News-Record.com

Now if the current administration can get the word 'indivisible' functioning correctly, we will have a fine-tuned Pledge of Allegiance.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider" - George W. Bush campaign slogan 1999

UP,

It is truly ironic that Bush used this slogan and will go down in history as the most divisive president ever. Sad is not adequate to describe the wasted opportunity following 9/11.

As one who believes in freedom of speech I applaud leaving "under God" in the Pledge. However, as one who also believes in the freedom of religious beliefs, I feel the Pledge should not be mandatory for anyone, especially children. If parents want to teach it, fine. But one belief should not be pushed over another in our school system (unless it happens to be a church school).

My comment has nothing to do with George Bush or even this lte. It is directed solely to an earlier posting regarding the word "indivisible".

My children and I don't always agree. More often than not we discuss things in a civilized manner but we do occasionally argue.

That's as it should be.

Because at the end of the day we're still "indivisable" in both our committment to family and our love for one another.

In general terms, I try to look at our nation in the same way.

There are American soldiers, right now, at this very moment, in combat being shot at for a cause that many of them no doubt question.

In such a situation the concept of duty or obligation is not by any means the prime motivating factor in following the orders thay are given.

It is in it's simplest terms the bond they have with their comrades in arms, the loyalty, friendship and overriding desire they have not to "let their buddies down".

Yet there's more to it than that. The fact that our service people will overcome their own fears to rescue a fallen friend is a given, even though they are fully aware that it may mean the sacrifice of their own life in the process.

But it doesn't have to be a friend, they don't even have to be a fellow unit, platoon, company, regiment, or battalion member. The injured soldier can be a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, agnostic or full fledged raging atheist and the result will be the same.

They'll go in after him.

Many of us have forgotten what the primarily young people in our military have already learned, that at the end of the day we all share the common bond of being Americans, and rightly or wrongly the basis exists for the "indivisability" mentioned in the earlier post.

Does that mean I think it's wrong for us to disagree among ourselves?

Of course not, the ability to disagree without fear of being lined up against a wall and shot is one of the main things that make the existence of our country worthwhile to begin with.

Now all is right with the world.

Charlie Daniels said it pretty good.
"We may do a little bit of fighting amoungst ourselves, but you outside folks had best leave us alone."

We've always been a country of different parties, differing philosophies about how to approach issues. But if anyone thinks that the state we are in right now is one of reasonable discourse and open debate, then you are not paying attention. We are more divided now than we were in the '70's, and while I'm no historian, I'd guess we haven't been this fractured since post-Civil War days. But the disturbing thing is that the people in power like it this way, and do everything they can to keep us divided.

Hope ole Iris knows that the folks in the Middle East think God is on THEIR side too. How is her God better than THEIR God? Draw straws? Hair vs. Hair? Cage match?

Mrs. Newby's letter is a sweet throwback to a simpler time. Too bad the most segregated hour in America is every Sunday morning. It reminds me of Vernon Robinson using the "Leave it to Beaver" imagery to promote his brand of bigotry and exclusivity.

Mel Gibson and Me

by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

By now the whole world knows that the L.A. County Sheriff's Department reports that after being stopped for drunk driving early Friday morning, Mel Gibson, began yelling about the "blanking" Jews who start all the wars in the world.

Within a few hours Gibson publicly admitted that he had "...said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended."

Immediately thereafter, one of the self-anointed Jewish "leaders" proclaimed with breathtaking chutzpah, that Mel Gibson's apology is unremorseful and insufficient. "It's not a proper apology because it does not go to the essence of his bigotry and his anti-Semitism," he said. "We would hope that Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite."

It is all too easy to join the circling hyenas and denounce Gibson while he is down. On the other hand, though he has provided some financial support to Toward Tradition, I don't feel obliged to leap to his defense. That is not the purpose behind my writing this column. The purpose of my writing this account is to respond to the question of how recent events have impacted my views of the man and his work. It is also to place a gentle restraining hand upon the shoulder of those in the Jewish community making yet another mistake.

There really are anti-Semites in this world of ours right now who not only wish to destroy all Jews but are doing all within their powers to bring that about. Does the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggest anything? Does it really make a lot of sense to treat Mel Gibson as a threat to Jews anywhere?

As for the remarks Gibson made while intoxicated, ancient Jewish wisdom informs us that one way we can know what a person is really like is by how he behaves when he is drunk. From this we can safely assume that Mel Gibson doesn't think much of Jews.

However there is another nugget of ancient Jewish wisdom emphasizing that we owe atonement for that which lies in our hearts, only to God. If I have an unworthy thought in my heart about you, I need to make good with God but I don't owe you an apology unless I act upon that thought. We humans are morally obliged to make good to other people only for those things we do, and not for any thoughts we have in our minds.

Let us address his apology. I have no way of knowing what is in Mel Gibson's heart but I do know that he has no need to act obsequiously towards Jews or curry favor with us. If Gibson never makes another film he will still be able to buy gas for his Lexus. He is not a politician trying to win an election after an imprudent remark, like Georgia State Rep. Billy McKinney, who blamed "J-E-W-S" after his daughter, U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, was defeated in a congressional primary in 2002.

By the way there was virtually no Jewish criticism of that remark for which there was little apology and which was not made while Billy was drunk. More cynical observers than I suggest it might have something to do with the McKinneys being Democrats.

The same explanation could probably be advanced for why Marlon Brando's infamous outburst on Larry King Live, about the "kikes" running Hollywood also received pretty much of a free pass. And Brando was sober.

Film maker and Democratic propagandist, Michael Moore has made the most preposterous statements about Israel for which he has never apologized and for which the Jewish community has never criticized him. For instance he has identified Israel as one of the epicenters of evil in the world, and he has explained how "..Arabs came up with the idea that Americans are supporting Israel in its oppression of the Palestinian people when a Palestinian child looked up in the air and saw an American Apache helicopter firing a missile into his baby sister's bedroom just before she was blown into a hundred bits."

Yet, Gibson publicly apologized and the Jewish response was so beyond ungracious that one must ask what exactly would Gibson have had to do or say in order to win Jewish absolution? Furthermore one would have to ask why would any rampant bigot even bother to do this? I haven't heard any apologies from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The next question is what impact do recent events have on what I wrote about the movie, The Passion, back in February 2004. Let's see what I wrote then in my article entitled "Why Mel Owes One to The Jews" and which appears on the Toward Tradition website.

Weeks before its release, I made four predictions about The Passion. Here they are:

One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. ( I was right.)

Two, The Passion will become famous as one of the most serious and substantive Biblical movies ever made.( I was right.)

My third prediction was that the faith of millions of Christians would become more fervent as The Passion uplifts and inspires them. (I was right.)

My fourth prediction was that there would be no anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated by those exiting the theater after viewing The Passion. (I was right. In fact every poll revealed an increase in philo-Semitic feeling among viewers of The Passion.)

I also explained that those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting The Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress The Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them.

Nothing I wrote then about The Passion has changed.

This incident helps me explain why I am on record as opposing hate crime legislation. It is time for all Americans and particularly American Jews to grow up and recognize that you cannot force anyone to love or even like anyone else. You cannot force people to love Jews, Christians, women, men, blacks, white, handicapped people or people who drive red cars.

We most definitely can and must insist on lawful behavior and we must demand respectful interaction. However we must stop pretending we can police people's thoughts. I know of nobody who would be willing to be hooked up to a machine that would disclose his innermost thoughts to the world.

If Mr. Gibson really does hate Jews as his drunken diatribe might indicate, his behavior towards the many Jews he knows has always been nothing but cordial and respectful. He has never supported (as have too many Jews) Palestinian causes and other organizations that encourage the murder of Jews. Amazingly Mel Gibson has utterly resisted the natural human temptation to snap back at the so called "Jewish Establishment" for its vicious assaults on The Passion.

He deserves censure for being drunk and for the anti-Semitic remarks. But he already knows that which is why he apologized. A balanced and reasonable view would be that if indeed he really does hate Jews, then he deserves respect for his self control when not drunk.

I would rather be surrounded by people who hate me in their heart but whose conduct toward me and my property is exemplary than by people who love me in their hearts but who kill my cat, kick my kids, and key my car. I would be very happy to switch today's dangerous Moslems Jew-haters for Moslems who hate me only in their hearts but who act toward Jews with nobility and kindness.

My question for Jews, especially the heads of the alphabet organizations is this: "Which is more likely to lead to increased affection and respect for Jews everywhere? Recognizing that human prejudices exist and working respectfully and amicably to change people's minds and hearts, or grabbing headlines by strident accusations full of self righteousness and intolerance?" I believe that most people know the right answer.

J4J,

What was the purpose of your post, or was there a point? I think we can all agree that Mel Gibson is not worse than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Anything else we were supposed to take from that?

How many Jews are there in the United States? Just curious.

Iris, the words "Under God," are not part of the original pledge of allegiance, they were added in the 50's during the height of the cold war/red scare. I think it's disingenous to suggest that they are in some way "holy" since they were added as a political maneuver.

On the term "indivisible," I take the meaning of that to be that where we all may have differing views, but our system of government means that we can present a united front.

j4j, I think that Mel Gibson's apology was rare in Hollywood, where they say: "I'm sorry, but..." if they say I'm sorry at all. He said that he acted badly and was ashamed of his actions. He sounded remorseful, but I'm not sure what prompted his apology, financial expediency or true remorse. I have a tendency to think it was the first. My hat is off to him for knowing how to and that he should apologize, but I don't for a minute think that the attitude behind the statements is totally foreign to him. At the same time I was impressed and inspired by the Passion, aand although the Jews weree portrayed as the villians, I think the true villian was mankind. If Christ was born in Tokyo, New Dehli, Paris or New York I think the reaction and outcome would have been the same.

"We have freedom of speech and so much more"

So much more = freedom from state-sponsored religion.

phillipa- Thanks for noting that the phrase "under God" was not added until relatively recently. Amazing how we got through all those years without God's help.

So predictible of the Ditto Dummy. When are you going to come up with something new? Even Carol thinks the Vernon thing has grown quite old as well as the majority of the other here. Keep it up ditto dummy. Each day you prove you uselessness.

"J4J, What was the purpose of your post, or was there a point?"

Wow, pages and pages of text... you'd think J4J would have been at least a little interested in writing something on topic. Makes one wonder whether blogging is his best option for communication.

"Keep it up ditto dummy. Each day you prove you uselessness."

And you're helping to take the discussion up a notch by calling folks dummies.

Gotcha. How's that workin' out for you?

I was just ready a short history of the pledge. written in the late 1890's and finally added to the us code in 1954 with the word's "under God".

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

one segment talks about:Indivisible, and can not be separated. (This part of the original version of the pledge was written just 50 years after the beginning of the Civil War and demonstrates the unity sought in the years after that divisive period in our history)

i do not think we are more divided than in any other time, i just think there are more of us to be divided.

Don:

Your link missed what I found to be a couple of ... well ... "disappointing details".

The magazine company was also selling flags. To boost sales, they COMISSIONED the 22-word recitation specifically to sell flags to the little ones.

Oh well. There goes my romance.

To make it seem worse - the guy they comissioned was a Socialist - but we need to be careful: Socialism has changed meanings over the years, and does not always mean Stalinism.

===

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

BTW - I disagree about our division.

I think we ARE more divided - maybe not that "any other time", certainly the Civil War and the late 60's were a time of great divide, maybe the antibellum perios too, but WWII was a time of serious togetherness, as was to a lesser extent the 1990's, and probably the early 50's too.

... but the divide that has me concerned is the class divide. when I go to a Wilco / Gas & Go - and I see a middle aged clerk that can't make change, or jive-ass kids buying chew (kids I wouldn't hire to clean my septic tank), or the older poor-as-a-mouse momma with 5 kids pulling on her for candy ...

... and there I am: Not particulary smart or handsome and definately not rich .. but I feel sometimes like I'm visiting a third world country.

Bellamy's version:

I pledge allegiance to my flag
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Now this is a pledge that fits a pluralist nation, one that everyone could agree to. Was there really a good reason to change this wording? Is there some reason we couldn't use it today?

I do not agree with the decision for the pledge to be said in schools. If I had a school age child, I would be up in arms. I think that pledging to a flag is like pledging to a graven image...it is a piece of cloth. I do not think kids should be made to pledge allegiance to anything. If you love the pledge, say it to yourself. Repeating it in rote everyday takes away its meaning for those who hold it sacred. All IMO, of course.

I love my country. I want what is best for all Americans and all citizens in the world. I pray for world peace. (sounds like a beauty pageant answer, doesn't it)

carol,
as a point of interest where you aware the cathlolics ten commandements say nothing about graven images? !

Denzien, thanks for your good comments.

Carol, ditto to you!

I do appreciate the history lesson presented regarding the adding the words "under God" to the pledge. I knew this and was thankful to see it noted for all to read. It is interesting to wonder whose side God is on in the militaristic conflicts of the Middle East! Also, the Nazis believed that God was on their side during WW II. So, whose side is God on?

I prefer to believe that God is not on the side of any who see war as an option to conflict. WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER in ANY situation.

Shalom

" WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER in ANY situation".........

someone needs to inform Jesus of this..........

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

I grant that both sides of each conflict believe they are acting with the blessings of their deity.

But, if you believe the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, then you would see stories of wars where God DID take sides. God assisted David in killing Goliath. God made the walls of Jericho tumble down and so on and so forth.

This reminds me very little of a story I heard a long time ago. A large group of Rabbis in some concentration camp (Aushwitz, I think) decided to put God on trial. They theorized that any good, all powerful God could never allow them to be treated the way they were being treated. After the trial, they reached the conclusion that God either didn't exist, didn't particularly care, or was unable to assist. After this result, all the Rabbi's went out and prayed for God's intervention.

Anyway, Darryl, if war is never a solution under any circumstance, what would you propose the world had done with Hitler?

We live in an imperfect world. A world where we have yet to be able to wipe out greed, tyranny, and remove the power-hungry. As long as we have people that are willing to use force to achieve their own desires, force can be necessary for self defense and self preservation.

If the Nazi's had of conquered the world, they would have also brought in an era of world peace. After they took out all those with whom they disliked, there would be no one but a "master race" left, so world peace would be achieved. But that would not be a true peace, or a desirable peace.

In response to his latest weekly commentary, "Mel and Me" , Rabbi Daniel Lapin has been invited as a guest on ABC's Good Morning America Show to be interviewed regarding the Gibson incident tomorrow morning. Good Morning America generally airs at 7am. Check your local listings for times in your area. *

* As with all news stories and interviews, there is small chance that this interview could be bumped for more recent news.

All Florida Peace for Israel Festival

Sunday, August 13, 2006 at 5:30pm

Keynote Speaker: Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Jews and Christians in Central Florida are coming together in a large gathering to celebrate their common heritage and pray for the peace of Israel.

The festival will take place at Peabody Auditorium in Daytona Beach, Florida. Last year approximately 5,000 people attended this event. Admission is free. For more information, contact The Jewish Federation of Volusia and Flagler Counties at (386) 672-0294.

Buz: I know you're sincere and a true believe, but the belief in a literal rature - especially during one's lifetime - is, I suggest, the excuse for a lot of delibrate damage - damage must be lived-with by ascendents when durned if the Rapture didn't take place at the man-predicted time.

I'm just saying we ought to be thinking really long term, 'cause lots of "the end is near" predictions have gone astray.

Having read Revelations many times, watched many documentaries on its writings, I believe that John the Divine who is credited with writing the book was referring to the Romans. The illusions in the book are open to almost any kind of translation or interpretation. The rapture is not mentioned in Revelation, it was first mentioned by a preacher...don't remember his name or date...in the last century. It is not in the Bible. They did have it in the fictional series Left Behind.

I do not believe God takes sides in war. I don't think God is pleased with the actions of any who murder and kill for greed or retribution. I don't think he has a chosen people. I don't think he wants Israel to have a certain piece of real estate.

Let's all look to the Bible for lessons on how to get along with our fellow man, not excuses for hurting others.

See Thessalonians.

jdr,
i'm slightly confused by your response. i quoted rev 19:11 concerned the second coming of Christ and the war to ensue - but you speak about the rapture in reference to the scripture i quoted ? at any rate i do believe in a literal rapture but i certainly can't specify the time, but there are hints in the bible as to signs of the time. it sounds as though you might believe that b/c i believe in a literal rapture that i would take this as an opportunity to cause some deliberate damage ? why do you say that ?

carol,
i can appreciate all your reading and watching documentaries on the revelation (btw are you familiar in chptr.1 where it states that God died?), but i also know by your own confession that the bible is most likely not the word of God. you have admitted that you pick and choose which scriptures are relevant to you (and thus to your perspective of the world) imo you should be able to glean NOTHING from the bible concerning what God has to say to mankind - to you the bible is writtings of some men who were NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit (inner light) therefore on your part no spiritual tenets can be formulated from reading scriptures. every place you said " i don't think" in your post, the scriptures contradict you. please explain why any of us here should "look to the Bible for lessons on how to get along with our fellow man" when the bible (in your estimation) was written by the same fallible and sin filled man that they are attempting to guide ??

nitpicker,
your point is well taken (at least by me). some here understand that scripture is spiritually discerned and not just a novel to be read and then intellectually digested.

addendum to previous post - i concede that God " isn't pleased with the actions of any who murder and kill for greed ".

"it sounds as though you might believe that b/c i believe in a literal rapture that i would take this as an opportunity to cause some deliberate damage ? why do you say that ?"

Well maybe not you, but I found it chilling when Sec's of the Interior James Watt and Gale Norton - pretty much give away (imho) MY property ... after all I own 1/300,000,000 th of Federal Property ... for exploitation by corporate big shots ... because "Jesus is Coming Soon" and it really doesn't matter with the rapture pending.

... the flaw is ... What if Jesus isn't coming for a few centuries?

Reactionary on my part? Probably, but damm it it's my country too.

Oil is a good example. Let's just "Drill Holes" al over America, 'cause conservation is folly (paraphrased from Mr. Cheney).

Frankly - I find it really sad that those who do not believe in Resource Conservation dare to call themselves "Conservatives". The most conservative person in this Blog is Yvonne, and the rest are moderates like me (at least I drive a 24 mpg car) or defacto Tax and Spend Liberals (misnomering themselves as "Conservatives") that drive Hummers (or support those that do).

jdr,
thanks for not pointing the finger at me.
"... the flaw is ... What if Jesus isn't coming for a few centuries?".......i don't have any answers for you on this james ??
personally it's isn't imperative to me that Jesus returns for his church (the rapture) in my lifetime. either way i am the Lord's. the time following the rapture is not a pleasant time to be an unbeliever and i wouldn't wish it upon anyone, but those left behind did it by their choice. if you don't want to be left behind, accept Christ at His word and receive Him as Savior....that's my job....to tell you that this is your option.

Ha, 24 mpg? My car gets 34.

Of course if I ever got into an accident and I was going over 35 mph, then it sure was nice knowing you all.

But at least my wife doesn't have to worry about my ride impressing the ladies. :)

I guess it is ok to kill for retribution, Buz. Whose side do you think God is on in Iraq? In Lebanon? If you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, why do you think the Jews who do not believe in Jesus are the chosen people? Where do you read of the rapture?

I am not being snide. I really want to understand how you explain these things.

Just finished a wonderful book by Fanny Flagg, Can't Wait to get to Heaven. Hysterically funny and very thought provoking.

carol,
i didn't think you were being snide. and if you will try to answer the several questions i've asked you before, then i will attempt to answer your question(s). does that seem fair?
my question(s) to you :
1)"please explain why any of us here should "look to the Bible for lessons on how to get along with our fellow man" when the bible (in your estimation) was written by the same fallible and sin filled man that they are attempting to guide ??"

2)since you advocate that we are to put some special significance on the writtings on some men, please explain why these men are qualified to cause us to live our lives according to what they say.

l. The Bible has a great many wonderful lessons on how to life a good life. It also has many things which can be interpreted many ways. It has many instances in the Old Testament of God being vengeful and filled with hate. I just don't buy that. It see it as the writers justifying their actions and claiming God is on their side so they can kill and take others land at will. I just don't buy that. The God in whom I put my trust is a loving God. If he is not, none of us have a chance.

2. I don't think any man is qualified to tell us how to live our lives. People were around long before Jesus and long before the Bible. If getting to heaven meant relying totally on a book, what chance did they have? I believe that there is that of God in every man. I believe that if we listen to the still small voice within us all, we will know the way.

In the book I mentioned above, there are some great truths, IMO. Life is a gift, it was meant to be enjoyed, love one another and forgive one another.

Now I await your answers to my questions.

dear carol,
i'm not sure you answered either of my questions. in #1 you basically state that the bible is a book of history with many good lessons to be learned, but YOU get to choose which lessons are correct and which are incorrect - what gives you the ability to makes those decisions and if i were of the same persuasion as you and i choose to believe something different than you, who is right ? so your answer to 'why' in my #1 is that b/c it is a book of history and for that reason we are to adhere to it's precepts and that these historians carry greater truths than others ? !

#2 i asked 'why' these men are qualified to cause us to live according to their words - your answer is "I don't think any man is qualified to tell us how to live our lives". carol i am now confused - if you believe that these men who wrote the bible have NO qualifications on how to direct our lives, then WHY in heavens name do you depend on ANYTHING they have to say, they are mere historians according to you. as i stated to you before, the only way the bible has ANY significance to us in our relationship to God is if it has divine meaning, otherwise we would be just like the pharisees following tradition (i.e.history).

also you state "People were around long before Jesus and long before the Bible." you got half of that correct. according to john 1:1 - Jesus has always been 'around' - remember that God said this "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:".

one last thing - what is your main source and from what source have you learned about God ?

here are some scriptures that have connection to the rapture (rapture comes from the latin 'raptio'- to catch or snatch away suddenly) however if you've not 'studied' concerning this event, these may have little value. and it strikes me that it is really moot since in your opinion only some men wrote about this event and we both know how messed up men can do things.

1cor.15:51 1thes.4:15,17 1cor.15:52 1thes.4:13, 14, 16 acts8:39 rev.4:1 rev.7:5
acts 11:1

scratch acts 11:1

Hang on Buz - everyone chooses which Biblical lessons are correct and which are incorrect. Do you turn the other cheek or take an eye for an eye? Do you Sin, Trespass, or Debt? Carol says "People were around long before Jesus and long before the Bible", and you counter "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Is "us" The Holy Spirit, or a random Angel? Is "us" Jesus? If Jesus, then how can he be half man coming out of Mary?

Obviously I'm no Biblical Scholar and don't answer these - but you get my point. You have your understandings, another equally fervent believer may see things slightly different.

Here's a good example: What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi-ite? One believes only blood relatives of Mohamamad may preach the Gospel (so to speak), the other lets qualified but non-blood related mortals preach the Gospel (so to speak). Over this detail, they are drilling holes in each others heads, using dull 3/8" twist bits.

Buz, I learned of God and Jesus from Sunday School and preaching. I grew up where you just went to church on Sunday, no questions asked. I learned all the Bible stories, accepted them, never questioned them. They when I became an adult, I began to question...Adam and Eve..who did the sons marry, etc.??? I know that with God all things are possible, but the study of evolution started me questioning. I decided it was a nice story. I still think there is a God and he created the universe, but in his way. I also noticed that women were second class citizens, should submit to their husbands (now my husband really thinks that one should be followed :) That Eve was the bad guy, slavery was OK, divorce was not OK, and other things which I felt were dictates of men, not God.

Your answer about Jesus was confusing to me.

Checked the suggested verses, saw nothing of the good being taken away and the bad left behind to suffer, which is what I understand the rapture to be.

I do not question your sincerity or your desire to do the will of God. I would appreciate the same respect. I truly think you are making salvation too difficult. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, forgive, don't judge, strive to live at peace with all men; these are what I get from the Bible. For you to say that I must accept all or nothing does not make sense to me. I think that I am expected to question, to think, and to do the best I can.

Also want to hear how you feel about Israel and God's chosen people.

One of my favorite bumper strips says,

JESUS IS COMING SOON,
LOOK BUSY!

james,
i'm sure carol appreciates you coming to her rescue, but i find her quite capable of presenting her own case. that said, when you blog on secular issues i most generally tune into what you say b/c you seem well versed and appropriately studied on the subjects you speak about. you almost always present accompanying links/documentation in support of your view. however you offer nothing in support of your comments concerning spiritual things and i would ask..why is that ? the scripture says this " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned." you ask a spiritually ignorant question (imo) when you state "If Jesus, then how can he be half man coming out of Mary?
"....james do you not know the power of God ? was he capable of creating everything you know in the earth and heavens, yet He instantly becomes powerless to accomplish the small task of which you question ?
i noticed you did not dispute my john 1:1 reference but did jump on the genesis reference. you show your lack of knowledge when you don't understand who is being referenced in the genesis scripture. man is created in the image of God, not in the image of angels. since you didn't refute jh.1:1 then apparently you are agreeing that God and Jesus are the same being and to further substaniate that as the truth, read this "Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;Hbr 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they" and "jh.1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." scripture leaves no doubt who Jesus is and clearly shows he is above the angels. if the "us" in genesis is unclear to you, then you have not studied prayerfully or perhaps you have not the Spirit of God, i cannot say.
you of all people i would have expected to understand my logic but maybe that is misplaced judgement on my part. my point to carol is and has been from the beginning, that with no common denominator to work with (i.e. the holy scriptures) as the reference point on which we base our faith, then any subsequent conversation is futile. here is an example : you and i both work in a nuclear reactor facility and the reactor is going into meltdown and tens of thousands of lives are at stake depending on our co-ordinated actions. there is a well documented proceedure (found in the manuals) which MUST be followed in order to bring this crisis to a successful conclusion. i start the proceedure according to the manual and expect you to do your part but instead you start doing your own thing and skipping over parts of the manual which is jeopardizing the success of our mission and my reaction is to ask you what you are doing and why aren't you following the published guidelines which hold us both accountable. your reply is "oh i read that those manuals and i didn't really like what they said, but the stuff i liked i will do but the stuff that stinks i won't do - so i just made up my own rules and live by them.it should be apparent what the outcome of that crisis was....MELTDOWN and death. the word of God (bible) is our manual and if we treat it like the person in the above story, then the results will be similar.carol states the bible is a history book that some men wrote and says these very same men have no right to guide her life, yet she consistently references scripture to support her beliefs or show proof that what i might say is incorrect, do you not see the irony and inconsistency in that ?
the bottom line is that i believe the bible is God's word to his creation, it is our manual to follow which holds us accountable one to another and us to God. if you don't believe the bible is God's word you have no reason or right to use it to defend your faith, for you might as well be using the encyclopedia, it was written by some men (and women).
james i am uncertain where you fall into spiritual things but imo you demonstrate lack of knowledge and understanding of scriptures and i am positive you know the significant difference between reading the bible and dedicating ones life to prayerfully studying it. i will stay tuned to the jdr station on secular issues however, thanks and no disrespect is intended in any of this..........

carol,
first i apologize if you think i do not respect your sincerity in serving God. i believe you are the one person who posts here who ALWAYS shows respect and a willingness to hear others. i've never questioned your faith in God , only where you get your information concerning Him?
before i address several of your previous questions....may i ask you one more question....do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He is God incarnate ?

Buz,
There comes a time when you need to chill out, live and let live.

That time is now, as you have exceeded an acceptable level of imparting your faith and now you are just proseletizing.

double d,
you are entitled to your opinion and your are one voice among many. i was not intentionally trying to proselytize. i was trying to share my opinion/belief. but as an evangelical i am never ashamed to share my faith, in hopes that God would be honored.
and thanks for not being harsh in your post towards me.......
i wish everyone a safe and fun weekend.........