John wrote on Apr 24, 2008 7:53 PM: to All:
I'm changing my "handle" to John the Baptist--strongly alluding to "a voice crying in the wilderness".
Re, "Evolution brainwashes students": Note that Peabody has studiously avoided addressing his error I pointed out in my letter of 4/11.
I plan to rebut his 4/25 letter with a tutorial on ID, though the 200-word limit will be a real challenge.
Regards

Three D wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:20 PM:Today's letters from William Gillespie and Howard Killion claiming Biblical support for the bizarre, unjust theory of "sin transference" misstate the scriptures they cite (along with a juvenile letter from a high school student innocently parrotting the "party line")..

Both Gillespie and Killion cite the supposed "prophecy" from Isaiah 53:4-6 "centuries before Jesus." This passage mentions nothing about sin transference whatsoever. It is not even about Jesus!
The subject of this passage is identified in ways that exclude any possible reference to Jesus. It goes on in verse 10 to say he will live to see offspring, yet Jesus never married or had children. The same verse also says he will live a long life, unlike Jesus who died young, at age 33. The passage references someone being beaten because of others' sins (people often suffer because of others), but does not mention anything about transferring sins to that person, nor does it even state that he dies (remember the long life thing). The passage is not about Jesus.

Killion notes that Peter and others accepted Paul's writings as scripture; I did not dispute that the well-educated Paul's glibness fooled these gullible, uneducated fishermen like Peter, only that it was Paul alone who introduced and taught the doctrine of sin transference. He further cites John the Baptist's statement about Jesus taking away sin. I specifically stated that Jesus took away sin by teaching the character and behavioral transformations by which sin is removed, without "sin" being physically transferred to Jesus. Killion then notes that Jesus said he would give his life as a ransom for many. Again, substituting oneself as a ransom for someone else, or heroic sacrifices of one's life for others are indeed noble, but history is replete with hundreds of such heroes, none of which involved the hero literally assuming the sins of the person he saves.
Killion makes the absurd comparison to the Israeli practice of animal sacrifices as "sin offerings" but there were many types of offerings of either animals or harvested crops: burnt offerings, offerings of thanksgiving, and, yes, offerings for sin and guilt, common to many primitive peoples, and nothing in Leviticus 4-7 mentions anything about an actual transference of sins physically from one person to another. He finishes by citing Hebrews, written by the renegade "apostle" PAUL, which is exactly where I said this absurd doctrine came from!

Note: in the past I have posted as "3D" but in the last two attempted posts, the system no longer seems to be accepting the initial numeral in the title (though this was never a problem in the past, even with the new format), so I will henceforth be using the spelled-out equivalent.

J wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:54 AM:To 3D: Try putting a space before the 3.
Regards. John the Baptist

Three D wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:41 AM:Congratulations to Larissa Stanley for getting her letter into print! I don't want to be too hard on this young high school student (when I was her age I had the same beliefs), but do want to ask some questions to make her think deeper than the superficial platitudes she has been taught about Jesus "paying the price" for our sins.
Who did he pay it to? To God? Would an all-righteous eternal deity need to demand a ransom? Is God no better than a kidnapping street thug? If Jesus is God, is he paying it to himself? To the Devil? Does God pay ransom to Satan? Who's in charge here?
Did he pay the price? The author of this theory, the Christian-persecuting renegade "apostle" Paul, says "The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23). Did Jesus die? No! Christians tell us that HE LIVES! Is he suffering eternal separation from God? NO! He is at the "right hand of God."
The Bible does say Jesus was killed on the cross. But, in that sense, ALL humans die - so, if that is the price of sin, we ALL pay for our sins, so why do we need a surrogate to pay it for us? If something on the order of 36 hours worth of being "dead" (from sunset Friday to sunrise Sunday) pays the price of all sins of all persons who ever lived, now live, or will ever live, then if each person pays their own share, stays dead for a brief time, then why can't they then live in heaven, having paid their price?
Larissa says that people send themselves to hell by rejecting Jesus' sacrifice. What about good, compassionate people who never heard of Jesus? Perhaps people in ancient China or Japan or South America or Africa?
Moreover, Larissa teaching a doctrine of Paul, which contradicts Jesus, who repeatedly stated that compassionate deeds would save you, without mentioning faith or grace or dying to take upon himself anyone else's sins. (Matt 25:31-46; Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37).
Finally, Larissa states that it "takes the precious, innocent blood of a savior." Notwithstanding that this contradicts what Jesus himself said, she does not explain how shedding the blood of an innocent man does anything to expunge sin; in reality, it adds to it.

D wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:42 PM:Ok, John at 9:54 a.m., I'm going to try it, putting a space, then the numeral 3, and see if it comes out OK.
It used to, with no problem, until earlier this week with a comment in the general letters section and one in last week's Faith & Values.
This is a test ... this is only a test :-)

Three D wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:56 PM:To John: even with the space, the "3" didn't take. I guess I'll stick with "Three D."

Tony wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:06 PM:I've asked this question before but no biblical scholars have ever responded. If Noah and the great flood occured some 6,000 years ago, how did Noah and his family of 8(?) Semites, populate the world with all of the different races that now abound world wide. I live in Australia, not a country right around the corner, but did the indiginous people (Aborigines) who populated this country before the Europeans discovered this continent, evolve from Noah's family and how did they get here? Oh yeah, did the snake really talk to Adam and Eve and if God is so powerful to create the entire universe from nothing, why did he need a rib from Adam to create Eve? And lastly, how many of you people believe all this biblical nonsense and still consider yourselves to be intelligent people?

Zeus wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:44 PM:According to Mr. Peabody if it’s called intelligent design (ID) it must be about intelligence, and if scientists don’t consider ID scientific it must be because scientists are afraid of intelligence. Such is the intellectual worth of creationist arguments. Using George’s logic if the name of evolution was changed to "biblical genetics" then it should be taught along with creation myths in Sunday school bible classes. Creationist shouldn’t challenge name changes, because after all creationism changed its name to creation science, and then changed its name to ID. Each of these name changes followed embarrassing failures of the creationist anti-science movement. With the recent embarrassing l failure of ID at the Dover trial I wouldn’t be surprised if another name is in store. I suggest String Cheese Theory. Has a nice hard science ring to it (while still being plenty vague). I saw (for free) the film "Exposed: No Intelligence Allowed" that George suggest we watch. I was prepared to see a dishonest portrayal of science, along with an intentional failure to discuss evidence of ID, and that is exactly what the film delivered. I suggest everyone save their money and wait for it to come out on VHS tape. I’m hoping George makes a film to support the several geological claims that he has made in his letters. May I suggest a title. “Dinosaur Fossils: No Uplifiting Allowed.”

Truth Hurts wrote on Apr 25, 2008 6:06 PM:Tony: First, yes the snake did talk to Adam, and yes Adam did eat an apple, and yes Jesus did die on a cross so no one would talk to snakes or eat off-limit apples again. And Tony, you really need to chill with all the pesty questions, read the bible, it's all right there (for anyone to interpret as they please). Your Aborigine question is easily answered. You may have read some of the confused writers in these weekly letters go on and on about the two conflicting Genesis stories in the bible. Did it ever occur to you (and them) that one refers to Aborigines and the other refers to the rest of us. Obviously, two different genesis stories has to mean two different creation events, otherwise they wouldn’t be in the bible. As for Noah's family populating the world I suppose you have failed to considered the reproductive potential of candle light, Merlot and Lionell Richie love songs. And to answer your final question, yes I believe this and yes I’m intelligent.

Three D wrote on Apr 25, 2008 6:11 PM:Good questions from Tony at 4:06 p.m., but the statement that "no biblical scholars have ever responded" is overly broad. These questions have been thoroughly covered by Bible scholars, just not the ones who claim it to be the literal, inerrant/infallible word of an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
But then it is questionable as to whether those holding such positions could actually be called "scholars."

Three D wrote on Apr 25, 2008 7:19 PM:So let me see if I understand "Truth Hurts" at 6:06 p.m.:
1. Jesus died on a cross so no one would talk to snakes or eat off-limits apples again.
In other words, Jesus died to end free will? Did it work? Has sin been stopped and eradicated since his death? How does killing an innocent man do anything to abrogate sin in any way? The irony is that Jesus did teach us the right way to cleanse sin, through universal compassionate love expressed actively in deeds, but those who call themselves "Christians" ignore his actual teachings.
2. Yes, there are two conflicting and contradictory Genesis creation accounts. But since they both end up with Adam, it is hard to say how one refers to us and the other to "Aborigines." In any case, what are you saying? That "Aborigines" were created separately, so are not really human? Is this the Christian basis for racism? I think Jesus would be quite apalled, though I'm sure the Christian-persecuting renegade "Apostle" Paul would approve.
3. As for the Bible, it is filled with HUNDREDS of direct contradictions, factual errors of simple facts commonly known today but unknown to ancient, primitive sheep-herders and fishermen, as well as many failed prophecies that specified time for fulfillment that passed without being fulfilled. I have referred to many in previous letters and web comments, as well as an extensive list on my web pages (Google the exact phrase: "Putting the Bible in perspective").
4. You close by assuring us of two things: that you believe this and that you are intelligent. I am willing to concede to at least half of that.

To Three D wrote on Apr 26, 2008 12:14 AM:There are not 2 conflicting and contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 describes the creation of plants, animals and mankind. Chapter 2 is about the role of man in creation.

Truth Hurts wrote on Apr 26, 2008 9:35 AM:To 3D: Yes, we have free well. We have the choice to praise God on a daily basis to earn our place in the magic kingdom (heaven), or to not praise God (at least not for a few minutes before we die) and burn like bad barbecue in hell. By killing his son God helped persuade the direction of our free will (i.e. he let us know this isn’t any game he is playing), but this loving God does not force our free will (please ignore the flood story here). Thus the choice, heavenly bliss or hellish torture. What part of this don’t you understand 3D (devil cubed), and why are you incapable of feeling the love (or at least the fear) in all of this? God made us imperfect (full of sin) so his observation of our daily choices isn’t an exercise in boredom. Let’s face it, If you’re God and you have to observe over 6 billion humans, giving you only an average of 0.005 seconds per individual per year (assuming my math is correct) – which is not even enough time for God to repeat your name let alone to see what you’ve been praying for or have been up to - you need to spice things up a little. As for the Aboriginies I suspect the first creation was practice (I’m sure God didn’t know exactly (as no programmer does) how the 6 billon letter DNA code he typed up is going to work on day one. It obviously needed a little tweaking, thus explaining those humans who are different than “us”. Once tweaked , the second creation was activated (which eventually led to me and my type (i.e. the chosen ones). As for the two Adams, I know (OK believe) that Adam simply refers to “man” , after all it’s almost spells madam backwards. I don’t know if this is racism (that’s for God to decide, not me or you), I only know that it is a fact (because I’m smart and I declare it as such). And you are wrong, there are no contradictions in the bible, only pretend contradictions to test our faith. Your website could send many to hell, so please be careful. I suggest you add the comment on line one of your web site stating “Please consider the fact that God may have placed these contradictions in the bible to test your faith in order to help him determine if you’re one he wants to turn or burn (if you know what I mean). In your final response it appears you conceded my intelligence but questioned my beliefs. That’s silly, I was taught to believe from the day I was born. The nuns made sure of that.

Three D wrote on Apr 26, 2008 12:40 PM:The comment addressed to me at 12:14 a.m. needs a refresher course in Bible study.
He tries to explain away the direct and obvious contradiction between the descriptions of Creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis by simply misrepresenting the content of the texts.
Genesis chapter 1 gives a specific chronology, with each item created in sequence on specific days.
1. Earth and heavens (Genesis 1:1-10) 1st & 2nd days
2. Plants (Genesis 1:11-13) 3rd day
3. Sun & Moon (Genesis 1:14-19) 4th day
4. Creatures of water & air (Genesis 1:20-23) 5th day
On the 6th day, in sequence:
5. Land creatures (Genesis 1:24-25)
6. MAN (Genesis 1:26-27)
Sequence: Plants - Animals - Man

Genesis chapter 2 also gives a specific sequential chronology of the creation. The problem is that they simply are not the same and are, in fact, inconsistent and contradictory.
1. Earth and heavens (Genesis 2:4)
2. Plants (Genesis 2:5)
3. Water (Genesis 2:6)
4. MAN (Genesis 2:7)
5. Garden/trees/rivers (Genesis 2:8-17)
6. Animals (Genesis 2:18-20)
7. Woman (Genesis 2:21-25)
Sequence: Plants - Man - Animals

John the Baptist wrote on Apr 26, 2008 2:49 PM: to Truth Hurts: Your mention of nuns reminded me that the Roman Catholic Church, and some others, find no conflict between Gen 1 & Gen 2 Creation accounts because they hold the Bible to be infallible, in matters of spirit and faith, but not inerrant. Creationists who, on faith, hold the Bible to be inerrant are certainly welcome to do so. If you follow the blog here, what you'll see is opposition to Creation Science proponents' use of pseudoscience and misinformation to justify their belief in inerrancy. Regards

Tony wrote on Apr 26, 2008 5:01 PM:To Truth Hurts and the rest of you bible believers out there who havent answered my 'PESTY QUESTIONS', well TH you state that my question regarding the Aborigines in Australia being direct descendents of Noah's family is easily explained but you didn't explain it and then you go on with some ridiculous diatribe about wine, candle light and Lionel Ritchie songs to prove that you're intelligent. ... Again, anyone out there who wants to respond to my pest questions or do you just want to preach only?

Three D wrote on Apr 26, 2008 5:39 PM:To John the Baptist:
After digesting "Truth Hurts" at 9:35 a.m., I gotta wonder if the guy is a put on.
In order to be serious, he would have to believe that God is not all powerful, has to have a "practice" creation in which he created inferior humans (Adam or madam), and can't keep up with all those billions he created, so has to send bunches of them to an eternal barbecue.
If I'm right, then he was correct as to which half I give him credit for between intelligence or actual belief.

John the Baptist wrote on Apr 26, 2008 8:29 PM: to Tony: The problem is that the only ones with the perspective to answer your questions as you've framed them are Creationists, and they have no interest in the blog here or dialog in general--they don't want to see or hear anything contrary to their beliefs.
I'm a theistic evolutionist. My take on Genesis is that it was written in terms that were understandable at the time they were written. In total, the Old Testament is a grim reminder of just how bloody terrible times were then. As for the New Testament, I think Jefferson's Bible would be a good start on revising it. Regards

John the Baptist wrote on Apr 26, 2008 10:36 PM: to 3D, re post of 4/26, 5:39 PM: I agree TH is sending mixed signals. With just plain text, it's hard to tell if someone is really serious or just trying to be sarcastic. Let's see how it plays out. Regards.

Truth Hurts wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:12 AM:JB and TD: I was attempting to be sarcastic. I apologize, my comments were not written with the intent to trick anyone. I was trying to use sarcasm to point out some of the ridiculous religious claims. I unintentionally learned from this that it’s not easy to tell if someone one is exaggerating (making fun of) religious views or if someone is actually expressing religious views. When we take the luxury of stating superstitions as fact there are no boundaries. Anything goes.

huh wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:29 PM:All the mainline churches accept evolution. Are they wrong?

John wrote on Apr 28, 2008 1:13 PM: to Truth Hurts, re post of 4/28, 12:29 PM: Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes we tread a fine line here. Generally speaking, we do not challenge anyone's faith and associated beliefs. But when someone attempts to propagate myth as fact, or claim a scientific basis when none exists, we feel an obligation to expose it. Regards

Zeus wrote on Apr 28, 2008 1:19 PM:Huh: According to creationists (intelligent designers) scientists and mainline churches are not only wrong, they are intentionally wrong.

Three D wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:04 AM:Attempt post 8:30 a.m.; try again 11:05 a.m.
John yesterday at 1:13 p.m. is correct - sometimes the line here is quite fine, almost indistinguishable, between reality and parody. Some of us are so accustomed to such outrageous tortured mental gyrations trying to explain away why the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly says (contradictions, failed prophecies, permission for abortion while never condemning it, commanding rape, etc.) or why virtually unanimous consensus in the scientific world is dismissed in favor of ancient mythology, that we are never surprised by the lengths some extremists will go to.
The only clue, here, was that the positions were not only extreme, but also violated some standard dogma of the evangelical Biblical literalists.

TO Three D wrote on Apr 29, 2008 1:28 PM:If what you say about good works is the way to heaven, and that is what Jesus taught, then explain this: While on the cross 1 of the thieves that were hanging next to Jesus said "Master remember me when you come into your kingdom". Jesus responded " I say to you, this day you will be with me in paradise". From what you continually "preach" it is impossible for this man to be in heaven, the last time I looked it is hard to do any "good works" while hanging on a cross!! I guess all it took was FAITH!!!

CAVEL wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:01 PM:Ah, the dissection of Judeo-Christian mythology continues apace. Pointing to the internal inconsistencies and logical impossiblities of an emotionally embedded myth is folly and a futility. Those who are culture bound to religion and who, for both social and psychological reasons are deeply satisified by it, will not be dissauded nor convinced by such simplistic exercises. The catechisms answer such attacks by an acrobatic and illogical retort by saying that biblical tales are either allegory or for the fundamentalist, literal truth. The word "faith" is counterposed to "sacrilige." For me, all religion, be it Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Shinto or whatever is a subject for anthropology and sociology. I took a course at UCLA in comparative religion. A Professor of Anthropolgy taught the course, and rightly so. A Professor of Literature would have been equally appropriate.

Three D wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:53 PM:The person writing to me at 1:28 p.m. complains about what *I* say about salvation by good works.
This person obviously has not read my posts very carefully.
Nothing I cited was from me. In each case, it was specific statements from JESUS, with chapter and verse, with the exception of one passage from his brother, James.
So the person is arguing against Jesus, not me.
At best, this person has found a contradiction among the statements of Jesus.
At worst, a pure non-sequitur - the argument does not support the conclusion.
Jesus did not say what saved the person, whether it was faith or his lifetime of good works or whatever. All we know of the character is that he was a thief. We do not know if he was stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, or to return something (a la Robin Hood) from someone who took it wrongly, to risk his life for justice. From this passage alone we do not know.
Nothing in this passage undermines Jesus' and James' statements about salvation by works.
But again, at best, if it did, then congratulations on finding yet more Bible contradictions.

To Three D wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:42 PM:You are very good at getting others to believe you. I have been reading your posts and you say that it is by works. Your so called "contradictions" are just another example of someone who reads the Bible only to come up with arguments that could cause others to not believe. But the truth is that the Bible is the word of God, and there are absolutely no errors.

Three D wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:21 PM:The person writing to me at 9:42 p.m. ssays there are "absolutely no errors" in the Bible.
You are in error.
You can try to find my Bible web page by using the Advanced Google and searching on the exact phrase, "Putting the Bible in Perspective."
There, I cite very specific examples of several direct contradictions, with a link to a file with HUNDREDS more direct, explicit contradictions.
In addition, I list a number of specific factual errors, based on facts which were not known to the primitive fishermen and sheep herders of Bible times, but are commonly known today.
And there's more! Also, a number of very specific prophecies in which the time frame for the prophecy is included and it came and went without being fulfilled.
Contradictions, factual errors, and failed prophecies.
The Bible is the word of fallible mortal humans, just like the Islamic Koran, Hindu Vedas or Bhagavad Gita, Mormon Book of Mormon and Buddhist Tripitaka. All contain wisdom and all contain flaws.
Oh, and you still have not explained why you can argue against JESUS on salvation and blame me for it.

Wow... wrote on May 1, 2008 9:25 AM:Christianity and the Bible really seem to put a scare into some people. In response, they rationalize that if they cannot explain everything about Jesus and God in terms that they can accept, or someone else cannot explain it to them, then it cannot be true.

It would also seem that the idea that they should be accountable to a higher being, one that they cannot wrap their finite minds around, would keep them awake at night, looking for ways to free themselves of the horror. I simply wonder how long they'll manage to hold out.

How long will they keep looking for reasons to dispel all that they cannot define in their terms before they finally realize that this existence isn't about them?

It isn't about any of us. But good luck with the dialog of denial for as long as you insist upon it.

Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 10:07 AM:"Wow" at 9:25 a.m. talks about denial, but this is the person who changes the subject to avoid the issue.
Actually, no one has said much against Jesus or God except the self-described "Christians" who oppose Jesus' teachings on salvation through universal compassionate love expressed actively in DEEDS (works).
They argue against Jesus by citing the renegade "apostle" Paul, an admitted former persecutor of followers of Jesus, when he offers teachings that are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught, which I have repeatedly and consistently documented.
The FACT is that the Bible is filled with hundreds of direct, explicit internal contradictions, as well as simple factual errors and failed prophecies, many of which I have cited (and I provided the search terms to find my website where many of these are listed with chapter and verse).
As for "Christianity and the Bible" putting "a scare into some people," yes, I do have to admit that I am terrified of the Christian majority when it moves to take over public institutions and force its religious observances onto those who do not share their unsubstantiated (and demonstrably false) mythologies. I do not want the followers of ancient tribal superstitions dictating policies on science, behavior, relationships, medical choices or the observations of public rituals. Yes, tyranny does frighten me.

To Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 11:20 AM:Where does Jesus say that "doing good" things gets you into heavan? What He does talk is how Christians are supposed to live, by loving your neighbor and taking care of those less fortunate. However He also says that the only way to God is through Him, and that takes the word that you so conviently associte to as being rebellious to Jesus, called FAITH! FAITH that Jesus died for us who are sinners(everybody) and if we do not accept what He did then we can never make it to heaven. Paul was not teaching his own doctrine as you so frequently state, he was teaching those truths that Jesus came and fulfilled through His death. Stop being afraid to accept something that is far greater than you, and that without the Holy Spirit granting wisdom can't fully understand, and that is the TRUTH OF THE BIBLE, 100%. There are no unfulfilled prophecies because we do not know when they are all supposed to take place, hello "hence the meaning". It all happens in God's time not ours and a mojority of it is so far beyond our understanding. We are not called to try and figure out what God says but to rely on the guding of His Spirit and to have FAITH!

To ThreeD wrote on May 1, 2008 11:25 AM:I would rather have the Bible taught in school and Godly priciples, than the garbage that is being taught today.

This country was doing just fine when the Bible was read, prayer was allowed in our schools. Today they teach about individualism and as long as you are happy with how you are than it is ok to do what you wish.

Prior to prayer being removed from school how many school shootings did we have? How many teen pregnancies did we have?

It is the Liberal sect that has ruined this world and "is the true terror of the nation" not the Christians.

Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 11:36 AM:Well, I'm sure people get tired of my "vain repetitions," but as long as people keep asking for them (post addressed to me at 11:20 a.m.), then - back by popular demand, here are some specific instances in which Jesus said that universal compassionate love expressed actively through DEEDS (works) is what gets you into heaven:
In Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37, Jesus states that the highest law is to love god, and the second is like unto it, to love your neighbor as yourself (quoting from Old Testament verses in Deut 6:5 and Lev 18:19 respectively), and says "This DO and you shall live." Note the emphasis on putting compassionate love into ACTION in order to be saved.
In his last teaching before going to the upper room for the Last Supper and the "beginning of the end," Jesus described in Matt. 25:31-46 the final judgment as being based solely and entirely on behavioral responses to internalized compassion. And Jesus makes it very clear that those who DO express universal compassion in behavioral action WILL BE SAVED, and those who do not will NOT be saved. Period. There is no other qualification. Faith or belief is not even mentioned. Note also, that this passage in which what we do to "the least of these" is what we do to God also demonstrates that the first commandment (to love god) is fulfilled in obedience to the second, to show love for our neighbors, broadly defined.
Even in the famous passage from Jesus on "belief" (John 3:16), Jesus goes on in the rest of that paragraph division to note that this belief has to be manifest in DEEDS, and you can't be saved without them.
Finally, as if Jesus could predict the future of those like Paul and his followers who would say that faith is enough, Jesus finishes off the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7:21-27 by stating nequivocally that the mere profession of accepting him is not enough, but that such a profession MUST BE backed up by deeds. Jesus teaches a salvation of universal compassionate love expressed in ACTION.
Sorry this is so long, but am responding to a specific request and, gee, there are so many examples to choose from!

Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 11:47 AM:The anonymous person writing to me again at 11:25 continues to misunderstand fact and history.
Continuing from the 11:20 post, he criticizes me for not having blind FAITH. Sorry, but you don't accept the same demand when it is from Moslems who wonder why you can't just accept their holy Qur'an on "faith."
He further refers to whatever was "fulfilled" through Jesus' death, but no one can yet explain how killing an innocent man atones for, or in the slightest possible way, abrogates sin of any kind; on the contrary, it adds to it. As for paying the price, Paul says "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) but - JESUS LIVES! He is not dead! He didn't pay the price! He is sitting at the right hand of God!
Get your story straight, please.
And, in any case, who did he pay this "price" to? The devil? Does Jesus pay it to God? If Jesus is God, does he pay it to himself?
C'mon, I'm getting dizzy here.
From the 11:25 post, the writer complains that taking public prayer out of classrooms has led to problems in schools and blames that on school shootings and unwanted teen pregnancies.
Urban problems are the result of people moving off the farms and into areas of urbanized congestion in a way that did not exist when we were primarily an agrarian farm-based society and life was simpler.
And as for unwanted teen pregnancies, make up your mind. People make abortion legal to deal with the problem and you try to stop them. Then you come along with "abstinence only" sex education programs which backfire as kids get flawed, unscientific "information" and it still doesn't stop them from fooling around, except that they don't take precautions, so you cause a problem and then blame others for it.
Gee thanks.

To Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 12:05 PM:The reason why Jesus states that a profession must be followed by deeds is, if you do not live what you believe and it is evident in your life, than how will others know that you have accepted Him. Meaning that the deeds do not save you, but the deeds are a reflection of Jesus living inside each believer. Christ came to take away our sins, and if you do not believe that then you won't make it. If you ONLY!!! believe in good works as the way to salvation, than Oprah has a new church you can attend. You must first receive Christ as our savior, then the good works will mean something, if not than our good works are as filthy rags.

TO Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 12:16 PM:You are a perfect exampe of someone who wants to go to heavan without having to answer to a higher authority. That if you live a "GOOD" life than you will make it. Sorry, wrong answer. Even Jesus states that there is nothing "GOOD" apart from God. Thus you must have a belief and relationship with God (through Jesus) in order for you to have anything "GOOD". And since the fall of man the only way to God is to believe and accept what Jesus did on the cross. And there is that word again "Faith". You are taking everything out of context and too literally. The scripture needs to be taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not in MAN's own simple understanding

To Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 2:11 PM:RE:"He further refers to whatever was "fulfilled" through Jesus' death, but no one can yet explain how killing an innocent man atones for, or in the slightest possible way, abrogates sin of any kind". My point exactly, we cannot explain it, that is the beauty of the whole thing, that is why we believe what the bible says, by FAITH. If you do not believe it, that is your choice, but do not try and make those that do feel like they are not as "smart as you". Like I said you will never really understand unless the Holy Spirit is working in you.

Best of luck in your quest for righteousness in your own works!!

Historian wrote on May 1, 2008 2:48 PM:TO 'TO THREE D; re: ‘It is the Liberal sect that has ruined this world and "is the true terror of the nation" not the Christians.’

Please take some time to read about Europe in the 13th to 16th Centuries to learn what happened when Christian institutions ruled the lives of people. The level of violence and injustice during that period makes the present day look like an earthly paradise.

Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 3:03 PM:Attempt post 12:38 p.m.; try again 3:03 p.m.

The anonymous person responding to me again at 12:05 now acknowledges that "Jesus states that a profession must be followed by deeds."
But my point is that the renegade "apostle" Paul says otherwise, that justification is by FAITH WITHOUT DEEDS (Romans 3:28).
But again, please note the examples I gave from Matthew and Luke. In these instances, Jesus did not talk about faith or belief. JESUS SAID that if you do these things, you will go to heaven. PERIOD! No other qualification!
How can you call yourself a Christian and then just dismiss what Jesus says?
You ridicule compassionate acts of kindness as "filthy rags," but Jesus treasured them as acts of grace to "the least of these" which are thus really being done to god, in what Mother Teresa called, "his distressing disguise" (as the poor).
Dr. Viktor Frankl, a German Jew who survived the Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust, wrote in his book "Man's Search for Meaning" of rare but remarkable examples of men who dying of hunger, yet still gave comfort, along with their last crusts of bread, to their fellow sufferers to alleviate their suffering. Even torture and extreme deprivation could not cause them to abandon their deeply-felt compassion. But those prisoners described by Frankl were Jewish. They haven't confessed Jesus as their savior. I'm sure Paul would consign them to hell, while Jesus would embrace them and count them among His sheep. He said so!

to so-called Historian wrote on May 1, 2008 3:05 PM:Do you always only look at the half of history that you prefer?

Three D wrote on May 1, 2008 3:09 PM:The anonymous person responding to me yet again at 12:16 and more still at 2:11 p.m. attributes statements to Jesus - as I also did.
The difference is that I have consistently cited the exact chapter and verse.
Please tell me where Jesus made the statement you claim, so I can review it in context.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
You also accuse me of taking those statements out of context.
Actually, I have been very careful to consider and explain the full context.
If you disagree, please provide an explanatory correction.
As to your continuous and repeated repudiation of the idea of "being good," your insistance on pure "belief" or "faith" (from Paul, NOT JESUS), demonstrates why I call this Pauline brand of Christianity "tribal" and primitive. The whole point is identity and affiliation. It is about being on the right side, or in the right tribe. "Us vs. them."
This is not what Jesus taught.
The idea of being good, loving, compassionate and expressing those ideas actively through DEEDS is what Jesus was all about. This tribalistic insistance on affiliation is barbaric and unjust, and makes a mockery of Jesus' teachings.

I must say... wrote on May 1, 2008 3:26 PM:Reading the comments here, as an outsider to the so-called F&V dialogue, I must say that the believers here sound like the absolutely most selfish, egotistical humans I think I've ever encountered. Their whole argument is based on vanity: they proudly declare that their beliefs have nothing to do with reason, logic, facts, or even the Holy Bible. No, only on one thing: the Creator of the Universe speaking directly to them, personally! And not only that! But their relationship to their fellow humans, to whom they owe so much of their very lives, is also something to be dismissed as pure triviality. Being compassionate and kind, loving others, all nonsense. "I have this personal relationship with the Creator, man, so you can all go to hell." That's their creed. Have you ever seen such egotism in all your life? No wonder this religion is so popular...it's the most permissive version of self-indulgence I've ever heard. Good grief! Sorry: I'd rather admire and emulate those whose existence is dedicated, as much as possible, to the betterment of others (you know, people like, um, Jesus) than any of you childish brats.

Historian wrote on May 1, 2008 3:51 PM:re: 'Do you always only look at the half of history that you prefer?'

I'm inclined to consider the entire landscape of history for perspective rather than only the 1 percent that fits my prejudices.

Zeus wrote on May 1, 2008 3:56 PM:To Wow: You have things backwards. It would seem that people who are afraid of their own immortality would be those more likely to succumb to the promises of religion. If I feared being accountable to a higher being there would be a very simple solution to ease my fear. Like you, I could easily label myself as a chosen person (a believer, a member of the flock), and all my fears would go away. How hard is it to identify yourself as a Christian (or whatever), go to church for one hour each week, toss $10 in the collection plate and call it a day. I’m sure you’ll tell me you do so much more than that, in which case I’ll ask, what else, because I suspect there is little else besides talk of being righteous (as in your post). Being a believer isn’t about bravery, it has more to do with fear (of the unknown, or calling your own shots), greed (eternal life) and diversifying one's portfolio (believe just in case a God is really out there). I don’t have these fears you describe (although you obviously do) so I have no reason to blindly latch onto superstitions, or to deny evidence simply because it contradicts a superstition. The bible and your God do not scare me any more than the Easter bunny or Zeus scares me. According to your logic you deny the God Zeus because you are afraid of Zeus, in which case please answer your own question. How do you free yourself “from the horror” of denying Zeus? Silly question? I agree. If you really wonder how those of us manage without a God to cling to I’ll tell you. We manage very very well. I grew up believing as you (at a time when I had more fears and knew a lot less then I know today), and trust me, I’m a million times happier and wiser today. “We” never claimed “this existence” is about us (me), but you do. In your mind a God made YOU and he created this universe for YOU because he loves YOU and if YOU are a good boy YOU will live forever in heaven, because God is watching YOU…… Like I said you have it all backwards.

I must say to I must say... wrote on May 1, 2008 4:01 PM:Maybe you need to re-read the posts.

I must say wrote on May 1, 2008 4:48 PM:I have just re-read all the posts titled "to Three D" and rest my case. Some choice bits: "Like I said you will never really understand unless the Holy Spirit is working in you." and "You are taking everything out of context and too literally. The scripture needs to be taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not in MAN's own simple understanding" and "We are not called to try and figure out what God says but to rely on the guding of His Spirit and to have FAITH!", and "Your so called "contradictions" are just another example of someone who reads the Bible only to come up with arguments that could cause others to not believe. But the truth is that the Bible is the word of God, and there are absolutely no errors." each implying that "To Three D" has the real scoop because of his/her special relationshp with the creator of the universe. Did I misunderstand something? In my opinion, this person is perfectly entitled to his/her beliefs, including the self-indulgent delusions of grandeur.