181. Since when did reporting the facts become racist?

Thats always the way it is with you self-loathing whites

xxxxx

Aw, shit! Oh well, maybe nobody noticed.

Clif Kuplen at 6:10PM on Dec 28th 2007

182. Only a drooling liberal fool, with a child's keyhole view of the world and the intellect of a snow pea, can see the USA as the problem.

xxxx

All brought to you by the democratic party and systematically removed by neofascists in the interim, you drooling commie revisionist fool with the intellect of yellow snow.

Clif Kuplen at 6:13PM on Dec 28th 2007

183. 176. What is it with Clif and his obsession over other peoples groins? You liberal perverts make my skin crawl.

Thomas J Gassett at 4:25PM on Dec 28th 2007

xxxxx

As I've shown you and anyone else reading many times, you are the liberal pervert and communist sympathizer. >>>

Show us one more time. Maybe you can give us a link ... or maybe those many times only exist in your limp Lefty near brain?

You have admitted in print that you can't tell the difference between communism, socialism or fascism and you think they're all 'liberal' so you're more than a little confused as you continually strive to point out.>>>

I freely admit that all are varied degrees of the same failed and murderous ideology ... yours, not mine.

If your skin is crawling it may be DT's, but I'm no liberal. You are far more of a communist sympathizer and imitator and by your own admission of confusion re political philosophies.>>>

Agreed. You are not a liberal ... you just call your intolerant America hating self a liberal. The last real American liberal was Scoop Jackson, and he's been dead so long you Leftist clowns never even heard of him. YOU, and your comrades are nothing more than the mirror image of the useless America hating Euro Left in France, and without one redeeming American characteristic. Lest we forget.

I'm a democrat and believe in contstitutional government and the pre-bush status quo for the most part.>>

Since you are such a learned constitutional scholar perhaps you can explain the difference in something more enlightening than liberal talking points/spew?

You traitors are big on accusations and short on proof.
Clue: The truth is not what you chant like some damn Jihadi ... until you believe it. Prove something! Stop tearing down your own country with accusations! The real crime here, is that the rest of the world believes your lies .... because you live here. I bet your mother is so very proud.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:23PM on Dec 28th 2007

184. . Only a drooling liberal fool, with a child's keyhole view of the world and the intellect of a snow pea, can see the USA as the problem.

xxxx

All brought to you by the democratic party and systematically removed by neofascists in the interim, you drooling commie revisionist fool with the intellect of yellow snow.
>>>>

Clue: You're hearing voices ... not reading anyones mind.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:26PM on Dec 28th 2007

185. Clif,
sorry, I wish it were a straw man but I've heard that Christian parents are equivalent to child molesters.
I've heard that religion/Christianity needs to be wiped out (by force if necessary).
I've heard that religion is a disease that needs a cure.
Linda's latest contribution was that Christianity was a delusion, and who wouldn't want to rid the world of delusion?
So no, it's real, not a straw man. The young turk blogger is free here in the US to say very anti-Christian things in a nation that is majority Christian, and thats fine as per our constitution. And it should be.
The majority (who are Christians) haven't sought to make that illegal and won't. On the other hand I have no doubt that if a ballot came up that said kids shouldn't be subjected to religious teaching by their parents until their teens there are a handful of posters to this blog who would check that box. Do you not agree?

bigTuna at 6:42PM on Dec 28th 2007

186. I so hate it when these knee jerk puritans rant about how the Muslims hate us cause of our loose sexual mores. If that was so, then they would've flown those planes into Playboy HQ, the Vegas strip or a Hollywood porn movie studio. They spew that garbage cause that is the way they feel and they want to lay a guilt trip on the hedonists. I don't see the Muslims attacking the major flasehpots around the world either. They hate us cause we aren't Muslim, strong and are willing to stand up to their nonsense. Was Bhutto a nude whore? Michael Savage comes to mind, a Phd in fascist psychotic dishonest ranting, though I do support him against CAIR on principle.

jonaspell at 10:04PM on Dec 30th 2007

187. bigTuna; you really don't think there are christians who would vote to keep people from expressing anti-christian ideas?

This is why it's good we live in representative democracy.

Ryan Anderson at 7:55PM on Dec 28th 2007

188. "perpetrated by other blacks"

Meaning they commit the crimes. Do you ever watch the news? More than likely tonight there will be some black person's mugshots next to a "wanted" label.

Do you even live in the US?

Blacks commit every sort of violent crime imaginable more than anyother ethnic group in the us.

Again, I ask how are the facts "racist"?

People like you that excuse the way black "culture" is today are directly responsible for the raising crime rates and should apologize to the American public for allowing these heinous acts of violence to continue.

Go ahead we're all waiting....

Mustafa at 7:58PM on Dec 28th 2007

189. Atheists for Ron Paul. The only chance America has for a decent future.

Ron Paul 2008.

God Bless Ron Paul!

(just kidding,((about the "god bless" part)) but something this important should transcend ideologies.)

Richard at 8:31PM on Dec 28th 2007

190. Tuna, what do you want from me?

Go read gassett and he says everything you claim 'liberals' or 'atheists' or whoever you're opposed to say about you or whoever you're defending.

You only smell it when it's incoming. Some of you get Roved or Limbaughed just once and it's wee wee weee all the way home.

Has gassett ever presented a single fact?

Not a germane one, anyway. I say that liberalism and unrestrained capitalism have resulted in fascism in america.

I don't say this just this once here but dozens of times and support it every time, not that I'd need to. Even Ron Paul calls this admin 'soft fascism' - Gassett's answer?

A quote from hitler saying 'we are socialists' meaning the nazis. About three times now with the same results.

So Hitler thought he was a socialist. Mussolini described fascism and WE, the US are practicing it as described. This has been since 1980 for the reasons I've said over and over.

How's hitler figure in since he was killed in '45? Ask Gassett, it was his point. Upset psyche? whup out the hitler quote.

Not dozens of quotes saying the same thing like William Hays offers in proof of Hitler's christianity and that of the reich, mind you, but just that same one.

I have repeatedly asked this, tuna:

why do you think my disinterest in your religious dogma implies that I'm in an organization that's out to get you?

I've never said any of those things you referred to but have instead said I'm not interested in religion so long as it stays out of government.

I'm a democrat. I believe in stare decisiis, and therefore support the 1947 supreme court decision that currently defines the status of separation of church and state. I support Roe v Wade which is much younger but for the same reason - it's settled law and I'm a law abiding citizen.

Some people, especially if they know firsthand of damage caused by fundamentalism would definitely sign the petition you hypothesized, but I would not even though I probably know more than anybody here about that. Separation of church and state means state stays out of religion too.

I'm no social conservative either, since as your example illustrates, it's socialism if a state agency gets involved in religious and family matters either positively or negatively past a certain degree.

Just because some people would sign such a petition, do you think they're part of an organization that's out to get you? And do you still think I'd be part of it?

I've been called an 'atheist' when I've said my perception of the universe and what I am in it doesn't fit any 'ism' I'm aware of, but that doesn't stop you all from calling me not just atheist but mentally ill, a drooling idiot, a pervert, an alquaeda sympathizer, part of an evil organization, the gay lover of some guy named andy, retarded, infantile, and other varieties of a big fat poopyhead. big whoop.

And of course, when one of them wants to play the dozens, sure, I'll play. I'd rather deal in facts than indulge in personalities, but if someone swift boats, I'll craig and haggert 'em until they Novak their pants.

You're not all that witty a bunch frankly and a few of you cough up absolutely priceless straight lines.

But if it weren't for dangerous american fundamentalism and this uprising of dominionism, I wouldn't care anymore than I did before bush became president, which wasn't much.

Clif Kuplen at 9:59PM on Dec 28th 2007

191. Clue: You're hearing voices ... not reading anyones mind.

Thomas J Gassett at 6:26PM on Dec 28th

xxx

I'm hearing voices from the tv in the next room and reading your posts.

You're right. There is as you say an absence of anything resembling a mind in your posts except maybe homer simpbaugh's.

Here's a prime example you brought forward:

....

As I've shown you and anyone else reading many times, you are the liberal pervert and communist sympathizer. >>>

Show us one more time. Maybe you can give us a link

xxx
No, I wouldn't expect different results.

Anyway, I'd just have to link to your posts. Try reading 'em yourself instead of just pasting.

You STILL don't know the difference between communism, fascism and socialism, seem proud of it, and you endorse trade, job outsourcing and payday loans from communists while approving of a merger of corporations and churches running government like mussolini had.

Tried oxycontin yet? Seems like you're ready to move up.

You apparently need instructions from homer simpbaugh to get dressed in the morning.

Here's a hint - yellow stains in front and brown stains in back, and your LEGS go through the holes.

The colander goes on your head, handle in back and I think the coat hanger is optional, but you might have to ask your guru, swami Denise the Groinless, archenemy of pelvic Atheism, Jewel Of Indyah and scourge of Gandhi, the unclean castes and those pakistani rapscallions to be certain.

Clif Kuplen at 10:35PM on Dec 28th 2007

192. "Eve was told by her creator that the friut from this one tree was forbiden. That was the knowledge she chose to ignore." --Gassett

Talk about thinking in circles! For the last time, the serpent then came along to tell Eve that she could eat the fruit. She could not discern that the serpent was evil. Therefore, she could not consciously choose good over evil. Therefore, she could not sin. Therefore, humanity never required any savior (as prescribed by Genesis 3.)

How dense must one be to constantly go over the same point before they realize that all of this has already been addressed...time and time again?

Paul at 5:41AM on Dec 29th 2007

193. Now Gassett (and anyone else who might feel tempted)...

Let me put it to you succinctly for the final time (because I don't have the time for continuously rehashing the same Christian objections day in and day out.)

By definition, sin requires a conscious decision to follow evil rather than good. According to Christianity's own scriptures, sin requires free will, or what we would call a conscious choice. Making a conscious choice (exercising our free will) requires an ability to discern one option from another.

With no knowledge of good and evil, Eve could not have possibly made any conscious choice to follow evil rather than good. She could not possibly have discerned good from evil in any effort to choose one over the other because she had no knowledge of either. Therefore, she could not have sinned.

Now, if you're tempted to recite all the warnings and directions from God leading up to Eve's consumption of the fruit then let me help you along by canning my response to every Christian objection: With no knowledge of good and evil, how could Eve possibly tell which was evil and which was good?

In other words, you can tell me all you like about how God told her that she shouldn't even touch that fruit, but how could Eve possibly realize that disobeying God was evil?

Or maybe you might say that she knew God was her creator. Again, how could she know that God was good? She had no knowledge of good and evil.

Then again, you might point out that the serpent told her that it was not of God. And again, I'd respond that Eve could not tell that things not of God were evil.

In the end, no matter how you challenge my point of view, you must ask yourself one simple question: How could Eve have possibly known that which was evil and that which was good in the Garden of Eden?

The answer? She couldn't. To Adam and Eve EVERYTHING fell within the beige segment of the morality color spectrum. They couldn't discern good from evil. Therefore, they couldn't possibly have made a free-willed decision to follow evil. Therefore they could not have possibly sinned. Therefore, they never "fell from grace." Therefore, mankind has never needed a savior. Therefore, Jesus Christ was just another fringe lunatic claiming to be a god. Therefore, anyone who actually believes that Christ was God is also a lunatic.

I don't blame you for your lunacy. I do, however, blame you for consciously refusing to recognize the requirements of logic.

I understand that it's frightening to realize (and then admit) your own madness. But, as in any twelve-step program, denial is the first indication of a serious problem.

Paul at 6:36AM on Dec 29th 2007

194. Responding to Paul (#191), who wrote: "By definition, sin requires a conscious decision to follow evil rather than good. According to Christianity's own scriptures, sin requires free will, …
With no knowledge of good and evil, Eve could not have possibly made any conscious choice to follow evil rather than good. She could not possibly have discerned good from evil in any effort to choose one over the other because she had no knowledge of either. Therefore, she could not have sinned."


Paul defines sin as "choosing to follow evil". He then argues that in order to exercise "free will" and choose "evil" one has to understand and recognize "evil". At the very least, one has to be able to differentiate between "good" and "evil".

Paul's "logic" is not at fault. It is his initial premise, his definition. He tries to equate sin and evil. The Bible does not equate the two.

The word "sin" is translated to mean "miss the mark". Intention or knowledge is not part of the definition, thus, intention or knowledge is not necessary. In Lev. 4:2, the Old Testament teaches of a burnt offering when UNINTENTIONAL sins are committed, meaning, you can sin against God even without knowing it. (Ignorance of the law is not an excuse here in America, so why should God be more lenient?)

Evil equates more with wickedness and iniquity, and denotes rebellion and intentional twisting and distortion.

If Paul wants to argue that Eve did not understand enough to reach the level of rebellion, it does not matter, she still did wrong. And as it has been pointed out by others, she did know that she was not supposed to eat fruit from that tree, so Eve can not even claim complete ignorance. So in fact, there was a level of rebellion. Even if she could claim a lack of understanding WHY, but, she can not claim lack of understanding WHAT!

To me, Eve's actions were definitely "evil". She rebelled against God's authority. She knowingly defied God. But, if that is too harsh for Paul, then...

Paul also wrote: "Therefore, mankind has never needed a savior."
In Romans 3:23: "For the wages of sin is death." (Which is what is taught in Leviticus.) Note that it does not say for the "wages of evil".
In summary, to repeat what has been written by others, regardless of Eve's knowledge of "evil", she and Adam did in fact "sin" and the atonement for that sin, the redemption price, is death.



Paul also wrote: "I do, however, blame you for consciously refusing to recognize the requirements of logic. …denial is the first indication of a serious problem."

Contrary to Paul's assertions and wishful thinking, there is no lack of logic on the part of Christians (or Jews for that matter, because this debate is based on Old Testament teachings). This is simply a matter of his failure to understand the Bible.

Lets hope and pray he does not try to deny that…

ray at 7:05AM on Dec 30th 2007

195. Gee, Ray...

You really got me this time!

But are you SURE that you want to pin the entirety of your faith (as well as the very foundation of your sanity) on a SOLITARY reference to (and inaccurate translation of) the word "unintentional" as well as an EXTREMELY flimsy definition of the word sin? Are you SURE you want to make a stand for all of Christianity on those two things alone, although you're not even looking at the original Hebrew text of Leviticus?

(See, I KNOW that you're not looking at the original Chumash language of Leviticus because Lev 4:2 doesn't include the word "unintentional.")

So, while you're debating whether to go toe-to-toe with me or not, think about this while you're still able to (because if you do go toe-to-toe with me, you'll have to deal with it anyhow and you might not be able to at that time):

You compared Eve's consumption of the fruit to crime in America where we cannot use ignorance of law as a defense for committing any crime. And that's a fine comparison, except for one thing.

In America you cannot plead ignorance of the law because making yourself aware of the law is YOUR responsibility and ALWAYS an option for you. Eve, on the other hand, had no option for finding out what was sin and what was not.

What's more, if a sign tells you that you can't pick from this orchard but a police officer tells you that you can pick some fruit from that orchard, no judge in the land would convict you for obeying the cop.

And so it was with Eve. God told her to not eat the fruit, but then the serpent told her that she could eat the fruit. With nothing to guide her in an accurate definition of sin, coupled with no ability to discern the serpent as evil, Eve had no way of knowing that she was still prohibited from eating the fruit. No judge in the universe would convict her for obeying the serpent...except for your notion of God.

Now I know that you'll be tempted to argue that the cop in my comparison represents the law, and the serpent did not represent God. Trouble is, Eve had no way of knowing that non-representatives of God in the Garden of Eden were not to be obeyed or that obeying them was a sin because she had no references to check. All she had were instructions from two different sources, neither of which she could determine was good or evil--legal or illegal--grace or sin.

So YOUR comparison to American law (where a plea of ignorance is no excuse) holds no water. Eve had no way of availing herself to the laws governing Eden other than the voices in front of her.

Which brings us back to your inaccurate translation of Lev 4:2 and your extremely loose definition of sin for which, by the way, you never provided a source.

We can do this now, or would you rather wait until you have the Hebrew text of the Chamash in front of you?

And just as an aside, even if the Bible never explicitly equates sin to evil, the Bible certainly does define sin for its readers. Unfortunately, that definition stretches over thousands of passages. Even more unfortunately, Eve never benefited from those passages.

I'll wait for you.

Oh, and the rest of your response was just more of the same circular arguments I've already addressed earlier in this thread. I don't care to rehash them again. However, it didn't escape my notice that you still felt compelled to hedge your bet with this pearl, "To me, Eve's actions were definitely 'evil'..."

Now, Ray, if you're relying on how you regard Eve's actions then you're relying on weakness because nobody cares what you THINK. See, I regard Eve's actions (and desires to be more like God) as complete obedience, courageous, and admirable for her aspiration to be more perfect. Ironically, the Bible demands that its readers be more like God in their piety. So which is it? Should we aspire to be more like God or not? How could we ever demonstrate our worthiness for God's Kingdom if we never became aware of good and (subsequently tempted by) evil?

Now go get your Hebrew text Torah and we'll talk some more about your insanely stubborn adherence to the myth of Jesus Christ.

Paul at 5:54PM on Dec 30th 2007