Georgia governor organizes public vigil — to pray for rain
posted at 2:30 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Well, actually it already has.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who has asked Georgians to pray for rain today, and at lunchtime will convene with various religious and political leaders on the steps of the state Capitol to seek divine intervention in the state’s months-long drought.
Desperate times, it’s said, call for desperate measures. And with Lake Lanier growing grass instead of bass, we’re definitely in desperate times…
“This is a ridiculous, illogical exercise even for people who are deeply religious,” said Ed Buckner, treasurer for the Atlanta Freethought Society. “I would think they’d be offended.”
Buckner, an atheist, is helping plan a “polite and peaceful protest” on the Capitol grounds today, and expects members of both the Council on Secular Humanism and Freedom From Religion Foundation to attend. He objects to the governor, in his official capacity as an elected representative, endorsing a belief system…
“Does the God that Sonny Perdue believes in have to be informed about the drought?” Buckner asked. “Doesn’t he know? Or have the important people not appealed to him yet?”
Here’s the Freethought Society press release, replete with relevant footnoted Biblical quotation. Follow the link to the AJC article and see what one Atlanta rabbi has to say about likelihood of divine intervention. Why, it’s a certainty — eventually. An interesting legal question lurks here about how far Perdue could go before this amounts to an Establishment Clause violation. Praying alone in his office? A-OK. Praying publicly on the steps of the Capitol? Sure, no prob. Issuing an executive order calling for a day of prayer? Questionable, but what about federal religious holidays? Sending around a memo requesting but not requiring the presence of staffers at the vigil? Hmmm. Calling up some religious leaders and having an informal prayer shindig on the Capitol grounds? Off the Capitol grounds? Hmmm hmmm hmmm. Welcome to the wonderful, inexplicable world of First Amendment jurisprudence, my friends!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
But if a Conservative Supreme Court Justice outlaws abortion, that’s fine, right?
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Heh.
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Gregor, you seem to be searching for a fight.
The Constitutional side issues are interesting, but hardly hide the silly spectacle of Perdue assembling religious and political leaders to seek divine intervention.
ultraloser on November 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Well said.
As the words were penned, the FFs had broadly agreed on a vision of a model for American government. They used their (now antiquated and floral, sadly) literary skills to cast this vision into a document for preservation.
Through various publications of the time (notably federalist/anti-federalist papers etc) we gain insight into the vision behind the words.
This is what they intended. This is what they meant. This is what we should be upholding.
I sometimes joke that, in their day, the FFs may have chosen to write “life, liberty & the pursuit of gaiety” in the DoI…would we now be arguing that they considered America to be a homosexual nation?
“Living Constitution” proponents…here’s your dunce cap
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Something to do with an absence of spherical nodules betwixt the thighs…
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 3:59 PM
A Supreme Court justice will not “outlaw” abortion. You can guarantee that. What they’ll do is overturn Woe vs Wade and allow individual state legislators or Congress to decide what the punishment for murdering an unborn baby will be. Abortion is basically already illegal. It’s murder. Previous judges have simply forced us to accept that murder.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM
If the SC did, would you be ok with that?
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Prayer, shmayer…why don’t they just get the Atlanta Braves to dance for it?
James on November 13, 2007 at 4:03 PM
You’re right. It’s just plain “silly” to expect the Constitution to be followed. It’s “silly” of us all to expect to be able to believe in God.
By the way. It’s Allah who posts these stories and purposely makes mocking statements looking for a fight, and comment traffic. It’s the Atheists who are always looking for the fight. Why do you care that we’re praying?
Does your user ID explain that?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Your question makes no sense. The Supreme Court does not make law.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM
The “right” to an abortion was only derived from the contortion of finding a “right” to privacy which, like the “right” to an abortion, was only “found” in a “penumbra” of the Constitution. The use of the term, “penumbra,” in order for the Court to find what it wanted to find, is in itself an indictment of the workings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was making it up, as it went along, and according to the majority of the politics of the Court. The Constitution is nothing but a political document, construed according to the politics of the majority of the Court. This was not how the document was supposed to be construed.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Illegal? In the United States? Where?
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I agree. It is as pointless as praying.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 13, 2007 at 4:08 PM
No. The SC has no authority to do any such thing…that it constantly behaves this way is endlessly infuriating to me ;-)
Roe v Wade should be overturned simply because it is _wrong_. The fedgov has no constitutional authority to legislate abortion at all. There is no constitutional ‘right to choose’ or ‘right to an abortion’.
Legislating abortion is categorically the states’ business.
Personally, I consider all abortion to be _homicide_ (by definition – human death), but whether it is to be _justifiable homicide_ or _murder_ is another argument entirely.
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Bravo! Over time, the SC has successfully mutated its legitimate position into one more resembling ‘philosopher kings’…and sadly the sheeple are too dumb to figure it out.
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Better bring his penumbra. There’s a chance of rain.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM
I didn’t say that they’d create a law. If they interpreted the current law so that abortion is murder, would that be ok with you?
I give you credit that you have no double standard on this. I’ve encountered countless people who have. That’s why I asked the question.
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM
You apparently failed to read the explanation of that statement, which immediately followed. Try again.
Abortion is basically already illegal. It’s murder. Previous judges have simply forced us to accept that murder.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I do not care when YOU’RE praying, but when the elected leader of a state is praying for rain in his official capacity, that is the first step down a slippery slope.
Pray to Allah, Jaweh, Thor, Jesus, Vishnu, Sauron, whoever you want, pick and choose it is your right, but do not use your elected office to advocate your religion. And implying that praying can make it rain during a drought is advocating a religious fantasy designed to promote that particular sect that instituted the praying when it inevitably rains.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Why does your god need that? It sounds childish for an omnipotent god who is so very much bigger than anything we can understand.
The prayers for rain are much like prayers for healing. If the prayers are answered, then it’s evidence that god answers prayers. If the the prayers are NOT answered (which is scripturally impossible, but it happens anyway) then “god moves in mysterous ways!”
It’s all a waste of precious time.
And to all of you Christians crowing about the divinely-inspired “30% chance of scattered showers”, why don’t you try using your awesome prayer power on something more serious, such as cancer? Shall we put your magic prayers to a scientific test to figure out how effective they are?
Here it comes: “Thou shalt not put thy LORD God to the Test” — how convenient. It’s True(TM) but you can’t validate it. “Trust but verify” unless it’s God, in which case, it’s a sin to verify.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Even if there’s no God, your comment is silly.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 4:13 PM
In the Griswold case, the Court was ruling that the state of Connecticut didn’t have the power to outlaw the use of contraceptives. Basis for the ruling was found in the 9th and 14th Amendments.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
When I want rain I play with my pee pee. If it rains, I know my pee pee is divine…if not, I didn’t play good enough.
C’mon…let’s all have a rain-making circle-jerk for Georgia!
Pull for the cure!
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Actually, yes you did. Here’s what I wrote …
And here’s your question …
And I already answered your question in the same comment …
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Does MM approve of this tactic? Its quite childish.
Why don’t you stay away from religious issues AP if you think religion is a crock???
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 13, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Yeah… that’s reasonable, I wouldn’t disagree.
There is often a huge difference between what the Supremes say and what the Constitution says. The more liberal the court the further from the plain meaning of the Constitution they stray. Fact is, their silly little test as given above is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. There simply is no separation of church and state. This is why its so important to have strict constructionist on the Court.
Maxx on November 13, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I’m sorry. By outlaw, I didn’t mean create a new law. I meant rule something to be illegal. As in if they ruled abortion to be murder.
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 4:20 PM
LOL! So, now we’re outlawing slipery slopes? Anything which might or could eventually lead to something that’s illegal? Even if it’s not illegal?
Wow.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:21 PM
What Purdue is doing here is analogous to Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. The Freethoughters are being cranks, and good examples of why atheists etc tend to be unpopular.
Bryan on November 13, 2007 at 4:22 PM
A decision which was based – like I said – upon a right to marital privacy, which was not enumerated in the Constitution; but – like I said -was based only upon the Court finding a penumbra of the Constitution.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 13, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I’ve often wondered if there was ever the testicular fortitude for him to call MM a fool, because of her religious beliefs? Yes, this was a rhetorical question.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Bad form.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:29 PM
And, for the record, I’m not necessarily advocating a separation. My original comment was only to provide information that it had been established by Jefferson and that the courts upheld it.
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM
The Supreme Court will not rule that abortion is murder. It already is. All the Supreme Court IS SUPPOSED TO DO is render a verdict whether a specific law, or lower court ruling is correct, or Constitutional.
Abortion is murder. It’s the manual, physical taking of a life. There’s really no argument in that possible. You can play all sorts of games to avoid coming to that conclusion, such as questioning when life begins … but you all know the answer to that. If you don’t understand that a human fetus is a lifeform, than I suggest you go back to your first year of school and concentrate on what defines “life.”
The courts ALLOWED these murders to take place by dancing around the issue on privacy issues. They did not rule that a fetus was not a life or that abortion was not murder. Only that you’re not allowed to violate a woman’s choice or privacy.
Absurd.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Sorry, no. I was being a little bit flip. I was testing the assertion that it is in, some legal sense, illegal.
It appears that you believe that abortion should be considered, not just homicide, but murder. If that is so, is the woman an accomplice?
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Absolutely
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I’m not arguing it isn’t a life form. I’m also not arguing in favor of Roe V. Wade. My initial argument here was that Jefferson established a separation, and the Supreme Courts upheld that.
amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM
On this note, it’s interesting to note that if you were to murder a woman who happens to be pregnant, and within the time limits to an abortion, and the baby also dies … you’ll be found guilty of a double-murder. Why the double standard?
Suddenly the same people who are arguing that life hasn’t yet started … are saying that you’re guilty of murdering a non-lifeform.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Your post provides me with the opportunity to do two things I love the most: to show the skeptic that the questions he raised have been raised and answered many times throughout Christian history, and in a variety of ways. And the second thing I delight in is referring to Lewis. In the book, The Joyful Christian, a compilation of Lewis’s writings along a topical line, Lewis wrote a bit about Answered Prayers, and the Efficacy of Prayers. He wrote, “Every war, every famine or plague, almost every deathbed, is the monument to a petition that was not granted.” It is against that reality that Lewis seeks to bring the notion of prayer into view. I recommend reading it.
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I understand that, and I agree that our Government should not pass laws or requirements which force us to follow any particular religion. That’s exactly what the Constitution says.
But that’s not what’s happening today. Today we have Atheists who feel that Government leaders should not be allowed to practice their religion in public, or lead prayer services that are voluntary.
The Atheists themselves are violating the Constitution by restricting freedom of religion.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Presumably because in that case the mother didn’t want her baby killed. And someone’s worried about the slippery slope of gov’t officials praying.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM
What baby? If you accept the belief of abortion supporters … there is no baby. It’s not yet a lifeform.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM
*sulk*
Don’t be gettin’ judgemental on my modus operandi
I be tuggin’ fo jeezus
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Hamilton and Madison argued over whether to have a Bill of Rights at all, fearing that some would believe that people only possessed enumerated rights and what wasn’t spelled out belonged to the state and not individuals. The 9th Amendment was written to address that concern.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM
yep. fully understand the conundrum they’ve created for themselves. I can only guess that they think its OK for the mother to do it, but no one else. They know it’s a baby, but don’t want to know.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Do you know how nuts that is? If the Founding Fathers would have wanted a theocracy they could have had one. Christians don’t want a theocracy but we do want to stop this nonsensical idea that we are somehow shut out of the political system.
Maxx on November 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Exactly. This is the same theory used to explain atheists. You notice that most atheists tend to be socialists, anarchists, libertarians, homosexuals and other groups that believe in personal freedom from authority. Imagine how the existence of a God or creator would suddenly put a damper into their “freedoms.”
They have no interest in being held accountable for anything they do and the last thing they want to hear is anything which indicates a final judgment.
Bottom line is … it scares the Hell out of them and they don’t want to hear it. This is why it’s so important to them that someone shut us up.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Yep. It is. It is possible one could murder a woman who was planning to have an abortion tomorrow and be faced with more serious charges than if the murder were committed a week later. There is a logical disconnect, but it makes it easier to kill people like Scott Peterson.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Following the Enlightenment there has been a belief that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is the foundation of most liberal democracies. “freedoms” are what the Colonists fought King George over.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I prefer to read the Bible and recommend that you spend more time reading it so that you will be prepared to defend yourself from my attacks against your faith, 100% of which will be grounded in scripture.
That said, there is no such thing as “a petition that was not granted” in the Bible. Saith Jesus the Christ:
“You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” John 14:14
Given that unanswered prayers are an obvious reality, you are faced with a couple of options:
1. Jesus lied in John 14:14.
2. The Bible is false.
(No, I don’t expect you to roll over. I expect you to put on the full armor of your god and fight me, which is precisely what I want you to do.)
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Which creator will uphold my unalienable pursuit of happiness when I exercise my unalienable liberty to join my unalienable life in betrothal to another of the same gender?
Oh yeah…all that burn in hell stuff…
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I wasn’t suggesting that they would “lose” their freedoms or “free will” if you prefer. My point was that they would need to worry about how they “use” those freedoms if they were to suddenly find that they would later be judged by their actions. Atheists fear being judged.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Hillarious. People are blaming Bryan of using hot-button journalism just to drive traffic.
Here’s a tip: If you don’t want to drive traffic to those stories, then don’t keep refreshing the page and getting into flame wars.
Find me the pastor who can openly call this a “dumb move” and that’s the kind of church I want to attend.
The Race Card on November 13, 2007 at 5:08 PM
And yet I support the death penalty. Funny, huh?
I actually love hearing about that because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the Bible with you. Tell me, at the final judgment, will we be judged according to our faith or judged by our works? Support your answer with scripture.
Let me be the atheist who changes your mind. I invite it from you. No, I beg you for it.
I liked viewing the atheists’ action as a public snub of your religion, and I would like to see much more of that happen. I would like to see your god blasphemed publicly on a daily basis, so what the atheists did is a step in the right direction.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Which society, existing or gone, would enable you to do just that as easily, and with as little opposition, as this one? Why the venom?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Hillarious. People are blaming Bryan of using hot-button journalism just to drive traffic.
The Race Card on November 13, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Um … wrong. It’s Allahpundit, and it’s his standard operating procedure. It’s hard to believe anyone would deny that.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:13 PM
It comes from the, “God hates you and you will be tortured for all eternity!” which is a central part of your nasty religion. People tend to take it personally, no matter how hard that is for you to believe.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I agree that Roe isn’t good law and will be interested in seeing it sent back to the congress or states if it is overturned. The debate in the country will likely be around when during gestation does a fetus acquire individual rights? Legislatively, the answer will probably be some months after fertilization and before the third trimester. Unlikely, the laws would extend individual rights all the way to a blastula.
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Meaningless, unless you plan on committing a multiple murder.
The rest of your comment is a bit psychotic. I’m not even going to bother.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM
“In my name” means much more than closing your prayer with the name of Jesus.
So the third option is really just that the Bible is more complex than your low opinion of it would assume.
Assuming you’re correct, their actions actually become even more absurd.
For instance, we all know that Santa isn’t really sitting at the North Pole and that usually letters to him are left unread by anyone but the children’s parents.
So how idiotic would it be to protest a class that tells its kids to write letters to Santa?
Atheists keep comparing our faith to that of a faith in Santa but then act as though the consequences of our faith is actually so much more.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 5:17 PM
LOL! You are truly a sick individual. Does it make your blood boil for me to say that I’ll pray for you, lol?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:18 PM
It blows a hole in your stupid “atheists dislike accountability” argument. I think that people should be punished for their crimes. I also think that murderers should die in the way that their victims died.
I think you’re afraid of an atheist schooling you in the Bible. Have I humiliated you before? You sure sound like I have. In fact, you sound downright… lukewarm.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Hey man. I had a feeling you would respond. Sorry you’re mad. I’m not a christian, so I mostly stand on the sidelines of these arguments, fascinated.
Did someone say that stuff to you in the religion you used to belong to?
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Again, you keep making stuff up about Christianity that just isn’t there. Really, you’re like my schizophrenic uncle blaming the hospital staff for harboring a nonexistent killer robot.
But at least he takes his meds from time to time.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 5:19 PM
No venom, just exasperation at the many folks that seem to believe that if they gang together and fire up enough torches and shout enough, that they can legitimize essentially fascistic behavior. They want to violate the constitution with an obscene diktat over civilian liberty (the marriage amendment)…which would forever mar the constitution, historically a document of government constraint and protection of peoples’ rights, with a constraint on we the people. The constitution is not a battleground for settling petty moral squabbles.
I’m not a shirt-lifter btw, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 5:20 PM
So, your uncle has seen him too? I was wondering where that robot had gone of to. :-)
dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Gotcha. But you have to admit that states rights have been so trampled by the all-powerful federal gov’t, that people don’t think they have any input in their own local affairs. That’s what motivates these attempts at using the Constitution. Hell, if they can do it with abortion, they can re-define marriage for everyone too. The Civil War ain’t over.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM
What am I making up, Esthier? Put up or shut up. I can support everything I write with scripture. And yes, Christians have told me that god hates me. It’s common.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM
I haven’t bothered to read this whole thread, so if someone already made this point, sorry.
The First Amendment does not cover states having an official religion. Shortly after the Constitution was adopted several states did have an official state religion and no one thought that was unconstitutional including those that helped draft the constitution. In this day and age the SCOTUS would probably declare this unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean that the First Amendment prohibits states from establishing a state religion.
Buford on November 13, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Does it make your blood boil to know that I’ll embarrass you once we actually start talking about the Bible?
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I’m not mad. I’m merely stridently anti-Christianity. I got over feeling mad years ago. That doesn’t mean I have to forgive. (And I don’t.)
I gotcha. Just so you know, I’m one of the good guys.
That would be a good guess. I am an ex-Christian.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM
That’s amazing. I never heard that. Do you have a link to more info about that? That would really influence my opinion of the intent of the FF.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM
No, it doesn’t. Not unless you yourself fear the death penalty, which I assume you haven’t MURDERED someone so what would you have to fear? You’ll notice that those who have committed the worst crimes tend to be anti-death penalty, as do their family members. Now, if you have indeed murdered before, then you might show me to be wrong. Do you have a confession?
Um, no and no. The problem is that there’s absolutely nothing I can say that would make a sliver of a difference. I could answer your quotes for 400 hours and you would continue to flail around like a madman. It’s a waste of time because in your mind, you have the answer to everything. I admit that I do not and will not until the day I die. I can only read, study, pray, and hope that I’m somewhat close. I realize that it’s much easier for you to simply throw everything in the garbage and go out and do whatever you want, never having to worry about it. So you go ahead and have your fun. I wish you the best in your hatred and anger. There’s obviously something in your past that didn’t go the way you wanted and the anger and resentment is boiling in your head.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Hate him back
Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Loundry. John 14:14 has to be taken in the context of Jesus’ own request to have the “cup pass” from Him. Lewis does in fact address that, and does so without getting stuck in that little either/or trap. My suggestion of reading Lewis has within it the obvious notion that the Bible must be read as well, and with primacy. Beyond this, I am not sure the point you are trying to make. You state that no prayer is unanswered, and then say that the fact of unanswered prayers leads to only two conclusions (two conclusions that you picked I might add, for other choices present themselves, but you neglected to mention those.)
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 5:32 PM
You’ve already embarrassed yourself enough to cover pretty much everyone.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:33 PM
LOL! Just keep telling yourself that. Maybe you’ll actually believe it someday.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM
I think I remember John Howard praying for rain when Australia was going through a drought. Can’t do any harm.
aengus on November 13, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Actually, yes. He was about to be released from the hospital but started telling my father that he had to first stop the robot. It’s a sad ordeal, but he’s never been violent at least.
Christians are just people. They are not Christianity. So what if they’ve told you God hates you. Phelps and his church tell the entire country on a regular basis that God hates everyone here. Phelps is an @sshole, so I don’t care what he thinks and take no stock in it. Maybe you could learn to do the same with the @ssholes you meet? Maybe?
I’ve already addressed your so-called knowledge of scripture. You presume too much. Calling for something in the name of Jesus doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Personally I find the “let’s see who knows more about the Bible” competitions to be frequently stupid, but I am so much not afraid of what you think you know about the Bible or Christianity.
I’ve only seen you list scripture twice, and already your O for 2.
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Gregor, you are an absolute authority on an amazing variety of topics.
ultraloser on November 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Not trying to pry. Just meant you could be a non-Christian, like a lot of other people, for a lot of reasons. Good luck.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Thank you.
JiangxiDad on November 13, 2007 at 5:44 PM
You get a lot more talkative once we move away from the Bible. What a lousy witness for Christ you are. You must be ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Your point was that atheists hate personal responsibility. If that is true, then why do I support accountability for crimes?
Heh, a newbie.
You’re mostly correct. I’m not going to accept Jesus Christ into my heart and have a Personal Relationship(TM) with him, if that’s what you mean.
There are, however, quite a few things I could say that would make a big difference in you. Namely, a difference that would mean a weaker, shallower faith in you. I don’t need to make you an atheist. I’ll be satisfied with you being a Christian who takes his faith less seriously. And that is my goal in talking to you.
I don’t have the answer to everything. I just know a lot more about the Bible than you do.
I’ve been on the receiving end of “Christian love” enough to know how precisely how cheap and fake your well-wishing is.
You know what would pacify me instantly? For Christians, starting with you, to stop treating homosexuality as a sin.
Until then, IT’S ON!
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM
And Loundry, I would caution you on thinking you have a firm grasp on scriptural support for what you think. Many many heresies began with a seemingly supportive scriptural basis. Also, I am very sorry that someone told you that God hates you. That is quite shameful. And I truly am sorry.
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM
You might want to try asking Him yourself. My guess is that you tried that long ago, and didn’t get what you wanted.
My ex-wife went that route when her father died of cancer. You know the whole “why do people have to die” thing. She spent months looking into the sky and cursing God, eventually morphed into total atheism, and is now back to believing. I can only hope you somehow reach the same point.
Realistically though, imagine if God answered EVERYONE’s prayer for eternal life. What would the world be like with nobody dying and everyone who ever lived cramped onto this planet all at the same time?
Stop expecting George Burns or Morgan Freeman to show up in your rear view mirror.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:47 PM
LOL! Is that the best you can do?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM
So all your venom against Christians is really just all about a desire for approval from them?
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM
BINGO!!!!! We now have the answer to all of Loundry’s anger.
That wasn’t so hard now, was it?
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Absolutely no chance that anything you could say, or any human being has ever done that would make a dent in my belief in God.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 5:55 PM
First, you have incorrectly capitalized the pronoun “him”.
Second, I see you’ve put on the full armor of your god and trotted out the well-worn “You’re taking things out of context!” defense. Well, let’s add that precious context and see where it takes us:
1. Where does Jesus mention a “cup passing”? Jesus’ statement was actually said in context of the disciples performing miracles!
2. Jesus’ weird statements bring up another glaring failure. Where has a Christian ever performed a miracle greater than what Jesus has done (such as raising the dead, walking on water, or turning water into wine)?
The problem remains: Jesus stated that he will do “anything” that you ask in his name, and yet prayers fail anyway.
I’m going to ignore your lesser prophets and stick with the Bible.
My point is to weaken your faith.
I’m serious as a heart attack.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:55 PM
As an alternative to prayer the Governor could be advocating water conservation. I suppose that could mildly inconvenience some people, so I see why he goes with prayer.
thuja on November 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM
It is incorrect to capitalize the pronoun “him”. It’s pompous, but still incorrect. It’s a sign of “puffed up” faith.
And you and I both know how one-sided “conversations” with god really are.
I’d be satisfied if you just stopped abusing gay people. But I don’t think you’re going to give up on that any time soon. It’s precious to you.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM
No. I just want the abuse to stop, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 6:00 PM
And yet you act like such a reluctant wallflower when I want to talk about the Bible with you. Maybe that’s your secret to how your faith stays so resilient: you never touch anything that might threaten it.
Tell me, is the Bible true?
Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Actually, quite the reverse is true. My life has repeatedly changed dramatically and seems to coincide with the level of commitment to my faith that I happen to be showing at any given time. It’s no wonder that your life currently sucks, which would explain your anger and hatred.
It’s not our fault your gay. And it’s not God’s fault either. It’s you who refuse to control your out of control sexual desires. You do have free will, correct? Oh wait. You were born unable to control yourself, right?
That’s not it at all. You don’t want us to stop “abusing” you. You want us to accept your lifestyle as normal, and you want us to agree that it’s perfectly okay. And until that happens, you’re going to hang out in your mother’s basement and abuse Christians on blogs 24 hours a day.
Sorry. Can’t do it. I’m not going to lie just to please you.
Gregor on November 13, 2007 at 6:09 PM
No I didn’t
In the garden, prior to His betrayal. It was a prayer.
If you view a desire to place things in context (and no not just the immediate context of that verse) then there is very little for us to talk about. Suffice it to say, many others have raised the same points you have raised and they have been addressed by hundreds of theologians throughout history; and yes they used the Bible for the support of their ideas. For answers to Christ’s words, and how they are not false and or contradictory, read Lewis, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Aquinas. Focus primarily on Calvin‘s Institutes, he addresses, in great detail, the concept of requests made in accordance with the will of God. I know that you wont really pick up Thomas’ Summa, or Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, or Lewis’ Miracles, but I do want you to know that the little dilemma you have so brilliantly created for all us weak-faith Christians, is really not new. Thus my faith is not weakened, nor can your Theology 201 questions present me with anything I haven’t heard before.
Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Actually, we’ll always be optimistic and grateful for whatever the coming days bring. Christians are called to be appreciative of tough times. Gary Bauer had an interesting comment in his email today:
And being proactive sure beats a worthless protest.
T J Green on November 13, 2007 at 6:16 PM
The belief that homosexuality is a sin for Christians is not abuse of homosexuals.
No, English grammar does allow for all references to God to be capitalized. It’s not necessary, but it isn’t incorrect either.
It’s from when Jesus prayed.
The author was fully aware of this prayer when he wrote what he wrote about answered prayers.
Did you skip Acts in your reading of the Bible?
Not to mention the part where Peter raises the dead…
Esthier on November 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Hahaha! You can’t support sh!t with scripture. First of all, you have no idea about the context of the quotes you throw out. Secondly, you’re not quoting from the Hebrew, so your translation is skewed. Thirdly, your understanding of the history of the Israelites and Christians is wrong. Your understanding of Jewish Law, which most Christian and Western Law is based, is wrong. Shall I continue? You have no idea what prayer was originally intended for. You don’t even know the Hebrew word for prayer (without looking it up). So anything you say is a complete waste of bandwidth. I have no idea why anyone responds to your simple attacks.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »