Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

"Don't forget: Fox News sucks"

i would sooner forget the alamawhatchacallit than forget that.

every now and then, though, i sneak a peek at o'lieley's show, just for the camp value....

KEvron
 

Excellent, Sheila. Oberman's report on O'Reilly's aggressive ignorance and Fox's deceit is what prompted this post.
 

Hey Nick, if O'Righty worked for CBS and made that level of mistake (twice mind you), and then covered it up (changed the transcript), he would be fired.
You would let that slide (twice) if you were in charge of that getting out? They wouldn't live long enough to get out the door would they?
 

Olberman has more integrity than all the heads on Faux News combined.

What O'Reilly IS is stupid and vain and mean. What he DID is a high crime in journalism, even by broadcasting "standards."
 

Why is everyone intent on defending Murtha's condemnation of American soldiers, when the investigation is not even completed? How can any of us say that Marines "murdered" innocent women and children, without at least giving them their due process rights as American citizens, ESPECIALLY since everyone fell all over themselves to ask clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams because he wrote a childrens book, and had "supposedly" reformed himself while on death row? Are we not being the least bit hypocritical here? I'm not casting aspersions here, just asking for fairness.

I'm not saying you have to like Hannity, O'Reilly, OR Faux News. Go ahead, despise them all you want, but let's not jump the gun and comdemn American soldiers before getting all the facts.

Thanks for the Prayers, ER
 

Maybe because we trust Murtha. Maybe because we wouldn't trust a single person in this evil administration as far as we could throw him, or her.

And you're welcome. Glad you're better.
 

ELA asked:
"How can any of us say that Marines "murdered" innocent women and children..."
Easy, because it has been completed and has been covered up (that is the major crime here), because the Army has already paid the required "blood money" to the victims' families. Because I know of no baby in its mother's arms that is not innocent. Because they were shot in their homes at 2-3 a.m. in the morning. Because the Army offically lied about how they died (killed by the bomb, which didn't jive with the bullets in their heads) and the lies were found out.
It just might also be because Murthas ia an infantry combat vet who knows what's battle and what's pre-meditated murder. Something this administration doesn't seem to know.

As for Hanity, may Hanity bring upon his own head all that he wishes and cast upon others. He still has time to repent, but time is growing short for him and his ilk. (re: special memo from on high, or from someone who's high? Whatever.)
 

"because it has been completed and has been covered up"

If it's been covered up, how is it you know of its existence?

"Because I know of no baby in its mother's arms that is not innocent."

So the fact of Original Sin means these Marines are in fact guilty without fair trial, and the presumption of innocence?

"Murthas ia an infantry combat vet who knows what's battle and what's pre-meditated murder."

1] Murtha hasn't seen combat since the sixties, if then. There are questions about his purple hearts and all.

2] Unless he was with the aforementioned marines during their "alleged" killing spree, he can't possibly know anything definitive.

Are you sure you're not marching with Murtha simply because you despise Bush? Your comment offers not a shread of balance, decency, or a willingness to adhere to the principles of American justice; i.e. the presumption of innocence and due process. Why are you so willing to hang 'em before they ever reach trial? Would you want the same treatment from your countrymen if the situation were reversed?

The fact is, you don't know what happened any more than I do... or Murtha does. Murtha's not fighting in Iraq. There doesn't seem to be any fight left in the codger... unless it's to destroy the lives and careers of men who hold to the same principle of Semper Fi, as he claims to.

These men are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing you add will change that fact.

And for the record, I'm not playing a game of one-upmanship with you or anyone else here. If you want to vomit up the kind of drivel you just provided, go ahead. I'm not playing, but neither am I letting such shoddy to go unchallenged. ER at least uses reason in his arguments-- I can respect that. But you've provided none. Would you care to try again?
 

EAshley:

Challenged? Challenged?

Let's start with this:

If it's been covered up, how is it you know of its existence?

The same way we learned about military atrocities from My Lai to Abu Ghraib: through a free, adversarial and to you probably left-wing press, over the stonewalling of the military authorities. Interesting that the military
only seems to come up with gross abuses AFTER they are published oitside. And, of course, these are the people whom we - or, more importantly, the Iraqis, are supposed to trust to establish guilt or innocence? Like, say, after the whitewash of that accident with a cable car in Italy a few years back? Not that we won't see convictions - the highest rank allegedly involved in the killing itself is a sergeant. But that the verdict of an American military court means anything other than the interests of the American military is an enormous leap. People who think "military intelligence" is the ultimate oxymoron ought to consider "military justice."

Let's try a little of the Economist, hardly a left leaning rag - one, in fact, that supported the invasion of Iraq:

One lesson to be drawn from this shameful episode is that cover-ups are much harder than they used to be. Incriminating pictures spread fast. One marine reportedly e-mailed a photo to a friend. An Iraqi student visited Haditha the day after the alleged massacre and shot a video in the town morgue and the homes of the dead. Time got hold of a copy of the video from a local human-rights group and gave it to an American military spokesman in Baghdad. Faced with such evidence, the army could hardly deny the need for a formal investigation, which was duly carried out. It found that the dead civilians were shot by marines, not killed by an insurgents’ bomb, but concluded that the killings were “collateral damage” rather than murder. Top brass were not satisfied with this conclusion [Huh - maybe because it couldn't plausibly be defended and therefore is more potentially embarrassing than hanging a few enlisted out to dry now that they've been caught?] and launched a criminal probe, which is still underway. Soooooo - looks like an attempted cover-up according to this report. That's the system were supposed to wait for? And what do you think is more likely - this is the only case - the media bats 1000 in finding these things?

Since you and your fellow Executive Power Republicans betray the ideals of the Founding Fathers on a regular basis, I don't suppose you're too interested why they might have opposed standing armies, but the habits of hierarchy and double-think loyalty are as corrosive to democratic traditions as anything I know.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle, not a categorical statement, and applies to individuals. "Not murder until proven to be so especially if it hurts my falg-waving feelings" is not.
 

ELash, re: "I'm not playing." Why, yes, you are.

TStock: Bravo.
 

You're still condemning the "Marines" involved based on photos and video footage of walls, rooms, and bodies in a morgue. Hardly conclusive proof, though it does go some distance toward establishing it. I'm not saying they're innocent, nor have I heard anyone on the right say otherwise. What I have heard is: "Let's wait until we see all the facts"

You and others like you don't seem to be interested in the facts. You suffer from the same mentality that lynched black folk because of an accusation of rape... before discoving first what the truth was.

Your disdain for our legal system, especially your unwillingness to afford the accused the presumption of innocence-- and God help us all if this attitude should it propagate itself throughout all of America --does this nation and its people a grave disservice. Your attitude is decidedly UN-American.

If these Marines are truly guilty, they deserved to be punished. If they are found to BE guilty I will join you in calling for said punishment. In the meantime lets put the noose away. Calmer heads prevailing, and all that.
 

ELA,I don't give a rat's ass about these marines killing these people. When you put young people with guns in harms way this or something like will happen. It is a gauranteed bi-product of fighting. When it happens then it should be treated as what it is, a crime under the UCMJ.
BUT,when it is not treated as a crime, when it is covered up and lied about officially for political reasons, then the problem becomes an expotentially greater crime. Then the liers become by definition "War Criminals". Then the boots on the ground know that they can get away with it, and the Sargents and the lower ranking officers know that their higher ups will not back them up when they stop this from happening or report that it has happened. And then sir, you no longer control your military, the chain of command is broken and that sir, is why I am so damn pissed at this. Our warriors deserve a warrior's leader and all they have are puny little politicians.
As for Murtha, I guess by your standards all Democrats who fought in Vietnam are medal mongers and liers. How Many of the 50,000 on the wall and the 135,000 wounded were Democrats I wonder.
 

ELA said:
"If you want to vomit up the kind of drivel you just provided, go ahead."
I read a study recently that people on the internet are meaner and nastier than they are in person.
I guess this proves the point.
Nobody in their right mind would say that kind of thing face to face. It could easily cost someone their very life, or at least some time off work. Yep, try that in your local bar for example. Even as sweet a person as I am might accidently revert to a former life style or mean spirited retribution. But do remmember you are not really as anomonous on the web as you think you are. Courtesy is always the best way to go.
 

The problem with your argument lies in this one statement:

"when it is covered up and lied about officially for political reasons"

It is unproveable... at this time. And you should therefore refrain from treating it as truth. The fact is, you don't know if it's true at all, but you believe just the same.

As to politeness... you get what you give. I HONESTLY stated I have no desire to play any games or participate in any verbal jousts. Laugh it off as a lie if you wish, that's your perrogative. I'm simply arguing that we cannot know for certain WHAT happened, and therefore should refrain from castigating the entire Marine Corps specifically, and the Military in general.

As to the comment that offended you so: I've said the same and worse at work, at play, and yes, online. The difference between us arguing here and arguing face to face is here online, neither of us can see the other, hence, no facial expressions, no laughter, no cajoling... just words. You're too easily offended by words. If I find your argument drivel, so what? What do you care? I suspect not at all, except perhaps in your feigned outrage over a "quip". Having said all that, allow me to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not the least bit offended by you, or your words... they simply don't touch me.

As to anonymity: What anonymity? Anyone who really wants to find me, can. So what? Does some Muslim I've offended want to hunt me down and do a Theo Van Gogh on me? Fine by me, I belong to God. You want to hunt me down and punch my lights out? Go ahead. I'm not trying to hide from anyone. And yes, in a crowded bar, I would say what I did earlier if it needed saying.

Finally, it might interest you to know that I typed all this without the slightest hint of animosity toward you or anyone else. In point of fact, an innocent grin stole across my face a few times while doing it.
 

ELAshley: a brave soul indeed, or one that lives in a most accepting and tolerant environment.
"... allow me to make one thing perfectly clear: I am not the least bit offended by you, or your words... they simply don't touch me."
The reply belies the statement.
The presence gives rise to concept of play. The "innocent grin"...underlies the true reasons.
 

ELAshley:

How unsurprising that someone in the postOrwellian field of "communications" can't read. There was not a single word in my post that stated that the Marines were guilty of murder, only that the American military typically and in tim-hoored fashion had to have its collective nose rubbed in it by the press before it would do anything other than take the most convenient and exculpatory conclusion.

Trivia question: How long did Lt. Calley serve for the murder of hundreds of civilians in Vietnam.

Answer: Less than a week for each murder committed by him and his men. Not even the proverbial Wild West punishment of 30 days and 30 nights for public drunkenness.

And, oh my, I'm unAmerican because I don't trust a self-interested self-congratulatory institution to police itself. Not that unAmerican has much of a sting. Exhuming McCarthy?
 

And speaking of McCarthy and the famous "Have you no sense of decency" line. Whta is with these Republican hypocrites "respecting" "our" servicemen - Cleland, Kerry, now Murtha - all whose war records they want to question, but who at least showed up and seemed to have done somewhat more than that. How many times does it have to be pointed out: your leaders were draft evaders, who clearly believed that dangerous military service - like Leona Helmsley's take on taxes - was for the little people, and whose children, freed from even an unequal selective service thing, go on their merry way. You know that little mote/beam thing from the Book you supposedly revere?
 

Amen, Mr. Vice President of the John Spruce Society. As a Vietnam Vet from the 1st Inf. Div. (The Big Red One), I think that George W. Bush is the biggest insult America ever gave to those of us who fought there. And now he and the other Jody turds are picking off the real Viet combat vets who are in public service one by one. Talk about no shame.
Just who do they think will fight their wars for them? Not my children and not my grandchildren never, nope, never.
Oh yes, join the Army and get citizenship... right, I had forgoten about that. Se habla Espanol Sargent?
 

While you're getting your kicks claiming I can't read, perhaps you should consider the fact that you'd likely never win a spelling bee... "in tim-hoored fashion"? ...but no need to worry, I know you meant "time honored". If you had bothered to absorb, i.e., read, my comment and those that preceded it, you would have realized that a good deal of my response was directed to drlobojo as well.

Therefore, while my response was not directed solely to you, your comment was the impetus for my reply. And I shouldn't have to point out that the general theme of this post is-- especially in the comments it has generated --the condemnation of Marines for acts that have yet to be proven conclusively.

Funny you should accuse me of hypocrisy, since you have yet to address my concerns of condemning soldiers before all the facts are known. Instead, you have chosen to score points, or at least try to, by attacking me and anyone else on the Right you think I may hold in high regard. This is the very same argument used by those who like to say, "judge not lest ye be judged" yet fail to read further to see to whom the warning was directed.... "Thou Hypocrite!" --Matthew 7:5

We are in fact-- and by "we" I mean "Christians" --commanded to judge, for how else are we to know what to abstain from, and whom to avoid in terms of fellowship? But 1 Cor 2:15 goes further...

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Simply put, if all my judgments are spiritually based-- on the Word of God --what need I fear of any man? I have merely told the Truth, as hard as that may be to hear to those who do not wish to hear the truth.

So, in defense of myself... I read quite well, thank you. And if you still think I'm a hypocrite, so what? Only God knows the intent of my heart... your opinion matters not at all. So, as your understanding of what "the book" actually says is limited at best. might I point you to 2 Timothy 2:15?

Oh! And my response to your [TStockmann] "trivia" question...

The punishment meted out was indeed a travesty of justice... you get no argument from me on that one. But my point has been, and remains still, that we should wait for the results of the investigation, and the outcome of any resulting criminal proceedings that follow, before condemning anyone. Would anyone care to address that point? For once?
 

But my point has been, and remains still, that we should wait for the results of the investigation, and the outcome of any resulting criminal proceedings that follow, before condemning anyone. Would anyone care to address that point? For once?

really, Ashley - it's not just a jibe. You cannot read. Please allow me to number the responses so you can see EXACTLY how you were answered.

I do not wait for the investigation because:

(1) It is being conducted by the same organization accused of the misconduct AND has implicitly acknowledged that it failed at the previous investigating itself int eh first place, either through gross neglect OR a deliberate conduct. This is what's called logic.

(2) That organization has a history of reaching self-serving conclusions and conducting "serious" apprisals of its conduct only when compelled by otside forces. This is what's called facts.

Thsi is why there are such things as "independent auditors" and "special counsels." Put your Marines before a Sunni Iraqi jury and we'll talk.

Now, doesn't this sound familiar - like it was posted twice above. Go ahead - reread it - move your lips if it helps. You might disagree, but that was a direct response. With examples of previous "military justice." So tell me now how nobody annnnnswered yooou?

Let me add that you and your ilk aren't interested in the truth - you just want to dissipate the emotional reaction to it through many months to lessen the impact.

I just love it that you trot out your religion - a sure sign that you know how badly you look. yeah, you just know that God loves you - just like that proud Pharisee, huh? You think he didn't believe himself to be righteous in that heart of yours - excuse me, his? I mean, of COURSE we won't know what He REALLY thinks until after we're good and dead, eh? How convenient for you.

Hypocrisy is an external condition, a conflict betweem stated ideals and conduct, not a condition of the heart. You don't need to be a god to see it

You're not ashamed of the cowardly innuendo:

There are questions about [Murtha's} purple hearts and all.

You're so used to giving YOUR pathetic chickenhawk heroes a bye on their avoidance of combat that your OWN (and I'm guessing here, but go ahead and tell me I'm wrong) doesn't cause you to hestitate to slang a man who HAS done it? I don't question judging - I don't even question Christians judging - I question YOUR self-satisfied judgment because I sincerely doubt you have a credential. Buy a flag and feel a patriot, eh? And even if you haven't a argument to make, you know it's okay because God would tell you if you should drink the koolaid. Of course, only in that secret little ear of yours.

What's interesting is to all purposes i can see this is a new one - it's the sinning publican who is pointing his finger elsewhere, thereby losing his one virtue, that of humiliated contrition. Yes, I precisely address you as a hypocrite, thereby fulfilling the entirety of the Biblical quote you used.

Kind of lost when it comes to the words of Jesus Himself, aren't you?
 

Oh, and I know your concern for due process means that you support the release of all those prisoners in Guantanamo and the Gulag archipelago of formerly secret CIA-run prisons reportedly - and undenied - scattered throughout the world, to be tried by a jury of their peers.
 

Good lord ELA, cherry picking God's word again. That Bible verse is nonsense here. If this is your "Authority", you need to check with the Son of Man again. The writter of Timothy was trying correct the influence of Hymenaeus and Philetus who seem like they were early Christian Gnostics. It is a specific admotion to specific people about specific people on a specific subject at a specific time. I've read your "thesises" on the Bible.
So I know you are a Bible-ist, and a KJV one at that. Using the Bible for magic, (God uses every verse, to have every meaning that is needed at the time) is akin to using the Tarot for Christian guidance.
II Timothy is also considered "inauthentic" and not even Paulian by Textual Critics, and was only first noted to exist in 170 C.E. by anyone. So it is, most probably, even a fake "Tarot" deck. Probably it is from a proto-catholic author attacking, way after Paul is dead, Gnosticism.
When you beat us with a Biblical stick try not to pick up a twig.
 

I guess this only goes to prove just how lacking in civility many of you folks on the Left are.

Go ahead, instuct me in your ignorance on matters of God. I urge you both to find God while He may yet be found. Cast your haughtiness aside in favor of humility, it would do you good. This entire nation would be much better off if more people would.

Bash the right all you want, at least most of us on the Right don't support the mostrosity and abomination of abortion, particularly partial birth. Go ahead support every liberal you can, each and every neoHitlerian who clings to that barbaric practice and calls it a fundamental right, found in the Constitution, of every American woman. Go ahead and sanction murder.

I'm tired of giving that which is holy to dogs, and casting my pearls before swine. So, Ciao, see ya, adios... have a good time patting yourselves on the back, boys. HaHaHa, boy did you guys set me straight.

See I can get snippy too. Have a nice life, and, in all sincerity, may God richly bless you both.
 

My, my, my, I guess ELA's previous declaration..."I am not the least bit offended by you, or your words... they simply don't touch me." didn't quite last all the way through the conversation.

Wow, he gets called on the authenticity of II Timothy and then he plays the "abortion" and "damnation" cards, must have gotten too close or too deep on that call.

And heaping a final blessing as a curse, my, how very Christ like. It's the heart not the words, that he listens to ELA.

Watch out for the whirlwind, for you've called it.
 

Your brand of patriotism frightens true American patriots, Reverend Redneck.

And you called me "demonic".

This place is nothing more than a cess-pool of patronizing circle-jerkers.

I'll not ask God to bless you. I will pray for you to come to the Truth about Him, though.

At this point, from what I gather from your twisted logic, you are building a very hot place in hell for yourself!

Later, dudes!
 

Do what? I don't recall calling d.dad "demonic." Maybe I did. Maybe he is.

Worshiping the Bible instead the God it sheds light on is idolatry of glue, ink and paper, which is at least interesting.

Worshiping one's own interpretion of the Bible, when all interpretations, at best, merely provide a peephole through the dark glass we all see through, we,, that's typical and uninteresting -- but the worst kind of idolatry of all: self-worship.
 

Oh, and if I had a dollar for every blowhard part-time, two-bit proto-Pentecostal "preacher" who told me I was going to hell for not seeing things the way he does, well, I'd have enough for a good weeklong vacation somewhere nice.

Pif.
 

So that's the Christian Right? Mea culpa - I guess i don't get out enough. How terrifyingly dishonest on every level - intellectual, moral, spirirtual. I always assumed they were kind of like me, only starting from a different premise: that the words of Jesus Christ as reported in the Gospels were revealed truth, something I don't believe. I had no idea how far the rot had gone, although I suppose their defense of power and privilege - and frequently their own pursuit of those things - should have been a clue, but I had no idea that they really had no sophisticated exegetical reasons behind it all - sprinkle them with actual words of the Christ (tm) and they are exorcised as well as exercised. And, DrL, POTJSS - thanks for the information on 2 Timothy - that book is outside of my tradition.

I had wanted to call them on their nasty smear campaigns against veterans who were not sufficiently prowar , but i figured they'd have some sort of answer. I AM glad that ELAshley, at least, at least appears to have a sense of shame when caught. at least most of us on the Right don't support the mostrosity and abomination of abortion, particularly partial birth.
"At least" - is that how Christians look at their morality: at least - and then chose a sin that doesn't even tempt them, as permanently unpregnant males, to support their feeling of "at least" righteousness? It really is Tartuffe out there in Biblebangerland. My childhood Jesuits weren't this negligible.







I'm grateful to the Presi
 

And maybe you are, Reverend Redneck.

You worship your own intellect. Kinda like Lucifer, himself!
 

Apparently I'm late.

Dr. Lobojo said, II Timothy is also considered "inauthentic" and not even Paulian by Textual Critics,. Umm, the first verse clearly states the author of the book - Paul. I do not know, nor do I really care, when the book was 'authorized'. My faith in the Lord's ability to have the proper books included in His 'canon' is all I need in this regard, but you really confuse me. I've seen you condemn the Nicean Council and others for leaving books out of The Word and now you seem to be out of favor with them for including one. What gives? There are instances where you seem to prefer Talmudic traditions to The Bible; you (and others here) go out of your way to deflect attention off of what the Bible says by alluding to those of us whom take it as literal truth as idolators. I had you pegged as a Gnostic, and perhaps you are, but by challenging an accepted text while at other times exorting unaccepted texts, I really am at a loss to understand where you are coming from. Maybe it doesn't matter, but why do you continually try to muddy the waters when it comes to God's Word?
 

Worshiping the Bible instead the God it sheds light on is idolatry of glue, ink and paper, which is at least interesting.

Worshiping one's own interpretion of the Bible, when all interpretations, at best, merely provide a peephole through the dark glass we all see through, we,, that's typical and uninteresting -- but the worst kind of idolatry of all: self-worship.
 

God's Word is in the Bible.

The Bible is not "God's Word."

I'll never understand the leap from the majesty and poetry of the Logos in John 1:1 to the colloquial nickname given to Scripture: "God's Word."
 

Please define 'worshipping the Bible". By taking it literally and trying to live by the precepts thereof, does that make me a worshipper of the Bible? Seriously, please define your frame of reference. The more I see you use the phrase, the more I believe you use it as a device to distance yourself from what the Bible says - not what somebody interprets it as saying, but what it actually says.

As to the semantics of God's word being in the Bible, and not the Bible itself . . . piffle. As there are no more prophets, the Bible is the only instruction passed down to man from On High. There is no direct answer to every question and it takes faith to digest fully, but when it comes to answering the questions of the Christian life, it is the same as His Grace - it is 'sufficient'. No more, no less.
 

Rem-- From Marianna? I'm right up the road in Dothan.

They won't listen, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. It's like trying to carry sand with a sieve.
 

ELashley, I don't know what's gotten into you today, but your comments have been beneath you.

D.dad's comments have been right where they always have been.

REM, I believe the Bible is sufficient to salvation. It is wholly insufficient to science, politics or evenhow Christians should get along with one another, let alone the world at large.

I also believe that to believe it is inerrant and infallible is silly, let alone idolatrous.

Just one example, of many: The Bible's frame of reference is that God is "up there" and that we are "down here." That's incorrect in light of what we know, but the Scripture writers did not then know, about cosmology! It makes the Ascension a magic trick, not the metaphor it clearly was meant to be as a vehicle for delivering truth. A bad trick, at that. How far out into space would Jesus be by now?

Jesus said something about the Holy Spirit leading us to truth. Did He mean that or not? Sounds to me like you think God has been quiet for 2,000 years! "God is stil speaking" is more than the slogan of the UCC.
 

"but the worst kind of idolatry of all: self-worship."

Reverend Redneck, why don't you read your own posts. Are you blind? I've been on a lot of blogs over the past year and I have yet to encounter someone as stuck on himself as you are.

Take your condescending crap and your patronizing, false christianity and go preach to yourself. You obviously love to hear yourself talk--or at least love to read yourself.

You're the perfect example of a fraud.
 

Jesus loves you D.dad. Let him.
 

Each time I reluctantly come to your church, here, I am more and more aware of the previously stated fact.
 

Good. Coming here is good for you.
 

For those with faith strong enough to find that all is not pure or simple, try this site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

It seems a straight forward site, and covers a lot of early church writtings

TS, Consider today a cultural experience. Project yourself back to the inquisition. Challenge anything at all, even though you be a believer, and you're damn to hell and demonized. At least today, so far, it is only digital.
 

Good perspective, Mr. President, although I think Torquemada was probably a much sharper dresser.
 

Yeah, maybe so, but he had a really bad haircut.
 

Grimes G. Slaughter from Oak Ridge, Tennessee writes:

"I have just been fired as a Jr. High Sunday School teacher at the First Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, TN, because I would not represent the Bible as perfect and infallible to the children. I have lots of proof to the contrary: I have many versions of the Bible on my hard drive and can search any of them for any word or phrase in a fraction of a second. It is possible that I have found ugly and evil content of which you are unaware. I would be pleased to send you a list of what I have found. Apparently "The Sins of the Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love' is exactly what I need. I intend to procure a copy soon."

Dear Grimes,

There is much in the Bible that is, in your words, "ugly and evil." When I wrote the "Sins of the Scripture" I examined only the most glaring texts that have shaped public behavior. The idea that any educated person would today try to defend the idea that the Bible is either perfect or infallible is difficult for me to imagine.

When I confront people quoting biblical texts literally and thus in defense of some theological agenda or prejudiced attitude, I tell them they are asking the wrong question of the Bible. The appropriate question is not, "Is this literally true?" for the world of biblical scholarship settled that question years ago with a resounding 'no'. The proper question is rather, "What does this story mean? Then I might inquire about "What need in the life of the person making the literal claim does the presumed literal authority of scripture meet?" Religion has always been more about the search for security than it is the search for truth - people crave certainty. When there is no certainty or insufficient certainty, people will go to great lengths to create it. The more irrational the claim, the more the insecurity is apparent. There is nothing rational about claims for the inerrancy of the Bible, or for the infallibility of the Pope. There is nothing rational about religious anger, religious persecution, religious wars, religious inquisitions or religious hatred of other faith traditions. However, the way to confront this irrationality is not with rational arguments no matter how tempting it is to try that approach.

If you were dismissed in order for the myth of biblical perfection to continue to live, proving them wrong by rational argument will not touch the issue. What you have done is to threaten the security system of your congregation's leadership. You have two choices for an appropriate response:

1. Remain in the congregation and bear your witness lovingly - hoping to bring about change.

2. Find a new church whose leadership is not so threatened and help to make an alternative available for people like you in Oak Ridge.

I did a series of lectures in Oak Ridge last year so I know there are churches there that are open to reality and truth in a way your church is apparently not. My first advice is always to stay where you are and to work for change. If change is impossible, my second choice is to go to a place where you can be fed.

-- John Shelby Spong
 

I have no idea why Mark e-mailed this to me directly instead of posting it here where it belong, but he did:


drlobojo says:

"Nobody in their right mind would say that kind of thing face to face. It could easily cost someone their very life, or at least some time off work. Yep, try that in your local bar for example. Even as sweet a person as I am might accidently revert to a former life style or mean spirited retribution. But do remmember you are not really as anomonous on the web as you think you are. "

So the self-proclaimed intellectual is reduced to thinly veiled threats.

How pathetic and how typical of the leftists when faced with losing an argument. Attack and smear.


ER here: I didn't say it made sense. Only that if Mark has anything to say on this thread, however thick-headed and irrelevant, it belongs here hwere everybody can see it. Over and out.
 

A little continuity perhaps.
As usual Mark(the cap gun)Manness is reporting half of the facts as whole truth. Here is the first half of what I was saying:

"ELA said:
"If you want to vomit up the kind of drivel you just provided, go ahead."
Then I wrote:
I read a study recently that people on the internet are meaner and nastier than they are in person.
I guess this proves the point.
Nobody in their right mind would say that kind of thing face to face. ...."

Am I the only one that sees that to say such stuff to someone face to face could get you a nuckle sandwich?

Well the boy (ELA) went on to pretty much damn my soul and then give me false blessings (see the entries on the continuing Faux News thread from Thursday).

It wasn't a veild threat Markus, just a note of the consequence of bad behavior, sort of a cause and effect declaration type thing, plus a declaration that we are not really as anonymous on the internet as we thing we are.
I guess ER, Mark wanted you to know that I had been a bad boy, which of course assumes that you can't read and understand your own blog(a bit of personal projection on his part there maybe).
Now, if I ever am really a "bad boy" I'll not announce it anywhere, much less somewhere that I think is kept as data records at Fort Meade Maryland. And I can safely say, I won't waste my non-digital time and energy on you or ELA, unless of course you need me too.
 

Not even a cap gun. Just a thumb and index finger poking the front of a T-shirt.
 

Rem 870 said
"...but why do you continually try to muddy the waters when it comes to God's Word?"

Pure waters stay pure even when stirred. If they "muddy up" then there is sediment at the bottom.