Well genius, what do you know about how the earth was created, were you there? Are you married to a man, or think you should be?

By Jack777 on 11.10.04 2:59 pm

God gave me a mind, and the ability to reason. Apparently all he gave you was a book, and (maybe) the ability to read.

And no, I am not married to a man. I have a wife, and three children. Should one of them decide not to marry in the traditional sense, I would want them to have the same legal rights we give married couples. Our country is founded on the basis of equality for all, if you have forgotten.

I have no complaint whatsoever if a given church does or does not want to recognize same-sex unions as marriage. I object to the government discriminating financially against a specific class of citizen.

St Paul said the fruits of the spirit were love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and all the rest. If a person exhibits those fruits, they are a suitable model for my children. I can think of many many homosexual people I would rather trust my children to than to the narrow minded in-bred bigots of the world.

By Alan Folsom on 11.10.04 5:49 pm

Did not answer my question about Creation, who the Creator is. Two of my degrees are in Geology and another is English. God did give me a mind. You say that God gave you a mind to reason, so God being the Creator of the universe is something you believe when you think of your mind, but do you think He passed out brains and such to others or maybe we others maybe got ours from some other source?

I don’t think I suggested you trust children to narrow minded bigots in any way. Where did that come from? Our country was founded on a lot of things and it seems you do not know and are not aware of the difference between egalitarianism and equality. Egalite was the cry of the French Revolution, not ours. Those "equality" thoughts you think you possess are based on the premise that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. God gives those rights, not men. We are created equal, that is no guarantee we remain equal. In what sense is undermining everything civilization has stood for based on marriage between a man and woman and the family since men began to record history a reflection of maintaining equality in any way? How is fiat declaration of equality satisfying to you and conformable with the basis of a Federal Republic as we know it in the United States?

By Jack777 on 11.11.04 11:33 am

The original question dealt with creationism. I would quote from the book "Science and Creationism" published by the National Academy of Science
” Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”
Creationism is not science, it is subservience of science (and reason) to beliefs which are not testable. Hold whatever beliefs you wish, but don’t call it science, and don’t try to teach it in a public school.

My beliefs? Since you ask, I believe God (which I will not and can not define, being human) caused and created the universe, but not in some way in conflict to what intelligent and sceptical observers observe.

The Declaration of Independence may refer to inalienable rights granted by their creator, but our laws and Constitution are tools of men, wise men, who have struggled to treat people equitably and fairly.

In what sense is allowing rights to gay couples "undermining everything civilization has stood for … since men began to record history." A bit of hyperbole, there, I would say. Civilization must be awfully fragile if two people professing their love for each other and legally sharing possessions and rights will cause it to fall. I believe, on the other hand, that evolving civilization has been the struggle for growing respect, dignity, and love for all humankind, as opposed to those savages who react with fear and loathing to anything different from them.

Do you believe that blacks are the descendents of the Tribes of Ham and thus cursed to slavery? That women are inferior and should not vote, nor be allowed to speak in church? These are all bigoted views held by your predecessors in this country, justified on the basis of their so-called ‘faith’. Fortunately we have overcome them, and with luck we will, in time, overcome the bigotry that you espouse.

By Alan Folsom on 11.11.04 12:16 pm

Hang onto your belief in God, it is about all you have except for an incredible misapprehension you are a pretty sharp cookie.

I did not teach creationism in school, nor will I ever since I am not a teacher. I don’t agree with the young earth creation science people anyway except that God created the universe.

Telling me what to do and not do is pretty cool, but I expect I will make my own decisions and if called upon would exercise my volitional will as I want. What are you the thought police?

By Jack777 on 11.11.04 2:52 pm

"I don’t agree with the young earth creation science people anyway except that God created the universe."

Oh. so you don’t believe in the bible as literal truth. Why didn’t you say so in the first place? Or is it only literally true when it is convenient for you, or when you can rationalize around it?

"Telling me what to do and not do is pretty cool, but I expect I will make my own decisions and if called upon would exercise my volitional will as I want."

In what portion of which post did I tell you what to do? Your readings of my posts are as perceptive as your readings of the bible. I have never tried to tell you what to do, I have commented on your posts to my weblog.

Your posts are becoming less coherent. You are not addressing my points, and your grammar is worsening. Perhaps you might consider taking a deep breath and relaxing (Note that I am not telling you to do this, it is just a suggestion).

"Hang onto your belief in God, it is about all you have except for an incredible misapprehension you are a pretty sharp cookie."

I don’t believe I have an incredible misapprehension, but I’m willing to examine my beliefs. Are you? Thank you, though, for the compliment on being a "sharp cookie." I can see how that might trouble you. You might consider picking up a copy of Richard Hofstadter’s "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." It’s not the bible, but is pretty interesting reading nonetheless.

"What are you the thought police?

No, you make comments on my weblog, and I respond to them. Not only do you make comments, but you seem to come back constantly, to see if I have responded to them. Is my response somehow validating you? At no point did I hunt you down, you came here. If you want to post ideas that I disagree with on my website, then you can only expect me to respond to them.

I do wish, though, that if you continue to argue here, you would at least come up with some rational support for your positions. Responding to unsupported assertions and emotional appeals to authority is becoming tiresome. Civility would be nice, too, rather than starting off your posts with "Well, genius…"

By Alan (the thought police) Folsom on 11.11.04 3:32 pm

You told me not to try teach creationism in school and don’t call it science. I am perceptive, but you didn’t notice that.

I apologize for being flip and referring to you as "genius".

I look at your site once a day, I admit. How else would I get on it? I don’t know what you are driving at.

You are a creationist if you think God created the universe. I said I am a creationist and did not qualify my statement. What I said is true. You seem to be stuck on this literal thingy. I said I believe God created the universe, is that not adequate? What do you want to know exactly. I ask because there is much I could say, where to begin?

Hope there is no hard feelings about my use of the word genius. I do examine my beliefs and am glad that you do as well.

By Jack777 on 11.12.04 9:58 am

Almost forgot, when have I cited authorities? What authorities???? How can something I have not done tire you out????

By Jack777 on 11.12.04 9:59 am

Almost forgot, when have I cited authorities? What authorities???? How can something I have not done tire you out????

Your falacious appeal to authority is the same one that conservative christians use every day. It boils down to: "The bible must be true because it says it is true." When it is simply not true, you ignore the evidence and find ways around it. When you cannot support your position, you resort to self-referential gobbledy-gook like: God’s Word is Truth and if you expect to be lied to you will be, by the machinizations of your mind, not the Mind of God

Have you read Alice in Wonderland? There is a great section where Humpty-Dumpty claims he can make words mean whatever he wishes. I ask, because you seem to feel the same way about the word "creationism." The word is commonly used as an opposite of evolution, as in teaching creationism along side evolution. Creationism in this sense is pseudo-science, totally opposed to the scientific method.

There is an old joke about a man who asks a woman if she would sleep with Donald Trump if he offered her a million dollars. After much thought, the woman answered "yes, the money would be helpful, I would probably do that." The man then asked if she would sleep with him for ten dollars, and she replied "No! What do you think I am??" His response was, "We’ve already established that, now we’re just haggling over price."

In the same way, one must either believe that each and every word in the bible is true, or admit that there are places where they are not, and that it needs, at the very least, interpretation if not correction. Once you have admitted that, we are in the negotiation phase, and you cannot cite it as infallible authority.

So, what’s it to be? Were Jesus’ last words "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" As it says in Matthew 46, or were they "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" As it says in Luke 23:46, or were they "It is finished" as it says in John 19:30? Good trick, to say three different things as your final words. If you cannot believe that all three are true (and I cannot) then you must admit that the bible is the work of fallible, albeit inspired, men. Then, and only then, can we mine the bible for those portions which speak to us today, and try to understand the divine will as it was interpreted and filtered by ancient men.

I cannot believe that God’s word was set down for all time in the book of Leviticus, or whatever other book one wishes to cite. If I did, I would not only condemn homosexuality on the basis of Leviticus 18:22, I would put to death anyone who works on the sabbath on the basis of Exodus 35:2, or pass laws against haircuts on the basis of Leviticus 19:27.

If the instructions God gave a primitive tribe wandering in the desert are the same he would give us now, then He is not a very perceptive or loving God.

I also cannot believe that that God’s revelations stopped suddenly after the last of the new testament books were written. God is the great "I AM", not the great "He Was". His revelation and guidance comes to all who will listen. Those of you who have put your faith in the bible as sole and infallible authority in the universal church have chosen to worship a book, turning away from the Living God; an idolatry as mistaken as any worship of a golden calf.

By Alan (the creationist) Folsom on 11.12.04 10:54 am

You are funny.

By Jack777 on 11.18.04 3:03 pm

You are funny.

Well.

I guess you told Me! I can only stand in awe of your debating skills.

I may be funny, but I’m also correct.

By Alan (the comic) Folsom on 11.18.04 3:23 pm

Correect about what?

By Jack777 on 11.19.04 9:11 am

Care to make a response to anything he said, Doug/Jack? A real response, with reasoned arguement and points?

I’m sorry, but "you are funny" doesn’t even cut it in middle school debate.

By Tom Folsom on 11.19.04 11:20 am

I thought we were having a conversation. Hmmmmm….

Well, what would it be that would be an adequate starting point for formal debate? My day of formal debate began and ended in high school on a debate team. If I remember correctly there are all sorts of rules and procedures.

Seeing that the rules not having been distributed properly and agreed upon for debate, I will reply to one thing.

Homosexual practices, living out the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination according to God. I didn’t say, it, God did. Paul in his letter to the Ekklesia gathered in Rome affirms this. It is plain wrong from a Judaic and Christian worldview. We are not alone in this. The homosexual lifestyle is debilitating in effect upon those who practice it. It is a moral issue but it has ramifications for society in that the basis for any healthy civilization is the family.

How’s that?

By Jack777 on 11.22.04 9:39 am

I thought we were having a conversation "You are funny" is about at the level of an elementary school conversation. It doesn’t approach adult conversation at all.

Homosexual practices, living out the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination according to God. I didn’t say, it, God did. When? I will admit Leviticus 18:22 condemns it, but that’s the "Law of Moses" isn’t it?

Regarding Romans 1 :25:26, I quote form "The Church and the Homosexual"

"Romans 1:26-7 – does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you can easily be misled by the phrase "against nature." This phrase was also interpreted differently by the early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. observing of their women that "they changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire….Only those possessing something can change it. Again he points the same thing out about men but in a different way? saying they ‘left the natural use of women.’ Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural." What Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul was not writing about gay people but about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled. This is reflected in the canons imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed toward married persons. Little is said of single people."

You state: The homosexual lifestyle is debilitating in effect upon those who practice it. It is a moral issue but it has ramifications for society in that the basis for any healthy civilization is the family.
Disregarding for the moment whether this is a "lifestyle", you cite no evidence for this. I know several homosexuals, and I don’t believe they are "Debilitated." It’s a nice word to fling around, but meaningless without facts. Again, you state as a given your beliefs, without backing them up in any way.

I can cite societies which allow and support the homosexual lifestyle through marriage and other ways which seem to survive just fine. Canada, Holland, and Massachusetts come to mind. Can you cite a counter example?

Canada has a divorce rate of 2.6 per 1000, Holland 2.4 per 1000, Massachusetts 2.4 per 1000. Compare that to Kentucky where the divorce rate is more than twice as high, at 5.6 per 1000.

It seems as though they are not only holding their society together, they’re doing pretty well in the "family values" department, as long as you think keeping a family together is a family value.

By Alan Folsom on 11.22.04 11:57 am

If you are fine about then fine. I answered your last question about homosexuals at the urging of your son. I knew what your question would lead to and I am more than familiar with your arguments. Not all liberals hankering to see homosexuals married live in your town. Why the insults?

Patently God says it is an abomination. It is morally wrong. You do not know anything about the subject except what someone has told you, most likely third hand. Anyway, you are wrong.

By Jack777 on 11.22.04 2:17 pm

Patently God says it is an abomination. It is morally wrong. You do not know anything about the subject except what someone has told you, most likely third hand. Anyway, you are wrong.

Again, you discuss like a kindergarten child, stamping his feet and shouting "Your wrong Your wrong!"

Who has told me what third hand? The fact that I read intelligent discussions by intelligent people? That I do not ignore everything that disagrees with me, running away with my fingers in my ears pretending to not hear the truth when it is out there?

Again, facts? something to back you up? ANYTHING??

Why the insults?
Because like housebreaking a puppy, you will never learn anything unless people rub your nose in your own stupidity enough.

Puppies, though, are smart enough to learn relatively quickly.

By Alan Folsom on 11.22.04 2:42 pm

(sigh)

I do suggest you look into a Bible first. That is why you are wrong from a spiritual and moral point of view. If you think God thinks differently look at a Bible.

Your info on how great it is to be a homosexual is not top drawer, especially since you are an intellectual of the first order. Look into it, type in the words peccatum sodomiticum on Google and have a go at things. Then again, you could try talking to a wider group of people.

By Jack777 on 11.22.04 4:07 pm

Sigh.

Have I ever said it was great to be a homosexual? I don’t recall doing that. In fact, I think it is a difficult lot to have to deal with. I also believe it is not a choice, but a fact of nature. I will support the same rights for anyone with this condition as anyone else gets.

Have you looked at all things Google finds for that phrase? Even the parts that show this is a late medieval interpretation of the bible, not an early one?

I believe Jesus taught love and respect for everyone. I also believe that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals, and that God doesn’t make mistakes.

And I have talked to a wider group of people, but I’ve found you singularly unimpressive.

And please, I have read a bible. Probably more than you, and probably in more languages than you. I know thinking and being whatever you term an "intellectual" is contrary to your beliefs. I apolgize for using the brain that God gave me. It was a gift from Him, and it would be impolite not to accept it.

By Alan Folsom on 11.22.04 7:05 pm

I am sure you have read the Bible many times over in many languages, I really do believe you. What I mean is read it in a way so you can get the meaning there. You obviously do not know what the Old Testament has to say. You read it as a valiant struggle you say. There is more to it than that besides sounding like a commercial for Karl Mark and his brothers Groucho, Harpo, Zeppo, and Chico.

Do you remember Jesus saying if you have eyes, see and if you have ears, hear? This is a clue for you.

By Jack777 on 11.23.04 7:34 am

My lord, not only don’t you know theology, you don’t know that that cultural icon of 20th century America was the Marx Brothers, not Mark Brothers.

What I mean is read it in a way so you can get the meaning there. And I say that I have gotten the true meaning there, and that you use it instead only to justify your own bigotry and boost your insecure ego. Who is to say I am wrong and you are right?

Have you got anything other than some half-trained hick evangelist to back you up?

Do you remember Jesus saying if you have eyes, see and if you have ears, hear? This is a clue for you.

And I say that I have heard Jesus. I believe what he said in Matthew 22:37-40. I believe he stood up for the poor, and for those scorned by society.

I don’t recall him ever revelling in leaders who kill hundreds of thousands of innocents while scorning and belittling those who are how his father made them.

By Alan Folsom on 11.23.04 8:16 am