War Liberal

I think that Everett does believe in Dinosaurs. He just believes that they co-existed with humans. Which, given that humans have been here since the earth was formed, is the only logical conclusion ;-)

Well, to be fair, Rocker added some racism to the mix.

I doubt Everett's attitude about gays is atypical of athletes, or even the general populace, for that matter. (Let me rush to say I don't share the attitude.) I wonder what he means by "wrong"?

He's just a another jerk mouthing off.

Not believe in dinosaurs? What a sad little world you must live in, Carl.

He is right about Canseco, though.

I don't know why i am going to post this, but i really don't think Everett should be punished like Rocker was. Sure maybe some would view his comments as just as insensitive as Rocker's but he in the end was just expressing his opinion on why he doesn't think something is right and gave a reason why he believed it. Rocker's entire tirade seemed to be based on his dislike for the place (New York) as his distaste for eveyone that lived there and he clumped everyone together in some sort of weird New York Stereotype. Sure maybe CE could have been more 'sensitive' with his comments but if his morality (i use this term loosely with him) or whatever led him to believe in his own words then what are you to do about that. Rocker's hate/dislike of the people groups he named was based on spite and pure malcontent, Everett at least gave some sort of reasoning to why he said it, whether you agree with his opinion or not. Flame away

Anti-black bigots of the past had similar "reasoning" behind their statements. We don't accept that anymore, but apparently gay-bashing is still allowed in certain quarters.

To clarify one point: I don't think Everett should be punished by baseball for his statements; I don't think Rocker should have been. The public opprobrium Rocker received was punishment enough. I am a great believer in social sanction as punishment for antisocial behavior, and in leaving the authorities (whether the state or a private organization like Major League Baseball) out of it.

To be fair (not that he really deserves it), I don't recall any overt racism in Rocker's comments. I think that xenophobia is generally a different thing. I suppose reasonable people can and will disagree. And, of course, it's possible that I missed something.

I don't see a lot of moral difference between "I don't believe in being gay" and "I'm not a big fan of foreigners".

Gay bashing is definitely still fashionable. The religious conservatism flowering in our country makes this easier and more acceptable.

Let's not forget our hero, John Smoltz, was qouted last year as saying about gay marriages, "What next? They're going to let animals get married?" Equally as disgusting as Carl Everett's comments.

The reason Carl Everett won't get as much attention as Rocker has little to do with white people having a shorter leash with respect to controversial comments and more do to with the fact that Rocker openly challenged New York, a place he had to frequent each year.

I don't agree with John's Santorum-channelling either, but it doesn't reach the level of "being gay is wrong".

Todd Jones anyone? At least the Rockies issued a statement saying they disagreed with the comments.

creynolds: these are the Rocker comments that led me say he "added some racism to the mix":

FROM THE SI ARTICLE:

In passing, he calls an overweight black teammate "a fat monkey." Asked if he feels any bond with New York Knicks guard Latrell Sprewell, notorious for choking coach P.J. Carlesimo two years ago, Rocker lets out a snarl of disgust. "That guy should've been arrested, and instead he's playing basketball," he says. "Why do you think that is? Do you think if he was Keith Van Horn -- if he was white -- they'd let him back? No way."

"The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"

Now, in fairness, they might not be construed as "overtly" racist. But one does see a pattern there. (Most of the foreign groups Rocker names are not lily white.) Anyhow, I'm with Mac: social castigation is where it's at when some ballplayer says idiotic things.

Back in 1997, Everett's kids were taken away after a Shea Stadium child care worker noticed bruises on his five year old daughter. It took eight months before they were allowed to have their kids back.

I think it's safe to say that Carl is an all around creep.

Fair enough. I did forget some things (specifically, I'd forgotten that he called Randall Simon a "fat monkey"). There is definitely a pattern. I still think the comments are more similar than they are different, but I suspect we agree on that. And we definitely agree about what should happen: public humiliation and not one thing more.

I guess that what really happens will depend more on how many baseball fans are offended (my guess: few, at least vocal ones). John Rocker pissed off a huge swath of them, and I have to think that was the difference-maker there.

I think John's comments have the same implications. "Being gay is wrong" is more concrete, but John's comment also doesn't allow being gay to be okay. He doesn't say it directly, but it isn't hard to see where John's coming from: ignorant, religiously inspired bigottry.

I wonder how often someone comes strong with anti-gay remarks, but doesn't have religion as an influence or justicfication for doing so...

...I'm thinking, not that often. Not that religion itself makes people say simple-minded things, it's that people who make these digusting remarks are usually relgious paranoids.

I meant John Smoltz. I feel like a total idiot by potentially confusing Smoltz the Man and Rocker the Paranoid Loser. I was referring to Smoltz's anti-gay remarks.

On second thought, it's Smoltz who allowed himself to be in this conversation. He isn't Rocker, far from it, but he did make anti-gay remarks. I won't ignore that.

I also like "I don't believe in being gay". I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I think there's a difference.

You may pick me apart, but there is nothing wrong with expressing your opinions as to whether or not something is wrong or not. I think being gay is wrong, and yes, I am a Christian, but I felt being gay was wrong way before I was a Christian. With that said, I want to turn this away from a religious standpoint to just a world-in-general standpoint.

As humans, we believe certain things are wrong. We think killing is wrong. We think stealing is wrong. We think arson, running a stop sign, and pouring gasoline on your neighbor's front yard is wrong. Those are givens. But things like homosexuality aren't as given. Why is not wrong to support homosexuality, but it is wrong to not support homosexuality? Why do we have to refer to that as bigotry? I think that superstition is pretty ridiculous. I also think that homosexuality is pretty ridiculous. Why does one make me a bigot, and the other just proves that "our country is great and we have liberty to differ in opinions"?

All of those other things (pouring gasoline on your neighbors yard, killing, arson) affect the well being of somebody else. Homosexuality doesn't do that.

Rob,

All the things that you listed initially as being wrong are far different in my mind. Murder, theft, arson, reckless driving and vandalism involve victimization (or at least the potential for it). The only "victims" of homosexuality are those who have what I would consider irrational fears. And, well, I just think that's silly. There are some victimless crimes, but I can't think of any right now that I agree are legitimate.

For me personally, it's mostly that I have a real problem with people disliking other people for who and what they are. And I just don't think that someone who is homosexual has anymore choice in the matter than someone who is black. So, in my mind, there are parallels there. Your religion condems homosexuality. OK. I'm not lumping you in, but I think it is fair to point out that there have been many people whose Christian religion deemed blacks inferior. So I hope you will understand that I just don't find that to be a compelling justification.

I think that our country is great and people have liberty to be bigots. Just as other people are free to point that out. I don't see the two things in your last statement as being mutally exclusive. I don't think anyone who has commented so far would either, but I can't speak for them.

Most importantly, however, I would like to say that your views are your own, whatever they may be. And as long as you don't seek to deny people of a different sexual orientation (or race, nationality, etc.) the basic respect that anyone should afford any other human being or the ability to do fundamental things like work, vote and own property then I have no real issue even though we disagree strongly on this.

I agree with the previous two posts and detest the one before it.

Rob, I think your religion has a lot to do with your views and it doesn't surprise me one bit that we've come to this again.

Homosexuality is victimless. It's ridiculous that this has to even be said. It shouldn't even be considered, let alone written about in the same sentecnce, close to something else that is criminal.

The idiots can hide behind the idea of homosexuality as a "choice" or "lifestyle choice," but our understanding of the natural world is bringing us (thinking people) closer to the realization that homosexuality has a lot to do genetics and environment. Although there is still a lot of uncertainty.

Even if someone could prove all homosexuality is caused by molestation or other sexual tresspassings during childhood, does that mean we should just consider all gay people sick and perverted?!?! The logic is archaic, sick, pathetic, moronic, paranoid, and yes too often religious...

Creynolds,

You are a titan. You not only contribute excellent baseball commentary to Braves Journal, but you also don't get mad when people don't agree with you. Good man.

I understand that homosexuality has no victimization, and yes I agree that the fears that people have from homosexuals are irrational. But what I'm trying to put across is that, regardless of victimization or not, our society, as a whole, has a rather rigid set of things that we found right or wrong. And with something not as clear-cut as murder or rape, such as homosexuality, how can we say that what one man sees is wrong isn't wrong, but when another man sees it as right, it's right?

Now, where I strongly disagree with you is you believe that homosexuals are who they are, that they are born that way, and they can't help it. How can that be? Are you going to tell me that if I wanted to be gay, I couldn't start liking men because I wasn't born to like men? Absolutely not. It's a decision that each homosexual makes, whether conscious or not. I also am not prejudice whatsoever towards any particular race, sex, or religion. I also see that as somewhat of an achievement considering the environment in which I was raised in.

Raoul,

Once again you've turned a sensible discussion into attacks on whole groups of people. Congratulations. (Sarcasm, please forgive me.)

I don't know how old you are, nor do I care, but you will get absolutely nowhere in life if you insist on referring to Christians, and more generally, people who differ in your line of thinking, as non-thinking people. I see homosexuality as a choice. I stand by that, not only because of my religion. As I said in my original post, I thought that way before I knew Christ.

As for whether or not homosexuality is a choice or something genetic, you just proved how unstable your argument is when you said "Althought there is still a lot of uncertainty." That's exactly what it is Raoul, uncertainty. Which is to say, I have what I believe, and you have what you believe, but you know are no more right than me, and I am no more right than you.

Referring to me and the people that share my beliefs on homosexuals as "idiots", and your inexplicable stance that you and whoever the "us" is that are you referring to somehow think more than we (which I assume from your perspective means Christians) do is absolutely ridiculous, and I have never been more offended, and this after I just returned to America after spending a week passing out tracts with Protestant views in a country where Catholicism is the most prominent religion.

Anyone who clings to the notion of homosexuality as a choice will always be an idiot to me.

The fact is Rob, science is coming to conclusions about genetics and environment. There's no hard proof, but intellectuals know what is coming. What science supports homosexuality as a choice? It doesn't. Only the twisted intepretation of scripture or nonsense can do that.

I didn't say Christians are stupid and bigotted. I just said those who are biggoted and stupid are usually associated with a religion.

Also Rob, you're commentary about choosing to become gay is absolutely hysterical. You obviously don't undestand science or human sexuality. You can't just CHOOSE to be gay all of a sudden. You're sexuality remains constant. If you could choose, people who are gay would choose to not be and avoid all the ridicule they recieve from the simple folk.

You've got to become a modern human if you want to be respected by others who are modern, Rob. Respectable people can't respect you if you're going to rattle off sh*te about gay people that isn't true.

Gay people don't deserve the ridicule and invalidation they get from people like you.

Who the hell are you that you can tell gay people they're wrong? They're a plenty of gay people who are more worhty of life and liberty than you are.

Rob,

That may well be an achievement, and I don't mean that sarcastically. It's hard to overcome some of the things that have been impressed upon us from childhood authority figures and/or environments. I'm proud of myself for a lot of things that I've come to understand and accept in spite of the intolerance that surrounded me in my youth. As much as we disagree on this, I'll take your word for it that it doesn't really affect the way you would treat others or wish them to be treated by society as a whole. I think that's all we can reasonably expect of people. In fact, I think it's right that we demand it.

On the question as to whether it's a choice: Yes, of course you could choose to have sex with anyone you wanted. If you chose to have sex with another man, there's nothing to stop you. In one way, I think it would be better if people looked at this as "just sex" and moved on from it. But in other respects, I think it's a disservice to do that. It really is more than that. It's also about life, love and happiness. For some people, for whatever reason, that involves another person of the same sex. I can't explain it, and I don't really care to. But I can't explain why sex, life, love and happiness for me involves someone of the opposite sex either. And that, more than anything, is what leads me to believe that it is not a choice.

To move on to something I know we can agree on (even Raoul): it's 5-2 Braves in the 8th!

Here Here Creynolds. The Braves are winning, I'm happy.

I want to leave this alone, but I'm fuming.

Rob, you speak as though we're entitled to different opinions and that's the end of it. You speak as though your mode of thinking about homosexuals isn't repressive in any way. That's not true. Our opinions affect the world, whether you believe or not, and I think your beliefs are dangerously repressive and innappropriate for human society.

I shouldn't say that paranoid ranters against homosexuality are usually associated with a religion. That's unfair.

I should say something more like: those who make oppressive comments towards homosexuals or minorities almost exclusively come from a sect of organized religion that makes it their business to encourage oppressive and archaic ideology. In America, Christianity happens to be the leader of this. So by making references to intolerance and you inferring Christianity Rob, I've made my point. You obviously connect your religion to your beliefs now, whether you found Christ after your intolerance of homosexuality.

There are plenty of good Christians. I know a Christian minister who somewhat illegally unites gay couples in marriage. A truly wonderful man. A truly compassionate, caring, and good Christian.

Someone who makes archaic and oppresive remarks about people of a particular sexuality is not a good Christian. A person like that is a paranoid old-timer. Homosexuals don't threaten the "sanctity and institution of marriage and family." It's so sensational and irresponsible to frame it like that.

I come into social contact with plenty of homsexuals, some friends, some acquaintances, and some family. They don't threaten my genetic makeup, which encourages me to raise a family with a woman.

It's just not a choice. Some many things point to this reality.

Rob Cope seriously just emailed this to me:

"Raoul,

This is Rob Cope from War Liberal and Braves Journal.

I really hope that the St. Pete punk rock scene isn't having too much of an effect on your thinking. Rancid and Bad Religion are pretty vocal about their beliefs which you seem to adamently share. What's next? You hate that "idiot son of an *sshole" a la Nofx? Don't let those bands influence you as to what you should believe or not. Trust me, I've been there. Bad Religion has some really good music. No Control, Suffer, Generator, they were all cool CDs, All Ages was a great collection of all their songs too. Just don't take it too far though..."

Reducing my views to the liberal media. Another predicatable strategy from the religious right...

Go ahead, Rob, share the reply. I think it's pretty funny.

I know I am entering into a discussion that I have not been a part of but I have read the entire discussion and would like to clarify something. Let me also point out that I am a regular reader of the Braves Journal.

Any Christian who unites gay couples simply is not a Christian or does not follow the Bible. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin period. God loves people who are homosexual, as Christians should, as he loves everyone but he abhors their sin.

Please prove to me that God abhors homosexuals, please. I beg of you as well as implore you.

The Bible isn't the ACTUAL account of what God said and you can deviate from the Bible and still be a Christian. The Bible is collection of what other Christians "believed" and "believe," not know, saw, or witnessed. Good Christians deviate from the Bible all the time.

Asserting that the Bible is a true testament to God's word is dangerous and fallicious by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't say he abhors homosexuals. He loves homosexuals. He hates their sin. Big difference.

Not to me.

He doesn't abhor their "sexuality" either.

This "difference" is how religion, especially some Christianity, allow hatred of homosexuals to continue. There is literally no difference between a person and they're sexuality, it's who they are. Hating someone for something that's a part of them and motivates their prime instincts is pointless to begin with. It's also weak, repressive, sad, pathetic, moronic, simplisitic, dangerous, and insidious.

The values of a true Christian? God? I think not.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You once again say, "Hating someone for something that's a part of them and motivates their prime instincts is pointless to begin with." I did not say God hated them. I said he hates what they do. I may love my brother but I hate it when he sins. I still love him but I hate his sin.

I hear you, but YOUR logic is flawed.

You can't love someone if you hate them too. Sexuality isn't separate from humanity, it is humanity. Hating someone's sexuality is hating them.

Ask a gay person if they accept your love for them AND your hatred for their sexuality? I bet 99 or a 100 times out of 100 that a gay person tells you that their sexuality isn't separate from their physical being. Your sexuality motivates your behaivor and emotions just the same.

I'm also much more inclined to trust what a gay person says about the unity of sexuality and humanity within a gay person than a Christian homophobe.

Ok I get you now. But two men together or two women together. Where's the LOGIC in that?

Also, Zach, "God" doesn't hate anything. I'm sure it's beneath a higher power, if there be one, to hate a sexual orientation.

Which is another thing that most Christians against homosexuality fail to see. Sexual orientation is just that. An orientation towards continued sexual encounters. People don't choose to be gay in situations that justify their lifestyle. People are physically, genetically, and humanly gay and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Reproduction will continue, as will society.

Where is your proof that God hates anything?

Proof is always hard to come by when you immerse you ideas in archaic hooey...

It's completely logical. Some human are homosexual and some are heterosexual. How many more gay people do you need to see in order to prove this?

Wow you seem to know a lot about God is thinking about. Have you tapped into his thoughts. Maybe you should give this a try. Read his thoughts in the Bible. God hates many things.

HIS thoughts aren't in the Bible. This is like fighting with a five year old.

The disciples of Christ WROTE the Bible.

God surely didn't come down from the heavens and author a best seller.

If he did, crap, I missed out on that one.

You're the one tapping into this thoughts, with the "God abhors their ***" crap.

What kind of hypocrisy is that?

I believe the Bible is inspired by God but it is almost useless for me to say that because you will just ridicule me for that. I guess since you don't believe in the Bible we must ask someone who knows everything these questions. Who would that be...hmmm.....oh that's right, you know everything. We must ask you Raoul.

I'm tapping into this thoughts? No I actually read it in some literature. You're the one who claims to "know" what God or any higher being thinks. And you think homosexuality is logical. Think about it. It's not that logical.

Creative. Really.

You're getting personal because you have no defense. Defend you arguments, don't make me into the know-it-all because I provide substantiation.

You're right I will ridicule for believing the Bible is fact. It's not. It's inspired by human image of God and morality.

"God" told the disciples he abhors homosexuality, just like he told me that Atlanta should've kept Tom Martin as a setup man.

I have no intent to attack you personally. I just find it interesting that you know so much about God. How do you know these things if you don't believe in the Bible?

It's not THAT logical? So you allow for some logic to homosexuality?

If homosexuality happens in the physical, temporal world, it's logical. That's the basis of reality and science. If it exists in front of you, you can't deny it.

You obvisouly have no intellectual basis for the comments you're making. It's admiralable (actually detestable) that you're trying to defend some of your Christian brother's repression of our human brothers, but you can't.

"God," or the human reference to a higher power, doesn't only exist for those who read the Bible.

These are rudimentary ideas here Zach.

First, you misread my statement on the logic of homosexuality. I don't leave any room for logic. I mean the peaces just don't fit if you know what I mean.

Second, in regard to your most recent comment, my question still stands. How do you know these things about God? I am very curious.

Spare me. I asked for substantiation a long time ago.

Being Carl Everett is wrong.

I substantiate my claims with literature and you substantiate your claims with what again? I love debating with "intellectuals". You can't debate them becaue they "know" everything. How can they be wrong, they are "intellectuals". I have to go. It's been interesting.

You substantiate with fantasy and faith, not fact.

Science will prove the genetics of sexuality.

If only the same could be said of the meeting with God on Mount Sinai...

God is proved through reality, not fantasy fiction.

In reality, people are born gay.

It's a fact.

It's not a choice. Homosexuals can all attest to this, but they have no legitmate voice when it comes to their own sexuality in our society.

I like how all the pressure is on me to substantiate.

And then you cut off the debate like you won or something.

Scroll back through the postings. You've only made your ilk looked like uneducated, old world hate mongers.

I can't even give you credit for being insidious, it's above you.

Actually citing the Bible as fact, what year is this again?

God told me to skin you alive.

Don't forget, according to some of these compassionate and loving Christians out there, like Jerry Falwell, gays helped make 9/11 happen. I actually had an older gentleman deny to me when I was in Orlando this week that Falwell even said this: “And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen. [9/11]’”

I didn't end the debate Raoul. I said I had to go.

I'll answer your question if you will answer mine. The year is 2005. Now what year did the Bible become fiction?

And yes the pressure is on you to substantiate. If someone claims to know God's thoughts, they better give a pretty good reason and you haven't given an attempt at a reason yet. I'm sure you won't answer this question because you can't.

Davy,
Please don't think that all Christians believe that. Your taking one man's statement and applying it to millions of people. It was wrong for him to say that and I'm sure most Christians who read the Bible would agree with me.

I wonder what you christians would say to someone who publicly stated "Christians being christian is wrong"? And pointed out all of the persecution, bigotry, and vile actions that have been committed by christians in order to 'save the souls' of those who they consider to be heretical?

Tom you must not understand what a Christian is. A Christian who obeys what God says in the Bible would never persecute anyone, be a bigot, or commit any vile acts in the name of God. Some crazy people might but a true Christian would not. Please don't lump Christians into that category.

(I now this is veering off the original topic, but…) Zach- Interesting that you point out how you feel it was wrong for Falwell to make that type of statement. Which brings be to a larger point that (at least how I see it) Raoul was trying to make...this is that just because you say that is what the Bible says is in actuality no logical justification for a stance. People have used 'the Bible says' justification throughout history- Crusades, slavery, and then Falwell's comment re: 9/11.

I guess I don't understand when you mentioned above thread about "you don't leave any room for logic"..?? That seems extremely, well, odd. Anywho, I guess I am rambling now.

My main point is that you can say that your religion does not support homosexuality, but that does not mean that our laws and policies should be based on that. You can say it is 'icky', but not have laws against it (marriage in this country IS a secular thing too, which is why there are numerous financial and governmental benefits associated with it). I think that people who like to be peed on during sex are icky, yet we have no laws against that... and they can still get married 

And to answer your question, the Bible has always been fiction. True- for a large chunk of history way back when, they took the Bible as “the Truth”. But also back then they thought the world was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth. How can you say that the Bible is non-fiction (besides stating that is your religious belief)? Wasn’t the Bible written a long time after Jesus was born (correct me if I am wrong) so how do you know the information is accurate? Kinda reminds me of the telephone game when the end comment sounds nothing like what was originally said. I also was watching an interesting History channel show where they were discussing 4 Gospels that the Church decided to get rid of…why were those tossed to the side and not the ones we have today? I highly doubt it was because of God’s wishes…I would like Zach or any other religious person thoughts on this.

The ? was supposed to be a smiley face...

Here's a must read on this topic, regardless of which side of the debate you fall on: The Abominable Shellfish: Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon.

Wow... my link so totally did not take. OK.. I put the link into the URL field for this post. Just click on my name and it should take you there.

Thank you for your interest and your questions Amber. I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability.

1) The Bible has always been fiction. I beg to differ. Actually the Bible has never been disproven. Yes the world believed the earth was flat but here is something very interesting. The Old Testament, thousands of years before science discovered the earth was round, proved that the earth was round. That's right. Now either mankind somehow forgot that the earth was round or there was some kind of higher power who was with the author of this particular book of the Old Testament. I will look it up and prove it to you if you wish.

2) The Old Testament was written will before Jesus' birth. Some of the New Testament books were written shortly after his death and some were written a few hundred years after his death.

3) There were many many gospels written by many people after Jesus' death. Some of them were written be certain sects of people and the ones that were thrown out were thrown out because of their inconsistencies. If it was inconsistent it was obviously not God inspired.

That should be "The Old Testament was written well before" not will before.

Tom you must not understand what a Christian is.

Excuse me? Maybe you missed the following from those Christians you are so enamored of:

Pope Ratzinberger hiding known pederasts in the Roman Catholic church (a sub-genre of Christianity), and requiring that any further reports of pederasty be hidden from public scrutiny;

Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, and a host of other christians saying that God told them to persecute and disparage homosexuals (in much the same way you told the rest of us that the Bible is not fictional);

the christian minister who told his congregation that they needed to 'repent' the sin of voting for John Kerry, or be banned from the congregation;

the Illegally Installed Usurper speaking on behalf of God to the American people on a regular basis (while lying his ass off and practicing public hypocrisy in his actions);

churches all across the country exhorting their parishoners to vote for said Illegally Installed Usurper (in direct contradiction with both the seperation of church and state provision in the Bill of Rights and the terms of their tax-free status requirements);

and a host (cough) of others that I'm sure your faith-based religious insanity will not allow you to accept as true.

I would also like to point out that:

1) the Bible has never been proven either. One would think that the burden of proof would be on those who claim that it is the literal word of the Invisible Cloud Being to prove the validity of the argument, not the other way around. You can beg to differ all you want, but until you provide some sort of rational argument to support your beliefs, that's all they are - beliefs. I believe in Santa Claus*. Can you prove that he doesn't exist?

2) do you have any proof of your unsupported assertion that the Bible was written before the Jesus fable was cobbled together from the common elements of other religious beliefs of the time?

3) there are inconsistencies between the four gospels (as well as the writings of Paul). There are also inconsistencies within the books of the old and new testaments, and within the old testament books as well. According to your beliefs, then, none of these books (or only one of them) was inspired by that unproven magically omniscient being you believe in. As an example, I believe in one place it is said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and in another, the Jesus fable tells his sycophants this is not right.

There is also the issue that not all of the words in the Bible are adhered to, or believed in, by those who profess to be christian. See the shellfish comment above for an example of that.

You have the right to believe whatever you like. However, you do not have the right to foist those beliefs on society because God told you to. You should also be denouncing those who abuse your holy writs, loudly and fervently, instead of allowing their abuses to be attributed to the rest of the flock. Funny how that never seems to be the focus of christians.

* - actually, I believe in the spirit of Santa Claus. But you still can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Zach, buddy, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round before and during the times when the Bible was written. Run a Google search on Aristotle and Pythagoras and you'll be amazed what you find.

I have to say that I have always thought Everett was an idiot, and I still do. But I have always questioned the legitimacy of homosexuality given the fact that it takes a man and a woman to make another human. However, if a someone doesn't buy into a moral code outside of themselves they will never see any sense in calling homosexuality right or wrong.

I was going to back out of this discussion, but I have to comment on this because I have real problems with this argument. I have more problems with it than I do with someone who feels that homosexuality offends their religious sensibilities.

The fact is that, whether some of us like it or not, human sexuality has to do with an awful lot more than procreation. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the great majority of times that people have sex, the last thing they want to do is make another human. Many heterosexual couples choose not to have children, and I don't imagine that you would call either their unions or the fact that they have sex illegitimate. Many people cannot be biological parents due to various physical conditions, and I don't imagine that you would consider their desire to engage in sex illegitimate. So unless you're willing to comdemn all sexual activity that doesn't allow for impregnation as illegitimate, then I don't think this argument justifies your issues. If you are willing to do that, then I think that's just very very sad indeed.

Some say that the parts don't fit. Well, not to be too graphic, but the parts of men and women fit together sexually in all sorts of ways that don't always include the things to which you refer. So unless you're willing to say that no sexual activity that does not involve a penis being inserted into a vagina is legitimate, then I don't think this argument justifies your issues. If you are willing to do that, then I think that's very very sad indeed.

I think I've covered my feelings on this matter pretty well. I'm now going to go back to trying to stay out of it.

Tom, I find it hard to talk with someone when they say things that cause them to lose all credibility. "Illegally installed usurper". Come on now. I know you're bitter but that's just shows your mindset. I will try to look past that.
Many people have gone on archeological expeditions in order to disprove the Bible and you know what happens. 1) they come back empty handed or 2) they convert to Christianity.

Jesus used many metaphors when he taught. In fact, he almost taught exclusively in metaphors. "Eye for an eye" , it's a metaphor.

Yes, I do not follow the traditions of the Old Testament. Why did they follow these traditions in the Old Testament? Because God instructed them to and this is how they were able to be with God in heaven. When Jesus came, these laws and traditions were abolished when he died on the cross for everybody's sins. In fact, the curtain of the tabernacle where many of these feasts and traditions took place was torn in two when Jesus died. No longer do we have to obey strict traditions. We must love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind.

Zach, please offer evidence of your assertion that "many people have gone on archaeological expeditions in order to disprove the Bible." And please note: Just because an archaeological dig is in the Middle East, that doesn't mean its intention is "to disprove the Bible." If you can't back up your blanket statements, please don't make them.

I can do that for you, Surfer.

Ralph Muncaster conducted 15 years of research to dispute the Bible before he came to the conclusion that the Bible must be true. Two other former atheists, Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell are just a couple of many former atheists who use science as evidence that God does exist and the Bible is true. I put a link in the URL box.

I would like to clarify one more thing. Many of you cite the crusades as a time when Christians killed and conquered and committed vile acts in the name of God. How could they do this? Because the Bible was only written in Latin which the people could not read and if they could read Latin they were not allowed to have a Bible. The leaders of that time used this as a tool to conquer. The people did not know what the Bible said. The leaders would "read the Bible" (or what they wanted the Bible to say) to the people to justify their pusuit of power.

Wow, a guy whose sudden conversion just happened to allow him to sell lots of books and tapes to an eager market of believers, and who suggests dinosaurs may have lived alongside humans, and who calls evolution absurd despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Impressive. Got anything else?

Zach, you're faith is childishly naive. Any reference to to the thoughts or ideas of "God" in the Bible is PURE fantasy. "God" did not ever directly communicate to humans.

Sorry.

Earlier I made a claim about the nature of "God" in the same nature as you because you wouldn't substantiate your claims about the consciousness of "God". I have every right to make claims about "God," and will continue to do so, if you also cite fantasy as fact. It doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm trying to prove a point to you...

You and other Christians can say whatever you want about "God" or "The Son of God," but that DOESN'T make it TRUE.

"God" is a fine concept. Tying human morality to a higher authority is extremely beneficial, albeit dangerous.

Your rhetoric is a perfect example of why organized religion is dangerous. It's inevitable, as you've proved, that religious devotees starting writing fantasy into reality.

Saying something hasn't been disproven can't be the same as saying it's real. I could make the same claims about my third arm or second brain. It's fantasy and not a defense of the Bible's true recounting of "God."

I believe in a higher power, but not your disgusting interpretation of "God."

(Also, your anecdote about "scholars" proving the Bible true is comical. How can someone corroborate the thousands of stories and anecdotes, some of which are entirely fantasy? The truth is: they can't. Who believes they can?
The naive and weak-minded.)

You may take offense to my attacking of you, but I feel it's justified. For the amount of fallacy and pain you place on homosexuals, you deserve more than this.

Tom, I find it hard to talk with someone when they say things that cause them to lose all credibility. "Illegally installed usurper". Come on now. I know you're bitter but that's just shows your mindset. I will try to look past that.

Right back at ya, Zach. You lost credibility once you said "I love debating with "intellectuals". You can't debate them becaue they "know" everything.. I would say the same thing about debating with Christians. And your arguments went downhill from there.

The reason I talk about the Lying Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter while using descriptively accurate nicknames for him is that he's earned them. Try and tell me he was legitimately elected either time - then try and fit your "theory" in with the Democratic voter purge in Florida for the 2000 elections (based on a databse provided by - surprise! - GeeWhatADumbAss) and the Brooks Brothers Riot, where those Publicans you are fellating flew in GOP operatives who didn't even live in Florida to shut down the recount until they could get the Supreme Court to illegally declare Pinhead, the Thief of Crawford as the winner of the electoral votes in Florida. Then - surprise again! - the Publican secretary of state for Florida refused to do her job and verify the vote. For a supposed christian, you seem to be okay with all sorts of immoral acts - as long as it's you and yours who are doing them.

In Ohio in 2004, the Publican Secretary of State first promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to his own party over a year before the election, then went to the churches to get the leaders of the church to pressure their congregations to vote for Putsch. Then he and his minions engaged in systematic intimidation and confusion of voters in traditionally Democratic precincts, manipulation and alteration of the actual votes in precincts where Diebold (who employed - surprise yet again - this secretary of state) machines tallied the votes. And those are just the highlights of the illicit and immoral shenanigans that the Publican administration engaged in when fixing the election in Ohio in 2004.

Is it bitter to get upset when, through cheating, fraud, intimidation, and other immoral and illegal acts, the Repugnicants have stolen the last two federal elections? Or is it a cry for justice?

I would also like to say thanks to the others here who don't blindly follow all of the lies spewed by the faith-based abominations heretically twisting the concept of a higher being into screeds manipulating their fellow humans. This is one of the most blasphemous things that can be done with those christian beliefs (which after all were stolen and adapted from the pagan rituals of the time) in my eyes.

I hope one day the Christians' diety calls them to task for the abuses they have engaged in in its' name.

This is the most comments I've ever seen at your site, Mac.

I don't have time to thorougly respond as I would like so here is a quick tidbit before I get a chance to sit down.

Tom, you lose credibility when you say false things. I have not said anything that is blatantly false as was your entire last post. Don't even get me started on how completely wrong you were. You are obviously being led astray by someone and I hope you discover the truth someday. Just one thing about Florida. When the media declared Gore the winner in Florida, the heavily pro-republican panhandle was still voting. How many votes did the Republicans lose there. And Jesse Jackson has been ranting and raving about voter suppression but when asked to provide one, just one piece of evidence, he has never come through.

And Raoul, I don't know why you are so angry. I have not placed any pain on homosexuals. God instucts us to love homosexuals which I do. I have two close co-workers who are homosexual. I get along with them great. I have never said I support laws against homosexuality nor do I hate a person for being homosexual. I think they are sinning as we all do everyday. And please tell me how you know these things about God.

1) he doesn't hate anything
2) he never communicated directly with humans

Tell me where these things are proven or do you just "know" they are true because you are above substantiation.

I didn't expect this many. I'd feel better if I thought they were getting anywhere.

Wow. I'm afraid i have to agree with you, Mac, after that last tirade. I sure hope Zach hasn't gathered the congregation to brand a scarlet letter on me for saying "false things". Funny how that is the whole of his argument here, that I say false things, without managing to find a shred of proof for his contention. I would love to see him try to prove that they are false. If the proof is anywhere near as rigorous (cough) as his proof that there is indeed an Invisible Cloud Being, it would be much more Christian of him to question his own honesty rather than that of others and examine his own arguments and see where (if at all) logic is present. If you choose to call me a liar to my face, Zach, if I were you I should be prepared to back up my words with something more than Putsch supplied faith-based talking points. You could work on being a little less ostentatious with the thirty pieces of silver, too...

I have no intention of proving your statements false ,Tom, because you haven't offered, nor is there any, evidence to support your claims.

Wow. I'm afraid i have to agree with you, Mac, after that last tirade.

Tom, honestly, did you think you were getting somewhere before?

Actually, yes, I did - not with the faith-based perverter of spirituality, but with others who were seeing yet another example of Repugnicant hypocrisy in action. And coming up with talking points to counter the faith-based knowing of what is evidence and what is not. And seeing that, even though they claim to operate out of love for their fellow humans, they are just more Falwell-, Moore-, and Phelps- clones who want to remake this land according to their own twisted beliefs.

And, Zach, why is that you can't stop from bearing false witness against your fellow humans, in direct contradiction to those commandments you claim to follow? You have no ability to prove any of my statements false; you merely resort to tired faith-based cliches.

You haven't offered, nor is there any, evidence to support your claims regarding faith-based invisible cloud beings, either.

The evidence that I present to support my claims comes from a book that you consider fiction, but here are the facts. Millions and millions of people around the world believe the Bible is true so my evidence can't be dismissed as crazy when it has so many supporters around the world.

And your evidence for voter suppression, illegal Supreme Court rulings, democratic voter purge, confusion, manipulation, alteration, and fixing elections consists of "others who were seeing yet another example of Repugnicant hypocrisy in action". Where are these people who were manipulated? Where are these altered votes? Which voters were suppressed? You make claims wich, if true, should be easy to corroborate.

And I have to mention something about this. You said Republicans went to churches and told people they must vote for President Bush. How about the Democrats who went to black congregations and told them that President Bush would burn their churches down if he were elected?

At one time, almost everyone on the planet believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Billions believe the Koran is true. Billions also believe in Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Each of those faiths have more adherents than those who believe in the Bible. And some tenets of their faiths directly contradict those of the Bible! I guess that means that those beliefs can't be dismissed as crazy, either. And their contradictory beliefs are a reason to question those of Christians, too. Right?

And, right at this very moment, there are billions of people who believe that the Chimperor and his junta are lying murdering hypocritical sacks of kimchee who should be tried in international court for war crimes. When will you be holding those claims in the same high regard as those in your holy book?

For the record, I have no idea if there is a God, or if he inspired the Bible or any of those other religious works. I maintain that no one has that knowledge - they might believe, but they do not have proof. Until they do, they should stop trying to pretend that they are discussing facts, and acknowledge that they are talking about their beliefs. And try to use logic and facts when they are trying to rationally debate something.

I provided no evidence for my assertions. I merely made some faith-based statements of my own. Since I belong to the church of reality, my beliefs are backed by the facts as best I can determine them. I'm always willing to consider that I might be wrong. But I need some reality-based proof in order to change my beliefs.

Google shows me almost 5,500 links to "voting irregularities in ohio", and over 4,200 for "voting irregularities in florida" (the specific phrase, not the combination of words - those links number well over 100,000 in each case). It also shows me zero links for "President Bush would burn their churches" (and, by extension, "Democrats said President Bush would burn their churches down"). Could you please provide some sort of factual support for your allegations if you continue to try and push them on others as facts?

Tom, I like your posts, you've done a commenable job trying to wake Zach up from a two thousand year-old dreamworld.

I understand your frustrations. You and I have tried to point out the numerous contradictions inherent in giving fully to organized faith, but he's obviously not hearing logic. I think we've done all we can.

You can't really change adults who think the Bible is literal. Only Christians who acknowledge the Bible as having symbolic and SOME historical importance are worth talking to about politics and morality. Simply put, these people who believe the world, or even the universe, was created in seven days and deny the obvious evolution of our world over millions and millions of years have the minds of children. They believe these things because they're scared of fact that maybe it's all over when you die. I believe in an afterlife, but I also entertain the possibility that the exact opposite might be true. These people only entertain Biblical theory and that is why they so frustratingly commit themselves to fallacy.

Zach, if you haven't figured it out, I've already said that I was explaining my faith. It's equally as plausible as yours and I entertain the possibility of being wrong. You don't.

People who commit to the Bible, Koran, or whatever and don't acknowledge that they might be wrong aren't even worth a discussion of real, worldly matters. It's impossible for the religions to be completely right and they're probably closer to being completely wrong than anything.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005024.html

http://www.electricvenom.com/index.php?p=4694

http://politics.abovetopsecret.com/thread145714/pg1

Here are a few links that support my statement about democrats going into churches and threatening them. This was also in the main stream media because that is where it was first brought to my attention.

You guys are certainly entitled to your beliefs. Just don't criticize me and call me an idiot for having my own beliefs.

"You can't really change adults who think the Bible is literal. Only Christians who acknowledge the Bible as having symbolic and SOME historical importance are worth talking to about politics and morality. Simply put, these people who believe the world, or even the universe, was created in seven days and deny the obvious evolution of our world over millions and millions of years have the minds of children."
I'm sorry you feel this way Raoul. Let me say this though. These Christians who are "not worth talking to about politics" and with "minds of children" are the same people who created our government and our constitution. Our entire society and government was based entirely on the laws of God. So remember when you demean Christians like you have, you are talking about the founders of this great nation which allows you to express your opinions.

And it's not that I am above being wrong. But I keep poking holes in every claim that you guys make and provide evidence whenever asked.

First of all, thanks, Raoul - you are one of the ones I was talking about. We have probably done more than we should - and I thank Mac for allowing us this waste of his bandwidth. I would like to take this discussion back to my own blog so's I can waste some of my own bandwidth, as opposed to that of others. There should be some sort of post summarizing and linking to this comment thread soon...

I would also like to ask Zach that he hold on to any comments about what I am going to say here, reflect on what he has to say a bit, and bring those comments over to my zone if he still cares to throw about his allegations some more.

Finally, I would like to point out the flaws in his latest feeble attempt to make some sort of rational point here: I looked at one of your links (the last one from abovetopsecret - I can't get to the others right now, but I should be able to later this evening, and examine them further) and I see someone else making the same allegations that you are making about "if you vote for Republicans black churches will burn" (the exact quote from the site). Only one problem, Zach - you still haven't shown me any place where a church leader has made those statements. You show me a partisan web site (ironically named Above Politics, it seems to be intent on impugning liberals) where the blog author makes that statement. I have seen a few quotes from black church leaders endorsing Kerry, but none where they demand or advise that their flock vote Democratic.

Here are some links that I found rather easily from actual news organizations about a request from the GOP to "Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney ’04 headquarters"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19082-2004Jun30.html

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041005/NEWS01/41005004/1075

and one from a partisan liberal organization:

http://www.redeemthevote.com/pr15.html

Please note how, even in the partisan liberal site, there are actual quotes from actual church officials, not some sort of rumor that somebody heard from somebody else.

And, Zach, you still can't help but throw out another wrongwingnut point at the end. The people who wrote the constitution and created our government did not blindly follow the rules of their faiths - it seems to me that they bent over backwards to allow all faiths to be able to be practised (and heard) here in America. When you put the founding fathers in the same class as Falwell, Phelps, Robertson, or any of the other religiously insane who claim to know what's good for us based on what the voices in their head told them, you are demeaning our founding fathers.

And you still have provided no evidence of any of the false witness you are bearing on behalf of the Idiot in Thief. That you seem to think that wild unsubstantiated faith-based flights of fancy are equivalent to hard facts is quite comical...

It's not that you're above being wrong. You're just congenitally unable to admit it - even to yourself. You should be ashamed.

Feel free to visit my site tomorrow. There should be a place for you to show the rest of us how foolish it is to consider one's faith to be knowledge, or based on knowledge.

Wow - a lot of comments here since I left my last one and then left without access to this blog for a few days. I have two points:

1. I think homosexuality is something you are born with, but if it isn't, so what? Who does it affect? To me, it's like being left-handed: a behavior that's not in the majority that you can force modification of, but that only serves to take away people's livelihood.

2. Yes, it does say homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. It also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, that you can't wear clothes made of mixed fabric, and that if a man sleeps with a woman, he should give her dad 50 shekels of silver and make her his wife. The last part makes me not take it too seriously. And the other part makes me wonder - why aren't those people concerned about homosexuality more concerned about shrimp eating or people wearing cotton-polyester blends, which is more frequent?

Already covered this:

"Yes, I do not follow the traditions of the Old Testament. Why did they follow these traditions in the Old Testament? Because God instructed them to and this is how they were able to be with God in heaven. When Jesus came, these laws and traditions were abolished when he died on the cross for everybody's sins. In fact, the curtain of the tabernacle where many of these feasts and traditions took place was torn in two when Jesus died. No longer do we have to obey strict traditions. We must love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind."

It's ridiculous to first of all claim that "god's" decree is in the Old Testament. Fantasy.

It's ridiculous to assert that when the human Jesus of Nazareth died, "god" traded in the Hebrew laws from the Old Testament for some new ones. Fantasy.

Some of the humans alluded to in the Bible were probably real, but they didn't do some of the things that are said of them. Judith didn't actually become possesssed with love for Christ and gain the strength to kill Holofernes the Assyrian. It's symbolic. It's a story used by Christians to justify killing Muslims because they're infidels. Christians are no more right than Muslims, they're probably both wrong about reality. This is the kind of fantasy that, instead of being used for symbolic purposes, gains legitimacy in Christian nations as being real. It's not.

Think about this stuff in terms of logic, Zach. It's one thing to say these stories have symbolic value like other literature, it's quite another to call it the word of "god" or the laws of "god."

That doesn't make any sense Zach. You're claiming Christianity is flexible and doesn't advocate strict traditions, yet you continue to call homosexuality a sin. You're so full of it, you don't even see your own contadictions.

Abhorring of homosexuality is inflexible, archaic crap and you believe in it.

That's enough for me.