A Look Around

My trip was moved back a day to today.

You can check for the latest via Memeorandum.

Then there's this: well, he is bald, not sure what to make of the rest of it.

NEW YORK At a recent press conference at Camp David, President George Bush insulted BBC political editor Nick Robinson, the Daily Mirror reports.

Robinson, who has asked Bush pointed questions in the past such as whetherthe president was “in denial” over the Iraq war, posed a question to Bush about whether he could trust visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq.

Bush replied with a dismissal: “Are you still hanging around?”

Later on, Bush poked fun at the bare-pate of Robinson, joking, “You’d better cover up your bald head, it’s getting hot out.”

The respected British reporter shot back, “I didn’t know you cared.”

Bush responded with a cool, “I don’t.” The Mirror reports that Bush then “snorted disdainfully” and “walked away to laughter.”

Comments

[seekeronos]

Mr. President, you've officially jumped the shark.

I've given up on "Jorge Arbusto" George W. Bush.

He is a disgrace to his office, and has in my opinion far surpassed Jimmah Carter as the worst President ever.

He has turned his back on our last true allies, the Israelis and the UK... and has lined up our nation to be devoured by Islamists. Way to go, I'm sure that King Fahd or whoever is running things for the House of Sa'ud these days wiull make him the Emir of East Texas or however they will carve up our nation in the end.

[chris]

Anyone surprised? Dumb people tend to get defensive and nasty when confronted. Just look at 'templar knight' (really 'gay' nickname, btw).

[Purple Avenger]

I'm betting Bush's IQ is higher than your's Chris. BTW, how many graduate degrees do you have?

[templar knight]

"Dumb people tend to get defensive and nasty....."

You're big on irony, chrissy.

[mojo]

So - Brit scribbler with a penchant for "gotcha" questions gets blown off by the leader of the Free World?

What's not to like?

[chris]

Only dopes think in terms of IQ. For the record, 2.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Dumb people tend to get defensive and nasty when confronted"
As opposed to lefties who are constantly defensive and nasty?
...Just 2?

[nowingker]

What poise, what decorum, what honor he brings to the office of president by getting in a verbal spat with a reporter and making fun of his appearance!

[seekeronos]

"--- Only dopes think in terms of IQ. For the record, 2. ---"

Congratulations, you've probably made someone's wallet very happy with all the money that costs to get two graduate degrees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now tell us - (a) How do multiple degrees truly form a better matrix of one's intelligence any better than a (subjective) measure of that person's IQ?

I've met some rather brilliant academes (I work at a major Ivy League university) who have incredibly large foreheads, glasses that with a refractive index greater that would make an old fashioned Coke bottle jealous, and a rack full of Ph.D.'s and Ed.D's and Rhodes Scholars and all that... and some of these academics can come off the wall with some pretty stupid(!) stuff when judged against a barometer of common sense.

Meanwhile, in the same halls that these over-degreed Big Brains™ work in, there are janitors and maintenance staff and secretaries and even a few professionals who have some views and opinions that would rival the Big Brains™ for some of the accurate and well-framed points they can make.

And (b) if these Big Brained™ academes are brilliant enough to suss out finite matters of astrophysics and engineering... why aren't they the ones running for office with workable solutions instead of some of the monied boneheads we have had in recent election years?

I'll tell you that it is because - outside of their particular fields of expertise - they are not much more knowledgeable (much less politically connected) than the aforementioned boneheads the GOP and DNC both manage to keep puking up at each caucus they convene.

That, and America (much more than Socialist "Democratic" Europe) is geared around men who use their wit for accumulating massive amounts of small bits of particoloured (but mostly green-hued) pieces of paper, and not folks who have spent much more of their life energy accumulating large bits of fancy papers (degrees) and endowments for their pet research projects and published works instead.

For this reason, the businessman and his attorney will almost always outshine the academe when it comes down to who will set policy.

(c) Finally, "chris", assuming you are so smart as to have accumulated at least two fancy bits of degree papers for your "I love Me" wall... why do you always limit yourself to silly (if not outright stupid) retorts and one-liners... instead of intelligently and methodically explaining why you disagree with the Right™ wing viewpoint?

If you had some actual arguments to put forth instead of flamebait, I am sure that a few of us would consider it.

[templar knight]

"Only dopes think in terms of IQ."

Really. I imagine it to be just the opposite. Rather a good demonstration of your intelligence, I would say, chrissy.

[Purple Avenger]

"Only dopes think in terms of IQ."

That's quite an indictment of the public school system and how it places students into different tracks.

[templar knight]

chrissy...I have more bad news for you. The AQ "emir" of Mosul was killed today. Sad for you, for two reasons, 1)He was killed by Iraqi troops, 2) The Surge is working much better than anyone expected. Oh, in other news of interest to you, the Kurds are pledging to send additional troops south to support the central government in operations against AQ. I guess the corner bartender will have to comfort you tonight as you cry in your beer. Hahaha!

[bloodrage bob]

now that bush has (evidently)(finally) decided "screw it, reporters are gonna hate me no matter what, so i might as well have some fun", now......now the fun starts.

looking forward to his next press conference. the senile halfwit helen thomas could start yet another rambling, droning, endless propaganda speech disguised as a question ....

bush jumps into the crowd to beat her ass! head-butt her! elbow-smash her! put the boot to her! "does THAT (whap!) answer your frickin' *question* (whap!), grandmaw simpson?!? HUH??!?(thud)"

i think he'd gain some in the polls. hell, i'd spring for pay-per-view to watch it. and what the heck, it ain't like any candyass metrosexual liberal *reporter* is gonna jump in to stop him. "this reporter *would have helped* ms. thomas, but i was wearing my good armani blazer & didn't want it to be ruined."

[Lord Nazh©]

Bush has let me down on many things, this is a better press conference than most of his others however. :)

[Phoenix]

haha BB. Just what I was thinking. Go, Dubya!

Think about it from a different perspective - say, that Bush is not president but is head of a large corporation that gets beat up all the time. The 'Head' knows some good stuff is happening and figures to hell with even trying to keep up appearances as it doesn't work. Why not flip 'em off. Bush knows more than we know or any reporter knows, so I see this flippancy as a good thing. Love it, in fact.

[tally]

one should never lose their sense of humor, good for w.

[Cindi]

I agree tally, fuck em if they can't take a joke. heh

[southdakotaboy]

I have one thing to say GWB and Helen T. MTV Celb Death Match. For those of youo who have been deprived of this here is a sample make sure to watch the whole thing. Please comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93GBNG2DaBw

[Thomas Jackson]

Its about time somebody put these boobs in their place. Exactly who made the media God's representatives on earth anyway? If they had any brains they have found honest work.

[chris]

You 'necks are hi-larious!! "Good things are happening" and redneck fantasies about beating an 87 year old reporter. Is it the inbreeding or the meth????

Thank you once again for the entertainment and providing further evidence that all your kind is good for is stopping bullets and digging ditches.

[templar knight]

"...all your kind is good for is stopping bullets and digging ditches."

When things change, and they will, it will be good to have these statements made by liberals, who claim to be so tolerant and respectful of others. What a sorry excuse for a human this chrissy is. Of course, he loves his gays.

[chris]

Let me amend that. Mexicans are better for digging ditches. They cost less, show up on time and work harder. Necks=dinosaurs.

[Purple Avenger]

Chris is racist too. I figured that one was coming...

[templar knight]

Yeah, PA, all this from a guy who claims to have two advanced degrees. My money is on a pizzy delivery boy living in Mommy's basement, watching gay porn on the internet between his comments, and projecting his misery onto others. He is a sorry excuse for a human, we all know that already, but it's good to see him prove it.

[seekeronos]

"Chris" or whatever new name he might claim for himself in the next few posts... is not a liberal in any sense of the word.

He is much closer to being a Nazi, from the way he describes Mexicans as cheap labour and other brown peoples... and whites who are not as wealthy or as (supposedly) educated as he is.

I gather then,that in spite of his two graduate degrees, that even our post-secondary institutes of higher learning are an abysmal failure, for the sort of racism he regularly spews forth here is generally frowned upon as "politically incorrect". I am saddened to see that our education system has produced yet another cowardly, godless racist who is so convinced of his own racial superiority that he doesn't even realize he shares the same genetic code as black man, the Mexican, and even the 'Neck he'd sooner see stopping a bullet, or unceremoniously gassed in a concentration camp... I bet he is right up there with that biologist who is calling for 95% of the human population to be culled as a "burden against Mother Gaea", or HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, who says that he wants to be reincarnated as a killer virus.

[nowingker]

And what does baby jesus have to say about wishing for a physical beat down of a senior citizen, inquiring minds want to know?

[seekeronos]

"--- And what does baby jesus have to say about wishing for a physical beat down of a senior citizen, inquiring minds want to know? ---"

Short answer:

"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:32, KJV)

"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren" (1 Timothy 5:1, KJV)

I'd have to say Jesus doesn't care for beating up senior citizens.. it is sin.

Given God's commands regarding respect for the aged, I think I would have politely listened to her, and then moved on to the next reporter... for I probably would disagree with her extreme leftist points of view.

[nowingker]

Seek, you crack me up, I can't understand how someone can appear to have such a logical thought pattern and still be a raving lunatic, no offense intended, but your ideas aboug god punishing the US are way, way way over the top in my book.

I'm curious, you are a big supporter of Israel, but doesn't the Talmud say that Jews are allowed to lie to Christians and kill them as well as do other discriminatory things to them?

You are ever willing to use the Koran as a baseball bat to beat down all of Islam, what about Judaism and its similar passages about non believers?

[seekeronos]

Shorter explanation:

The Talmud is not the word of God. In fact, some of the same streams of thought in the Talmud regarding how "faithful" Jews are to treat the Goyiim (non-Jews) are echoed in the Koran and in the Hadiths concerning Muslim treatment of Dhimmis.

Some Jews take those passages of the Talmud seriously, but most do not. There aren't a great many Jews going about killing off Gentiles or even outwardly discriminating against them (aside from possibly a few Hasidic sects that are very exclusive -- and I think that American living has tempered their application of Talmudic teachings

In like manner, the Holy See in Rome (Vatican) has numerous Papal Bulls published regarding how Catholic states could do all sorts of unjust and nasty things to Muslims and Jews. Similarly, Martin Luther (15th century reformation guy) and some other early Protestant leaders regarded Catholics and Jews as reprobate (beyond salvation: irrevocably condemned to Hell).

None of those things matter though, because the Word of God - the canonical Bible, contains the whole of the revelation of Christ to Mankind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Longer explanation:

The Talmud was developed in two different versions, or codices. They were derived from the so-called "oral traditions" which were (supposedly) received by the Great Sanhedrin (a council of tribal elders which served as the government of the tribes of Israel, probably from during their captivity in Egypt prior to, and during Moses's leadership of Israel during the Exodus). These "oral traditions" were an add-on to the Ten Commandments which Moses received on Mt. Sinai, and in some cases, these "oral traditions" are revered even higher (by some sects) than the Torah (which includes the Ten Commandments and Levitical laws, the writings that make up most of the Old Testament in the Christian Bible).

The compilers and keepers of these "oral traditions" were one and the same with the "scribes and lawyers" and the Pharisees that Jesus often contended with during His earthly ministry. Following the rather long and violent history of Greek and later brutal Roman occupation of the Levant following Bar Kochba's rebellion ca. AD 120-130; (some reports hold that the Romans may have exterminated as many as 400,000 Jews in the 2nd century AD) this may have helped colour these same scribes' opinions of "goyiim" (Gentiles) in some of the more controversial writings. It further does not help that a lot of the Talmud (particularly the Jerusalem codex) was composed in a very fragmented manner, and in a different dialect of Aramaic between the two codices.

The Jerusalem codex was developed around the middle of the 2nd century AD, more or less resulting from the forced diaspora after Rome began a war of ethnic cleansing to destroy Jewry from the Israelite territory (Palestinian Levant) after the Bar Kochba revolt.

The Babylonian codex was developed later, between the 4th and 5th centuries by the late descendants of the same scribes and lawyers who intermingled and further corrupted the "oral tradition" with the cryptic traditions of astrology and witchcraft that were local to the Babylonians, hence some of the ambiguity and relativism regarding sexual morals and other things criticised by the detractors of the Talmud.

Furthermore, compilations were made with numerous commentaries by leading Rebbes and scribes like Maimonides; these also were revered (much like the hadiths of the first few "righteous" Caliphs are regarded nearly in the same pale as the Koran itself) by rabbinic authorities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coming back around to the original argument though -- what matters is the word of God, not men.

And I stand by my argument that God does judge nations that reject Him, and He rewards the nations that repent and choose to serve Him.

[seekeronos]

Oh, and:

"--- You are ever willing to use the Koran as a baseball bat to beat down all of Islam, what about Judaism and its similar passages about non believers? ---"

Only because I don't see roving gangs of Yeshiva students beating up Christians and Muslims, or blowing up busloads of school children on account of all those troublesome Arabs still living in Jewish lands (Israel).

[nowingker]

And I stand by my argument that God does judge nations that reject Him, and He rewards the nations that repent and choose to serve Him.
-----------------

Seek, all Empires fail, this is not god's doing it is man's doing. Egypt, Rome, China, England, France, Spain. All had massive empires and all crumbled.

It is our time now, the beginning of the end of the American empire, but it is not god's doing it is man's doing, it is OUR DOING becuase we have turned away from our historic values, human values that are good and right universially. Fairness, justice, involvment in the community, being a meritocracy, doing things the 'right' way not the cheap way, caring about more than money, taking care of the weak.

There is no basis in fact to disbelieve the Koran and the Talmud because they are written by men [they were] and yet believe the bible is the word of god since it too was written by men.

The creator of the universe has long since left us to our own devices, to succeed or fail on our own, by cleaving to what is right and good in our own hearts or not. That is free will seek. And that is why we are failing, as a society, as a race, because we are not looking into our hearts and finding the courage to do the right thing, not the easy thing or the profitable thing.

[nowingker]

PS, Seek,

I am probably going to hate myself for this, but here goes.

Taking the gospels as a whole, forget the Old Testament, since I dont' find it credible at all, but the gospels, I will even go one further and say we will look at just the gospels included in the bible and forget the gnostic gospels and the rest of the cannon that were not included for various reasons.

What are the main themes? If we look at only the statements that are attributed to Christ, what are the main themes that run through all the allegories, stories and sermons?

Me, I see (a) pacifism, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, give Caesar what he wants (b) generosity, treat everyone like your brother, do not hold onto material possessions they are a trap (c) tolerance, do not judge others, be understanding (d) spirituality, you must keep god with you at all times and live every moment morally.

Now, bear with me for a moment, isn't it just possible, that THIS is the crux of Christianity and Christ's message since these themes are repeated over and over again, and that the statements and passages that talk about violence, exclusion and its 'my way' or you are going to hell were add-ons, put in later by his followers to strengthen the message and keep the main message alive, and that through the course of the centuries the key themes have been overshadowed by dogma that came from men and not god and certainly not Jesus Christ?

Is it possible?

[seekeronos]

Ok,... even if we look only at the gospels... Jesus did teach the things necessary for human unity as well as reconciliation with God.

In a nutshell, there are two "great commandments" in which are the summation of all the others:

(a) Love God first and foremost

(b) Love your fellow man as yourself, for he is a person created in the image of God.

In the gospels, Jesus also teaches that it s impossible for man to do either (a) or (b) unless he is born again... that is to say, the heart that seeks to continually fulfill (a) and (b) is the heart that is the result of receiving Christ, and that is to be born again as a child of the Kingdom of God.

This is what a pastor I know refers to as the "J.O.Y." principle: that is, to love in the following order -- Jesus (God), Others, Yourself.

The natural, unredeemed, ungodly man is incapable of these things, even if some of us yearn for them more readily than others. That man is only capable of effectively loving himself. Anything else is truly remarkable, and not likely to be rooted in a genuine selfless love of the other (the "what's in it for me?" thought underlying most folks' apparent acts of selflessness -- and even we Christians need to continually check ourselves to be sure our motives are in line with Christ.

Now concerning that salvation, Jesus was quite clear in a "His way, or no way" message -- to the Pharisees, to the people at large, and even to his own closest disciples.

The _story_ (not parable) of Lazarus the Beggar and the Rich man in Luke 16:19-31 details Hell quite plainly, and in numerous other places in the Gospels does He warn of hell, and tells us in John 14:6 that He is the only way that we can hope for redemption.

Now, I will agree that over the millennia since Christ arose from the grave, that which we have received as "Christianity" has been through some rougher spots, and that many antichrists have come and gone, hijacking the sound doctrine which Christ first taught the disciples, and confirmed through the Holy Spirit through them when they became the Church Fathers. The core teachings are still there, both the essential bits you point out, but also the warning of fiery hell, and the One True Saviour in Whom we must trust for our redemption unto God as co-heirs of the Kingdom of God in Christ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concerning the rise and fall of empires - the actions of man are the exprsssion of the free will that He has given us. However, there are definite consequences to those actions.

Judgment from God tends to take two forms -- direct and sudden, and indirect and more the accumulation of effects driven by causes which are contrary to God's will.

As I said earlier in the thread, God is very longsuffering toward us; he has allowed for America to become great as the result of our forefathers being largely God fearing men and women who honoured Him, (and even if unsaved) followed His laws, commandments and precepts, the blessings attached to that obedience accrued to them, and us, their offspring.

Likewise, turning away from Him is having its effects as well, especially from the 1960s onward, where we have an almost industrialized effort to completely remove God from any sphere of importance in our society, and replace Him with the false gods of "secular humanism" and "the knowledge or science falsely called", not too mention giving strange, demonic cults equal footing if not greater footing, than what Christianity had enjoyed up to a few decades ago.

All empires do fall, and WILL fall, because you are exactly right - although maybe not for the rasn that you think you are: they are run by imperfect, sinful, and often wicked men. Because of this, it is impossible for any nation to remain long upon this earth and stay in the beautiful area of solidarity with God's will, but eventually collapse as the values that righteous men held are no longer transmitted to succeeding generations.

[nowingker]

Again I say, you crack me up:)

So, I see you refuse to admit any possibility that the gospels themselves could be in ERROR when they transmitted the message of Christ, or that his direct disciples could, for reasons of human pride, ego, lack of deep understanding ..... have misresprented or misunderstood or 'tweaked' the actual messages of Jesus Christ. Not a possibility in your world, even though not a single thing was even written down for a hundred years, it is NOT POSSIBLE that the gospels are not the true word of the man who called himself Jesus Christ and that as the disciples spread out the message may have/could have/did change from what it originally was, and that part of that 'change' could have been the bringing in of 'hell' and 'my way or the high way ' which was part and parcel of all the other religions at that time, especially the original audience of jews.

Can't you even admit for a nanosecond that it is possible there are notions in the gospels that did not come down directly/correctly/accurately from Jesus Christ?

You talk all the time about the sinfulness and error of men yet in this one thing you refuse to admit the possibility. Wasn't it you that said the council of Nicea was directed by god's hand in deciding on the 'holy trinity' and what was heresy and what wasn't?? You cannot really believe that. When then did god step out of the day to day running of Christianity? Where is he? Why is he letting all this horror go on century after century?

It is a very, very comfortable fable that you are living by but its a fable nonetheless.

I can at least say that you seem to be the most intelligent and well read religious fanatic I have ever encountered.

[seekeronos]

"--- ...well read religious fanatic ---"

Well... I guess I can take a small measure of confidence in that I am doing something rightly. I would rather hope that I grow in love for both my Lord Jesus Christ, and His word, and continue to be changed by it:

---> "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2, KJV)

Yes, Nowingker. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, in His unlimited power and majesty as Creator, and as the Word of God incarnate, He is able to preserve His word perfectly through the ages. To do otherwise would rob God of the glory He deserves, for it prove that He is incapable of keeping His solemn promise:

---> "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8, KJV)

And:

---> "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6, KJV)

King David said:

---> "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." (Psalm 12:6-7, KJV)

And:

---> "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160, KJV)

And Jesus (!) Himself said:

---> "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35, KJV)

...

As you can see, God Himself backs up His own Words. He _has_ preserved His words - each and every single one of them, down to the last serif and stroke... through the hands of sinful (but redeemed) men He moved by His Holy Spirit. God also directed the compilation of the various writings into the canon we have today, down through the ages.

A comfortable "fable", you might say, but I believe God's words - because they are proving themselves TRUE every single time I turn around.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"--- When then did god step out of the day to day running of Christianity? Where is he? Why is he letting all this horror go on century after century? ---"

...

God never stepped out of being the Sovereign of the Heavens and the Earth, nor has He "stepped" out of leading the faithful who call upon His Name.

Rather, people make the error of forsaking Him, and running away from Him. This is why we have so much misery on this earth: people do not want to draw near to God, nor know His ways, or His only-begotten Son Who is the true light of this world.

[nowingker]

You gave me a lot of Old Testament quotes, which is as relavant to Jesus Christ as Homer. I don't believe anything in the Old Testament came from 'god'. King David? Give me a break. Who cares what that freak has to say about god. Not me. The Old Testament is full of evil and violence, the exact opposite of what Christ preached. They cannot be reconciled, to believe in the teachings of Christ the Old Testament must be, in large part, repudiated. Burning towns? raping slaves? waging war? Are you kidding me? Everything that comes down from the New Testament is absolutely opposed to this kind of violence.
---------

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

“Greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world

-------

Sounds like he's talking about internal spirituality, not any kind of church dogma to me.

--------

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. (Matthew 18:15) (NIV)

Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Luke 9:49-50 (KJV)

[Seems there is dispute over the 'he that is not with me is agaisnt me' line since it appears differently in different translations, errors? hmmmm......]

All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. (KJV)
9:55 - 56 Rebuking James and John for asking if he would command fire to come down from heaven, to consume a village of Samaritans for not receiving them, because they seemed to be headed for Jerusalem.

You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
5:38-41 (NIV)

---------------

Sounds like a tolerant guy to me. Probably wouldn't be down with the death penalty or carpet bombing arab cities.

--------

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. (Mark 3:28-29) (KJV)
------------

I confess, this one I don't get.

---------

Me, I think all that stuff about turning brother against brother and dealing out death and destruction came after he died, was added by his disciples and those that came after as a way to spread the message and gain followers and that many of the discrpenacies are the result of translators who tweaked things, thinking they were strengthening the gospels when they were in reality changing the message. There is too much that is not consistent in the gospels for them to have all come down directly from 'god' untouched by human error. Same reason why in the early church women were teachers and preachers, what do you think Mary Magdalene was if not a disciple?? But, once Jesus was gone, that equality slowly vanished because the humans who were left reverted back to the patriarchal structures they knew before his teachings.

But, hey, that's just me. I also think there is much in the gnostic gospels that is true that comes from Jesus, though admittedly, some of them definitely went off their rockers into weirdo cultish ideas.

I know none of this will convince you of anything, but, what the heck, you may one day have an epiphany of your own:)

[seekeronos]

Hmmm. you cover a lot of ground here, and due to constraints in my time, I am unable to tackle all of your points.

Where you pointed out discrepancies in the (numerous!) English translations. I tend to stick with the King James or "Authorized" Version, as it is developed from the TR (Textus Receptus), which in turn, was developed from the "northern stream" or Byzantine codices.

The NIV (New International Version) and many like it which were developed from the Hort & Wescott's work have introduced some corruption, most notably, the leaving out of that last bit of Luke 9 (where Jesus admonishes James & John about incinerating the townsfolk who did not receive them)

A discussion about the textual validity of this or that translation or whether it came from the TR or Majority Test or Hort & Wescott's critical translations is well beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll stick with what I trust - my King James Bible -- which has served adequately as God's preserved words in English for nearly four hundred years.

Coming back to first point, too many people make the mistake of dismissing the Old Testament because it seems uncharacteristic with the Jesus presented in the New Testament. This is an easy mistake to make, if people are unfamiliar with God's word, or who He has revealed Himself: first to the antediluvians, then to His covenant people (Israelites) and at last, to the entire world of non-Jews.

I would like to point to is that the Old Testament (I'll use "OT" for future brevity's sake) and the New Testament (NT) are dependent upon each other. Furthermore, the OT points to Jesus who was to come to _Israel_ as its saviour in the context of the religion which the Israelites received, which was fulfilled, and looked back toward, in the NT.

You see, the Bible is a progressive revelation, in that in proceeds to reveal God to over the scope of man's history, from the Garden of Eden until the appearance of Jesus. That is, the promise of redemption first was made to Eve by God, who promised her that the seed of her womb would give rise to the One Whose foot would crush the head of the serpent (Satan, who had deceived Adam & Eve)... as well as being wounded Himself.

Yes, there was an incredible amount of bad stuff that went on (the rapes, village burnings, etc) in the OT. That much really hasn't changed: that sort of thing is always going on in the world. Check out the stuff going on in Africa or parts of the Middle East today. Hasn't changed for the several millennia we've had civilizations on the planet, and isn't likely to change (in fact, it will likely grow much worse) until the Lord Jesus returns.

Perhaps this should serve as a contrast - that without Jesus, there is no true peace except in a Tacitean sense (by sword point), or one with a wary distrust, that involves (presumably mutual) economic gain.

The Israelites were supposed to set a different example, having the Law... but that Law only proved that (even as the elect people of God) that they could not be perfect as God is. The OT points to the Messiah as one who would come to deliver them from their (largely self-inflicted) situation of being oppressed on every side - "magormissabib" (Jeremiah 20:3). They were in this state for having turned their backs on God, so God also turned them over to the _consequences_ of their sins.

The Israelites (and later and more particularly, Judah) had disregarded the men of God (the prophets) whom He had sent them to get them back on path, so eventually, God took His protecting hand away, and the Jews were taken captive.

As for God condoning such acts by the Israelites upon others -- it is worth mentioning that God had already judged the specific nations (I believe there were only seven mentioned by name as being doomed by God for their gross iniquities) that He commanded the Israelites to destroy to a man.

These nations (that were to be displaced by Israel) were so exceedingly wicked, that God warranted their annihilation in order that their wicked practices (incl. but not limited to homosexual temple prostitution, child sacrifice, cannibalism, and demon worship) would infect and lead the Israelites' descendants astray. The OT commands to destroy those nations were very time-and-place specific, and have no application today to either Jew or Christian, other than to serve as a warning against adopting idolatrous practices.

In practice, it is also hard to say that the Israelites "raped and pillaged" in the normal conduct of their wars, as they were supposed to keep their warfare restricted to a specific set of laws, which would ensure that Israel's success - it was obeying God's commands to be holy.

In all likelihood, nasty things happened. Rape, as a war crime, is unfortunately an expected result of war when you look at it on the ground. This doesn't mean that God condoned it, although He provides that captured women be taken care of. I believe one particular campaign (detailed in Numbers 31) involved a command to kill off all the Midianite males and male children, as well as females that were not virgins.

This event was a judgment of God upon Midian (incidentally, the Midianites were related Moses by way of marriage, and more distantly to the Jews at large through Abraham) who, being descendants of Abraham, should have been much more cautious to avoid enticing the young nation of Israel to commit massive idolatry at a very vulnerable point in their history (the sojourn in the desert to the Levant).

At this point in Israel's history, God took idolatry VERY seriously. (He still does, but Israel was fresh out of bondage in a land fettered with all kinds of idols - Egypt - and thus, God was doubly on point to keep Israel from stumbling over that issue. He had some very harsh lessons - repercussions - for Israel when they did choose idols over him). It was especially important, because the devil would do (and did) everything in his power to derail Israel, through whom the Law of God would be revealed, and ultimately, the Saviour Himself.

Because this tribe of Midianites had directly endangered the Israelites (by enticing them to turn away from God at that point in time), God judged them unto destruction. By slaying the adult males, that took care of the obvious issue of having a fieldable army pursuing them; by slaying the male children, this would avoid the vengeance of the youths from attempting to exterminate, or make alliances with other tribes against the Israelites a generation or two down the road.

Killing off the adult females likewise prevented the transmission of idolatrous thought to the remaining Israelite men (it was likely the same females who had started the process by seducing the men and enticing them to follow strange idols). It is also noteworthy that Israelites (some 24,000 men) who had thus partook of sexual idolatry with these women were also slain by God.

Leaving the young women alive, and taking booty of the other spoils (which were then purified in a process described in the chapter) were permitted so as not to utterly blot out the Midian genotype from the human race. Little is said regarding the treatment of these captive females, so we are left to our own imaginations as to what _actually_ happened.

I'd like to think that they were married off (while reprehensible in our time by our societal standards, marriage to teenage females was very common in ancient semitic societies) and otherwise cared for; Israel's successes in warfare, especially at that time, were contingent upon the state of Israel's outward holiness.

Concerning "Eye for an Eye", many parts of God's Law concerned the interactions between human and human, and truthfully, the Law had little room for mercy. It was there as a final arbiter between humans, and to prove to us that we are not, and cannot be (in ourselves) holy as God. It is a perfect Law that we as sinful and fallen, imperfect humans... we canot keep it perfectly.

Some laws (like eye for an eye, and divorcement laws) were provided, as Jesus said -- because of the hardness of _our_ hearts.

We lack the capacity (in ourselves) for unconditional love, even when our fellow man hates us.

Jesus, on the other hand, _is_ that unconditional love. Which is why He is at last, a further revelation of God's nature: a merciful God, who even though we sin and bring upon ourselves the dire and deserved consequences of our sins -- He sent His son to die in our place for those sins.

So, would Jesus condone the war crimes of rape, or pillaging, or carpet bombing, or nuking Mecca and Medina?

I'd say not. He would rather see the people repent and turn to Him. However, He is not going to _force_ those peoples to do anything ... and when they do sin, and invite the repercussions of those sins upon themselves, He is righteous and Holy, regardless of whether or not He intervenes to save those people from calamity or not.

[Mirra]

A good example of the Media's tendency to apply one set of standards for judging the behavior of others, while demanding their exclusive exemption from said requirments.

Yes, Presidents are expected to rise above insults. Yet,long ago, the press ran over the boundary lines marking off the limits of professional behavior. No question or statement has been considered too ugly, too biased or too unjust.

Considering their history of unprofessionalism; how remarkable that Mr. Robinson and his peers expect President Bush to treat them with respect. It is time for the media to be stripped of their self-proclaimed godhood.

[nowingker]

Sorry, Seek, that is nothing more than a huge rationalization you've got there. Jesus Christ repudiated the 'eye for an eye' thinking of the Old Testament and he repudiated the idea of man 'judging' man, e.g. punishing those who man determined 'god' had already said were wicked because they broke 'gods' laws.

You only want to stick w/the King James version because otherwise would be to admit human error AND it would call into question some serious, serious indications where translations totally changed the actual meaning of the gospel, as in the fact that 'with me or against me' is totally, totally different than 'if not against me, then with me'...albeit its a subtle point.

You believe what you want to believe and you selectively choose, mix and match pieces of the bible to bolster your position when you must know, intellectually that it doesn't wash.

Jesus Christ was a great prophet, was he the 'son of god' as we today understand the meaning? I don't think so, though I don't know that we know what HE meant when he said it. You will NEVER get me to believe that he would have condemned anyone to hell for not 'being saved' or even that he would have condemned others living good lives who chose a different path since to my mind there isn't a bit of credible evidence that Christ held that kind of idea, only that AFTER he died, his followers were not able to keep his teachings pure and accurate and they were corrupted down through the decades of the early church until being written down, nor will you ever convince me that it was "god" or the holy spirt who determined which gospels were popular and which where true and which were hereticial.

The overriding message of Jesus Christ is to live a life of peace and love. Period. All the rest of it is window dressing put on by others. In my humble opinion.