why Republicans will burn in Hell

Satire makes the Baby Jesus cry. But maybe its not satire. Maybe it's the truth! Nah its got to be a joke. But maybe....Nah...but..

(head bulges, grey lumpy matter oozes out of ears, eyes roll back, knees quiver, earpressure violently increases, brain stains walls either side, hair stands on end, chest cavity explodes, toenails shoot off blinding bystanders)

Nicely stated.

The Bible, the Torah, and the Koran were books written for a particular culture and point in time. To think they have relevance in modern society outside of basic rights for the people of a civilization, such as thou shalt not kill, they hold very little weight in a modern society.

You can't run a country by a book of religion
Not by a lump or a hair or a smidgen
Of foolish rules of ancient date
Designed to make us all feel great
While we fold, spindle and mutilate
Those unbelievers from a neighboring state.

--Frank Zappa

Awesome repose Dennis. Luv it!

Sure there is non-Christian republicans...they don't talk much these days..but we know they exist. And there are democrats who believe in Jesus...again, their voices are quiet for the most part.

So, when someone chooses to speak for one party and little to no dissent comes from that side, then they are open to generalizations.

Look at how Bush is going to veto stem cell research due to his personal convictions that its wrong. Lots of Republicans disagree with him and his absurd notion but...he's in power. He's in power because of Republicans pandering to the religious right so Republicans will take the blame as whole. Again, America loses out on advancement due to arcane religious notions.

Bush is going to veto stem cell research

Completely false. He is going to veto government funding of research on new stem cell lines, but in now way is he going to veto stem cell research. You can actually do research with private money on any stem cell you want.

Adam, please...you're splitting hairs here. With government funding stem cell research could gain a lot more traction than it has already. Bush has always been anti-science (unless it was for developing new ways to kill brown people). It would be his first veto, and his sentiments are completely contrary to what the American public wants in every single opinion poll taken on the subject of stem cells. Promptly remove head from ass. Thanks :)

I am only splitting hairs if you believe that all research should be run by the government. If not, then this is a gigantic distinction. I think your comments are starting to border a bit on the inflammatory and show your true close-mindedness and agenda.

With government funding stem cell research could gain a lot more traction than it has already.

If stem cell research was actually as promising as its hype, then there would be pharmaceutical company after pharmaceutical company lining up to research stem cells with their own private money. Of course on discovery of anything useful they would patent it in a heartbeat to earn millions or billions.

However, the lack of private research makes me wonder if the hype is not just that, hype. If private companies estimate the potential benefits of stem cells so lowly, then perhaps we should not invest billions of tax dollars for so little gain.

There is indeed private research going on:
I'm a new user, so I'm not yet permitted to post links, but do an Internet seach for the Harvard Stem Cell Insitute.

Didn't the state of California make some very large grants available for Stem Cell research.

I would like to make a few points.

1. Results from stem cell research could be very useful.
2. Scientists need money to perform stem cell research to see how great it could be and to continue forward if so.
3. The federal gov't could grant this money to see but will not due to the personal convictions of the president.

To me, the pres is behaving like the drugstore pharmisists who refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills regardless of the reasons the pills are used (birth control pills are use for more than birth control). If the pharmacist cannot perform his job function he should find a new job. If the pres, as I servant of the people, cannot recognize a majority's position (one that is not disriminating against any protected minorities) and cannot abide the constitution and oath of his office, he should find a new job.

I love this article, and agree with the point being made. But I have to agree with Adam Hobson about the unfair generalization about Republicans. Leftists can't pick and choose either: i.e. crying foul at Ann Coulter's asinine mouth, while letting slide sins on our side.

I do think, though, that Christian Republicans are much, much more hypocritical than Christian Democrats.

I do think, though, that Christian Republicans are much, much more hypocritical than Christian Democrats.

I think that might be too much of a generalization as well, though many of the loudmouth leaders of the religious right, the Falwells and Robertsons of the groups are as hypocritical in many ways as it gets... but of course no more so than the Jesse Jacksons or Al Sharptons of the left.

I admit this is a generalization, but of a different kind than the one made by the article. That one was equating Republicans with Christians. I am simply making a statement comparing Republican Christians to Democratic ones overall. I should have been more explicit. My apologies.

I wasn't thinking so much of the loudmouths. It's just my sense that Republican Christians are in general more materialistic than Democratic ones, which I think goes against much of the teachings of Jesus. That's just one example of my feelings. If I had the time, I'd write an article about this... or maybe someone more eloquent than I can come to my rescue? :)

Stem cell research is still a bit young and still very much on the cutting edge. Scientists know where it might lead, but they don't know if the path will be three steps or three hundred. In other words, the uncertainty almost precludes private funding except for those companies with the most insight and willing to take alot of risk. A private company might go 20-30 years down the wrong path and get nothing at the end. For most companies, this is a risk they dare not take. The government, however, doesn't mind because they waste so much money anyway.

If you look at the pipeline of drugs that private companies are developing, oftentimes you'll find that they are ideas born of the fruit of basic research done at the university-level, with both private and public funding.

In my opinion, federal funding would be of great help to stem cell research. While not required, government funding will definately decrease the time of development. Even if stem cell research is a dead-end, do we really want to take a chance if it means the cure or treatment of diseases with no hope? My point is that we really don't know. Maybe it will be a waste of time, but I think it is worth trying our hardest.

The government, however, doesn't mind because they waste so much money anyway.

Not really that great of an argument.

I admit, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek. My point is that the government does have access to alot of money and that access is not dependent on profits or stock price.

2 Peter 3:16 Some of his [Paul's] comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture--and the result is disaster for them.

Ah, so not only does God not make Himself crystal clear, but He (or just some Christians?) labels those who have less-than-"perfect knight in shining armor" interpretations as bigoted lunatics. Wow. If you want to extrapolate that verse, (what if you're twisting that verse, and thus a bigoted loon, eh?) I totally heart God now.

Of course, from your quote, one can say "ignorant and unstable" is technically only a subset of people who twist his letters. But, if one really wants to play the technicality game, I'll say that "have" is past/present tense, not future tense. Thus, this admonition refers solely to people who twisted such letters before the writing of this passage. Thus, we get off scot-free. Either way, your quote cannot and logically should not be interpreted in any sort of a literal manner.

RadicalCentrist is doing this, though he comes close to the truth at times.

Ah HA! Truth! He comes close? And what do you know about Truth, dear sir? Only God knows the Truth, and all we have done for millennia is to interpret interpretations of His words. So, I ask again: what do you know about (Biblical) Truth?

From where I'm sitting, maybe a puncturing of a sense of self-righteousness is appropriate for you.

When Cain killed Abel, what commandment was he breaking? When God destroyed Sodom, what commandments had they broken?

It's interesting that you bring up these two examples.

From a legal comparative perspective, the wiping out of Sodom (which had at least one righteous individual, Lot) is an illogically overwrought punishment for the perceived evil of a portion of its population, especially in light of Cain's punishment (for first-degree murder) to be exile with protection from all harm.

An even better example is God's Etch-A-Sketch reset of the world, commonly known as the story of Noah and the Flood. Why does God wipe out absolutely every living thing ('cept those on the Ark) if He was only unhappy with His creation of mankind? Why kill the ducks? Why kill the frogs? Why kill... whatever else was alive back then?

God didn't follow any rules of known "good" justice early on. Further, God did not immediately kill Adam and Eve, as He has promised as punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, you can say that God also goes back on His word. In light of this, why exactly do you so fervently obey "Only God can save you, not anything else"? If God has demonstrably broken promises before, who is to say that He will not renege on future/current/more recent promises?

f you want a much more in-depth look into this, read Alan Dershowitz's The Genesis of Justice. A devout Jewish lawyer analyzing the Old Testament from a legal perspective. Rather aggressively worded, but very interesting.

Why do you twist "ignorant and unstable" into "bigoted lunatic"? ". . . just as they do . . ." is present tense, back then and obviously still today.

Interpret interpretations? What? You think no one can read Hebrew or Greek? Even I've learned to read some Hebrew and Greek.

Truth, Biblical or not, is an accurate representation of reality. Pursue the truth to stay in touch with reality. Don't give up, like Pilate with his cynical, "What is truth?"

God sent Jonah to tell the Ninevites He was going to destroy them. They weren't Israelites, but Gentiles; God hadn't given them "The Law." Yet they recognized their own wickedness, turned from it (repented), and God spared them. It's not "breaking a promise"; it's called "mercy".

Why do you twist "ignorant and unstable" into "bigoted lunatic"?

Hmmm... ignorant implies a lack of knowledge about the real world, and has a strong connotation of crude opinions based on woefully incomplete information.

Unstable: Unless you're referring to molecular instability in their physical bodies, I can only surmise that you mean "emotionally unstable" or "mentally unstable," which at the least implies "clinically depressed." The implication of strong derogatory meaning is further reinforced by the blatant labeling of anyone who "twists" Scripture, coupled with a warning/threat of inevitable disaster.
Would you prefer I say "sheltered manic-depressives"?

Truth, Biblical or not, is an accurate representation of reality. Pursue the truth to stay in touch with reality. Don't give up, like Pilate with his cynical, "What is truth?"

I'm not saying give up on truth. I'm saying that you're being woefully (and un-Christianly) arrogant when you claim that "RC is coming close to the truth." which implies that you somehow know "the truth" (capital T, perhaps?). Omniscient, are you? Can you even say that you know precisely and exactly what the Bible MUST mean? Are you saying there is absolutely no wiggle room for any alternate interpretation whatsoever? If not, how else did you come by this magical "the truth" from Scripture that has been interpreted thousands of ways throughout history?

Interpret interpretations? What? You think no one can read Hebrew or Greek? Even I've learned to read some Hebrew and Greek.

Ah, but have you actually read the Hebrew and Greek Bibles in their entirety? Translation is the art of interpretation. Ask any linguist or student of languages. If you haven't directly read the Hebrew or Greek, and thoroughly studied the historical context (e.g. ancient word definitions) of the writings, then you are indeed interpreting (reading and forming your own conclusions about) interpretations (translations by later scholars).

God sent Jonah to tell the Ninevites He was going to destroy them. They weren't Israelites, but Gentiles; God hadn't given them "The Law." Yet they recognized their own wickedness, turned from it (repented), and God spared them. It's not "breaking a promise"; it's called "mercy".

Let's assume that that particular case was indeed mercy. Let's take Noah's Ark, then. You haven't answered why killing every living thing on the planet (save the Ark creatures) is somehow "justice" for the wicked of humankind. Further, God didn't kill Adam and Eve as promised, gave protection to Cain the fratricidal murderer, but made Abraham nearly kill his own son even though God is supposedly omniscient? Hmmm. There's just something unjust about that. Aren't God's actions supposed to be the model for human behavior? Or, is it "do as I say, not as I do"?

No, I am not omniscient. I've forgotten lots of things. ;-)

I have had the opportunity to learn from several very good teachers, the most recent of whom has indeed read the entire New Testament in Greek many times, knows the background culture, and is delighted to share his knowledge with whomever will listen. I've not read the entire Bible in both Hebrew and Greek, but every sample so far is consistent with what I've learned, only more dramatically so. Take Passover in Exodus 12. Although a lamb is to be killed for every household, thousands of them, it is always referred to in the singular, as in verse 6, in King James, "the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." Jesus is our Passover Lamb. He too was killed by the whole assembly at Passover, and just like the Passover lamb, because of His blood the wrath of God shall "pass over" us. In Hebrew, the word translated in King James as "it" is masculine singular; it should be "kill him". Perhaps in King James' time, one didn't refer to an animal to be slaughtered as "him". Some modern translations even have "kill them", since there are obviously many lambs being slaughtered. Both get the general idea across, but lose the prophetic significance.

Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is fascinating. It is not a model of God's behavior for us to emulate, but is a model, a "type", a "picture", a prophecy of future events. It contains some interesting turns of phrase.

"Take your only son whom you love" - only? What about Ishmael? This is the first time the word "love" is used in the Bible. It reverberates with John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ..."

Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days. Abraham received Isaac back from the dead after 3 days, considering him to be a "dead man walking" from the time he got the command until God stopped him as he was about to slay him 3 days later. It took 3 days to get to Mt. Moriah, where God wanted it to be done. Mt. Moriah is where Jerusalem is built, and where Jesus was crucified. Abraham called the place Jehovah-Jireh, meaning "the Lord will provide". God provided a ram which Abraham substituted for Isaac. God provided a Lamb, Jesus, Who was substituted for us. Afterwards, it says Abraham came down off the mountain and joined his young men and went home. Where's Isaac? Where's Jesus? Isaac is not seen for a several pages, until he meets his bride. Jesus is not to be seen until some future time when He is united with His bride, the Church, all those who are His, no matter what denomination. Abraham had sent a servant to find a bride for Isaac. One has to look many chapters earlier to find that his chief servant's name was Eliezer, Hebrew for "My God is Help". In the New Testament God has sent forth the Holy Spirit to get the bride of Christ. One of the names for the Holy Spirit is, "The Helper". Jesus said that, "He will testify of Me." Abraham's servant did likewise, not even giving his own name, but telling the prospective bride all about Isaac. He didn't force her. She consented. No one can be forced to be a follower of Jesus, but all are invited.

I have had the opportunity to learn from several very good teachers, the most recent of whom has indeed read the entire New Testament in Greek many times, knows the background culture, and is delighted to share his knowledge with whomever will listen.

Once again, I fail to see how this is refutation of "interpreting interpretations." But, we can move on if you'd like.

Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is fascinating. It is not a model of God's behavior for us to emulate, but is a model, a "type", a "picture", a prophecy of future events. It contains some interesting turns of phrase.

God's intent is doing this has been widely debated, as is whether or not Abraham actually passed or failed God's test.

God is probably against murder even in early OT, as can be interpreted from his mercy earlier in the OT, so why command Abraham to his son? Did God really want Abraham to follow his specific order contrary to all past precedents of God's stance against murder? Did Abraham pass the test by blindly following God's specific wish, or did he fail by not recognizing that God has put "don't murder" above all else?

Further, if God is omniscient and has set precedents against murder (sparing Adam & Eve, punishing Cain), then He should have known precisely whether Abraham would've followed through with the filicide. Thus, why would God push Abraham to do something that could potentially show that Abraham, one of holiest figures in the OT, does not follow God's precedents?

After the almost-sacrifice, the "whom you love" is dropped from "son" references to Isaac. Why? Did God then tell Abraham that, because he would've gone through with it, he did not love his son? Why, exactly, is that good?

I bring up all of this because:
1. You mentioned the Abraham sacrifice story.
2. It demonstrates the variability in interpretation of the Bible, even at the most basic level (without too much linguistic obfuscation), thus voiding your claim of ever beginning to know Truth, i.e. being in any position to Judge RadicalCentrist on "he's far from Truth on this part, but he got the Truth right in this part."

"Once again, I fail to see how this is refutation of "interpreting interpretations.""

You ignored the part about my statistical random samplings coming up with zero defects so far.

"why command Abraham to his son?"

I think you meant "to kill his son", which I've already explained - to act out a prophecy.

" Did Abraham pass the test by blindly following God's specific wish, or did he fail by not recognizing that God has put "don't murder" above all else?"

God answers that himself in Genesis 22:15-18:

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son], That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

If, as you imply, the truth of the Scriptures cannot be known with confidence, how are you so confident that God has put "don't murder" above all else? Or that I am "woefully (and un-Christianly) arrogant"?

John 8:31-2 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Doesn't that imply just maybe somebody DOES know the truth?

Doesn't that imply just maybe somebody DOES know the truth?

Doesn't that not at all imply that you know the Truth?
I said you were being woefully (and un-Christianly) arrogant because you said "RC is coming to the truth" and pick apart where he disagrees with you as "not truth" and where he agrees as "yes, truth." This implies that YOU know truth. Sure, someone can know truth. You don't.

Further, notice that I don't say "God puts 'don't murder' is Truth. ph33r me!!!11!!" I merely point out probably alternate interpretations, which means that the Bible is ambiguous (thus historical

I've not read the entire Bible in both Hebrew and Greek, but every sample so far is consistent with what I've learned, only more dramatically so.

I don't see even an implication of "statistically random" in there. I'm sorry if I'm missing another reference to stat. random, but I can't find any in your comments.

Further, the fact that it's possible to reconcile Scripture with your beliefs does not mean that there are no other interpretations, that there are no other very plausible interpretations. My basic point is that I would caution against judging RC for "coming close to the truth but failing here, here, and here." Maybe, to you, it's just an offhand semantic choice of "coming close to the truth" and "not my interpretation." But to me, those are starkly different.

"My basic point is that I would caution against judging RC for "coming close to the truth but failing here, here, and here." Maybe, to you, it's just an offhand semantic choice of "coming close to the truth" and "not my interpretation." But to me, those are starkly different."

Well, Jack, that's a pretty fair piece of advice, uh, according to my interpretation. ;-)

Thank you for a stimulating dialog.

They are just more devoted to their belief then most of the western culture.

Whereas with us it all depends on what kind of car he drives into our driveway.

Ah yes, the good ol' "I won't bother with any substance, but you don't know nothin' because you disagree with me" schtick.

The sanctimony of your vaguely self-pitying comment is somewhat, what's the word... hypocritical.

Wow, Jack. You're only... what, a year and a half late?

Meh, the article showed up on my tracker yesterday for some reason, and I read through the comments.

Apparently, my comment is still valid. ;-)