Most Americans are appalled at how primitively fundamentalist some Middle Easterners are. Yes, some are extremely primitive. But by far the greater causes of terrorism are the primitive and fundamentalist aspects of America and Western Civilization.
After all, historically, it's Western Civilization's brutal intolerance that forced the Jews to create a country in the Middle East — Israel — to find safe refuge. And the existence, and US military support, of Israel are some of the main reasons much of the Middle East hates America. Even today, America harbors large numbers of virulent anti-Semites.
In addition, America is so primitive that we're fundamentalist hostages of an 18th century economic theory that requires ever more oil to fuel ever more economic growth. Thus we must attack Iraq with its second largest deposit of oil on earth and occupy Kuwait. Thus we maintain military bases in 11 other Middle Eastern countries, according to the No Bases Network. Eleven! And that's not including our evisceration of Afghanistan and collateral killing of thousands of Pakistani civilians with heartless predator drones. Meanwhile, because of the same fanatical worship of capitalism, we won't even provide basic health care for tens of millions of our own people.
Once America withdraws our ignorance from the Middle East, Middle Easterners will be able to better appreciate areas in which America is superbly advanced and tolerant, and the terrorists will stop attacking us.
— Bill Branyon
I pine for compassion from America, when I think about how much good we could do in the world — there is so much potential.
My father-in-law once told me, “No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes”.
I wish this were the motto for U.S. foreign policy.
Don’t like western civilisation? Move east, soldier, and buy a burka for your woman.
The Travelah puppet validates the writer’s point. Our intolerance of dissent, and inability to courageously face the fact that we may have made mistakes, will be our downfall. Why do you want America to fail, “Travelah”?
I didn’t vote for the apologist so why would you think I want “America” to fail?
By trying to stifle dissent with the whole ‘Love it or Leave it’ rap, you’re attmpting to disable our strongest asset – our capacity to question our leaders decisions, look critically at our history, and perhaps, learn from our mistakes. This is a vital part of the American Experiment – the responsibility of an informed citizenry to be involved in setting the course for the nation. People (or in your case, puppets) should be free to criticize and suggest alternatives without being cast out by fascist reprisals, like ‘If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?’ Can’t you see that?
But I forget, you don’t have eyes, you have little plastic disks glued to a sock.
“Don’t like western civilisation? Move east, soldier, and buy a burka for your woman.”
travelah, you are generally in the distinct minority of opinion here, so (as I suggested to you long ago in a different context) wouldn’t it seem more logical for YOU to leave? You could save yourself from all these pesky ‘other viewpoints’ and having to put up with dissent and irritating questions.
As for America failing, in all likelihood, it’s less wanting “America to fail” than a keen desire to see Obama fail. If the country is adversely affected as a result, oh well…the end justifies the means. Or at least that is what passes for conservative ‘leadership’ keeps pushing.
But back to Bill’s letter – he’s right.
The way I see it, the current war(s) we are involved in should not be seen as a war between the West and the East, or Christianity and Islam, or Democracy and Totalitarianism, or what have you. We (peace-loving, tolerant peoples of all countries and faiths) are at war with the fundamentalists in our own midst. They believe that the world will end in flames, and they want to be the ones throwing their enemies into the pyre. They (fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, etc.) are dragging the rest of us into Armageddon. We don’t have to go willingly.
As for America failing, in all likelihood, it’s less wanting “America to fail” than a keen desire to see Obama fail. If the country is adversely affected as a result, oh well…the end justifies the means. Or at least that is what passes for conservative ‘leadership’ keeps pushing.
Well, there is some partial truth in that statement. I consider Obama’s failure to accomplish his agenda as a success for the country as a whole. Rather than being adversely affected, his failure in destroying free market economies and socializing large segments of our economic base would result in the survival of our economic systems, the same systems that enabled him to rise to such a level. In that sense, his failure is the country’s success even though the leftist-liberals object to this truth.
“Well, there is some partial truth in that statement.”
Actually, it’s more than just “partial truth,” it IS the truth. And you deserve partial credit for at least not completely denying it. As for the rest of the opinion, it should be no surprise that there is no agreement to this view, filtered through the haze of an ideological bias. But hey, everyone has the right to an opinion.
You are indeed entitled to your opinion.
Speaking of leaving travelah, there is a paradise where all of your dreams can come true, across the Atlantic Ocean. It has virtually no taxes or government. Nothing is socialized and the free market rules. It’s called Somalia. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
It seems like all of the “free-market” capitalists are incapable of evaluating recent history. There was a recent meeting at the Grove Park where the John Locke Foundation trumpeted tax cuts and de-regulation as the answer. Didn’t the Bush Administrations, and Clinton try that for the last fifteen years, and didn’t it lead to this huge economic collapse. How do free-market capitalists reconcile this tiny fact.
I know, trav, it’s because there were too many regulations, and the market isn’t free enough. Free market capitalists are greedy and obtuse. I have to laugh to keep from cryin’.
Ashevegas, today’s investment markets are essentially back where they were not just last spring but where they were in 1998.
We did not have a huge economic collapse. We had a spike in oil prices. We had a domestic auto industry finally catch up with it’s largesse. We had an inflated housing market finally pop an oversized bubble and we witnessed the effect of social tinkering with crdit markets. Thats a lot of corrections and to top it all off we have a Congress and President intent on spending us into insolvency.
Put the pieces together. The ONLY thing that is going to help YOU and your family is a return to free market economies. It is a free market economy that boosts employment, creates economic expansion and prevents you from falling into the only alternative, statist serfdom.
entopticon, Somalia is the opposite of the western civilisation the opening post denigrates. You need to refer that destination to Mr Branyon so he can get a taste of the nivanna he seeks.
It is just too hilarious how travelah the antichrist, the right-wing extremist windbag who obsessive-compulsively trolls around a liberal weekly’s website, all day and all night, every single day, is actually too clueless to see the hilarious hypocrisy of his contention that anyone with a dissenting opinion, unless it is against the Democrats, should leave the country.
If cartoons made cartoons, that would be travelah the antichrist.
C’mon travelah, Somalia has everything YOU ever ranted for. No taxes, free enterprise, and virtually nothing is socialized. It is exactly what you posit as your dream nation. Again, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Enjoy.
I also find it hilarious that the Republican National Committee, those spearheading restricting abortion rights for millions of American women, have quietly been paying for elective abortions for their own staff for twenty years. Shows you how deep those fundie values actually run on the Right. Hypocrite much?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/rnc-nixes-abortion-coverage-for-its-employees/1
“I also find it hilarious that the Republican National Committee, those spearheading restricting abortion rights for millions of American women, have quietly been paying for elective abortions for their own staff for twenty years. Shows you how deep those fundie values actually run on the Right. Hypocrite much?”
Yep, not only was it an egregious and in-your-face example of hypocrisy, but those clowns evidently were not even aware that abortion coverage was included in their health care insurance plans, yet nevertheless, they go forward with their anti-choice blather and weasely machinations. El Brainiaco Supremo Michael Steele was quite shaken by this revelation.
One of the problems with shallow thinking souls is that they often don’t take time to think through their thoughts. Insurers such as Cigna and BCBS tailor their plans to to serve broad cross sections of plans. It is probable that the RNC participated in a selected plan portfolio without recognizing the particular coverages might be offensive to some of their members. The last two plans I have participated in each covered certain costs associated with abortions and each plan was a comprehensive plan offered to many employers.
Mr. Steele did what his conscience dictated and terminated certain provisions of their comprehensive plan. I do not see anything inappropriate or out of the ordinary in doing so.
Perhaps it is my sensible nature but I do not see anything inconsistent with opposing the murder of babies while not realizing that a purchased health care plan covered certain procedures that the insured were unlikely to utilize. I would be curious to know how often claims were paid for this particular plan.
entopticon, assuming you did not need cartoons to understand my post, Somalia is the opposite of the western civilisation the opening post denigrates. You need to refer that destination to Mr Branyon so he can get a taste of the nivanna he seeks.
travelah the antichrist, while your posts certainly are laughably cartoonish, a third grader with a glue huffing problem shows more depth of thought than you on a good day, so no cartoons are necessary to follow your ham-fisted stabs at reason.
I am guessing you are well acquainted with third grade glue huffing … what a sick puppy you are.
Honestly travelah the antichrist, king of the death panels and gay black muslim socialist conspiracies, you are in no position to be calling anyone a sick puppy.
I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, but no matter how hard you twist your nipples and pray, Sean Hannity is just never going to feel the same way about you that you do about him.
“It is probable that the RNC participated in a selected plan portfolio without recognizing the particular coverages might be offensive to some of their members.”
Nice try ‘Travelah’ puppet. According to the CIGNA employees quoted in the story, the RNC was informed of all the provisions of their policy, including the “abortion coverage”, and “the RNC did not choose to opt out.”
barry biy, I did not realize you put such stock into the claims and statements of the giant insurance companies. I suppose as long as you can selectively choose what to believe and what not to, you can craft any spin you wish.
Puppet – the RNC confirmed the story when they hurriedly ‘opted out’ of the abortion coverage. This doesn’t rely on “the claims and statements of the giant insurance companies.”
I’ll let you decide which is more embarrassing – that the RNC knew very well that they were paying for their employees to have access to abortions & kept it quiet, OR that for twenty years, they wrote checks to CIGNA & nobody at the RNC bothered to “READ THE BILL”, as we’ve heard for months from House Republicans. What a scandal! Failing to READ THE BILL!!
poor barry … invoices don’t have the policy details on them.
Poor satanic puppet – do you really believe the RNC or any of their covered employees never ever checked to see whether abortion services were part of their coverage, or that their insurance agents never informed them, over a twenty year period? You are deluded.
satanic puppet?? LOL …
I would guess that it was never made an issue to begin with nor any attention drawn to it. Second, they would not have worked through “insurance agents”. You really don’t know much about how employee benefits are adminstered, do you?
http://www.thepuppetstore.com/photos/GS2613-2.jpg
Trav, the fact that you deny that we had a huge economic collapse is extrodinary. Then, you outline the details of the collapse to prove that it didn’t happen!? Wow! Your logic is mind-boggling. I still firmly believe a truly free market will end with people at the top manipulating to take advantage of smaller investors (as was the case). Regulation is needed, supervision required, and the only body that can do that is a government run by the people. Communism and capitalism will always be ruined by a small group with a lot of power. A group you apparently wish desparately to be a part of.
As for the government spending us into insolvency, by all accounts the stimulus has worked. We avoided the the worst of the collapse. Cash for clunkers worked, and when congress finally gets healthcare reform done, it will be wildly succesful. I know it’s hard to see your ideology proven false, and what you percieve as your country fail. But, for the majority, in a Democracy, this is a great time to be alive.
“You really don’t know much about how employee benefits are adminstered, do you?”
I do, with 25 years of benefits administration among other responsibilities, often for very large organizations. And while it is true that typically companies (especially large ones) do not deal directly with insurance agents, they routinely do with brokerage firms, who, among other responsibilities, provide their clients with comparative details about plan designs, coverages, costs etc.
I also know how to spell ‘administered.’
Yeah, IN YOUR FACE, Puppet!
You also must never make typos on a laptop … The RNC would have worked directly with a CIGNA rep and not a brokerage firm … Now tell me how Michael Steele is doing something wrong here?
Ashevegas,
I changed jobs, boosted my income 25%, financed a house, purchased a Honda and have seen my 401K return to 1998 levels, all without so much as a penny of TARP funds or Federal handouts. Tell me how this is the worse econmic blowout snce the Depression? I lived through the Carter years and I know first hand they were MUCH worse.
Wow, you ARE flopping around furiously. First you deride me for suggesting that the RNC would work with an “insurance agent”, now you assert that they would have worked with a “CIGNA rep”, not a brokerage firm, like all this dancing around proves that criticism of their hypocrisy is misguided… The point is that of course, they would’ve been aware of what their policy covered, regardless of who they worked with.
Nobody blamed Michael Steele for being behind this; he came along, what – two years ago? This policy was set up twenty years ago. He merely cancelled the abortion provisions when they got caught. Nice attempt at misdirection, you floppy little sock, you.
travelah the antichrist puppet said: “I changed jobs, boosted my income 25%, financed a house, purchased a Honda and have seen my 401K return to 1998 levels…. yada-yada-yada, blah, blah, blah.”
Anecdotal evidence… Gee, how compelling. Reminds me of the global warming deniers that say “look, it’s cold out today at my house, so all of the scientists must be wrong.”
In reality an overwhelming majority of the world’s leading economists do in fact consider the decline the worst since the Great Depression. For example: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS193520+27-Feb-2009+BW20090227
Call me nutty, but I think I will trust the overwhelming consensus of the world’s top economists over the anecdotal musings of our local right-wing extremist satanic finger puppet.
Yes,Asheville is saturated with fundamentalism, Personified by entopticon and Dionysis. There is really no fundamentalist quite as strident, hateful and intolerant as a Liberal fundamentalist.
Quick, someone call John a Waaambulance. Just for the record there John, there is literally no such thing as a liberal fundamentalist. For better or worse, by definition, a liberal is not a fundamentalist. Of course, you have never been one to let something as inconvenient as facts get in the way of your crazy talk.
Fundamentalism is just another word for more being more interested in pushing a point of view that is thought to be shared by a group of people than being interested in challenging your own presuppositions to come to an honest account or appraisal. So really when your do this you just fighting to defend your hommies than trying to figure what the hell is going on. So, yes, we need to take a deep long look at our fundamentalism in the USA, but the process of doing that is pretty much diametrically opposed to being a fundamentalist.. So in, short, yeah, your right. don’t hold your breath Barry if you are waiting in travelah here to step out of his comfort zone to consider a point of view that isn’t packaged with big flashy instantly recognizable lettering.
“Liberal fundamentalist” — wow, that is indeed a contradiction in terms. Is that like a “hippie Nazi” or a “hooker nun”?
Seriously, Branyon’s spot-on about America’s obsessive worship of Almighty Profit. Our culture really is dominated by fundamentalist capitalists: Just as fundie preachers and mullahs view everything through a narrow lens of religious monomania, so our dollar-idolaters on Wall Street (and their satanic sock-puppets in Washington and elsewhere) reduce every single aspect of life — whether it’s public health or polar bears — to the One True and Only Question:
“How much Money will this make me (or cost me)?”
“Yes,Asheville is saturated with fundamentalism, Personified by entopticon and Dionysis. There is really no fundamentalist quite as strident, hateful and intolerant as a Liberal fundamentalist”
Oh look, how cute. He’s making up nonsense phrases. My, aren’t you the clever one?
Yes,Asheville is saturated with fundamentalism, Personified by entopticon and Dionysis. There is really no fundamentalist quite as strident, hateful and intolerant as a Liberal fundamentalist.
There is a great deal of truth contained in that statement. Fundamentalism, while a pet label to apply to others by liberals and leftists, is nothing more or less than a strict adherence to a body of beliefs and opinions. Certainly leftist-liberals subscribe to a very dogmatic and somewhat antagonistic philosophy with regard to tolerance and inclusion of ideologically opposed thought. Let a black man espouse conservative opinions and fundamentalist opposition will label him an “uncle tom” or a “house negro”. Have a woman embrace conservative principles and fundamentalist leftist feminists will deny her womanhood referring to her as a chromosomal female. Leftist-liberal fundamentalists are prone to shouting down opposition, constant ad hominem attacks and displaying a general bigotry and intolerance toward those with differing viewpoints. The fundamentalist liberal represents in a true sense, a fascist reaction to rational and prepared thought. Inclusive discourse, being an anomaly to that fundamentalist agenda is discouraged rather than advocated. The result is a narrow minded bigotry and a false sense of security in an insecure elitism. The stark truth is fundamentalist leftist-liberals are the epitome of bigoted intolerance in America today.
Gee travelah, it seems you are now offering stereotypical bilge by the truckload. While you certainly know what it’s like to be “dogmatic” and “intolerant,” your facile assessment of those who hold different world views than you is just that, a facile assessment, which doesn’t even rise to the level of being specious. While it includes all of the right-wing’s prescibed talking points (such as the oxymoronic use of the word ‘fascist’), it’s just a broad-brush effort to vilify those whose knuckles don’t drag the ground.
But once again, you are entitled to espouse your OPINION, which you consistenly like to deliver as if it was some kind of objective fact.
Just about every culture has a significant religious fundamentalist population. America is not alone. Not hardly.
Dionysis, you go too far. I have to disagree – the Travelah puppet’s latest rant does indeed rise to the level of speciousness.
“Dionysis, you go too far. I have to disagree – the Travelah puppet’s latest rant does indeed rise to the level of speciousness.”
Well, okay. Maybe in hindsight it does. I give.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
Golly travelah the antichrist, what a swell thing for you to do…. when you don’t like the actual usage of a word you just make stuff up to suit your delusions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but “fundamentalist leftist liberals” is a phrase that only exists in the extremely warped fantasy world of your imagination. Of course, we should expect no less from a fundamentalist fanatic that worships a bleeding heart liberal, yet spends all day railing against liberalism, and never even blinks at the hilariously ludicrous hypocrisy of it.
And the “epitome of bigoted intolerance in America”? So apparently it is just an outlandishly giant coincidence that there is literally no such thing as a liberal member of a white supremacist hate group? Thousands and thousands and thousands of white supremacists, and none of them liberal… but somehow liberals are the “epitome of bigotry in America”?!?
Apparently in travelah the antichrist’s alternate reality, it is just a random coincidence that there are no liberal members of the KKK or any other white supremacist hate group. In his bizarro-world, the random coin was flipped thousands and thousands of times, and it is just a wacky coincidence that it never landed on the liberal side, because there is absolutely no room for logic in travelah-world.
And let see, who has supported virtually every piece of legislation to protect women and people of color against bigotry? That would be liberals. And who has fought that legislation every single time? Conservatives. Yet somehow, in the ridiculously warped upside-down bizarro world of travelah the antichrist, that makes liberals the bigots.
If it wasn’t for liberals, black people would still be drinking from separate water fountains. It was conservatives, Republican and Democratic alike, who fought against civil rights for black people, yet that makes the liberals the bigots in travelah’s upside-down bizarro-world.
Liberals were the people getting hosed down in the marches for civil rights. Conservatives were the ones shooting the fire hoses at them and burning crosses on their lawns.
The right-wing candidate for President literally had a 0% rating on women’s issues, and the left-wing candidate literally had a 100% rating. Most recently, liberals tried to pass a bill preventing military contractors from barring female employees from suing for being gang raped, and the right-wing politicians that travelah the antichrist is so fond of actually tried to block it!
The rabid, insane anti-immigrant bashing in the US is not coming from liberals either. You will never see a “Welcome to America, Now Speak English” sticker alongside an Obama sticker. And it is right next to a McCain/Palin sticker that you will see the “If We Knew That They Were Going To Be This Much Trouble We Would Have Picked Our Own Damed Cotton” sticker.
In travelah the antichrist’s endlessly warped alternative reality, being a member of a white supremacist hate group, or immigrant bashing, or voting against equal pay or the right not to be gang raped doesn’t make someone a bigot. No, in his warped bizarro world, the only thing that makes someone the “epitome” of bigotry is calling someone out on their hypocrisy.
… and I would have to suggest that your comments fairly well vindicate what I stated.
Making up stuff … interesting.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives. (or in this case that of extreme leftist-liberals).
On the upside, that’s a very nice cape that you have there travelah.
travelah the antichrist, you have truly outdone yourself, and that is no small task. That is absolutely HILARIOUS.
Apparently, you don’t know to use dictionaries very well, as you skipped past the first two definitions, and then added your own ridiculous addendum, because it still made you look like a complete fool.
Let’s go back to the 1st and 2nd definitions, commonly known as the “preferred” definitions, which you conveniently skipped past:
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
And now let’s look at the actual third 3rd definition, which you shamefully added onto because it made you look so completely foolish:
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
You really are cartoonish to an absolutely surreal extent. If cartoons made cartoons, travelah the antichrist would fit right in.
Who has stated that there is a preferred definition except the one with a preferential mindset? The third definition is the generic application of the term and is appropriate to use when desribing such persons. The fact that it is applicable to yourself is demonstated vai your actual comments.
Of course, you can reject it but who cares?
Here is another reference. Note in particular the second definition and it’s rference to “political fundamentalism”. It seems pretty clear that i upsetting to some bigoted and intolerant leftist-liberal fundmentalists such as entopticon.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist
Here is an intrestng article from the WSJ dealing with this very phenomonon.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006694
Shucks, here is the Democratic Leadership Council addressing this issue of liberal fundamentalism.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253901
Jon (MX) – Name calling is ok now? Maybe you can tell us when it is and when it isn’t ok?
It is amazing how widespread and acceptable the phrase Liberal Fundamentalist is. I think it is now the in vogue label for bigoted and intolerant leftist-liberals … Statist Fundamentalists …
I have to hand it to you travelah the antichrist, any normal person would be crushed with embarrassment in your shoes about now, but the intrepid puppet apparently knows no shame.
Dictionaries commonly list definitions in order of preferred usage. Pretty amazing that you actually got through school without knowing that. Maine must have some serious problems with their school systems.
And again… the most hilarious part of all is that you shamefully added your own addendum because the dictionary definition made you look so completely foolish.
Read the actual definition that you cited, without your shameful addendum:
” strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.”
Sometimes it really does seem like you are actually just a liberal fooling around on this site, trying to make right-wing extremists look as completely ridiculous as humanly possible.
Of course you would quote the DLC. They say this with a straight face:
“We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman’s character in the Democratic Party.”
Poor barry, the DLC are your people, not mine. They like many people seem to recognize the bigoted and intolerant factions of the leftist fundamentalists for what they are. Lieberman was Gore’s VP candidate and considerng Gore is about as whacked fundamentalist as one gets, tell me what it is that mainstream Democrats don’t like about Lieberman? Oh, could it be he is not a bigoted and intolerant leftist fundamentalist? I suspect the hatred of Lieberman is limited to those intolerant leftists and not mainstream Democrats. The mainstream rejected the fundamentalists purge of him in thelast election and returned him to the Senate as an Independent rather than put a bigot in there. What is up with that anyways?
Dictionaries tend to list definitions with regard to commonality rather than preference.
Wow – why is it I feel like I need a shower after a back & forth with this particular sock puppet?
And it real is side-splitting that you actually linked to a right-wing paper’s editorial from 1984 as evidence of your claim. The googling that you substitute for reason is a never ending source of amusement. You are an absolute riot.
Well, barry, if you allowed yourself to engage in an articulate and intellectual discourse rather than the constant blather of your previous intolerant posts, you would not feel so self-demeaned. Step out of your discombobulated morass.
Liberal fundamentalism is not a new concept. It is an old, tired bigotry.
Ahh yes, and travelah the antichrist, king of the bigoted nutjob conspiracies, who thinks that it is just a miraculous coincidence that there is literally no such thing as a liberal member of a white supremacist hate group, has such a keen understanding of bigotry after all.
Thre are plenty of bigoted and intolerant souls associated with ACORN, The New Black Panther Party, The Congressional Black Caucus, Moveon.org etc …. it’s a long list. Shucks, some of them even live in Asheville, NC.
Let’s not forget People For The American Way, NOW, SEIU and the current Democrat Party leadership today.
Seriously travelah, did you drink a lot of lead paint as a child? Your response to the fact that there is literally no such thing as a liberal member of a white supremacist hate group is to equate groups like Acorn and Moveon.org with the KKK?!?
And now you are even equating white supremacist hate groups with the National Organization for Women and the Democratic Party?!? Your astonishing idiocy truly knows no limits.
Having taken a fresh look at this leftist fundamentalist opening post, it strikes me as an exercise in the theater of the absurd.
Most Americans are appalled at how primitively fundamentalist some Middle Easterners are. Yes, some are extremely primitive. But by far the greater causes of terrorism are the primitive and fundamentalist aspects of America and Western Civilization
If anything could be deemed crackpot fundamentalist, it is this opening paragraph. Is the writer seriously contending that terrorists butcher children and destroy their neighbors because of our western civilization? What possible evidences does the writer have in mind? Wait … this is rich.
After all, historically, it’s Western Civilization’s brutal intolerance that forced the Jews to create a country in the Middle East — Israel — to find safe refuge. And the existence, and US military support, of Israel are some of the main reasons much of the Middle East hates America. Even today, America harbors large numbers of virulent anti-Semites.
Perhaps the writer could share how he equates Nazi and Communist oppression and brutality with western civilization? Stalin’s brutality has been surpassed only by “Eastern” civilization’s Maoist regime in China. If anything at all, the brutality of each of these regimes is the result of Statist intolerance rather than the fruit of western civilization. This same Statism that allies itself with Israel’s enemies is one and the same as that of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It is the same Statist mentality that bows deep to Saudi royalty and demands Israel surrender its sovereignty to the preeminence of Oba Mao. Yes, there are a lot of anti-Semites in America and a long list of them are rooted deep in the Democrat party including Oba Mao’s long time mentor and anti-Semite, Jeremiah Wright.
Once America withdraws our ignorance from the Middle East, Middle Easterners will be able to better appreciate areas in which America is superbly advanced and tolerant, and the terrorists will stop attacking us
This is called appeasement and surrender in most reasonable circles. What idiot whispered in the writer’s ear that terrorists will all play with tinker toys once the Western world succumbs to their current demands?
Wow travelah the antichrist, you are certainly on a roll today. Just when it seemed impossible for you to say something even more completely asinine than you already have, you asked the astoundingly ignorant question: “Is the writer seriously contending that terrorists butcher children and destroy their neighbors because of our western civilization?”
You mean aside from the billions of dollars that we have spent over decades aimed at destabilizing the Middle East for financial gain?!? It’s not exactly a secret. That must be one hell of a bubble that you live in.
Terrorists suck, but who has butchered more innocent children? Unlike the US, they never dropped atomic bombs on civilian targets. We have certainly killed many, many more innocent children than they have. The truth is, as the Interfaith Alliance rightfully contends, it is not Hindus vs Muslims vs Jews vs Christians vs atheists. It is fundamentalist wackjobs like you, whatever the persuasion, vs the rest of the world.
And just to dig the trench of hypocrisy a bit deeper, travelah the antichrist went on to ask…. “This is called appeasement and surrender in most reasonable circles. What idiot whispered in the writer’s ear that terrorists will all play with tinker toys once the Western world succumbs to their current demands?”
Well travelah the antichrist, that “idiot” that you have so much disdain for would be Jesus Christ, among others. The hypocrisy of you actually calling yourself a Christian is mind-boggling. When you spend all day railing against Christ’s core teachings, you have absolutely no business calling yourself a Christian.
I honestly wish a genuine conservative and/or Christian Fundamentalist would weigh in on this, instead of the usual crazy dishonest hypocrites, whose missions appear to be destroying any chance for dialog…
JWTr asked:
“Jon (MX) – Name calling is ok now? Maybe you can tell us when it is and when it isn’t ok?”
Nope, it’s not OK. This is not the place for calling each other names, so please desist from doing so. Thanks for asking, though — our moderators don’t necessarily get to vet every single comment that comes up on this site, so please alert us to name-calling, which we really do want to discourage.
Jon Elliston, managing editor
Well, this “sock puppet and “satanic antichrist” doesn’t really mind the name calling. It furthers the point I have been making.
barry, you would have to look hard and far to find a more genuine conservative and evangelical particpant than myself, epsecially in this arena.
Jon – what about my other post that spoke to the topic??
travelah, you may be a lot of things, but a Christian is certainly not among them. I have never seen someone who is so all-consumed with railing against virtually all of Christ’s core messages on a daily basis.
No matter how you slice it, Christ was a pacifist and bleeding heart liberal that despised wealth and preached endless sympathy and forgiveness for the poor, whether you think they deserve it or not, so no matter how you slice it, the only way to be a Christian is to follow Christ’s path. By definition, preaching against Christ’s teachings, as you do on a daily basis here, does in fact make you the antichrist, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
There are literally Satanists that are more Christian than travelah the antichrist, and unfortunately that is not even hyperbole.
I suspect the body of Christ is a
better judge of what constitutes Christianity than one of it’s detractors but of course this is the internet.
JWTjr,
Which other post are you referring to? I can’t respond until you tell me where I can read it.
Thanks
The body of Christ are the people that support Christ, a pacifistic bleeding heart liberal’s teachings, and certainly not someone who obsessive-compulsively rails against Christ’s core teachings on a daily basis the way you do, travelah the antichrist.
I was raised in the church (Presbyterian) went to Sunday school, studied Christianity in a Methodist high school, and comparitive religion in college, and worked and studied at a Unitarian Church, among other things. I may not consider myself to be a Christian because of the shameful bigots that try to pass themselves off as Christian in the church, but it doesn’t take an expert to point out the blatantly obvious fact that people such as you, who rail against the core teachings of Christ on a daily basis, have absolutely no business calling themselves Christians.
Christ was the antithesis of the right-wing extremist fundamentalist evangelical wackjobs that ludicrously claim to worship the most famous bleeding heart liberal of all time, while railing against his core teachings.
By the way, Christ himself was not a fundamentalist. He most certainly did not believe the bible was inerrant. In fact he said as much numerous times, most famously in Matthew when he said that the eye for an eye passage found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy (which was stolen from the code of Hammurabi) was complete bs:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”
How extremely un travelah-like of him. Consider that in terms of the above arguments, where travelah was railing against that very concept in world politics. No matter how you slice it, travelah really is obsessively anti-Christian.
Every culture has a significant religious fundamentalist base. In most cultures, its a majority. America is no different than anybody else in that respect.
There are no atheists in a foxhole. Up until very recently, life was so hard everyone was in a foxhole of some kind most of the time. Life is so easy and cushy now, many have shifted from religion as an end authority to the government.
Wait til times get really hard again and the govt has no answers. They’ll be first at the alter call.
Humans are going to fight over something. Religion, resorces, politics … its human nature. America doesn’t have the monopoly there either.
Careful – intrepid conservative “Christians” have embarked on an ambitious project to de-liberal the Bible. The Conservative Bible Project:
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
They will strip away your socialist image of the Son of God, and leave a purer, free-market image of the Truth. (Yes, free-market. One of of the ten guidelines for stripping the liberal bias from the Word of God is to give special emphasis to: “explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning”.)
The new Conservative Bible will utilize “powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent”, and remove pesky, troublesome, mistranslated words like “peace”. (Yes, they actually have a problem with the word “peace”.)
The final listed benefit of this effort is that a new Conservative Bible “serves as an important counterweight to liberal efforts to divide conservative candidates based on religion”.
Nothing says Christ like Money, War, and Political Power.
He who claims to know God yet hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him. How can you love God whom you have not seen, when you don’t even love your brother whom you have seen?
If I claim to speak in the language of angels yet have not love, I am nothing but a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. If I give all I have to poor, and forsake all riches, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient love patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
I honestly don’t know many who actually live like this, including myself. Being a Christ follower, to me, would require humility. Travelah, aren’t there enough examples of hatred out there in the name of christianity? What do you have to prove to the world if your are so sure that God approves of what your ‘gospel?’
Actually, conservative evangelicals such as myself and many others do not look favorably upon that fundamentalist endeavor.
Well, that just goes to show you that there are always people crazier than yourself.
And you have to know that your reluctance to embrace their brand of crazy, will get you the stinkeye from those to the Right of you. They’ll call you ‘liberal’ under their breath… Right up until the moment when they put you up against a wall with a blindfold, for being Soft on Socialism. Welcome to the persecuted 99% minority, comrade.
Well, barry, that reply generally demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of this matter in particular the distinctions between Protestant fundamentalism and the theology of conservative evangelicalism.
Golly Barry, maybe you don’t know the difference between batty as hell (Protestant fundamentalists) and full blown insanity (conservative evangelicalism). You probably just need to speak in tongues for a few days, or you could always develop a taste for crystal meth and rough sex with male prostitutes, because as we all know, that is actually pretty popular with the conservative evangelical crowd these days.
Or maybe you could get the inside scoop on just how sick and twisted conservative evangelicals really are from a former prominent insider that grew a conscience, such as Frank Schaeffer or Carlton Pearson. Let’s just say that it is certainly no coincidence that so many Klan members are conservative evangelicals.
The truth is, conservative evangelicalism is nothing more than a right-wing extremist cult of bigotry and insanity. There is absolutely nothing Christlike about their vicious dementia. They prey on ignorance and xenophobia to exploit their shameful agenda of world hegemony. They are little better than the Taliban.
During the civil rights area, evangelical leaders lobbied against civil rights behind the scenes and even explicitly condemned the civil rights movement. Now they put despicably disgraceful issues like denying gay people basic civil liberties at the top of their agenda. Disgraceful hellholes like Bob Jones University still exist in a bigoted time-warp, where it was just a few years ago that interracial dating wasn’t allowed. We are talking about a seriously twisted bunch of lunatics there, and Liberty U is every bit as backwards and insane.
Fundamentalism is for the weak and narrow minded…it gives them a false sense of superiority. That includes the fundamentalist every where.
We will not do well in the black hole of the middle east. No one in history has, so why do we think we can prevail. Our best shot is to develop alternatives to oil consumption. That way we can stop propping up despot regimes like the King of Saudi Arabia, or our former support of the Shah of Iran (which led to the overturn back in the lat ’70. )
Let the middle east rot in their backward/medieval ways….we cannot change them. The same with fundamentalism…let it rot on the vine while the progressive world leaves them in their stupid misery.
I cannot imagine any post more convincing of how bigoted and intolerant, how perverted the leftist-liberal mind is than the latest post by entopticon. It should stand as a monument for any soul looking for an example of statist fundamentalism. He is your representative.
travelah the antichrist, it is absolutely hilarious how you can dish it out when it comes to Muslims, but you sure can’t take it. Think of it this way, just as you are dedicated to obsessively ranting against the the core teachings of Christ on a daily basis, (which I have now proved over and over again beyond question) I am the anti-evangelical. There are a few important differences though. For example, whereas evangelicals lobby to keep people from having basic human rights, such as gay people’s right to marry, I would actually fight for your right to express your warped views.
Really, if you think about it, where does a person from a tradition that is as demonstrably as bigoted and intolerant as yours get off accusing anyone else of bigotry and intolerance? It is not some magical coincidence that there are so many evangelical KKK members. You won’t find any agnostics in the KKK. They wouldn’t be allowed to join even if they wanted to.
And it is not some magical coincidence that evangelical institutions such as Bob Jones University have the most openly bigoted policies of any large institutions in the US. There is undeniable, incontrovertible evidence that evangelical leaders fought against black people gaining their basic human rights during the civil rights era. And there is of course a mountain of evidence of evangelicals trying to deny gay people their basic rights now. As you see, it is very easy to demonstrate the bigotry of evangelicals.
But where have I ever tried to deny evangelicals of their rights? I haven’t. The fact is, you are conflating disagreeing with bigotry and intolerance. I intensely disagree with the unconscionable practices of evangelicals, but I tolerate them. I have never marched against their right to exist or given a dime to a cause trying to take away their rights. Unlike you.
The truth is, you can’t make a cogent argument against any of the actual facts that I provided, because as opposed to you, my argument is airtight. And seriously, your asinine blather about statist fundamentalism and “Oba Mao” is a joke. It has no basis in reality. It is just a testament to the laughable extremities of your ignorance. However many cereal boxtops you had to save up for your diploma, you were ripped off.
By definiton, evangelicals are fundamentalists. For better or worse, there is literally no such thing as non-fundamentalist evangelicalism! Inerrancy of the bible is a basic tenet of evangelicalism, as is the notion that Jesus Christ is the one and only path to salvation, hence the incredibly warped evangelical mission for world hegemony, which is bigotry and intolerance in its ugliest, rawest, and most perverse form.
I think entopticon’s abuse of definitions has been substantiated well enough here. Protestant fundamentalism is a particular movement focused on particular science and political perspectives. Conservative evengelicalism is a theological perspective unrelated to one’s political viewpoint. There are Democrats who are conservative evangelicals as there are Republicans and Independents. There are also a good number of apoliticals who would be considered evengelically conservative.
As for the inerrancy issue, it is a subject of considerable dispute. Inerrancy is a scientific term and there are many, myself included, who do not accept the term theologically and instead embrace infallability as a more appropriate term. Fundamentalists insisyt on inerrancy. Conservative evangelicals are of mixed opinions. With regard to Jesus Christ beng the only path to salvation, that is a core Christian tenet regardless of what camp one allies with. To promote otherwise would be to fall into an apostasy.
Enough of the theological lessons today .. back to your rabid frothing …
There are none so blind as though who will not see.
travelah the antichrist, considering that you literally rail against Christ’s core teachings on a daily basis, you certainly have absolutely no business giving anybody theological lessons.
You really have have topped yourself here though. Your contention that conservative evangelicals are not fundamentalists is either astoundingly ignorant or astoundingly dishonest, because it is the exact opposite of the irrefutable facts of the matter. Either way, you are clearly the one in serious need of theology and history lessons, so here it goes…
The fundamentalist movement was literally started by conservative evangelicals. By definition, fundamentalism is a conservative evangelical movement! The term “fundamentalist” derives from The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which was a series of essays published between 1910 and 1915, written by conservative evangelicals. As the movement developed among conservative evangelicals, it fractured into subsets of fundamentalism such as dispensationalism, premillennialism, separatism, and neo-evangelicalism.
This is not exactly a secret. Fundamentalism started in the conservative evangelical movement, and that is where it continues with those following in the footsteps of prominent fundamentalist leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and Bob Jones.
It must suck to be you travelah the antichrist, losing virtually every argument that you have ever been in, yet always coming back for more anyway.
I was raised Southern Baptist, and attended various evangelical churches throughout my youth. In my immediate family, there is one Methodist minister, an Episcopalian minister, two academics with Phd’s in Divinity Studies, an ordained Chaplain, and a Russian Orthodox priest. With all love and respect to my siblings, parents, and cousins, here is my view: organized religion is one of the strongest repositories of injustice in this world. I don’t for a second believe that Jesus of Nazareth would recognize himself in any of the major Christian denominations of today, and would be more likely to be outside trying to tear down these cathedrals of idolatry.
I believe that if I were raised Muslim, I would probably feel the same way about their perversion of their prophet’s words.
Mind you, I didn’t say a source of injustice, but a repository of injustice, simple ordinary human weakness. This is the sad sickness of the human condition: we take those occasional enlightened souls among us, we hold them up, take their words to heart, them watch them be sacrificed. Their teachings then become a hollow box we pour our hate and fear into, and use to justify our aggression and greed. We twist and manipulate the record of their time on earth to serve the political interests of the day: witness a group of current “Christians” re-writing the Bible to promote “free-market ideals”. Such has been the course of the ‘Word of God’ since the first papyrus went into the cave.
The various denominations quibble over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether Jesus ‘owned’ the clothes he wore on his back, or whether his words carried their ‘intended’ meaning through three or five or ten translations. Meanwhile, the poor get poorer, wars are waged for profit, disease and death follow, while ‘Christians’ re-arrange the deck chairs. Such is how it has been for two millennium…
MX – Its hard to participate in the discussion when it takes 24 hours to get a comment posted. I thought that registering solved that problem? What’s up?
Many thanks, entopticon, for so beautifully proving my point about liberal fundamentalism….over and over again. You’ve illustated it accurately and I had to do no work–you did it for me. I threw out the bait and you came a’crawlin’!
Many thanks, entopticon, for so beautifully proving my point about liberal fundamentalism….over and over again. You’ve illustated it accurately and I had to do no work–you did it for me. I threw out the bait and you came a’crawlin’!
Ironically, my wife and I spent much time and money over the last week and a half caring for a conservative evangelical fundamentalist in need.
john, sorry, but that really is a completely idiotic thing to say. You proved no such thing. I just irrefutably proved that fundamentalism is a term that originated as a conservative evangelical movement, and continues to be to this day. The only thing a’crawlin is your synapses. I proved my case, so all you could do is launch a pathetic “I know you are but what am I” style counter argument, because you have no real argument.
I certainly don’t agree with the Ay Rand libertarians on many things, but at least they have the intellectual integrity to admit to the incontrovertible fact that you can be a right-wing conservative or a Christian, but you sure as hell can’t be both.
john, you could have tossed out an empty hook and still snagged the fundamentlist statist.
travelah the antichrist, have you been sharing meth with Ted Haggard again, or are you just naturally that way? It really is hilarious that all you can do is offer up your asinine empty rhetoric in lieu of any real argument.
I proved that it is an indisputable fact that the term fundamentalism was literally coined by and about conservative evangelicals, and that it has been a conservative evangelical movement with various factions since its inception. Try to prove that I am either a fundamentalist or a statist. You can’t, because as usual, you are talking out of your ass. F*ck the state. I hate nationalism. So much for your imbecilic theory.
Your idiotically McCarthyesque tendency to assume that everyone who does subscribe to your right-wing extremist fundamentalist evangelical wackjob theories must be a Marxist is almost hilarious as it is sadly pathetic. You are a meager and sickly reminder that fundamentalists are in fact the least educated religious demographic in the United States.
Ent and Trav are like children. Arguing semantics like that.
Pretending that religious fundamentalism or extremism started within the last 100 years is totally ridiculous. It started right when man formed its first social groups. Don’t hate being human.
Entop., your tolerance and impartiality is truly amazing.
John, I take that back. The statist fundamentalist will just flop in the boat as long as there is water under it.
Actually words do have meanings Jr, and fundamentalism does in fact refer to a specific religious movement. Nobody said that extremism started in the last 100 years.
Why thank you john. And I do appreciate the lowercase j providing exceptional accuracy to your moniker.
travelah the antichrist, it really must seriously suck being wrong all of the time. On the up side I suppose the one perk that your wife has being married to you is that she gets to never lose an argument.
You can call me a statist fundamentalist till you turn blue in the face, or a 600 hundred foot tall pink giraffe if you want, but it still won’t be any truer. Again, f*ck the state, and again, that doesn’t gel with your blatantly false contention.
It is a fact that fundamentalism is a conservative evangelical movement, and that the term itself was even coined by and about conservative evangelicals. I proved my case, and you have none, so you just keep flapping your butt cheeks (which happens when you are talking out your ass the way that you do) and saying a bunch of idiotic nonsense with no substance whatsoever.
You claim to worship the most famous bleeding heart liberal in human history, and you spend all day railing against his core teachings, which I have irrefutably proved over and over again. You better hope there is no hell travelah.
While I am not a big fan of Wiki, some of our statist fundamentalists are fond of using it so it might be appropriate here. Of course the zealot stastist fundamentalists can just disavow Wiki too and feel they have proven themselves beyond refute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
… The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations …
… The Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term “fundamentalism”. The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience which had little familiarity with Islam, came to describe it as a “fundamentalist version of Islam” by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term “Islamic fundamentalist”, which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years
… Some refer to any literal-minded philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, theologian Alister McGrath has compared Richard Dawkins’ atheism to religious fundamentalism, and the Archbishop of Wales has criticized “atheistic fundamentalism” more broadly.[10][39][40] Others, including the blogger Austin Cline of atheism.about.com, argue that fundamentalist atheism does not exist, because it cannot exist on the grounds that atheism has no fundamental doctrines, and that fundamentalism is not a personality type.[41] Richard Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position.[42]
In The New Inquisition, Robert Anton Wilson lampoons the members of skeptical organizations like the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP – now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) as fundamentalist materialists, alleging that they dogmatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with materialism as hallucination or fraud.[43]
In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labeled by some as “Secular Fundamentalism.”[44][45] Intolerance of women wearing the hijab (Islamic headcovering) and political activism by Muslims also has been labeled “secular fundamentalism” by some Muslims in the United States.[46]
The term “fundamentalism” is sometimes self-applied to signify a rather counter-cultural fidelity to some noble, simple, but overlooked principle, as in Economic fundamentalism; but the same term can be used in a critical way. Roderick Hindery first lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism.[citation needed] They include “vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise.” Then, negative aspects are analyzed, such as psychological attitudes, occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and in some cases literalism….
… State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism. When Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself an atheist state,[47][48][49] it was deemed by some to be a kind of fundamentalist atheism and where Stalinism was like the state religion which replaced other religions and political ideologies. See also North Korea, China and Vietnam….
… Although fundamentalism is often related to religions, there is a development to focus more and more on philosophy. In a way the philosophical part of religions is set apart. Fundamentalism is not only found in religious beliefs, but also in philosophical base principles that matches with those religious beliefs. An example of this can be found in Bellevarde philosophy…
Now, whether the Ent is a Statist Fundamentalist or a big pink giraffe, he is what he is and he aint what he aint … or some such.
As if that is not enough, here is Liberalvoices.com using the notion of polical fundamentalism to tarbrush conservatives. Switch the political ideologies around and presto! … another confirmation that Statist Fundamentalists who deny what they actually are don’t really understand the topics in discussion.
Now, bringing this back to the opening post, I would agree that Statist fundamentalism needs to be addressed and refuted at every turn.
http://www.liberalvoices.com/2009/10/political-fundamentalism.html
travelah the antichrist, apparently you can cut and paste, but can you read? I never denied that a person has ever used the term fundamentalism to compare other people to conservative evangelicals. The quotes you just pasted here overwhelmingly support everything that I said.
As the quotes that you just pasted here clearly support, and I said all along, the term was created by and about evangelical conservatives. And as those quotes state, the media first applied the term to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s ideology because your people, the conservative evangelical fundamentalists, are the closest thing to that in this country!
Of course there are some people that have used the term that was created by and about conservative evangelicals as a metaphor for others. It is used as a synonym for narrow-minded intolerance when it is metaphorically applied to others. Now what does that say about you folks?
Every time you use the term “fundamentalist,” you are literally comparing the person to the narrow minded bigotry of conservative evangelicals! You truly are cartoonish.
I have to say, seeing travelah quote Robert Anton Wilson to try to support his case, misguided though it was, was definitely one of the highlights of my evening.
you two might could stand to confront your own fundamentalism. you know, since we’re all Americans here.
Umm, that’s actually pretty unintelligible, but okay. I have a feeling it sounded better in your head than how it actually came out.
entopticon, how do you explan your narrow minded intolerance and bigotry, your support for massive State takeover of economies, industries and social determinism without embracing yourself as a Statist fundamentalist? The opening letter does not seem to understand that the fundamentalists in power today are those of Oba Mao, Harry Reid and Nncy Pelosi stripes rather than politically active Protestants. I realize it is uncomfortable for you to be compared to that you destest but then, reality is an eye opener at times.
Seriously travelah, have you considered psychiatric help? There are people out there that might be able to give you the help that you need. For real. Clearly exorcisms and speaking in tongues hasn’t been working out for you. There is no Oba Mao. That is just the ravings of a deranged lunatic.
You can revel in paranoid delusions about “massive state takeover of economies” etc all of you want, but all you do is betray the fact that you are completely insane. Not that there is a sane type of right-wing extremist evangelical, but you are balls to the wall, full-blown nuts.
Again, the term “fundamentalism,” which was literally coined by and about conservative evangelicals such as yourself, means to be an absolutist when applied metaphorically to others.
A fundamentalist statist would be someone who believed in the absolute control and infallibility of the state, just as evangelical wackjobs like you believe in the absolute infallibility of the bible. That is the whole point of applying the term for conservative evangelicals to others, such as Muslim’s who absolutely believe in the Koran.
If I were a fundamentalist statist, saying f*ck the state would be the equivalent of a fundamentalist evangelical saying f*ck the bible. In other words, that can’t be the case. Your argument holds no water whatsoever. I certainly to not have a fundamentalist’s belief in absolute state power. Far to the contrary. Wanting universal healthcare, which by any reasonable person would be taken for granted in a 1st world country, does not make someone a fundamentalist statist. That is just a paranoid fantasy that you have, filtering a perfectly reasonable belief through the paranoid delusionas of McCarthyesque right-wing extremism. It has no basis in reality whatsoever.
And the same goes for my wanting government to do its job and keep rampant corporatism in check. By definition fundamentalist statist would believe in a complete state takeover of business, which I in no way subscribe to. It is just another one of your paranoid delusions stemming from the radically insane propaganda of the fundamentalist extremists that you have devoted your life to.
No person with even the slightest understanding of Christ’s teachings would argue that Christ without question would support universal healthcare for all people, rich and poor alike, and the same applies to keeping corporations in check, rather than having them exploit the planet and the poor into oblivion.
You may be a lot of things travelah, such as delusional, sadisitic, ignorant, and bigoted, but you are certainly no Christian.
Thinking of yourself as a holy roller and praising Christ doesn’t make you a Christian.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name? Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.” ~Matthew 7.21
Following Christ’s (a bleeding heart liberal through and through) teachings does. It is hard to even imagine something more Christian than universal healthcare, or something more anti-Christian than trying to block it. Christ openly despised wealth and believed in giving to anyone and everyone in need, without exception, whether you think they are deserving or not.
How easily you forget that Christ and many of his closest friends and followers were panhandlers! Your disgraceful attitude would literally deny Christ and his followers healthcare! And you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian?!? You are fundamentally… nuts.
“Following Christ’s (a bleeding heart liberal through and through ) teachings does.”
I thought this was covered back in the 60’s…when it was ascertained the Jesus would be stoned to death by the holy rollers and others who ClAIM superiority.
Davyne, there has been a very liberal element within Christendom that attempts to redefine the scriptural presentation of Christ however it is generally rejected by the orthodox witness of the church through the centuries. Today’s liberalism is identified predominantly as part of the Emergent church although this subset of Christianity has several competing elements in it.
The 1960’s “Jesus Movement” is best represented today by Chuck Smith’s Calvary Chapel and it is far from being a liberal representation. It is predominantly conservative evangelical with a modernist approach to certain social interactions. The liberalism you might be referring to is that of the liberation theology movement and it survives today in small sects. Some United Methodists and Unitarians have embraced the concept however it is generally regarded with widespread rejection of it’s tenets.
The notion of Christ being a bleeding heart liberal is rather ridiculous considering that according to Christian doctrine, this “bleeding heart liberal” will cast into eternal damnation those very same souls misrepresenting Him as such. Knowing the enmity most have towards Christ, Christians are not generally impressed with the abuse of Christian doctrine by those who have no idea what tey are talking about. It is an interesting spectacle to watch those who hate Christ misuse Him in order to attack those who love Him.
“Holy Rollers” is a term that is derogatory and directed at certain Pentecostal sects and is only used against Christians in general out of ignorance. It is akin to labeling all Christians as snake handlers.
All I know for sure is: it’s very easy to talk the talk, very difficult to walk the walk.
blah, blah, and more blah travelah the antichrist. It really is hilarious that when you are backed into a corner, all you can do is bare false witness and claim some magical special authority over Christ’s teachings even though you rail against them on a daily basis.
Unlike you, I can easily supply a mountain of evidence that Christ was a bleeding heart liberal. It’s not exactly, a secret; he’s the most famous bleeding heart liberal in the history of humanity. You can’t supply an iota of evidence to your completely dishonest fabrication about Christ damning his own people, bleeding heart liberals, to hell, because it is a blatant lie. You better hope there is no hell travelah, because you will have a special place there if there is one.
It is hilarious that you don’t even understand that it is you that hates Christ. You absolutely despise him and everything that he stands for. Or have you suddenly changed your mind, and now you idolize a bunch of panhandlers that quit working to hang out and talk philosophy all day while living off of the generosity of others? Christ had endless sympathy for the poor, and he openly loathed the rich. While you fight for tax cuts for the rich, Christ commanded that you give everything that you have to beggars.
On virtually every major issue, Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal, and that is ridiculously easy to prove. Here is a clip from another thread where I irrefutably demonstrated that…
Since travelah was ignorantly foolish enough to actually cite Matthew as an example of Jesus, the most famous bleeding heart liberal in history, of not (!?!) being a bleeding-heart liberal, it will be a pleasure using Matthew to blow that asinine contention to smithereens….
On pacifism and the death penalty:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” ~Matthew 5.38
On money:
“You cannot serve God and wealth.” ~Matthew 6.24
“Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” ~Matthew 5.42 (perhaps the ultimate bleeding-heart liberal statement in the history of humanity).
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” ~Matthew 19.23
On public prayer:
“Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your father in heaven.” ~Matthew 6.1
“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” ~Matthew 6.5
On bleeding heart liberal forgiveness:
“Then Peter came and said to him, Lord, if another member of the Church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times? Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but I tell you, seventy times seven times.” ~ Matthew 18.21
You can’t supply quotes to support the idea that Christ was a fundamentalist wackjob like you, because they don’t exist.
All I know for sure is: it’s very easy to talk the talk, very difficult to walk the walk.
That is very true for those whose focus is upon their own perceived abilities. For those whose faith is in Christ rather than their own meager capabilities, it is another story. The reference to the rich man and the eye of a needle has been made several times here but there hsa been no wisdom to accompany it. The parable doesn’t refer to the eye of a sewing needle but to the small passage gates of the city walls of Jerusalem. A camel can pass through that gate but it is tedious and caution must be had. Abraham was a very wealthy man and a patriarch as well. The passage is one of stewardship and the shedding of greed rather than an imposibility.
However, this is not a theological discusion board and I should leave off at that. It is the Gospel that is needed here and not scriptural egegesis.
and my typing is horrible …..
Very funny, but no surprise that travelah would spread that completely debunked nonsense about the the camel passing through the eye of the needle. It is actually a well known fact that travelah’s claim has been thoroughly debunked over and over again. Evangelicals tendency to torture interpretations of the bible with convoluted rationalizations to support their right-wing extremist agenda really are unconscionable.
According to any serious scholar, including the theology department at Oxford, the camel passing through the eye of a needle phrase was actually a common expression at the time, which was the exact equivalent of “when pigs fly.” That’s a fact. As the theology department and at Oxford and their linguistic specialists state, it was in fact a common “Proverbial expression of impossibility.”
Because it completely and blatantly contradicts the extremely anti-Christian agenda of the far right, they have made insanely convoluted, and entirely false attempts to twist the passage into something it is not, but no serious scholar of the issue buys their nonsense, because it is clearly false.
Just to emphasize the important distinction once again, take note of the fact that the preeminent scholars in the world on the subject, the theology department at Oxford, said in no uncertain terms that the expression most certainly was a common expression meaning that it was an “impossibility,” and it certainly did not mean that it was merely difficult as right wing extremists with an anti-Christian agenda falsely claim. In the very same passage, Christ even went on to emphasize that it is “impossible” (which would make absolutely no sense if the expression only meant difficult as the far right falsely claims) for mortals, and only possible for God himself.
For a more knowledgeable discussion of the eye of the needle analogy, the following offers some insight. I do not agree with the author’s suggestion that the Aramaic language has been mistranslated. However, if we suppose that a Christ hater is correct in assuming the eye is part of a hebrew idiom then the context of the passage in Matthew needs to be fully explored. It was the young rich man’s love of wealth that is the obstacle fitting such an idiom rather than wealth itself. However, I find Bullinger’s presentation more convincing.
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm
In addition to that link, the following from some of my Mennonite brethren gives further insight into this analogy. (certainly noone in their right mind wuld accuse the Mennonites of being right wing fanatics and extremist fundamentalists .. well maybe some might)
http://www.mbforum.ca/topic/520.html
It is just hilarious that travelah the antichrist’s last line of defense is to say that I, and apparently the preeminent theology department on the planet, are wrong, because supposedly I am a “Christ hater.”
I am not a Christ hater travelah. You are the one who rails against Christ’s teachings on a daily basis, not me, so it is indeed you thst is the Christ hater, whether you choose to acknowledge that incontrovertible fact or not. There are many former fundamentalists that came that had that epiphany, so there is still hope for you. Frank Schaeffer and Carlton Pearson are two of the more prominent examples.
Here is a moving article in Newsweek about Brent Childers, a local (Hickory) evangelical who had that important epiphany: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216910
Here is a moving Passage from the article, you could learn a lot from it travelah:
“It’s because something deep inside told me that I needed to step out in faith onto a bridge of knowledge and understanding. I didn’t know where this bridge would take me but something was telling me it was a path I needed to walk. My own mother challenged me in 2003 to look at my beliefs and the true intent behind the teachings I held in blind faith. “Do you think your views are Christ-like?” she asked me. Her question was dead on: once I walked away from the Church’s teachings of rejection and condemnation, my relationship with God transcended to a higher spiritual plateau. I realized an unparalleled sense of spiritual clarity when I opened my heart and mind to a genuine expression of love, compassion, and acceptance of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
This new voice—Christ’s voice—became the core principles of my faith: love, compassion, and respect. That voice I now realize was desperately wanting to be heard, a voice no longer comfortable with the place in which I had chose to confine it for so long—a place of bigotry, prejudice, fear, and misunderstanding.
The walk across that bridge wasn’t very strenuous but it was at times painful. The pain came as I began to realize for the first time that I had been using my faith to bring harm to others. That’s not a pleasant realization for anyone who marches under a Christian banner of love, respect, and compassion.”
travelah, you mean the same Mennonites that believe that Jesus was a hardcore pacifist, and hence bleeding heart liberal? The same Mennonites that forego any sign of wealth in the name of Christ? Having had lived among Mennonites for several years, I find this especially amusing. You are nothing if not entertaining.
Oxford is comprised of several colleges and universities, neither of which is the preeminent theology department of the planet. There are some noted theologians who have come out those schools but few of late. N.T. Wright is a notable product of the Oxford community.
The understanding and application of the passage and phrase in question has been debated far longer than you have been out of your diapers and there is no authoritarian source that settles the matter. There are sustaning arguments for several understandings of source of the phrase. To make such blanket statements as you have in this thread is nothing short of empty bravado. To apply it as condemning of wealth is a groundless assertion and rather ignorant (expectantly so).
The very same Mennonites who believe He will cast you into an eternal lake of fire … yeah, those Mennonites. Now, of course you might argue otherwise, but Anabaptists are generally in agreement with most of the same soteriology as myself.
Travelah, you ever read ‘Blue Like Jazz?’ I think you might enjoy it. It’s by a buy named Donald Miller. He is entertaining even it you would completely disagree with him. My Baptist Missionary dad read and appreciated it though he did not agree with all that he says. You might find it therapeutic if you give it an honest shot.
As an aside, the Mennonite communitites are some of the more conservative envangelicals in Christendom however they are not generally considered fundamentalists because many of them, in particular their more conservative members, avoid divisive politics.
“To apply it as condemning of wealth is a groundless assertion and rather ignorant (expectantly so).”
Once again travelah you have managed to cross the threshold into full-blown absurdity. It is groundless and ignorant to point out the fact that Jesus saying that it is impossible for wealthy people to get into heaven is a condemnation of wealth? Seriously are you brain damaged or just slow?
Jesus condemned wealth over and over and over again!.
Direct quote:
“You cannot serve God and wealth.” ~Matthew 6.24
Game. Set. Match.
You have lost the argument travelah. There is no room in Christianity for pride, so just get over it and move on already.
Yes travelah, Mennonites are indeed conservatives, and some that I have known personally are very liberal as well, because those things are not always in contradiction with one another. What doesn’t exist are Mennonites who agree with right-wing assertions about the merits of violence and great wealth.
I personally am looking forward to your revelation of your experience with the liberal aspects of Antartic Pigmies.
Abraham was a wealthy man but of course there is no need for logic to prevail among the Statist Fundamentalists. As for all that time with the Mennonites, I should suppose you were an intruder for it is pretty certain none of their good character seems to have rubbed off.
Mennonite speech and attitudes are generally peaceful and they are pacifists to a fault (at least in outward appearances). They are not a derogatory people with regard to other sects even though they have a history of being persecuted. One thing they are for certain are conservative envangelicals. Another thing for certain they are not are religious fundamentalists.
Seriously travelah, are you drunk? There are plenty of wealthy characters in the bible. That does not change the fact that as I proved beyond question, Jesus, who hung out with panhandlers openly condemned wealth over and over again. Considering the fact that panhandlers were his chosen people, it is pretty safe to say that he certainly wouldn’t approve of your twisted beliefs about wealth.
Why do you go on with your paranoid delusional nonsense about statist fundamentalists when I just rationally, and incontrovertibly proved that that is completely absurd? Again, for me to be a statist fundamentalist, I would have to believe in complete control and infallibility of the state. I have never advocated anything even remotely like that, nor would I. It is all in your paranoid-delusional imagination, and that’s why you are completely unable to support your arguments with anything beside smokescreens and diversions.
The jump from being in favor of universal healthcare to a fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of the state is absurd to the point of insanity, even for you.
There are no communists and immigrants hiding in your bushes travelah. Nancy Pelosi does not have a secret plan to destroy healthcare. Obama is not a Kenyan Islamic mole. Homosexuals are not conspiring to force you into compulsory gay marriage, and they are not part of a Satanic plot. Black Panthers do not eat babies. It’s all in your head travelah, and there may be medications that can help you. For real.
No, Jesus did not hangout with “panhandlers” and he never condemned wealth. Having a coin found in a fish’s mouth or taking a handful of loaves and fish to feed a great multitude is not the hallmark of a panhandler. The condemnation is that found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Ro 8:1 AV)
The point of the comment you keep referring to (and can never understand as one who rejects Christ)is that one cannot serve both the desires and trappings of wealth and serve God at the same time. That does not mean that wealth is evil or even undesirable. It means that one must steward their resources in a manner that always glorifies God rather than exalting men. It is why the love of money and not money itself is the root of all evil.
These are not ideas you can fathom and based on the vitriol that is revealed in every one of your replies, it is better others learn from those who actually understand the concepts.
Yes travelah the antichrist, it is better that people learn from people who actually understand the concepts, and considered your convoluted, tortured rationalizations, it certainly isn’t you. You keep saying that he said, this, but he really meant that. No travelah, when he said that it is impossible for rich people to get to heaven, that’s what he meant. When he said that you cannot serve God and wealth, that’s what he meant. There was no right-wing extremist addendum about how he really meant that it’s just dandy to be wealthy. When he overturned the moneychanger’s tables, he made no bones about it.
Jesus didn’t hang out with beggars? Are you out of your f*cking mind? You have sunk to a new low.
The unredeemed soul is rather ignorant of the things he speaks about.
Ps 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Okay travelah, it really is getting impossible to tell if you are just mentally challenged or nucking futs. To support your ludicrous assertions about Jesus you just included a verse from the Psalm of David, from the Old Testament!
And what’s even funnier is how completely irrelevant that quote is. Did you just google the word bible and begging?!? That’s a quote from before Jesus was even born, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are a riot. Just too funny, especially considering that David was the exact opposite of Jesus. He bragged about slaughtering countless innocent women and children, which is of course murder, and a guaranteed ticket to hell according to the bible.
Ps 137.9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock.”
As long as we are quoting random, completely irrelevant lines from Psalms and all.
If you aren’t outright lying, and you really are so astoundingly ignorant about Christ that you aren’t even aware that he hung out with beggars, that really does reach down to pathetic new lows for you. The fact that you actually are trying to use parables about magic tricks to explain how Jesus and his friends payed for food even though they didn’t have jobs and hung out with the poor, is truly side-splitting.
Those among Christendom who reject the truth of the Old Testament while promoting parts of the new are considered whacked heretics. Those who reject Christ altogether and then attempt to use Christ to attack those who actually know these teachings, well, they are simply nuts.
The purpose of the quoting that particular Psalm was to demonstrate how ludicrous it was to assert that Jesus was a panhandler. I did not have to look hard for the Psalm. I have taught it’s importance theologically.
I continue to be amazed at how astoundingly ignorant you are of Christianity and it’s distinctions from Christendom although I should not be. There is nothing of the Bible that you could possibly grasp. To pervert the teachings of someone you detest in order to attack those who actually know his teachings is actually bizarre.
Travelah, you ever read ‘Blue Like Jazz?’ I think you might enjoy it. It’s by a buy named Donald Miller. He is entertaining even it you would completely disagree with him. My Baptist Missionary dad read and appreciated it though he did not agree with all that he says. You might find it therapeutic if you give it an honest shot
Jacob, I have not read the book. It came up in a discussion with several fellows at a Lake Junaluska conference but I have not taken the time to read it. I browsed through Miller’s Searching for God Knows What but I could not stay interested in it long. I found it to be far too Emergent for my taste however I might finish it given the time.
David is a fascinating study, a man after the heart of God. David and Solomon are both Old Testament types of Christ, David representing the earthly ministry and humanity of Jesus and Solomon, His Kingly reign. These are matters you are not going to understand,entopticon, and in your carnal foolishness, you blaspheme without any idea of what you are doing. Of course, as an unredeemed soul, it is to be expected, and by the grace of God perhaps that might change.
Perhaps you should just stick to your Statist Fundamentalism … THAT is something you know about.
entopticon, Psalm 137 is a prophetic dirge concerning the plight of Edom. The little one’s of the daughter of Babylon are the Edomites and it is Christ the LORD who destroys them. It is the LORD’s righteous judgment that is responsible for their destruction rather than the abused Hebrews. The events of this prophecy were also foretold by Jesus favorite quoted prophet, Isaiah, and by Jeremiah. You should keep to context when you attempt to mangle what you are clueless about.
“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us [required of us] mirth, [saying], Sing us [one] of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD’S song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget [her cunning]. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase [it], rase [it, even] to the foundation thereof. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Ps 137:1-9 AV)
Who do you think you are fooling travelah? You are so completely full of it. I am supposed to believe that you quoted a passage from the Psalm of David about the fate of children of trangressors in order to effectively demonstrate that Jesus and his pals weren’t beggars? That is the rough equivalent of pulling a random name out of the phonebook to prove that the refrigerator light turns off when you close the door. Your cartoonishness never ceases to amaze. I hate to burst your bubble, but it is hardly controversial that Jesus and his crew lived off of the kindness of others.
Show me where I said I detest Jesus travelah. You can’t because you are bearing false witness, and the punishment for that is an eternity in hell. Enjoy the trip.
And show me where I said I have a fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of the state. You can’t, because once again you have been bearing false witness. As a matter of fact I can show numerous examples of me saying quite the opposite, which incontrovertibly proves you have lied yet again. Gee, looks like it’s double hell for you travelah.
Of course, we both know that I irrefutably caught you in a doozy of an ongoing lie quite some time ago, so you were already headed there anyway.
Hilariously, you even said: “There is nothing of the Bible that you could possibly grasp.”
Are you really so astoundingly ignorant that you don’t even know how anti-Christian that asinine statement is? Amazing.
And this was entertaining too: “To pervert the teachings of someone you detest in order to attack those who actually know his teachings is actually bizarre.”
I already proved over and over again, in no uncertain terms, that it is indeed you that rails against the teachings of Christ on a daily basis. Sop projecting.
By the way, there are numerous examples of Christ rejecting parts of the old testament, so rejecting the ridiculously unethical parts, like David murdering innocent women and children, is in fact the Christian thing to do. Can’t say that I am at all surprised to find you defending the senseless slaughter of completely innocent women and children. That’s how you roll after all.
I bet you are wearing more than one type of fiber in your clothing this very moment. The old testament commands against that. Hypocrite. I bet you have even eaten shellfish a time or two.
And what the hell is that twisted crap about carnal foolishness travelah? Stop projecting already. I already told you, no matter how hard you wish for it, Sean Hannity is never going to love you the same way that you love him.
travelah the antichrist, you put the “fun” back into fundamentalism. Unfortunately, you also put the “mental” back into it fundamentalism.
Who do you think you are fooling travelah? You are so completely full of it. I am supposed to believe that you quoted a passage from the Psalm of David about the fate of children of trangressors in order to effectively demonstrate that Jesus and his pals weren’t beggars?
Entopticon, the Psalm refuting your notion of Jesus being a panhandler was Psalm 37 and not 137. Here it is again:
Ps 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread
Of course I do not expect you to be able to follow along.
And show me where I said I have a fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of the state
Statist Fundamentalism doesn’t have anything to do with the infalliblity of anything. Maybe you are up too late to think coherently.
I bet you are wearing more than one type of fiber in your clothing this very moment. The old testament commands against that. Hypocrite. I bet you have even eaten shellfish a time or two
Acts 15 deals succintly with the matter of applying Mosaic law to gentile Christians. Paul also explains the purpose of the Pentateuch beautifully with the following.
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Ga 3:24-29 AV)
Show me where I said I detest Jesus travelah. You can’t because you are bearing false witness, and the punishment for that is an eternity in hell. Enjoy the trip
How silly … when did you start believing in hell?
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Now, perhaps you can magle that testimony too?
You are too funny travelah. That was a typo, I guess it was over your head that I clearly knew that it was the Psalm of David. And again it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever. Jesus hadn’t even been born yet. I guess logical continuity is just too much to ask from a fundamentalist evangelical wackjob.
According to those Oxford theologians that you aren’t so fond of (I will have to pass that along to my friend from the Oxford Divinity School) that line refers to “The varying fates of the children of the righteous and of the transgressors,” which again, has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and his pals begging for spare change, whatsoever. It has the word “begging” in it, and that’s about all.
Sorry to burst your bubble once again but all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo in the bible, from living in the belly of a whale to making magical loaves of bread and changing water into wine isn’t real. They are parables. Only a child or a mentally challenged fundamentalist lunatic would be foolish enough to take parables literally. No one in their right mind would actually take a metaphorical parable literally, whether it is Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf or Noah’s ark. Oh, and by the way, there is no Santa Clause.
While you are having brunch with the fellows from Oxford Divinity School, the Mennonite Brethren and the Albanian Pigmies of Antartica, perhaps you might raise the question of Messianic Pslams while you sip your tea. Be careful, it’s hot.
That was a typo, I guess it was over your head that I clearly knew that it was the Psalm of David
Ohhhh a typo a paragraph long … ok.
oh oh before I am accused of being illiterate, that was Psalms rather than Pslams. God knows where the typing police are tonight!
I don’t actually believe in hell travelah. No sane adult would. Your hell is here on Earth, just being you. You can make accusations, but you can’t back them up. I said things about admiring Christ teachings, you are the one who has said detestful things against Christ’s teachings. In this very thread, you railed against Christ’s commandment to solve conflicts through pacifism. You really are the antichrist and you don’t even know it.
Funny that you would cite Romans though. According to Roman’s 13, those who speak against our political leaders will incur the wrath of God. Gee travelah, I guess you are in deep shit. Magle that.
Where is the typo a paragraph long you imbecile? It was the stroke of a key.
I am not sure how to burst this to you but Psalm 137, the transgression psalm you plucked earlier is not a Psalm of David. I suppose your identification of the typo was itself a typo?
Sponge Bob isn’t real either travelah. And Cinderella’s coach never actually turned into a pumpkin. Yeah, you’re sane.
er … here it is:
I am supposed to believe that you quoted a passage from the Psalm of David about the fate of children of trangressors in order to effectively demonstrate that Jesus and his pals weren’t beggars
1. you have Psalm 137 confused with 37
2. Psalm 137 is not a Psalm of David
3. You must have held down that key for several seconds.
Oh, and by the way, my friend Anthony Freeman, ordained in 1972, is very real. Not surprising that you can’t tell the difference; you are a grown man that doesn’t know the difference between biblical fairytales like Jonah and the whale or Noah’s ark, and reality. How sad, yet amusing.
Funny that you would cite Romans though. According to Roman’s 13, those who speak against our political leaders will incur the wrath of God. Gee travelah, I guess you are in deep shit. Magle that.
More ignorance … you must be going for a record. The psaage you refer to has nothing to do with participation or not in the political process. The church is generally split on this matter with one camp referring to it as civil authority and the other referring to ecclesiastical authority. In any even it has nothing to do with denying civil participation in democracies.
Anthony Freeman? Are you referring to the heretic thrown out of the Anglican church for his radical peasoup of junk theology? That Anthony Freeman? Shucks, allow me to introduce you to Jimmy Swaggart.
It really is kind of funny arguing with someone as astoundingly dense as you. I simply put a 1 in front of the 37. I said I was was referring to the Psalm of David all along. What exactly is so hard to understand about that? How do you manage to take a shower without drowning yourself? Now that’s a miracle.
How did you come up with children of transgressors confusing that for the issue of your spurious claim Jesus was a beggar? Oh Oh … it was a long, slow typo …
Anthony Freeman is your credentialed claim to Christian knowledge? LOL THAT is funny … I never knew Ha!
Actually, Anthony was brought back into the church as a matter of fact, and he is one hell of a scholar. Just because unlike you, he isn’t moronic enough to believe in magical fairytales that only an imbecile would actually take literally, you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him.
He managed to get through Oxford and he is the head editor of one of the premier neuroscience journals in the world. How about you travelah?
Frankly, you are not qualified to shine his shoes.
I can’t resist this … it’s too much. Anthony Freeman is the only Anglican to be excommunicated out of the Anglican church throughout the 20th century without so much as an ecclesiastical trial. His offenses were so grievious they just booted the heretic out. This was a gross heretic in the Anglican church who denied the very existence of God and you want to tout his ordination in 1972??? LOL Ha … this tops off the discussion with a royal flair.
Did you graduate with honors from Oxford divinity school travelah? Anthony did. Have you written any critically acclaimed books? Anthony has. You are a peon.
The Oxford bible has the theologians notes on each section. I was not quoting Anthony, I was quoting the theologians behind the Oxford bible.
It really is absolutely hilarious that you claim to know so much, and it turns out that you didn’t even know the meaning of the verse you were citing!!!
Thank you so much for being you, and giving me such an incredibly ridiculous thing to laugh at.
Yes travelah, Anthony stood his ground because he is two things that you couldn’t possibly relate to…. intellectually honest and exceptionally intelligent. I guess you must be really disappointed that in the end it was his intellectual rigor that won out.
well, to be fair, he was merely kicked out of his posting … he might be running around somewhere with a white color setting off that beautiful black shirt …. seriously, I could introduce you to Jimmy Swaggart. I mean, if you are going to lift up this clown, why not go full bore?
Freeman hasn’t written anything of substance from a theological perspective. I suppose he might have written something concerning some kind of paranormal stream of mental conscienceness junk but the man is not a Christian in any sense of the word. Even the Anglicans couldn’t stomach his crap. That is pretty bad LOL.
I can’t say that it surprises me that you know Jimmy Swaggart travelah. Hookers and amphetamines seem to be all the rage with you fundamentalist right wing extremists these days. Do you go for the boys like Ted Haggard, or for the girls like Jimmy Swaggart?
Again travelah, Anthony graduated from Oxford in chemistry then theology. You are not fit to wipe his ass.
travelah, you are not Christian in any sense of the word.
Anthony has more of the qualities of Christ in his kindness, bravery, intelligence, and humanity than a fundamentalist crackpot like you, that believes in magical loaves of bread and coin bearing fish, could ever dream of.
The 3rd edition of the Oxford Bible is not considered in a good light by most conservative Evangelicals while the earlier version, in particular that edited by Bruce Metzger is accepted by most groups. I don’t know how to break this to you but the Oxford name does not carry the same connotations it did 2,3 or 4 centuries ago. The two editions used most in the Protestant realm are the KJV and the NASB and you certainly will not find the whacked out idiocy of Anthony Freeman anywhere in it. He is , how shall I put it … koo koo?
I know Swaggart through associates in Baton Rouge, Lousiana. I am not an adherent to his particular theology as he is Pentecostal and I am Reformed Arminian (Wesleyan tradition). I thought since you are so charmed with Freeman that adding Swaggart to your list of charming associates might lift your emminence even higher.
Why would I want to wipe Freeman’s ass? How odd.
Ha! Anthony Freeman … well, I certainly didn’t expect that crackpot name to surface here on MX … this is rich but it’s late. LOL!
You believe that that a man was living in the belly of a whale, and another guy built a boat with two of all the animals in the world on it, and that a guy made magical loaves of bread, and that there was a coin bearing fish….. But Anthony Freeman, a renowned scholar, is “koo koo” and a “crackpot”? Your cartoonishness is limitless.
Sorry to pull the ontological rug out from underneath you yet again, but in reality (something you clearly have little familiarity with) Oxford is one of the top 5 universities in the world. Did you get two degrees with honors from one of the top 5 Universities in the world? C’mon tell us travelah.
You keep citing the fundamentalist evangelical world as if it was taken seriously in academia or anywhere else. It is not. No intelligent person would possibly give a flying hoot what fundamentalist evangelicals had to say on any issue requiring a modicum of inteligence. Evangelical fundamentalists are the least educated people in America. Nobody in their right mind takes you people seriously. You are the laughing stock of the world. Your fundamentalist schtick may work for talking uneducated elderly people out of their downpayment on a new trailer, but that’s about the extent of it.
You certainly have no business calling someone like Anthony Freeman, who displays a level of intelligence that is beyond your wildest imagination, a crackpot.
I never said that you wanted to wipe Anthony Freeman’s ass. He’s not Rush Limbaugh or Jimmy Swaggart after all. Interesting that you were so quick to see it that way though. Sounds like denial to me. Considering all the crack and deviant sex that your pal Jimmy is into, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. I said that you aren’t fit to wipe Anthony’s ass, which is entirely true.
He has been a friend for a number of years. I actually had him and his Church group from England come stay with me for a bit once. He runs an internationally renowned journal on the philosophical implications of neuroscience, which has published most of the top scientists and relevant philosophers in recent history. His journal publishes people such as Roger Penrose who won the prestigious Wolf prize in mathematical physics that he shared with Stephen Hawking, and an Albert Einstein award, Roger Shepard, winner of the National Medal of Science, and Piet Hut of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton (Einstein’s program). Anthony’s judgement is good enough for all of them, and frankly a knuckle-dragging right wing extremist fundamentalist crackpot like you can’t even imagine his intelligence.
Sorry to pull the ontological rug out from underneath you yet again, but in reality (something you clearly have little familiarity with) Oxford is one of the top 5 universities in the world.
What does ontology have to do with Oxford, in particularly with a man who flat out denies the existence of God while you tout him as a source of your supposed Christian knowledge?
Now, a Statist Fundamentalist would fail to recognize that the accolades of the secular world have nothing to do with legitimizing the theological opinions of a man who was tossed as a heretic by one of the more liberal or moderate churches in the world.
Face it … you keep losing with every post. I thought you might want to hook up with Swaggart after revealing your source of Christian teachings is a heretic tossed out of the Anglican church. Shucks, I thought he might be one of your kind of guys.
In the spirit of American fundamentalism, religious and racial tolerance, health care, manifest destiny, and thanksgiving:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/kids-reenact-the-first-th_n_365432.html
Thanks Betty, that was very funny.
Gee travelah…. Now why would I listen to a renowned scholar with a theology degree from one of the top 5 universities on the planet about theological issues? How silly of me, when I could just trust a bigoted, superstitious right-wing extremist fundamentalist that knows Jimmy Swaggart. Golly, would could I have been thinking?
Rather than just blathering on with the same hilariously ignorant right-wing extremist rhetoric about statist fundamentalism, could you just back up your claim? I have challenged you to back up your claim over and over here, but your cowardice and the fact that you have no legitimate argument has kept you from offering any proof of your ridiculous claim whatsoever. So come on you coward, show one case of me claiming that I believe in the infallibility or absolute control of the state. You can’t because you are a cowardly, pathetic liar, and you know it.
It is beyond hilarious that you have failed to recognize that I have repeatedly mopped the floor with your flimsy arguments in every post. You are like the Black Night in Monty Python, lying on the ground with all your limbs cut off, demanding surrender.
I have to say that it was especially hilarious that it turned out that you didn’t even know the meaning of the verse that you quoted. When I quoted the Oxford scholar’s explanation, you were so ignorant to the actual meaning that you thought I must have been accidentally thinking of another Psalm. Your embarrassment must have been quite a sight.
And it is beyond hilarious that you think that Anthony Freeman is a “koo koo” “crackpot” because he doesn’t believe that a magical giant is floating around in the sky, meddling in the outcomes of football games, or any of the other ridiculously superstitious tripe that you are just too laughably ignorant to know that you should be embarrassed of.
Brace yourself travelah… there is no magical giant floating around in the clouds, Power Rangers are not real, Jonah never spent any time in the belly of a whale, Davy and Goliath were really made out of clay, Jesus didn’t magically make bread appear or turn water into wine, Goldie Lox didn’t really eat bear porridge, and Noah didn’t really build a giant boat and gather billions of species on it.
They are all fables travelog. Anthony is not a crackpot for not believing in your laughably ignorant superstitions. He is an intelligent person with intellectual integrity, which is something that a fundamentalist crackpot like you could never understand. As I mentioned, he works closely with some of the greatest intellectuals in human history (I have had the pleasure to share time with him and some of them, such as Piet Hut, mentioned above) while you, well.. that’s another case.
By the way, Anthony remains a priest in the Church of England.
Well, why wouldn’t you want to meet Swaggart? He and Freeman are like two opposite peas in the same pod. I mean, he is your kind of people, right? Heresy, whacked out at times and both were tossed (well Freeman stil wears a vestment and Swaggart still preaches in his church while both men were tossed)
Freeman has the same level of respect among Anglicans that Swaggart has among the Assemblies of God Pentecostal demination. The guy is right up your ally and I am guessing you ARE qualified to wipe his ass.
When I quoted the Oxford scholar’s explanation, you were so ignorant to the actual meaning that you thought I must have been accidentally thinking of another Psalm. Your embarrassment must have been quite a sight
er … actually I was responding to this quote of yours:
Ps 137.9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock.”
As long as we are quoting random, completely irrlevant lines from Psalms and all.
Was that another long extended typo?
I never wrote a paragraph about that travelog, you specifically stated that the Oxford theologians take on the quote that I provided must have been about that verse, when it was really about the verse that you cited…. which is just too fricking funny. It rally is amazing how you never tire of losing.
Yes travelog the antichrist, Anthony Freeman and Jimmy Swaggart are indeed two opposites, and that is why I am friends with Freeman, a world renowned scholar who works with some of the greatest intellectuals in the history of the world on a daily basis, and you are friends with a fundamentalist crackpot with a penchant for crack and hookers. Yep, that pretty much sums things up.
Here is a great parody of Statist Fundamentalism in action …
http://www.pjtv.com/v/2734
Travelog, that really was hilarious indeed, though certainly not in the way that you intended it to be. Thank you so, so much for confirming the studies confirming that right-wing extremists really do lack the ability to understand the intricacies of humor, which explains why there has never been a single great right-wing comedian in American history.
Seriously, what could possibly be more ridiculously pathetic than an attempt at humor explaining how great the radical right wing extremists, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter are, while positing that liberals are actually secret Nazis and communists? Oh yes, funny stuff indeed. You are a wacky bunch indeed.
Let’s see, what do Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have in common…. neither ever passed a college course in their entire lives! And it certainly shows. Not surprisingly, Hannity never managed to graduate from college either. Ann Coulter is the only one of them that ever managed to even get a degree, but of course, even most conservatives acknowledge the fact that she is completely insane.
Pajamas Media, news for people with no patience for reality. Great stuff travelog, keep up the good work.
Oh you are welcome .. here is another one ..
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Klavan_on_Culture/FLASHBACK:_Is_Barack_Obama_Jesus_Christ?/2544/
Couldn’t open that link, travelog. Oh well, I will just have to assume that it was every bit as humorous as that last one. Those Pajama’s media folks sure are real cards. Nothing says funny like neoMcCarthyism. Good times.
Thanks again travelog, you really do put the “mental” back in fundamentalism.
An absolutely hilarious thing just crossed my mind. travelog’s criticisms of my friend Anthony Freeman are outlandishly hypocritical considering that travelog is a Wesleyan.
He keeps railing against Freeman because Freeman, who remains a priest in the COE, was at one time relieved of his parish because of his controversial views. Apparently travelog either doesn’t know that Wesley was widely considered to be heretical by the COE, even though he desperately sought their approval, or he just doesn’t care about his laughable hypocrisy. The CEO did not recognize Wesley as a legitimate priest.
Here’s a little snippet from the wiki on Wesley:
“From 1739 onward, Wesley and the Methodists were persecuted by clergymen and magistrates because they preached without being ordained or licensed by the Anglican Church. This was seen as a social threat that disregarded institutions. Ministers attacked them in sermons and in print, and at times mobs attacked them. Wesley and his followers continued to work among the neglected and needy. They were denounced as promulgators of strange doctrines, fomenters of religious disturbances; as blind fanatics, leading people astray, claiming miraculous gifts, attacking the clergy of the Church of England, and trying to re-establish Catholicism.”
Now that’s just too funny! And like Freeman, Wesley studied at Oxford, so travelog’s comments about that are pretty amusing too.
But there are a few differences…. Unlike Wesley, Freeman was never caught up in a sex scandal. Wesley had to flee America because of the ongoing sex scandal he was embroiled in.
Unlike Wesley, Anthony Freeman is not a divorcee.
Unlike Wesley, Freeman is not a big drinker let alone a brewer.
travelog calls my friend Freeman a heretic because he doesn’t believe that God is a magical giant floating around in the clouds. Instead he believes that God exists in our hearts and minds “the sum of all our values and ideals’ guiding and inspiring our lives.” Apparently Freeman is guilty of sanity.
Freeman certainly never said anything as heretical as this quote from Wesley at the age of 63:
“I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word.”
“I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word.”
Good to see you take up the Calvinist banner of slander and absurdity. Wesley’s questioning of his faith in this episode of his life is well documented and followed a long period of struggles after his Aldersgate experiences. These were personal reflections of doubt that he quickly overcame.
These are comments he made to his brother Charles and they reflect a lone and grave doubting on his part. They are not the musings of a heretic but the depressing search of a soul full of doubt. He clearly moved beyond these doubts rather quickly and rightfully so.
Wesley’s actual comments:
In one of my last [letters] I was saying that I do not feel the wrath of God abiding on me; nor can I believe it does. And yet (this is the mystery), I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen, a proselyte of the Temple, one of the ?????????? ??? ???? (’god-fearers’). And yet, to be so employed of God! And so hedged in that I can neither get forward nor backward! Surely there was never such an instance before, from the beginning of the world! If I ever have had that faith, it would not be so strange. But I never had any other ??????? (’evidence’) of the eternal or invisible world than I have now; and that is none at all, unless such as faintly shines from reason’s glimmering ray. I have no direct witness (I do not say, that I am a child of God, but) of anything invisible or eternal.
As for your other foolishness, most of it deserves no comment. I will state I admire him as a brewer. I am likewise and neither of us will be known as drunkards.
Freeman remains an absurd heretic by any Christian standard.
Incidentally, with regard to your sex scandal accusation, you have the wrong Wesley in mind. I am guessing that was another one of your infamous typos?
Waaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
YOU are the one that was repeatedly attacking Freeman for losing his parish, even though he is still a priest within the COE!!! When I proved the Wesley couldn’t even get ordained by the COE, and was considered to be a dangerous heretic by them, you had no problem with your own double standard!!! Your hypocrisy is absolutely hysterical. It is hard to even imagine anything more ridiculous.
Hilariously, you are the one that said: “Even the Anglicans couldn’t stomach his crap. That is pretty bad LOL.”
As I proved, they could stomach him more than they could stomach Wesley, who you base your entire faith on! At least Freeman wasn’t preached against in sermons, or chased down by angry mobs of Anglicans.
It really is a pleasure mopping the floor with your bizarrely flimsy rationalizations. Sometimes it seems like you make so many absurdly weak, ludicrously easy to dismantle, and outlandishly hypocritical arguments just because you are some kind of masochist that is addicted to losing all of the time.
Wesley wasn’t a divorcee? He wasn’t embroiled in a sex scandal? The facts speak for themselves.
You can try to rationalize Wesley’s words all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that that statement was certainly a hell of a lot more heretical than anything that Freeman ever said, whether he was having doubts or not.
He said that he did not love God, and that he never did. “Not” and “never” are superlatives, so by definition, doubt can not explain your convoluted claim. He did not say, that he “might” not have loved God “enough” or that he “may” never have loved God “enough.” He used clearly defined superlatives such as “not” and “never” rather than qualifiers such as “maybe,” “might,” and “enough,” expressing doubt, which means that your fallacious rationalization claim has no merit.
Maybe that only makes him human, but to argue that that is any less heretical than anything Freeman ever said is ludicrously intellectually dishonest, even for you. I do not question that he had a lone, grave, doubting and depression.
Funny that you are still harping on that typo thing, even after you were so badly humiliated by the fact that you thought the quote by the Oxford scholars was in reference to the random Psalm that I quoted, when it was actually about the one that you quoted as evidence of your case. And somehow you still don’t get it. Hilarious.
In the 1730’s, this was about as racy as Sanford and Ensign’s scandals are today. You make humiliating yourself by being wrong over and over again an art form:
“On top of his struggles with teaching, Wesley found disaster in his relations with Sophy Hopkey, a woman who had journeyed across the Atlantic on the same ship as Wesley. Wesley and Hopkey became romantically involved, but Wesley abruptly broke off the relationship on the advice of a Moravian minister in whom he confided. Hopkey contended that Wesley had promised to marry her and therefore had gone back on his word in breaking off the relationship. Wesley’s problems came to a head when he refused Hopkey communion. It was the final straw for Hopkey. She and her new husband, William Williamson, filed suit against Wesley.
Wesley stood trial and faced the accusations made by Hopkey. The proceedings ended in a mistrial but Wesley’s reputation had already been tarnished too greatly and he made it known that he intended to return to England. Williamson again tried to raise charges against Wesley to prevent him from leaving the colony but he managed to escape back to England, but was left exhausted by the whole experience. His mission to Georgia would contribute to a life-long struggle with self-doubt.”
You are making yourself a bigger idiot than before … the alleged sex scandal suppossedly forcing Wesley to leave the Americas early involved Charles Wesley, John’s brother. The Hopkey issue is something else altogether and had nothing to do with sex.
As for Wesley’s periods of doubt, they have have been discussed too many times at the seminary level for me to attach any weight to your charges.
Wesley, along with his Calvinist friend Whitefield were reformers out of the Anglican church. I don’t think Freeman could ever be considered a reformer of Christian thought in any Christian circle. It is a similar situation with your supposed Mennonite brethren. They denominated themselves from previous groups. They did not deny orthodox Christian doctrine in the process.
In case it is still over your head, like most things in life, let me sum it up for you…
When you base your entire faith on a preacher that was considered a dangerous heretic by the Anglican church (so he couldn’t get ordained) you certainly shouldn’t be too quick to cast dispersions on an a priest in the COE who is still ordained, but is no longer looking over a parish because of his controversial views.
A six year old could tell you that that is what is known as someone who lives in a glass house who is throwing stones. And that is what is known as a metaphor. I know you have a lot of trouble with the concept of metaphors, because you openly admit that like a preschool child you take biblical metaphors, such as a fish bearing a coin, at face value, missing the whole point. Ask your kids about it; they might be able to explain it to you.
Please travelog… You are making it just too darned easy. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Exactly what part of “Wesley and Hopkey became romantically involved” don’t you understand????? You are a riot. That is in reference to John, not Charles, but is nice to learn that sex scandals run in their family.
And here is the take on it from Theopedia:
“John was to be missionary to the native Americans and pastor of the Savannah parish, but his pursuit of a romance with Sophia Hopkey, niece of the chief magistrate of Savannah, contributed to the failure of this endeavor. Sophia, rejected by John, married another man and Wesley excluded her from Holy Communion. Wesley had faithfully served his flock but had exhibited a stiff high churchmanship that antagonized the parish. The Hopkey affair produced enough misunderstanding and persecution to cause John to flee Georgia and return to England after less than two years”
Any way you slice it, that was certainly a big sex scandal at the time. You are nothing if not entertaining.
poor entopticon, John Wesley was involved with a courtship that upon proper advice he discontinued. If you knew what high churchmanship meant, you might gain further understanding but let’s not hold your breath.
The fact remains you have gleaned your non-existent knowledge of Christianity from one who denies Christ and the very existence of God, from one tossed out by a church who even in their permissive outlook couldn’t stomach his gross heresy. Of course you can try to run rabbit trails around that fact with a history of an Arminian-Weslyanism you have no clue about.
Somebody should take away your right to vote just based on intellectual incompetence. (Especially when you quote Calvinist materials regarding Arminians … you are totally clueless in this matter)
bwaaaahahahaha…. it never ends with you. He fled the flipping country and it haunted him for the rest of his life. People are still talking about it 200 years later. Yeah, no scandal there.
You really do have mental issues, don’t you? Is it really that hard for you to understand or are you willfully ignorant? Anthony is still an ordained minister. The same church thought that Wesley was such a heretical lunatic that they refused to ordain him! They warned against him, and some even attacked him! And you have the gall to turn around and criticize Anthony Freeman for far less?!? Did your mother drop you on the head as a baby? Your hypocrisy is absolutely outlandish. The most rudimentary logic completely eludes you.
As mentioned above, Freeman believes in God. He just doesn’t believe that God is a magical giant floating around in the sky who meddles in the outcomes of football games. Because unlike you, he is sane.
Somebody should take away my right to vote based on intellectual incompetence for quoting Calvinist materials on Arminians? WTF? You are seriously out of your flipping gourd. That is beyond imbecilic; it is outright warped. You need help.
Let’s analyze that for a moment. I have a Master’s degree from an ivy league university, but my right to vote should be taken away because a fundamentalist evangelical, which is the least educated group in the United States, doesn’t like the fact that I keep calling him out on his idiocy? Now that’s rich. And likewise, you questioned Anthony Freeman’s intelligence, despite the fact that he works with some of the leading intellectuals in the history of the world on a daily basis, while you are a fundamentalist windbag that fancies himself an amateur Christian apologist, in the 21st century no less.
In this thread alone you attested to the fact that you think a man with magical powers made loaves of bread magically appear out of thin air and a magical fish came bearing a coin in its mouth. You openly admit that you literally believe in 2000 year old supernatural fairy tales like Jonah and the whale as if that’s sane, and I am the one who shouldn’t have the right to vote? You really are some piece of work.
You poor knucklehead … you are presenting a Calvinist spin on the truth while advocating a heretic as an example of true Christianity. Whether you believe or not is irrelevant. It is your idiotic argument that is at stake here.
Freeman denies the existence of God and Christ and you tout him as an example of proper Christian thought, the source for your understanding. No wonder you are completely nuts.
Here are some sources for those who wish to understand the general orthodoxy of Christian thought, particuarly that of the Arminians, Wesleyans, General Baptists, Anabaptists etc …
http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.htm
http://evangelicalarminians.org/
… and for those who might have an interest in the life and activities of a man who influenced the development of religious liberty and civil justice in this country to a great extent unmatched by most, the following resource would be an excellent start.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/3301-3400/HDM3357.pdf
These will help the unaware layperson to distinguish between the slur of the label of fundamentalism and the informed knowledge of theological evangelicalism and humanities. There are a great deal of resources in the links from Wesley, Arminius etc to Fletcher, Watson and others that can shed light on the academically minded who have an interest in truth rather than empty rhetoric.
A Calvinist spin on the truth. I don’t give a flying f*ck about the Calvinists, or the Arminians for that matter. It is a fact that Wesley was considered a heretic and the church he belonged to refused to ordain him. That’s not spin or an opinion. You are delusional.
Speaking of clueless ignorance, Freeman does not deny the existence of God or Christ, and no matter how many times you repeat that lie over and over, it won’t make it true. He is simply too intellectually honest to perpetuate the magical giant fable. According to him, God exists in our hearts and minds.
You believe in a 2000 year old magical genie who uses his special powers to make bread and wine, but I am the one who is idiotic? Your cartoonishness is without limits.
Compared to you, Freeman is undoubtedly a paragon of Christianity. He is a kind, intelligent, honest, and highly educated person. In other words, he is the anti-travelah. As opposed to you, he does not spend all of his free time ranting against the core teachings of Christ.
Oh, and as I proved, you touted a man who is famous for saying, “I do not love God. I never did” as an example of true Christianity, which makes you a laughable hypocrite.
I love God. Just not his fundamentalist followers so much.