Wednesday, October 21, 2009

I don't like Buddy Jesus

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And the land that I live in
Has God on its side.

(B. Dylan "With God On Our Side")

A friend recently confided in me that he thought my writing here is bullying and hypocritical. He suggested that my examination of faith is cruel. His theory is that deep down, no matter how mature we may be, we are all essentially children needing a Santa Claus to help buoy our hopes. He told me that my analysis of faith amounts to a mean-spirited "Humbug".

I concede that my ideas regarding belief are blunt but, I find the psychology of faith fascinating and often wonder what 14 years of Catholic education combined with 7 years of Evangelical Christianity have done to me. I like to slice open my mind and probe.

I'm not a delicate surgeon and have little bed-side manner.

This is all done because as I grow and view the world, I find I am changing my mind when it comes to belief.

I still believe in belief or, that our brains find solace in it and I think my friend is correct; we all desire to imagine a transcendent possibility beyond ourselves. And most would say this demands theology, doctrine, orthodoxy but, I don't.

I guess I am unorthodox because I don't know what I believe but admit I am awed by the love I feel for my wife as she sighs her way into consciousness every morning.

Is that God? I don't know.

I've heard the term "Agnostic Christian". Maybe that is me.

My theology was once intricate and arcane but now it is simple - to love and be loved. I no longer wish to defend exclusive claims to universal truth based upon shared cultural stories. I find that type of truth divisive. It seems stupid to me.

I admit now that the stories I claimed as truth are incoherent to me and the only reason I agreed to them was because it afforded me popularity, today I crave authenticity.

The stories of the faith I was given demand a level of self-hatred that I no longer consider sane or useful. The theological concepts of Original Sin and Atonement seem products of primitive minds living in a bloody and dangerous world. I don't know how the insistence that I am corrupt and depraved and worthy of an eternity of torture is an animating idea towards mature awareness. And I really don't want to accept that it is my fault that god sacrificed himself to himself so that I might be able to know Heaven and be released from the generational crime perpetrated by mindless innocents in a garden 6,000 years ago.

I do believe the stories we share can help us deal with the mysteries of life but, this past year I've seen that the stories people tell can often times contradict the morality they claim. I've experienced arrogant and ugly attitudes and behaviors supported by exclusive and presupposed truth. I was afraid of it at first, then disgusted, now I am just tired.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the company of my believing friends and for the most part find them incredibly good people. I count many Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Observant Jews and at least one Buddhist as good and trusted people. They are part of my network of "go to" folks.

Unfortunately some of their doctrine is also upheld by another segment that embodies hate, and fear. These are old acquaintances who embrace a "Buddy Jesus"; a tough god with wrath in his hip-pocket; a thick muscled deity who assures them the hatred they harbor against the disobedient is a revelation into his Godhead. They are the ones who are certain that God is on their side. I fear these folks because I believe that, without our secular protections, they'd become drunk on their religious fervor and, like the Calvinists they are, would enjoy burning me, my liberal friends, and the loving homosexual couples I admire. To these people, Christ is not the Prince of Peace but is the Ultimate Fighter ready to kick the tail of those who defy inerrant Biblical theology. They anxiously await his re-arrival clothed in bloody robes at the end times slicing in half those that are disagreeable.

They are the "Prayer Warriors" who told me they were certain Barack Obama was a Muslim because in their scrupulosity God told them so.

They are the Christian Right who whooped it up with Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of Sarah Palin because she humbly upheld the sixth commandment and boldly violated the ninth.

And they are the ones who, for the sake of tradition, demand their First Amendment rights extend into every area of society including depriving homosexuals their 14th Amendment rights.

I'm stuck. I like my civilized friends who happen to hold storied faith beliefs but, I can no longer honestly identify with the darker members of their body who allow belief to justify unexamined righteousness.

Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in his essay, "The Christian Witness in a Secular Age" that the church,
" . . .must be embarrassed when it calls attention to itself as a proof of the powers of God. For the very pretension of virtue is yet another mark of the sin in the life of the redeemed,"
but I fear the believers in "Buddy Jesus" would discount the good theologian's admonition as evidence to his sinful Marxist politics and support of the UN. Professor Niebuhr, Dean of Union Theological Seminary and author of The Serenity Prayer, wouldn't be on the side of the righteous. "Buddy Jesus" would consider his pacifism disgusting when he claimed in his wise and paradoxical Christian Realism,
"religiously inspired good will, without an intelligent analysis of the factors in a moral situation and of the proper means to gain desirable ends, is unavailing."
I am looking to avail myself of desirable ends. I have come to doubt it will be found in religiously inspired good will and if that makes me a bully well, please just don't burn me at the stake.


Barb said...

Doubting --in this day and age --will not incline Christians to burn you at the stake. That happened when most of them didn't have a Bible or know what it said!

I just believe that the stories are true --about Christ rising from the dead --about faith in Him giving us eternal life. I believed in Santa Clause for a few year --but my faith in Christ is not like that. It's based on stories from history --which I believe to be true.

Love is God's invention --His essential character. Also a gift to us that we should experience it toward family and friends--and have it returned.

Some Christians think damnation will be permanent/everlasting --but not necessarily the suffering --as Revelations mentions a 2nd death after the Judgment Day.

Worrying about the nature of Hell won't help; prevention of damnation WILL help --by proclaiming the escape God has provided.

There are awful things that happen everyday to people. This earth is not Heaven --but eternal life in a glorious place is promised. It is a great hope and comfort. But it's not info generated by one writer --or by Jesus writing about himself and organizing a church. That happened when the disciples saw Him alive after death. The miracles gained him a following --and after that, the resurrection jump-started the New Testament Church and its spread throughout the known world.

If Jesus said and did what the Gospels say He did --if Saul was blinded, hearing the voice of Christ, and really converted from a Christian-killer to a Christian leader --if Peter and John really healed a man lame from birth and confronted the synagogue people who doubted it at first -- then my faith is justified. And I am justified by my faith.

I hope you will "see the light" as Saul/Paul did. You might try earnestly listening for His voice ---Paul heard it and He was changed!

mud_rake said...

Barb, do not worry aboutChuck; clearly, he has already 'seen the light' and it is not coming from just above the clouds. Lots of people are 'seeing the light' these days and, like Chuck, are reexamining the childhood propaganda that was fed to them- just like the myth of Santa Claus.

As Chuck points out, he and I have matured in our thinking, we have tasted the wine of wisdom, and we 'deleted' quite a lot of that mythical mumbo jumbo that was fed to us as kids.

The so-called original sin concept is so bizarre as to be laughable. Throw that in the dumpster with the entire mythological fantasy of Adam and Eve along with the tooth fairy. Only totally propagandized brains will carry that nonsense into their adult lives.

Chuck says, "some of their doctrine is also upheld by another segment that embodies hate, and fear." In fact, I might tweak that further by noting that fundamentalists live their lives, steeped in hate and fear. That's all they know; that's what they have been carefully taught.

I have mused on my blog about what it must be like to live, day after day, a life of fear and hate, of sin and supposed righteousness. of seeing 'sin' all around, of constantly judging the other. i cannot get my mind around that style of life; it is absolutely foreign to me. It must be painfully burdensome and depressing. I wonder if that mindset is delusional.

Chuck says, " I can no longer honestly identify with the darker members of their body who allow belief to justify unexamined righteousness." The fundamentalist Catholics and Protestants who i know live a life of 'unexamined righteousness.' It is sad, actually, more than sad because they call themselves 'Christians.'

The Historical Jesus would weep at meeting them on the road to Damascus. He would weep that they have taken his name, his identity and attached it to an agenda of intolerance, exclusivity and bigotry.

Thanks, Chuck, for this great post and the associated links.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Thanks Barb for writing. I hope you are well.

You said, "Doubting --in this day and age --will not incline Christians to burn you at the stake. That happened when most of them didn't have a Bible or know what it said!"

Are you are arguing that Calvin, Luther, The Pilgrim Elders of Salem, MA and the Holy Roman Church didn't understand their bibles?

It is not biblical adherence that keeps me from getting killed for my doubts but, the insight we enjoy due to the fruits of the Enlightenment. Jeffersonian Democracy was born as anti-thesis to Calvin's Geneva.

Barb said...

Ever see or read the play The Crucible? It really isn't the devout who came off looking bad --in fact, they were the ones martyred as "witches." It wasn't even so-called witches who practice witchcraft who were killed --it was the devout Christians of the town --if Arthur Miller followed the actual history.

Of course, there was a stock character, the hypocritical minister--or was he just the judge? who disregarded the N.T. entirely when it came to handling sinners --but there was another one who realized the error being made and tried to save their lives by getting them to insincerely confess to witchcraft--just to save their lives. They supposedly killed them because they WOULD NOT confess to the sin of witchcraft.

Yet who caused the whole tragedy? The whole thing was trumped up by some sexually immoral teen girls who had been influenced by a voodoo practitioner and dancing in the woods naked around a pot of soup ( potion of some sort) --so the ones interested in the OCCULT who were influenced by the lady from Haiti( I believe) --who was an angry slave and a victim herself of a hypocritical man (the teen girl's uncle, I believe) -- it was those teen girls that pretended to be in trances --who identified people as witches so as to blame someone else for their episode in the woods --so they wouldn't get in trouble for witchy and sexy activities in the woods.

And the lead teen had adulterated with or at least tempted John Proctor who had some kind of moral lapse --as he and his wife who loved each other were having marital troubles--and the teen "called out" as a witch John's wife. In the end both John and wife were killed as witches because they would not lie and say they WERE witches.

Evil resided less in the Christians who were martyred than in the immoral girl. Granted the authorities were hypocrites in the name of God. But that is not a fault of Christianity or Christ --but a fault of humanity --to let ego and judmentalism and a desire for harsh punishment for ideolgical/religious differences motivate them.

I see that idea of harsh punishment for ideology differences in the writings and actions of one blogger named Mudrake. Who has said that Religious Right types should be incarcerated and he denies them their free speech rights on his blog and tries to get other bloggers to deny those rights as well.

I understand one thing about him--it's the gay issue. He sees people who follow the bible on the issue of sexuality as "gaycists" --the same as racists. As most of us would NOT let anyone spew racist remarks regarding ethnic groups, he thinks he's righteous to censor my views on homosexuality --which he views as as hateful as saying some people are inferior to others and don't deserve respect or equality under the law.

But as I see it, parents can intentionally help their kids be heterosexual --and young people themselves can reject homosexual ideation at the first thought --just as we should resist adultery, pedophilic tendency, rape inclination, or doing a goat or a dead person! We don't do sodomy! We don't HAVE to do sodomy in order to have sexual pleasure --except for something very damaged in the mind --which needs both compassion and therapy.

As for constitutional rights, we all have the same rights regarding sex --to marry someone of legal age and the opposite sex --if we can find a consensual mate!

Barb said...

I've seen unchrist-like leadership in local churches and denominations--because the devil and sin inclination are everywhere! Self-righteousness can deceive us on all sides of the aisle --in or out of the church door.

But the church has the right message --the Bible has the right message --when in the hands of devout and humble believers who want to please God more than man --who love God and Christ more than they hate people --who realize the godly imperative of loving sinners --not the sins.

The sodomy addiction, e.g., has caused incalculable misery --and the homosexuals are still the leading victims of AIDS in America --the ones who get most of the new cases each year. It's sad to see our culture promote the activities to youth as benign and safe with condoms. Nothing safe about it --ever. And nothing procreative in it for the future needs of humanity--or the future comfort of themselves in older age --if they live so long. Kindness to homosexuals does not include condoning sodomy and granting legal status of marriage.

AS for ORIGINAL SIN: Considering that everyone sins, isn't it logical that the first people on the earth committed sin --and THAT is the original sin --the first disobedience to the Creator. Previous to that they were innocent in their ignorance and guile-less --like the sweetest of children, i think. When we ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we became accountable through this knowledge. People are blameless who don't know any better --and the first couple in their innocence were said to have been truly sin-free as well.

However, I don't care if people think it's all metaphorical --a creation story God inspired for man to understand. The place to pin our hats is on the life, miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is prophesied in Isaiah 53 --and it all ties together from the prophecy in Genesis of one who would encounter the serpent and make him powerless in the lives of men --who would overcome death and restore immortality to God's creation.

Chuck O'Connor said...


"The Crucible" was Arthur Miller's allegorical commentary on McCarthyism and black-listing in Hollywood. Joseph McCarthy's tactics were made possible by the Christian Right's anti-Communism.

It is not history. The inflexible moralists in the play represented the conservatives of Miller's time.

I'd think you would identify with the totalitarianism presented in the play based on your opinions of Islam and Homosexuality. Ideologically, McCarthy's Red Scare tactics are the same as yours towards Islam and homosexuals.

The 14th Amendment by the way does not define the gender of your mate but it does afford due process protections in the area of contract law. Seeing that marriage is governed by contract law, it is unconstitutional for Christians to deny homosexuals their due process rights based on religious opinion. That would be violation of the establishment clause where the government institutes a particular religion.

Are you aware of the legal document that affords you the right to worship the way you choose?

And yes, AIDS is still aggregated in male homosexual communities but what does that have to do with keeping my gay and Lesbian friends from enjoying the legal property protections marriage law should afford them or their families?

Gandolf said...

Chuck excellent Post.Specially enjoyed reading and slicing my own mind open a bit more,with that begginers mind paper.Thanks so much.

mud_rake said...

It is amazing that both of Barb's comments- 2 and 3- begin talking about sex. Neither Chuck nor I brought up sex. What is your hangup about sex? Does sex and those having sex obsess you? I really am confused about you, your obsession with sex, and your ignoring Jesus's commandment to 'love one another.'

What makes you identify yourself as a Christian?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Thanks Gandy.

Shunryu is pretty good.

Peace to you.

Barb said...

I know about the Crucible's allegorical connection to McCarthyism--I've had this blog conversation before --but the story is based on the Salem witchcraft trials and I believe the story is based on the facts --in terms of who caused whom to get burned at the stake and for what reasons. If you actually see the play, you won't think of McCarthyism and those poor Communists; you'll think about hypocrisy, superstition, adolescent hysteria, and naughty girls trying to avoid trouble for themselves by accusing people of witchcraft with which they themselves were dabbling--the punishment for which the falsely accused could escape if they'd lie by confessing to be witches when they were not.

We are always misled to believe that the Salem witchcraft trials were about cruelty to witches!!! It was about witchy people falsely accusing Christians of witchcraft.

In the case of McCarthyism, the Communists WERE communists, were they not? And today, as then, we really don't want Communists running the gov't, do we? i don't. But that doesn't justify cruelty to people exercising their freedom of belief and expression. But I should be free to avoid the movies and other works of Communists if I want to. Blacklists or not, there's no law that says private entities should have to hire a Communist, a witch or a Christian --or put them in their movies.

Marriage laws are a recognition that a wife and children deserve protection as family --the wife is the mother and the children the next generation. Homosexuals give society no children and do not need these laws. They tend to be better off financially for having no children and because they both can work at the generally better paid men's jobs. (speaking of the gays, not lesbians.)

People writing the constitution never dreamed we'd be letting men marry men and women, women. These two-somes are unnatural --and unnecessary and hazardous to health of body, mind, and the future of civilization, families and nations. Hetero union, on the other hand, is necessary --the foundation of civilized and moral societies and marriage helps to protect and define the family.

Chuck O'Connor said...


People writing the constitution couldn't imagine that you would have the write to vote or a black person could be anything more than a fractional human being.

It seems to me your wanting to take Mr. Miller's play as history is very much like your belief that the bible is history.

I disagree with you on both counts.

Additionally, your inability to understand the tragedy of tyranny (which is what The Crucible is about e.g. Proctor's "It's my name" speech) is a little creepy. Proctor is the hero of the Crucible. He is a prime subject for persecution because he is an imperfect man yet one who believes in personal enlightenment. It's easy for the Church Fathers to place blame on him because he has insulted their authority in the past and he was rumored to be someone unfaithful to his wife (which he was). The play pits the ideas of the Reformation against the ideas of the Enlightenment. It is about the tyranny of authoritarianism driven by deception and fear. If the ridiculous premise that witch-craft were viable was challenged then no one would have been killed.

Barb said...

You say "the ridiculous claim that witchcraft were viable??" meaning? that there is no supernatural power in witchcraft, and no real evil involved?

Granted, we don't burn alleged witches at the stake these days--and should never have. But Christians really have been martyred throughout the centuries --and not just by other "christians" who didn't know any better as in the Salem story. I told you that just last fall a 12 year old Egyptian girl was stoned to death by Muslims for converting to Christ -- See Voice of the Martyrs website.

Every culture the world over practiced capital punishment; the Christians were no exception. The death penalty now is mostly just for murder --and arguable at that among Christians and others--especially when proof isn't sure.

To see the play without knowing the allegorical intent of the author --to let the play speak for itself --is to see that the people were superstitious when the girls fell into trances -- that they feared witchcraft as the power of evil practiced by people --that the evil accusers causing the deaths were first and foremost witchy girls being witchy to protect themselves from consequences of their own witchy behavior in the woods. (Of course, today, if your adulterous teen daughter were caught dancing naked in the woods around a bubbling brew and chanting, you'd not be alarmed?!! AT least, no one would give them a death penalty.)

And supposedly, confessing to have sinned --being witches-- would have gotten the accused out of the death penalty --but that would have been a lie. So Goody Proctor and the others chose to remain honest --and die.

It's a tragedy about extreme punishments and death penalties! about bearing false witness to save oneself --about revenge toward someone's husband for not leaving his wife --about the consequence of adultery. Had John Proctor not been weak morally, had his wife been more forgiving and more confident of his love and repentance and less cold to him, had a teen girl been a moral girl.....the consequences might have been different. Though, granted, the girls might still have been prancing lewdly in the woods and committed sin to cover sin.

were it not for sin --the whole mess would not have occured.

The devil had his day and His way in Salem.

The play does make people feel sad all the way around --but there is one wicked little selfish witch-type...and she's not a sympathetic character.

Barb said...

I know that the constitutional fathers didn't grant the right to vote to all or count black people as full humans under the law (and in other ways.)

But it's a huge leap to say, therefore, men can marry men--legally recognizing sodomy as a normal, nice practice --like normal procreative intercourse according to our bio-design.

Barb said...

After all, people can share houses to share expenses with people of the same sex and be perfectly normal and moral --and we shouldn't judge such people as homosexual just because they live together.

But those who do want to be sexual with the same sex need to keep that in the closet --as it is a bad example to children who would never think such a thing (except perhaps in innocent childish curiosity about their bodies but not with an eye to marrying best friends)--except now that it is modeled by culture and made trendy to consider that one might be gay or bi--and when their parents or molesters or somebody has made them detest the thought of intimacy with the opposite sex, craving experience with the same sex, despising the normal and craving the bizarre and indecent, undignified activity of sodomy--self-pleasure at the expense of the future stability and survival of the human race.

This is not hate speech --it IS a denunciation of anal and oral sex as a substitute for the natural. Just as we should denounce adultery, incest, promiscuity, prostitution, rape, bestiality, necrophilia, various fetishes --because of their downside consequences.

It's a shame that our young people can't find enough normal, decent, undeseased and upright people to marry and build families with these days. So singleness is prolonged and infertility on the increase --and eventual loneliness in old age is a result.

mud_rake said...

Of course it is hate speech; it's just that you can't recognize it as such.

You are a hopeless moron when you attempt to bundle gays and lesbians with rapists, prostitutes, adulterers, and those practicing incest.

Absolutely stupid!

Barb said...

O -are you talking to ME, Mudrake?

It's not stupid to recognize that sex is a powerful drive --and that there are many wrong and counter-productive ways to use it --as all sorts of ideas enter the minds of people.

When you raise people to feel normal in their sexuality --and build up their sense of their own masculinity or femininity, given two married parents, the children will most successfully and happily grow up to marry the opposite sex and start a family.

Culture should be giving no other messages --except that it's moral to marry one of the opposite sex or be celibate and single.

Yes, it's an imperfect world, so some youth will be confused and oriented abnormally, especially in a world of single parenting with the decline of religion-based morality--and because of various factors, not necessarily because of parenting of any kind. And we are NOT to hate or ridicule them for their confusion.

Society (so far) would never say that just because it occurs to a man that his own daughter is sexually attractive, he can therefore let his mind wallow incestuously --nor is it moral for a man to lust, fantasize about and pursue another woman besides his wife --nor is it ok to ponder rape or buy a hooker, no matter how urgently you want to have sex --nor is it OK for the funeral parlor worker to practice necrophilia --or the shepherd to do the sheep --just because their sex drive is errant and pushing them in perverse directions to have "release" while in private -- no matter how they do it.

So how is it any more moral or acceptable to ponder intimacy with one of the same sex --just because it's another warm, accessible body and you have an urge?? just because someone is attractive looking and you can imagine "getting off" with the "help" of this person--often a stranger? Just because you crave the affection and emotional connection with of one of the same sex for reasons of psychological abnormalcy.

It IS abnormal and unnecessary and often harmful and highly risky to have homosexual activity, in particular --as any promiscuity or sex with strangers is --as any perversion is.

It's really not hateful to say this in a world that needs its children to grow up and raise children for the future needs of civilization and nation. We are not designed to be intimate with our same sex friends --we can love them and enjoy friendship with them all we want --just not that way.

It's also not hateful to encourage and favor straight orientation and marriage considering Christ's wise teachings on the subject and the Bible's clear teachings in both testaments.

Gandolf said...

In my opinion much of what mud rake says in this case here seems pretty correct to me.Barb i would personally be very embarrased to think like you are doing.

In my opinion it must take some real pure stupidity and large amounts of bigoted ignorance to think gay folks have always really willingly put up with all the abuse that they have so often had to put up with over so very many years now.Simply for freedom of choice and there being absolutely no other reasons involved in it at all.

I sure realize faith beliefs have long been known to cause people to be deluded and even insane, but if you really do believe so many folks for so many many years have all become gay simply only because they happen to chose it,well that really proves it for me im afraid bibles often make folks totally ignorant and mad.

How the hell do you try to even start to explain all the people over the many many years who have spent so much money and time in lots of differnt institutions and with many many different types of professionals etc (honestly) trying to change themselves over this very situation.Do you really think folks would spend their own money and time just for fun?

How absurd can you be.

With the way you seem so centred on matters of sex im starting to wonder if maybe its more a matter you actually have some very large hang ups yourself that could do with some psychological treatment.

Mud is so right how can you honestly "attempt to bundle gays and lesbians with rapists, prostitutes, adulterers, and those practicing incest."

That really is just so wrong and even a little weird.

I dont know how much scientific study you have actually done yourself on this matter,but if i was you and really believed in some god.I think i might even atleast be a very very bit careful in making rash harsh judgements far to quickly.

I know the bible happened to be only written by mere man,but ive mostly always heard it said from most every single faith there is in this world that gods much prefer rightious judgment....And also happen to really extra angrily hate nasty wrongful judments made by humans.

I wouldnt be saying this if not for the simple fact that you say what you do as if you are some high and almighty scientific specialist expert on the matter, who has absolutely no doubts left at all.You dont even say it as only being an opinion of yours.

mud_rake said...

Barb writes, "It's also not hateful to encourage and favor straight orientation and marriage considering Christ's wise teachings on the subject "

That is a lie.

A lie.

Jesus never 'taught' anything about straight v. gay marriage. Not a word.

Not a word.

I think you are becoming more delusional with each passing day. I have been saying for many, many months to you that you need to get your mind in order because you have become obsessed and delusional in your thinking and your overt homophobia.

Jesus never, never said anything about 'straight' marriage. That is a fact. No Bible records this at all.

No Bible.

Please, do not tarnish, do not defile the good and loving man, Jesus, by accusing Him of making such bigoted statements.

You seem to have a large problem with Jesus's most quoted statement, 'Love one another.' You never quote this statement on your blog or on any other blog.

I think you are in denial of this simple, powerful three-word phrase. 'Love one another,' He said. There was no addenda to the statement, no 'but' no 'except for' nothing like that. Just those three words.

You defile the message of Jesus; you are a CINO- Christian in name only. You whore the name Christian to promote your homophobia. You really ought to call yourself a Mosaic Fundamentalist, because that is really where your theology lies. It does not lie in Jesus at all.

And, by the way, don't attempt to 'quote' Paul here regarding that 'lying with a man'nonsense. That line is very suspect, as you probably know, and more than likely it was inserted long after Paul died. And further, that line has nothing to do with Jesus. Don't pin that inserted Pauline line on Jesus. Paul never met Jesus, never talked with Jesus, never read anything Jesus said. Paul does not speak for Jesus; he speaks for an anonymous 'Christ.'

'Love one another,' Barb. Jesus.

Barb said...

Gandalf: It must take some real pure stupidity and large amounts of bigoted ignorance to think gay folks have always really willingly put up with all the abuse that they have so often had to put up with over so very many years now.Simply for freedom of choice and there being absolutely no other reasons involved in it at all.

Think of the poor tormented sex addict who can't control the porn and prostitution impulse, or the adulterous tendency, the pedophilic fixation, --like those 2 Ohio twin pediatricians accused of fixation with adolescent boys in their practices --their hope is that the boys will enjoy the relationship as they do and be homosexual with them. I don't think they are trying to destroy innocence or their own reputations and careers--anymore than a gay person who confines interest in people of age wants societal disapproval. Where is the difference, really, in the drive, the shame, the desire to be accepted by changing the standards? NAMBLA certainly knows that the way to have more homosexual men to choose from is to get them while they are young.

Think of the "sexual predator" guys depicted in Law and Order who hate being accused --who TRY to stay away from kids to avoid jail for their abnormal and perverse fixation --and those among them who do feel the shame and society's stigma upon them--are gays and lesbians really any different in having an abnormal, perverse sex drive?

as for lesbians, many, like Anne Heche, are simply bi --looking for any intimacy --or a meal ticket.

Do you guys all really understand the attraction for anal sex??? I don't. And there is something very perverse about ever doing it the first --and subsequent times.
And while oral sex may be a normal variant of sexual behavior among humans, I doubt very much that it is preferred by women to perform with any frequency. Which is why men will do it with men--they give to GET. And it's really sad if that's been their most meaningful sexual experience. Gag.

Barb said...

Gandalf --you misJUDGE me to say that hatred and lack of compassion fuel my certainty on this topic --or some psych. disorder on my part.

Mudrake --no offense, but you don't know your Bible. Jesus didn't mention homosexuality per se because his audience all agreed that it was sin by O.T. Jewish and middle-eastern cultural mores. It was Rome that was dabbling with thoughts of incest and homosexual inclinations, so Paul brings it up to them in very clear terms --and not about "man lying with man as with a woman" --that's Old Testament phraseology. Here is Paul's remarks to the Romans about history and homosexuality in his letter to them, Romans 1:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Here is what Jesus said (Matt. 19:4-6 -it's also in Mark) about straight marriage:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason [the reason that God made them male and female in His image as stated in Genesis] a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In the case of homosexuality and gay marriage, it is NOT God doing the joining. There is nothing biologically sensible, according to our physical design, nor healthy and normal about what they do. So the problem is apparently between the ears --and there is no evidence of gay gene --and even if there WERE such a mutation detected, it would be something to PREVENT OR REMEDY like any so-called vulnerability to obesity or alcoholism--not a condition to celebrate by encouraging youth to "don a condom and explore your sexuality."

Meanwhile, we don't call people names or treat them badly because of their affliction (or their sins) --but we don't celebrate it and encourage our youth to "try it; you'll like it," as some gay activists in the past were so bold to say --as some sex educators would condone to our children.

there are so many boys that don't look or act particularly "macho" in their growing up years (and girls, the same regarding femininity) --and yet turn out to be very masculine (or good wives and moms, the girls) and normally oriented. Today, we have teachers and parents looking to see if a kid shows signs of gayness --and they are all too ready to encourage him/her to give in to any feelings of abnormalcy --any desires for same sex approval and relationship. TV is pushing gay identification. Culture is bending the twig, so to speak.

and it's not good.

Gandalf, I'm sorry you see my confidence as unscientific arrogance --but I am sure as I can be of anything that culture is headed for an abyss on this subject.

Barb said...

One more thing for my fan and follower, Mudrake, about St. Paul:

The amazing thing about Paul is that he was NOT a disciple of Christ's but a persecutor of Christians --as Mudrake is on his blog.

He had never met Christ in the flesh --nor spiritually, as Mudrake has apparently not --but He did hear Christ's voice. Read Acts 9. There were others with Paul who also heard the voice and had to lead him into town because Paul was blinded for 3 days because of the encounter with the light and the voice emanating from it. It's an amazing story about a Christian named Ananias who is told by God in a vision that Saul, a blind man, will be on STRAIGHT STREET in the house of Judas. Ananias says he is afraid of Paul (called Saul by Jews/Paul by Greeks/Romans) and God reassures him that Saul is the man chosen to be His instrument --and that he gave Saul a vision of Ananias coming to him to restore his sight.

Saul/St. Paul was a most unlikely Christian missionary, but he was a very scholarly Jew who had studied with a foremost Jewish teacher of his day, Gamaliel? --and he was also a Roman citizen --which opened doors for him. He took the Gospel to Rome --where people suffered for their faith in Christ for many years before one of the emperors established religious freedom --and later the Roman (Catholic) church --which, as we know, suffered much corruption even to the present day. Spin-offs were always a correction to that corruption --a "back to the Bible" movement in every generation--once they had the Bible in the hands of laiety.

Gandolf said...

Barb you say.."Do you guys all really understand the attraction for anal sex??? I don't. And there is something very perverse about ever doing it the first --and subsequent times."

Barb personally i dont understand everything about everyone else.With you i notice its often all about the "i" the "my" thing,as if this world needs to become the world of Barb and then everything will be quite fine.As if we need to alway understand everything about everyone else,to accept and like them and make a place for them in OUR WORLD.

I truely hope it never does!,oh what a thoughtless selfcentred nasty unforgiving place it would then become.Nobody would be safe if they be to different to the Barbs of life.

I find there is things i dont find to attractive in you Barb i find bits that seem quite horrble to me infact,but i try and have some understanding for you.I think to myself well i couldnt be like that,but Barb is still a human like me and hopefully we can learn to exist without hatered of each other in this big world.I think well no doubt im very sure there is bits about me that Barb doesnt like so much either,so hopefully if i try understanding her she will be nice enough to have some understanding of me too.

You say..."but a persecutor of Christians --as Mudrake is on his blog."

Hey you cant expect people to understand and like christians if christian cant have some understanding for other folks can you?.Is christianity really such a thoughtless selfish teaching?.

Im told jesus said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light"

Yet you make it all seem like a bloody lead weight Barb.Oh if there really is a god i tell you what i get a feeling i wouldnt like to be in your shoes Barb when everyone gets to meet him like faithful think will happen.(my opinion)

If Mud Rake is on his blog telling folks christians need to be disliked,can you really blame him that much?

Once again you have to talk about sex addicts and "porn and prostitution impulse, or the adulterous tendency, the pedophilic fixation"

What the hell has this really got to do with all gay folk?.

The problem seems to be you are just so flustered and all hung up over matters of sex you just can get it through your head that many gay people dont actually start off being gay because they are some sex addict porn loving pedophilic adulterers etc like you stupidly bring up here in this instance once again.(Trying to push this connection on folks) where its actually quite possible quite often it doesnt always even belong at all.

Gandolf said...

By jingos Barb like i say i wouldnt like to be in your shoes if there is a god we all later meet.Im not perfect but by jingos i atleast try to be a little fair,like im lead to believe jesus was.I dont go to church i dont read a bible etc,but i still cant see what good that would actually do me if i was still a nasty unfair judgmentle person being wrongful in how i treat folks who then go out and tell more of the rest of the world why christianity is just so disgusting and needs to be hated?.

Cant you even add 2+2 ? ...Cant you even for one moment think why folks actually might dislike you and your gods belief?.

I feel i can tell it seems you have been the type to judge many folks heaps in this world,and so i personally feel
pretty certain that if there be a god when you meet him he will do like wise when he finally gets to adressing you and your own downfalls.Are you really so perfect Barb? ...Do you honestly think you should be so worried about so many others in life?.Is your judgmentle yoke a heavy or light one??

Dont mess with the SON OF GODS thoughts to much,by putting other thoughts of mere men over and above because it happens to suit your tastes.Remember its not meant to be all about the "i" or the "me`s" or "my" wants.

Now Barb please dont take this as me (personally) disliking you or as any hatered ...I would just as likely stick up for you if the shoe was on another persons foot and kicking the hell out of you without try to understand you a little.

I just cant sit back in silence with out mentioning some of you "ways" seem to be a little unfair and lacking in understanding and fairness thats all.

Its not about you in person.Its the actions and way of thinking i find not so nice.

And yet i know you mean well!!.Sometimes its not so easy to see things about ourselves that others looking from the outside can maybe see a little easier.

So i do understand you,you honestly do mean well,its more about maybe you just dont understand that some things you think are fair and nice etc maybe might not actually be quite so nice or even quite so helpful after all.You might be even be doing your gods belief a lot of harm.

Just only an opinion of mine! and some food for thought thats all.

Barb said...

Gandalf: "Remember its not meant to be all about the "i" or the "me`s" or "my" wants."

EXACTLY. Tell that to the people whom you consider to be victims of Christian judgmentalism.

You are SO RIGHT! It's not about me --and it isn't about THEM. It's about CREATOR and HE has given us guidance for our good--and about our Savior in whose hands God has placed the human race. Jesus will be the judge.People who behave evilly and selfishly and without any self-control in the sexual department won't be allowed to continue this sort of thing in Christ's kingdom to come --and ought not here either.

He made man and woman to complement one another's bodies for the purpose of pro-creation, being fruitful and replenishing the earth. He built in a pleasure principle to motivate the process! Otherwise Fred might be content to sit around the fire like a neanderthal --never paying any attention to Wilma.

I've got no hang-ups about healthy, normal sex --a great gift, a great design for God's purposes and he built in a pleasure principle.

But that pleasure principle is rightly governed by OTHER principles --for our good. And one of those other principles is that we confine our intercourse to a mate of the opposite sex.

You think this is cruel to say? Not at all. It's where people will find the most harmony as couples who may also be blessed to be heads of families, bringing up the next generation and teaching them how to get along for their own good as well as for the good of all.

STD's and a preference for child-free living are not serving the public good.

Barb said...

BUT --and this is important --I am not saying these people can't carry on behind closed doors --or that people who choose to be childfree should be shunned or mistreated --

whereas Mudrake is saying that people with my point of view should be hated and locked up or worse. Notice, he says our names and addresses should be published. And then what? and why? so people like him can rid the world of us with our views?

Who is dangerous here?? It's not me.

Gandolf said...

Barb..."EXACTLY. Tell that to the people whom you consider to be victims of Christian judgmentalism."

Who is stopping christians from being christians ?.Whos trying to make it law christians must be gay?


However Christians do try to suppress gay people,so yes gay folk are a type victim.

Barb.."You are SO RIGHT! It's not about me --and it isn't about THEM. It's about CREATOR and HE has given us guidance for our good--and about our Savior in whose hands God has placed the human race."

What right do you have to try to force your deluded beliefs on ALL others?.Where is the supposed god given right of free will?.Our countrys were all around long before deluded faiths were.

Once again there is no law being suggested or made to try to make christians do anything their beliefs dont allow, neither is anyone stopping christians from being christians.Nobodys is trying to make laws that christians MUST take up gay lifestyles.

But the religious bigots are not happy with that are they.They wish to try to enforce their beliefs on all others as well.

And then they have the cheek to try to blame atheism for the likes of the Hitlers and Stalins etc that arise and wish to deal to all the religious bigots and get rid of them.

Barb why say oh woe is me and moan about things you dont like that you say mud rake might be suggesting,if you yourself are not prepared to be a little decent and understanding.You at least partly reap what you sow remember!

Plant bad seeds and sooner or later they are bound to grow into very angry vines that end up creeping up and finally choking you and your belief completely to death.

You cant expect folks like mud and others to live by the golden rule,if you and your christian mates wont bother to.

See this Barb you and your ilk help keep this type of nasty bigot attitude alive ..

And you so worried about your name and address

Man i understand why some folks happen to start to think .."I dont like Buddy Jesus"

Chuck O'Connor said...


We live in a representative republic which is governed by a limited constitution. We don't live in a Christian theocracy. While you have rights to worship as you choose in our country your mythology has nothing to do with the provision of those rights.

The constitution affords secular protections and there is no religious test to enjoy the freedoms of it. These freedoms are governed by the principle of equality under the law.

Your superstitions cannot deny that principle.

Therefore, I suggest that you better understand the law that offers you the freedom to be a bigot or stop trying to argue for an authoritarian ideology that contradicts the freedom you enjoy.

Barb said...

Gandalf: Where is the supposed god given right of free will?

No civilized society can decide that free will is simply the freedom to do whatever you wish --regardless of the public health and the public good. All of our laws are based on what the majority of people consider "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil", "fair" and "unfair" --and "for the public good," and so on.

And the threat to the Christian is that he will be muzzled and possibly punished for what he teaches and believes on the subject of homosexuality. So then, where is the free will for people of traditional faith to advocate for traditional marriage and protect their children from an immoral culture?

There is plenty of sociological data--and there will be more --to indicate that homosexuality which makes no children, which is frought with costly, life-threatening STD's despite knowledge, condoms, meds and sex ed --is counterproductive to a healthy society. that it is more problematical than good for children and national economy and security (gives us no kids for the future, and thus doesn't deserve the benefits of hetero-marriage which has that possibility of making children.) There is plenty of evidence that it is "sex addiction," which can be prevented and/or remedied, and that it is generally a promiscuous lifestyle, with or without "commitment ceremonies" especially for youth.

Granted, hetero promiscuity is no better for society--and our culture also wrongly condones it before marriage --as indicated in our growing numbers of "live-ins," and our TV story lines which wrongly teach our youth that promiscuity and pre-marital sex are fine --and the educators concur that it is fine AS LONG AS CONDOMS ARE USED. Never mind the fact that condoms can't protect emotions and self-esteem and conscience --and that they don't always protect health either --and that jumping in and out of bed guarantees risk --including the risk that a partner will impose himself without a condom. Some of the diseased have done that for spite.

So going down the path of sexual experimentation with promiscuity --and abnormal activities, historically called "perversions" throughout eons of history, is not really a "civil right" to celebrate, exalt, and promote, is it??? It's not something to condone and promote as harmless and risk-free-with-condoms in our nation's schools.

Nor is the response to those with homosexual orientation to be mean --but it is not the Christians who hate them; it is THEY who hate any Christians who tell them that homosexuality is harmful, counter-productive, and change-able with the help of God. They say, "Why should we change?" And we are right back with the answer of the health risks and the procreative physical design argument --and the national need for children --and the women's need for men to love and care for them and make children with them. All without mention of religion --which makes it very clear that we are made in God's image as male and female for the Creator's purpose of our procreation. Jesus says we are made for the male-female unit and not any other.

Barb said...

Gandalf Christians do try to suppress gay people,so yes gay folk are a type victim.

A successful civilization does seek to restrain evil and harm --and suppresses thieves, murderers, prostitutes, rapists, con artists, drug abusers, drunk drivers, polygamists --and yes, those who would practice sodomy and seek others to initiate into this unsanitary injurious activity.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Your ranting is providing an object lesson to the blog post.


Chuck O'Connor said...


Next time you post and equate concensual homosexual relationships to violent crimes you need to provide data that supports your argument. You case can only be made if you believe the bible is the absolute moral authority. I don't and since this is my blog I demand you make you case using an empirical method. If you can't then please leave. Thanks.

Barb said...

neither is anyone stopping christians from being christians.Nobodys is trying to make laws that christians MUST take up gay lifestyles.

On the contrary, Canada disallows any preaching on the air against homosexuality --though it is part of our religion to see it as sinful and preach against it. We are threatened with "hate speech" laws --as though our stand on sodomy was hateful to people. No, our stand is intolerant for a behavior --not the persons. It's not just the Christians or Christianity that causes revulsion for sodomy historically -- Other religions also found it repugnant as a substitute for normal intercourse.

Even today, hardly anyone wants a homosexual to initiate his/her kids into their first sexual experiences. We have hopes that they will want normal marriage and make children. And we try to protect them thusly. But what about gay couples raising kids they didn't make together? Do you think they discourage sexual experimentation and protect their children from too early sexual involvment?

WE OUGHT NOT TEMPT KIDS who normally have much self-doubt and psycho-social ups and downs while growing up. Youth are vulnerable --and sodomy should not be held up to them as a viable option for their good!!! nor as an inevitable condition of preference that some of them are just born with.

Kids insecure in their sexuality should be encouraged to wait until their 20's or late 20's for social and physical maturity to finally catch up with them! and to wait on sex --and wait for marriage --and to shut the mind's door on homosexual thinking and gay self-image. they have enough self-image issues without that one.

The hate reaction against Christians was prophesied by Christ --the first disciples were martyred --the Roman Christians were persecuted --Muslims have always persecuted Jews and Christians, denying freedom of religion in their countries --and so it is that Jesus said we would be persecuted for righteousness sake all manner of evil would be said against us falsely.

So it is that you think my position is an evil one -though it is Biblical and Christian.

Barb said...

As for the Golden Rule --I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me I was gay if I were an effeminate male or a masculine female --I wouldn't want to be labeled and given the prognosis that I should accept and be happy in my gayness --which is what people are doing to those gays who are not happy in that state. I wouldn't want to be lied to and told that God made me gay and didn't want me to be straight and told there was no consequence --and thus misled into thinking that I could indulge gay ideation and activity without incurring any divine retribution --without any need for repentance and salvation.

By the Golden Rule, I wouldn't want someone to convince me of an eternal lie to my detriment--convincing me that good is evil and evil is good --that God does not care about sexuality --though he made us male and female in His image for His purpose that man with woman should become one flesh and procreate.

Another threat to Christians will be laws to force us to hire practicing homosexuals as ministers, teachers, church and Christian school employees --and to abandon teaching the Bible on this subject EVEN in our own schools and churches, calling it hate speech/hate crime.

It's also wrong to say that professing out of the closet homosexuals and transgenders can room with our kids in dorms and share their barracks in the military. It's like forcing people to be in intimate quarters with the opposite-sex which some dorms allow. Would you want your daughter to share a dormroom with a guy and have no choice in the matter? If not, then she shouldn't have to share a room with a lesbian either --with anyone of OPPOSITE ATTRACTION who has a potential of lust, desiring sexual activity in the bedroom.

We don't want to be objects of lust to our same-sex friends, roommates, any more than we want to be objects of lust within our families (other than with our own spouses.) When the military says gays in the barracks out of the closet affect unit cohesion, they are just being honest. Race may have been a similar factor in the military in the past, but race is not a choice; homosexual orientation really does start in the mind --whereas race does not.

Barb said...

Mudrake came here to get you to ban me from your blog. You disappoint me --you don't ask anyone else to document all they say with scientific data, do you?

Counter-argue, instead. he can't do it either.

Barb said...

Next time you post and equate concensual homosexual relationships to violent crimes you need to provide data that supports your argument.

Prostitution is not violent crime, con artists aren't necessarily violent --so Sodomy was not listed by me with only violent crimes --but all counter-productive, anti-social, harmful behavior (some criminal, some just regarded as immoral and threats to health) --which our society discourages by law or at least does not condone --as with adultery.

By the way, there was a minister who tested the anti hate-speech law in a Scandanavian country --announced to media he was preaching the Bible against homosexuality--and he had a rather large church, i believe --and so their country was having to debate in legislature whether or not he should go to jail or not for preaching the Bible. I think he went for a short time to jail --but he had defenders in the legislature who said religious freedom was important --even on that topic and that their law needed to be changed to accommodate religious free speech.

Gandalf mentioned atheism behind Stalin and Hitler --suggesting atheism shouldn't be blamed for them? Well, it wasn't the Golden Rule to blame --or the love and forgiveness teachings of Christ. Nor the Ten C's. Nor the Beatitudes nor the Lord's Prayer, nor the "fruits of the Spirit" nor the Love Chapter, I Corintians 13, nor the fear of the Lord? Nor belief in the scripture. NOne of these contributed to Stalin and Hitler's work --nor to any modern day mass murderers' rampages. (Granted, a lunatic may believe and do ANYthing with a skewed and nutty perspective.)

Chuck O'Connor said...


I don't believe your holy book is anything more than ancient mythology. Your appeal to it as an authority to demonize consenting homosexuals as the moral equal to rapists and child molestors is insulting. This is my blog and if you were in my home discussing these things I'd ask you to support your claims with evidence of stop the bigotry. Now, you can post here as much as you want but make a case that makes sense. That is all I ask.

Your own diatribes against gay marriage don't even have an internal consistency. You rail against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage by demonizing sodomy but never make an argument against Lesbians. Lesbians don't fit any of the criteria you use to demonize gay marriage. Are you okay with two women getting married? They don't have anal sex. They are the least likely population to contract STDs and, according to studies, engage in sex less frequently than heterosexual couples.

Barb said...

I believe you are right about lesbians --not that they are free of STD's --I think I can refute that statement with evidence. I'll look later.

But that they don't really have a lot of sex. I don't think most of them in lesbian relationship are lesbians for interest in the same sex as much as for lack of options.
As my one relative put it, "I just try to find some happiness." She liked guys--but a woman came along first--and we think she may have been introduced to this life by a teacher who had her come to her home.

Barb said...

What about the biology argument, Chuck? We are not designed for coupling with our own sex.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Your religion is protected by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. To equate activity in other countries is fallacious and dishonest.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb you said,

"What about the biology argument, Chuck? We are not designed for coupling with our own sex."

So then you must be against couples marrying past child-bearing ages?

Marriage is not designed only for child-bearing. It is according to YOUR religion but YOUR religion is not the arbitor for the law. It can be chosen for many reasons with companionship being primary.

Now, you can raise your family any way you like but you can't impose your mythology on the society at large.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb you said,

". . . are lesbians for interest in the same sex as much as for lack of options."

Are you serious?

Chuck O'Connor said...


If you watch this video you will see that you and Muslims can agree on at least one thing, homosexuality is the extinction of the human race:

mud_rake said...

Barb said...
"Mudrake came here to get you to ban me from your blog."

Well, no he didn't. He came here to let Chuck know that you are essentially a fundamentalist troll looking to post your excrement on one more atheist blog.

The second reason 'I came here' is to prove to Chuck that not all people from Toledo are idiots.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Thanks man. I pity Barb. She seems lonely and angry. Most self-righteous folks are. I'd like to show her that kindness can exist outside the confines of her superstitions.

Chuck O'Connor said...


I was born and raised in Detroit and am a big Tigers fan so Toledo holds a fine place in my heart. Go Mudhens.

Barb said...

Your religion is protected by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. To equate activity in other countries is fallacious and dishonest.

No --it is not. These countries in Europe and Canada also believe in church state separation and freedom of speech and religion--yet, some of these countries have forbidden freedom of speech by clergy on this one issue!! And atheistic/secular/humanistic bloggers seem to enjoy restricting such religious opinion/speech, also.

We restricted --or punished-- the religious freedom of Bob Jones Uni on the interracial dating issue. I think it's within one's freedom of religion to BELIEVE and TEACH their kids that the races should marry within their own race as the religions still teach that Christians should marry Christians; Jews, Jews; Muslims, Muslims; Catholics, Catholics, and so on--believing also that God created the different races to survive as such --just as we believe that species of animals should not be allowed to become extinct -so, we should want the different races to be distinct. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MYSELF --nor does the church today in general -- BECAUSE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL --IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT BOB JONES UNI DERIVED FROM WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE CREATOR INTENDED. AND OF COURSE, THE FUNDAMENTALISTS OF THE PAST DID THINK THAT POSSIBLY THE SLAVE STATUS AND THE COMPARATIVELY PRIMITIVE CONDITIONS OF AFRICA COULD BE GOD'S DOING BASED ON THE CURSE OF CAIN AND/OR THE CURSE OF HAM. And you had the evolutionists theorizing that some races were more highly evolved than others (Hitler.) And there was slavery justified the world over for thousands of years, including in the O.T. --and not railed against specifically in the NT (though all the teachings there were implicitly against slavery (golden rule, love, equality of persons in God's sight, compassion for the downtrodden, setting captives free, etc.) In fact, it's Christianity that stopped the slave trade in England first, and then in America. Did any other country beat us to it? Even in Africa, they sold their own. And now we see that in Toledo, Ohio, sex trade slavery of kids for pedophiles is occuring (last night's news!) Evil DOES exist --and again, I assert that the only righteous sexual partnerships are hetero married adults--like Adam and Eve.

Our gov't DID penalize the religious beliefs of BJU --so don't tell me they don't intend to muzzle Christians on the gay issue. Where have you been??? Only this time, they would really be in opposition to Biblical mores --whereas the Christian church at large didn't agree with BJU that interracial marriage was against scripture --since it isn't.

In BJU's behalf, it's important to say that they had interracial student body, and were very restrictive about dating in general, requiring faculty chaperones! They just believed God would put "likes" together as married couples --but this view wasn't really justified in the Bible. It was more a common sense liklihood --as there were initially a lot of problems for interracial couples --including cultural differences --which are ameliorated today by the melding pot of public ed and television culture --which isn't all bad.

Barb said...

Mudrake proves that he is a miscreant (if not an idiot) from Toledo when he impersonates other bloggers, usurping their identities and creating profiles for them, posts people's names and addresses and photos, etc and hounds their pastors, etc. and he does follow me around to focus on the "homophobia" and "OCD" he claims for me. He knows I'll defend against his claims which will open up the topic so he can come over and chant, "Homophobe! OCD! Bigot!" he's so impoverished in ideas he can't tackle what I say! so he tackles me instead.

You are quite wrong about me, to think I am the angry blogger. On the contrary, I am as joyful a person as you'll ever meet! But Mudrake? Sour, dour, miserable, and fixated against Bible believers --even MORE than I'm concerned about the gay issue. And he is fixated against us BECAUSE of the gay issue --as are most atheists.

you guys who oppose the Bible and its followers are far more negative and miserable and fixated in favor of homosexualtiy--e.g. Mudrake referring to atheistic blogs and facilitating the banning of people whose beliefs atheists don't like. Not even I do that!!

Look at my blog compared to his and yours! YOU are focused against Bible-belief and believers! Mudrake, against believers in particular. On my blog, you'll see a wide variety of topics --whereas Mudrake occasionally will write about trees and flowers --but mostly against evangelicals/right wing GOP/fundamentalists, etc. You will find he favors ANYBODY over evangelical people --especially us women who bother to see what his latest rant is for today.

I think he needs to be monitored for his dangerous ways. he advocates incarceration and denial of speech rights for persons like me. That's his goal on every blog where I happen to show up. ANd I find such blogs because those people appear at mine.

Barb said...

I'm not lonely, Chuck. thank you for caring (sarcasm ;) ) I have a family of 11 in Toledo who get along and get together every week --I have a church family of about 200 who enrich my life. I have church board meeting to attend tonight, in fact, and must run. I also have a Christmas choir starting up soon that will be fun with most of my family participating. I have a couple of dear friends who are my neighbors. And my husband is my dearest friend and so good to me. Life is better for me than I deserve. I do have a couple of health problems --and if I don't address them soon, I might disappear and you can all dance on my grave! But I have hope and confidence in my eternal destiny because I believe with all my heart that faith in Christ saves our souls for eternity. That's what happens when you meet a resurrected Saviour!

mud_rake said...

Whoa! That sure was a load dumped on you, Chuck. The woman does go on and on and on...

You were exactly on the money when you noted her loneliness and anger. Her anger could be seen in HER ALL CAPS REPLY that followed. Passive aggressive, a good therapist would suspect.

Your remark about 'self-righteous people' seems fitting. For the life of me, I cannot imagine who would be 'friends' with such a person. Always being right, always judging, having the last word lures noone.

My opinion most generally about doggedly fundamentalist christians, is that they suffer from what psychologists call "Religious OCD." These people can never be perfect enough, never good enough, never enough prayers, too few Bible readings, always occasions of sin at every turn. The disease surely must be maddening and clearly would have a direct impact on those with whom they would have contact.

Few people would find a 'pleasant' experience with such a sufferer. Thus, when you mentioned that she probably has few friends, I believe that you were right on the mark.

Untreated OCD patients exhibit odd quirks and rituals that many persons not suffering the disorder would find to be strange. Further, if the rituals and compulsions are of a 'spiritual' nature, then the patient becomes even more socially isolated.

One 'solution' that the untreated religious OCD patient finds comforting is to, in fact, immerse oneself in the very obsession itself. In this case, church stuff. Note the lengthy list of church activities that were mentioned, even implying that these were gathering of 'friends.'

The immersion of oneself in the 'theater' of one's obsession merely masks the compulsions so that they appear 'normal' to those in contact with the patient.

Long-term therapy and prescription drugs can offer the patient some hope of overcoming these constant, draining emotional seizures. But the patient needs to ask for help, yet, the sad scenario is that they are in denial. A spouse, son or daughter needs to intervene.

I hope one of her family does that for her.

Barb said...

My brother in another state follows my blog faithfully, never commenting, and happened to check in on my blog the other night and saw Mudrake's comment about how he was a better Christian than I --and he said it gave him such a good laugh. I don't know why --didn't make me laugh, but he just found it hilarious. He thinks Mudly is loony tunes and dangerous, to boot!

He does have starey, crazed eyes ....I should pull up that yearbook pic!

about the all caps section that was supposed to mean I was mad (shouting) -he knows I use caps for emphasis --to be emphatic. He chooses to make an issue of it. That was not even an angry sounding passage --just caps to make clear that I didn't believe what BJU did --on race. I would only have sounded angry there if someone had accused me of racism --which Mudly has done, but clarity of explanation, not self-defense, was the purpose of the caps in this case.

Look who the expert is on OCD and its signs and remedies. Wonder why? I would never spend so much typing time on a topic of no relevance.

Barb said...

I also wonder why Mudrake belittles me for OCD --would that be nice if I really had such a mental disorder? I think not!

Notice how he NEVER deals with what I write --just ad hominem attack from him.

Gandolf said...

Well Chuck and Mud my first thought today is,man i really feel for any school children who might quite likely have felt rather tortured if Barb happened to be their teacher.Talk about evolution and the stake reminder of lifes chance factor we all live through, being a lot like Russian Roulette when it depends on to whom + when and where and whether you are born etc as to chances of what teacher you actually get.

Sure there must have been a number of kid/s with enough previous home tutoring in the fine art of existence and survival within the totalitarian confines of dictatorships.But whew!!... even just looking at and reading all Barbs written machine gun type thought im imagining really needing a robotic persona + a large pack of asprins atleast just to manage to survive it all day.

And they blame us non believers for people like Hitler and Stalin whom the religious of old also exposed to these religious totalitarian type rants in early life.And blame atheism for folks who then take it to the same extreme but with diferent totalitarian ideals.

The cheek of it!.Blaming non faithful folk who do not really rely on the ignorance and complete utter stupidity of starting and forever always sticking to total absolutes.

I only need to read Barbs written persona here and i simply easily can see a christian type Hitler or Stalin etc.Somebody who stupidly thinks they know it all and theres never ever likely going to be a need to learn more and even sometimes change thinking.

But still dictatorships dont usually last forever! though admittedly the religious ones have for far to long now.But still one cant help feeling folks world wide now are starting to really realize that needs to be made to change.Hallelujah!! for that Amen!

Thank the god/s for the internet too!it will be what helps us THIS TIME round.

Fundamentalists.We can even ask them to simply use their god given common sense and then take a good decent honest simple look at the bible,and note how even the bible evolved also.How it changed from once stoning people to death to later on not stoning,how there was once a need to sacrifice then evolved to no need to sacrifice etc etc.Even the bible didnt always stick to absolutes,why? well because its idiotic thats why.Its brainless,it doesnt work.How humans could ever think they ever going to likely be able to ever get everything right every time first time,is a idiotic thought well proven to be very very stupid.

Even though the bible is also full of spiritually inspired godly people who even talked about themselves even being able to be wrong sometime.

Fundamentalists still cant think to think enough for themselves to be able to even start to understand that absolutes are not always the be all end all of type decisions we humans alway should need to absolutely keep.

In dictionary fudamentalist:=strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Basic ..L.o.L aint that so true .Prehistoric barbarian and falsehearted too.

The bible suggests to me that even Jesus tried to change the fundamentalist ignorant type mentality,the bible suggests to me the fundamentalists back in Jususes day were just as proudly pig headed as they still seem to be today.

Barb says.."No civilized society can decide that free will is simply the freedom to do whatever you wish --regardless of the public health and the public good."

Who has suggested anything about wanting to "do whatever you wish --regardless of the public health and the public good."??

Thats simply fundamentalist falsehearted ignorant deceit you spouting.Cars planes boats buses skydiving heart-transplants obesity pollution religion mental-health overwork lazyness and so many many more things are not always found to be so great for public health and maybe public good either.

Should we try to completely supress and ban all these other things too, mein kampf heir Barb??....They are often not so great for public health and maybe public good either!!

Gandolf said...


L.o.L ...Chuck your blog is so very very aptly named

Barb says..."And the threat to the Christian is that he will be muzzled and possibly punished for what he teaches and believes on the subject of homosexuality. So then, where is the free will for people of traditional faith to advocate for traditional marriage and protect their children from an immoral culture?"

Hey the "goldren rule" has been the heart of the basis of most of our societies, long before faiths were around.Golden rule evolved into being simply because if you were not prepared to try to make room for most others,sooner or later it happened that most others no longer were prepared to try to make room for you.

Hense came the "golden rule" .And so yes you have good reason to feel threatened,but its your own ignorance that is the cause of this threat.There is simply getting to be a higher mojority of people who now see THERE IS quite a big difference between some folks who are just simply ADULT consenting gay folk. And those that are the pedophiles rapists bestialer thiefs murderers violators etc etc of this life.

You say.."where is the free will for people of traditional faith to advocate for traditional marriage and protect their children from an immoral culture"

How many times do we need to try to explain Barb...NOBODY IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO MAKE ANY LAWS THAT YOU OR YOUR KIDS ETC (NEED) TO BE GAY....You still have your complete FREE WILL to teach and lead YOUR KIDS just like everyone else,how you wish to and believe is right for them to be led.

Holy heck if it was such a big worry and so very likely,ALL kids would also be porn stars today.But yet they are not.

As to the health issues with regards to gay v male-female relationships.There is most certainly still a unfortunate nasty stigma surrouding folks who are gay,that cannot be denied and that youtube video sadly proves it.Can you be so sure the health statistic might not also change for the better should people be able to become more likely to be educated without the existence of such hatered that there so obviously still is at present.

Male-female relationships are not always free from health risk.Religion is often psychologically disturbing and often a long term cost to the public health system trying to treat people psychologically depressed or disturbed caused by religion, maybe it actually costs much more to the insurance and health systems etc than society really realizes at present too.

Chuck O'Connor said... "Barb,

Your ranting is providing an object lesson to the blog post.


Sure does Chuck .It takes a bit to surprise me,but im still surprised here at the levels of dishonesty displayed by Barb to try and hold on to old ancient fundy idiocy and stubborn close-mindedness.

With that video i posted what made me feel the worst and most saddest for society and the human race in general, was watching the car with its lights on just drive right on past.Leaving two people to beat the hell out of somebody who evidently was not even far from his own home.Cant quite remember exactly but the write up said this guy had boken ribs busted lungs and so much damage,they even had to end up putting him into a induced coma once he got to hospital.

Sorry.Please forgive again for the rather long posts Chuck.

Chuck O'Connor said...


I agree with you that there is something wrong with Barb and I hope that she finds help but, I'm not certain that her condition is "Scrupulosity" (Religious OCD). I think it is charitable of you to consider her comments in light of what appears to be mental illness but, my unprofessional assessment is that she suffers from a narcissistic disorder that motivates a persecution complex. I see it in a lot of Christians. The self-hatred necessary to accept the theology drives the fear and loathing you describe but, religious OCD often centers the obsessive focus within rather than without and Barb's need to judge others while advocating the innocents in peril really seems more like a martyr/messiah complex consistent with narcissism. She is a perfect example of what I write of when I write of my fear of and fatigue with self-righteous types who know they know Jesus.

Barb said...

The arrogance of believers is no greater than the arrogance of non-believers --from what I've seen.

And it's not arrogant to be sure of what you believe, actually. YOU believe there is no God and that the Bible has no value or truth to it. You're staking your life on your unbelief --and forfeiting eternal life with God if the Bible is true.

I disagree with you that there is no God --or no validity to the Bible--so that makes me arrogant?

I believe the Bible's definitions of sin, so that's arrogance?

have you heard me say I am a perfect and sinless being? No, you have not. Nor is that my self-perception.

But I cannot deny that I am sure of the truth of the Bible regarding sexuality. It is the one sin that society is trying to legalize, praise, institutionalize, equate with traditional marriage --and encourage.

You say there is no threat to one's children in a homosexual-favoring culture? Get your head out of the sand. CULTURE is VERY influential to future generations --and searching and experimenting with gender and sexuality is a doorway to sex and other addictions, disease, misery and death --and yet, our culture is pushing it and hating the Christians for opposing it.

Yet, we are not Bible-believers if we condone what God has forbidden in both testaments.

You might be intrigued to know that my church is planning shoe box Christmas gifts for needy children abroad, Christmas toys for local families in need assigned to us by the Salvation Army, food baskets for needy that our church knows about, in and outside the church, Thanksgiving food from the churches of our area working together, and they just sent a team to Honduras to work on a church there and fellowship with the people in that church. They had a wonderful time --and hard work in very hot, humid climate. these people use their own vacation time and money to do this.

We also have a food pantry for the needy, a clothes closet for them, and a low-cost food program which people order from monthly --called Angel Food. Several churches do these things. We also have a youth ministry that reaches out to the disenfranchised and troubled teens of our local school community--and a children's ministry that picks up kids from Habitat for Humanity homes. Tonight we have a Harvest Party for children where they will play games and get candy for every game they play --games of minimal skill, like miniature golf hole, imitation bowling pins, horseshoes, etc. We'll have at least a 100 children plus parents. We are not a big church but do what we can.

I say that, because the impression you have is that all the Bible believing church talks about or thinks about is the issue of gay marriage and homosexuals. IN fact, our church is not active on social issues at all--we just know what the Bible says and we have firm beliefs --and if there is opportunity to stand for, vote for salt and light in the culture, we'll do it!

Call it self-righteous if you want --but in doing so, you are making a big mis-judgment.

We know we cannot be confident in our own righteousness like a Pharisee --but we are confident in Christ's righteousness and the function of his sacrifice --to atone for our sins.

I'm sorry you read my confidence as arrogance --they aren't the same, you know.

I'm sorry, Gandalf, but I don't agree about the Golden Rule just evolving --it still hasn't influenced much of the world for good --evil abounds. However, all that IS good in modern civilization derives from Judeo-Christianity --including the influence of western civ on the rest of the world. Much that Humanists promote and prize is derived from Christian roots.

Barb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

BTW --there's nothing charitable or compassionate in either Mud's or your mental health assessments, Chuck.

You use mental illness to discredit my views. which is an insult to people who really ARE mentally ill -- by ridiculing me with the charge of mental illness.

It's sort of a below-the-belt tactic when you can't think of reasoned rebuttal, seems to me.

Chuck O'Connor said...


When I read your comments and your pure and absolute assertion in equating consensual homosexual relationships with incest, bestiality, rape, and pedophilia, I apply charity and say, "Well maybe the person has a mental illness."

I'd rather address your hateful and bigoted perception as a symptom of a diseased brain. I find that to be more compassionate then simply labeling you a hateful bigot but, so bet it, if you are asserting your mental soundness then all I can conclude is that you are a hateful bigot driven by your self-righteousness and superstitions.

I still hope you get some help.

Barb said...

I'm not completely, in every sense of the word, "EQUATING" homosexuality with other sexual perversions, addictions, and "sins" like adultery--I'm saying they all start in the mind where the first thoughts should be blocked, rejected --instead of re-visited and embraced until they define who you are.

I would never say, e.g., that adultery is violent like rape ---but it is VERY harmful, hurtful, selfish, wrong, sinful....
I don't equate them in terms of psycho-causation, motivation, intention, this-life consequences--but they are all harms involving sex.

Homosexuals are wrong to seduce and lure members of their own sex who might otherwise never go in that direction--but for some male bonding need unmet by a father --and someone pursuing them into "feel good" activity.

It's not a lifestyle you want your child to pursue, when you consider the physical and emotional health risks and the many downsides. It's not a lifestyle you want the neighborhood guys to introduce to your sons, as happened to one young friend of mine. Therefore, it should not be celebrated and promoted --as it is these days.

One guy told on Oprah's tv show how he and his cousins would go to the farm and the men took them into the woods for homosexual acts --and how this made him think he was homosexual -until later when he realized he had been victimized. He just thought it was the thing guys did.

Maybe that's the problem with all defenders of sodomy.

mud_rake said...

"Maybe that's the problem with all defenders of sodomy."

Sodomy, she says, right from the Bible. This is America, just in case you forgot where you live.

Sodomy, she says.

Tell me, Barb, which of the 50 states has anti-sodomy laws on its books?

Ohio does not. Would you like to live in a state with anti-sodomy laws?

Sorry, there are none. They were all struck down in 2003 by SCOTUS.

However, if you would like to live where there are some very strict sodomy laws, how about Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia. They have them. In fact, they have the death penalty attached.

Pack you bags, Barb, and go there so that you feel 'safe' from those sodomites!

By the way, I'm sure that you are mourning the action today, the signing of the Hate Crimes Law. Just think- it is now a Federal offense to harass a person because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Sad, sad day for you and the rest of your oh-so righteous, bigoted fundys.

Barb said...

What SCOTUS determined was that sodomy behind closed doors was not prosecutable because of privacy between consenting adults. I don't recall that they actually said sodomy is now legal. It was just made clear that while you could break down the door if you knew pedophilia was going on behind closed doors, you could not do the same when you suspected or knew sodomy was going on behind closed doors. I call it looking the other way in the case of consenting adults.

We still have not legalized polygamy --but no one is comfortable with raiding them either --but what they do is also a bad cultural practice --since the gov't USUALLY has to help support the polygamists' too many children. And because it really does interfere with equality of women. And because the men are on the make for young girls and have committed pedophilia. These cults tend to commit religious abuse, also --"stay sweet --don't be jealous of the other wives --don't mind that hubby is chasing a young gal and telling her God wants her to be with him. It is God's will for you to share your husband." The men have also been known to get rid of the young male competition by ousting them from the cults for various infractions.

Prostitution is still illegal and a hazard to public health and bad for the participants --but again, these are consenting adults in private, so we don't prosecute and enforce the law very vigorously --at least in some places.

As for the hate crimes bill--Mudrake expresses why Christians didn't like the bill; he thinks it means we can't speak out any more in favor of the Biblical view of sexuality. And that's what Christians feared about it, because that IS the trend in other western countries regarding religious expression on the topic -- but my understanding is that harrassment of anyone was already against the law --and other kinds of violence against ANY people are against the law --so I don't know why this bill was necessary. What's the difference now? Christians rightly fear people who will interpret as Mudrake does, but I don't think that's what the law states.
the Hate Crimes Protection Act helps to broaden the definition of a hate crime, which now includes crimes committed against someone on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It also allows the federal government to prosecute violent hate crimes if state or local governments refuse to.

So far, this does not say you can't speak against homosexual activity --or help parents raise their children to be straight. And so far, Mudrake can still practice his mysogenistic harrassment of Christian women (whom he targets instead of Christian men--he has issues.)

It says it's a "hate crime" if someone commits a violent crime or any crime against a person for sexual orientation --as it said before for race. Haven't violent and other crimes always been punished regardless of the reason behind them? This is just making a point in the law that it's not nice to commit crime out of hatred toward people because of sex or sexuality. Duh!

Barb said...

BTW, Mudrake, sodomy is a legitimate word in the dictionary, you know.

Gandolf said...

Barb..."Homosexuals are wrong to seduce and lure members of their own sex who might otherwise never go in that direction"

That wrong luring part that some people do is most likely wrong Barb,i feel i would personally likely pretty much agree with you.But not every gay person is going to be a lurer are they.You are just having a silly wrong knee jerk reaction to your own opinion of (all) gays.


Some people are most likely very wrong also to lure people to become adulters too,so should we ban and maybe not encourage marriage too! just incase some folks happen to feel like lureing some folk to become adulters??

Its maybe wrong that some young people suggest other young people should get into sex early.Its a really normal natural urge though for young people,but still should we ban all children too and not celebarate some people who have children??, just incase some children might happen to want to lure other children into early sexaul activity.

See your generalizing attitude is far to narrow minded in (my opinion) Barb.Its far to totalitarian in view and all about government by laws and of dictatorships.

Oh and the golden rule you said you dont agree evolved .. here is some reading below on the subject for you.

Wiki note:"The Golden rule appears to have an evolutionary basis, see Reciprocity (evolution)."

Makes some real sense doesnt it...Not so hard (for me) to even imagine cave men even soon being able to decipher by adding 2+2 together to soon understand that treating others like you wish them to hopefully treat you yourself, is likely to often work a little and have many benefits. = evolution of a moral


And: http://archives.wittenburgdoor.

And this one below seems real interesting and has so much information.Of course you will naturally feel angry and biased against him !!, for his non faith will disagree with your religious palet for faith .But i dare you to atleast first have the decency read some of how he discribes some matters of evolution of morals.


Barb i suggest even the very bible you yourself read,proves morals never came from the gods.

Why?, well we can even read and see for ourselves within the writing of the bible how these morals DO change and evolve over time.

That doesnt sit so well with the ideas of god/s who they often try telling us are also supposed to be . "The same yesterday, today and tomorrow" so much really does it?

Chuck O'Connor said...


You fail to recognize that consensual homosexual relationships do not equate to prostitution, rape, pedophilia, or adultery.

Two people who choose to enjoy the legal benefits of a monogamous relationship have that right based on their due process protections inherent in the 14th Amendment.

They have the individual sovereignty to consent to that partnership.

Prostitution demands owning another human being therefore the possibility of coercion, not consent.

Rape and pedophilia are self-evident to their lack of consent.

And adultery is a betrayal of the consent one agreed to and therefore exhibits fraud.

Now, how is gay marriage between two consenting adults equal or even remotely similar to the analogies you cite?

The only way you can argue against it is to institute your religion as the law of the land which of course is not a legal right of you or anyone else.

You have the right to worship as you like but you cannot use the law to make me or anyone else agree with your bigoted superstitions.

mud_rake said...

Gentlemen- of course you have written a great deal of information about the truth in this thread, but you really didn't expect that she would have any of it, did you?

I suggest that you lower your expectations, as I cautioned with my first comment [to the left.]

It makes no difference what you say, what facts you present, what logic you employ. It is like whispering in the wind because bigoted fundamentalists are not open to any facts or opinions that are in opposition to their 'beliefs.'

You will notice, gentlemen, that I have made only 8 of the 64 comments in this thread. I've learned. I've been there, done that. It is useless to 'argue' or 'debate' such a person. It is a complete waste of your time. She has infected numerous blogs, as i warned, targeting especially atheistic-leaning ones.

It is her 'mission.' Her obsessive mission to insert her Mosaic nonsense into as many of the 'godless' blogs as she can find.

The banter, the blather eventually loses its shine and the bloggers ignore her, and she moves on. It's the pattern. This blog is #37. Soon she will find #38 and you will be history.

Chuck O'Connor said...


You are correct.

My plan is to ignore Barb from here on out.

Gandy, do what you will and I hope you feel confident finding your voice here but, I'd suggest we follow Mud's lead and recognize Barb for the troll she is. I've found that ignoring trolls usually leads them to go away.

Peace to you Mud and Gandy and I hope you both come back and continue to read and comment. I'll be posting a new piece soon.

Best to you both.

Gandolf said...

No guys i agree, more than enough has been said on this subject.But anyway heres to hope of a better future for all! where i hope we humans some how can learn to war less and all learn to get on much better.

Yeah for sure Chuck i will always take a look at your blog.

All the best to all you folk over there,we are in spring here now so im guessing where you are its now what you folk call the fall.

Barb said...

O mi gosh! blog # 38 ? He's joshing, I hope. Can you imagine a blogger who would count the blogs I've been on??? I'd call that severe OCD! and probably an extreme over-estimate!!! Monk would do it.

Barb said...

Maybe he'll list them! Wow!

Chuck O'Connor said...


We are in full Fall mode here in Chicago. We're getting ready for about 6 months of over-cast and cold. I'll need to visit you. Be well.

mud_rake said...

Chuck- I'll be looking for the new thread.

Glandolf- I never knew you lived in NZ! Your islands are one of my dream destinations. Let me ask this- do toilets in NZ really flush counterclockwise?

Barb said...

Geez, Muckly -- you want to know about the toilets? Why am I not surprised.

You never disappoint me.

BTW, Chuck and Gandalf, you have fallen into Mudrake's trap. He follows me around --I came here when Chuck posted on MY blog --and where you once had a blog open to contrary opinions, you no longer do.

Remember, I only went to his blog for the first time when he was libeling me by name. I didn't seek him out. He was writing about me when someone informed me of the google link to his defamatory blog. He has a deep-seated pathological hatred for Bible-believers by any name --maybe because his sister the nun was favored by his parents? maybe because she died of cancer? I don't know --but his father had OCD and was obsessed against protestants and consequently, Mudrake is sicker and far more dangerous than he claims I am --his bad and illegal blog behaviors are legion! (harrassment by revealing personal info and his impersonation of other bloggers --not just me --to try to mess up my blog with identity confusion) I have one friend who encourages me to take him to civil court for harrassment because we do have months and months of evidence. She's the one who told me his real identity.

By the way, he, too, has been banned from blogs --not for his views --but for his nastiness.

I'm disappointed in you two potentially nice chaps that you felt you had to embrace Mud-rake's negativity toward those who don't believe in gay marriage -- and those who still believe in God and Christ --these are his causes celebre. So far Americans have voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as for one man and wife. Mudrake hates them all!

He is so vehement on this subject, you'd think he had a gay lover --but he is married to a woman and a parent--which I realize doesn't mean anything.

(Don't mess with ME, Mudrake --I COULD violate the Golden Rule where you are concerned, but I expect my Christian inclinations to prevail!)

Gandolf said...

Chuck my place of abode ive always kept basic and my life is very simple,but i always welcome folks in.... The hardest part is folks being comfy enough staying with a bit of a "bushman bill" type who doesnt really worry about the comforts much...l.o.l ... I still live the old swag type way, you know kinda much like your cowboys with there old bed rolls etc.

Most folks here all live like im sure most folks in the U.S.A all do ...But i just always been the real country type thats all.I hate to many cars and blinking traffic lights etc ...l.o.l

All i can say for folks from away visiting NZ is if you like more people and conjested traffic, and probably more comercial type tourist stuff ...Visit the North Island ... There is atleast 3.2 million people in the north island and much more comercial type stuff including the real snobby type tourism ..Many many more tourist buses etc...And people from away who just like places with lots of people and bars and flashest areas etc. see here

But if you like mountains skiing,river jet boating,mountain wilderness treks,more out door pursuits, much bigger island and population only a little over 1 million (i/3 population twice as much land mass) the South Island is where you plan to spend most time. see:

Note the bits headed tourism you will see the south island has places like.. "Fiordland National Park, Abel Tasman National Park, Westland National Park, Mount Cook National Park, Queenstown, Kaikoura and the Marlborough Sounds are regarded as the main tourism destinations in the South Island and amongst the Top 10 destinations in New Zealand."

And most of NZs power being that of hydro power comes from the south island.So if north islanders get too cheeky to us! we can always just flick the switch :)

We dont mind if they call us bogans !!,they still look real funny running around like lost sheep trying to remember how to cook by fire! cause they got no electricity :)

Just jiving ..

Mud whats a flush toilet ?????

We got these sheds outback with a long drop, and sawdust you toss in afterwards .Our watches DO turn clockwise though,does that help?

L.o.L ...Well yeah the odd country hick still has a long drop ...But no most folks do have a flush jobby nowadays ...Have for a number of years now ..many flush systems are just the "push flush" ..the other ones i remember you used to have to turn did actually turn clockwise.

Suppose you got told our (Maori) first nation folks were cannibals?...l.o.l ...they once were ..And still a bit angry sometimes, many many more live in the north island.

South Island "Maori" once again are far more friendly.

South Islanders are much more friendly helpful and accomidating and will say hello to most anyone.North Island its more everyman for himself,and if you say hello folks seem to think there must be something wrong with you.

Well there now ive explained NZ a little.Anything else you like to know please just ask.

By the way Mud liked the oaks trees too, on your blog.

As a separate note that may interest,we have our fair share of extreme fudies etc here ..And some they call cults ..One called Destiny Church has been on the news here last two nights .The leader is now claiming to be like a new "king David" ..Has his followers make pacts ..undercover survalance of somebody who went to the church got footage of kids punching the air and reciting stuff like Hitler kids etc .

Here is a news artical on it.

So it all happens too over here.

I dont know why these fundy folk need to try to control everyone else also as well, like they often seem to like to.I worry that someday someone might visit them terrorist styles,instead of just using a camera to try to expose their intentions.We dont have those type problems here yet, and i hope it can always stay that way.

All the best wishes to all !.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Mud and Gandy - good to know you both.

Gandy, great stuff on NZ. If/when I visit I will let you know beforehand.

Barb, you are welcome to post here so you can cut the persecuted stuff about me not wanting a blog with contrary views. You can post your views all you want. I'm not going to discuss them with you any longer. I don't find it enjoyable to empower bigots by legitimizing their bigotry.

Go ahead and post, I just won't be responding. Be well.

mud_rake said...

Gandy @ "We dont have those type problems here yet, and i hope it can always stay that way."

Tougher immigration laws might be a solution.

Gandy @ "Suppose you got told our (Maori) first nation folks were cannibals?...l.o.l ...they once were ."

My son sunk his teeth into many of the neighborhood children as a youngster. Either he liked the taste or has some extraneous Maori blood in him [naturally from his mother's side!].

Have those 'godless natives' been converted yet? I wonder how their long-standing myths compare to those of the bible? I wonder if they were just as gruesome? Substituting one bloody myth for another might be an easy sell for the thumpers.

The South Island has always appealed to me more than the North. The North is more Aussie-like and I'll pass on that.

Enjoy your upcoming spring season. Our falling leaves are a harbinger of a cloudy, cold and humid winter that seems to linger on for far longer than the calendar suggests.

Best wishes to you and perhaps we'll meet some day, although we live at opposite ends of the earth, about as far away as one can get without falling off of the edge. Toledo is at 41°N, 83°W while Ōtautahi is 43°S, 172°E- a very long plane ride.

Until the next time...


Gandolf said...

"about as far away as one can get without falling off of the edge. Toledo is at 41°N, 83°W while Ōtautahi is 43°S, 172°E- a very long plane ride."

Holy Teledo ! ... ive heard that saying said around NZ a few times .Its said when folk are really surprised about something.Guess mostly because it kinda sounded funny.

Some Maori have converted quite a number have not.They had traditional god ideas .God of the sun God of the seas ..God of the forest etc .

What i liked about them is they had kind of the same type spiritual understanding of caring about earth and nature as maybe American Indians did also.You know take what you need,try not to waste.. that type of thing.

See : http://en.wikipedia.

The Moari were warlike people at times ...But many tribes got along together and had made alliances.They had all built there own forts called paa so it was almost impossible for the English to fight them at the time.

Yeah if any of you people want to plan a trip here..Let me know i dont mind helping..And i know there is ways to make it all easier and cheaper.And if i know what type of holiday you would like,i can just give you some suggestions and find some information for you etc.And stop the shark type problem those that often try to only sell the most (costly stuff) if they think they can get away with it and pull the wool over folks eyes.By not letting folks know all that is available.

If i was from away coming to NZ ..For me id hire one of those vans they come in all sizes ..Or some folks buy a cheap one thats a good runner ...You can get them quite cheap here...Because a number of years back NZ allowed lots and lots of second hand imports.

Specially in the South Island there is often places you can camp up (for free).Then motor camps etc when you need a shower or do some washing and use internet etc.And back packers where its only $20-25 per night.There is absolutely none dangerous animals or snakes etc or anything like that here to need worry about.The very worst is a wasp or a wee spider bite that mostly only gives folks a wee bump if it bites.

I do understand what you saying about the feelings the fall gives you,in knowledge of what you knows to come Mud.Have to admit we NZers are soft and dont really know what a harsh winters really about.Our pipes freeze a few days in row,and we think we doing it a bit tough.l.o.l

The video on that destiny church really showed them in the best light possible,kinda staged like.And the cult watch guy was a bit slow sadly,the destiny guys being more polished at having the gift of the gab ...But did you notice the nasty evil look in their eyes,(the eyes of people) tell so much that no matter how folk try acting.They just wont be able to hide it all.

And that vid dont show any of the other under cover footage that somebody went along and managed to get.

Its all about power and money.They were telling of people lives that had been for the better etc,but didnt mention those that went for the worst or folks who gave everything they had until they had nothing left except sadness.
The leader has manshion houses ..the best cars ...He and all the top heavys all ride loud Harleys etc and freak out their neighbourhood.

He talked 700 of his top heavys who are called son to:"Sons are to wear covenant rings on their right hands"

These rings cost them all $300 each etc ..Plus eveyone that went along on the night paid $30 and were hounded to but T shirts and all manner of what-nots and nic-nacs as well.

By the way many/most in this church/cult are often of some Moari decent...You can tell the leader is.

Anyway have a great weekend all.

mud_rake said...

"Holy Teledo ! ... ive heard that saying said around NZ a few times ."

That comes from Klinger from the MASH series- he was born in Toledo. Toledo is not holy at all and has had a quite sordid history with gambling, prostitution, crooked politics, and the gangs of the 1920's. Crooked politics is still in vogue.

Thanks for the NZ travel trips. We'll have to save up a bit first, as we just spent a bit in Germany in September.

"Its all about power and money.They were telling of people lives that had been for the better etc."

Ain't that the sad truth and the common thread that is woven throughout the history of mankind! Here in the states, we have Sunday morning 'preachers' who convince old ladies to send them checks from their pension money so that god will 'bless' them throughout the coming weeks. Many have been exposed- big mansions, large estates, jewelry, fine cars...

Of course, not only the widows who stay at home and watch Sunday services on TV, the 'faithful' in the pews are bilked week after week as well as the pastor preaches guilt, and they reach deep into their wallets after that.

'Money for god' has been bamboozling the folks for generations and it still works. Guilt is a heavy burden to lay on those afraid of the boogie man in the sky!

Hope you are enjoying your weekend, already in progress.


Barb said...

You guys in your little atheist club are so funny --fast friends now because you agree that Christians are bigoted against homosexuals. You saw how negative Mudrake was when he came here for no other reason than to castigate me--you heard of his bad blog etiquette --but that doesn't matter if he supports homosexuality against Christians who do not. He's nuttier than a fruitcake, but you're willing to invite him to visit you!! Actually, I invite him, too, to bury the hatchett and start being pleasant to those with whom he disagrees, but he simply cannot --so obsessed he is in favor of the unhealthy practice of sodomy. He hates us, literally. Yet, I don't hate homosexuals; I feel sorry for them and believe their condition can be prevented and remedied. And many who've left the gay life agree --and they get no respect either.

You'll see on my blog today a quote about online atheists from NEwsweek. Pretty accurate.

Barb said...

What delicious irony! Mudrake says of his blog: A group of men with muckrakes, combing through the sludge of misinformation and cover-up, bring to light the truths that scoundrels, cheats and other unseemly characters would rather not discuss.

On the contrary, many people he considers "unseemly characters" DO want to discuss his version of "truths," but he won't let them. You have to agree with him or be banned --doesn't matter what the subject. It's not just the gay issue --it's anything that Bible-believing women (in particular) would contribute --even if in agreement. He will not even entertain discussion when it is not one of his hot buttons.

He calls my blog "the best homophobic blog in NWOhio." He has the worst anti-Christian, Christian-hating blog in NW Oh. Just look at it.

Being as politically partisan as he is, he would not have brought up democrat Marcy Kaptur's recent ethics problems --but another of his bloggers did.

Gandolf said...

Hi Barb .Etiquette in my opinion.I feel can quite often sometimes become the very primest preferred tool of human falseheartedness for deceit, which manages to cheat hoodwink n bamboozle and fool lots of folks into the ignorance and complete senselessness of even being stupidly prepared of only thinking of judging the book by its cover.

Matters of etiquette rate pretty low in my book of how to get to honestly know much fact.Etiquette is actually the enemy of how to honestly get to know much factual evidence,because etiquette itself often uses old laws of convention which means conforming or adhering to accepted standards etc.This method is extremely lacking in any great intelligence because it only allows for the unimaginative conformist view.It has often been the very curse and cancer of human societies on earth.

We need to be prepared to put etiquette aside sometimes/often, so we can also remember to always think outside of the square also as well when making decisions we do make that alway do effect the future.

If we dont we must ALL be prepared to always forever live with any of our old past mistakes, forever being present in our future also.

Personally i feel i see signs where the world in general thankfully seems to me to be placing less and less values of judgement on mere matters of etiquette.

Even for instance when the practices and forms prescribed by social convention or by authority of the past,had suggested it was quite fine to mostly just rip reap and abuse and pollute the planet as we felt like specially if it filled all our wallets up.

The etiquette was we didnt worry about it,and those that said anything were told they were simply not sticking to old etiquette and past established accepted official codes of requirements governing behavior in polite society mandated by custom .Of how these things are supposedly supposed to really be dealt with, often "stunting progress" in certain directions in the process.

Where it could be argued,that maybe we even might actually be in dire need of much much more common sense speed and great haste.

You say.."You guys in your little atheist club are so funny "

Barb after mega ammounts of discussion and debating etc it has become obvious Chuck, mud, and i generally agree on this matter with regards to gay folk.

It has also become obvious you will not likely ever agree with us which is fine,and mud in the first place did try to explain it would likely not happen!.Thats all.

Because we simply see no more sense in further discussing "the gay matter" with you.

Means we must have some club going?

Therein lays the very problem of the matter of etiquette also,it breeds blindness and ignorance and great stupidity through social convention mandated by custom and is often tried to be enforced by group pressures.

You use old etiquette to try suggesting and proving the factual presence a club,yet the intelegence of that claims fails and fall flat on its face.

In that it then could be claimed with such mindless stupidity that almost anything people share in common in life, as being that of what must be club practice.Like even eating or sneezing or farting for that matter.

Thankfully i often feel very many other people also do feel, there is some real change moving in the strong winds that all blow back and forth across planet earth today these days though Barb.

People now having more inteligence and much more knowledge and education etc do tend to look past the cover of books more,pushing much of the uneeded old etiquette aside where its only creating a stagnation.

Many of these folks would understand its not anything about it being a club,many would easily understand we 4 have really just discussed this gay matter enough.

Thats the beauty of the modern day age Barb,a time is fast approaching where maybe fundys wont even be able to fool the kids in kindergartens.

I havent stopped talking to you Barb.Just realize its really a very pointless exercise with certain topics thats all.

Barb said...

Gandalf, I think, even you, would find it unacceptable blog etiquette to go to someone's blog and impersonate the other bloggers --using the same screen names, creating identical profiles and even putting up blogs for them. Or unacceptable to post people's personal info --over and over --identifying those people as dangerous bigots --and go to public records to get photos of their homes to post on your blog. Wouldn't you think that to be a bit obsessive and harrassing to do that to someone whose views you didn't agree with?? And to call that person racist, hateful, hypocritical, etc. etc. --with OCD --and on and on he goes. Even suggesting incarceration --and refusing even conversation at his blog by Christian women on other topics who were not necessarily disagreeing with him but just being sociable.

He thinks he's doing a good thing --to harrass and snub a "gaycist" the way he would do to a racist.

But the two are not the same. Concern for the next generation and the effect of increasingly more rampant sodomy and STD's on its morals and physical, emotional and economic health, is NOT gaycism.

Your way of disagreeing with me was merely to slap him on the back and invite him down to NEw Zealand --like a bunch of bar buddies or good ol' boys --all because of this new found brotherhood at Churck's blog of sodomy-approvers.

It's interesting that St. Paul wrote 2000 years ago that not only were those who committed same sex acts deserving of death (in the way that all sin has a death penalty on it --the reason we ALL die) but that those who APPROVE same sex behavior deserved the same. This was not death to be carried out by us --but it is part of the sin penalty we all are paying by our mortality.

the good news is that Christ died for our sin, conquored the grave, and promised resurrection to all who repent and receive Him, believe on Him.

I would rather the Kdgtn teacher told my kids they need never fear death because of Christ --than tell them that it's ok to marry someone of the same sex. And so we need one school for children of atheists --and many schools for believers. A voucher system for school choice. Because I should not have to pay for teachers to teach my children that the Bible is wrong and they in their finite minds are right.

mud_rake said...

Speaking of club, I am reading a quite interesting book by Guy Deutscher, The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention. I have always been interested in language and its history and use, and Deutscher fully engages the reader with the fascinating history of words.

Take the word, back, for example. The origin, naturally, is the body part. Yet, from that simple noun many metaphors have evolved: backwards, backing, aback, to name a few. Backwards, for example could indicate the direction or a state of incompetence. How 'back' became associated with incompetence is lost to history.

Club, as one knows, has evolved into several separate, independent words. Originally from the Norse, klubba, our English language has incorporated many Viking words- more than German in fact. This in itself is a surprise because the United States nearly accepted the German language as our official language, but for a single vote.

Why the word 'club' has come to mean a weapon, an organization and one of the 4 suits in a deck of cards is amazingly complicated, yet points to Deutcher's premise that all historic English words [except auxiliaries] are metaphors.

The ever-evolving nature of language, the fact that it is non-static, no doubt irritates the purists who, for example, would throw themselves in front of a steamroller rather than accept 'thru' for 'through.'

Linguistic fundamentalists surely get their panties all in knots at such usage, yet they are seemingly unaware of the constant movement, the never-ending changes that are a natural part of dialogue.

Deutcher predicts that many presently used English words will end up in the dustbin because they have lost any tangible meaning. The word, 'fair,' for example, is headed in that direction. It has too many distinct meanings for it to endure.

For a less scholarly look at the English language, Bill Bryson's, The Mother Tongue, is a great read. He includes a chapter on the variations in our common language which, I need not point out, are found among natives of Toledo-English and NZ-English. Bryson's best book is, The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid, a nostalgic look back at the circumstances of growing up in the 40's and 50's.

Thanks, Gandolf, for suggesting the 'club' topic. By the way. 'Gandolf' has a variety of meanings of its own. Interesting!

Chuck O'Connor said...


Good stuff. Thanks.

Barb said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

O lighten up, Chuck!

Gandolf said...

"Club, as one knows, has evolved into several separate, independent words. Originally from the Norse, klubba, our English language has incorporated many Viking words- more than German in fact"

Yeah great stuff i agree.So interesting.

The kiwi language is sure evolving ..L.o.L ..Some parents often think far to fast im sure!

Strange that even within our south island we have atleast two or three types of speech sounds atleast one with very notable difference of rolling the Rrrrrrr`s

Lots of Scots folks! first settled in that particular area long time ago...And after a few dramms of whiskey well ..Rrrrrr there it be

Some folks ask me why i spell gandolf instead of gandarf,and i did so because i thought it was how it sounded to me.I didnt look to see what the spelling was supposed to be.

Mud im not that surprised that club was originally from the Norse,im sure they used to collect up around fires together huddling in groups to keep warm.Probably hiding behind rocks whenever they were warned any clans of vicious ferocious christians were invading,with tasty babeque stake burnings in mind.

Im thinking crikey !!,,its just so very very lucky this is only a blog, or our friend Barb might have another use she would like to show us for the klubba :)

Barb believe it or not there are very very many other folks in this world now who dont agree or even like many overbearing fundamentalist views that much anymore.They are sick to death of them!.Some get more angry about it that others might do and react in differing ways,but its got nothing much to do with any klubba`s

I think its got a little/alot to do with the old reap what you sow thing though maybe.

Christians ohh woe is me im being persecuted for my beliefs type bleat, is fast becoming a bit stale and old.

Christians try claiming to be the genuine "forgiving" and "loving" folk.

If Christian really be as "forgiving" and "loving" as they try claiming they are,why then any need for us to have their beliefs or be converted??

Thats not forgiving at all.Thats only being "judgementle" "superimposing" and "controling" thats all it actually ammounts to.

Forgiving is to pardon and cancel an indebtedness or liability .

In my opinion it comes down to this.Barb if you agree to treat people bad,then you also need to agree to accept the consequences.

I know this if many folks start disliking my opinions i dont just blame them,i think about myself also as i question the reasons of why.

Chuck was wondering if you had seen this blog before so thought id post it in case you thought it was interesting at all.

Best wishes to ALL

mud_rake said...

Gandolf- I added to my Blog List so that others can enjoy the spoofs. Thanks for the tip.

Today's etymology lesson is on the word, God. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

From Old English, god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus. Not related to good. Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in Eng. mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.

That gender switch when Christianity came into vogue is quite interesting. Of course, as Jesus and Moses were Jews, what else could one expect in that misogynistic culture?

I also like that reference, poured juice, funnel in reference of burial ground. Is that why Catholic burial ceremonies pour holy water on the grave site?

The Sanskrit, 'to invoke' is interesting. To invoke what, may be the question.

It's always a hoot when one begins to analyze theological roots, and the deeper the root, the more earth-bound is the deity.

Barb said...

Gandalf If Christian really be as "forgiving" and "loving" as they try claiming they are,why then any need for us to have their beliefs or be converted??

We DON'T have a need for you to be converted; YOU do --if our beliefs are in truth.

If we are loving, then we care about where you spend eternity--whether or not you will live eternally with Christ and those believers who love you-- or perish for eternity.

If we don't love you, we won't bother to tell you nor care if you believe that Jesus said we must be born again. He said we "become children of God by believing on His name."

We don't have some pathological need for you to agree with us and validate our belief by that agreement. On the contrary, love --and Jesus-- compel believers to proclaim the gospel: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel that they may be saved.'

John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

That's good news. And not the sort that any 4 fiction writers could concoct simultaneously.

The Jew who became St. Paul didn't believe it either and was delivering evidence to have these seditionist followers of Christ killed --and then he saw the light!

I believe it to be true --and if I'm right, I'm to participate in Christ's "Great Commission" by telling people that God loves them and has made a way for us to be immortal through the man, Jesus Christ, who is His only begotten son.

I wish salvation were automatic --but it takes faith to please this God and win eternal life.

Barb said...

Gandalf, about your comment that many people are tired of fundamentalist Christianity-- perhaps so in Atheistic/Agnostic Blogville. But here is an article about a new book on the move of God's spirit upon the earth through the spread of Biblical Christianity among educated people the world over. I think Christ is going to the win the world instead of Christopher Hitchens! However, the Bible does say that the world will get worse before His return --that in the last days, men will call good evil, and evil, good. I think we are there. It also says He will not return until after every tribe/nation has been evangelized and heard the Gospel.

Barb said...

Forgiving is to pardon and cancel an indebtedness or liability .

Yes, indeed!!! And that's what JEsus did on the cross for us! He canceled our indebtedness to God! our debt of sin. But we do need to BELIEVE it in order to BENEFIT from it for it is "by faith you are saved and not of works."

In my opinion it comes down to this.Barb if you agree to treat people bad,then you also need to agree to accept the consequences.
I know this if many folks start disliking my opinions i dont just blame them,i think about myself also as i question the reasons of why.

Sounds right --but in fact, Jesus said if we were doing right in standing up for Him, we would be persecuted for righteousness sake --and for His name's sake. Disapproving sodomy and warning people to avoid it and repent of it is being faithful to the Bible and the God of the Bible. It does not--WILL not-- make the Christian popular with those who practice or approve sodomy.

Gandolf said...

Barb said.."We DON'T have a need for you to be converted; YOU do --if our beliefs are in truth."

But Barb the only objective point you have to judge that beig truth from, is from your own or others human objective point of view.

To do that faithful folk need to be judgmentle and controling.

Otherwise nothing would be said.Why? well because it would already be thought there is absolutely no bill needed to be payed.Indebtedness or liabilitys alreadys gone.That right there at that point,thats honest forgiveness.

Faithful folk are not honest forgivers at all.They do not pardon indebtedness or liabilitys.

Because they expect something.There is no so "called" (forgiveness) until you do what they want/expect,by which point it has now become PAYMENT RECEIVED.

Forgiving is (pardon of indebtedness or liabilitys) ,NOT take payment by expecting something to be first earned in some way.Then only = PAYMENT RECEIVED

Folks of faith mostly really honestly simply equal judgementle superimposing control freaks.


1. to impose, place, or set over, above, or on something else.
2. to put or join as an addition (usually fol. by on or upon).
3. Movies, Television. to print (an image) over another image so that both are seen at once: The credits were superimposed over the opening scene.
4To add as a distinct feature, element, or quality: superimposed her own interpretation when she retold the story.

Barb all the stuff you rattle on about like if "we" "me" think this or that about god .And think if "we" and "i" think we really love you blah blah bleat.

Thats just crap .Dribble .Its all only you own point of view taken from the objective point of view of another MERE HUMAN.

You rattle on as much as you like.Quote as much scripture as you wish.But it proves nothing more.It makes it ABSOLUTELY no more truth.

Its still your superimposing judgmentle controling religious view.

And we humans dont need to join any special club to dislike it.We are very many different types of humans who think faith stinks !

You reap some of what you sow for yourself Barb.

(Humans cant just simply claim persecution!without good reason)Barb!!.Specially when they happens to be the actual persecuters themselves!!, through not being willing to be forgiving and instead CREATING!! nasty debts and liabilitys for people.

Get freaking real !!.What a stinking rip off its always been!!.

Tell you what Barb..How about we put it this way.

We non believers now think we are being loving of all our societies too!,by disliking religious faiths.

Its now becoming thought to be whats "GOOD", when being against all religious faith movements.

Its nothing personal.We dislike the faiths!,not so much the faith addicts.

Barb said.."the Bible does say that the world will get worse before His return --that in the last days, men will call good evil, and evil, good. "

Look Barb, i have never been to a university! hell i never even got (high school certificate).I spent only one year at high school.

But it doesnt take me much (intelligence) for me by use of simple "statistics" and the laws of likely "probabilities",when thinking of the VERY OBVIOUS nasty aspect of faiths.

To be able to feel plenty of "comfort" to GUESS man will one day VERY LIKELY call what was wrongly once thought good as now actually being whats bad!.Guess that faith will one day be thought to really suck!.

Thats not hard to guess Barb.It dont take no god to make that simple guess!!.Its so obviously likely.

You keep sying i read in the bible.Look,"They" wrote it in the bible because they were cunning Barb.It wasnt hard to imagine.Thats all it is Barb,imaging what would likely happen with faith in future.The signs were already "all around" them,(folks naturally hated religion) because it often sucks!.

They wrote what wrote because they had to bullshit,or the faith ended like every other faith did that has already been and gone.

Barb its not meant personly!,im just being honest about this stuff and how it makes many of us feel.

Gandolf said...

Mud so glad that comic link was helpful to you.

Thanks again for the interesting etymology lesson on the word God.Interesting to see "invoke" "to pour" and "funnel" there amongst it.

Hmmmm plenty of them always seemed to like to "invoke" a "funnel" for "to pour" our families money etc into their own coffers and pockets ???.Guess you need to invoke a money funnel to keep the clergy all paid up and fed and build the churches and parishes.And pay for holidays over seas etc to harvest the publicity of charity and give gifts to look wonderful for advertisment purposes.

Ohhh and for folks salvation

Pftttttt !!...What a fraud .. the mother of all frauds

mud_rake said...

November 4, 2009 11:44 AM
November 4, 2009 11:58 AM
November 4, 2009 12:18 PM

OCD medication not working?

Chuck O'Connor said...


They were pretty long posts too with links back to her blog. Is narcissism a symptom of OCD?

Barb said...

Folks of faith mostly really honestly simply equal judgementle superimposing control freaks.

So, tell us about those "Christian" relatives of yours?

I had an atheist uncle who was very controlling in his house and hot-headed. In contrast, my father, a believer, was a selfless servant easy-going lover.

Actually, both believers and non-believers can be control freaks with tempers -but at least there is a Biblical check and challenge to the hot-headed controlling Christian. If he listens to the Lord, he'll know he's wrong --and repent of it and strive to do better.

However, there ARE times of rightful righteous indignation --the pedophile priests deserve it for harming kids. Jesus had strong judgmental words for anyone who would "harm these little ones" and some think that refers to those who are vulnerable in their faith, also --as young people are.
That's not to say that truly remorseful pedophile can't be forgiven; Jesus died for the sins of all.

But yes, something is asked of us in return. So what? We are asked to simply "repent of sin; believe and follow Christ." To humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord --to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the annointed One, the Son of God.

The Creator sent us a messenger and how we receive Him determines whether we gain this eternal reward or not. Nothing complicated about it --and we don't set up the conditions for God's plans. He does --and did.

Why is it cunning to have written the Bible as it is? For what purpose? What have we to gain in being martyred around the world since century 1?

Granted, some have mis-used religion, to tell women they must endure polygamy and abusive husbands, e.g., to tell them that birth control is not allowed, to tell little boys God made priests to love little boys like so, to tell people they should never question authority and must obey parents and others telling them to lie or steal for them. Religion is diabolical that calls for stoning young converts and rape victims, honor killings. Of course these are mis-uses of faith when they occur.

Barb said...

God would not ask me to murder my family as a sacrifice; I would be a lunatic for thinking so, listening to another voice. But in Abraham's day, sacrifice was world-wide practice of superstitious people to appease man-made deities. If God, working with such people, chose to see how Abe would use his free will, to see if Abraham would be that faithful, who am I to argue? He provided a lamb in the thicket instead and told Abraham to sacrifice it instead. Then, ever after, a lamb sacrifice would be for the remission of sins in Abraham’s family and among his descendents, the Jews.

This was a symbolic forerunner to a time when God, the Father, would send His OWN Son, the Lamb of God "Agnus Dei" to Take away the Sin of the World --

We can wish God had not used death on a cross of a wonderful, sinless man to give us life --but it seems He did --and made it easy for us to be truly forgiven by faith, instead of by our own penance and sufferings for remission of sin.

The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through JEsus Christ, Our Lord. Romans 3:23

It's the best offer we'll ever get.

When you think about it, most things regarded as sin in Christendom, are harmful to us and/or others when we do them. The world will be a perfect place when we follow Christ instead of yielding to temptation to sin at the bidding of the other guy, the deceiver.

As for persecution, those who hate the Christian message, from Christmas to Resurrection and everything that happened in between , also hate those who bear the message --when they bear the message. Yes, I take blame for being persecuted as a messenger --it's my fault. Jesus prophesied that the message would not be received well by everyone.

But what's not to love about this Jesus? He did miracles and he loved --but He came preaching, "Repent --for the Kingdom is nigh!"
"believe in me." And many eye witnesses claimed to see him alive after his death. This emboldened them to die for what they had seen.
And Jesus predicted,"blessed are you who have seen; how much more blessed are those who believe and yet have not seen."

st. paul wrote it is impossible to please god without faith.

Faith is a gift. "Ask and you will receive."

I hate to see you miss out on this free gift that lasts forever. It makes you mad that I believe this? Or it makes you mad that it just might be true and thus you need to choose Christ before it is too late? Which is it --and why should it make you mad that I believe and you do not and I try to persuade you? One reason--you are not sure I am wrong. And it is depressing if you don’t do something about it –something atheists would rather not think about –or hear about.

Gandolf said...

Barb said..."To humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord "

Humble faithful folks ???

Haaaaaaaaaaa ..Thats a good one

You are being a comedian right?

Only need to look in the dictionary once to understand faithful folk have absolutely nothing at all to do with being humble.

If faithful folks were humble they wouldnt judge or superimpose themselves on people like they do.

As usual what you wrote was just more recited rubbish.Meme`s.

mud_rake said...

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a pervasive characterological disturbance involving one's generalized style and beliefs in the way one relates to themselves and the world. Persons with OCPD are typically deeply entrenched in their dysfunctional beliefs and genuinely see their way of functioning as the "correct" way. Their overall style of relating to the world around them is processed through their own strict standards. While generally their daily experience is such that "all is not well," they tend to be deeply committed to their own beliefs and patterns. The depth of ones belief that "my way is the correct way" makes them resistant to accepting the premise that it is in their best interest to let go of "truth owning."

[OCD online]

The symptoms of this anxiety disorder range from repetitive hand-washing and extensive hoarding to preoccupation with sexual, religious, or aggressive impulses. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming, and often cause severe emotional and economic loss.

Although the acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and come across to others as psychotic, OCD sufferers often recognize their thoughts and subsequent actions as irrational, and they may become further distressed by this realization.

Interestingly, Barb exhibits two of the symptoms of this anxiety disorder: preoccupation with sexual impulses and religious impusles.

Her sexual impulses are cleverly disguised as religious 'concern' about homosexuality. Mountains of words are expressed as she dances around her own personal sexual impulses while muddying the waters with homosexual talk.

She loves this sex talk which I personally observed on an international blog from which she was banned. The people there teased her with raw sex talk and she thoroughly enjoyed it, while pretending to be, gosh, embarrassed by it. It lit her fire while proclaiming that it was gay sex that 'bothered her.'

I know many women about her age and none of them is obsessed with 'sex' as she; not one. They are healthy, mature women and clearly not prissies, yet none engage in sex talk during any of the times I am with them. They see no need to do that.

Barb, on the other extreme, bathes in sex talk, languishes in it, floats in it, then abruptly condemns gay relationships when she realizes that she has over-reached in her compulsion.

Look at the 100 or so comments in this thread. None of the 3 men make mention of sex or sexual acts at all, yet, she dances among us while 'nakedly' tossing out sexual comments and innuendo-- only against gays, of course!

Very odd behavior, as if she is trapped in this odd sexual fantasy that lures men into sex-related discussions that apparently tantalize her and excite her while pretending to be so holy, so righteous before the eyes of God.

That's my take on her specific type of OCD- some concoction of religious and sexual perversion wrapped up in a cunningly clever portfolio.

Barb said...

Chuck, if you have any sense of fairness, you'll let this comment stand if you let Mudrake's last comment stand.

I have many, many interests. One of them is social values and religious values and how we transmit them to future generations. I DO think homosexuality is a tragedy for those caught up in it --and for their parents --a lifestyle about which we should be warning youth to avoid--not encouraging them to explore their sexuality. I find our whole country is obsessed with the issue when they are knocking themselves out to get gays in the military, and to redefine marriage to include couples of the same sex, when every company is granting domestic partner benefits, etc.

Mudrake and others like him (granted, there isn't anyone just like HIM) are obsessed against Christians who believe the Bible.

I particularly find that Mudrake is obsessed with me. And now my sex life.

So, just who is it that has OCD? And why is he so obsessed with OCD? Because his psychiatrist is trying to help him with it, do you suppose?

Gandalf, It's not a lack of humility/humble-ness to BELIEVE and TEACH what the Bible teaches. Have you heard me say I am righteous --or more righteous than you? You have not.

Being a Christian is not about being better than others --but about believing in God and Christ and trying to be a good disciple of HIs.

Barb said...

Of the two previous posts, which one is by a hater? Only one. And it's not me.

Gandolf said...

Barb says..."Have you heard me say I am righteous --or more righteous than you? You have not."

Barb you say it every time you try superimposing your god belief on us.

Why else would you think we need it unless you think it makes you more righteous than us?.

Common sense Barb.Common sense which faith tends to destroy in people.Its easy to see the common sense has been totally distroyed by faith with you.

You cant even put 2+2 together using common sense anymore. And see you are actually claiming being more selfrighteous everytime you try superimposing your silly god beliefs on people.You just cant see it.Your faith doesnt allow/want you to see it.

If you didnt think the belief made you "better",why the hell would you bother!.

And NO i dont want to hear you rattle on AGAIN with a MEMEs about how you read what ever in some bible of yours, written only by men.

Im sorry,but it proves nothing new to me at all.

mud_rake said...

Religious and Sexual OCD, I stated. Let me point out to the 'woman among us me' the many references, both overt and subtle, regarding SEX.

Were I a psychologist or mental health councilor, the statements and references to all-things-sexual would send up RED FLAGS and sound warning bells!

Yet, I'll let her words speak for themselves. Here are specific references to SEX from the first 9 comments. I was going to do more, but began to gag:


The whole thing was trumped up by some sexually immoral teen girls
so they wouldn't get in trouble for witchy and sexy activities in the woods.

And the lead teen had adulterated with or at least tempted John Proctor

just as we should resist adultery, pedophilic tendency, rape inclination, or doing a goat or a dead person! We don't do sodomy!
We don't do sodomy! We don't HAVE to do sodomy in order to have sexual pleasure


The sodomy addiction, e.g., has caused incalculable misery

never dreamed we'd be letting men marry men and women, women. These two-somes are unnatural --and unnecessary and hazardous to health of body,


if your adulterous teen daughter were caught dancing naked in the woods

the girls might still have been prancing lewdly in the woods


men can marry men--legally recognizing sodomy as a normal, nice practice --like normal procreative intercourse according to our bio-design


But those who do want to be sexual with the same sex need to keep that in the closet

(except perhaps in innocent childish curiosity about their bodies

molesters or somebody has made them detest the thought of intimacy with the opposite sex, craving experience with the same sex, despising the normal and craving the bizarre and indecent, undignified activity of sodomy-
it IS a denunciation of anal and oral sex as a substitute for the natural

we should denounce adultery, incest, promiscuity, prostitution, rape, bestiality, necrophilia, various fetishes -


that sex is a powerful drive
that just because it occurs to a man that his own daughter is sexually attractive, he can therefore let his mind wallow incestuously

nor is it moral for a man to lust, fantasize about and pursue another woman besides his wife --nor is it ok to ponder rape or buy a hooker, no matter how urgently you want to have sex --nor is it OK for the funeral parlor worker to practice necrophilia --or the shepherd to do the sheep -

with one of the same sex --just because it's another warm, accessible body and you have an urge?? just because someone is attractive looking and you can imagine "getting off" with the "help" of this person
-as any promiscuity or sex with strangers is


the poor tormented sex addict who can't control the porn and prostitution impulse, or the adulterous tendency, the pedophilic fixation,

re gays and lesbians really any different in having an abnormal, perverse sex drive?

Do you guys all really understand the attraction for anal sex???

oral sex may be a normal variant of sexual behavior among humans,


"don a condom and explore your sexuality."


Wow! Sex-on-the-brain. Reminds me of my late adolescent/teen years when thoughts of sex came about every 20 minutes or so!

What does this attraction to sex-talk indicate? What was going on in her late adolescent/teen years? Was she not permitted to have such thoughts, speak those words, dream those dreams?

We ought to leave all of that to the psychologist.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Good points especially when you consider the point of my original post had very little to do with gay marriage. I don't think Barb understands that her self-righteousness, bigotry and narrow world-view are perfect illustrations of the "Buddy Jesus" syndrome of which I wrote.

She keeps posting and keeps making my point (at least to me) everytime she does it. That being, those that flatter themselves with their own "salvation" minimize the freedom of all those unlike themselves and, do so, while claiming a morality based on nothing more than superstition and fear. She is a bigot and in a country with weaker secular protections would be a despot. Intellectually and psychologically I see very little difference between her world-view and that of the Taliban.

Barb said...

Barb you say it every time you try superimposing your god belief on us.

Why else would you think we need it unless you think it makes you more righteous than us?.

Your logic is lacking here, Gandalf.

I don't tell you that you need "the god belief" because I'm more righteous. I have no idea how "righteous" you are or are not. You need the god belief if the Bible is true --for your own soul's sake --for eternal life. Never mind the righteousness issue. I'm not the one who will decide who merits eternal life. I'm not the law-giver --or the judge. I can only tell you what the Bible says and that i believe it and thus, if I care about people, I should tell them what I believe to be true --for their sakes. If it is true, it MATTERS for eternity whether you are a god-believer or not. It's not about me being more righteous or better than you. And being saved is not about you deserving it; it's about your faith first of all --and then there are qualifications JEsus spells out --but faith in Him is first.


As for Mudrake's cut and pastes, he works very hard at this --which does look like OCD on HIS part!!! Seems he is obsessed with me and what I say. I should be flattered.

He seems to assume no one else can read --so he has to knock himself out to pull together my most excellent analyses. (which I say, not to boast, but to get the old goat's goat! HA!) yes, I think I'm right. Yes, he thinks HE'S MORE right.

I'm no more arrogant than he --but I am less obsessed with him than he is with me. I didn't realize how bad it was until coming here where he just can't get off his Barb focus! Somebody, help that man!

I care about and want to discuss the issues where he's concerned--the issues about which we disagree --whereas his focus is ME. Tsk tsk.

mud_rake said...

"I see very little difference between her world-view and that of the Taliban."

Precisely! I have referred to the fundamentalist christians as the American Christian Taliban in a few of the posts on my blog.

Naturally, those mired in the muck of fundamentalism cannot see the comparison and are in denial of it. One would expect such a response from those thoroughly brainwashed into a 'belief system' that is, at its core, in stark contrast to a democracy, especially American democracy.

The mass shootings at Fr. Hood yesterday illustrate clearly the madness of fundamentalism.

Here is a link to an excellent one-hour lecture by a former Episcopalian bishop, John Shelby Spong, on the topic, "The Terrible Texts of the Bible."
[ ]

Spong has no use for fundamentalism, christian or Islamic, and exposes many examples from the Bible where 'God' gives a license to kill, rape, humiliate, and degrade other human beings.

"Which of the terrible texts of the Bible do you use to denigrate another human being?" he asks.


Barb said...

Intellectually and psychologically I see very little difference between her world-view and that of the Taliban.

If that were true, it would make you the village idiot!! I wouldn't shoot an adulteress, stone a convert, force women into burkas and make them stay home, or behead a journalist or order death to homosexuals. I wouldn't oppress people who believe differently--but I will state the tenets and standards of Christianity wherever people "dwell in darkness" --philosophically, intellectually, and religiously.

Try being objective!

Barb said...

BTW, Mudrake's creative editing of my excerpts don't do me justice. Just for one example: He repeated TWICE, "We don't do sodomy," and separated it out from the context which is as follows from my comment #2:

But as I see it, parents can intentionally help their kids be heterosexual --and young people themselves can reject homosexual ideation at the first thought --just as we should resist adultery, pedophilic tendency, rape inclination, or doing a goat or a dead person! We don't do sodomy! We don't HAVE to do sodomy in order to have sexual pleasure --except for something very damaged in the mind --which needs both compassion and therapy.

that's much more sensible than Mudrake's tortured excerpt.

Barb said...

Chuck, you brought up the Christian elders of Salem --and that prompted my analyses of that situation, based on ARther miller's play on the subject, The Crucible.

I see it was too sexually explicit for Mudrake. My apologies for offending his moral sensibilities.

IN that post #2 --where I brought up the gay issue --it was in reference to Mudrake's own oft-expressed hatred of me and evangelicals --to tell you why I am his target. It's all about homosexuality for him. Christians are dangerous like the Taliban because we oppose gay marriage --which is nothing new in Christendom.

Mudrake is like Satan --a twister of the facts --a twister of what people say and why they say it. The chop job he did on my quotes is a perfect example of his kinship with the Father of Lies.

To refute his lying allegations, I am just fine in the psych. department and the sex department. Happily married, I wish the same joy for all. he's the one who is psychologically miserable and unhappy.

Barb said...

BTW, Mudrake has a goal --to have you tell me to leave --or to have me volunteer to leave.

he is a master manipulator --but it didn't work at Masoni's after a fierce effort on his part.

It never worked at Noocular Option, either.

Barb said...

Speaking of Ft. Hood. My brother called me from there yesterday to say their son, whom they were visiting after his return from Iraq, was not one of the injured.

Barb said...

Mudrake will now count my posts. 1,2,3,4,....

But think of it this way, Chuck --several short posts give you higher numbers, making your blog look quite popular! and busy!

mud_rake said...

WOW! Excessive OCD!

Barb sent 3 'comments' to my blog, at 3:33, 3:36 and 3:42. As usual, I never read them, but send them directly to the delete box.

Surely they were well-crafted, filled with blessings, and topped-off with Bible quotes.

Such futile energy.

Such grand OCD!

Gandolf said...

Barb...."I don't tell you that you need "the god belief" because I'm more righteous. I have no idea how "righteous" you are or are not. You need the god belief if the Bible is true --for your own soul's sake --for eternal life. Never mind the righteousness issue. I'm not the one who will decide who merits eternal life. I'm not the law-giver --or the judge. I can only tell you what the Bible says and that i believe it and thus, if I care about people, I should tell them what I believe to be true --for their sakes."

You dont need to personally verbally tell me,you think i need something.To be telling me you really think i actualy need something, though Barb.

Pushing you bible and beliefs etc on society is enough to have judged that you think we heathens need your bible and beliefs.And what reason would have, other than its obvious you judge that it will make us better...Which mean you MUST think being without it we can only be worse.

Look Barb, you are simply just trying to wriggle your way around the fact that fathful folk are ALWAYS somewhat selfrightous judgementle and superimposing.

If they were not.They their books and beliefs would remain as pure choice for anyone to freely CHOOSE to read or believe as they wish.

Barb..."You need the god belief if the Bible is true --for your own soul's sake --for eternal life."

No judgement of yours or any of your religo mates in that statement hmmmm?? ..."Whos judging" whats "true" or what i "need" again?.

It you Barb and your faithful judgemental attitude....You are obviously selfrightous!! ..or else you would not have decided that i "NEED" anything...You are superimposing ...because you think your book and belief ,is connected to eternal life

Why try and make up some bullshit excuses for it... Barb?

Doing that not only are you judgemental selfrightous and superimposing ....but are quite willing to be deceitful if need as well to top it all off.

Chuck and Mudd i agree about the reference to the religious type Teliban...They dont use guns or bombs so often ... They use their religion as warfare though.

Its a unseen weapon ..not often banned, mostly free use is allowed ...It works silently and can split family and community....It works at the fear areas within people, not so much unlike war type gas bombs that can work on peoples ability to breath properly etc

Yet just like guns and bombs ..its reason for use is to subdue to then gain control.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Mud and Gandy,

What Barb doesn't get is that she over-extends her legal reach through the "defense" of her superstition by working hard to deny civil rights to legal citizens (due process). If our constitution was void of secular protections and empowered her to use her superstitions as civil law, I wonder how far she would go to ensure her conviction. Would she go as far as other well-meaning church fathers like Calvin, Luther, or the Elders of Salem, Mass? Her willingness to limit constitutional protections for the sake of her holy book's instruction indicates that if given the same license as the Taliban she would practice the same actions.

Barb said...

Goodness, Gandalf, you are a stubborn old coot making no sense and you would paralyze a saint, were one your wife.

No offense.

But you really don't understand the Christian message.

It's not about you at all and your need. It's not about Christians seeing you as a heathen. It's about EVERYMAN and EVERY ONE'S OPPORTUNITY --because Jesus rose from the grave and promised resurrection to all who follow Him.

That's what it is --a message that God loves us and has provided this way of salvation.

The difference between us is that I believe it and you do not.

It's interesting that YOU put this moral dimension in there --to say that therefore Christians think they are "better." We are all called to do better, be better, than we are naturally inclined to be --to follow christ who said "Be ye perfect as I am perfect."

So we strive --but that's not what evangelization is about first of all--it's about faith in Christ which the Bible says God requires of us-- and for which He gives the free gift of salvation.

Barb said...

Chuck What Barb doesn't get is that she over-extends her legal reach through the "defense" of her superstition by working hard to deny civil rights to legal citizens (due process).

O, I get VERY well what you think on this topic, Chuck. I wasn't born yesterday! Which is the point --YESTERDAY, ALL people EVERYWHERE thought marriage was the union of a man and a woman --not for just any two organisms who want to cohabitate.

It's not the Christians who are coming up with some new idea, some big constitutional change or social change --though we see NOW that we should have defined marriage in the constitution, but who could have guessed that this day of same sex marriage would ever come?? No one imagined such a thing before the last couple of decades.

We've only recently lost our sense regarding marriage and sexuality. And it's not because we are suddenly smarter and more socially advanced and peaceful, either --obviously.

Barb said...

Chuck: Her willingness to limit constitutional protections for the sake of her holy book's instruction indicates that if given the same license as the Taliban she would practice the same actions.

Once again, Chuck, that's just stupid! I already clarified the big difference between myself and the Taliban. Do you bother to read or are you like Mudrake with his eyes scrunched shut, his fingers in his ears, and his mouth blathering away so he can't hear any sense or think it.

Barb said...

Mudrake --you are the one documenting my every post. What does that tell you about obsession???? hint hint : D

Barb said...

Say, Chuck, did your wife happen to meet a dance major named Jenny K from Toledo? who was in grad school for dance therapy in Chicago the last couple of years?

mud_rake said...

"Her willingness to limit constitutional protections for the sake of her holy book's instruction indicates that if given the same license as the Taliban she would practice the same actions."

Exactly the same tactic as the Taliban which is why, and I repeat, fundamentalists by any name create the same havoc when citizens attempt to live under fully democratic laws.

Holy Book governments will always, by definition, be partial, bigoted and non-democratic. They have to.

Religion, religious practices, and religious laws have no place in democratic societies. Yet, here in America, fundamentalists work very hard to insert their religious beliefs into our democratic society. Salem, Massachusetts already proved that.

Say, Chuck, did your dog visit Doggie Cut and Curl in Chicago last year?

Gandolf said...

"I wonder how far she would go to ensure her conviction. Would she go as far as other well-meaning church fathers like Calvin, Luther, or the Elders of Salem, Mass? Her willingness to limit constitutional protections for the sake of her holy book's instruction indicates that if given the same license as the Taliban she would practice the same actions."

Chuck thats the big problem with letting judgement be made by use of religious suggested supposed reasoning and logic.

Where is the line to be drawn? ..Where does the reason and logic end and the madness begin??.

I mean to say some folks think its good religious logic and reason, to refuse their kids having blood transfusions.
Some religious folk think religious reason and logic leads them to lead their followers to death,like over there in johnstown etc.
Some religious feel its reasonable and logical to have their followers believe almost anything and part with all their money,look at the Benny Hinns

You are so right Chuck its just damn dangerous they are almost like the Talibarmy for sure

mud_rake said...

Any comments on the video by Bishop John Shelby Spong? I know that it was one hour in length, but in the first 10 minutes, Spong presents his thesis regarding the 'Terrible Texts of the Bible.'

The texts he chose would have been chosen by the Taliban had they been in the Koran.

As expected, these texts serve what Sponge calls the tribal deity,that deity to which the tribes of old prayed for 'guidance' for 'righteousness' as well as for 'vengeance.'

That word, righteousness is bandied around by the faithful like a soccer ball. It is most curious to realize who were the authors of righteousness: the tribal leaders- the same ones who created the deity - the deity who 'gave' them their power to be the tribal leaders.

Cozy stuff, neatly bound in the book of babble.

How many tribal deities have there been throughout history? Way too many to count.

Is tribalism still in vogue today? Where on earth do 21st century tribal people invoke a tribal deity to guide, to care for, and to smite?

Clearly not in the Western world; not in the EU nor America.

No, tribalism is dead and so is the tribal deity.

The deity lives in Afghanistan, though- among the Pashtuns, Tajiks, and the Hazaras. These medieval tribesmen clearly honor, pray to and supplicate themselves for their tribal deity- essentially to ask him to smite the other! The Taliban know this deity, they honor him, they 'believe' in him.

There is no room for freethinking in this society; it must be controlled by the deity and those 'appointed' by this deity to do his will on earth.

Imagine this same scenario playing out on the streets of Chicago, Toledo or Christ Church!

It is laughable, at best. Criminal for sure.

Yet right here, in our own neck of the woods, there are those people who worship this tribal deity that the Semites created 6000 years ago. People living in our own neighborhoods who worship this long-dead tribal god - the god who supposedly inspired those 'terrible' texts' cited by Sponge.

Were this scenario made into a film, it would be classified as a comedy/fantasy.

By the way, [no not dogs or dance], what events are planned in your area for the anniversary of Darwin's book this coming week?

Toledo University has a special presentation on the 17th, "Charles Darwin: The Concise Story of an Extraordinary Man", presented by Dr. Tim Berra, Professor Emeritus, Department of Evolution, Ecology & Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University.

Perhaps Barb is already planning a Creationist prayer vigil outside of the theater for this event.

Barb said...

So, Gandalf and Muckdweller, an atheist gov't is better than one based on Christian values of equality, free will, good morals, compassion, generosity, religious freedom, free enterprise, FREE SPEECH, rule of law, justice, the constitution, etc.

You are waiting for Utopia --even though America is the best, most humane and prosperous and generous nation with the best FORM of gov't on the earth --even though the Christians have influenced the gov't from its beginning --leading to the freedom of slaves and many other humane aspects.

Your problem is that you don't agree with the Bible about morals OR religious free exercise--it's all about abortion and gaydom for you "progressives." You think the sky is falling if we don't get gay marriage and keep NEWLY LEGAL abortion legal and get the tax payers to pay for abortion and force doctors to do it or refer it to be done --as with the Pelosi Health Care bills. We already pay for the results of immoral conduct in our huge welfare burden (and we do it out of Christian compassion) --and we already pay huge health care burden for those with AIDS from promiscuity in the U.S. and Africa --again, rightly, out of compassion which characterizes our Christian culture.

You also trouble petty minds with fear of public prayer and Ten Commandment postings and crosses as war memorials--traditions of American culture --as if either could possibly be harmful or even contradictory to major faiths who immigrate here. And I say, if it does offend their Islamic, Buddhist, or Wiccan sensibilities to come into a Christian culture, they need not come. We should not be changing our culture to appease religions that are less respectable by silencing Christianity and removing its influence --and to please only you atheists, a minority that has all the freedom you need. You can commit sodomy if you want without me coming to get you--but if you read ol' Muckhead there, you'll see he wants Christians muzzled and locked up.

You guys seem to WANT a change to make sodomy more prevalent and to give child-free homosexuals the same family-supportive perks as those who raise the next generation. Even though it DOES harm the economy and the gov't dole and deprive us of children for future survival, for care of the elderly, for taxpaying workers and national security defenders. You want to see children more free to "explore sexuality" --and more encouraged to do so via gay-advocating public ed. You want to make sure that women can always abort the products of their irresponsibility with irresponsible men who lack committment to the women they bed.

you don't want a good society --but one where people don't know the difference between good and bad and they champion the bad. You don't want school children to feel bound nor influenced by The Ten C's.

Gandalf, just because a minority of people do evil in the name of religion, does not make atheism a good choice. ANYTHING can be done and has been done in the name of atheism. you can keep your Hitlers and your Stalins and your Castros and Mao Tse what's his name and Little Kim of Korea. They all belong to your church. America would never knowingly vote for an atheist because their reputation as world leaders is wholly negative--UNLESS you succeed in atheistic evangelism and dupe a majority of voters into believing there is no God to whom we are accountable eternally. Then a smooth-talking professed atheist MIGHT get elected --but I don't think it's imminent. We are more subject to phony Christians who are "practical atheists" --who agree with atheists governmentally and live their personal lives as though God did not exist (Clinton, e.g.) and vote as though God did not exist (Obama and T. Kennedy.)

Barb said...

Mudrake, make fun of my comment about the dancer all you want --you have no idea how inter-connected the arts community can be --especially the Christian arts community--which his wife is.

Chuck O'Connor said...


You said, "Christian values of equality, free will, good morals, compassion, generosity, religious freedom, free enterprise, FREE SPEECH, rule of law, justice, the constitution, etc."

Which of course is either ignorance of history or a lie.

Those values were driven by thinkers like Locke, Rousseau, Diderot and other giants of enlightenment.

If you want a Christian Government then you need to look to Calvin's Geneva, Salem, Massachusetts or Luther's latter writings of separate secular and sacred kingdoms, with the secular subordinate to the sacred. Luther's view of course also led to his violently anti-semitic writings which of course inspired Hitler and Mein Kempf.

Please don't take credit for civilized advancements that have nothing to do with the unquestioned presuppositions you cling to as truth. Our secular freedoms exist because our founders did not want to return to the despotism ensured by the Divine Right of Kings or the murder in legal persecution ventured by Calvinist Geneva and Salem.

mud_rake said...

Perhaps Pope had Barb in mind:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope 1709

Barb said...

The most Biblically Christian gov't ever is the good ol' USA. And it has made us the best --the most self-critical --the most generous --and the most joyous, comfortable, prosperous land on earth--such that everyone else wants to immigrate here.

Compassion and generosity, rule of law and justice are not Englightenment results --as much as from the prophets and the law of the Jews --who encouraged much that has evolved today as values best demonstrated in cultures with Christian heritage.

Jesus took the Law and the Prophets a step forward --and no one has improved on His teachings --try hard as the Episcopalians do!

Barb said...

Perhaps the Bible had Mudrake in mind when it said "Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools."

Barb said...

I take it back. Jesus said we must not call anyone fool lest we be in danger of Hell --or the judgment --or one of those. But I was only letting the shoe fit whomever it fits!

Gandolf said...

Chuck O'Connor said...

You said, "Christian values of equality, free will, good morals, compassion, generosity, religious freedom, free enterprise, FREE SPEECH, rule of law, justice, the constitution, etc."

"Which of course is either ignorance of history or a lie."

Yes Chuck,its simply lying for Jesus.

One wonders where Barbs religiously deluded thinking allows her to think,some poor person sadly only unluckily "born" to some religious whacko`s like those in johnstown and so many other religious zealots that criss-cross our countries.

Have much real honest,"values of equality","free will","good morals","generosity" shown to their plight which is often sadness,"FREE SPEECH" without fear of being dumped from religious idiot families for daring to speak freely,justice etc etc

Barb sadly you have plenty to say,But seems you think very little about matters first, before you speak.Religious indoctrination totally clouds your reasoning and logic.You care not how your beliefs hurt some people also,such is your selfish, self centred approach.Only "your" salvation seems to matter,you care not how many else suffer in this world for it.

Barb said..."Jesus said we must not call anyone fool lest we be in danger of Hell --or the judgment --or one of those. But I was only letting the shoe fit whomever it fits!"

That is the least of what you really have to worry about.So many have even lost their lives on this earth because of people like yourself who push beliefs in unproven god/s.And all manner of sadness and pain has been experience through religious thoughts and the faiths of people like yourself,who give little time to even bother to even consider the nasty effects that are happening.

I dont know whats in any afterlife there may or may not be.

But still i know something for very very sure,i would NOT like to be in your shoes Barb.

Gandolf said...

mud_rake said... "Any comments on the video by Bishop John Shelby Spong? I know that it was one hour in length, but in the first 10 minutes, Spong presents his thesis regarding the 'Terrible Texts of the Bible.'

The texts he chose would have been chosen by the Taliban had they been in the Koran. "

Sorry Mud, i have it slowly downloading now! right this very minute.So i can give you my opinion of it..I "would have" done so already for sure,but i only have a "dial up" internet connection.It takes ages to download any videos before they can then actually be watched.

"By the way, [no not dogs or dance], what events are planned in your area for the anniversary of Darwin's book this coming week?"

Oh well where i live its all mostly country hicks that dont often even think about such things.Im sure in the big cities some folks likely will have organized something.
Personally i do have respect for much that Darwin taught us,just as i do have for many inteligent folks who studied and learned things to help us all.

Im not sure if maybe its wrong?,but i will simply just be "honest" and say i dont really have many such people that i kind of worship in any special way.

But i still have much respect for many of them.

mud_rake said...

The follies of fundamentalism lead one to creative writing...

The tribal deity is a curious fellow, to be sure. I'll bet that all of these fellows shared a commonality. Although I do not know many tribal deities, surely we could conjure up one to serve our needs.

Let's see what our needs would be if we were living say 4000 years ago. We'd need protection from the other tribal deities as well as protection from Nature. Of course we'd need food and water as well as land to call our own.

There. That is the 'need' list.

Of course, the deity would need supplication for his many 'blessings' on the favored tribe. Bonfires to be lit, chanting, burned offerings, smoke rising skyward. Many 'thank you' songs and prayers, perhaps a special tent or cave or structure built in his name for the supplication rites.

There. Payback for the guardianship and favors.

So the deity fellow, of course always unseen, gets a prayer shack, some fire, songs, chanting and some burnt offering. And the tribe gets protection and food, water and land.


But, and I hate to throw some cold water on this grand two-way love affair, but what if the crops fail or the water runs dry? Or the tribe is attacked by that other tribe, just over the hill?

Do we blame the deity fellow for letting us down? Do we curse him or flip him the bird?

Well, we ought not piss him off otherwise he might abandon us altogether. Plan B- penance, increased supplication, bigger prayer shack, larger bonfires, more numerous burnt offerings, louder prayers...

Always more. After all, the deity fellow is so much more powerful, even more powerful than the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz!

And who are we? Just mere bumbling humans, scratching out a living day after day. Surely if we just do more, sacrifice more, praise more, make a larger prayer shack, fall down on our knees frequently...

"I am the great and powerful DEITY!" thunders across the valleys and mountains.

And so it goes, ad nauseum.

The tribal deity is never satisfied. There are always too few supplications. Too infrequent penitential offerings. Not nearly enough prostration...

Never enough. And if one dares question anything, the trap door opens! Blamo! Gone FOREVER, for ALL ETERNITY! Damnation, damn it!

No wonder most of the civilized people of the world boxed up their tribal deities, nailed the lid on tightly, and buried them forever.

Human intelligence is our deity now. Learning, discovery, experimentation-- finding out for ourselves about this earth, this solar system, galaxy and universe. Discovering the stuff of life, the atom, fission, chromosomes, the Internet, evolution, space travel...

Clearly no need for voodo any longer. No need for supplication to that unseen but all powerful deity that our tribal ancestors feared and worshiped.

No, he's buried deep in the soil. There's no time nor need to create a new one; our brains, our mind has been set free from all of that inhibiting and fearful nonsense!

Oh, to be alive in the 21st century where there are no limits to human creativity, no walls to box in imagination, no punishment for thinking, just discovery after marvelous discovery.

Carpe Diem!

Barb said...

Gandalf, you seem to think I'm saying things I don't say. E.G. I think you believe I'm saying all Christian values are only Christian in origin. That's not what I said or meant.

Yes, there are roots of democracy in Greece/Rome. Capitalism comes out of the Enlightenment of 18th C. but both were surely existant in various other times and places.

But Christianity supports democracy and free enterprise/capitalism --but it also supports sharing and they tried communal living in the NT --holding all things in common but this apparently didn't survive.

Christians believe in free will, equality of persons --yes there were slaves in ancient Israel and all over the world in the first century, before and since.

It's the implications of Christianity that led to abolition in the U.S. and England. The abolitionists were motivated by faith. Evolution, on the other hand, supported "survival of the fittest in a dog eat dog natural world." It was compatible with both slavery and Hitler's genocide. And evolution was compatible with racism because many believed the white race was the most evolved. It was also ok in Hitler's germany to kill off the defective people with the defective genes --UNnatural selection. It was not OK by any interpretation of the New Testament.

Christianity is never hostile to equality of persons, right to life, freedom, free speech --correction: there ARE Christian churches who lean more toward male supremacy and stifling the speech and equality of women --but there are Biblical grounds for equality of women --just as there are Biblical grounds for male hierarchy. Most of us really prefer a man who wears the pants in his home and leads --and a church that has a lot of wise male leadership --males who recognize the helpmeet role of women is sometimes an advisory and leadership role in areas where needed. Men who recognize their need of women in areas of leadership and responsibility, who recognize women's value in her feminine roles.

Mudrake No, he's buried deep in the soil.,

bet you're wrong, Mudrake! Buried is what he is NOT any longer! Speculate all you wish. To come to your conclusions, you have to believe the resurrection didn't happen. I don't think anyone would be willing to be martyred for a faith in something that didn't happen. Not even the disciples.

Barb said...

Barb sadly you have plenty to say,But seems you think very little about matters first, before you speak.Religious indoctrination totally clouds your reasoning and logic.You care not how your beliefs hurt some people also,such is your selfish, self centred approach.Only "your" salvation seems to matter,you care not how many else suffer in this world for it

Seems to me YOU think very little about what I say --and read carelessly, Mr. Gandalf.

I tell you over and over that the salvation of others IS the motivation for Christian witness. Yet yere you come AGAIN saying I don't care about the salvation of others.

As for suffering, today is an emphasis in the U.S. on the "persecuted church" around the world. You are right that many suffer for Christian faith --but not at the hands of the Christians. It is the Christians who suffer. We had a Christian from Iraq speak in our church today--says the church is growing like wildfire in northern Iraq. Even though Christians suffer persecution there and many places around the globe.

If the non-Christians are so great and so progressive, why are they persecuting the Christians?? And why do people convert to Christianity in spite of tremendous persecution? Because they really believe that JEsus Christ was from God, died for our sins, rose from the grave --and said He'd return for His church and to rule on the earth --after a time of tribulation --which many do suffer in every generation. For what? Why do persecutors hate Christians? Why do YOU!!! Where's the rationality in your intense hatred for people who disagree with your atheism??? Why not just believe what you want without all the hatred and anger, the vitriol?

I don't hate you guys and I don't treat Mudrake the way he has treated me in the past. (He's being fairly restrained here and seems able to talk about some things besides me at some length --good boy, Mudly! Must be taking your pills! --heh heh --granted, I am his indirect target in his musings here.)

mud_rake said...

I quite enjoyed my creative writing exercise regarding the tribal deity. In fact, I'd like to engage us all in a creative writing exercise.

One of the handful of creative teachers I experienced was my senior English teacher. One of my favorite assignments involved 5 elements which we had to weave into a story of no more than 100 words.

Let's give this a go. Here are the elements taken, in fact, from the comments of Barb. Of course, her preponderance of pap offers a multitude of possible elements.

How about these 5:

1.) girls prancing lewdly in the woods

2.) the closet

3.) innocent childish curiosity about their bodies

4.) the shepherd does the sheep

5.) dons a condom

OK, let's get cracking!

Barb said...

well, now, who has a lewd mind? And who is so obsessed as to go to all the work you do to pull stuff out of my comments -- Lewdly juxtaposing phrases which are perfectly sensible IN CONTEXT.

I can't think that any creative activity on those phrases wouldn't be lewd coming from the Muck-dweller. I already used the words in a non-lewd, more clinical, context. I'm sure you can't do the same.

mud_rake said...

While we are all editing and revising our creative writing essay, I thought I'd share some comments in the Letters to the Editor that I found in the Toledo blade on HOMOPHOBIA.

Perhaps this will give us some insight into the 'discussion' that we are having here.

We each define our own morality

I would like to thank letter writer Barbara Mason Rohrs for helping me define my morality. Does she live under a rock? Each person decides his or her own morality. It cannot be customized. It is a choice. Numerous medical researchers and magazines tell us that most homosexuality is genetic; it is not a choice but a physical reality. Therefore it is not immoral. I have multiple sclerosis. It was not a choice. It is a physical reality. Therefore, I am not immoral because of it. And every sexual act performed by a gay couple is also enjoyed by straight couples, if they choose.
A little serious research seems to be in order here.
barbara rochelle
Heysler Road

Homosexuals don't choose orientation

Some people like Gen. Peter Pace and Barbara Mason Rohrs, a March 22 letter writer, would like to dismiss homosexual behavior as merely a moral weakness and liken it to adultery, lying, or stealing. What their intolerance is, however, is blatant bigotry and ignorance.
The most common belief of human sexuality researchers is that homosexual orientation is caused by a pre-existent genetic makeup which is established at conception. This may be triggered early in life by an unknown factor in the environment. If the factor is present, the gene or genes causing homosexuality will be triggered. Recent research may present the possibility of changing that genetic code before birth to prevent homosexuality.
Whatever one's religious, scientific, or political biases are, most people would agree that people in their right mind would not choose to become gay or lesbian and subject themselves to immense amounts of homophobia, discrimination, physical abuse, and emotional-spiritual abuse. Common sense alone should cause one to think twice before accusing homosexuals of choosing their sexual orientation. To say that it is merely a moral weakness is absurd.
Linda S. Garrison

Homophobia in America appalling

Barbara Mason Rohrs' March 22 letter regarding Gen. Peter Pace's comment on gays in the military is myopic and without substantiated, verifiable truth in regard to her casual dismissal of genetics being a basis for homosexuality.
She failed to mention her clinical and scholarly credentials that would render her comments helpful. They wouldn't come from misinterpreted biblical writings, would they? If so, I am confident that she strictly adheres to all admonishments found in her studies of the Bible.
More to the point of General Pace's views, why is it that America is the only western power that refuses service in the military to patriotic gay men and women? The systemic homophobia in this country is appalling and counter to the tenets of the Constitution.
Ms. Mason Rohrs also drags out the old axiom that gays just cannot contain themselves when it comes to being in close proximity to members of the same sex. Her lack of understanding of human sexuality would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Her attitude continues to foster fear, hate, and misinformation.
Because of such views, the military discharged more than 50 translators (thought to be gay) of Pashtu, Farsi, and Arabic around 9/11, thereby lessening the chances of intercepting and translating critical messages sent by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The military still does not have enough folks to translate these languages so that we may know what our foes are planning, all because they are gay.
It is disheartening and profoundly troubling that her views are so prevalent in today's society. Fear and intolerance ultimately will be defeated, but at a terrible price for so many good people. Sanctimonious and unsubstantiated superstition also will be defeated.
Nicholas E. Felt

mud_rake said...

In case you were wondering about the original Letter to the Editor, here it is:

Toledo Blade
Letters to the Editor
Thursday, March 22, 2007

Moral people will flee temptation

Gen. Peter Pace spoke for millions worldwide when he said homosexual
acts are immoral like adultery. Why? Because both are temptations
that ought to be resisted at the first thought. Moral people flee
temptation. (No, Oprah and Montel, homosexuality is not genetic or

I read that 16 universities offer co-ed dorm rooms and anyone may
sign up for them, not just dating couples, but strangers. Some rooms
practically had revolving doors with people frequently changing
roommates for current girl/boyfriends. This is as crazy as the co-ed bathroom phenomenon.

We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders (the GLBTs) in barracks and military bathrooms. It is simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.

Just as a moral and responsible father wouldn't want his daughter to share a dorm room with a man who would naturally and likely be
tempted to jump into bed with her, he also wouldn't want his son to
have to share quarters with anyone (male or female) who is tempted to
jump into bed with him.

So why not let the GLBTs all room together in the military? Because
they are sexually attracted and tempted by each other, of course.
It's unnatural to expect to throw attracted young people together in
intimate quarters without an eventual breach in moral conduct.

With that breach comes tremendous risk for emotional trauma,
pregnancy, disease, jealousy, fights, break-ups, infidelity to
spouses and sweethearts back home - all the traditional harms of
immorality not conducive to troop morale and cohesiveness.

General Pace should stick by his guns, and the liberal media should
get real and withdraw theirs.

Barbara Mason Rohrs

Maumee OH

Chuck O'Connor said...


A couple of questions. Why is it necessary that Mud, Gandy and I agree with you for your perspective to be valid?

And do you expect me to consider your point of view valid when you ignore the historical atrocities wrought by Christianity (e.g. The Southern Baptist Conferences defense of slavery through biblical sanction) and, indict atheism with Christianity's sins (e.g. Nazi Germany's 99% Christian population who advocated anti-semitism born from Luther's writing and the medieval church)?

If you wish to be coercive in your arguments you will need to approach them with a greater level of historical accountability. The faith you adhere to has initiated terrible horrors which it actively ignores. Additionally, you will need to dial down the persecution complex. Your faith has constitutional protections which afford its cultural preservation.

Lastly, your opposition to the universal application of 14th amendment due process contract protections for ALL Americans, based on your Holy Book's superstitious moral qualifications, contradicts your assertion that Christian morals empower a free society. Your attempt to own enlightened Libertarian principles as Christian is pretentious and dishonest.

I hope you would be better than this.

Your arguments reinforce my skepticism towards the notion that extreme, orthodox Evangelical Christianity is not much more than a psychological delusion practiced by Narcissists with a sado-masochistic persecution complex.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Thanks for providing the full picture.

I appreciate your commitment to evidence and your opposition of bigotry.

But, I also think that Barb is mentally ill (OCD in the form of scrupulosity) and with our tough-love opposition she can also benefit from our compassion and charity.

That said, keep providing facts. It helps bring awareness.

Barb said...

Chuck, you never cease to disappoint -when you encourage the obsession of Mudrake, Denis Eble, about me. That letter I wrote to the newspaper which he reprinted here was full of common sense --not bigotry, not hatred. Did you read it?

I don't think you are a parent of a teen girl yet --or son --right? but when you are, do you want your straight son to have a gay roommate or a girl roommate, in college or military? If you do, your sexual morals and common sense would be non-existant --or low --at best. Will you send them where there are co-ed bathrooms used simultaneously by both sexes?

Why don't any of you ever deal with what I actually say --instead of your prejudices against people with sexual common sense?

That's what my letter--which Mudrake dug up-- was about --and the homosexual lobby was ever-ready to focus on their misbegotten mythical notion that gays are born, not made.

I hope he digs up all my old published letters. And while he's at it, could he find the one that was published in Newsweek --because I haven't been able to find it myself....

Barb said...

Good grief, Chuck, I would never expect you 3 to "validate" my views. I just wish you could deal with them instead of making ad hominem attacks that my views are so invalid that I must be mentally ill.

I argue POINTS --you guys focus on persons and your tactic is intimidation and scorn. Whoever said men are more logical!?! I think it's the fact that you cannot put up a good argument that causes the scorn and schoolyard bullying as a substitute.

Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

Barb said...

About the southern Baptists. Both the Baptists and the Methodists split over slavery. My church is the free branch of Methodists. Slavery was common, accepted and practiced universally --until abolition led by Christians.

I never say there aren't sinners or sinful events in Christendom. Nor did the church correct all social ills as it spread around the world. But it has been the best movement in the right direction. And you can't say the same for atheism. So just what is it you think I should concede? That Germans had a Lutheran society? Yes, but Hitler, raised to be a Roman Catholic (of German heritage) just like Denis Eble, had no love for the church or religious faith. In fact, Denis and Adolf have quite a bit in common --in terms of Denis's expressed views against Christians, wanting them muzzled and locked up.

If I were as obsessive as he is, I'd go look up those old statements. If he's as obsessive as I think he is, he'll probably go and get those statements off his blog right now!! But I'm not going to look for them. I've got better things to do.

My husband says every hospital in my city was started by religious people --except Med College of Ohio, now U.T. 's med school hospital, a state hospital from the start.

Most of our nation's colleges were also started as religious schools or by religious people or churches.

I'll bet most homeless missions and works among the poor are church-related.

atheists, however, have the ACLU, causing no end of trouble, and Planned Parenthood, the largest promoters of abortion in the world.

Chuck O'Connor said...


You are confusing and your posts only make me think you are mentally ill. Sorry, you don't have any valid points.

Barb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

Chuck --by your own admission, you are battling confusion in your own head, so how could you recognize validity or logic in mine?

BTW, I know of no atheist competitor for the homeless missions or hospitals in town and gov't only built one hospital out of half a dozen in the area. All the rest have Christian roots.

You say Christianity has great evil in its history. I say the whole world does but Christianity moved the western world to be more free and compassionate.

What don't you find valid about that? What is your rebuttal? Atheism sure hasn't been a force for good.

You like to say Hitler was Christian? But I can't find any evidence that he was different than Denis --Catholic-raised and hating people who disagree with him in his anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiments. Wanting to deny the freedom and free speech of those who disagree.

Hitler killed 11 million--and only 6 million were Jews. The 5 million were imperfect physically or mentally --and THE CHRISTIANS like Bonhoeffer--THE SAME PEOPLE Denis blasts. You all blast me as mentally ill--as an insult. You feign compassion for someone with OCD --but it's your weapon in the absence of a good argument. Those who hate Christians call them OCD kool-aid drinkers, etc.

Chuck, why would you buddy up to someone who doesn't believe in freedom of religious belief?

You say my beliefs are Taliban-like? You have no logic or proof behind that statement. Just because I don't want to see a new definition of marriage enshrined into law --as never before. Just because I think abortion is infanticide --which it is.

Where is YOUR logic or sense?

mud_rake said...

She does babble-on. It's as if she needs to 'cover' everything so that nothing is left exposed. Thus the 6 comments today.


Gandolf said...

Hey Mud cheers, thought the Bishop John Shelby Spong ,was excellent! as usual.John really seems to explain things very well.However had a power cut,so only saw about half before computer crashed.And it takes ages to download.Glad i checked it a couple of times as it downloded.The moses story :) what a god hmm.....the "our" god ..Who dont like the other folk type god.

Its good to listen to people like Sponge willing to cut to the chase!,and not try making excuses upon excuses upon excuses.Some fundys try leading you off into long word games while ignoring certian aspects of the belief at the same time.Their god can be anything he want!,some way or other they can explain how it can be.Our supposed heavenly father can be ruthless towards those he dislikes,even if then his children should expect they would then likely be really so very different.Some moral standard.

I know i need to be wary of such people who try excusing the god written in the bible.Their morals worry me,you can tell they just dont care less!!, how many have suffered and even died.For the belief they try to excuse and even make still to seem ok.

The thoughtlessness and nastiness of such people leaves me speachless at times as i struggle to understand, how selfishness could create such a blindness of the "religious suffering" all around them that happens and in that sense actually (pays for their own supposed salvation).Never mind Jesus,folks are being crucified for peoples belief in god/s,all over the place.In most every single town someone suffers, because humans invented belief of gods.

The Barbs of this world give not a moments thought that the bible god beliefs they infect our earth with,ends up creating many many religious cults of abuse and indecencies that scurge upon our earth all manner of nastiness.That then breeds amongst us,and has helped create many of the problems even within our very on societys today.The divisions in our societies, all have their roots based back in religion itself.

The religious Barbs of this world give hardly a thought to the religious crap of the many god beliefs, that infect this world like a cursed contagious desease.That are also behind the religious unrest that causes folks to war in disharmony,like seems to have happened in your Fort Hood.
They see not that beliefs of the god/s, are also whats festering! behind the warfare in places like all the Palestines and Israels of the world.

Nope ..No..Zip..Hardly worth considering to a faith follower..Gay folk are what they need to be worring about.SODOMIEEEE ....People SHARING dressing rooms ...tut tut....Ohhhhhhhh it will be the end of us...Panic stations !!

I get so board at times reading folks of faith sad attempts to make things seem ok.I think of my religiously thoughtless uncaring family, and all i now feel is complete embarrassment disgust and utter shame.

To quickly stop any feelings of anger, i feel pity for them !.In acknowledgment that its mostly about religious indoctrination and ignorance and mindcontrol.

They say stuff like Barb did .."Christians believe in free will, equality of persons " Yet they seek to control the free will of everybody by rule of their faith belief.Their is no equality, because they try to push their belief on others which is domination not any equality.

Gandolf said...

Barb.."My husband says every hospital in my city was started by religious people --except Med College of Ohio, now U.T. 's med school hospital, a state hospital from the start."

Well done maybe you have proved the city is over-run by having very many religious hitler types.

So what?....Of course Religious hitler type still build hospitals.Specially when their is so many of them around.Im sure even the real "Hitler" had he won the war and lived! he might have built many hospitals too!,does this help prove that hitlerism is the best option?.

Or does it just prove that there was simply just so very very many hitlerists around!.

How do you do the maths to expect a large lesser amount of non believers will show up in the local statistics of having been those that got the most funds going to build the hospitals?..Are you crazy? ..There has simple not (so far) ever been anywhere near the same numbers of non believers around! as there has always been religious people.

Its also often been customary that the "funding drives" to obtain these monies for such projects,often has been applied for and run under one of the local "church identities".

This doesnt prove that non believers dont also donate and do charity.Many have even helped in some of these very same funds.

One day when faith beliefs die out,non believers will always be those mostly involved in these big projects.And it will be simply because there is many more of them.

Barb said...

Gandalf--I believe, if I recall correctly, Hitler built crematoriums and gas chambers, and pits for the bodies. NOt hospitals.

Read The Hiding Place about Corrie ten Boom, a Christian who lost her father and sister in HItler's camps where she herself suffered for hiding Jews in their house. Hitler killed Christians who opposed him--millions.

In America, Christian groups and individuals have done most of the good that has been done. They make up most of the NGOs which do relief work around the world.

Chuck, I couldn't agree with you MORE that religion around the world has been a real blight --especially Islam. You mentioned the struggle between Palestine and Israel --those aren't Christians. Yes, Ireland is an example of warring Christians --and you can find warring Christians inside churches and Christian institutions --but it's not Christianity that causes these wars today. Hitler and Stalin, Castro and LIttle Kim and Osama and Che --not Christians.

You tell me of a Christian despot today who loves Christ and tries to serve him --by blood thirsty and terrorist behavior. And don't be so ridiculous as to suggest me just because I think marriage should be between one man and one woman instead of 2 men or 2 women or polygamy. Don't call me a terrorist just because I think abortion is terror in the womb --which it logically is.

Yes, Gandalf, atheists and non-Christians ALSO give to charity --but as a group, they are only interested in debunking Christianity. They don't seem to organize for anything else. They participate WITH Christians in secular efforts, such as the arts and hospital aid, humane society, environmental concerns, etc. But atheists simply do not have a reputation for good works --as a group.

Gandolf said...

Barb said.."Gandalf--I believe, if I recall correctly, Hitler built crematoriums and gas chambers, and pits for the bodies. NOt hospitals."

Thats right he simply chose to kill rather than just infect and control,he didnt bother with worring about needing certain people to follow his beliefs he just killed them instead.It was war at the time.No you dont build many hospitals when you are still waring.

Christianity and all religion is right in their and involved in wars and killing people for sure,who do you think helps vote people like Bush into power.Folks like Bush will go to war just after having said at a "prayer meeting" that quote:,"Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

While these Audits are wary of simply laying full blame on religion and faith,the world would need to be stupid complete clowns to try to think religion and specially "faith" isnt deeply involved in these problems.

To my way of thinking, a tyrant can be a tyrant whether its a hitler or a godbelief.

Religion is behind bombings and problems like you just had in Fort Hood.Its the worlds most very worse cancer for sure.Not only is it involved in use violence and force,its involved in a type of psychological warfare also.

This here By Charles Sabillon explains matters

Chuck O'Connor said...


Here are a few organizations that I've had the privilege to work with that are "atheist" and do service to a great number of people. There is no test for faith to be a member and they do not hold a need for theism as their reason for being. They are non-theist or atheist organizations serving humanity.

The American Dental Association
The American Diabetes Association
The American Medical Association
The American College of Rheumatology
The Federal Drug Administration
The Peace Corps
Doctors Without Borders
The United States Congress (no religious test for office)
The United States Supreme Court (no religious test for nomination or appointment)
The United States Presidency (no religious test for office)

Additionally, for your edification, here is a list of Christian Terrorists:


Barb said...

Big mistake, Chuck. Just because an organization isn't Christian doesn't mean it is atheist. Secular isn't the same thing. These associations you refer to as atheist are NOT fellowships of atheists --but people from various walks of life who have something in common --in most of your listed cases, their profession--not atheism.

Secular charities, like the Red Cross, Heart ass'n, etc. are known for spending most of their donations on overhead and exorbitant salaries --whereas Christian missions and charities have comparatively low overhead when they belong to the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.)

And yes, our gov't IS a secular one made up of many people including those of Christian principles --no matter what they call themselves regarding their personal faith.

there were no religious tests for starting the hospitals and missions either --just Christian motivation by various churches.

Yes, churches have membership requirements --strictly voluntary as to whether you join and adhere to the requirements or not. If you don't, you can be kicked out --Catholic church in particular re: divorce and abortion advocacy. Evangelical churches tend not to have litmus tests
apart from statement of faith --and a few evangelical denominations still require abstinence from alcohol and nicotine and illegal drugs in order to be VOTING members --but anyone can attend --including transgenders and homosexuals. The members hold common doctrines and adhere to some lifestyle standards all derived from the New Testament, in particular. And they do agree on the social issues of abortion,divorce,gay marriage --based on the Bible.

I keep agreeing with you, Gandalf, that religion can be terribly misguided and cruel --like Islam. Like the Hindus in Orissa, India, who have waged war on the Christians --currently. And then there are the officially atheistic/communistic no. Vietnamese whose police authorities in the villages terrorize Christians and insist on animist altars in the homes--while tolerating liberal, officially registered churches and persecuting evangelicals who evangelize and preach conversion.

Christianity is the greatest force for good in the world --as God is behind it, the author and finisher of our faith. Christians have started more schools, hospitals, clinics, homeless missions, relief organizations than any other ology or ism.

Again, that doesn't mean that they have never had a bad pope, priest or preacher, a charlatan, a wolf in sheep's clothing, deceiving many. It doesn't mean that Ku Klux Klanners don't CLAIM Christian belief; they do; but they could hardly be called Christ-followers in their beliefs or methods.

mud_rake said...

Why are we 'debating' a person who is clearly mentally ill?

Gandolf said...

Barb said...
"Big mistake, Chuck. Just because an organization isn't Christian doesn't mean it is atheist. Secular isn't the same thing. These associations you refer to as atheist are NOT fellowships of atheists --but people from various walks of life who have something in common --in most of your listed cases, their profession--not atheism "

Barb yes secular is the same thing in my opinion.What you have seemed to try arguing is that we "need" faith because faith does so much charity.

Our argument is faith is "not needed" !, for us to still have folks being charitable.Chuck has povided some very good evidence where its not anything about faith,its mere human commonalities which draw them together to work for the good of all.Chucks post proves faith is "not-needed".

This proves it can be done and more to the point has always been done.And there is many such groups where humans all work in together without god/faith being the reason they do.Even in our own lives every day often charity happens with absolutely no need of any faith/god,if you break down somewhere or have something you need a hand with quite often people that are around just pitch in and help!.No god/faith needed,when my car breaks down i dont need to hope like hell some catholics come by soon.It just normal everyday humans helping each other as they intermingle!,the only belief they need have in "common" is that they are "human".

Barb you are the one! making the big mistake here!, you say.."are NOT fellowships of atheists"

What the hell are you talking about? fellowship of atheist?.Who said anything about any need of any atheist fellowship?

Atheist means no god!,so no fellowships!.There is not any point for atheists to gather in some building!!,to just so oh hello mate! hows it going?.Oh and by the way i still dont believe in a god/s!.

What for?..That would be mad,what would it achieve?.Its a waste!,which is also another reason why its better not to have it.

Atheists are more often quite smart!, not stupid.

We dont need some group to have any fellowship.Thats why non-believers are often known to be more like "cats"!,rather than "faith sheep" types who like little special groups to gather in.Cats dont group up the same, like the sheep "always" tend to do.

The whole of humanity is what becomes the "fellowship",we are a fellowship of humans with many things in common.

Which is why what Chuck has posted is very relevant,of course it is!its shows there is absolutely no need for faith to make humans work together.

Barb.."Christianity is the greatest force for good in the world --as God is behind it, the author and finisher of our faith"

Barb christianity is the greatest force to help other faith forces work together to finally destroy the whole earth,thats all what its good for.God isnt behind faith,only deluded faith believing humans....One of the most dangerous things about faith is it most often makes folks stupidly believe god will provide new worlds if needed,when we might really need to be thinking much much more about taking care of the one world we have!.

Faith beliefs are far more dangerous than you realize Barb,your view you are using is far to narrow.Faith indoctrination purposly, makes you able to simply overlook so many important factors.

mud_rake said... Why are we 'debating' a person who is clearly mentally ill?

Well Mud if nothing else we shared some net links we might not have otherwise shared i enjoy the new ones i saw,ive learned stuff about our language! which i enjoyed learning about too.And its interesting and excellent to see all the organizations Chucks worked with.We have got near close to 200 post,so now not far off writing a book,its good practice suppose if nothing else.

Personally for me it hopefully helps me each time a little more to understand the madness of how minds of folks of faith tick.I use it as a sort of exercise to further work out everything i can about their very peculiar type of psychology.

Barb said...

It's like I told you --in my clear-headed analysis of Mudrake --he is over here at this blog for one purpose --to get me to quit or to get Chuck to ban me. A silly obsession on his part, but he cannot stand to hear opposition to his social and religious views. He literally detests opponents.

I contend, Gandolf, that folks stop and help you with your car because they were taught that this sort of Golden Rule behavior was right. And it's simply not true that all people innately possess
kind and generous hearts. If it were true, we would have no wars and no Hitlers or Stalins rising to power with the help of the masses.

It is largely a dog eat dog world --if not for Christian charitable impulses and their humanitarian works.

It took a Jesus Christ to teach the world compassion and generosity and the ideals of unselfishness and forgiveness. The fact that wrongs have been done in the name of Christ is beside the point --since He didn't teach us to do those wrongs.

Secular and atheistic really aren't synonyms. Without looking it up, I'm going to say that secular simply means "for the here and now; not related to a church." Atheism, on the other hand, is a belief system --a religion of no God --a man-centered religion --with faith that there is no god, with tenets and doctrines about why there is no god --and usually animosity toward religions --especially toward the best and most valid and believable of them all,Christianity.

The American Cancer Society is a charity that raises money for cancer research --or is supposed to. Several of these secular focus groups do spend a high percentage of their donations on raising money and overhead.

It is largely the Americans who have all these secular and religious organizations for problem solving and helping people. Why is that? I say because the church and the Bible have been so influential upon our culture.

Of course, the Salvation Army started as a Christian organization in England and they still have a good reputation here for helping the needy. And they are Christian. YMCA and YWCA --started as Christian organizations. Almost all the missions to the poor in america and around the world were started by Christians.

Even South Korea and Germany have Christian mission groups that have traveled to the Middle east with their Gospel message about Christ --and been persecuted for it -- in this 21st century.

Chuck O'Connor said...


What part of this don't you understand, "Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in his essay, "The Christian Witness in a Secular Age" that the church,' . . .must be embarrassed when it calls attention to itself as a proof of the powers of God. For the very pretension of virtue is yet another mark of the sin in the life of the redeemed.'

You do realize that your pretension of virtue is ultimately pride unmasked and is an egregious sin.

For your savior's sake, have a little humility and discretion. Have you no shame!!!

I won't ban you because I believe in freedom of speech but I kindly ask you to please leave and don't return.

I understand your point.

The Christian Church is the pinnacle of virtue and we all should bow down and follow Christ the way you do.

I disagree with you and, since this is my blog, I will ask you once and only once. Please leave and never return. Thanks.

Barb said...

Matt. 6:13-19
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

mud_rake said...

What part of this don't you understand"

All of it.

Barb said...

The church, as the bride of Christ, is to be presented blameless to Christ like a perfect lamb -- the church is not perfect, being made of imperfect people. I've said that repeatedly. there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

You fail to give the church of Christ the credit it deserves for its positive contributions to civilization.

You seem to take my compliments to the church as compliments for myself, saying I lack humility.

I have confidence in the Church symbolized as Christ's sheep for which He cares --and Christ's bride. I am not boasting of my self but in the organism that Christ heads--the church consists of those believers who really believe and try to live biblically.

I simply am speaking truth when I say that the CHURCH of CHRIST influenced the good changes in western civilization --the Church has advanced the world --and I speak more of Biblical Christianity than the Church in Rome which is a very flawed institution, filled with sexual perversion, from generation to generation. But the Church in Rome was all we had until the Bible became available to the laity. And there have been real devout people of God preserving the faith despite the roman church's obvious corporate and individual sins.

Objectivity about present and past history of the church is lacking here.

Chuck O'Connor said...


I kindly asked you to leave.

If you were in my home and professing these opinions I would do the same.

You have made bigoted and self-righteous statements based on your religion, which I have told you I see as nothing more than ancient superstition.

The good deeds you cite do not, in my estimation, discount the bigotry you exhibit. That chocie is evidence that you are trying to borrow virtue by being selective of the full history of your faith and the ideological end you have in demeaning homosexual Americans.

Barb, your opinions amount to bigotry in my estimation and, since this is my blog, your appeals to the authority of the bible do not change my mind.

This is the last time I will ask you peacefully leave. Moving forward I will begin deleting your posts. You have never once provided documented evidence for your bigoted claims (as I asked) nor have you approached dialogue without a haughty and defensive attitude. I don't have the time in my life to deal with closed-minded bigots like you. The best way to deal with someone like you is to call you out for what you are and no longer empower you by giving you a platform to espouse your self-centered, self-righteous and bigoted hate.

Please leave and don't return.


Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb, I warned you.

Yes, my wife reads this blog.

She also roomed with a Lesbian while traveling with her dance company so, she wouldn't fit the policy you demanded for the military.

I've also read your comments to her and her response has been that you don't represent the Christianity she believes.

She considers you obsessive-compulsive.

Now, I've followed through and deleted your last comment. I will continue to do so from now on.

mud_rake said...

...when the limits of civil conversation are trumped by those living in a state of delusion

Barb said...

So --who killed your blog and stopped the discussion? Is it really as interesting when like-minded people have nothing to say to one another?

Chuck O'Connor said...


I am going to leave your latest comment up because it provides context to my response.

Arguing with deluded people who don't provide evidence for their bigoted perspective is not "discussion". It is more akin to group therapy where a single narcissist owns the floor.

I'd prefer nothing is said on here than your brand of self-righteous hate be continued.

I don't care if anybody comments Barb. I write this blog to keep my writing muscles strong not, to gain popularity.

Be well and please don't return.

I'd prefer not to have a relationship with you.

Unlike you, I don't "love my enemies" nor do I "turn the other cheek" (which I'd argue you don't either but that's a different subject.) I choose not to enable self-centered people who prefer to worship their opinions rather than estimate facts. If you had made an arguable case against gay marriage that took into account reasonable political or social science then I might have contemplated your considerations. You didn't. You raged on your soap-box about hysterical outcomes that only exist in the paranoid cliques you follow. Believe me, I know, I used to count as friends people like you until their bigotry and ignorance became too much to stand.

Now, go away. I don't want you here.

November 13, 2009 10:24 AM

mud_rake said...

How does one deal with the mentally ill? Here we are, three mature adults witnessing a sad display of paranoia, delusion and arrogance in one mentally unstable person.

Pitiful at best.

mud_rake said...

There was a study by neuroscientists from UC-Irvine that found some interesting information about gene variants. One of them limits the availability of a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor during activity. BDNF keeps memory strong by supporting communication among brain cells and keeping them functioning optimally.

The study concluded that a deficiency in BDNF can cause a motorist to drive unsafely because his reactions do not relate as quickly as those without the deficiency.

I hypothesized that this lack of brain protein could help explain why so many people seem to live in the state of delusion- not even recognizing the delusion at all.

Your previous post, Chuck, To the Brain Faith is Fact, hints at some brain malfunction observed in the 'believing faithful.' Could this gene variant defect described above, help explain this disconnect in reality for those who 'live' in delusion but 'think' it is reality?

It may be in the genes- an anatomical defect that apparently is virulent. Look at how many people around the world seem to possess this defect. The entire Muslim world, many Christians, all fundamental christians, and the Zionists.

I've wondered on many occasions what goes on in their heads, but I can't intersect that delusional barrier; I'm too steeped in reality.

The other question to be raised is this- why hasn't that deviant gene been eliminated from the human gene pool? After all, of what benefit to humanity are a group of dysfunctional delusional people? How can they possibly add anything to the progress of humanity when they cannot function on a realistic basis?

Odd, very odd.

Chuck O'Connor said...


I am deleting your comments. I won't be responding again.

mud_rake said...

Chuck- whether you delete them or not, her madness and obsession will continue unabated until she 'believes' that she has fully rendered your blog 'neutralized' and purified by unloading both her entire bladder and rectum onto your blog.

Gianni said...

Chuck, your writing is quality and your insights meaningful. Marianne Williamson once called me a 'recovering catholic' and I kinda like that moniker. I too have had the parochial school indoctrination as you know and find that fear based worship doesn't work for me on any level. I don't agree with Barb that love is god's invention. In fact any god that wants to 'fix' or as the holy book of fairy tales actually prescribes KILL people that I love because they happen to be homosexual, well that god is the antithesis of love to me. Stay strong keep questioning because it's the questions and not the answers that are more important

Gianni said...

In response to comments Barb left on my blog

No one "happens to be homosexual."

Yes Barb they do, homosexuality is not a choice, it is not something that one can turn on or off and the fact that you believe that it is means you are already operating on an untruth and your argument is flawed.There are numerous scientific and medical studies of brain structure that prove the hypothesis that homosexuality is genetic- here are just a few of the more basic study reports

[ ]

"I don't see how homosexuality differs from adultery or pedophilia..."

Barb, this is a statement that is not only incorrect as I have already talked about but it is bigoted, hurtful,DANGEROUS and as far as I am concerned shows a real lack of intelligence. What evidence do you have that homosexuality IS a choice? A book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of zealot sycophants that weren't even smart enough to figure out indoor plumbing and thought bleeding people was a cure for disease? I've shown you my proof where is yours? I don't see any difference between your statement and racism,xenophobia and hitlerism avoidable with a little education and exposure to the modern world.

I could go on and on but I am far too angry to continue. Barb, small minded, bigoted people like you are dangerous and you and your ilk are responsible for far more hatred and misery on this planet than all the atheists and homosexuals in history

oh and by the way-
"And God doesn't prescribe killing them"
Maybe god doesn't but the bible sure does

Leviticus 18:22
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

if what you are 'preaching' is gods love-then he can go to hell

Barb said...

I could go on and on but I am far too angry to continue. Barb, small minded, bigoted people like you are dangerous and you and your ilk are responsible for far more hatred and misery on this planet than all the atheists and homosexuals in history

I'm not angry nor hating you. But you are angry and hating people who believe the Bible about homosexuality springing from believing lies instead of truth --leading to illicit lusts --just like pedophilia, adultery, rape,incest, and porn --all are addictive and sinful and those involved claim they cannot help themselves.

The path to happiness is not any sexual indulgence outside of a marital, straight commitment. It's to know God and know where we are going in Eternity because of His provision of Christ on the Cross.

God has purpose for your life and your body, your assignment as a male or female. We have free will and choices.

You and the biologists and psychologists have no evidence --only theories-- of congenital (from birth/inborn/genetic) cause for homosexuality--but in the background of every homosexual person you can see a lot of abnormal indicators that predict and contribute to gender identity confusion, abnormal orientation and unhealthy, illicit sex addictions.

Kids need help to be normal these days in our confusing and sinful culture.

It's ridiculous to blame Christianity for the misery in the world. The Christians are the happy people --with hope --and comfort in their sorrows. And the most deaths were caused by other ideologies --and people living by no ideology except selfishness.

The wars of modern times have been about power/competing for resources/greed/selfish interests and self-defense and defeating evil-doers like Hitler and other tyrants. Liberating the oppressed is a worthy goal for warriors --but killing people for religion and religious differences is not honorable. NOr is this wave of atheistic intolerance for people who think homosexuality is a sin like any other sexual sin --of which we have all been guilty to some degree or an other. As Jesus said, ALL have sinned --and all men have lusted and thus commited adultery in their hearts.

"There is none righteous, no not one," "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Grace is His undeserved favor.

Barb said...

Yes, the Old Testament prescribed death--but remember, we all DO die.

When Paul repeats (from the O.T.) that homosexual relations deserve death, he doesn't call for Christians to carry out the judgment --and tells Christians in the very next chapter to not judge because we, too, are sinners --often doing the same things that we judge others for.

As here --you say you are against hatred and bigotry--but you are hateful and bigoted against people with my faith in the Bible's standards of right and wrong.

But there still IS RIGHT and there still IS WRONG! And we are not to murder. And America has not had a death penalty for homosexual conduct even though we are a "Christian" nation--(more than we are any other kind of nation, religiously speaking.) But that doesn't mean that homosexuality is therefore something to promote and celebrate. Nor is it inevitable.

Jeanette said...

Chuck, I don't know you. This is the first, and probably last time I visit your site, but I do want to give you a passage of Scripture.

You say you were educated in Catholic schools and became an evangelical at some point in your early life.

Here's the passage: Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.

I believe before your life is over you will have gone back to your original faith in God, who is not a punishing God, but a God of Love. Try to see the Love of God and not the wrath of God. That's really supposed to be reserved for Satan.

Many people make the mistake of thinking hell was made for us, but it was actually made for Satan and his fallen angels. Don't be one of his fallen angels.

mud_rake said...

Just as a heads-up, Chuck, Jeanette is Barb's ugly twin sister. The two of them engage in hate-talk on Barb's blog.

Now, you've been infested by both sisters. Time to call the Orkin man!

Rob R said...

Chuck, you asked about my opinion on this article a while ago. I don't have much to say about it as I am not as driven on the politics as much as I used to be.

But I did want to speak to your comment on your wife and love an exclusivity.

If your religion is all about love, if you are open to the idea that God is love, consider that love has content. It isn't empty of specifics but is born in the specificity of our lives. You can't love your wife with a merely general approach to her person but loving her involves paying close attention to the specifics of her life and her personality, her needs, her history as well as your history together. there definitely is an exclusivity to this, that your love takes one form and not another. And of course, marriage provides only one informing metaphor of the relationship that God wants for us and that we can have. Of course, other relationships inform us of this as well.

Consider that in a marriage, your depening love isn't just a matter of learning more about your wife but about yourself as well. We don't fully comprehend our humanity, we only apprehend it. It to is an area from which it would definitely makes sense that divine guidance could enlighten us.

Consider also that love, real love opens us up to vulnerability. It sounds like you have a great marriage, and maybe you've never known the worst that a relationship might go through and could still survive, but in opening yourself up to thorough love, you open yourself up to the deepest grief. And there is also a natural jealousy or anger that is only healthy against those who would threaten that love. Love isn't all happiness and kindness. It doesn't always leave us with peace but provides the basis for suffering, and yet suffering that is endured also testifies to the depth of that love. If God loves us more deeply, then the gospel, that God suffers for us, because of us and with us makes excellent sense.

If God is love, tri-unity itself makes sense as love that is instantiated is far more real than love that is pure abstraction. God is love in reality, not love in the abstract, thus tri-unity bears this out.

Chuck O'Connor said...


Thanks for reading.

I appreciate it.

Best to you.

Anonymous said...

All rational criticism's of today's 'orthodox' Christianity that we have inherited from the Catholics disappear with Marcionism. When you realize that Marcionism (called Chrestianity by themselves, Marcionism is a label put on them by the Catholics) was the original form of Christianity, you are liberated. The Marcionites had one gospel and ten of Paul's epistles, and there was no positive link between Jesus and the OT in them. He wasn't born of a virgin, since that prophecy was about Mahershalalhashbaz anyway (see Isaiah 7-8) nor in Bethlehem since that one was about Zorobabel (Micah 5) nor did Herod slay children at his birth since Rachel was weeping about her children being in exile (Jer 31) not dead. In the Marcionite canon, which was the first Christian canon, Jesus was simply the Good God, Chrestos, who descended from heaven already having his body and came here and did good. And in doing good he angered the creator of this world, a lower god and the god of the Old Testament, who then crucified him. Jesus then descended into hell and freed all the good moral people and took them to the 3rd heaven to be with him and his Heavenly Father. Then he returned to our world and confronted the creator of this world, condemning him by his own law that he who sheds innocent blood must be killed, and then the ruler of this world begged for mercy. So Jesus made a deal with him: accept my blood that you shed as payment for mankind and give their souls to me on death. Inasmuch as the creator had purposed to burn us all in hell for eternity for Adam's sin (because he is unjust) the Good God purchased us from him so that we will now not be sent to a standard eternity in hell for every little thing, but will rather have a just judgement of proportional punishment for our sins, the time meets the crime. This is the good news. And isn't it better news than what 'orthodoxy' preaches? For Jesus in 'orthodoxy' is sent by his Father to save us from his Father, for his Father hates us and wants to burn us in hell for all eternity, yet he also loves us and sent Jesus to save us, and Jesus on the cross opposes and appeases the malevolent Father and yet also obeys the same loving Father. THat is a schizophrenic doctrine. But in Marcionism, which was before Catholicism and hence before all Christianity as we know it, Jesus did not oppose his own Father but the Jewish god who was not his Father. Rather than a rift in the Trinity, Father vs Son, there were two Gods, the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) vs the Jewish god. Certainly this makes more sense. And it explains passages found even in the Catholic canon like "No man has ever seen God but the only-begotten Son has declared him" and "nobody knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son will declare him" and "you have never seen my Father's shape nor heard his voice" and such passages that show that the OT did not give an accurate view of God or rather taught concerning a different god. x

Anonymous said...

Marcion has a friend named Apelles who disagreed and said rather than the OT being the testament of a lower god, the OT is just a book of fables that doesn't represent a real God. Apelles rule was that so long as you believe in the crucified one and live a good moral life you will be saved. In other words, whether you agreed with him that the OT was a fable or with Marcion that the OT represented an evil god, didn't matter. As long as you believed in Jesus and lived a good life you'd be fine. How different from 'orthodoxy'! The very demand for 'orthodoxy' comes from the OT and the pettiness of its god, whether that god is a lower god (as in Marcion) or a fable (as in Apelles). But the Good God that both preached, Jesus Chrestos (Chrestos=Good, Christos=Messiah) is Love, and as such does not demand perfect knowledge of his metaphysical nature and relationship to other gods (if there are any) but demands that we love one another and live good moral lives.

In any case, I would suggest an in-depth study of Marcionism to anyone struggling with the OT or biblical contradictions and such-like.

Chuck O'Connor said...



Good stuff.