i watched an interesting program last night (i believe on primetime), wherein diane sawyers interviewed rosie o'donnell.. the topic centered on gays and adoption.
rosie recently came out of the closet in order to extend her support to florida gays who are prohibited by law to adopt.
rosie, herself, has three children.. some of these gays, by the way, are foster parents.
I don't really like Rosie that much, but I was impressed by the interview, and the way she represented herself and the issues under discussion.
Yes, gays should be allowed to adopt. And if being raised by gay parents increases the likelihood that the children may be gay, so what? Who cares?
Dedalus
despite the failings of many who claim to follow the bible and believe it, this gives no excuse to dismiss it's contents.
thru the centuries it has proved reliable and remains the word of god despite all else.
ChuckD,
Your absolutely write.
Dedalus
i'm working again now on my material for a book about mind control, would anyone like to give me any suggestions on material and / or issues that they would like to see addressed?.
let me know below please .... peace.
map
I'm working again now on my material for a book about mind control, would anyone like to give me any suggestions on material and / or issues that they would like to see addressed?
Yeah -- how can I use mind control to get my wife to do the dishes once in a while?
Dedalus
the link below leads to a webpage for a play entitled it's not too late: a christian drama/musical inspired by the columbine tragedy.. here is the synopsis of the play:.
the story takes place during one day at a high school.. .
mr. brooks is the custodian of the high school.
For example, I can't answer how an all-knowing God would give Adam and Eve a choice knowing they would make the wrong choice.
If you can't answer this, or the broader implications behind it, then you must stop using words like "rational" and "logical" to describe your belief in a God you can't explain.
It's just that simple.
Now, as for this thread -- I don't even know what it's about anymore. I can say that every time you explain what Jesus did for us, or employ hollow platitudes to justify God's inconsistent behavior, you're telling a story or offering excuses we've been told since we were children. We understand what you're saying. Saying it over and over again isn't going to persuade us.
It's the proverbial "can't see the forest for the trees". I'm trying to describe the forest. You want me to focus on one tree.If you take away enough trees, you don't have a forest. Remove even one tree, and the forest isn't the same as it was before. Quantitative changes result in qualitative changes. But really, Mr. Lentz, is this the best you can do? "Can't see the forest for the trees." It's as if I'm arguing with a Hallmark card.
Go ahead and pick your Bible verse. I sense this is all an exercise in futility, but what the heck, go ahead. Only, no more blather about the "big" picture, about how even though God has temper tantrums and commands his people to kill men, women, and children (I suppose the children of those nations were "evil" and deserved to die, right?) and keep young virgins for their own sexual urges, still, despite all this, he's basically a good God. Stop doing that, especially since you don't understand his principal qualities.
Dedalus
despite the failings of many who claim to follow the bible and believe it, this gives no excuse to dismiss it's contents.
thru the centuries it has proved reliable and remains the word of god despite all else.
JR/CCR/Whomever,
I'll refute an argument when
1) You actually make an argument (not just an assertion).
2) You write it out without making any spelling, grammar, or syntax errors.
Dedalus
interesting movie that culminates with babette cooking a sumptuous meal for a group of devout christians who feel guilty about enjoying anything because of the sinful nature of enjoyment and their fear that enjoyment of life now will diminish their eternal reward so they vow to each other not to show any signs that they are enjoying the meal.. i saw it the other night and it always reminds me of the witnesses i knew back in the 60s.
Joel,
As with all great stories, there's more than one legitimate way to see what's going on here. The film, which I've seen twice, is excellent, and very faithful to the story.
Dedalus
interesting movie that culminates with babette cooking a sumptuous meal for a group of devout christians who feel guilty about enjoying anything because of the sinful nature of enjoyment and their fear that enjoyment of life now will diminish their eternal reward so they vow to each other not to show any signs that they are enjoying the meal.. i saw it the other night and it always reminds me of the witnesses i knew back in the 60s.
Yes, a very good film, based on Isak Dinesen's short story of the same title.
I think the story has a lot to do with the ways art intervenes in our lives, and isn't really any sort of invective against religion [i]per se[i/]. Babette, the French cook, is first and foremost an artist; the stern religious community, in which she is an outsider, experiences a transcendant evening through her culinary innovations, something their religion alone hasn't done for them. Their "pious ecclesiastic party or sect" fails to keep petty feuds and friction from festering over the years, but it isn't, I think, the cause of those feuds and frictions.
So, I really don't think either the story or the film is a refutation of religion. More about the mediation of art in the religious experience, the convergence or conflation of the two, and the ways they create meaning in our lives. Something along those lines.
Of what happened later in the evening nothing definite can here be stated. None of the guests later on had any clear remembrance of it. They only knew that the rooms had been filled with a heavenly light, as if a number of small halos had blended into one glorious radiance. Taciturn old people received the gifts of tongues; ears that for years had been almost deaf were open to it. Time itself had merged into eternity. Long after midnight the windows of the house shone like gold, and golden song flowed out into the winter air.Wonderful stuff.The two old women who had once slandered each other now in their hearts went back a long way, past the evil period in which they had been struck, to those days of their early girlhood when together they had been preparing for confirmation and had in hand had filled the roads round Berlavaag with singing. A Brother in the congregation gave another a knock in the ribs, like a rough caress between boys, and cried out: "You cheated me on that timber, you old scoundral!" The Brother thus addressed almost collapsed in a heavenly burst of laughter, but tears ran from his eyes. "Yes, I did so, beloved Brother," he answered. "I did so." Skipper Halvorsen and Madam Oppegaarden suddenly found themselves close together in a corner and gave one another that long, long kiss, for which the secret uncertain love affair of their youth had never left them time.
Dedalus
despite the failings of many who claim to follow the bible and believe it, this gives no excuse to dismiss it's contents.
thru the centuries it has proved reliable and remains the word of god despite all else.
Mistakes in bold:
Like you are some great well read well thought out apologest for athiesm. Athiesm is true because Rem says so, dammit!? Real slick. Romans one testafies that you are with out exuse..... and that is at the heart of your rebellion and it reflects an emotional state of misery that you are in just by reading your posts it gives that away. You are seperated from God's redemtion in Christ and his Free offer of the gospel. Look you are miserable because of your futile non-sencical rebellion against a Holy God, but you try to advance your misery by attacking bible believing Christians, who by no work or doing of their own inherited by grace alone the free give of eternal live with Jesus Christ and the fullness of Joy that accomponies such a marvalious gift.Spell checker broken?
Dedalus
despite the failings of many who claim to follow the bible and believe it, this gives no excuse to dismiss it's contents.
thru the centuries it has proved reliable and remains the word of god despite all else.
I've had enough of this, for crying out loud! [>:(]
Despite the failings of many who claim to follow the Bible and believe it, this gives no exuse to dismiss it's contents."It's" is a contraction for "it is."
"Its" is the possessive form of the pronoun "it."
WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT?
For example:
"The initial post on this thread is dumb. Its vacuous remarks can only lead one to believe that it's a waste of precious board space."
Dedalus
P.S. What is "exuse"?
the link below leads to a webpage for a play entitled it's not too late: a christian drama/musical inspired by the columbine tragedy.. here is the synopsis of the play:.
the story takes place during one day at a high school.. .
mr. brooks is the custodian of the high school.
Thanks REM -- all great points.
Looking over this thread, I find it irritating how Mr. Lentz cannot stay on the subject. For example, he asked three questions that he thought were "more important" than the ones that had been put to him. I bothered to answer those questions and demonstrated, I think, that the 2nd one was especially absurd -- i.e., how could a perfect God fail to follow through with his intention?
Mr. Lentz also seems really ignorant to the most basic philosophical objections to his Christian platitudes. For example: he asserts that God gave us free will. Yet, he also believes that God is omniscient. This means that God knows everything we will do before we do it. Before we are even born, he knows every detail of every thought we will ever have, every detail of every action we execute. Which means that, no matter what we do in our lives, we could not have possibly done otherwise. Basically, asserting that we have free will and that God is omniscient is contradictory. Furthermore, it would be especially cruel of God to punish us for doing something he didn't approve of, since we were never able to do otherwise!
It also means that, when God made Adam and Eve (whether he made Adam first and then Eve, or both of them simultaneously, is something Genesis isn't sure about), he knew that they would disobey his arbitrary stupid rule about the Tree of Knowledge. Which is why I suggested God was setting them (and humanity) up from the get-go. If you actually believe these myths, of course.
But my point is that all this is obvious to anyone who's read the simplest textbook on religion and philosophy. Mr. Lentz consistently fails to anticipate these objections, or, when they are made, he ignores them utterly.
Dedalus
