Three D wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:34 AM:Ruth Buckhart's letter joins Howard Killion from last week in their desperate attempt to twist Isaiah 53 into saying something it doesn't.
For the umpteenth time: Isaiah 53 describes someone beaten (not crucified) for others' wrongs, yet living a long life and seeing numerous descendants, unlike Jesus, who reportedly died young and childless. It does not matter how many other writers in the New Testament can be cited to claim it refers to Jesus when it clearly does not. This is the inconvenience of scripture literalism and needing to reconcile contradictory claims by other New Testament writers!

And again, Ronald Hutchison (8/8) defends Paul and Peter by quoting, who? Ummm - Paul and Peter. But I cited quotes reportedly from Jesus himself saying the opposite, that those who are saved are based solely on universal compassionate love expressed actively in DEEDS (Matt. 25:31-46; Matt 22:36-40; Luke 10:25-37). Not one of these passages even mentions faith, though elsewhere Jesus (later reinforced after his death by his brother James - see chapter 2) does note the contributory importance of faith in promoting such good deeds, but explicitly stating that faith alone is NOT the mechanism of justification (James 2:24), so Hutchison confirms that Paul and Peter contradict Jesus as antichrists.

Is Davis the second coming wrote on Aug 8, 2008 9:53 AM:Everytime I see a letter or a post from him, the first words out of my mouth are, "God, here he comes again!"

I am glad wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:38 AM:That three D is around to give the true interpritation of the scriptures. Isn't it amazing how he is the only one who shares on this site that can understand and give the really meaning of what the bible is saying, and everyone else is wrong and misinformed!

Give me a break! Paul and Peter were obviously chosen by JESUS to bring forth HIS word and teachings after HE left the earth. They are not RENEGADES as they are portrayed by Three D. Look up what JESUS says about "good", "That nothing is GOOD unless it comes from GOD" and before it can come from GOD you have to have FAITH, A RELATIONSHIP with JESUS , and that means believing that JESUS died for OUR SINS! Paul spoke with that very understanding that if you do not have FAITH, then your works cannot be GOOD! James also knew that and he spoke in the context of if you claim to have FAITH, then where are your works to prove it? Not that works is the way to get to heaven. Because if that is the case then every time we made mistakes (sinned), we would have to do a work to make up for it, and for most that would leave very little (if any) time to do anything else (eat,sleep,work).

ABACUS wrote on Aug 8, 2008 2:24 PM:To 'I am glad': You are so very right! Another way to think of it: I have done what I regard as good works, but I do not have faith in God (Jesus). In such a case what I regard as good works are not good works in the eyes of the Lord, because I have no faith in Him. Having faith in God is a necessary precondition to salvation and life eternal with Him in Heaven. The great Saints Peter and Paul preached that truth given to them by their Master, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If one has knowledge of Jesus, but denies Him, then that person is lost. The apostate 3D, makes money by selling his products from his web site which he has ballyhooed on this forum, plugging his latest product either under the blogonym "3D" or some other. His forte is pointing out apparent inconsistencies and errors in The Bible. He is a favorite of atheists and agnostics who blog in this forum. Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin would have liked 3D.

Dont be so hard on Davis wrote on Aug 8, 2008 3:25 PM:The faith of a man is forged in the fire of adversity. The faith of the storng emerges from the fire even stronger, like steel tempered by heat.

The faith of the weak does not fair so well.

Davis is a textbook survivor of spiritual turmoil, but he was unable to overcome such a difficult chapter in life, and since his faith has been shaken to its foundation, his only comfort is to justify his misery and seek the company of others with damaged souls.

Keep 3D's tormented soul in your prayers.

liberaljim wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:13 PM:Bob Netherton has nothing to worry about if he really believes his Bible. Very soon he will be raptured up to heaven, and we "left behinds" will be free of the constant nagging from the evangicals who can't keep their religion out of our schools, bedrooms and even the laws of our secular nation. Dear God, please bring on the "end times" soon.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:38 PM:To Abascus: Why are you so worried about ThreeD making money on something he has researched so extensively? Go visit a bookstore and you'll discover there are thousands of individuals who acquire knowledge of a topic and then summarize this knowledge for others to learn. These final products are called books. You should try reading some. Your focus on money, Stalin and atheists clearly demonstrates that you are incapable of intelligently countering ThreeD (in part because he is obviously correct), so you take the cowardly (or mindless) path of personal attack. Does your religion teach you to respond with intolerance and insults, or tolerance and understanding? Just wondering.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:22 PM:To "Dont be so hard on Davis at 3:25" I took the liberty of editing your letter so it better represents reality. It now reads: "The religious faith of a man is forged in the fire of irrationality. The blind faith of the extreme believer emerges stronger from the fire of others mouthing the same fairy tales over and over again, enabling them to magically make the unbelievable believable.
The more rational individuals escape the superstitious beliefs of their ancient ancestors, and are free to experience the world as it actually is, and are free to develop the courage to move through life on their own, without the crutch of invisible Gods. Pray that those innocent young children indoctrinated with superstitious religous beliefs can eventually overcome this difficult chapter in their lives so they are truely free." If this rewrite sounds insulting to the religous, rest assured that your post was equally insulting to those who believe in just one less God than you believe in.

liberaljim wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:31 PM:3D disagreed with ABACUS. ABACUS responded that "he is the favorite of atheists and agnostics who blog in this forum. Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin would have liked 3D." ABACUS's irrational reaction to 3D provides enough fodder enough for this agnostic. His nastiness, typical of many evangelicals, works for me. Thank you very much, ABACUS. ABACUS is proof positive that seperation of church and state protects the religious from cutting each others throats over state sanctioned Christian doctrine.

Apollo wrote on Aug 8, 2008 5:48 PM:Re: [Various bloggers] (9:53 & 10:38 a.m. + 2:24 and 3:25 p.m.)
3D cited specific instances where Jesus said something, and where Paul and Peter said the opposite.
All those who wrote in response did was express their unhappiness and disagreement, but not one showed why he is wrong, or why their own positions are not also at odds with Jesus.
I think 3D is onto something.
Those who oppose Jesus are against him, i.e., "anti," thus "anti-Christ."
Don't just say you disagree.
Explain why the person you disagree with is wrong.

Somehow, I doubt you can.

A Cather agrees that of course they cant Apollo wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:38 PM:Because, even 3D cannot know what Jesus Christ said or didn't say, any more than the authors of the gospels.

And, nobody, so many centuries removed, can claim to know what Peter or Paul really said.

If you are as student of history, you know the difference between actual events and historiography. Scripture is historiography, because Scripture has never been a matter of fact, and anyone, yourself included, who thinks it is, is a fool. Rather, scripture is a matter of faith.

So, the posters you summarily dismiss, have as much credibility, if not more ,than Davis or yourself.

There is no explanation needed, even from a self-proclaimed theologian like yourself, Apollo.

Faith cannot, and need not, be explained, anymore than doubt does.

Peace be with you.

Tara wrote on Aug 8, 2008 11:35 PM:While I do agree senseless acts of violence occur each day, I do not believe they are to be blamed upon our societies “godlessness”. Humans have committed such acts throughout history, including God-fearing times and countries. There are two key differences in our day and age. The first being the vast number of people on our planet. Naturally, with an increase in population comes an increase in crime. Secondly, is the media coverage making the news of such events more widespread. I personally do not believe in God. I can honestly say I have never had the desire to commit such acts. An individual’s beliefs do not make them a bad person. The same goes for those who are religious. We have all seen the news casts of priest molesting young children. These men are far from being “Godless”, yet they have destroyed so many lives. Complex topics such as this cannot be examined on merely a black and white level. The gray areas must be acknowledged as well. Also, Mr. Netherton writes “Unfortunately, pragmatic judges often agree with their barrage of lawsuits and render decisions based on their world view, rather than the rule of law.” Mr. Netherton, the rule of law you mention in your article is why schools, courts, and legislatures are void of religion. It is called separation of church and state, and in my opinion should be enforced to it’s full extent. Mr. Netherton also appears to believe children cannot be taught morals and accountability without the presence of God. This is simply not true.

bobxxxx wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:30 AM:Bob Netherton said "God has been systematically removed from schools, courts, legislatures and our society by ungodly organizations such as the ACLU."

Bob Netherton, we have something in this country called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to make the Establishment Clause apply to the states and pubic schools. If you have a problem with our Bill of Rights you are welcome to live in another country. Perhaps a theocracy like Iran would be more suitable for you.

I noticed the ACLU is not asking for your churches to be torn down. Why don't you go pray to your Magic Man in church, and leave our schools alone.

Three D wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:52 AM:Excellent and appropriate comments from Tara at 11:35 p.m. and Bobxxx at 1:30 a.m. in response to Bob Netherton's letter
Netherton seems to be longing for "the good old days" of morality and universal peace, which exist only in the fantasy of his own imagination.
We were not more moral in the past. In fact, the opposite is true.
We are a more just and moral society than at any time in our history or the history of the world. We no longer practice slavery. We no longer practice child labor or the horrible oppression of assembly lines as they were known 100 years ago. We protect working people. We protect women and minorities. We encourage those who are disabled to have greater equality of access to opportunities and to participation in the mainstream of everyday life. There is more charity and kindness and giving than ever in history.
While there are clearly some problems that exist, and some of them are new, they are not caused by removing these superficial, trivial symbols. They are caused by the urban congestion of mega-cities that did not exist 200 years ago, when the infrastructure, communications and technology to produce food on farms and keep it fresh for delivery to cities simply did not exist. In 1800 when Thomas Jefferson was President, the largest city in the United States was New York with 60,000 people; second was Philadelphia with 30,000. Today those would be considered small towns. The people who produced goods were personally acquainted with the people who consumed them, their neighbors. The burgeoning crush of congestion and the alienation of those who produce from the strangers that consume creates indifference which requires regulatory protection. Media and communications allow the rapid spread of new ideas and images (not all of them good) which does more to upset traditional values than removing a bland, non-sectarian prayer that no one paid attention to anyway.
Have you ever actually read the prayer that was outlawed in the landmark Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)? It is bland and meaningless pabulum.
It is an insult to an serious consideration of spirituality.
Which brings up the real question I have asked before (but no conservative has ever answered): why do you trust politicians more than churches and families to protect your spiritual observances?

ABACUS wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:39 AM:More blather and ranting from the communist left, the atheists and their supporters. They, unfortunately, tend to dominate this blogosphere by sheer numbers, but their self-serving little twists of history are reminiscent of the writings of Marx and Lenin. 3D's rant at 8:52AM is typical liberal baloney. "We were not more moral in the past. In fact, the opposite is true." Oh sure, we're very moral now, witness the horrors of the purges of Stalin, the mass murders of Hitler and our own roles in hopeless and bottomless wars such as Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. Using napalm bombs on the innocent, carpet bombing of whole areas killing innocents on a mass scale. Corruption in our government is as rampant and virulent as ever it was in our early history. So this is 3D's morality??? He knows as little about history as he does about the Bible, that is obvious. Mankind is not all that different now than it was centuries ago in terms of morality. Slavery still exists in some parts of the world. Yes, our laws have evolved to protect minorities and religious freedom, etc., but were it not for those laws, many people would be just as rotten as they were centuries ago. No? We have a higher percentage of people convicted of major crimes and populating our prisons than we ever did. Moral, huh? 3D lives in a little, myopic, ultraliberal dreamworld constructed by his own warped and inaccurate thinking. Oh yeah, don't forget to plug that book, 3D. That's one thing you have in common with Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, and all the other religious hucksters: making money by selling a warped ideology to those who share your silly beliefs. For those who think I am unduly harsh, just go to 3D's website and judge for yourself. Notice the dollar signs there.

CAVEL wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:59 AM:Mr Netherton says: "They [the ACLU] toil tirelessly by intimidation and through the courts to remove God from every vestige of our nation." I quote from the ACLU website: "Unfortunately, some people are now trying to use government power to promote religion in exactly the way the Constitution wisely rejected. The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols." Promoting "creationism" and "intelligent design" by teaching it in our PUBLIC schools is simply teaching and promoting a religious dogma. The ACLU has, in fact, defended peoples' right to practice their religion without governmental interference. The current ACLU website details just such a case, to wit: "ACLU Secures Religious Freedom For American Indians At Wyoming Prison." Mr Netherton advocates the teaching of religion in the PUBLIC schools. Whose religion, Mr. Netherton? Yours, I am sure. What if my "religion" is pantheism, a belief system contradicing yours, should that be taught too? The law wisely rejects the teaching or promotion of ANY religion in PUBLIC schools, so that one person's religion may not be forced down the throat of anybody else. Such is the essence of FREEDOM, Mr. Netherton.

Apollo wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:25 AM:Re: Abacus (9:39 a.m.)
Abacus repeatedly makes negative references to the fact that someone else sells a book, presumably for money. Is Abacus against free enterprise? Is he a socialist?
He recommends others seek out the referenced site.
I have done this and, by all means, recommend that others do the same.

Retrogrouch wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:28 AM:Abacus, I did go to 3D's web site and was able to download 3 well written articles for FREE! Please stop the ad hominin attacks and McCarthyistic name calling. Here's a novel idea, try citing a biblical reference or fact to make your argument. This is how adults debate. Your methods should be reserved for right wing talk radio were they can truly be appreciated.

Thanks Abascus wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:26 AM:Abascus: Thanks for telling us about ThreeD's website and his book. You should be his advertising agent. Did you read his opening statment "Many who have read my commentaries have jumped to inaccurate conclusions about the tone and intent of these writings, as well as to incorrect conclusions about my purposes and background. First of all, I want to make it very clear that this is not an "anti-Christian" work, and is not meant to attack or insult the deeply-held beliefs of Christians." It appears ThreeD had close-minded individuals like yourself in mind before he even got started. If you are so certain about your God why are you so incredibly insecure and threatned by others who question your religuous myths? Is your faith really that weak, or are you just obnoxious and mean-spirited by your very nature.

More of Davis... wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:08 PM:and his unquantifiable "facts" (8:52am)

Although Netherton is wrong in his assessment that we were a kinder and gentler people in days gone by, Davis' assumptions that things are much better are equally as flawed.

1. "We were not more moral in the past. In fact, the opposite is true."

The best Davis can claim, with any credibility, is that he believes the opposite is true. There are no measurable facts to support his emotional, illogical, diatribe.

2. "We no longer practice slavery. We no longer practice child labor..."

Of course, this claim is laughable. "We" may not practice what was once defined as slavery, but to say slavery no longer exists is beyond just incorrect, it could be argued as a very dangerous lie.

And, I guess overseas sweat shops using children are just figments of the imagination.

3. "We protect women and minorities."

No glass ceilings, exist, thankfully we eliminated all that! Jeez!

4. "There is more charity and kindness and giving than ever in history."

Davis doesn't study history, and missed the fact that the "deserving poor" no longer exist, having been done away with by the new age caring people he seems so hard to be propping up on a pedestle, and he confuses the high rate of cash charitable donations with real "kindness"

Davis, when you have an agenda, you detract from its credence by bolstering it with straw man arguments.

It smacks of intellectual dishonesty, and is unbecoming.

Apollo wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:52 PM:Resubmission with additional comments:

Re: Abacus (9:39 a.m.)
Abacus repeatedly makes negative references to the fact that someone sells a book, presumably for money. Is Abacus against free
enterprise? Is he a socialist?
He recommends others seek out the referenced site.
I have done this and, by all means, recommend that others do the same.
(I even bought the book.)

Oh, by the way, I notice that neither Abacus nor anyone else has actually shown where 3D has erred in citing scripture to prove that Jesus taught the opposite of what they claim.
And, to the blogger at 12:08 p.m., it seemed pretty clear to me that 3D's comments were about American public policy.
Changing the subject to talk about problems in other countries that haven't followed our lead, or the fact that despite huge progress we are not perfect, is pretty desperate.

ABACUS wrote on Aug 9, 2008 1:45 PM:This "Apollo" character defends 3D to the point where it seems obvious that he/she is 3D. And who the H... cares about 3D's narrow little world and his rants about the Bible? I will put the great theologians up against the likes of 3D/Apollo any day or the week. Saint Augustine comes to mind. Yeah, peddle that book, sell that baloney to make-a-da-money. "Is he a socialist?" What a lame little character this Apollo is. Is being a "socialist" some kind of sin? Hey, socialism works pretty well in the Scandanavian countries, although I happen to believe our capitalist system is OK. This forum should NOT be a place to sell stuff. The agenda of 3D is simply to destroy religious FAITH in the Bible by a totally amaturish little game of pointing out what he thinks are errors. He can't see the forest for the trees. He doesn't get the import of the Bible, it's beyond his understanding. Look, this guy admits that he lost his way and his faith while he was young; that he struggled with it. So now 3D, the apostate, blabbers on and on in his silly attempts to destroy what his admittedly conservative religous parents taught him. It's just a case of somebody who got stuck in a rut and has never grown up. If 3D and Apollo actually are different persons why can't 3D speak for himself without "Apollo" chiming in?

liberaljim wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:03 PM:Abacus at 9:39 a.m. sounds as if he's howling at the moon. In his twisted logic, all who disagree with him are "communists, atheists and their supporters, and their writings are reminiscent of Marx's amd Lenin's." He tells us that 3D "lives in a myopic ultraliberal dreamworld constructed by his own warped and inaccurate thinking" Perhaps, as a liberal agnostic, I should take ABACUS' words to heart and pray to God that I may see the true light. Come to think of it, I think I won't. That's probably what made ABACUS the nasty fanatic he is.

retrogrouch wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:35 PM:Abacus, Listing a theologians name is not citing a biblical reference or fact. You could cite a qoute by St. Augustine that is in opposition to what 3D has stated, oh, but that requires work and research and is not nearly as much fun as name calling.

Apollo wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:36 PM:Abacus at 1:45 p.m. makes a lot of noise but still can't identify a single flaw from 3D.
Contrary to what Abacus states, I do not try to speak for 3D and do not wade into substantive theological issues. But since Abacus doesn't either, I can relate at that level, because I know 3D never would.
And, by the way, I'll again ask Abacus to tell us where 3D himself has ever tried to use this forum to sell anything. In fact, 3D himself, either in letters or blogs, has never even mentioned anything about a book for sale. Others, including me (and Abacus), have.
Abacus talks a lot about dishonesty, but I think he is the one who has been peddling lies about 3D, who is a very honorable, respectable and intelligent individual.
Abacus calls himself a Christian, but I don't think Christians are supposed to lie and defame others.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:48 PM:Abascus: You crack me up. All you can talk about is ThreeD, yet you state "And who the H... cares about 3D's narrow little world and his rants about the Bible?" It appears you care about more about what ThreeD has to say than anyone, including ThreeD himself. Your obsession probably has a lot to do with the fact that you can't respond to ThreeDs simple questions, yet you're sure there must be an answer out there somewhere. Good luck. Don't forget to breath once in a while.

Abaccus and D wrote on Aug 9, 2008 3:04 PM:One uses this site to make money, the other uses a name for an ancient machine to count money...could they be one in the same? Hmmmmm.

Apollo wrote on Aug 9, 2008 7:03 PM:Re: Abaccus and D (3:04 p.m.)
Yeah, that's it! Abacus and 3D are the same person!
If I didn't know 3D better, it would look awfully suspicious, like he had created a phony "opponent" to submit comments so ridiculous as to make his look stronger.
Or maybe I am the real Abacus! Both our screen identities start with "A"!

Three D wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:47 PM:Dee Anderson-Fleischman's letter excoriates the North County Times for relegating a letter of 7/11 from Jerome Sinsky to the Faith and Values pages when she feels it should have been in a different section.
In this case, the North County Times' Faith and Values editor was correct.
I went back and looked at Sinky's 7/11 letter that Anderson-Fleischman refers to.
Sinsky states that: "the Founding Fathers' faith ... in God was far and away the most powerful support and motivator in achieving their most difficult goals. Washington, on his way to his inauguration and seeing the challenges ahead, wrote, 'May Heaven assist me.'" Sinsky makes two mistakes here. Saying "Heaven help me!" is not the expression of personal belief in god any more than an atheist might say, "God help me!" as a cultural expression. In any case, it is true that Washington did have belief in the Christian deity, as did some of the other Founders, notably John Adams. Sinsky further fails because he lumps all these diverse personalities into a single stereotype. Some of the founders were Christian. Others such as Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were Deists, holding a generalized belief in an abstraction of god, but not believing in Bible literalism or specific Christian teachings. And others, such as Ethan Allen and Ben Franklin, were downright hostile to religion. This diverse group compiled a government that was entirely separate from religion, in which each person would be allowed to believe or not believe whatever they wanted to (or not).
Thus, due to the historical inadequacy of context that Sinsky fails to present, his letter is clearly religious, and did belong in the Faith and Values section.

As to the many others who have responded to my comments, thank you for your interest and attention, but this week I have only asked two simple questions, and until the substance of these two questions is addressed, there is really nothing for me to respond to, no matter how many times others may refer to my comments. To repeat, my questions were:
1. (This morning at 8:52 a.m., regarding alleged deterioration of values, which I dispute, because prayer was removed from public schools, and referring to Christians turning over their private religious observances to public, secular authorities): why do you trust politicians more than churches and families to protect your spiritual observances?
2. (Yesterday morning, 8/8 at 5:34 a.m.): if you disagree with quotations from Jesus that salvation will be based on what you DO, with no mention of faith, provided with precise scriptural references including chapter and verse, please explain why these verses do not contradict the renegade "apostle" Paul who said the opposite.

JOSHUA wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:23 PM:The following verses do not seem to contradict Jesus's teachings.
Romans 12:9-20; Romans 13:8-10; Romans 15:1-7; Galations 5:6; Galations 5:13-25; Ephesians 4:2-4; Ephesians 4:25-34; 1 Corinthians 13.

Bob is Confused wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:05 AM:Bob, You are one of the confused people who would name this section "Faith and Values."

In fact, the two concepts have virtually nothing to do with each other. Do I need to cite all the headlines about clergy, church elders, and lay people who have done the most abhorrent things? Let me ask you a personal question, Bob: If some indisputable evidence disproving the existence of god were to come to light, would you personally go out and murder a stranger? Put another way: is it really the divinity of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" that keeps you from the act, or do you think we have built societies and legislation based on common sense, and thoughtful examination of consequences?

How would you explain an atheist like me who spends a significant amount of energy in active pursuit of an ethical, moral, happy life?

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion." --Abraham Lincoln

Three D wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:47 AM:Joshua at 11:23 p.m. cites several passages from the letters of Paul that "do not seem to contradict Jesus's teachngs."
I would respectfully agree that Joshua is correct, that these passages do not contradict Jesus. In particular, I Cor 13 is one of the most inspirational passages on charitable compassionate (agape) love in all of literature. I have quoted it often, and have cited it to show that, while Paul contradicts Jesus repeatedly, and on key points of doctrine such as how people come to eternal salvation, he does not always contradict Jesus on everything, nor did I ever say that he did.
In fact, previously (in other forums, other media, and in this forum in previous weeks) I have noted that Jesus and Paul agreed on quite a few things: the sun rises in the east; breathing air is good for humans, and compassionate love expressed in deeds is good.
And here is the contradictory difference on that last one, which is especially amplified by Jesus' brother James in the second chapter of James' stunning and direct rebuttal against Paul.
Jesus (and James) state that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that compassionate deeds are what get you into heaven (faith is good because it motivates you to do the good deeds, but is not absolutely mandatory).
Paul states that both faith and compassionate deeds are good, but that faith is what gets you into heaven (but compassionate deeds are good because they are a reflection of the sincerity of faith, but not absolutely mandatory).
So, Joshua, while your observation is valid and correct as far as it goes, it does not address the contradiction on the key point of so-called "Christian" doctrine that I cited.

While we might have some points of disagreement, your comment, however, was thoughtful and excellent and, yes, I do respectfully recognize the significance of your chosen screen identity.

John wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:00 AM:From what I've read of Three D's comments, might I suppose that he is a Jehovah's Witless...I mean Witness? To say that Jesus was "not crucified" only goes to show Three D's ignmorance of the methods of capital punishment used at the time, one of which was CRUCIFIXION. Please, set your liberally rose-tinted glasses aside and look at facts that are genuine.

to Bob Netherton wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:46 PM:Can you point to any time in history, including the history of this country, when there weren't horrendous crimes being perpetrated on a regular basis. Taking prayer out of school or any of the other things you mentioned as "godless" behavior have had no effect on what you perceive as this era being more "godless" than any other. Mankind has always sinned. Now here's a fact you might be interested in. In the US, if you go county by county, the more secular a county the lower the divorce rate, crime rate, drug use rate, child molestation rate, murder rate, rape rate and most other social ills. Conversely, the more religious a county the higher the rates of these social ills including the astounding fact that the most religious counties have the highest rates of crime, drug use, child abuse etc. The same thing applies to countries. In Europe, where most of the countries are much less religious than the US the rates of these same social ills is much lower. I guess I could make the case that it is religion not secularism that makes people more likely to commit crimes and use drugs and molest children.

Three D wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:53 PM:John at 11:00 a.m. evades the substance of the scriptural disrepancies I cited between Paul (with Peter) and Jesus (with James) by:
1. Jumping to conclusions and making wrong guesses (I am not and never have been a Jehovah's Witness and, after being raised a Christian, I no longer am).
2. Misstating my past comments. I have never said that Jesus was not crucified. On the contrary, I noted that the failure of Isaiah 53 to include any reference to crucifixion is one of the many reasons I cited as to why it cannot be said to foretell the story of Jesus, and is not about Jesus. While there is very little, if any, independent corroborating evidence to confirm the existence of a man named Jesus, my inclination (which I have stated before) is to assume that the Jesus story is most credibly based on the existence of an actual person and that, most probably, he was executed by crucifixion.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:25 PM:to Three D: I hope it was obvious that I'm not "John". And I'm glad I'm not.
Regards.

Three D wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:33 PM:To John the Baptist at 3:25 p.m.
The name "John" is pretty common. I never for a moment confused your thoughtful comments with the careless, shallow submission I was responding to.
I note that, even among those who have come to different conclusions from mine (especially in the letters printed in the paper where people have to put their names and locations, and where they're read by tens of thousands), there are often very thoughtful and well-researched examinations of the substance of what we are discussing. But unfortunately, there are also a few very shallow writers who have nothing to offer but shouting and name calling and nothing of substance.
If they love their faith, they do not honor it by the manner in which they "defend" it.

May I recommend a good book wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:11 AM:The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz, is academic history, but a good read.

It presents evidence that "the good ol' days" that a lot has been written about here in the last week, really are a myth.

Without judging the merits of the author's argument, I recommend you pick it up.

LOL at recommendations wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:08 PM:First Apollo recommends I spend my hard earned money on Three D's writings, and now another ad...doesn't the TOS for this website block this type of shameless advertising?

To LOL at recommendations wrote on Aug 14, 2008 5:26 PM:Stop with the childish whining. I'd rather learn of a good book related to the topics discussed here than the worthless rants of Abascus (who I assume you are). Why didn't you complain about shameless advertising when the creationist writers went on and on about Ben Stein's ID film?

Three D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:17 PM:I have decided that the readers here have no theological foundations, and don't understand the nuances of scripture.

Until you children can keep up with my intellectual musings, and at least agree with my expertise, like Apollo, I am forced to ignore all of you.

Including you, John, and you Joshua, and the others who think they are my intellectual equals.

I, therefore, bid you farewell, but remind you, you can, if you wish, keep up with my writings at my website, and you can purchase--at a nominal costs-- what I have to say on topics that are probably outside your mortal ability to comprehend.

Good by,

Davis

Three D wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:06 PM:For the second time today (including in a different web comments page), a person at 6:17 p.m. dishonestly misrepresents himself as me, using not only my chosen screen identity, but also my actual first name.
This is both fraud and a version of online identity theft.
Sad, but this is the state to which those who disagree with me, but cannot address points of substance have, in their desperation, devolved.
Yet again, I note that I have never been the one to promote my own works in this web comments page.
Any attempts by others to try to portray me as such is a pathetic, desperate attempt at character assassination.
Appreciation to my good friend DD Wiz for suggesting a means to reduce the likelihood such incidents in the future.
"If it ain't signed in bold, the truth ain't bein' told."
The real 3D

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:06 PM:to NOT Three D: Presumably you think you're being very clever. If you want credit for your wit, post under your real handle.

to Not Three D wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:38 AM:Cowardly yes, funny no. Your letter clearly shows that your relgious faith is so incredibly weak that it can't withstand even simple factual arguments.

The Preacher wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:23 AM:Dear Sheep,
There is no evidence for the existance of your gods (other than a violent fairy tale book you all seem to cling to). I love to take your money every weekend and to laugh at your ignorance.