — 4/11/2015 @ 12:18 amkishnevi (adea75) — 4/10/2015 @ 7:00 pm
Glad to know I haven’t been too rude.
I would describe you as being “pointedly direct”.
Most people “of Jewish background” that I know would simply be quick to say they think Christians are wrong and Jesus wasn’t anyone special, if he existed at all. But most of the folks I’m thinking of are not really religiously observant Jews, so they by their mindset are not wont to be offended by the apparent idolatry.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant by hagiography. I would just say that logically speaking, almost all history is selective. Even if a historical text is 100% accurate, it would be very rare for it to be 100% complete, so I am not at all bothered by the idea that the Gospel writers were selective in what they included, as well as Luke in Acts.
I don’t remember all that you have written over the years on the topic, whether you think Jesus didn’t exist at all, or that you think he did, but that what he said was greatly distorted by those who claimed belief in him later on. If the gospel accounts are at all representative of what he said, it is clear that your disagreement is the same as the Jewish leaders had at the time, that it was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. The answer according to what is recorded is that that is true, unless the man was indeed God appearing in human flesh, hence when Jesus claimed to forgive sins and people objected by saying only God could forgive sins, he did not disagree with them, but point to miracles he performed as evidence that he was not a “mere man”.
I liken the idea of the Trinity to be a bit similar to photons. I do not know how light can be both particles and waves. My mind has experience observing things at a level far larger than subatomic realities, and far smaller than the expanses of the universe. But I understand that it is true that light has properties of both, while at some level light is what it is, and our descriptions are just that, descriptions of what we see as best we understand it. I am content to know that a human mind cannot fully comprehend God, and our attempts to understand Him are necessarily limited. There are things in the OT that I think are consistent with a trinitarian understanding of God, for example, when God’s presence led them through the wilderness, or when He appeared to Moses, it was not “all of God” that was in the burning bush or in the pillar of fire.
From previous interactions with milhouse, it appears that the Jewish understanding of The Fall in the Garden is different from that of Christians, and the implications of it and what needs to be done to undo the curse are different. As a consequence of this, the idea of God taking human form is heretical to Jews, but necessary for redemption in a Christian understanding. Divine justice requires that a sinful person cannot bear to stand the presence of a Holy God, and the only way an otherwise sinful human would not suffer the necessary punishment of separation from God would be if that just penalty was paid on his/her behalf, and the only one who could do that was someone without their own sin, who had no debt of their own to pay, no sentence of death on their own head. And hence there would have been no one able to do that, unless God in His perfection took on human likeness.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/11/2015 @ 5:49 amAll and any sin separates one from God, in that way all sin is equal,
some sin is more immediate in its effects in the here and now, and some is more damaging in the here and now, and sexual sin is among the most damaging in the here and now. One could repent of theft and make restitution, for example. One cannot make restitution for sexual sin. If it happened, it happened, and one can’t erase then reality of it.
One could suggest that whether it be for the reasons listed in the Ezekiel passage or for sexual immorality, both indicate a human mind bent on fulfilling one’s own desires and ignoring God and what loving God requires.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/11/2015 @ 5:57 amkishnevi (#406):
I don’t disagree with that, but fundies like Steve57 clearly do, and it is to them that the quiz is directed. It shouldn’t problem for Christians who don’t expect their Bible to be 100% accurate. It’s a huge problem for those who maintain that untenable view, as there is no way you can answer any of those 10 questions that some part of the Bible will not contradict.
I will say this much, though: #1 should be troubling for believers of all three Abrahamic faiths, whether they are inerrancy fundamentalists or not. It’s one thing to get minor details wrong like cobbling together quotes from different sermons, confusing a mount with a plain or even naming the wrong field after the wrong person’s blood. It’s quite another to confuse God with Satan, as 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 1 do. That mixup is especially problematic for Christians, as attributing God’s work to Satan is the one sin Jesus identifies as unpardonable (Mark 3:20-30, Matthew 12:22-37).
daleyrocks (#441):
Good thing Vlad Putin isn’t an atheist anymore, and exhibited little or no interest in anyone else’s butt sechs (but six?) when he was. Of course he was always a tyrannical bastard in other ways; his newfound religion just made him worse in this particular one.
MSL (#472):
Except that Democrats and Republicans only tell you to do stuff whether you agree with it or not, while God insists that you like it, too, on pain of a much longer and nastier punishment than Democrats or Republicans could mete out if they wanted to. The Bible may be many things to many people, but a libertarian manifesto it ain’t.
NK (#463):
That’s what I get for using my real name. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had posted under an old pseudonym instead, NK would not have confused me with anybody.
Jeff (afb610) — 4/11/2015 @ 6:28 amYour simmering hatred of Xianity is noted. Thanks.
JD (bccb81) — 4/11/2015 @ 6:39 amIt dawned on me after I had posted that comment, Jeff. My apologies, again.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 6:43 amWell, I know he’s not gay (NTTAWWT), JD, so I should not have said what I said.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 6:46 amI have a sneaking suspicion
Speaking of which, I have a similar suspicion that the type of people most likely to be indignant about the US military’s former “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, much less the military’s formal, outright ban on homosexuality among enlistees, will be a tiny bit less appalled by the following than the ideological crud foisted upon society by politicians along the lines of Obama, etc. Such people, in turn, may also find themselves downplaying the meaning and repulsive nature of biblical stories like that of Sodom and one of its citizens, Lot.
The story and lessons of Sodom?
What goes around comes around.
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:01 amA man who can’t handle a queer shouldn’t be a soldier in the first place, Mark.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:08 amAnd I don’t believe that military rape culture BS, either. 14,200 reports? Seriously? I want the forensic evidence.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:09 amGerald A:
Actually, it makes good sense.
Jeff (afb610) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:18 amnk, not sure what’s triggering your glibness. Liberal instincts, oddly and ruthlessly enough, can easily lead a person to (heartlessly) sympathize with criminals more than with victims, and conservative instincts, oddly and ruthlessly enough, can easily lead a person to (irrationally) mutter the comment of “were you dressed in a sexy manner, sweetheart, at the moment you were attacked?!”
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:21 amWhy would you have to estimate reports? Or estimated by whom?
steveg (794291) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:25 amNot saying it doesn’t happen and the perpetrators should be whipped, but this article reads like a smear of lies surrounding a small truth
nk, not sure what’s triggering your glibness.
Common sense. Guys, young guys, roughhouse. It used to be called “grabassing” — I don’t know if its still is. Goosing the guy in front of you on the chowline is not rape. Snapping him with a towel in the showers is not rape. I question the science.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:26 amomg that’s SO rape culture
trigger warning much?
where dem pups
happyfeet (831175) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:27 amWhy would you have to estimate reports? Or estimated by whom?
Thank you.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:28 amI question the science.
In that case — and as has happened with the meaning of “racism” or “discrimination” over the years — I agree with you. But the level of outright deviancy is greater than I originally assumed (ie, I recall Patterico once saying that he favored the idea of SSM because — to paraphrase — guys who were into homosexuality were so innately that way it was analogous to skin color, and thinking that was a good point), so my cynicism and skepticism now, if anything, leans in the direction of truly understanding why the discipline of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military (and an ethos even stricter than that) wasn’t just a matter of being a big, bad ol’ meanie.
Mark (4bad5a) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:40 amIt’s remarkable that it does not actually quote Isaiah 53 except for one small part, where it seeks to prove that the passage must not be referring to an individual. Otherwise they ignore the actual text of virtually the entire chapter.
To the extent there’s any logical argument in there for interpreting Isaiah 53 as referring to the nation of Israel, it seems to boil down to two things, and the rest is just a compilation of rabbinic commentaries asserting that it refers to Israel.
1. “for the transgressions of my people [the gentile nations] they [the Jews]were stricken.” The fact that the servant is spoken of in the third person, plural לָמוֹ (lamo)illustrates beyond doubt that the servant is a nation rather than a single individual.
This illustrates that lamo can be applied in the singular. Further, as it points out, singular words are applied to the servant in various places in Isaiah, which your site somehow doesn’t deal with.
The linked site enumerates a host of reasons applying Isaiah 53 to Israel makes no sense, using the entire chapter, and history, which is notably absent from your site. Instead it just says “because the rabbis say so”, except for one other argument.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
For example:
2. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel.
The last of the cited “servant” chapters is 49. This point is hardly conclusive and can’t possibly overcome the many logical difficulties in applying chapter 53 to Israel.
Gerald A (6b504a) — 4/11/2015 @ 2:51 pmChrist would not have needed to come to Mankind if the Jews were following the Law and the Prophets.
nk (dbc370) — 4/10/2015 @ 6:33 pm
Umm, is that what the Greek Orthodox Church teaches?
My understanding is that had the Jews done a better job of following the Law and Prophets various things would have been different, including no trips into captivity,
but,
there would still have been the reality that even a righteous man who feared God in no way could be justified before Him because of good works,
and there would still need to be enmity between the woman’s seed and that snake that would crush it’s head, and I think that means more than people would not like snakes.
kishnevi-
I totally agree that God is neither Left nor Right.
But the social injunctions in the OT were for essentially a direct theocracy, yes? And I’m not sure they would be directly applicable to a pluralistic society.
I’ve heard lessons in my own church’s Sunday school class trying to say they apply directly to our nation, along with claiming the example in Acts of the early church being largely communal should be directly followed today, and I think that is wrong.
I think as a start, God states private property is valid, as you cannot steal that which belongs to another person,
but mercy and generosity should be the norm.
The main problem with leftism as I’ve seen it, is that some people are eager to tell others what to do with their money, or even what they want to do with the other’s money directly.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 4/11/2015 @ 3:58 pmWhen Obama and Buffet and Gates are willing to live on $50,000 a year then I’ll begin to believe their rhetoric.
Since I’m not an ordained bishop, let’s make it my view. The Gospels are mostly Christ telling a “generation of vipers” they’re doing it wrong. I especially like the part where He tells them that they’re messing up the Fifth Commandment by not killing their kids when they talk back to them. It shocked my daughter when I read it to her. I am very happy, though, that by Christ’s Gift I can forbear killing her and still be forgiven. 😉 So, yes, you’re right. It may have been a necessary and sufficient reason but it was not the only reason.
nk (dbc370) — 4/11/2015 @ 7:42 pm