Here we go again wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:32 AM:Let's start the week with a letter from Three D. What's the purpose, Davis, you blathered on and on about this very subject all week in the comments section of this column.

Convince me, you are not the center of your universe, and you are not happy unless you see your name in print.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:31 AM:Many of the religiously motivated writers have gone out of their way to silence ThreeD. Abascus hoped to silence ThreeD by claiming ThreeD was motivated by financial gain. “Here we go again” hopes to silence ThreeD by claiming ThreeD is ego-driven. I trust ThreeD is too intelligent to be silenced by such sleazy Carl Rove tactics. ThreeD has simply responded politely and intelligently to thammd4e misguided biblical interpretations of these writers. While ThreeDs letters have not brought him great wealth or fame, they have exposed how poorly people who live by the bible understand the bible (and how they refuse to confront and acknowledge their own biblical ignorance).

ibtrepretations Obviously, these self-proclaimed biblical experts have become overly frustrated by being unable to respond to ThreeD's simple questions.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:49 AM:to "Here we go again", re post of 8/15, 6:32 AM: Why focus on 3D? Armand Archambeault and Irvin Forbing submit letters every two weeks without fail. You are not required to read either the letters or the posts here. If you disagree with anyone's opinion, you're certainly welcome to attempt a rebuttal.
Regards

Three D wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:28 AM:Richard Wible's letter correctly cites Leviticus 18:22 referring to same-sex relationships as "an abomination."
Just wondering if he is equally supportive of Leviticus' use of the same word "abomination" to describe eating pork or shrimp in chapter 11.
Does he also believe we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to preserve the sanctity of "traditional dietary laws"?
Blessings,
3D

Youre so right wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:40 AM:Richard Wible. The California (and other courts) have destroyed marriage by making divorce so readily available. As you say, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Yet marriage is by all accounts a losing proposition by more than 50%. How about if all the so called Christians out there, protected their own marriages by STAYING MARRIED! How about all the adulterers (those who are separated or divorced from their original spouses), ask for forgiveness from God above and go back to their original and one true spouse? How about if there are no more broken homes, so that the children we all are asked to cry for are cared for by their original biological parents. How about if the body of the Church truly represent these marriage supporting beliefs and ex-communicate all the members and visitors who are "living in sin without benefit of marriage?"
Or better yet, how about you keep your pick and choose religious beliefs and interpretations to yourself, your family and your church, and keep them out of my life, my home and my bedroom.

Thank you SlipStream... wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:49 AM:AKA Apollo, AKA Three D.

What is going on wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:02 AM:For weeks this has become the anti vs pro 3D site. Does anyone have a legitimate comment on what others have written about?

I suggest those who just love to take sides and argue for the sake of argument, open your own blog site, and leave this venue for its intended purposes.

Because, to be honest with you, I'm tired of the thoughts and constant criticism of 3D, Apollo, Abaccus, John the Baptist.

Although they have a right to be heard, they should take the high ground and use this site as a forum for opinion, and not their exclusive blog site.

Here we go again is right wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:09 AM:If we're going at anything again, it's the weak, desperate, failed efforts to debate 3D, who consistently posts well-reasoned, backed-up arguments. I am not a Christian, and have little stake in this, and I read these letters and posts in the hope of learning things. When I read 3D, I learn things. When I read those who attack him, there's nothing offered of substance. I'd love it if people who disagreed with 3D posted retorts and counterarguments at his level: I'd be the winner there as my understanding of the Bible and related matters would increase. C'mon, folks, give 3D a good debate! Until you do, I can't help but be persuaded that he is onto the truth.

Faith and Values or... wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:56 AM:I don't get it. This used to be a page to discuss just what it was titled, "Faith and values". Evidently it has morphed into personal, bashing.

Well, you 3 or 4 regulars can have it, you are only talking to yourselves anyway.

I heartedly agree with those who have raised issues with the "dirty quarter dozen" thinking this is a convenient, free space to use as their personal blogisphrere.

Laughing Out Loud wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:58 AM:Those who don't get busy signals use Talk Radio, those who do use Faith and Values Letters comments. What a Joke!

Three D wrote on Aug 15, 2008 12:34 PM:Further comment on the letter from Richard Wible, when he claims that, "Marriages exist only between one man and one woman. Adherents to the tenets of Christianity accept this truth."
Yet earlier he cited Leviticus, presumably in a belief in the Bible as the literal, inerrant "word of god," yet according to the definition in the Bible, right from the Law of Moses (Deut 21:15-17 backed up by many, many specific examples I have enumerated in the past in which polygamous marriages were reported with god's approval), "traditional marriage" means one man with multiple underage prepubescent females of the same ethnic tribe, in an arranged marriage. The man maintains "dominion" over these wives in the same way as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
So, just to clarify, based on his appreciation for the Law of Moses, Wible wants to outlaw (by Constitutional Amendment) the "abomination" of eating pork and shrimp, and allow FLDS style polygamy with underage girls.
Blessings,
3D

Apollo wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:15 PM:Re: Thank you SlipStream (10:49 a.m.)
Of course, if 3D actually tried to take credit for any of our postings, those who can only deal in pesonal attacks instead of substance would be accusing him of plagiarism.
The bottom line is, those who are unable to respond to 3D's recitation of chapter and verse (literally) with chapter and verse of their own are left with name calling.
In that way, more than any other, in confirming there is no substantive response, they help 3D prove his own point.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:21 PM:For those suggesting this blog use to be about Faith and Values they haven't read this blog very long. The first half of its short life was directed largely at topics related to the critics of evolution, with a little homophobia tossed in. It has more recently switched to everyone waiting to see if any of the ThreeD critics can disprove ThreeDs clearly stated arguments. Apparently not. The common thread throughout this blog's history is that religion blinds individuals to the realities of science (the natural world) and to the very realities of the bible they supposedly live by. I understood the prevalent ignorance surrounding science (e.g. evolution), but this blog taught me how little the religious science critics even know about their own religion.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 15, 2008 3:47 PM:to "What is going on", re post of 8/15, 11:02 AM: I too would like to see an end to the ad hominem attacks on Three D. However, I believe you've used too broad a brush in saying "... I'm tired of the thoughts and constant criticism of 3D, Apollo, Abacus, John the Baptist." In the past two sessions, I've made all of three comments, and one of those was to castigate the imposter who posted as Three D. I've deliberately stayed out of the debate because it's not in my area of expertise.

That said, it sounds as if you feel that other potential contributors are being crowded out. At the time I'm writing this, there are 13 comments. There's plenty of room for more. Have you seen how the blog for the regular letters is monopolized? Comparatively speaking, this blog is the shallow end of the pool -- anyone should feel free to jump right in.
Regards

ABACUS wrote on Aug 15, 2008 4:46 PM:AMUSING. Yes, it's amusing the way some of these bloggers try to "regulate" what is and isn't said on here. Some are just too weak and egocentric to withstand ANY criticism whatsoever. "What is going on" posts "I suggest those who just love to take sides and argue for the sake of argument, open your own blog site, and leave this venue for its intended purposes." "Intended purposes"????? So now this PUBLIC VENUE is restricted by some murky character to discussion and comment that he/she approves. FUNNY. This joker is the self-styled Mayor of Faith and Values. Then we have the 3D character, that self-appointed biblical expert, posting on 8-12-08: "But unfortunately, there are also a few very shallow writers who have nothing to offer but shouting and name calling and nothing of substance." The only postings "of substance" therefore, are those which agree, fawningly and obsequiously, with DDD such as his aliases of Apollo and Slipstream and etc.. Now that is truly AMUSING. Get a life 3d and GROW UP. You're still stuck in that rut you fell into when you were a kid and you've never been able to squirm out of it.

Amused wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:17 PM:Proscribe the eating of pork and shrimp? What have they to do with marriage? 3-D must have been famished when she wrote that one. Then again, perhaps it was simply the tried and true liberal tactic of changing the premise when one cannot win the argument with a factual rebuttal. Thank you, 3-D, for the thought. I have decided to dine out at a Chinese restaurant tonight: I'm ordering a shrimp cocktail appetizer with sweet and sour pork for the main course.

Amused wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:38 PM:Poor 3-D, reaching out in vain for some semblance of a rebuttal! Of course there were plural marriages during Old Testament times, but Jesus came to us to save our souls, to teach us how to live a life without sin: One of those sins was the sin against marriage - as quoted in Mark 10 - that the writer cited. The only reason he quoted Leviticus was to put heterosexual relations and marriage - as opposed to homosexual relations and marriage - in a biblical context. Whereas the former is consecrated by the Church, the latter is sinful.

Wiley wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:39 PM:Thank you, "Amused", for giving the perfect example of the familiar christian "pick and choose" behavior when it comes to obeying the "sacred" laws of their "holy" book! Care to give a "factual rebuttal" instead? In case you're confused, read "you're so right" again, it says it all!

Three D wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:45 PM:The question for Amused at 6:17 and 6:38 p.m. is very simple.
Do you or do you not believe the Bible to be the literal, inerrant, infallible Word of God?
Simple yes or no will do.
If the Bible in Leviticus calls same-sex relationships an "abomination" in chapters 18 and 20, and uses the same word "abomination" in chapter 11 regarding the eating of pork and shrimp (which, by the way, observant Jews and Moslems still observe, in their greater faithfulness to the ancient scriptures than the followers of Paul - remember Jesus said in Matt 5:18 that not one dot or iota of the law would be changed until ALL is fulfilled - is everything fulfilled? All the end-times prophecies?)
So the question is, if Leviticus calls same-sex marriage and eating pork/shrimp an "abomination," why does one merit passing a Constitutional Amendment and the other being ordered at a Chinese restaurant?
Are you mocking Leviticus?
Simple yes or no will do.
Blessings,
3D

There wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:16 AM:are no atheists in foxholes.

They all say "Oh MY GOD!" when bullets are flying around them.

Abominations wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:36 AM:Of course 3D is correct about how people pick and chooose from their "sacred" texts in a way that justifies their own biases and preferences and hatreds. But the point needs to be made more strongly, I think: if you decided that this abomination is legitimate while that abomination can be ignored, you are putting yourself above scripture, above Jesus, and above God. You are putting all these to work for YOU. You are insisting that YOUR beliefs be followed by the Testaments rather than the other way around. Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems incredibly sinful to me. It violates the first Commandment. It insists that Jesus believes in YOU rather than you believing in Him. Please, do some soul-searching on this matter. To the degree that you want to be good Christians, as I believe you do, you have some serious work to do. I wish you well in this effort.

Apollo wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:50 AM:Re: Here we go again (8/15 - 6:32 a.m.) and Abacus (8/15 - 4:46 p.m.)
You know what I find just hilarious?
The way some people complain about how Davis D. Danizier is dominating the Faith and Values letters page, when he gets the same once-in-two-week shot as every other F+V writer, or how 3D dominates this comments section, when everyone who can cite chapter and verse has just as much chance to do so.
The reason I especially find this to be incredibly gut-busting is because North San Diego is a pretty religious and pretty conservative place. There are literally hundreds of churches, and most of them are quite conservative. Each one is headed by a team of pastors who receive extensive formal training in theology at acclaimed seminaries. Each of them is packed with thousands of worshippers every Sunday, where they are spoon fed Bible study from this conservative, Christian point of view.
If Davis D. Danizier is all wet, there should literally be thousands of people trained in Bible expertise who should be able to step up to the plate and show him wrong.
Yet here comes Davis D. Danizier, one lone man, no organization, no pulpit, no crowds of devoted worshippers learning from his Bible study, just one lone questioner who asks simple questions, standing up like David (or Davis) versus the huge Goliath of organized religion in North County, and he takes one small pebble at a time and hits his mark every time.
If all the experts from all the churches cannot answer Danizier's simple questions, then maybe he is onto something.
This forum is not about Danizier or 3D.
It is about ideas. If you have them, let's hear 'em.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:43 AM:to Abominations: As a theistic evolutionist, I have a different"take" on this issue of pick and choose. God gave us a brain. I believe He meant us to use it. The Mosaic Law provided a practical survival guide for the Jews at that time. For instance, in the dietary laws, pork and shrimp were "abominations" because they were known to often cause illness/death. It wasn't known why then, but we do now, and how to prevent it. So that rule is an irrelevance now. Likewise homosexuality was an "abomination" then, because it was every man's duty to produce as many sons/soldiers as possible to protect the tribe. That situation no longer prevails. In short, rather than pick and choose, we need to evaluate Mosaic Law in context and in its entirety.
Regards

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:48 AM:to There: That sounds familiar: could you please provide a citation?
Regards

Foxhole wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:50 AM:A writer notes at 12:16 a.m. that there are no atheists in foxholes because people yell "Oh My God!"
Rumor has it that some have also been known to yell "Oh My God!" during climactic moments of intimacy.
While many do consider this a "divine" experience, I think most of us would agree that neither foxholes nor bedrooms constitute the most likely venue for serious spiritual reflections on the nature of eternal realities.
Honey, you definitely need to find better ways to amuse yourself at 12:16 in the morning.

Three D wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:25 AM:John the Baptist at 9:48 a.m. inquires about the origin of the quote, "There are no atheists in foxholes."
While I think I prefer the explanation by Foxhole at 9:50 a.m., according to Wikipedia, there are various sources credited with originating the phrase, including Lieutenant-Colonel William J. Clear and Lieutenant-Colonel William Casey, but the phrase is most often attributed to journalist Ernie Pyle. The line is used in the film Wake Island, which was released sometime in early 1942.
And not that anyone has ever expressed the slightest interest in my personal background or anything I have ever said or done, just for the record, let me clarify that while I am no longer a Christian, I am also not an atheist.
Blessings,
3D

SlipStream wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:58 AM:To Abascus and Amused: How deep do you want to dig that hole you're in? Soon we'll see you pop up out of the ground during a Beijing track and field event.

Zeus in a foxhole wrote on Aug 16, 2008 1:09 PM:To "There" at 12:16: On the few occassions when I came close to dying I shouted out some choice four letter words, but not "On my God." What is your point? Is it that invisible Gods are easier to believe in when we are in situations which block our ability to think rationally (e.g. near death, vulnerable childhood, periods of stress or helplessness, etc.). I agree, Gods help ease fear in some humans (as do drugs for others), but this illusionary crutch you describe doesn't make Gods real. Do you pray for Zeus or Apollo when you are frightened (in a fox hole), or are you an athesists (a disbeliever in the Gods Zeus and Apollo)? As Richard Dawkins stated, an athesists is a person who believes in one less God than others believe in.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 16, 2008 3:20 PM:Re "no atheists in foxholes" As is often the case, I knew exactly what I meant to say -- and then didn't say it. What I really was interested in was a source validating that claim.
Regards

Cathar wrote on Aug 17, 2008 5:49 AM:Perhaps Holy Scripture is a living document.

Therefore, Leviticus can be taken as the word of God by believers. And, its not a stretch, or hypocritcal to believe the laws prescribed in the Books of Moses are antiquated and some (perhaps not all) were made moot by the Second Covenent.

So therefore, both the Old and New Testament can be taken literaly, but when put into the context of time,their efficacy changes.

The "pick and choose" argument might leave a non-believer satisfied with his opinion, it hardly serves as a justifiable condemnation of believers who proclaims Scriptures should be literally interpreted.

The ongoing arguement in this blog only proves that theology is not a simple, black and white matter.

It shouldn't matter to one what another believes. The mind of the faithful is not going to be changed by the mind of the doubter, or visa-versa, nor should it be expected to.

Therefore, questions raised by one side of the issue to the other are really arogant, and not very fruitful.

A more productive dialogue would for one to state his opinion, without the shrouded condemnation of the beliefs of another, that seem to be the mainstay of many here.

I as a believer, can express what I believe and why I believe it, but such an expression doesn't call for even a clandestine castegation of an atheist, an agnostic, or a follower of another denomination or sect.

There seems to be to much ephasis on "Gotcha", and not enough on acceptance and understanding.

Three D wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:04 AM:Reply to Cathar at 5:49 a.m.:
Perhaps the writings which some regard as "Holy Scripture" should be seen for what they are: the best efforts of intelligent but primitive and nomadic shepherds and fishermen to explain a complex universe that they could not otherwise fathom. The many contradictions are owing to the diverse time frames and individual viewpoints; the many factual errors from a lack of modern scientific knowledge.
I agree with Cathar that "It shouldn't matter to one what another believes."
Does Cathar? (This is a question; I do not know Cathar.)
I find that those who are skeptical of literalist dogmas do not bring a proseletory perspective to exchanges of opinion about beliefs. We truly do not feel concern over what others believe (or don't believe). The problem, however, is that those who believe in dogmatic literalism don't share the same level of tolerance.
I know that when I was a Christian, the compassion I felt toward others (nonbelievers) drove me relentlessly to want to save them from the eternal torment of hell. So after emerging from a lengthy and traumatic process of self-examination that unraveled some of my most cherished beliefs, I still understood the deeply felt concern of others, especially loved ones (such as my mother and father, who both went to their graves tormented by the fear that I would not be joining them in eternity).
Further, the true believers are too often not content with their own private observances of belief and ritual, but want to force it onto nonbelievers in the public square or in legislation that imposes their beliefs about "morality" onto others.
This relentless push to convert, and to force public policy to conform to private belief, engenders the need to resist. Further, there are others who, as I was at the beginning of my reexamination of beliefs, feeling that something doesn't quite add up, but they can't put their fingers on exactly what it was.
For those who are NOT satisfied with their beliefs, I help save them the step of reinventing the wheel by preparing resources for those who go looking for it.
Please note, however, that I only make such material available to those who seek it. I do not proselytize or seek "converts." They have to go looking for it, or seeking engagement of ideas in discussion groups such as this.
You state that, "I as a believer, can express what I believe and why I believe it, but such an expression doesn't call for even a clandestine castegation of an atheist, an agnostic, or a follower of another denomination or sect." and, if this is really true, then it is praiseworthy.
For too many of your fellow believers, however, such tolerance has been far too rare. Many have, indeed, had not clandestine but quite open persecution of those who did not share their beliefs.
You further note, "A more productive dialogue would for one to state his opinion, without the shrouded condemnation of the beliefs of another." Again, I agree with this statement. And I believe the skeptics are often respectful of the sincerity of believers, which most of us once were ourselves, but please look through this thread and see how some of the believers demonize those who, right or wrong, are sincere in the questions they (we) raise about religious orthodoxy.
I join in your call for a more civil and rational dialogue without the name-calling.
Blessings,
3D

Jonah wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:48 AM:To 3D: Your post of 10:04 AM, 8-17, calls for civility and mutual respect in these dialogues. However, I discern a stereotypical flavor to your comments in that you seem to extoll those of your view and cast them as wholly reasonable and insightful persons. Contrarily, you place the biblical literalists in a box which spews recrimination and hate. "For too many of your fellow believers, however, such tolerance has been far too rare." Well now, if you are truly the reasonable, tolerant and respectful person you paint yourself to be, why this continual disparagment of those who differ with you? Don't argue that this isn't true, because any reader with even a modicum of comprehension understands that what you write is not merely an exposition of your particular views but carries with it anger and hostility to those who disagree with you. Why can't you (and others) simply state your position without a negative characterization of those who take a different view of the world? Why mention your opponents AT ALL? Can't your view stand on its own or does it need the prop of tearing down others to make your view seem triumphant? I agree with Cathar wholeheartedly when he says, "A more productive dialogue would for one to state his opinion, without the shrouded condemnation of the beliefs of another, that seem to be the mainstay of many here." Peace be with you.

Three D wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:26 PM:To Jonah at 11:48 a.m.:
I do not agree that identifying a point of disagreement and explaining the reasons for concluding it to be wrong is a negative characterization of the person.
Explaining reasons why a conclusion (an idea) is wrong, and then going off on an angry rant accusing the person of plagiarism, lying, devil worship, and making all kinds of assumptions about their personal life (all negative, of course) and throwing in some name-calling to boot, now THAT would be a negative characterization of the person.
There is a difference between explaining why an idea is mistaken and belittling or insulting the holder of the idea.
I respond to those who present thoughtful ideas, or respond to me at the level of ideas, as you did (thank you).
I do not respond to those who merely hurl insults.
Blessings,
3D

Jonah wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:31 PM:"accusing the person of....devil-worship..." Oh come now 3D, surely you haven't been accused of worshipping the devil, have you? At least I have never seen that about you on here. Methinks you dwell inordinately on wrongs to yourself, both real and immagined. Do you picture yourself and as a holder and purveyor of the truth and nothing but the truth? Really 3D, you come across as almost, dare I say the word, paranoid. You are an eloquent chap with what seems to be a one-track obsession with Biblical error, inconsistencies and literal absurdities. You dwell again and again upon the apparent conflict of dogma as between Paul and Peter on the one hand and Jesus and his brother James on the other. Paul, after all, was not Jesus, nor did he pretend to be. He preached salvation by faith alone, this is true. Paul erred by differing from Jesus and not including redemption by altruism and service to others. But in all of this, do you not see Paul's worth? Peter's worth? If not, so be it, but I do. It is easy to dissect the Bible and point out errors in it. But I, for one, see it as a collection of ancient writings from which mankind has gained more benefit than harm, despite the stories of barbarity and Old Testament lapses into cruelty and the idiotic. Much of it is allegorical and meant to impart a lesson rather than a recitation of fact. I see Jesus's Sermon on the Mount as one of the great milestones in the development of ethics and morality. Don't be, and I am sure you are not, discouraged by the likes of me and do continue to grace this venue with your insightful comments, but do ignore as best you can those who have nothing to contribute to the dialogue but hate and rude remarks. Peace be on to you and yours, forever and a day.

Amused wrote on Aug 17, 2008 5:11 PM:3D asserts that those who believe in the teachings of their faith are content only when they impose their belief system on those of other faiths or those who are irreligious. Nice try, but such a ruse is less than convincing when stacked up against the correlate proposition mentioned in the writer's letter: that of the dissolute minority foisting its alternative concept of marriage on the Christian majority.

Apollo wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:37 PM:Re: Amused (5:11 p.m.)
What I find really amusing is that you completely misstated what 3D wrote.
I do not see where he said that "those who believe in the teachings of their faith are content only when they impose their belief system on those of other faiths or those who are irreligious."
He did say that this happens and is sufficiently widespread that it merits a response.
He did not say that it always happens and I do not see a single reason to what makes them "content."
I find this to be utterly dishonest.
But I guess the commandment about "Thou shalt not lie" doesn't apply to you?

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:54 PM:to Amused, re post of 8/17, 5:11 PM: Apparently you subscribe to Wible's view that freedom of religion requires codifying into law the moral beliefs of your particular religion.

You use the term "dissolute minority". I'm sure there are dissolute homosexuals, just as there are dissolute heteros. But the few homosexual couples I've met are anything but: they are at least as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. To call them dissolute is a slander.

Note well that anyone opposed to same-sex marriage is free to eschew such marriages. None will be required to divorce their heterosexual partners and marry someone of the same sex. In common terms this is part of separation of church and state. And, thank God, protection from the tyranny of majority rule.
Regards

Three D wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:15 PM:Jonah at 4:31 p.m. of 8/17 seems overly preoccuped with other bloggers rather than the content of what they write.
I point out the "apparent conflict" between Jesus/James and Peter/Paul (without Mary) because it goes to the core of explaining why Jesus' simple teaching of joyous compassion for all became corrupted into the legacy of hatred, intolerance and violence that is the hallmark of the dogmatic forms of Paulinistic Christianity.
Jonah asks: "in all of this, do you not see Paul's worth? Peter's worth?"
Again, in his seeming obsession with black and white, all-or-nothing extremes, Jonah seems to have missed the nuances of my previous posts. I find Peter to be a devoted but weak follower of Jesus, who denies him three times, and then is taken under the spell of a well-traveled Roman citizen and Jewish scholar (an extremely rare combination). He is an uneducated fisherman. He does the best he can. He is taken in by Paul. Even for Paul I have acknowledged that he teaches the value of compassion, though contradicts Jesus on its role in salvation. I have cited I Cor 13 and other passages as articulate expressions of the beauty of compassion. But unfortunately, these rare glimpses of humanity are drowned out by Paul's repeated hostility and belligerant intolerance against women, homosexuals, slaves (whom Jesus called "the least of these"), etc.
Because of Paul's wealth and holding the documents by which to travel, he was able to articulately communicate his brand of "Christianity" which, unfortunately, was almost diametrically opposite of what Jesus taught, which is what spurred James' vigorous dissent in defense of his brother.
Jonah and I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is "one of the great milestones in the development of ethics and morality." It was taught by Jesus, not Paul. Also I would add to that his teaching of the "first and second great commandments," the "Good Samaritan" (which has far more depth than most readers today understand, lacking knowledge of the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans - just substitute the word "Palestinian" for "Samaritan" and you get the idea) and, of course, that last general teaching about "the least of these" prior to going up into the Last Supper and the beginning of the end.
I have great regard for Jesus.
It is just sad and tragic that his message was perverted and corrupted by Paul, transforming Christianity from a message of universal compassionate (agape) love to cruel, barbaric intolerance and violence.
The former needs to be resurrected. The latter needs to be exposed and reversed.
Blessings,
3D

Oh Please wrote on Aug 19, 2008 11:28 AM:California court destroys marriage Get over it. Marriage is defined and administered by the state under the respective state constitution. California provides equal protection for everybody under the law. Marriage is regulated by the state as well. You need a state marriage license to get hitched no matter what religion you practice. It will not affect your sacremental marriage at all.
What the Christians fear is loss of political power and social influence.

snerd wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:17 PM:to: Oh Please, you are correct of course about relgious types fear of loosing political power and social influence but don't they also fear lack of control. Isn't that really what organized religion is all about...control.

Cathar wrote on Aug 19, 2008 1:41 PM:Just as the priest is unnecessary in the administration of the sacraments, so is the state.

If marriage is a sacrament, the state's "blessings" are neither here, nor there.

Those condemning the "state" for the destruction of marriage seem more concerned with the worldly entrapments, i.e, politics, then the divine.

Amused wrote on Aug 20, 2008 12:16 AM:Please forgive them Father, for they know not of whence they speak.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:14 AM:to Amused, re post of 8/20, 12:16 AM: Thanks for reminding us of your illiteracy.
Regards

A Novel Idea wrote on Aug 20, 2008 10:37 AM:To make sure that "the will of the people" is always followed, why not do away with state and federal Supreme Courts altogether?

We should resolve all issues of constitutionality through referendum. To read the postings, your average "Faith and Values" poster has more constitutional law authority than the judges right?

What could possibly go wrong?

To John the Baptist Not wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:53 PM:Alas! How could it come to pass that in the year 2008 A.D., the one who was called to baptize the sinful and to warn them of the Advent of Jesus Christ is flailing at Christians, even as he continues to tread the effluent of the Sea of Galilee. And considering that thou wast filled with the Holy Ghost from thy mother’s womb, such invective dost thou use! Mayhap thy leathern girdle is a bit tight about thy loins, or thy raiment of camel's hair has begun to exude an odor most foul. Perchance thou hast tired of the meat of locusts and wild honey. Might it be that unfortunate conjunction of time and place wherein Herod, filled with lust for the damsel Salome, offered to fulfill her greatest wish, and she returned unto him saying – at her mother’s behest – that she willed that he give her the head of John the Baptist. Such an obsequious gesture on his part must have been an excruciating experience for thee, particularly when they smote thy neck. How heavy must be the burdens of a soothsayer, and worse still, to have born them for over 2,000 years. But enough with the small talk. Prithee tell us – mellifluently – John, where is it recorded in Holy Scripture that man shall marry man, that woman shall marry woman, and that their flesh shall become as one?

Three D wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:56 PM:The post responding to John the Baptist at 7:53 p.m. echoes the letter from Richard Wible that sparked this dialgoue, when he hints at the passage in Leviticus 18:22 referring to same-sex relationships as "an abomination."
Does this writer really believe the Bible to be literal and inerrant? Really?
How consistent is he?
Just wondering if he is equally supportive of Leviticus' use of the same word "abomination" to describe eating pork or shrimp in chapter 11.
He further hints at a reference to marriage between men and women only, not between men/men or women/women. Again, how consistent is his adherence to Biblical marriage?
Right there in the Law of Moses (Deut 21:15-17 and elsewhere), his Bible defines "traditional marriage" as one man with multiple underage prepubescent females from the same ethnic tribe, in arranged marriages, maintaining "dominion" over these wives the same as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
Based on his adherence to Leviticus, does this writer join letter-writer Wible and seek to pass a Constitutional Amendment preserving the sanctity of "traditional dietary laws" by outlawing the "abomination" of pork and shrimp, and allow polygamous "marriages" with underage girls? And those who mock and denounce the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) merely show how far they have strayed from Bible-based "traditional marriage."
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:29 AM:to "To John the Baptist Not": Read my post of 8/16, 9:43 AM.
Regards

Oh Please is right wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:32 PM:I've been married for a few decades and when the law allowed homosexuals to marry I paid really, really close attention to see if anything changed in my relationship with my spouse. So far, no impact on us. I felt no urges to cheat on her, to throw her out of the house, or anything else. Seems to me that if you feel that YOUR marriage is destroyed, that's the doing of your own mind, not of the world.

To Wiley wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:11 AM:Your choice of moniker belies your paucity of original thought: perhaps that is why you misspell it. Pointing to the rantings of "You're so right" can hardly be considered a factual rebuttal. The adage "Two wrongs don't make a right" is apposite. Perhaps you have a thought of your own making to add to the discussion.

To John the Baptist Not wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:40 AM:I concur with your explanation of the reasons that shrimp and pork were considered an abomination in Moses' time and do not discount entirely the rationale you use to explain Mosaic Law; however, you failed to answer my question. The concept of marriage between one man and one woman was articulated by Jesus Christ and preserved for posterity in the New Testament, not the Torah. Thanks to relativism and judicial activism, it may no longer be the law of humankind, but it remains the law of nature and of nature's God.

To Oh Please is right wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:00 AM:Those who share your narrow world view apply similar illogic to defend same-sex marriage. They fail to consider its implications for their progeny. The purpose of marriage is that of starting a family and having children, not merely to effect the union of two adults. Children need positive role models to guide and nurture them during their formative years. They emulate their parents. Boys tend to look at their fathers and girls tend to look at their mothers as role models. Having parents of one or the same sex limits their opportunity for that kind of interaction. How many women could teach their sons to play football? How many fathers would know how to raise their daughters as well as their mothers could? This issue has nothing to do with threatening existing heterosexual marriages and everything to do with destroying the concept upon which societies have been built for thousands of years. Think about it.

Three D wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:36 AM:For the second time in four weeks, the paper has not printed Faith and Values letters. Is this part of the current wave of cutbacks? Not enough participation by the anti-evolution creation folks after they effectively conceded the issue? No longer interested in the four of us who actually join in the discussion here?
If I recall my understanding of how Faith and Values was created as a separate section in the first place, and I might be wrong, it was not so much to give those discussing relgious questions a forum "of our own," but because those in the main letters page were annoyed by having to wade through our comments (though I never could understand why they don't just skip the ones they're not interested in, as I do). I'm hoping the editor will make an announcement if they intend to discontinue the separate section for religious letters, and then just print our letters in with the regular letters. Who knows, we might actually get a wider readership that way!
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:05 AM:to "To John the Baptist Not" & "To Oh Please is right": Granted, the ideal is a family where children are reared by their loving, biological father and mother. But in these days, the ideal is not often attained: there are single parents, remarried parents, uncaring parents, etc. Given that, I believe the next-best to the ideal is a committed, responsible couple who make the considered decision to rear children.

Regarding "the law of nature and of nature's God": Paul wrote " 9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:9-10 NIV) Should we follow this New Testament injunction?

Regarding marriage for the purpose of child-rearing: Paul wrote: "8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9, NIV) I can assure you that men do not burn to procreate.
Regards

STIPULATE wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:40 PM:to 3D, post at 10:36 AM: The NCT should discontinue the Faith and Values Letters PERMANENTLY. You and a few others on here pontificate and blabber on and on about what you think and it's really gotten to be ONE BIG BORE! You say NOTHING NEW, it's just the same old record playing the same old tune OVER AND OVER AND OVER. NCT: Faith and Values Letters are the playground of only a FEW, they insult those who offer other views or contradict them. Use the space for something BETTER PLEASE! The 4 or 5 people who almost wholly dominate this venue must not have a life other than writing blogs which bloat their already over inflated egos. So stop it already!

Apollo wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:52 PM:Re: Stipulate (1:40 p.m.)
Four or five who participate here? No one cares?
I noticed YOU cared enough to click on this page, wait for it to load, and even contribute your own two cents worth.
And that's all it was worth.
Thanks for participating.

STIPULATE wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:15 PM:NCT: "Apollo's" gratuitous and sarcastic remarks at 1:52 PM prove my contention that this blog venue AND the Faith and Value Letters SHOULD BE CANCELLED PERMANENTLY. This was my first venture into this demented blogosphere and upon reading blogs here and for a few back, I note that "Apollo" is an especially egregious and nasty individual. I am totally surprised that you allow him/her/it to post AT ALL. Purusing prior blog (blabs) here gives me the impression that the few fanatics who do post on here incessently are probably not even as many as would at first blush appear. I am sure that what appear to be 4 or 5 habituees, are probably only one using different blogonyms. In any case, I am SURE that the TOTAL LACK of interest by 99.9% of your subscribers and readership in this outlandish land of diatribes and rants is and should be so OBVIOUS as to cause the editors to CANCEL this particular venue.

Oceansidian wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:21 PM:To Apollo: Other than your supercillious remarks and attitude, what do you ever have to say on here that is constructive and worth while? Cite an example. You can't? I thought so.

retrogrouch wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:02 PM:Could the posts of Stipulate really be Abacus, who, after getting his ears boxed by the reasoned debate of triple D, is throwing his sucker in the dirt and taking his ball and going home.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:28 PM:to STIPULATE: If you continue with the level of rage you've expressed here, you're going to endanger your health. You should seriously consider anger management therapy.
Regards

Apollo wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:05 PM:Re: Stipulate (2:15 p.m.) and Oceansidian (2:21 p.m.)
Really? That's the best you can do (two posts, 6 minutes apart, saying basically the same thing)?
You are whining and griping because someone in this comments page has offered facts and logic that you can't deal with, so you want to shut him up.
So you're going to complain because, what? That *I* don't offer comments that rise to your level of expectation. So sorry to disappoint you. I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.
Hey, how about the possibility that, in some forums you contribute, and in some comments you read and learn and maybe toss in an occasional side comment. Guess which one I am in this one?
Don't like it, then why are you still here?
LMAO

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:50 PM:to retrogrouch: Re your speculation that Stipulate and Abacus are one and the same. I think it's highly likely. The near apoplectic rage expressed in his/their posts is very similar, as is the repeated notion that "...what appear to be 4 or 5 habituees, are probably only one using different blogonyms."
Regards

Have you guys tried the hard copy wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:52 AM:The letters may very well be in the print edition, which makes me believe many of the regulars here use the section only as a crutch to give them the immediate gratification of seeing their own opinions and comments in print.

It seems to me, if another letter was never published on this site, but the forum was still available to you to make yourselves legends in your own minds, you would still use it.

After all, less than 25% of the comments here have anything to do with the actual letters published in the paper.

Three D wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:25 AM:To: Have you guys tried...
It seems that you are the one who has not checked the print edition.
There are no letters in this week's Friday Faith and Values section.
Blessings,
3D

ABACUS wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:55 AM:Re speculation that I am "Stipulate." Wrong. I do agree with some of Stipulate's remarks, but I do not agree that Faith and Values Letters or the blogs about them should be cancelled. The do provide a forum for the exchange of thought whether it be of religious subjects or scientific or whatever. I must say that the dialogue here is far different from that found elsewhere in the NCT being sometimes heated and even vociferous, yet in a way, intellectually stimulating. NCT: I vote to retain Faith and Values letters and I do hope that you will print them weekly as you have been doing. I do suspect that Stipulate may be right in saying that the readership of this venue is small, but even so, that isn't a reason to cancel it. After all, it takes up very little space in the paper and the numerous responses to it warrant its retention.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:35 PM:To "Have you guys tried the hard copy"
Congratulations on being the self-elected director of this blog. Your first mandate must be that from here forward it's OK for you to use this blog as you please, but everyone else should follow your sterile mindless guidelines. I’d like to suggest that you go buy your own newspaper or start your own blog (I’m confident either would be wildly popular) and let others here express themselves as they please. As ThreeD commented at 8:25, it appears you don't even listen to your own advice. It's OK, neither do the rest of us.

CAVEL wrote on Aug 23, 2008 4:27 PM:Stopped by and saw "Stipulate's" posts. I think rebuttals that include derogatory personal comments are devalued. Addressing the substance of his remarks, I would say that I seriously doubt that NCT will discontinue Faith and Values Letters. I would also comment that the blogs appearing here do repeat the same material sometimes, but not inordinately so. I think that is done to simply reply to those who hold a different view. As I have told Ruminator on here previously, I think that many the points made here are lost and obscurred by the continual exchange of personal insults. These are counteproductive and should be avoided, in my opinion. I personally am concerned when anyone tries to force their views on others by dint of law, regulaton or intimidation. In particular the teaching of religious doctrinces such as creationism and intelligent design offend the Constitution and so do governmental programs that are "faith based." I told Ruminator on here previously that I doubt that comments supporting the teaching of evolution in the public schools as opposed to religious doctrine being so taught, were largely a waste of time and effort in any attempt to convince IDers to change their minds. However, some of the comments really do call for a response, albeit failed. I suspect that most people are blase and unconcerned about these issues, but I do believe that somebody said something like, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Join the ACLU and Americans for Separation of Church and State, or at least support them if you are of like disposition.

Laughing at SlipStream wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:43 PM:If your jab at "Have you guys" had any credence, or disputed "Have you guys" contentions, a handle like SlipStream, John The Baptist, Apollo, Three D, Abbacus, Cathar, snerd, et al, would only be seen once, instead of repeating with every comment...unless of course by "wildly popular" you meant wildly popular by you for seeing your screen name in print over and over again...which was the point "Have you guys" was making, was it not?

You should be more satisfied with the content of your comments than you byline.

A Plea to Three D wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:26 AM:Sir,

Like it or not, you seem to be the Elder Statesman, of sorts, on this site. You have quite a following of those who hang on your every word, and seem to have appointed themselves as "defenders of the faith[less]", probably because they are not as articultae or as well versed as you, but they enjoy your "in your face" approach to clearly, unwavering (albeit, unthinking) zealots.

And, please sir, I am not throwing perjorative at you, because I respect the thoughtfulness and civility you bring to this page, although I cannot say the same for some of your court-jesters, who you probably have no real affinity for, knowing their lack of intellectualism.

But enough of my ramblings.

My plea to you is to lead us out of this blackout that is either intentionally, or incidently, layed over us by this publication by their apparent oversite or blatant reluctance to print letters, as you so accurately noted, twice in the past two fortnights.

Present a topic for us, giving your insight, for us to respond to.

Then, you can, as you so aptly do, hightlight our missteps and temper us with your reasoning.

At least the dialogue will continue.

Peace be with you, brother.

Three D wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:04 AM:To: "A Plea" at 3:26 a.m.
Thank you for your gracious comments and civility; I appreciate it.
A few clarifications:
a. I submit comments when I have something to say, usually in response to a misstatement someone has made about the content or history of the generally-accepted canon of scripture or its theological implications. I do not make any effort to "perform on command," however well-intentioned (and civil) the request might be. But thank you for your interest.
b. A correction: I had noted that letters had been omitted twice in four weeks, not a fortnight. The word "fortnight" is a (probably outdated) term that is contracted from "fourteen nights" and refers to a two week, not four week, period.
c. If you review my comments of 8/22 upon discovery that letters had again been omitted, you will see that I asked some questions. I did not object or complain. The North County Times is a private, for-profit news business and, in a time of cutbacks generally for the print media, there are going to be changes. As a consumer, I am interested in keeping track of how our news experience will be changing, if that is what is happening. I am fine if they want to consolidate our religion letters with the general-interest letters, though I suspect it is the general-interest readership who might find it problematic. I even noted that it might even provide a broader readership for our letters (and, in any case, there are also other venues available for such dialogues) and, who knows, give people something to think about who had not considered such points of theology in the past - often just nodding their heads in unquestioned acceptance of what they hear in those Sunday sermons between attempts to keep from nodding off.
Blessings,
3D

Hey dude wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:43 AM:He said two fortnights...that is four weeks. I don't know much about the Bible, but I know my days and how to count them.

the preacher wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:12 PM:Dear Sheep,
There is no evidence for the existance of your god(s) (other than a violent fairytale book you all seem to cling to so desperately). Proof that brain-washing works especially when you get indoctrinated early on. But don't get me wrong, I love to take your money every weekend, but got to laugh at your ignorance.

Three D wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:42 PM:"Hey Dude" at 11:43 a.m. correctly notes that the comment I was responding to said "TWO fortnights" - which, in my haste, I missed.
I was wrong and stand corrected.
Boy, I am sure glad I don't claim inerrance or infallibility. No waffling or tortured mental gymnastics is required when I am proven to be human. Just apologize and acknowledge the error.
Blessings,
3D

Just a hunch about the preacher wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:36 PM:...You are going to have to try much harder to work the crowd into a frenzy here, son!

What the censor took away wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:03 PM:My hunch is the only money who have taken from people is through the drive thru window at the fast food joint you work at...

SlipStream wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:14 PM:To Laughing at SlipStream: I'm sorry but I don't understand your 10:43 post (assuming it was directed at me).