Three D wrote on Aug 29, 2008 10:01 AM:Ruth Burkhart and Howard Killion continue their desperate attempt to fabricate non-existent predictions of Jesus. Undoubtedly there are some references in these passages that have some resemblance to the Jesus story, which is exactly why some have, in their hopeful desperation, tried to link them to Jesus. However, the fact remains that these references are remote and vague, and could apply to many other individuals. There is nothing that links them exclusively to Jesus.
Problematic for such an interpretation is the fact that there are specific references that explicitly disqualify Jesus as the subject, such as stating that the subject of the passage would live a long life and see his descendants (Jesus died young and childless).
We have repeatedly discussed Isaiah 53, to the point that Killion now even concedes the point of "the identity of Isaiah's 'suffering servant.'" That being the case, all subsequent references to Jesus are simply a tremendous non-sequitur. If the passage is not about Jesus, then why do they keep citing it as such?
But now Burkhart brings in Psalm 22:16-18. Here we go again. Yes, the references to piercing of hands and feet and casting lots relate to the Jesus story, but also to any of the thousands of others who suffered execution by crucifixion. However, as with Isaiah 53, there are also disqualifying factors. In verse 16 it says he is surrounded by dogs. Earlier, in verse 12, it says he is beset by the "strong bulls of Bashan," which is an ancient reference to Syria. Jesus was executed by Romans, not Syrians.
Burkhart dismisses Jesus' teaching from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:21). She says that the deeds are motivated by faith. Yes, I have said that many times, but that the mechanism of salvation is the deeds - however, she goes off the edge using that in regard to this passage since this is not one of the places where Jesus talks about faith. He does not mention it here at all. Burkart has inaccurately referenced this passage; it actually shows the opposite of what she claims.
And Killion complains that my depiction of Jesus is "tame." Sorry, but facts are the facts. I'm sorry that taking away all the magic and supernaturalism that you find so exciting leaves you so disappointed. I'm sorry that you find Jesus' bold, revolutionary teaching of universal compassionate love for all people (neighbors, strangers, enemies and "the least of these"), is so disappointingly tame.
I'll admitted that I was somewhat disappointed, too, when it was time to learn the truth about Santa Claus, that it represents a magical sense of selfless giving, but that there is not really a jolly fat elf who leaves presents under the tree.
Blessings,
3D

I knew it wrote on Aug 29, 2008 11:26 PM:I did'nt have time to warn Ruth and Howard that it is against the rules to bring into question the opinions of Davis.

You see, its 3D's job to question everyone elses ideas.

And, just for good measure, because he doesn't fill the web site with long winded psuedo-theology, he adds a letter to the hard copy edition so he can lure you into a critique and humble you with his pontificaitons.

She Said wrote on Aug 30, 2008 6:53 AM:Religion is an off switch to the brain.

typical I knew it wrote on Aug 30, 2008 7:56 AM:Don't you love it? DDD speaks clearly about something that contradicts or shoots down what a person believes. The person offers arguments as to why he thinks DDD is wrong, but DDD comes back with detailed facts that once again shoot down his beliefs. Will the person change his opinion? Not a chance! Instead, since facts and logic have failed, the person shifts to insults, saying that intelligence and clarity are bad things, that DDD is an elitist. Pathetic. Desperate. Typical. And for what? To avoid that worst of all things: learning something and changing your opinion! Great job "I knew it". You did "know it" and you always will, no matter what. No one can teach you anything, that's for sure.

Atta Boy I Knew It wrote on Aug 30, 2008 8:35 AM:If you can't debate on a similiar intellectual level, just mock the poster. LOL

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:47 AM:to All: How about a change of topic? In the debate about the proposed same-sex marriage ban, proponents argue that one man one woman is the ideal parental unit. But not all such parental units are ideal - and in some case, far from it. I was reminded of this by two articles on the Back Page. One concerned a mother who microwaved her baby to death. The other described how a father placed a knife in the hand of his seven year old daughter, then held her hand while stabbing the family cat to death. Talk about family values! Obviously these are extreme cases, or they wouldn't have been in the news. But there are many, less-obvious ways children can be abused.
I believe that a homosexual couple who are committed to marriage and have made the considered decision to raise children are far more likely to do a better job than the norm of heterosexual couples.

Thanks JTB wrote on Aug 30, 2008 12:26 PM:I guess the Idea of one man one woman is the ideal setting to raise children because that is the ideal picture we have painted and it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. (please don't get into cloning and petri dishes) I myself, had a baby out of wedlock, I was 22 when he was born. I was a single mom for many years, it was very hard, but I wouldn't change a moment of it. When I finally decided to get married my son was 9 yrs old. My husband and I had a very mixed marriage bringing in kids from each of us and had custody of a few more. All of our kids had their friends over ALL THE TIME. Our house was the house to be at. For the most part, The kids all had two parents (mom/dad) at home. Only the parents didn't take care of them or didn't care that they were at my house for days on end and we were feeding them, making sure they did home work and going to school etc. I was one of the Murphy Brown punches and soon became the mom to the kids of "from the right setting"
A single mom that I was very good friends with just told me her 15 year old son just "came out of the closet" A man that I know is 28 years old, raised wonderfully by his mom and dad came out two tears ago. Tends to maked me believe the we are born with it theory. Raising kids is a big responsibility, it's a hard job and you don't get weekends off. I know mom/dad that raise there kids in loving home and do everything right, I also know some who don't do everything right. I know single moms and single dads that do everything right and some that don't. I guess it is up to the individual couple no matter what gender relationship, to put forth the best effort. I know my gay male friend told me he would never have children in a gay relationship, he feels very strong that it is wrong. That is his decision, and there won't be any surprise visits from the stork. Personally, I think every child deserves a good home with a good
parent(s)
Thanks for the fork in the road
Peace be with you

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 30, 2008 1:28 PM:to "Thanks JTB": Bless you: What a beautiful post! Indeed, what children need, above all, is to be cherished.
Peace be with you as well

Mike Magee makes a good point wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:14 PM:The same point can be applied to those anxious to teach creationism or intelligent design instead of evolution.

Now before you get your skivvies in a knot, notice I used the word "instead", because I have no issue with teaching both...one in a science course and one in a social studies course.

When you, more moral or religious reasons reject evolution, there is no big deal. But, when students are denied the science much of our technology based industry subscribes to, you eliminate that student's marketability in the working sector.

Its even worse when evolution is rejected and censured in the school years before college. Those students will have a difficult time winning acceptance to prestigious colleges.

And, to assume a teacher or professor wields so much influence in forming the opinions and beliefs of students, really indicates a disrespectful lack of confidence in the intellectual ability of the student.

You can be exposed to, even be taught controversial topics without becoming another one of the sheep.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 30, 2008 11:01 PM:to "Mike Magee makes a good point", re "You can be exposed to, even be taught controversial topics without becoming another one of the sheep." Excellent point. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I have read many works challenging my position regarding evolution and religious belief: Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution", Dawkins' "The God Delusion", Milton's "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", and most recently, Stove's "Darwinian Fairytales" and Spetner's "Not by Chance." Each book challenges me to defend my beliefs: in that process my beliefs are strengthened.

Of course I enjoy books that reflect my worldview. One of my favorites is Miller's "Finding Darwin's God." But challenge is where strength is derived.

Regards

CAVEL wrote on Aug 31, 2008 5:04 PM:To JTB and to "Thanks JTB" and to others interested in "same-sex" marriages, etc: From the San Francisco Chronicle, August 28. 2008" "The results [of a poll] suggest that 54 percent of likely voters will say no to Proposition 8, the proposal to ban same-sex marriage, come November." Interestingly, 8 years ago 55 percent of "likely" voters opposed same-sex marriage. Is this not "social evolution?" In my humble opinion, "gay" rights are the current nexus of the civil rights movement. Old red-necks like Sam Nunn may have bolstered the "don't ask, don't tell" homophobic rule of our armed forces, but he and his kind are dying out; being replaced by a new and more enlightened generation. There was a time when it was chic and fashionable in many American locales to use the "N" word and to extol segregation. Such sub-cultures still exist, but they have decreased greatly in number and now it is considered low-class, vile and moronic to use that word. So it has gone with the "Q" word. That you feel it necessary to defend "gay" rights is understandable in these times, but to me at least, it appears that there is a gradual change for the better, for compassion, for tolerance, for understanding, for repect of others and their culture and values. Respect, so long as that culture and that value does not harm others. Let us hope that the time will come when asserting the civil rights of "gays" would seem as odd as defending motherhood and apple pie, that is, such an assertion would seem a statement of the obvious to all but the most dense and backward. By the way, I find capital punishment to be a barbaric and loathesome way to deal with capital crime. Peace.

CAVEL wrote on Aug 31, 2008 5:20 PM:To 3D: It appears to me that you argue over the details of biblical mythology by appealing to authority, that is to say, merely quoting from various parts of the bible and then contrasting those citations with those of your opponent. Although that may be an interesting exercise in rhetoric and reminiscent of high school debating teams, I fail to see its value, ultimately. You also seem to concentrate on a very few issues of the biblical mythology. As an atheist, it amazes me that you seem to repeat the same arguments over and over about matters that are in this day and age, unimporant, arcane and irrelevant. I say all of this with due respect, and I know from your past reactions that you become very defensive and sensitive to any perceived criticism, but I really do believe that you have the intellect to engage in more worthwhile and benefical pursuits. Peace.

SlipStream wrote on Aug 31, 2008 7:49 PM:Great posts Cavel!!

Apollo wrote on Aug 31, 2008 7:57 PM:Re: Cavel (5:20 p.m.)
You've made it very clear that discussing the nuances of scripture and whether or not it is infallible or has internal inconsistencies is not a subject that interests you.
It is a subject that others, especially those who grew up being indoctrinated with the Bible as being "inerrant and infallible," do find this subject to be of interest.
I have never been able to figure out why people who find a subject uninteresting spend so much time hanging out where that is the subject being discussed.

John the Baptist wrote on Aug 31, 2008 9:33 PM:to Cavel: Thanks for the update on Prop 8. I agree that "gay rights are the current nexus of the civil rights movement." We can look back and see how far we've come, and indeed there has been change for the better. I have some personal historical perspective, having been brought up in Texas during the days of "Separate But Equal". Black and White facilities were certainly separate, but Blacks were equal only in law, not in practice. And that's was considered acceptable (barely) then, except by those who wanted to put those "uppity" (racial slurs) in their place. I wonder, are those "the good old days" that the Christian Fundamentalist right wants us to return to?
Regards

Oh John did you really say that wrote on Aug 31, 2008 11:25 PM:"We can look back and see how far we've come, and indeed there has been change for the better."

There may have been "change", but the quantity of change is a matter of perception. If there has been change, the change has not been significant enough to many blacks, including myself, who still feel the reality and sting of racism every day of our lives.

I'll take the heat for assuming you are a white man, but surely you understand how even well intended a comment you made, coming from a white man, would seem patronizing, offensive, inconsiderate, and just plain wrong to a black man.

I'm not judging you, John, just giving you something to think about from my point of view.

to Cavel wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:19 AM:I believe your criticism of 3D might be amiss, though I'm not sure. We do see 3D debating here, and he does make one point repeatedly...but it's a rather momentous point! We shouldn't assume, however, that this is all he thinks about. This is the realm limited to arguments about the Bible, and a lot of people who seem to have it wrong in crucial ways spout off here frequently (and even try to direct national policies based on their erroneous and self-serving views!). So I'm glad that 3D is willing to weigh in against these heretics repeatedly. They are, it seems, both wrong and dangerous. It could well be that 3D does pursue other interests!

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:03 AM:to "Oh John did you really say that": My apologies. I guess it's obvious I speak from a "white" perspective. I'll stand by my basic statement that much progress has been made. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it has been entirely too slow in coming. But as we progress, our horizon advances, and we can see more clearly how much more remains to be done. In my defense, I think it says a lot that Barack Obama has the Democratic nomination and an excellent chance of becoming our next president.
Regards

CAVEL wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:29 AM:to JTB & "Oh John...": I too remember the Jim Crow laws of the South. But then again, in Las Vegas, as recently as 30 years ago, blacks were not welcome in most casinos and were always told that all the rooms had been sold out if they applied for one. I agree with "Oh John..." that racism is still a problem, but it's a problem that concerns us ALL, not only African Americans, but all of us. Discrimination and hatred affect us all in one way or another be we gay, lesbian, black, asian, latino or simply a white denied promotion or a job by a minority employer because once again dislike of another because of race rears its ugly head. I do not believe for a moment that African Americans have a lock on this problem, but on the contrary I have witnessed discrimination practiced by them as well. This is a human and cultural problem, not simply a case of the old paradigm of white versus black. That is far too simplistic. It is obvious that as time has gone by attitudes and policies and laws and court decisions have evolved, for the better. I am positive that even 20 years ago an African American would NOT have been nominated by a major party to be President of the United States. Now millions support that decision. NO member of any race or culture can claim that they and they alone know the sting of discrimination because in one way or another we have ALL felt its pain. I know that in the African American community, I know this from personal observation, homophobia is as alive and rampant as it is in any other culture. So let's not pretend that only one segment of society is involved, but rather let us all move forward to further the love of our fellow beings and compassion and understanding of others. As Mother Theresa simply quoted from the Bible, "Love one another." Yes, from the Bible, and though I am an atheist I can not say it better and that sentiment is to me the key. My education was in a science and my mentors did not speak much of philosophy or religion, but most of them espoused the values I have adopted and for that I am thankful. Not all were atheists, not all were without fault, but I was lucky indeed to have had them as role models.

Apollo wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:40 AM:Re: To Cavel (7:19 a.m.)
I remain absolutely amazed at the extent to which bloggers here - at least the ones who do not actually know 3D in the offline world - remain absolutely fascinated with his personal life, even as they avoid actually engaging him on the substance of his comments.
I see that there is exactly one web comment so far on this page since last Friday, as well as a very few on some of the other pages. I'm sure that leaves 3D plenty of time for whatever "other interests" you think it appropriate to decide for him he should be allowed to engage in.

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:23 PM:to Three D: I saw "Alf" chiding you over on the Calif. blog, and I was reminded of one of my favorite quotes that would stand you in good stead in responding to such criticisms. Bertand Russell provided as an example of declension of irregular adjectives, the following: "I am firm, you are obstinate, he is pig-headed"
Regards

Three D wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:11 PM:To John the Baptist at 8:23 p.m.:
Yes, I did see the comment by Alf, but I did not see that he was chiding me, but rather agreeing with me and criticizing the "ignornace" of a person about whose letter I had asked some questions.
But maybe I'm just a "chalice half full" kind of guy.
Blessings,
3D

Careful Cavel wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:55 PM:Sometimes comments like, " I do not believe for a moment that African Americans have a lock on this problem, but on the contrary I have witnessed discrimination practiced by them as well," is rationalization, justification, defense of, or just an excuse for racism by the group we happen to belong to.

Other similar thoughts that make me cringe include, "Some of my best friends are (chose the minority of your choice)."

I offer my thoughts, not as a stinging accuasation, Cavel, just as a side note.

I like D too wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:13 PM:But gee, Apollo and JTB seem to be so in awe of the guy, its almost like a scary little cult.

Fortunately 3D seems like a reasonable fella, so I don't worry about him offering the Kool-aid that some of you guys sound like you would partake without a thought!

Apollo wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:00 AM:Re: I like D too (11:13 p.m.)
Don't get carried away. There is a difference between sincere and well founded respect for a person and "drinking the Kool-Aid."
The fact is, we are fortunate to have a contributor of this caliber participating here.
The only way a person who writes so few blogs or letters can end up being accused of "dominating" a discussion is solely by the strength of his positions, which detractors find unassailable.
The point is that we are not "drinking the Kool Aid" because "Kool Aid" is not what 3D is selling.
He is pointing out to others the Kool Aid in their own glasses. Or chalices.

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:02 AM:to "I like D too": Apparently you haven't noticed that when the issue of Bible contradiction is raised, I defer to Three D and retire to the sidelines because it's outside my area of expertise, with one exception: the categorical claim that the Bible is inerrant.
Regards

CAVEL wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:27 AM:To: "Careful Cavel:" You completely misunderstand my post. ALL of us, regardless of ethnicity, sexual orientation or whatever carry with us the demons of discrimination, hatred, envy and prejudice. Until ALL of us can admit that and then try to see and deal with our faults, we go on and on believing that we are without blemish and that the problem is that "other guy." We carry with us those negatives with which we were imbued by our own culture and childhood experiences. It is interesting that you interpreted my comment as a justification for racism when the it is obvious that the opposite was intended. You mouth the usual and trite language of those who pretend to abhor racism, but in fact are racists at heart. You have no knowledge of what race I am, yet you assume to know. My message is obvious in my prior post and for you to distort it into something it is not is simply wrong. I highly recommend to you that educate yourself by reading such works as "The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon Allport. Of course, whether or not yours is a "stinging accuasation" matters not at all. I am never "stung" by the comments of others. Either I disregard those comments or I learn from them. In your case the former is true, albeit my need to respond to a public post which twisted my meaning into something it is not.

Cavel me thinkest... wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:24 PM:you protest too much.

I never claimed to know what race you were, I simply stated the comment you made was typical of comments often made to justify racist behavior

I even was careful to use "we" and not you, and closed with a special note that I was not accusing you of anything, just noting human behavior...and wow, I get your reply frought with self-righteous indignation.

Sometimes those feeling guilty of things make a lot of noise. Just another one of those observations on human nature, and please don't take it personally.

Athenian wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:25 PM:The comments of 3d are beyond boring. They are platitudinous nonsense which repeat the same old refrain over and over and over. 3D is merely an amateur book reviewer who poses as some kind of theological expert, which he is NOT. "Paul was a renegade apostle and he contradicted Jesus, blah, blah, blah. You are completely wrong about Isaiah 53, blah, blah blah..." Good grief! Get a life 3D and for heaven's sake GROW UP. And stop using those silly AKA blogonyms to express your hostility while you hide behind the equally silly blogonym of 3D. And btw don't pose as "Apollo" and say that those who disagree with you should not be reading these posts. This venue is not yours and anybody who wants to criticize your ridiculous diatribes is as free to do that as you are to blat your nonsense.

Oh and Cavel wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:26 PM:For disregarding my comments, you sure had a lot to say! LOL! Have a good day, brother.

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 2, 2008 3:10 PM:to Athenian: So, Stipulate, you're "Athenian" today. Did your mommy get you a random handle generator to play with? How childish! Wwth all due respect, why don't You grow up?

Doc B wrote on Sep 2, 2008 4:16 PM:"...a random handle generator." "Handle"??? I haven't seen that term used in a long while. Hey dude, what's your "handle?" JTB I think you are dating yourself. That goes back to the days when citizen band radios were in style. Like 50 years ago! Regards....and by the way, don't you usually sign off with "regards?" Or were you so flustered by Athenian's comments that you forgot? It appears that 3D needs others to speak for him. This gets curiouser and curiouser. Oh, that's right, it's beneath 3D's dignity to reply in other than purple prose. He saves the mad dogging for his his alter egos, JTB, Apollo and so sickening forth.

Apollo wrote on Sep 2, 2008 4:49 PM:Re: Athenian (1:25 p.m.)
First, thank you for the compliment. I would be thrilled to take credit for 3D's blogs (and letters), but if I did then you'd start accusing me of plagiarism and, moreover, at least in this webpage that would not so complimentary to 3D (and, speaking of "blogonyms" as you call them, were you really unable to figure out where 3D's monicker came from? - think, DDD - look at the letters from the print edition in the first section of this page....)

In any case, I notice you are just like the others (oooh, maybe you're all really the same person) who have all this pent-up frustration because 3D makes you really, really uncomfortable - really moves you out of your comfort zone - and you really, really don't like it, but you can't actually show where he is wrong. The more I see this happen, the more convinced I am that he is on very, very solid ground.

And I am really trying to understand the conservative mind here. On the main letters page, much is made today about the hypocrisy of religious conservatives who moralize to everyone else while their own moral house is badly, badly out of balance.
And now, today, with your blog, we see one of the most overtly HOSTILE comments ever posted, while alleging that 3D is "expressing hostility."
But to actually read 3D's letters or comments, one can find nary a word of anger or hostility.
Your own hypocrisy and HOSTILITY is no doubt the result of your unfortunate frustration.

Lay it to rest Doc wrote on Sep 2, 2008 5:39 PM:Apollo and JTB are not alter egos of 3D.

Apollo and JTB simply view this space as their Dungeons and Dragons domain, and 3D is the strong game-spirit they wish they could become, so being an ever faithful follower is good enough

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 2, 2008 6:47 PM:to Doc B: As you perceptively noted, I dated myself. I need to update my grammar and spell checker. At least, currently it flags verily forsooth, methinks, and the like, but the language keeps changing.

I was not flustered by Athenian's trash talk. I deliberately omitted "Regards". As I sad, "with all due respect": none was due.

I believe Three D would prefer that no one respond to drivel such as that from Athenian, but I have to express my utter disdain for cowards who hide behind phony names, With all due respect, of course.

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:04 PM:to All: And now for something entirely different. Currently I'm reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," and was thinking about that while composing my earlier "baby in the microwave" post. Infanticide has been observed in a variety of creatures. One case is where the mother is under great stress and intuitively realizes she's not going to be able to save her offspring and herself. Despite acculturation, might a human mother, under similar stress, and with inhibitions dulled by alcohol, revert to the same animal instinct? If not, might it serve as a "twinky defense"?

I'm also looking at altruism. Is the nurturing that a mother normally provides for her child/children an example of altruism, or, as Dawkin's proposes, the result of a selfish gene? Or is there any difference?

The cultural definition of altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. Does true altruism actually exist? Consider an extreme case. A soldier falls on a live grenade to save his comrades -- the ultimate sacrifice. But he would forever be commemorated as a hero. In his mind, might not the reward exceed the cost? Even if it did in that case, what would be the likelihood that a soldier of the same mind set would fall on a live grenade to save the lives of the enemy soldiers he had just captured?

Regards

To John on altruism wrote on Sep 3, 2008 7:06 AM:My doctorate is animal behavior, and I add that a considerable amount of my study is in the behavior of not only our furry friends, but those other animals: people.

Altruism in animals and humans cannot be compared, probably because of the greater capacity of reasoning by humans, and the greater instinctual behavior of animals.

The classic definition of altruism in humans involves a conscious decision to act selflessly for others.

In animals, it is a behavior that in not necessarily harmful to the critter exhibiting altruism, but be behavior of a single animal that benefits his species without necessarily doing harm to himself.

In regards to the example of the soldier on the grenade, such an act may not be an example of altruism, but an act of conditioning and training. And, like animalistic altruism, the soldier who would willingly fall on the grenade for his comrades but not for enemy prisoners of war, might be an example of not human intellectual altruism, but the animal altruism where instinct is driving the soldier to act in a way to benefit his "own kind", i.e., the soldiers of his own nation represent to him what the species of the altruistic behaving animal does.

I hope I added to the discussion, and didn't merely muddle it.

snerd wrote on Sep 3, 2008 12:58 PM:I'm just curious about teaching creationism or ID in social science class. Which creation myth would be used. Or if the most prevelent ones were used as examples, would not the christian right be just as offended at that as teaching evolution. My feeling is they would not be satisfied with anything less than teaching only the genesis (although which one of those is a problem) myth and nothing else.

Cynthia wrote on Sep 3, 2008 4:22 PM:to "John the Baptist" re"...my utter disdain for cowards who hide behind phony names..." So does that mean your real name is John the Baptist, or is that a phony name? Having read the posts on here, I thought you might be a decent person until I read that remark. Is that how you deal with people you disagree with: calling them nasty names and accusing them of using "phony names" when you do that yourself? I do believe that is called hypocrisy. I am sure you know that NCT rules for blogs forbid the use of real names. Or do you? Just curious. I can't imagine what you really are, but I suspect that you and many of the regulars on here are elderly men with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do.

Youre right snerd wrote on Sep 3, 2008 7:42 PM:In k-12 "creationism" would be a "survey" course, as pretty much all social studies courses are for kids...So, while Genesis would be discussed, so would the others, because Christians, whether they realize it or not, do not have a lock on creationism.

"Intelligent design" is the new-age term for acknowledging creationism without making it exclusive to Christianity.

So, yes, there would be a battle. Our Christian brothers have a knack for silliness such as that.

A typical Christian fundamentalist, after attacking atheists would next single out Catholics and Mormons, the after dispatching them, next they would be bickering over which, Pentacostals or Church of Christ member are "true" believers.

It just gets sillier and sillier!

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 3, 2008 8:53 PM:to "To John on altruism": Thanks for responding. Your input is certainly welcome.

I'm still pondering maternal instinct as altruism. Dawkins says it's just a specific case of kin selection, disagreeing with E.O. Wilson, a noted sociobiologist. I'm not sure whether Dawkins thinks of himself as a sociobiologist, but apparently he's willing to opine on the subject.

But if it is just a case of selfish genes looking after their replicas, my question is, what behaviors do they instigate to achieve their ends? It occured to me that a mother's "job" isn't finished as soon as the offspring are delivered. Mothers who suckle their young will be lactating and hormonal and thus probably need their offspring as much as they need her.

Of course, human mothers have recourse to drugs to halt lactation, and the majority of them do so. I wonder, could this cause some of the social ills we're experiencing today?

Regards

Three D wrote on Sep 3, 2008 9:20 PM:In response to the post from "You're Right Snerd":
You are mostly right, but I couldn't help but wonder why you assume that, after evangelical Protestant fundamentalists "single out Catholics and Mormons" (and I agree they would), that they would seemingly be "dispatching them."
What if they did not roll over so easy?
While Catholics and Mormons have plenty of flaws of their own that I have addressed when they come up, and they do have the problematic belief that the Bible is literally and inerrantly "true," (though the Mormons have some wiggle room with that phrase, "as far as it is translated correctly,"), the reason why evangelicals make the absurd claim that Catholics and Mormons are not real "Christians" (though both make worship of Jesus Christ the centerpiece of their doctrine, and the Mormons even have the name of "Jesus Christ" in the official title of the name of their faith), is because both Mormons and Catholics include demands for salvation that incorporate ACTIONS based on compassionate love.
This, of course, is what Jesus taught.
Evangelicals, following the renegade "apostle" Paul (who directly opposed Jesus), oppose those aspects of what Jesus taught that the Catholics and Mormons believe. Despite their many flaws, Catholics and Mormons both stand on much stronger ground than the evangelicals in their claim to be followers of Jesus.
I doubt they would roll over and be "dispatched" too easily.
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 3, 2008 9:34 PM:to Cynthia: I'm afraid you missed some of the context. Indeed, we must not use our real names, but you should have observed that regular bloggers here -- e.g, Three D, Apollo, Cavel -- are consistent in using the same ID all the time. Just scan the posts above and see how many do not.

I don't know how old one must be to be elderly. I am retired, which is fortunate since I'm the primary caregiver for my invalid wife. But between personal care for her, cooking, housekeeping, yard maintenance, shopping, and such, I do have a few minutes from time to time to post to this blog. I find it more stimulating than sitting in a rocker and watching the geraniums grow.
Regards

SlipStream wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:11 AM:Cynthia: You proudly scold John for calling people "nasty names" and then in the same breath you call John an "old man with nothing else to do." At what age do we become worthless baggage in Cynthia's Thigh Master universe? If you bothered to spend a few minutes thinking before typing you would have realized John was referring to a common writer to this blog who as a matter of habit runs from his ignorant comments by changing his name (ID) on a daily basis to pretend he is someone else. This is something John has not done, nor is it something John should respect. Sorry to take your time, I'm sure you need to get back to silencing the wrinkled and worthless masses. God bless you and Athenian, Abascus, etc. – may you both remain forever young.

Cynthia wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:22 AM:To: John the Baptist. Please accept my sincere apology. Now I understand clearly the basis of your comments. I am sorry that I categorized you in any negative way or anybody else who blogs on here. I guess yesterday was not one of my better days. I am a graduate student. My undergraduate major was biology with a minor in philosophy. I am now working on a M.S. in dept of biological sciences, UCSD with a specialization in developmental biology. I have the wonderful book, Nature Revealed by Edward Wilson, and I have read some of Dawkins and others such as Dennett a few years ago. The latter are not particularly germane to my studies, but I do share their conclusions. Again, I am sorry for my comments. Now, it's off to the lab for some more work on my biochem lab project.

John wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:12 PM:to Cynthia: Your apology is gladly accepted. I kind of thought you were having a bad day -- I've been there and done that, too. Also happy to hear you're "into" life sciences. We really need more people who understand and appreciate the role of science -- especially in government.

I gather you saw in my previous post that I'm reading "The Selfish Gene". I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I don't see eye-to-eye with Dawkins on the God thing, but I admire him immensely for his ability to communicate and for the fact that he has so much knowledge to communicate. In his book he says his best work is "The Extended Phenotype". I've bought it and will read it soon. However, Wilson's "Nature Revealed" that you mentioned sounds interesting: I'll put it on my short list.
Regards

John wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:07 PM:Just a question, with no malice intended. Are you at theistic evolutionist (which implies intensive academic studies) or someone who is well-read and in agreement with theistic evolutionism?

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:29 PM:to John, re post of 9/4, 7:07 PM: An interesting question. I hadn't previously heard from anyone inferring that "theistic evolutionist" implies intensive academic studies. I wish that description did apply to me, but briefly, my position is the latter case.
Regards

To Three D wrote on Sep 5, 2008 11:31 AM:Re: Sept 3, 9:20pm post.
Mormans are not Christian. They may have Jesus' name in the title of the Church, but they do not believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus is just another man who did good things.

Three D wrote on Sep 5, 2008 12:31 PM:The person addressing a response to me at 11:31 a.m. is gravely mistaken.
Mormons do believe that Jesus is the messianic savior and the literal son of God.
They do believe that Jesus takes upon himself the sins of others.
It is true that they do not have all the same beliefs as other Christians, but every Christian denomination has some points of doctrine on which they disagree - that is why they are a different denomination.
But my point remains: Mormons have a stronger claim on being Christians than evangelicals do.
While they still have the problem of trying to reconcile the direct contradictions between Jesus and Paul, claiming to accept those, at least they do come down on the side of Jesus more than Paul.
In contrast, evangelical Protestants, in their support of the renegade "apostle" Paul, are not Christians. They are anti-Christians.
Since Jesus taught salvation by actions based on universal compassionate love, and Paul said this does not lead to salvation, but rather "faith without deeds," please explain how you can call yourself a CHRISTian when you oppose what Jesus taught and embrace the teaching of the one who contradicted him.
Blessings,
3D

While I agree wrote on Sep 5, 2008 6:49 PM:that Mormans have a strong faith, and are not one of the "faith alone" sects,they are not Christains. LDS believe in the plurality of gods, not One God in three persons. LDS do not believe Jesus is God incarnate. Lds do not believe in the historical Jesus of the Bible, they believe Jesus is the son of an exalted man.

Question for you.

What religious sects do you believe to be anti Christain? And is your reasoning behind it based only on "following the renagade Paul"
Thank you for your time

Three D wrote on Sep 5, 2008 7:16 PM:The person responding at 6:49 p.m. epitomizes the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
This person clearly has some knowledge of Mormonism (except he/she can't spell it - the first time I could dismiss as a typo).
It is true that Mormons believe in multiple gods and that every mortal has the potential to become a god. This is an irrelevant tangential issue to whether they are Christians. If they believe Jesus to be the literal son of god, the atoning messiah, and the redeemer of sins - which they do - they are Christians!
Your statement that "LDS do not believe in the hitorical Jesus of the Bible" is wrong. While I might question whether the Bible is evidential of an "historic" Jesus, that is a different, tangential discussion for another day. However, Mormons (LDS) do believe in the Jesus of the Bible, so your assertion is false. They do believe the Bible to be inerrant, infallible scripture of God "as far as it is translated correctly." Not surprisingly, I would dispute their claim as much as any other Christian denomination, but to say that Mormons are not Christians merely because they have some different beliefs is laughably absurd, and shows terribly unchristian prejudice.

As to your question, "What religious sects do you believe to be anti Christain?" - that would be pretty much ALL faiths that call themselves "Christian" if they do not renounce and repudiate the renegade "apostle" Paul. Since Paul taught a theology of salvation completely, 100% 180 degrees opposite Jesus, if you do not denounce this anti-christ, then you join in his heresy. So in that sense, yes, even Mormons and Catholics would be antichristian, but lumped together with all the other nominal "Christians."
I have previously cited a list of specific statements from Jesus and Paul that are direct contradictions. This comment is already too long and I am feeling compassion for the poor editor who has to wade through it on a Friday night. But if you missed them the last several times I posted them and want me to post them again, I have them ready and can copy and paste to oblige.
Blessings,
3D

Gonna change my screen name wrote on Sep 5, 2008 8:42 PM:...to Phrophet.

On September 3 at 9:20, I told you it doesn't take long for "real" Christians to start banging on other Christian denominations as somehow less "Chirstian".

The Son of Man would be rolling over in his grave (and for those of you who are believers, just to keep peace, I add) had he not already risen from his grave.

Love each other,

Prophet

Three D wrote on Sep 5, 2008 8:57 PM:I am sad to report that there is deception in our little community of bloggers.
The person commenting at 8:42 p.m. with the handle "Gonna change my screen name" tries to take credit for a comment posted on 9/3 at 9:20 p.m.
Said comment was from me, NOT from this fraudulent impersonator.
As I have said before, I have prepared a unique signature by which legitimate comments from me can be recognized.
If it ain't signed in bold, the truth ain't bein' told.
(Someone here is a plagiarizing liar.)
Blessings,
3D

Three D wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:25 PM:Further to my comments at 8:57 p.m., I would be remiss if I did not give credit where credit is due.
Once before, someone began fraudulently blogging comments using my screen identity.
Right away, my friend DD Wiz, who usually posts political comments in the general letters' blog, contacted me with a suggestion for a personalized "signature" that would reduce the liklihood of fraudulent misrepresentation.
So - first and foremost - I owe appreciation to my friend DDWiz.
The Wiz, however, in his candid humility, also gave credit where credit is due, acknowledging that he was merely passing along a suggestion from another regular writer of letters to the editor who uses the blogonym "SOLON."
Since DDWiz seems to know Solon, but I do not, I also want to acknowledge the indrect contribution to SOLON for helping maintain a semblance of integrity in this blog. Thank you to my friend DDWiz and, indirectly, to SOLON.
Blessings,
3D

Apologies to D wrote on Sep 6, 2008 3:07 AM:Forgive me, 3D it was I who made an honest error in scrolling through the previous posts...Of course, the 9/3 post of 9:20 was yours, I was speaking of my post of 9/3 at 7:42 pm when I said to Snerd, "A typical Christian fundamentalist, after attacking atheists would next single out Catholics and Mormons, the after dispatching them, next they would be bickering over which, Pentacostals or Church of Christ member are "true" believers."

And, lo and behold, by 9/5 shortly after 11, someone was already claiming "Mormons are not Christians".

If you carefully review my "...change..." post of 9/5 at 8:42, my words, "... I told you it doesn't take long for "real" Christians to start banging on other Christian denominations as somehow less "Chirstian"." clearly point to my original post.

I am guilty of misrepresenting the time, but there was no intent to misrepresent you. Therefore, I humbly apologize profusely for my error. I was not trying to deceive anyone, or cause you any distress.

The beard is gray, and the eyes don't focus as sharply as they used to, and my short term memory is getting a little ragged...but I'm proud of my character, and can without hesitation say I would not intentionally have caused such a grevious error.

And, the whole "Prophet" thing was tongue in cheek...I knew another blogger would prove my point.

Peace

To Three D wrote on Sep 6, 2008 12:08 PM:The definition of Christian is, according to the Webster dictionary, “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus”. Jesus in the Bible is God incarnate. Jesus is Trinitarian “Father,Son,Holy Spirit”
My assertions are not false. Jesus taught he and God are ONE/Equal, not two separate. This is a very relevant and important teaching in Christianity. My assertion is true. If Mormons believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible, they have to believe in the Jesus of the Trinity. Otherwise cannot be considered a Christian religion. Do I think they are bad people, No! Do I feel I am being unchristian and prejudice for stating a fact, No.
For so long, you have been stating that if one goes along with Paul, he/she/ whole denominations are anti-Christian. You use Paul and the teaching of Faith vs. Works. To say whole sects are anti –Christian. How many of the sects that you criticize and call anti-Christian also believe that Jesus is the literal son of God, the atoning Messiah and the redeemer of sin. “Because they have different beliefs is laughably absurd”.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You should heed your own words.
By the way, you had some spelling errors in your last post.

Three D wrote on Sep 6, 2008 12:47 PM:The Apology at 3:07 a.m. is happily accepted, and very pleased to know that it was an honest mistake.
Since I have made plenty in my own life, I can certainly understand.
And, yes, you did earn the monicker "Prophet."
Blessings,
3D

Lost me in your last line... wrote on Sep 7, 2008 9:30 PM:..."To 3D" at 12:47 on 9/6.

You were making a good, coherent argument, frought with fact and little emotion until, "By the way, you had some spelling errors in your last post."

Making a big deal out of spell checking is most often a tell-tale sign that you have no confidence in your ability to critique another person's written opinions.

So you have some ammo, let me sign off with,

Profit :-)

Three D wrote on Sep 7, 2008 10:57 PM:With apologies, I missed the post addressed to me yesterday (Saturday 9/6) at 12:08 p.m.
It may have been posted out of sequence but, in any case, I missed it until seeing the reference by "Lost Me" tonight at 9:30 p.m.
1. I missed it. I am not perfect. I do not claim inerrancy or infallibility.
2. I make typos. I am not perfect. I do not claim inerrancy or infallibility.

Admissions of mortality aside, I stand by all of my previous statements, other than those which I have previously acknowledge to reflect my lack of perfection, inerrancy and infallibility.

Your citation of the definition of "Christian" is correct. While I do not necessarily acknowledge Websters as a theological authority, I do agree that this definition is correct:
"Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus."
Period. End of story.
The rest of it, that part about the trinity, you just made that part up!
I checked my Websters, and, by golly, your first line was there.
The rest of what you fabricated was not.
Mormons believe in (their interpretation of) the teachings of Jesus.
All denominations vary as to their interpretations of what Jesus taught; that is why there are so many different denominations.
And because the Bible is so filled with direct contradictions and internal discrepancies, there is plenty of room for conflicting interpretations.

Bible study for you: the word "Trinity" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. It is a construct devised later by humans to try to make sense of some teachings in the Bible.

The words about salvation by the deeds that you DO are in the Bible.
They are taught by Jesus, and reinforced later by his brother James, who directly contradicts Paul.
The words about salvation without deeds are also in the Bible.
They are taught by Paul.
Paul contradicts Jesus. Paul is opposite Jesus.
Opposite = Anti.
Paul (and those who follow him against Jesus) are anti-Christian.

The trinity is not in the Bible.
The direct and oppositional contradiction of Paul against Jesus is.
I have repeatedly given specific citations from Jesus and Paul respectively to support this.
Do you really want me to do it again?
Blessings,
3D

To Lost wrote on Sep 8, 2008 4:08 AM:You should address this to 3Dalso, since he pointed out my spelling mistakes. I know I do not spell well, Sorry if I lost you.

Three D wrote on Sep 8, 2008 7:44 AM:The person addresing "Lost" at 4:08 a.m. compares apples to fruitcakes.
I did not correct your typos or general spelling mistakes.
You repeatedly made one spelling error. You were writing about MORMONS and kept spelling it "MormAns." It was the same mistake over and over. It was the name of your subject. This was NOT A TYPO. It showed you did not even know how to spell the thing you were writing about.
It was a comment on a specific instance, which highlighted specific ignorance of the subject you were writing about, not a general comment on spelling and typos, which we all routinely make. Gee you seem awfully sensitive about it.
Blessings,
3D

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 8, 2008 9:43 AM:to "To Three D" regarding typos versus misspellings: When you typed "Marman", didn't you notice the red underline? Spell Checker put it there to flag it as misspelled. If you're that unobservant, it does raise questions about your observations in general.
Regards

To John the Baptist wrote on Sep 8, 2008 1:25 PM:Actually, I do not believe I ever spelled Mormon as "Marman". Sometimes my fingers just do the walking and I have typos and mispelling. I never said I could walk on water or spell.I didn't use the spell check in my first posts. But, thank you so much for pointing that out.

Three D wrote on Sep 8, 2008 3:30 PM:We all make typos.
The only one I called attention was to a person making repeated comments about Mormons, but who repeatedly spelled the word as "Mormans." Please note, that a typo is a random, careless error of the kind we all make.
When it is the same letter of the same word, is not a typo. It means you don't know how to spell the word.
So I tried to save the blogger the ongoing embarrassment of looking like you don't know what you're talking about when you can't even spell its name correctly, and pointed out the spelling error (not typo).
Blessings,
3D

Typos kill wrote on Sep 8, 2008 6:00 PM:I was once banned from a blog space, TOS violation, for a typo...I meant to refer to a hunter who had a hat that looked like a decoy as a duckhead...you can imagine the havoc caused by the differing meaning all because of stubby fingers on two little keys that are right next to each other!

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 8, 2008 7:23 PM:To All: Here are a couple of excerpts from the 2008 Alaska GOP Platform.

"III. EDUCATION
E. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
A. The right to life is bestowed by our Creator. It is the responsibility of government to protect that right. The right to life exists from the moment of conception until natural death, and every human being deserves protection under the law."

I don't see the Education item in the GOP's national platform, but John McCain espouses that belief as does Sarah Palin. In my search I found that McCain had been a keynote speaker at the Discovery Institute on Darwin Day last year. So I presume he's comfortable with their lies and deceit, since it's for a worthy cause.

All I can say is God help us!
Regards

Really John wrote on Sep 9, 2008 3:36 AM:I might be described as a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't see it the same way you do.

God shouldn't be asked, nor should She be expected to "help us".

The belief of creationism over evolution, if it is a matter of faith, should not be assumed to be "their lies", but only "their opinions".

Liberalism requires acceptance of differences. Its not just a matter of differences of color, culture or background, but also a difference of belief.

So the Liberal, and the moralist, has got to get over the fact that there are honorable people without the same perspective we have, and that among those who share our politics, are not necessarily more righteous than those who do not share the same opinions.

Until you come to grips with these facts, life is difficult.

Unitl you embrace, acknowledge, and appreciate the difference, life is a burden rather than a joy.

- Prophet

John the Baptist wrote on Sep 9, 2008 9:50 AM:To Prophet: I’m sure we don’t see it the same way – few people do. However, we may be more in accord than it might first appear. Let me explain. When I said “God help us, I was being slightly sarcastic. I’m a theistic evolutionist. I believe that however God works, it is in accordance with regular physical principles, which excludes Divine intervention.

Regarding “The belief of creationism over evolution, if it is a matter of faith, should not be assumed to be "their lies", but only ‘their opinions’.” You missed the context: I was referring to the Discovery Institute. You also may have missed my prior comments on the Dover Trial. I won’t go into detail here, but the Discovery Institute aided and abetted a fraudulent attempt to introduce Creationism (under the guise of Intelligent Design) into the science classroom. You can Google “pbs nova dover trial” for details.

Regarding: “Liberalism requires acceptance of differences.” I am a liberal in that regard. If you had seen my prior posts you would know that. What I am intolerant of is efforts to incorporate people’s religious belief into law. The quote from the Alaska GOP platform clearly indicates an intent to do so.

Regarding: “Until you embrace, acknowledge, and appreciate the difference, life is a burden rather than a joy.” In fact I have embraced that. Life would surely be a bore if we were all just alike. And in closing, I’d like to summarize my philosophy of life by quoting from the renowned philosopher, Roger Miller: “You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd – but you can have fun if you have a mind to.”
Regards

CAVEL wrote on Sep 9, 2008 3:25 PM:From the 2008 GOP platform: "We support a human life
amendment to the Constitution..." "we
call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects
marriage as a union of
a man and a woman..." We support the right of students to engage in stu- dent-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools athletic events, and graduation ceremonies..." Thus the GOP is calling for the repeal of Roe vs Wade by a constitutional amendment no less and the permanent and total prohibition of same-sex marriage. Calling for the legalization of "student-led prayer" in the public schools is wedge into the teaching of "creationism" and "intelligent design" in the public schools. John's quotation from the Alaskan GOP platform reinforces that view. These are not mere expressions of "opinion,' rather they are a PLAN to make those "values" into LAW. "Liberalism" does not include acceptance of plans to curtail our freedom and to instill religious doctrine into persons who are attending schools paid for by us all. Just what brand of religious doctrine should these "student-led prayers" support? What "God" is being prayed to? A WASP "God," no doubt. So if some of the student body does not believe in a "God" or they believe in a religion that does not include a "God" or it's a different concept of "God" they should never-the-less have to listen to some self-appointed individual's "prayers?" Nonsense. Some might say that nobody is forced to listen, but that is false. You the student are at a school sponsored ball game and all of a sudden some other student gets control of a microphone and blares out a "prayer." That's just plain WRONG. The prayer is OK, but making me listen to it is NOT.

Three D wrote on Sep 9, 2008 7:59 PM:Interesting (and accurate) citations from Cavel.
I find them shocking and surprising!
I thought the Republican party was supposed to be the political home of Bible-believing Christians.
Yet this anti-Biblical plank defining marriage contradicts the Biblical definition, which is one man with multiple underage prepubescent females from the same ethnic tri