Why doesn't any of these "Anti-Christians" ever understand Christianity?

Christianity is about choice. You choose to believe that Jesus died on the cross for all our sins. And you accept that fact by faith. You voice this faith to all. Many are called but few hear this call.

Imposition of any Christian values negates the purpose of freewill. That is why libertarians are inline with Christian values.
1000xZero | 12.27.05 - 4:48 pm | #

Opps strike that versus it.

That is why Christians are inline with libertarian political values.
1000xZero | 12.27.05 - 4:49 pm | #

Well Vox, you do pray for "Kingdom come, thy will be done"...
abefrohmn | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 5:02 pm | #

"The rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt"?

Yuck. She was ugly enough when alive.
Metzger | 12.27.05 - 5:11 pm | #

Well, anybody who tags herself as "Jezebel" _and_ claims to be a libertarian plainly doesn't know diddly about the Bible, or by extension, Christianity.
Larry | 12.27.05 - 5:41 pm | #

Well Vox, you do pray for "Kingdom come, thy will be done"...

Which is of course something completely different than "President Rodham's will be done", something these jokers never seem to get. Praying that the will of a perfect, omniscient, loving God be done makes a lot more sense than hoping that my own will be done...even if I prefer (as God does) that everyone has the perfect freedom to exercise their limitedly informed will over that of a pefect, omniscient, loving God.
J. J. | 12.27.05 - 5:41 pm | #

Why do these types automatically assume:
Christian="fundamentalist"=Republican?
I can guarantee you that blogger has read at most, one column of Vox's, likely forwarded to him by one of his emotional readers all in a tizzy because Vox said something that made her little head hurt. He sure didn't read Vox's post concerning ID vs. Evolution in the public schools:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/...ance-of- id.html

The "Christian Libertarian" moniker usually means a Libertarian form of limited government and personal freedom for the nation, while personally holding to one's Christian believes and hoping to advance them through genuine evengelism and changed lives, rather than by using the government to force our morality upon others (something the Repubs and Dems LOVE to do).
We don't want a "theocracy", in fact, we hold government in such a low view that it would be the last place we'd turn for religious leadership or to advance our cause. We may not believe in Evolution, but this may suprise you, we don't want to force Intelligent Design on innocent kids either, in fact:
We want all the public schools (along with most other non-essential government functions) closed , NOW!

We don't worship the GOP, we despise the Republican Party. We shake our heads at the poor fools who've been duped into buying the party line like the Three Monkeys (Hear No Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil). We've quit complaining about the Democratic Party, as they're completely irrelevent.
We don't vote Republican or Democratic, we vote Indenpendant, Libertarian, Constitution Party, or not vote at all.
Car Driver | 12.27.05 - 5:58 pm | #

Honey, you're not allowed to date anymore.
Spacebunny | 12.27.05 - 6:11 pm | #

i dont know much about theocracies and such..but it seems to me that the best torture devices were designed and implemented when groups of men clothed in religion and dipped in the shit or religiosity were in power....let us prey, i guess
chuck atkinson | 12.27.05 - 6:11 pm | #

I wonder if a majority of Evangelicals ever voted for a Democratic presidential candidate if they would suddenly be "okay"?

Many northern Catholics vote Democratic regularly, I wonder if Christploitation thinks it is perhaps a stealth attempt at a Theocracy?
aLutheran | 12.27.05 - 6:13 pm | #

aLutheran,
You're right, I've never heard the "left" complain about all the Jews and Roman Catholics that faithfully vote Comm, er Democratic;-) Despite the fact that they force their beliefs on us, the unborn, and our wallets. Yet the second that Protestant Christians start voting Soc, er Republican, they holler like the sky is falling and the world is over.
CD | 12.27.05 - 6:18 pm | #

All the people in my libertarian club at school are atheists or agnostic, with the exception of one Jew.

Where are all the Christians at?
Renee | 12.27.05 - 6:36 pm | #

At the Republican Party, I'd assume:-(
CD | 12.27.05 - 6:41 pm | #

Sometimes when I read the varied comments on threads like this, I see that apparently most folk desire diversity über alles. Any other methodology of governing mentioned is denounced as "theocracy," "oligarchy," "aristocracy," or something akin to "forcing your morality down someone's throat."

Sigh...

The Latin phrase, E. pluribus unum does mean "out of many one" and that smacks against diversity. A country cannot exist for long if everyone is living "by their own rules and laws." Every citizen has to be able to relate to every other citizen based on a cohesive set of rules and laws, but if they all do as they see fit, cohesion is impossible and societal instability is inevitable.

Of course, conversely, we could dissolve the union we currently have and resort back to tribal, ethnic, religious clans with their own laws, rules, and sovereign governments. Because, frankly, as some continue to harp on about not wanting to live under a "theocracy" and other fictional fears, I don't particularly wish to live under all-encompassing socialist oligarchies or atheistic dominated societies either and having to abide by their arbitrary and in extreme cases, outright godless laws.

The breakup of this union into the aforementioned tribal, ethnic, and/or religious or other groups by a sense of shared cohesive visions and worldviews would be fantastic, IMO.

That I could agree with. But dreams don't necessarily and, more often than not, seldom come to fruition :(.
dixiedog | 12.27.05 - 6:48 pm | #

Some libertarian Christians have turned to Constitional Party (or trying to start local chapters) and others have turned into non-voters. Libertarian club (or party or whatever) ain't the only game in town, no matter how small it may be...
DannyHSDad | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 6:51 pm | #

I meant: Constitutional Party. Sorry for the misspelling!
DannyHSDad | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 6:53 pm | #

dixiedog--"The breakup of this union into the aforementioned tribal, ethnic, and/or religious or other groups by a sense of shared cohesive visions and worldviews would be fantastic, IMO."

One slight problem with that: our military competitors might see that as a golden opportunity to grab some primo, if slightly inhabited, real estate(namely China, already rapidly building up its forces, opening its nuke shelters to the public in hot or cold weather--confusing our observers as to when it's for real. I'm no stratagist...but it kinda looks like they're getting ready for something.).

Other than that, it's all good.
peekingmonkey | 12.27.05 - 7:23 pm | #

I sense a lot of projectionism coming from Christploitation.
First of all, what does he define as "error" when it comes to the Republicans and economics? If he refers to the rampant socialism they are implementing as wrong, that's all well and good. As to the "theocracy" accusation, it's hard to imagine the atheocracy masked as a "pluralistic society" many of Christploitation's political friends advocate as being a preferable choice, unless you like the gulags, purges and genocide that usually accompany same.
There is nothing more repugnant than an atheistic socialist who disguises himself as a Christian.
Ted | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 7:26 pm | #

"Now, be it anecdotal, but I still find it significant that each time I cross paths with a GOP libertarian / “Christian Libertarian” (with FEW exceptions), they’ll ALWAYS support the Republicans no matter how wrong they are on economics." - Christploitation

Mixed up is right, Vox. "Anecdotal" perhaps, but this guy is obviously hanging out in the wrong places.
(gay christian bars, or the United Church of St. Skull & Bones, perhaps?)

I will admit to often calling myself a "Messianic" (with or without the libertarian modifier) just to separate myself from those who worship Bush, however, and seek to rewrite what Yeshua said in his image...
Mark Call | 12.27.05 - 7:47 pm | #

Hmm, I wonder how he deals with atheist/agnostic libertarians?
Ellis | 12.27.05 - 7:55 pm | #

This'll turn your crank, Ellis.

I'll agree that it's possible to be an agnostic and conclude that libertarian principles make sense, but would then argue that your implied converse is where the difficulty lies:

It is not possible to be Biblically literate without understanding that YHVH is libertarian - in the sense that He wants to be served by us, acting in our own free will.

=============================

PS> Atheists are a different breed; I could go so far as to argue that I've never met one who ultimately didn't believe "I am god" (and most thus ultimately turn out to be socialists - 'cause they know what's best for everyone else, too. And they're so damn tolerant they'll kill you to prove it). OK - see my own bias DOES shine through ;)>
Mark Call | 12.27.05 - 8:06 pm | #

I apologise if this has been covered before, but I would be very interested to know Vox's view on gay relationships (a brief summary will do).

While Genesis is open to interpretation, I am under the impression that the Bible is much more clear on the gay issue (namely that it is a sin).

Does being a Libertarian mean that people should be free to marry whom they choose, or does being a Christian mean that gay relationships should be outlawed.

I am straight but I have a few gay friends and have never been able to reconcile the differences between the Bible and my own view - that being gay is not a choice and gay relationships are in general not harmful to society. I personally find it hard to agree with a religion that declares my gay friends are going to hell.

Yours respectfully.
Drifter | 12.27.05 - 8:30 pm | #

"I am under the impression that the Bible is much more clear on the gay issue (namely that it is a sin).

Does being a Libertarian mean that people should be free to marry whom they choose, or does being a Christian mean that gay relationships should be outlawed." -- Drifter

Drifter - while Vox can speak for himself (and has) I'll submit this:

There are five specific references throught the Bible (from the Torah on) that prohibit (specifically) male-on-male intercourse, and/or call it abomination. Yeshua (aka "Jesus") says "If you love Me, keep my commands."

So I won't do those things He says not to -- end of story. He decides the rest; I don't.

On marriage licenses: If God is the Author of marriage (and He is), then He wrote the rules, not me.

If you ask permission from another god, then you take up his/its burden, yoke, and rules.

And, if we still had a nation of Law, you don't need anyone's permission to enter into any Lawful private contract - end of story.
Mark Call | 12.27.05 - 8:39 pm | #

Drifter sez:

I personally find it hard to agree with a religion that declares my gay friends are going to hell.

Christianity is NOT a religion. Religion is man WORKING his way to his god.

Christianity is where God took the initiative and reaches out, through Jesus, to man.

Hell will be filled with those who choose to be there by their rejection of God's plan.

If MY OWN CHILD rejects Jesus, he will go to Hell. Gay or not gay.

Read John 3:18...
Grandaddy | 12.27.05 - 8:49 pm | #

PS: God doesn't ask whether you agree.
(does gravity strike your fancy? How about supply and demand?)
Mark Call | 12.27.05 - 8:52 pm | #

"All the people in my libertarian club at school are atheists or agnostic, with the exception of one Jew.

Where are all the Christians at?"

And your point is...? You realize that anecdotal evidence is essentially worthless regarding a topic like this, right?

An example: All of the libertarians I know are white. Does this mean that black, brown, and yellow people can't be libertarian?
Metzger | 12.27.05 - 9:04 pm | #

I am straight but I have a few gay friends and have never been able to reconcile the differences between the Bible and my own view - that being gay is not a choice and gay relationships are in general not harmful to society.

Well, I have a few acquaintances who are past thieves. The key being past. And I probably have acquaintances with folk who fornicate or exhibit some other behavior, which is also a sin. Why distinquish gay from the rest? Oh yeah, you think they are born that way. So I guess we should conclude that God creates folk who are born biologically as gay? I guess we'd also have to conclude that the former gays who have changed their behavior are mutant humanoids then?

With gays and fornicators, of course, most don't see anything wrong. Yet, anybody who mentioned that they had friends who were robbers, burglars, or whatever is on the books as accepted crime (and therefore sin), they'd think you were crazy.

Ergo, I don't think you have a problem reconciling what the Bible considers sin with what you consider sin. You instead have a problem with reconciling what the Bible considers sin with whatever contemporary society (at the moment) considers sin. In other words, I take it that whenever the society mores and such match the Bible, you have no prob. However, whenever they differ, you side with society at large. If you were a contemporary of a past era, say mid-20th century, you'd most likely not have this issue simply because society at large thought it sin as well as the Good Book always has.

Today, of course, that's not so, hence your disconnect with the Good Book. Society changed, the Bible didn't.
dixiedog | 12.27.05 - 9:16 pm | #

dixiedog-

That's because when the Bible was written, it was written for an audience that largely agreed with its morals. Now that cultural morals are different, there's a significant clash.

""All the people in my libertarian club at school are atheists or agnostic, with the exception of one Jew.

Where are all the Christians at?"

And your point is...? You realize that anecdotal evidence is essentially worthless regarding a topic like this, right?

An example: All of the libertarians I know are white. Does this mean that black, brown, and yellow people can't be libertarian?"

Of course anecdotal evidence is wrong. The club is only about 10 strong (with one black, one asian, and about 50% female- which actually reflects the profile of the school as a whole).

But I find it amusing that people are making gross generalizations that it is fundementally Christian to be libertarian- or Democrat, or Republican. I was using my anecdotal evidence merely to highlight the absurdity of their claims, which are even less empirical than mine (if that's possible).

*sigh* poor, poor subtlety. I should stop being so round about, aye?
Renee | 12.27.05 - 10:10 pm | #

First, you must divorce the idea of
Government-Sanctioned Marriage
This should not be a function of a government to "allow" you to marry someone and charge you $39.95 for a piece of nice paper saying you're married. The concept of common-law or church weddings has been discussed on this blog before, suffice to say that the contract should be decided between the two (or more) individuals and their diety of choice (see below).

Does being a Libertarian mean that people should be free to marry whom they choose, or does being a Christian mean that gay relationships should be outlawed.

Personally, speaking as a Christian, I find Homosexuality to be a disgusting and sinful practice that I hope all of it's practicioners will stop doing. However, speaking as a Libertarian, it is not my job to outlaw every immoral behavior. I may not agree with Adam and Steve's choice of lifestyle, but they have made their choice and I believe the national government should leave them alone about it. Let my church marry me and my spouse and we'll sign the contract. If two women want to call themselves married and write up a contract, that should be perfectly legal. They'll have eternal consequences to deal with, but let them do it. Now if a city or a county wants to make a law for/against that subject, I don't see a big problem with that. People can choose where to live. I don't think you'll have much of a problem with that sort of thing, as the US government and corporations seem to bend over backward to hep the gay cause.


I am straight but I have a few gay friends and have never been able to reconcile the differences between the Bible and my own view - that being gay is not a choice and gay relationships are in general not harmful to society. I personally find it hard to agree with a religion that declares my gay friends are going to hell.

There's the old addage to "love the sinner, hate the sin". In the case of homosexuality, it's considered a sin against nature, as sin against God himself. It takes the way humanity was designed and intended to operate, turns it upside down and backwards, against the way the body is supposed to work and the way man and women are to relate.
Concerning society, if you look at something as simple as AIDS/HIV that started primarily in the gay lifestyle before entering the larger straight community; there's an example of a tiny minority affecting the majority. If you look at rates of domestic violence, drug use, suicide, depression, and child abuse, you'll see a larger percentage of it in the gay community. Now this effects peopled involved in the situations more than society as a whole, of course, but it's odd that a simple physical act leads to people doing other activities.
Still, though, I'd rather have the church preaching about it and people helping people than a government giving either special protection or persecution to control those of a particular lifestyle.
CD | 12.27.05 - 10:12 pm | #

"That's because when the Bible was written, it was written for an audience that largely agreed with its morals. Now that cultural morals are different, there's a significant clash." - Renee

Sorry, Renee, but that statement demonstrates a pretty profound degree of ignorance of the Bible.

Over and over again that text tells the story of people who forget God, turn on Him and His Law, and reap what they sow. They are scattered, enslaved, and turned from. They follow other gods.

Yeshua told them all over again."Hypocrites! -- " who replace the commandments of God with the traditions of men.

"Largely agreed"? No wonder you think there are 'contradictions' in there! You missed the whole point - and it's repeated over and over (as is the history)!

"Now that cultural morals are different, there's a significant clash."

Just wait - You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet. (unless, of course, you read it, and watch it repeat -- again.)
Mark Call | 12.27.05 - 10:24 pm | #

"I'd be interested to hear a description of my "true theocratic political agenda". Anyone care to have a go?"

Having read none of the comments, I got know problem with giving it the old college try. Whatever the hell that is.

You have none, did I pass? I believe anyone who would even sak that question is confused. But I have to go goodnight now.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 10:27 pm | #

Renee,

For the most part those who are raised as Christians and then go on to college are either hidden from view, or alternatively, are fallen from the practice of their faith.
dh | 12.27.05 - 10:33 pm | #

For the most part those who are raised as Christians and then go on to college are either hidden from view, or alternatively, are fallen from the practice of their faith.

Don't be silly, there are plenty of Christians on just about any college campus, Renee was asking about Christian Libertarians, which are admittedly pretty rare where ever you go. Christians still tend to be either Democrats, Republicans, or don't think Christians should get involved in politics.
Larry | 12.27.05 - 10:55 pm | #

Vox,

Man, sometimes I really feel for you. With people like me kicking sand in your face for not supporting Republicans, people like this guy, and liberals, pagans, and whatnot on the left, you seem to have no chance. I know you like your individual position. I am pretty confident your strength of self and the truth of your beliefs (for sure to you and usually even to this naysayer), is healthy and above it all the personal and intellectual attacks. I still can't help but feel some sympathy. Yea, you love it and all, but damn man.

I'll just hoist a Bud and let you know you are good by my book even when you are wrong. At least when I know you are wrong, I know it's for the right reasons and it does make a difference.

I hope this season is as deeply and truly enjoyable for you as I am finding mine. I also hope that my faith in you and SB as a genuinely Godly couple and pair of sharing and caring people is shared in this Christmas and New Years Celebration and far beyond these pages.

Go get em' tiger, and health and happiness in the new year. Thanks for the good reads, the true efforts at clean thought, and unrequieted friendship. I think you are man enough for our bitterness, looseness of thought, and attacks. Stay with it.
Doom | Homepage | 12.27.05 - 11:21 pm | #

I think we here tend to forget most folks NEVER analyze their political thoughts. They think "whatever, close enough" and pick Donkey or 3 Monkey. Then they're done. That's their lifelong entire examination of their personal politics.

Those are the ones that blindly pull the party lever and listen to Rush Limbaugh / Air America.
Michael Maier | 12.27.05 - 11:42 pm | #

VD - I'll admit to generally preferring Republicans to Democrats, but that's like choosing between Helen Thomas and the rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Holding to the analogy, then you are sleeping with the putrescent corpse of anarchist Emma Goldman, another fug-ugly one - but a libertarian.
Cedarford | 12.28.05 - 12:11 am | #

What I find interesting in the comment is the use of the word "fundamentalist" as a negative. Fundamentalist Jews would be the Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians are those who hold tightly to the words in the Bible as well. I think the goal is to get Christians and Jews to think negatively about those who are fundamental believers and deny they are in those ranks. The same people who are tolerant of every eastern belief or pagan belief despise fundamentalist thought.

Why would that be. Well, I think separation of church and state is good. But the church has to be as powerful as the state to keep the state from rationalizing every kind of evil. If the church becomes wishy washy in terms of morality, the state has too much power in its hands and the balance is lost. The only ones who keep Christianity and Judaism strong are the fundamentalists as they can't be bought off by the state. Hence the cultural attack on them.
Zuukie | 12.28.05 - 1:02 am | #

CD, this reply isn't necessarily in opposition of your positions, but an expanded elucidation of certain segments.

However, speaking as a Libertarian, it is not my job to outlaw every immoral behavior.

Fine, as long as one likewise think it not their job to outlaw every moral behavior either. This should be obvious, but isn't.

I may not agree with Adam and Steve's choice of lifestyle, but they have made their choice and I believe the national government should leave them alone about it.

That won't work unless the undergirding laws, such as those requiring non-discrimination are abolished. Sure, it sounds good and of course is non-confrontational. I'd agree to allow whomever to do whatever they desire as long as one can do the same in the opposite sense. You can't have a truly Libertarian society in the sense you've portrayed, unless folk are as free to reject as well as accept - be it lifestyles, drug use, religions, etc.

Let my church marry me and my spouse and we'll sign the contract. If two women want to call themselves married and write up a contract, that should be perfectly legal.

Again, only if churches remain free to reject having to perform same-sex marriages. That's already a problem in some countries now. And in America, the state of Mass is probably already on its way to outlawing discrimination of gays by churches rejecting the act of performing same-sex marriages.

I'd rather have the church preaching about it and people helping people than a government giving either special protection or persecution to control those of a particular lifestyle.

Or persecution of those who reject certain lifestyles. Again, it needs to work both ways, or no way. Besides that caveat, I would agree completely with that statement.

I like the dissolution of the union idea posited earlier better all the time :).
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 2:04 am | #

I agree with you DD, I was just limiting my comments to the rainbow crowd. I would certainly like to see things like "equal housing" or "equal opportunity employer" go by the wayside and allow people the fredom of association and the invisible hand of the market to dictate who you do business with, Fred Reed's column:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/...eed/ reed84.html
expresses it better than I ever could.
I've heard from HR ladies when they describe how they have to keep track of the race and gender of all applicants and submit it to the affirmative action people. They'd tell you that they didn't hire based on those criteria and that they want take _affirmative action_ to "promote a diverse workplace" all in the same speech.
Hmmm.....
CD | 12.28.05 - 2:25 am | #

Cedarford,

Emma Goldman isn't half-bad.Take the glasses off, drink some cabernet sauvignon. We know all the posters here are hunks and hunkettes, but at least she opposed conscription in WWI. That was pretty damn libertarian progressive, right?
.
Bone Head | 12.28.05 - 3:40 am | #

Jezebel's sin is invoking VD and then describing that acts of persons completely different, thus exposing Jezebel's lack of research. (Wasn't she cast from a tower to be eaten by dogs? How is that done bloggie style?)
.
Bone Head | 12.28.05 - 3:46 am | #

Renee

“My mind is reeling! Rulers of Evil puts the whole history of the world into perspective with its treatment of the Mark of Cain.

"I have not been so affected by any book since reading Atlas Shrugged at age 17. In a sense, Saussy ups Rand by many orders of magnitude.

"Too bad she's not still around. I actually believe Tupper could convert her from atheism!"
—Ralph Schwan [emphasis mine]

The breakup of this union into the aforementioned tribal, ethnic, and/or religious or other groups by a sense of shared cohesive visions and worldviews would be fantastic, IMO.

That I could agree with. But dreams don't necessarily and, more often than not, seldom come to fruition :(.
dixiedog | 12.27.05 - 6:48 pm

dd

In principle I agree. The "breakup" as we anti-feds dream, would be a gift. However, in an fallen world, a pipe-dream we can only fantasize about. Thus, the "great experiment."

Not to split too many etymological hairs, but a serious study of E PLURIBUS UNUM is in order. Understand that the latin is derived from the greek. Both languages owing to their respective and congenial mythologies. One needs to study the story of Bacchus and the Titans to fully understand "out of many, one."

On the subject of theocracies, agreed as desirable as they seem, are not solutions for they are still man-made institutions in order to appease God. Preparing myself to be called a heretic and traitor to the "American Way," one must understand the dialectic in that "capitalism" (thesis) vs. "communism" (antitheisis) will only beget it's intended synthesis -- fascism. The key here, is to divorce oneself from the dialectic.

The following website is a very "tough" website. I say tough because of what it ultimately demands of the individual. For some, this will be impossible. For others, eventually possible, but slow and very difficult. For myself and practically anyone who desires, this will be some challenge. However, a challenge that must be attempted and eventually met. There is a lot of buried treasure in this website. Please take the time to uncover all these jewels of wisdom...

Your Own Jesus
Dread | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 7:06 am | #

Renee -- I'm astounded that there are 10 libertarians at a school. Good grief when I was in school the libertarians numbered about 2. The repubs 8. The nazi's got about 20 to show regularly. Of course the "I'm going to beat peace into you with a pipe" party could get a throng of 200-500 together at midnight within about 30 minutes.

I myself was libertine: Peace, love and chemistry. Lots of chemistry....
Mutly | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 7:56 am | #

Hey Vox, I think Cal Thomas reads your blog.

From today's Washington Times;
http://www.washtimes.com/comment...92504- 4540r.htm

Religious parents should exercise the opportunity they always had. They should remove their children from state schools with their "instruction manuals" for turning them into secular liberals, and place them in private schools -- or home school them -- where they will be taught the truth, according to their parents' beliefs. Too many parents who would never send their children to a church on Sunday that taught doctrines they believed to be wrong have had no problem placing them in state schools five days a week where they are taught conflicting doctrines and ideas.
Bill | 12.28.05 - 8:58 am | #

"Honey, you're not allowed to date anymore.
Spacebunny"


And with this simple phrase.. the fog and haze lift from before V's eyes and he realizes for the first time - he is yet another poor sap, who has no idea how or why this has happened to him.

Welcome to the fold V. Your stratolounger, TV, and remote is over there, your lawnmower is in the garage, and yes the trash does need to be taken out.
Keep Smiling | 12.28.05 - 9:13 am | #

KS - the remote is mine. Vox doesn't really watch t.v. unless it's a sporting event.
Spacebunny | 12.28.05 - 9:24 am | #

"Vox doesn't really watch t.v. unless it's a sporting event."

Perhaps as a young man that is true but once hit with the phrase "you dont date anymore", the curve peaks, and that decline into old age begins.

While it may be the truth, it is one of those things that should never be said outloud to a man. It is the equivalant of saying "you're behind is beginning to look like your mother's" to a woman.

Is just not done without serious repurcussions..
Keep Smiling | 12.28.05 - 9:52 am | #

Most Christian religions have become so watered down and apologetic that the followers are sheep all right but I am convinced that most have lost sight of the good shepherd.

The scriptures provide us with the original gulchers, and liberatarians. Prophets have testified of the downfall of our system and the way out. I know of no secular organisation that preaches the kind of preparation that I read from the mouth of prophets.

Call it what you will but the cause has it's origins in Christianity.

Just because most of the Christian organisations have gone astray does not mean that the ideals do not remain constant!
Ben Rumson | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 9:52 am | #

This is just another attempt at silencing the critics - nothing more.

Jezebel offers no evidence for her points. She gives us no reason why we should trust or value her opinion.

It's nothing to get worked up about.
Crystal Lake | 12.28.05 - 10:02 am | #

I think Cal Thomas reads your blog.


That's not all that he reads. This guy is no stooge, or lapdog for anybody. He is very much in tune with critical current events...

"My reaction is that the world is right on schedule, winding down. Our redemption is ever closer as the world does what it can always be counted on to do apart from God."
~ Cal Thomas, LA Times Syndicate, on the GM* and Transgenic Research of The Ahriman Gate

*GM = Genetic Modification
Dread | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 10:04 am | #

Humans have been doing GM for at least 4,000 years, maybe more.

I mean, you don't think that dogs were naturally docile, that livestock were naturally that dumb or that tomato plants would survive in the wild if they need careful cultivation in your garden?
Renee | 12.28.05 - 11:04 am | #

Humans have been doing GM for at least 4,000 years, maybe more.

Possibly so. We do know that domestication of both dogs and cats goes back to Summeria and very possibly is antediluvian. The "GM" being spoken above is in reference to the Nephilim. Understand, that via todays technological acumen in the 21st century, neither can we be certain just who and how the great pyramid was built, plus WE cannot recreate that feat ourselves. It is still a mystery that the great pyramid's corners all point to points E, W, S, and incredibly magnetic north as we currently know it. It is a marvel of an astronomical device...

Patrick Heron, on the otherhand, thinks he knows...
Dread | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 11:43 am | #

"I mean, you don't think that dogs were naturally docile, that livestock were naturally that dumb or that tomato plants would survive in the wild if they need careful cultivation in your garden?" - Renee

I grow tomatoes in Southeast Texas. In this warm climate they seed freely and produce volunteer growth if you allow it. Happens in my garden every year. The quality of the fruit will most likely be inferior (if the seed came from an unstable hybrid parent, or if there's undesirable cross pollination ), but the plants themselves do propogate. In their native tropical Latin America, they'll fare even better in the wild.

Maybe you grow tomatoes in a colder part of the country.
Houston | 12.28.05 - 12:25 pm | #

"The only ones who keep Christianity and Judaism strong are the fundamentalists as they can't be bought off by the state. Hence the cultural attack on them." --Zuukie

Close, Zuukie, but a little short of the mark. What those two branches have in common is that they love and follow G-d, and the world hates them for it -- because they hate the Creator.
Mark Call | 12.28.05 - 12:51 pm | #

Between Vox's comparison of Helen Thomas and Elanor Roosevelt--and Cederford's mention of Emma Goldman--I think I'm going to take a hiatus from dating until I can get those images out of my head!!! ROFLM@O!
SingleMind | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 12:59 pm | #

I'd be interested to hear a description of my "true theocratic political agenda". Anyone care to have a go?

Cthulhu 2008!
Randall | 12.28.05 - 1:49 pm | #

Mark, I was referring to the fact that they turn their backs on pornography, abortion, euthanasia, paganism, the occult. They believe in traditional marriage, do not accept homosexuality as normal, couldn't ever be sold on the idea of pedophilia as a good.

They put their allegiance to the laws of God before the laws of the state. A number of years ago I found a book written by George Shuster , copyright 1935 titled "Like a Mighty Army." It described the Christians in Germany who knew that Nazism was evil and destructive because of the paganism in that movement. By their awareness of the the commandment dealing with paganism they were forewarned about the destination of the Nazi movement. Liberal Christian groups went along with the Nazis. Times change but the same groups of people can be found then and now.
Zuukie | 12.28.05 - 3:31 pm | #

Praying that the will of a perfect, omniscient, loving God be done makes a lot more sense than hoping that my own will be done...
JJ

Well stated, JJ. As always, I was just trying to be a wise ass. Still, all those whom harbor this notion that America errupted from the brow of history a secular-ideal need to stop and ask themselves why adultery and prostitution were legally proscribed and why property taxes were collected and given to local churches to educate children...
Anonymous | 12.28.05 - 3:35 pm | #

The preceeding was an Abe Production
abefrohmn | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 3:37 pm | #

Vox?

VOX?

Hello?

Vox?

***KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK***

Anyone seen Vox?
Nate | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 4:01 pm | #

What I'd like to know is when Erich Von Daniken became a saint in the Fundie canon.

I expect references to nephilim in Atlantis from Edgar Cayce any moment now.
hoosiertoo | 12.28.05 - 4:09 pm | #

What I'd like to know is when Erich Von Daniken became a saint in the Fundie canon.

I expect references to nephilim in Atlantis from Edgar Cayce any moment now.
hoosiertoo | 12.28.05 - 4:09 pm | #

In principle I agree. The "breakup" as we anti-feds dream, would be a gift. However, in an fallen world, a pipe-dream we can only fantasize about. Thus, the "great experiment."

Indeed. I mentioned the "non-discrimination laws" needing to be abolished only as part and parcel of the methodology towards a more Libertarian government. The reason I posted those addendums to CD's piece is because too many folk seemingly harp about allowing vice, but fail to see that simultaneously virtue is being outlawed. That was the point.

For me personally, I'm under no illusions of righteous change in government. You've been here long enough to remember all the past discussions. I see world government approaching in me spyglass ;).

Of course, that means for true believers that regardless of the State's position at any given time, we are to abide continually in His Word and His grace until He comes again.

Therefore, prepare for the inevitable persecution.

Matthew 24:37: As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

And how was it in Noah's time?

Genesis 6:12-13: God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Yep, that could be a snapshot of today. We've always had corruption and violence, but it was piecemeal. Today, however, the scope of it is worldwide, as it was in Noah's day.
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 4:49 pm | #

Dixie Dawg - The persecution of Christians is here and will only get worse.

We can't be Scientists - because we believe in God not science.
We can't homeschool our kidz because we iz to stoopid.
We can't be reasoned with because we are unreasonable.
We hate because we believe homosexuality might be a choice and we think it is wrong.
We don't believe in personal freedom because we don't think mothers should kill their own unborn.
We express our beliefs and are therefore, sowing seeds of hate.

Did I miss anything?
George | 12.28.05 - 5:06 pm | #

Cedarford sez inexplicably, "Holding to the analogy, then you are sleeping with the putrescent corpse of anarchist Emma Goldman, another fug-ugly one - but a libertarian."

Wha..? Here are some randomly gathered quotes regarding Goldman:

"The corresponding anarchist-communist belief that private property was inherently repressive and exploitative also resonated with her experiences and ideals"

"Among the first vocal opponents on the left to criticize the Soviet Union, she alienated many of her peers in Europe and America."

"...she visited collectivized towns and farms in Aragon and the Levante and was electrified by what seemed to her to be the beginnings of a true anarchist revolution."

She was a commie-symp (Lenin disparaging nothwithstanding) and a big labor union supporter. Just cuz you're an anarchist doesn't mean you're a libertarian.

Let's get it right...
Somboed | 12.28.05 - 5:09 pm | #

George opined:


Dixie Dawg - The persecution of Christians is here and will only get worse.

We can't be Scientists - because we believe in God not science.
We can't homeschool our kidz because we iz to stoopid.
We can't be reasoned with because we are unreasonable.
We hate because we believe homosexuality might be a choice and we think it is wrong.
We don't believe in personal freedom because we don't think mothers should kill their own unborn.
We express our beliefs and are therefore, sowing seeds of hate.

Did I miss anything?

Yep. George, you missed all of it. But we're used to the persecution. Try harder next time.
Grandaddy | 12.28.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Right you are Gramps.
George | 12.28.05 - 5:28 pm | #

Or, were you being facetious??
Grandaddy | 12.28.05 - 5:29 pm | #

"Matthew 24:37: As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

And how was it in Noah's time?

Genesis 6:12-13: 'God saw how corrupt the earth had become...' " -- dixiedog

DD --
Interestingly enough, many traditional Jews will tell you that the midrash on Noach gives more detail - that 'the straw' was the way the state in those days was issuing marriage licenses...
Mark Call | 12.28.05 - 5:33 pm | #

Grandaddy...I meant from the World's perpective.
Sorry for the obtuse humor. It is my way.
George | 12.28.05 - 5:36 pm | #

BTW - Yes I Believe that Jesus Christ was a real person and did DIE on the cross for my sins and the sins of all that believe in Him.

On December 6th in 1971 while assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade...I believed that Christ was thinking about ME when he was on the Cross.

At that instant I felt a Peace and Joy that are beyond human description.

Maybe I was having a psychotic episode
...Right? ;-)
George | 12.28.05 - 5:41 pm | #

Mark Call - The point is there is going to be a world-wide persecution before the Lord's return IMHO according to scripture.
No, I am not going to be suckered into a treatise on Eschatology.
George | 12.28.05 - 5:50 pm | #

"Did I miss anything?"

Because you see all of this persecution where the world sees nothing you are obviously paranoid.
Silly Me | 12.28.05 - 6:39 pm | #

Yes, Paranoid.

But sometimes even a Paranoid person gets murdered and a cigar is just a cigar.
George | 12.28.05 - 6:44 pm | #

Vox?

VOX?

Hello?

Vox?

***KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK***

Anyone seen Vox?
Nate | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 4:01 pm | #

He's gone to Rome to solicit for Pope, hoping to fulfill his "true theocratic political agenda".
Salt | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 6:53 pm | #

Vox for POPE!
George | 12.28.05 - 6:57 pm | #

Pope Popoli I is waiting in the wings...
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 7:00 pm | #

Because you see all of this persecution where the world sees nothing you are obviously paranoid.

The world won't, and can't, see it. Since the persecution in question is aimed at Christians (and Israeli Jews). If one is not a Christian or an Israeli Jew, what is there to see?

It's not paranoia. It's about who can see and who cannot see.
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 7:01 pm | #

Dixiedog,

No doubt. However, this is NOTHING. When a person who kills a Christian has done a good thing, THAT is biblical in proportion. And it will come.

First we have to be marginalized, and that is what is happening now.
Silly Me | 12.28.05 - 7:05 pm | #

It is just your imagination DD.

Shyte!
George | 12.28.05 - 7:06 pm | #

Agreed Silly ....Will get worse.
George | 12.28.05 - 7:07 pm | #

George says, "world-wide persecution before the Lord's return" is coming.

No disagreement here.
Isn't it pretty obviously already in progress?
Mark Call | 12.28.05 - 7:18 pm | #

No doubt. However, this is NOTHING. When a person who kills a Christian has done a good thing, THAT is biblical in proportion. And it will come.

Already being done. You know, like in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, et al. Persecution is not just KILLING, Silly. It's the whole nine yards.

First we have to be marginalized, and that is what is happening now.

Marginalization has been happening, as that isn't exactly today's news. Persecution is an all-encompassing term - murder, martyrdom, bigotry, marginalization, etc., etc.

I didn't mention murder or martyrdom specifically, but yeah, that will eventually be happening in the West.
Anonymous | 12.28.05 - 7:35 pm | #

" Pope Popoli I is waiting in the wings..."

Well that make sense Dixie, I mean according to Malachi the next pope is "Peter the Roman" Finis.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 7:50 pm | #

Actually Vox would make the better Monarch. Who lead the Christians to victory in the birch tree county according to Catholic prophecy. Now if he gets the sinew touched in his left hip and starts mounting a horse from the right, Watch out.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 7:58 pm | #

GLAAD someone brought up the homosexuality angle: When a person confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, and believes God raised him from the dead, they are saved. And it doesn't matter half a piece of a busted damn how many holy-rollers say otherwise, the Bible says "He that believeth on him hath eternal life." There are plenty of homosexuals who have done just that, who pray and study Scripture and so forth, and I guess the saved-today-lost-tomorrow-"If ya don't!!!" gang is just going to have to deal with it.
Ted | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 8:04 pm | #

Dixiedog, It's not only Israeli Jews. You may not see it here yet, but there is much antisemitism in the countries of Europe. Look at how Jews have been portrayed in films and on television. There are hardly any positive portrayals of Jews there.

The latest outrage toward Christians is NBC's new show, Book of Daniel. Let's just say everyone in the minister's family and at his office is morally challenged. The minister talks to Jesus. The writer for the show is a man who left Catholicism, is interested in Buddhism and reincarnation, and has much trouble with "Christian myths." You can get more information on the NBC website or at AFA.
Zuukie | 12.28.05 - 9:02 pm | #

Dixiedog, It's not only Israeli Jews. You may not see it here yet, but there is much antisemitism in the countries of Europe.

True. I guess I should have said orthodox Jews instead of "Israeli Jews." After all, even many Israeli Jews are not orthodox, but because of their location, are subject to Israeli persecution.

Look at how Jews have been portrayed in films and on television.

Yeah, by Jews ;). Most of those of course being secularized and, therefore, incognito (worldly) Jews. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's true.
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 9:37 pm | #

...subject to Israeli persecution.

subject to the persecution as "Israeli Jews" nevertheless. I didn't mean persecution by Israelis.

Sorry, should always need to be crystal clear here. Brainless wonders are always a menace ;).
dixiedog | 12.28.05 - 9:41 pm | #

One thing that irks me is the association of all religious fundamentalists, in the minds of some. The only relation these fundamentalists have is that they all take their religions seriously. There, the similarity ends.
Wes | Homepage | 12.28.05 - 10:33 pm | #

George,

If I'da taken a few more seconds and NOTICED the italicized wording, I wouldn't have made a fool of myself, but, that's what the internet's for, ain't it?
Grandaddy | 12.28.05 - 11:47 pm | #

Dixiedog, Rabbi Elliot Gertel has been following the portrayal of Jews in film and on television for over 20 years now. Has a book on the subject and a weekly column at a paper out of Indiana. He recently had a column up at Jewishworldreview.com. He deals with portrayals of Jews in the US. While Jews may be secular, they are not incognito.
Zuukie | 12.28.05 - 11:49 pm | #

My experience has been, in general, the true Christian Libertarians are few and far between. Christploitation's experiences mirror my own though I wouldn't presume to make blanket assertations concerning someones true motivations without doing my research.

There are many dishonest "Libertarians" out there that would be more than happy with a more "G-d centric" state, even though it completely goes against what a Libertarian purports to believe. It's philisophical dishonesty, a trait shared by many true believers (no matter if they believe that the Bible is literal or that trees feel pain)... unfortunately, most of the conservatives, libertarians or constitutionalists aren't willing to call 'em on it, since deep down they're thinking as Libertines.

The whole "some but all" arguement in the same sentence is certainly perplexing though I don't think he's completely wrong (other than using VD as an example of someone putting the party first). Most of the Constitionalists and Libertarians did hold their noses and vote for Bush the last go 'round (all the purported CP's and LP's that I know did in fact vote for him, may their chains rest lightly upon them) though I certainly know that VD was quite outspoken in voting against him.

Examining logically, the ID arguement is sketchy. There are many reasons not to take Darwin as gospel and I don't think most critical thinkers do.

In the end, ID is based on faith. You can't look at an animal and say "See? That's not a fish therefore it must be a duck." (well, you can but you'd probably be wrong). Saying that Darwin has holes (many of the larger than life theories do) therefore there is a G-d and should be taught as science is just bad reasoning.

Evolution is science and while it doesn't explain it all, does go a long way to giving us an index. ID's an assertion of "I know it's true, just 'cus" and therefore isn't science and shouldn't be treated as such.

Christploitation's main assertion, that's correct from his experience (of which I've seen the same). The point of Vox having a hidden, theocratic agenda has no historic foundation so far as I can see.

Personally, I go with the "I don't know and you don't either" theory presented by the esteemed hoster.
BigDaddy2x4 | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 1:34 am | #

The persecution of Christians is here and will only get worse.

North Korean Christians are being persecuted, Chinese Christians are being persecuted, Pakistani Christians are being persecuted... United States Christians are not being persecuted. Okay, go with me here... who did Jesus rail against for causing the problems in his day? Was it:

a) The Roman authorities (Time to go after them!)

b) Citizens of secular nature (Those heathen bastards!)

c) Fellow believers of the same God (The Truly Blessed)

C is correct. Jesus saved his venom for fellow believers of his Father, he didn't attack the secular citizens who no doubt would mock and insult at times, or the Romans, who were there to contain the passions of the faithful from going too far (imagine this sort of blatant monitoring today). Before anyone comes in here and says 'well that's just those damn Jews,' the same stuff Jesus constantly tried to bring to his disciples' attention and warned against still happens today.

I don't see why some continue to ignore that verse when Jesus said many will come to him and then be rejected by him - he's talking about Christians. Just cause you're saved doesn't mean much if you've been responsible for driving people who never accepted Jesus further away from him. I don't see why it's not a humbling passage for any Christian to pay attention to.

So Jesus attacked the sometimes nationalist and sometimes just religious moral activist people of his day who believed in his Father... but not the Romans or secular citizens if I'm correct (and there would have been a fair few here who deserved it at times too). Jesus ended up being right about the fellow believers of his Father - the victimisation they felt and the lack of moral values they believed weren't there led to a war against the Romans which led to the destruction of the temple as Jesus predicted.

Personally, I'm a little worried that in the future any persecution of me will either be brought on by the actions of fellow Christians or actually by other so-called Christians in positions of power. If Pat Robertson can call for someone's assasination, then yes there are highly influential Christians out there who don't get what Jesus taught us to do, and taught us to accept. Jesus already covered the 'world's against you' situation. We're actually supposed to rejoice as we eat shit, not try to stamp it out by railing against those who are doing it. It's the weight of your cross and all that stuff.
Jamie R | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 2:33 am | #

Zuukie, Jews make up most of the "big wigs" of Hollyweird and much of the acting talent. The reason I said incognito is because they are, in fact, incognito by taking on stage names or omiting parts of their real names. Examples:

Michael Landon (Eugene Maurice Orowitz)
Kirk Douglas (Issur Danielovitch Demsky)
Ed Asner (Yitzhak Edward Asner)
Mel Brooks (Melvin Kaminsky)
Jack Benny (Benjamin Kubelsky)
Joel Grey (Joel Katz), father of Jennifer Grey
Barbi Benton (Barbara Klein), former Playboy bunny
Robert Conrad (Konrad Robert Falkowski)
Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. (Julius Ullman)
George Burns (Nathan Birnbaum)
Woody Allen (Allen Stewart Königsberg)
Tony Curtis (Bernard Schwartz)
and so on...

while others did not:

Barbara Streisand
Peter Falk
James Caan
Rosanna Arquette
Steven Spielberg
Steven Seagal
and so on...

And also because many of these are non-orthodox or secular Jews. Many exhibit little or no qualm with slamming Israel or the Jews who live there.

Spielberg's latest film, Munich is an obvious sleight against Israel concerning the 1972 Munich massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. The screenwriter of Munich, Tony Kushner, is also Jewish. Like I said, it's Hollyweird Jews bashing Jews.
dixiedog | 12.29.05 - 3:17 am | #

Spooky..
.
Bone Head | 12.29.05 - 3:33 am | #

Personally, I'm a little worried that in the future any persecution of me will either be brought on by the actions of fellow Christians or actually by other so-called Christians in positions of power.

- The church is a fat, lazy, stupid, ineffectual institution that sucks like every other consumer on the nipples of rampant unrestrained capitalism. It is so weakened by its inability to reject post-modern thought and so eager to embrace neo-Freudian definitions of human nature, that it does not stand apart from the world.

It will be persecuted not because it is Christ's Bride, fighting against authorities and powers,
against the world-rulers of this dark night. It will be persecuted and hated because it is stupid, arrogant and an embarrassment to Christ.

A good persecution, as usual, will cause this slumbering giant to awake and become Christ's body on earth, and stop behaving like a churchy social club.

The sooner the better.
Blacknad | 12.29.05 - 5:15 am | #

We're actually supposed to rejoice as we eat shit, not try to stamp it out by railing against those who are doing it. It's the weight of your cross and all that stuff.

Hmm, it seems as if you mean by "eat shit" doing what the world says and not ever being a witness for Christ, judging by your very next phrase of "not try to stamp it out by railing against those who are doing it." Nobody, of course, has said "rail against those" only "rail against it."

Even so, many will take it as railing against them. So? We cannot worry about that, however, as there will always be those who confuse "a lifestyle" with "a sin." If you simply wish to "blend in" and be "of it" instead of simply "in it," even when it plainly violates God's Word, that's nothing to rejoice about, mate >:P.

If, however, you mean by it that in spite of the difficulties of living in this world, with God's help, one will consciously seek His guidance and strive not to partake in worldly lusts, then while they force you to perhaps "eat shit," imprison and/or kill you, that one is to rejoice because he/she obeyed His Word, regardless of the consequences.

Like you said: "it's the weight of your cross and all that stuff." However, if you're rolling along with 'em, that cross will be quite light, if not an outright phantom, and virtually no burden at all.
dixiedog | 12.29.05 - 7:04 am | #

Yeah I'm not worried about how people will call me a sinner and all that, I'm not religious anyhow, I try to honour the spirit and if I've done poorly then Jesus will be the judge of that. And people recognise me as a lunatic, because I follow a lunatic in their eyes.

I'm a crazy bastard to them, but I'm a crazy bastard they get along with, I'm not distant in my ways. So I hang and, yes, I fit right in. I wouldn't say I hang around with a lot of respectable people to start with anyhow.
Jamie R | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 7:29 am | #

A good persecution, as usual, will cause this slumbering giant to awake and become Christ's body on earth, and stop behaving like a churchy social club.

One problem Blacknad, the Church stands with the State. Who's going to persecute it?

Even in America now. From a nation that once had bishops worried about the government interfering with the church, today you have the church interfering with the government on purpose. When you have churches advocating political parties, America has 'crossed the streams' so to speak - you've reversed the polarity of what insulated the church from corruption through the state. The church has decided to voluntarily sign up for having a say in government. I recall reading about an event where US military members and politicians watched a video screen that had F-18's fly over a hill with a cross on it... WTF? What goes around will indeed come around.

Even in Italy, political parties are beginning to heed the warnings of the Vatican and begin the process of backing away from the free-for-all abortions they've had since it was legalised in 1978. This is a nation that has such a low birth rate the State will soon begin cycling back the freedoms it granted there while working with the Vatican - it's no longer in the self-interest of the State. I think France will see some sort of revival too. But it will all be bad.

that it does not stand apart from the world.

When the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and the Vatican formed, the first authoritative corruption of the Church begun through the power of the State, and that damaged Christendom for good. Don't get me wrong, on the flipside of Catholicism, I don't have many nice things to say about Martin Luther either - I think he was a lunatic on a power trip who wanted to mold a state Christianity with the Princes on his side, where upon he could crush all his enemies. Luther showed his true nature whenever someone disagreed with him, and oh boy, did he ever. Also, the way he went on to treat Erasmus when he refused to side with him simply made him an arsehole to boot too.

Now, have I pissed everyone off on the Christian Right in America with my two main posts so far? Got everyone? Anybody miss out?
Jamie R | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 7:39 am | #

Dixiedog, if they were incognito, you couldn't get a list like you did. There are huge numbers of books and articles around the theme "Jews in _______." In the earlier days of studios, actors and actresses had their names changed by studios to more neutral names and easy to remember names as to make them more saleable. They knew their audiences which is why films from the past were more complex and interesting than those made now. Granted, most studios were run by Jews at the time.
Zuukie | 12.29.05 - 7:58 am | #

Personally, any time a religious organization gets militant, I get worried. There is nothing like 'faith' to inspire people to feats of savagery.

As for most Republicans being Christian...
{:^D

Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!
Swaggert's Love Child | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 8:49 am | #

Now, have I pissed everyone off on the Christian Right in America with my two main posts so far? Got everyone? Anybody miss out?
Jaimie R.

Yeah, you didn't get around to the Episcopalians, and they're easy pickins'. Ha! Of course, Episcopalians are so passive-aggresive that they'd go postal with a loving smile.

For some odd reason, your screed reminds me of Sam Kinison lamenting that we have "God's Special Education Team here in America"...
abefrohmn | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 9:12 am | #

This seems like a common pattern. No matter what the topic--Iraq, NSA eavesdropping, ID, abortion, rape, etc.it always seems to kind of like:

(1) Vox makes a point (or several points)
(2) Someone fires off a nasty screed attacking Christians
(3) Some Christians respond (some reasonably, others less)
(4) More secularists respond
(5) The discussion then descends into a pissing contest between Christians and secularists.

It gets almost funny.

Now if I can just get the images of Elanor and Helen out of my mind. (Vox: May the Vikings crash and burn because of that!!! LOL)
Singlemind | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 9:41 am | #

" '...the Bible says "He that believeth on him hath eternal life.' There are plenty of homosexuals who have done just that, who pray and study Scripture and so forth..." -- Ted

Perhaps Ted's post above is unclear, but he seems to buy the non-Biblical "Say the magic Jesus-words and get your 'get out of hell free card.' " Some of the regular Bible rejecters see that stuff and (rightfully, in this case) laugh - because it is NOT consistent with what the Torah or Yeshua teaches.

Ted, if you belive what He says, and what all of the Bible consistently teaches -- read the rest of it:

"Think NOT that I have come to destroy the Torah or the prophets", (Matt. 5:17) repeated consistently and with multiple witnesses.

"If you love Me, keep My commands."

But with this warning for those who will read His word but not turn and DO as they claim to believe:
"I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from me, those of you who practice lawlessness [Torah-less-ness]." (Matt. chapter 7 - the whole chapter teaches the lesson leading up to v. 13-29.)

And yes, I'm one of those who often use the Hebrew name of the Saviour, because the Torah-teaching Meshiach ben Joseph, Yeshua of Nazareth, should not be confused with a "Jesus" who "taught another gospel".

(Mark 7:9) He said, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
Mark Call | 12.29.05 - 10:15 am | #

That's another confused libriarian, right? Putting books in the wrong places?
Those Bastards! | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 10:42 am | #

Yeah, he thought they were using the Library of Congress system when they were actually using Dewey Decimal.
Renee | 12.29.05 - 12:32 pm | #

I just simply like commenting on the comments more often than on Vox's short focused posts. I mean, there are only so many comments that can be made on the post proper before a broken record begins playin' ;).

If it's a post with less focused content, then commenting on it is easier and can obviously be more varied and still remain "on-topic."
dixiedog | 12.29.05 - 2:15 pm | #

Not only that, but there are really only a couple of basic postulates that really matter anyway, and all boil down to worldview:

- There (IS) / (IS NOT) a Higher Power than Me in the Universe.

- Who gets to decide what OTHERS have to do:
Me / the Other Higher Power

[I was looking to put a few more postulates in that list, and started to add "Others" as a choice in the second one, but honestly have to admit I've never met a living person who'd have picked it. Atheist Objectivist Ayn Rand, for example, would've SAID "others", but really seems to have simply said "I get to decide, and I choose to let OTHERS pick for themselves... ;)

On further review, maybe there is really just the top one.

And-- so the thread ties back in -- it's the confused non-Biblical libertarians who'll probably argue that. ;)>
Mark Call | 12.29.05 - 3:04 pm | #

Most of the Constitionalists and Libertarians did hold their noses and vote for Bush the last go 'round (all the purported CP's and LP's that I know did in fact vote for him, may their chains rest lightly upon them) though I certainly know that VD was quite outspoken in voting against him.
----------------------------------------
ah yes, and this is exactly the point. So why didn't these same libertarians just "hold their nose and vote for Kerry?" What made Bush the better of the "lesser of two evils" choice?

Anyone care to defend their "libertarian" choice to vote for Bush?
andthetruthcomesout | 12.29.05 - 4:15 pm | #

Hell, no. This Messianic libertarian didn't vote at all, because it's a fraud that lends legitimacy to the usurping 'democracy' that replaced our Republic.

(and besides, you have to claim to be an incompetent and live in the District in order to 'register' anyway...)
Mark Call | 12.29.05 - 5:05 pm | #

This Christian and libertarian passed on Bush II - and Carter and Ford and Reagan and Bush I and Clinton and will pass on anything the Republicrats serve up.

While the only good Democrat is an unelected one, apparently the GOP, with one or two exceptions, has proven (as if it wasn't already apparent) that they are no more to be trusted with power than the man in the moon.

The "libertarian wing" of the GOP is a charade and the "Christian right" allowed itself to be seduced by the promise of power and so I suppose deserves the screwing it got. The figurative hollering of rape that we're only just beginning to here is a classic case of morning after regret.

Unfortunately, our putative saviors in the Liberocrat, errr, Libertine, uh, Libertarian Party are about as appealing as a frat house after a bacchanal.

Maybe there's still hope for the Constituion Party. They're starting to look suspiciously like the GOP.

If it wasn't for the 2nd Coming, there'd be no hope. If I believed for a second there was to be no 2nd Coming...

Politics. Bah.
hoosiertoo | 12.29.05 - 5:29 pm | #

dratted homophones...
hoosiertoo | 12.29.05 - 5:30 pm | #

dratted homophones...
hoosiertoo | 12.29.05 - 5:30 pm | #

Sorry to piss on your milkshake, but I did not vote for Bush 43 in '00 or '04 but the CP instead.

And frankly, not voting as Mark Call mentioned is going to become my modus operandi from now on. Hell, I've thought for years that world government was a distinct possibility, yet thinking that if enough of the electorate was alert we could derail that elitist goal. And so I still played the parlor game of voting. Not anymore. Most folk are way too ignorant today of our own history and of our founding roots to be alert to anything that empowers the State at their expense.
dixiedog | 12.29.05 - 6:02 pm | #

/quote
Most of the Constitionalists and Libertarians did hold their noses and vote for Bush the last go 'round (all the purported CP's and LP's that I know did in fact vote for him, may their chains rest lightly upon them) though I certainly know that VD was quite outspoken in voting against him.
----------------------------------------
ah yes, and this is exactly the point. So why didn't these same libertarians just "hold their nose and vote for Kerry?" What made Bush the better of the "lesser of two evils" choice?

Anyone care to defend their "libertarian" choice to vote for Bush?
/quote

Because this was the most important election of our time and Kerry had to be defeated as a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism. That was how most of the pundits were talking it up and many defended that type of thinking. I didn't, nor did VD (I seem to remember a little chart he made showing how it was impossible to have a third party vote be a vote for Kerry).

Again, as Vox noted at election time, there is always some reason why we have to vote for the Republican as the Democrat is the most distasteful/dangerous to ever run. Even critically thinking Constitutionalists can be fooled from time to time.

That's what happened and will happen next election, too. As for voting for Kerry instead, as distasteful as most LP's/CP's feel the GOP is, at least there are usually a few more points in the GOP platform than the Dem's that are agreed with. Those of a more Libertarian bent, when voting against someone, will not vote for a candidate they consider even marginally worse (and why Nader wasn't the big Libertarian draw).
BigDaddy2x4 | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 6:52 pm | #

"Now, have I pissed everyone off on the Christian Right in America with my two main posts so far? Got everyone? Anybody miss out?"

Hey Jamie, you forgot about ME! Say something nasty about the Friends and other Anabaptist groups so I won't feel left out.
Papapete | 12.29.05 - 7:21 pm | #

A good persecution, as usual, will cause this slumbering giant to awake and become Christ's body on earth, and stop behaving like a churchy social club.

One problem Blacknad, the Church stands with the State. Who's going to persecute it?


- Sam Harris doesn't stand on his own. There is a growing feeling that religion is detrimental to the good of society, evolution etc.

It's all heading somewhere.
Blacknad | 12.29.05 - 9:34 pm | #

Say something nasty about the Friends and other Anabaptist groups so I won't feel left out.

Anabaptists: bloody backward fundies. When you've got Brethren and Amish tied to your ways you are not all that bright. Quakers, who cares about them? How about I ignore them cause they don't mean much? They are like the buzzing of flies in the bigger patchwork of power grabbing doctrines.
Jamie R | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:34 am | #

Thanks mate. I appreciate the effort.
Papapete | 12.30.05 - 10:23 pm | #

Anytime.
Jamie R | Homepage | 12.31.05 - 2:08 am | #

Perhaps Mark Call could benefit by seeing the whole of Scripture through the Church Epistles (as it is meant to be seen in the Grace Administration) instead of through the law of the Hebrews - which incidentally bears no resemblance to the spiritualism/legalistic self-righteousness embraced by the Khazars, with which it is commonly confused:
If you cannot trace your lineage back to Abraham, quit claiming to be an Hebrew.
If you rationalize that you are saving yourself/keeping yourself saved by anything other than faith in Jesus Christ, you have just obligated yourself to do the whole of the OT law. No one other than Christ ever did...Or ever will!
No matter how many times they've "pleeded de blood" or "gone down to the altar for the second work of grace".
Ted | Homepage | 12.31.05 - 4:08 am | #

Dear Ted --

Quite a bit of twisting there in just a few paragraphs, my friend.

If you mean the "Church" that preaches another gospel, do some more reading.

"As for me and my House, we will serve YHVH", however, and the Messiah who was foretold, Yeshua of Nazareth. (Yeshua 24:15)

Paul, were were told is often 'difficult' to understand, and his words might be twisted by the "unlearned and unstable...unto their own destruction." (II Peter 3:17-18)

[Remember that Shaul/Paul was the most legalistic of scholars, who STILL kept God's Torah AFTER coming to Yeshua. Galations is one of several studies explicitly aimed at showing THOSE WHO KNEW Torah why He was in fact Messiah.]

Who's 'claiming to be a Hebrew' or saying it was a requirement? Not the Bible, not me. Paul himself did say that gentiles should try to be 'grafted in', however -- which sounds like good advice (also prophesied through multiple witnesses, especially Ezekiel.)

As for that (pardon me) crap about the impossibility of following Him, read Deut. 30 (start with Ch. 29 to really get the flavor of it).

Summary: It's not to hard...the choice is live and death...so "choose life, that you and your descendents may live."

Yeshua said you must first believe Moses' words to understand His teachings, and that anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, and anti-christ (and the Bible tells you before not to listen to them as well), so they are without excuse who preach 'lawlessness'. (Read that Matt. 7 where he makes it REAALLL clear!)

Did you follow the part about why the Pharisees (who ADDED to or replace His word) were called, "hypocrites", who increase men's burdens? And why he said not to replace the "commandments of God" with vain traditions or men (like the pagan church has, starting with the Feast of Ishtar/Easter)? And how many of them will be told by Him, "...I never knew you!"?

It only STARTS with faith in Him, Ted, and not with 'works':

"If you love Me, keep my commands."
Mark Call | 12.31.05 - 10:39 am | #