Saturday, December 31, 2005

HAPPY NEW YEAR

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt


MAY ALL THE GIFTS HIDDEN INSIDE YOU MAKE THEIR WAY INTO THE WORLD, AND MAY ALL YOUR DEEPEST DREAMS COME TRUE.

Sending each and every one of you LOVE... and wishes for a joyous, abundant, wondrous year full of peace, harmony, prosperity -- and AN END TO WAR!! God Bless You!

No, I have not joined a Halloween cult. This is a photo of Claudia Wells ("Back to the Future") and me at Chiller in New Jersey, Oct. 2005. The guy in costume is scaring us, which reminds me of our current political climate. Sorry for all the changing pictures; my web guy can't be reached and I want to post the new photos with friends!)

2005 wrap-up:
I have to admit I'm getting a little paranoid here, wondering if my e-mails are being monitored or I'm being spied upon simply because I don't agree with the corruption of this administration. What a terrifying thought: that the very freedoms our country was built on -- freedom of thought, religion and speech -- are being usurped. The blatant propaganda of the Fox network has contributed to this Orwellian climate of fear. And the news blackout on electronic voting fraud is also quite astounding.

This Christmas, I have to say that I spent hours in prayer for the mothers, children and spouses of soldiers who died in Iraq. I can't imagine spending the holidays without your only child -- and my heart goes out to all of you.

Here is a letter I got from a Marine Combat Vet in November:

Dear Lydia,
I heard you on the radio with Brad tonight. For what it's worth, Lydia, you have my strong and full support here in my little corner of the world in Oklahoma. I can barely stand the thought of our kids fighting bravely in a hostile land as a result of lies and self-serving motives of this Administration.

I'm a combat Marine veteran of Viet Nam (1969) and was awarded two Purple Hearts for combat wounds for which I am very proud. For sure, my military service makes me no more or a less a "patriot" (whatever that word means anymore) than any other American. But, I relate it to you to encourage you to maintain what you're doin g by speaking out and don't back up an inch! I know there are many veterans like myself who appreciate you and your courage. And I especially appreciate the fact that you pray (and that you keep your clothes on, too, by the way.......not that I'm a prude or anything, but...well, you know).

Don't let Coulter get you down. Who knows......maybe the Lord has plans for you in Ann's life. God knows she needs something. Stay strong and good luck on your show. I'll be watching.
John Conley

Dear Lydia, Your email took my breath. Yes, we live in a strange world, Lydia. And I admire those of you with such national exposure (by the very definition of your career) speaking out from your heart, untainted by political pressures.

There are so many things I would like to express to you about the soldier's heart, but I don't want to take very much of your time. If you do happen to find some time, please go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/view/special.html and hear from other soldiers and Marines. These are clips of interviews with four veterans and I believe you will find them interesting and informative. I relate more to Jim Dooley and Viet Nam, but then again, though we are of different generations and different wars.....in ways most important we are all the same. Pray, Lydia, that God guides my memories and my words. Love, John

After my article was published, a Brad Blog commenter named Freedom Fan, asked me: "In your conversations with God Lydia, has he revealed to you when your life began? At what moment do you think all genetic information is in place to create a human life? Does God consider it a sin to intentionally snuff out innocent human life?"

My response: "When I got sober on Sept. 11, 11 years ago -- I experienced a string of catastrophic miracles, spine-tingling evidence of what I now call God in my life. Around this time I found my beloved younger brother's dead body, bloated and purple with lividity -- and I began my spiritual search. It became clear to me that flesh does not contain life. Life is spirit. And yes, I am absolutely sure of the answers to these questions. But I don't want to impose my discoveries on you without some background, and this is not the place. I have written extensively on life, love, death, faith and spirit -- and my own hilariously embarrassing adventures in spiritual growth.

For me the key is in Christ’s words and the meaning behind his parables. We are eternal and spiritual. And God is love. Love is an actual force, the creative force of the universe, more powerful than hate. Where you put your thoughts, there your heart is. If we were all to focus only on the GOOD in each other -- and return love for hate -- (very difficult to do, hence Christ's famous saying that the "gate is narrow") -- but if we could do this, we would create heaven on earth. It's here, we just can't see it, but some can when they change their perspective. (When we are all able to do this, to change our hearts, that is when I believe the "Second Coming" will happen. That's what Christ meant when he said that only he was the way to the Father: it is LOVE! And it's an inside job.) And in this expression, as a reflection of God, we come into form to express God’s qualities through man, His most glorious creative idea. Our natural state is joyous and childlike. And we are all in fact capable of doing what Christ did, we are supposed to be doing the healings he did. We are all the sons of God, made in God’s image, which is spiritual. You cannot kill spirit. So putting so much emphasis on the fetus or body as “life” is wrong to me. Now dont' get the wrong idea: I am against all killing, and I don't believe in partial-birth abortions. But not everyone in America subscribes to the belief that fetal cells prior to 8 weeks have consciousness or soul; and since we can't legislate religion in a free country where separation of church and state is a tenet of the Constitution - we have an obligation here. I also don't think Jesus wanted us to worship him, his flesh, his body so much -- he wanted us to acknowledge the Christ-truth within ALL of us. It's similar to when Jesus said not to focus on the "letter of the law, but the spirit." Soul, consciousness never dies, cannot be killed, is at-one-with God (atonement.) Is killing pro-life? Wars cause more damage to the families left fatherless, motherless and without their loved ones. We are here in this embodiment to learn to love and accept ourselves and transfer that love and acceptance to each other. Life is spiritual and eternal.

I feel God can be proved through science -- because love is a powerful force, an energy, and it's molecular. Anyway, there is no solid matter. Christ meant what he said when he said we could move a mountain with our faith. The problem is, we just don't believe it. If we did, we'd be walking through that metaphorical Gate. But all our doubts arrest God's work through us. Perfect Love casts out Fear, remember? I have had absolute transformative miracles through this kind of prayer; anyone can. Anyone can heal, for we must put our thoughts on the true spiritual essence of life, not the body. Beneath what is visible is the invisible where true power lies. It's like the software or inner language of a computer, beneath the surface. A great movie to rent to begin to understand in layman's terms this field of infinite possibilities is "What The BLEEP Do We Know". Also click on Google and type in "The Message in the Water" -- and read about a famous Japanese scientist's experiment in how our thoughts create everything. Anyway, my own personal journey (and horrific crash and burn) is coming out in a book soon. I was forced to find these answers on a very personal level. I explain this better in the book, and with more humor. Getting too serious lately. Just saw SYRIANA and GOOD NIGHT and GOOD LUCK. Two excellent movies.

More wrap up from 2005: This is from a BRADBLOG commenter named "Big K", who posted numerous comments on my article, and kept attacking me as a member of "the abortion party." I am getting sick of this; I have never even connected being a liberal with abortion! It's the furthest thing from my mind. This right-wing evangelical cabal invented this as a political smear campaign. There are so many wonderful things about the Democrats, which I will post in my next blog -- and no Democrat likes or wants abortions. Like Jimmy Carter, I am NOT pro-abortion and resent this bizarre right-wing obsession. To me, "liberal" means freedom loving, open-hearted, compassionate toward the poor, saving the earth and pro-LIFE in the ways that REALLY matter: we hate senseless death in any form, especially seeing our young bright soldiers killed and maimed (15,000 without legs and arms now) in a needless, corrupt war! If this war was to get rid of an evil despot and to save the poor Iraqi lives, then why didn't we go to Rwanda where the genocide was actually visible on a constant basis? Okay, so it was to fight terrorism. But the terrorists weren't even there at the start of the war. At least not the ones we were pursuing. Finally Big K explained to me: " What many of us have been saying here Lydia is you are just as liable for the “hate speech” you supposedly despise. Likening us to Nazi’s is not going to get me to see any point you have. (I never likened anyone to a Nazi; I simply pointed out that Coulter's "joking" about killing liberals is the same exact "joking tone" Hitler used when he as dehumanizing the Jews in the early propaganda days.) Then Big K goes on to say this: In Mosaic law, you should stone homosexuals since this is an abomination of nature" does not sound very liberal to me." First of all, I can't believe Big K believes Christ would have stoned a homosexual! Is that what he is saying? He lost me there.

Then a Democrat named Autarkis chimed in: "I can't imagine Christ taking a look at a secular leader taking his largest lifetime contributions from an outfit like Enron, which was the case for President Bush until just a couple years ago, and think that this was what he had in mind. Christ might be troubled to learn that the disparity between rich and poor in this country is growing at a staggering rate with no end in sight, and that Christians, at least the Fundamentalist ones, seem to celebrate this as the bounty of God when they're on the receiving end. But that's Ceasar's business. Maybe Christ wouldn't have given it much thought at all. He probably would be astounded to find that someone capable of mocking a prisoner begging for her life, (as Bush did to Carla Faye Tucker) called Christ his favorite philosopher. And then that this fellow launched wars, if not in his name, at least because he thought God put him in the Presidency to do this? And God's vicar, The Pope, tried to talk him out of one of them?"

380 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:12 AM

    HAPPY NEW YEARS EVERYONE! I would buy everybody a drink (milk for Lydia, unspiked) but your all too far away :D

    Lydia: I do admit you and Worfeus have ignited a very tiny spark from within me, however, you would need the Hubble space telescope to see it. I cant place the words you write now with the person you describe you previously were - self-centered, selfish, drinker, idiot, etc....! What guts! I could never announce to the world such things and this is why I admire you and believe you to be real.

    Also, writing books, blogs, e-mails, and taking care of a family, while under attack, must be a high powered bummer after awhile - something is driving you? Seen a video of Ann Coulter bashing Canada; shes funny:D

    Will return to comment on your latest blog after research. Have to take offspring to first job interview.

    Take care
    Johnny moo moo
    Slug :D

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:06 AM

    Hey Lydia -- you hit the nail on the head, or should I say somwhere else. But I would be careful, many cannot understand what you're saying and may take it the wrong way. But I admire you for saying it. Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Happy New Year, Lydia, to you and your family!! May the new year bring you much happiness and inspiration.

    The world needs more good people like you. The goodness in your heart is so evident. May you share that goodness with any and all who will accept it!

    Take care. Be safe. I'll catch you again next year!

    DrewL

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lydia,

    Big K was referring to the Law of Moses which required death by stoning for a variety of sexual transgressions.

    I would have reminded Big K that Christ had a very public opportunity to show his support for this mosaic practice when the Pharisees brought a woman caught in the act of Adultery.

    It was very early in the morning. Jesus had just descended the Mount of Olives from his morning "quiet time" and had entered the Temple to teach the people (a fact which demonstrates Jesus was indeed a Rabbi, and thereofore married, but that's another post).

    The scribes and Pharisees were ready for him, and brought in a woman they had caught in the act of adultery. According to the Law of Moses, the woman must be stoned as payment for her sin. Never mind the fact that since Roman occupation Hebrew rituals or punishments involving death had been restricted by Roman decree, and therefore the woman was not in any real danger of being stoned.

    Nonetheless the Pharisees had laid a carefully planned trap for Jesus.

    If he denounced the stoning and ignored her transgression he would be easily dismissed as weak on the law, and a radical. In fact, he might even forgive her, in which case the added charge of blasphemy could be applied.

    On the other hand, if he endorsed the Law of Moses, and encouraged the zealous members of the Sanhedrin to stone her, then his good news, his gospel of forgiveness and mercy, was just a sham and could be easily dismissed.

    So Jesus, who was crouching and writing in the sand suddenly stood, faced the crowd, and declared the now famous, "he that is without sin, let him case a stone at her".

    Wonder what Jesus was writing in the sand?

    Who knows, get a life maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Big K1:35 PM

    I am honored that you singled me out in your article, though I think some of what I said was taken out of context. Honestly, I am interested in debate. And there were some great comments on BradBlog that made me think. I hope in some instances you were able to stand back and do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Big K1:47 PM

    One more thing. My Mosaic Law comment seams to be more interesting to people now than it was when I originally wrote it. I was not even sure anyone read it, it got so little response. Jesus did forgive the woman and put off the crowd. What he did not do was say adultery was alright. It is still a sin, and we are to avoid such things. According to Mosaic Law, homosexual behavior is as well. Though we obviously should not be stoning anyone (and I never advocated that, just for the record) we cannot, by the Law, consider it anything buy sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:49 PM

    Glad to hear you don't want to stone homosexuals. But whoever said it was your business to point out sin? Doesn't it say that "let he who is without sin, throw the first stone?" Doesn't this mean it's not our business to judge or be self-righteous. It's God's business. If everyone just took care of their own side of the street, just worked on cleaning up their own morals and sins, we'd all be better off. Then we could lead by example.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Big K said

    "What he did not do was say adultery was alright. It is still a sin, and we are to avoid such things."

    Perhaps Big K.

    But one thing we do know about Jesus.

    He despised those who focused on the sexual transgressions of others.

    Throughout his 3 year ministry he demonstrated a particular disdain for those who did this instead of worrying about what he called the more weightier matters of the law, like justice, mercy and faith.

    He had a name for people like this.

    He called them hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:37 PM

    Worfeus: You are a scholar of the bible yet you do not attend church or call yourself a Christian? May I ask why as I am curious about this And forgive me if I am prying.

    As for being gay, I really dont care what other people do as long as it does not inflict vindictive pain and suffering upon others.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Johnny Moo Moo said
    "you do not attend church or call yourself a Christian? May I ask why"


    It's a fair question Johnny. I have reasons that I won't discuss here, but suffice it to say that the only so called "church" that has any real claim to being directly tied to Christ would be the Roman Catholic Church. We have documents referencing it as early as 107 AD and then as already established, so it is the only one with any real ties to actual the early disciples of Christ.

    But Jesus warned by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church are unfortunately for them, a matter of public record.

    And anyone thinking Christ has anything to do with a church guilty of the most horrific, heinous and unspeakable acts of torture, murder, rape, sodomy and all forms of corruption, well, that person needs to go back and read a little more.

    I studied from the Catholics, and they are the best of the theological scholars out there, but they are far from what Christ would have considered pious.

    Jesus condemned things like repetitive prayers yet the cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church has always been repetitive and redundant prayers. Jesus condemned fancy clothes, long flowing robes and decorative hats for religious leaders and yet these are all trademarks of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. And the list is not just for established or past offenses.

    Christ warned one of the most serious offenses a man could commit is to offend a child. Now it’s been argued that this was a figurative reference to a convert, however I think not, as he pulled a small child to him when he made the reference, instead of pointing to one of his disciples.

    Now we find out the Roman Catholic Church has been a harbinger of child molesters, perhaps for centuries. So with regards to the only Church who can make claims to having descended from Christ, I think Christ was right. By their fruits ye shall know them.

    As for the numerous Protestant religions and such? I don’t think any of them have any real claim to divinity and I think most of them are way off the message he came to give. Some of them have some good in them, but I see nothing pertinent to my salvation necessitating my attendance or membership in any of them.

    I think it’s important to point out here that I do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God, as men like Falwell and Robertson will tell you. I think it’s important to understand that just understanding the context, translation process and politics surrounding the concordance of parchments that we now call the Bible help to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of God, it is the words of men, trying to explain the divine

    As for my comments on how Christ dealt with sexual matters, that was directed towards Big K's comments. Personally I don't know how they treat homosexuals up there in Canada, but down here they're tying them to barbwire fences and beating them to death.

    That's why we need to speak out about this sort of religious hypocrisy and intolerance and never stop until it goes away.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think Johnny Moo Moo, if you were to just read the 4 Gospels, Matthew, Mark Luke and John, and focus on the actual words of Christ, then it would all sort of make sense. Just read them over and over. Don't worry, they're short, and easy reads.

    But these 4 books contain everything, and I mean everything,that I personally believe, that anyone who wishes to call themselves Christian needs to know.

    See, religion had been around for thousands of years by the time Christ got here, and really screwed up the place.

    Jesus got here, saw the mess, and said "look fellas, don't take this wrong or anything, but loose all the hype, pomp, rituals, the funny hats :D, and mysticism, and learn to….well….just be nice to each other". Get along. Take care of each other.

    That's it, that's the Gospel of Christ in a nutshell.

    And what we have now in the form of religion is pretty much everything else. All the hype, all the rituals and all the bogus pious hypocrisy that permeates the denominations today. Everything that Christ despised and condemned and dedicated his ministry to steering us from.

    Oh yea and don’t forget the funny hats. :D

    ReplyDelete
  12. James W.9:26 PM

    I agree with you Worfeus, there is a lot about religion that is really wrong. But some churches do a lot of missionary work and help the poor. I always found it strange that the Catholic church made you go through a priest to get to God, when you can access God directly. Also didn't Jesus say, "Call no man Father on this earth?" Why do they make you call the priests "Father"?

    The extreme religious right (check out AFA, they are really homophobic) really scares me. They think they are the "persecuted" Christians, but they've got it backward. It's the liberals (or people who are opposite of judgmental) who are true Christ-followers, according to Christ's actual teachings. They are the persecuted ones today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Were pretty much on the same page James.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous9:44 PM

    A quote from a self-proclaimed Christian about Ann Coulter: "... she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity." Who would hate someone that much? Who indeed Lydia? Look in the mirror and see a leftist Ann peering back.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ann Coulter does belong to either the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity.

    So?

    What's your point? :|

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don't think Jesus, the first so called Christian, would hesitate to call someone who condones the senseless killing of tens of thousands a hypocrite, or worse.

    Being a Christian does not mean being a wimp.

    Lydia is not going to be buffaloed by your pseudo morality quips. She stands up to people like Coulter, and religious hypocrites like Falwell, and she calls it like she sees it.

    Shes what the Liddle's called a muscular Christian, and the US needs about 100,000 more just like her.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous11:20 PM

    Worfeus : I am feeling a little tipsy right now and will get back to you. Dont want to say anything I may regret:D

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  18. Worf,

    "As for my comments on how Christ dealt with sexual matters, that was directed towards Big K's comments. Personally I don't know how they treat homosexuals up there in Canada, but down here they're tying them to barbwire fences and beating them to death."

    Can the hyperbole. There's whack jobs on BOTH sides. During the same period as the incident you describe two gay men sodomized and killed a young boy. Didn't hear about that on the mainstream media did you?

    The Death of Jesse Dirkhising Ignored by the Media Not A Hate Crime

    By Joseph Farah
    WorldNetDaily.com

    His parents thought he was working as a hair stylist on weekends. But when Prairie Grove, Ark., police responded to a 911 emergency call at 5 a.m. Sept. 26, they found 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on the floor, unconscious, near death, one of his wrists bound with duct tape. A half-hour later, he was pronounced dead at St. Mary's Hospital in Roger. A police investigation determined young Jesse was repeatedly raped over a period of hours, including with foreign objects. While enduring this ordeal, his ankles, knees and wrists were bound in duct tape and he was gagged and blindfolded. He was tied to a mattress. He may have been drugged, police say. A sedative called amitryptiline was found in the home of two men -- Joshua Brown, 22, and David Don Carpenter, 38 -- along with Jesse's body.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry Eric, my posts are on religious intolerence, not gay bashing.

    If you think because some gay guys killed someone, that we should ignore the religious intolerance in this country, then thats your disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Glad you clarified that.

    I don't remember reading anywhere that Matthew Shepards attackers were religeous.

    I too am concerned with religeous intolerance. Christians are being persecuted relentlessly in this country by the government, the schools, the media and the ACLU.

    It's amazing, if you bash Jews, Muslims or any other religeon it's hateful and you're a bigot, but Christians are fair game.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eric -- I am not talking about real Christians, actual Christ followers. It's this new Christian-fascism that is so disturbing. When I say "I suspect Ann Coulter is a member of the Antichrist Trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity" I'm using hyperbole to express truth: she wears a cross around her neck on television, yet talks about killing people and converting them to Christianity, and she has said it too many times in too many different ways for it to be a joke no matter that her tone appears to be "joking". She also calls for assassinating our last president rather than impeaching him, and to top it off, she has actually said that she thinks women are dumb and their right to vote should be revoked. Now if that's not extremist religious fundamentalism (similar to the Taliban)I don't know what is!! Christ was the Prince of Peace. He forbade killing or vengeance of any kind! I mean, Coulter calls herself a Christian but this is the most repellent, damaging thing to true Christians who are TRULY being persecuted. It is anti-Christian (antichrist). Her words are full of hate which is the opposite of love, is it not? Do you see any humility,admission of wrongs, or any love coming out of this person?

    And the fact that FOX network and now Matt Lauer treats this person as a conservative scholar is unconscionable! NOwhere in Christ's teaching is there anything to be found regarding humans judging other humans. As far as protecting citizens against murderers, yes we must lock them up. But we must not kill, right? Why do these new Christians think it's okay to kill living human beings who have sinned and been forgiven by God in their hearts -- yet they are obsessed with the unborn? Isn't killing a man on death row equally bad? Are you refuting Christ's law that sinners who repent are to be forgiven? Didn't Moses kill a man -- and then God used him to bring the Ten Commandments? I'm just saying that if you are against killing the fetal cells before 8 weeks - you should also be against killing a prisoner on Death row who is capapble of being redeemed. That's what Christ did.

    Christ only talks about loving your enemies and loving your neighbor as yourself. He talks about forgiveness and lightening others' burdens because it is a harsh enough world. Sin catches up to everyone. It is up to God to judge -- which comes from within. People start leading moral lives by following the peaceful example of true Christians -- people are turned off by militant Christians. Lost souls are converted by attraction not promotion. I have a friend who attended law school at Pat Robertson's Regent University -- and she had to leave because the students there used the "N" word and were actually hateful toward her because she was Catholic! (My husband is a recovering Catholic, by the way...) sorry this post was so long.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Prophet9:11 AM

    Here's one for you, Worfeus....

    On January 1st, eight days after the Holy Nativity of our Lord, we celebrate His Circumcision, one of the Feasts of the Lord, on which—in accordance with Hebrew tradition—He received the name "Jesus": "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child, His name was called Jesus, which was so named of the Angel before He was conceived in the womb" (St. Luke 2:21).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous9:22 AM

    Worfeus - I have read inbetween the lines and understand where your coming from regarding your independence :|

    Although I do not own a bible and have not read one in a coons age, I do remember Jesus saying something to the effect that he liked people who practiced/prayed alone and tried not to be showoffs.

    Im going to have to buy one used or score one from my next hotel visit ...lol Im just curious so dont think anything rash like maybe Im trying to be a follower or something. If the fish fry does exist, I know theres a special reserved spot for me. I wonder if Lydia would be holding the spatula?

    Speaking of Lydia, whats she doing hanging around demon/devil like creatures in her blog picture - I thought she was a Christian? I woulda guessed she hung around angels lol...

    Johnny moo moo
    aethist

    P.S. What is the deal with those funny hats? If they know they bug Jesus, how come they still wear them?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lydia,

    I believe you truly mean well, unlike many others who claim to share some of your views.

    I can't speak for Ann (she does that rather well herself) but if you look beyond the satirical and attention getting bombs she does make you think. And although the left may not like her views, she IS a scholar.
    (complete with law degree and all)

    Although we didn't actually kill ALL their leaders, look what Christianity did for Japan post WWII. Sure, they incorporated a lot of their ancestor worship into it, but A country that was pretty much pagan is now one of our strongest allies. (matter of fact, MOST of our strongest allies are countries who butts we kicked somewhere down the line...)

    As far as death row inmates go, until someone comes up with a device to read whats in their minds or hearts we have no way of actually knowing wether they've been redeemed or not. And if their crimes have been especially heinious I think they deserve to be sent on for a more "professional" judging.

    On the other end of the spectrum you alluded to abortion. I think that's been debated ad naseum by others more intelligent than either you or I and I suppose it just comes down to faith. (I know what I believe)
    That said, no one seems to address the secular side of it very often. A fetus is at the very least a potential human being. A woman SHOULD have the right to choose. She should have the right to choose to use contraceptives, she should have the right to say "no". A woman should have a right to control over her own body, but does this also mean the right to disect and flush down a sink someone else's body? I have also seen this debated under the pretext of "equal rights" yet all the rights seem to be on the side of the woman.
    It takes TWO to tango so to speak but if the woman wants an abortion, and her partner wants the child he's just out of luck. And should he NOT want the child and she does, well then he's just going to have to pay child support for the next 18 years. How "equal" is that?

    Hypocrisy abounds on both sides. I bring this up because I note that you in your column, and worfeus and some others want to dismiss the good we've done in Iraq by bringing up atrocities in other countries like Rwanda. Sadly to say but we can't afford to be everywhere. And had we invaded Rwanda, the left would STILL be demonizing our president. Our military is used to defend our national interests and if some good is done along the way so much the better. The left want to condemn Bush for killing 30 thousand "inocent" Iraqis but give a pass to Saddam who killed almost half a million. Good people can debate wether invading Iraq was right or wrong but we're there NOW, and for every interview you could post of a soldier who thinks we were wrong I could post two who think they're serving a noble purpose. The mainstream media like to print stories from reporters who sit in the green zone and relay heresay, but if you read those who actually have ventured out into Iraq, we ARE actually doing a lot of good there. You may not like FOX news but Greg Palkot did a recent special on Iraq that was quite enlightning.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just had to add this,

    "NOwhere in Christ's teaching is there anything to be found regarding humans judging other humans. As far as protecting citizens against murderers, yes we must lock them up. But we must not kill, right?"

    "by their fruits ye shall know them"
    -sounds like we're being asked to judge here...

    And perhaps worf can help us out with this one,
    One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not kill"
    I have read that this is a mis-translation. There is a difference between "killing" and "murder" and the original text was more akin to "Thou shall not murder"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Prophet said...
    Here's one for you, Worfeus....

    On January 1st, eight days after the Holy Nativity of our Lord, blah blah blah.

    I have no idea what your point is here Prophet, however Jesus was born in April.

    So to you Prophet, being I have no clue what this post was supposed to mean, all I can say is Merry Dies Natalis Invicti Solis

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eric SAID
    And perhaps worf can help us out with this one,One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not kill" I have read that this is a mis-translation. There is a difference between "killing" and "murder" and the original text was more akin to "Thou shall not murder"


    Actually that is almost correct. I wrote a rather lengthy post on this topic last month on ThinkProgress.Org.

    This is one of the advantages of studying the Allepo Codex (900BC), or as it is commonly known, the Masoretic Text particularly with regards to the Old Testament. The Masoretic text was written in the original “language” of the bible, ( the oldest copies we have date back to only the 9th century however, so do not confuse the Masoretic text with antiquity) and is used exclusively for Old Testament translations of commonly used modern Bibles, like the King James Translations.

    In the Allepo Codex, we find the original word used in the passage in question, thou shalt not kill is actually the Hebrew word Ratsach, which specifically means Murder. While the Masoretic text is not the original Hebrew, it does complement the original Greek or Septuagint in this instance, which uses the Greek word phoneuo which also means the Murder of a person, not simply killing.

    It is also important to note that these words were not commonly used to describe the killing of an animal.

    The words used in this context, that is the slaughtering of animals in the Masoretic text were zabach, tabach, or shachat, and in the Septuagint we find the Greek thuo used to describe the killing of animals.

    And of course for the killing in war there was the common use of the Hebrew word muth and in the Septuagint we find the Greek word apokteino to describe combat killing.

    So you are sorta correct here Eric.

    The Hebrew translation of the Old Testament that is commonly used, the Masoretic text, does use a word that means specifically to murder another human being.

    But the Masoretic, with the earliest fragments dating to only to the 9th Century, is by no means the original Hebrew.

    Now I am not sure what your point was on this one, but this should help to answer your question on the word used for Kill.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous12:36 PM

    Did anyone see that Discovery episode hosted by Diane Sawyer about Pope Joan, a female Pope? Whoever is Catholic on this post (Big K?) what do you think of a female pope -- and why are so many men ands religeous people afraid of women? They used to forbid women to enter the church after childbirth and taught everyone that "women" were a defect of nature. Unbelievabe! No wonder so many priests were gay.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous1:10 PM

    Hi Lydia, I've been a fan of yours since I was a little kid, I really liked Too Close for Comfort and I remember you hosting New Year's Rocking Eve around 1980 or so, thats why I checked out your Website to see what you've been up to.

    All I can say is WOW am I impressed, you are so intelligent and insightful, everything you say is right on the money, in these dangerous times we really need someone like you to open the publics eyes to what is really going on and expose these deceivers and hate mongers who are trying to seize power and destroy democracy, and take us to a place we dont want to go. you are also such a good and caring person and still absolutely gorgeous as well.

    I have to say I was both angry and appalled, but not surprised at what Ann Coulter did by posting your phone# and e-mail, she knew exactly what she was doing, she wanted her "followers" to attack and intimidate you, she wanted you to be fearful for yourself and your family so you would just "go away" she sees you as a threat because you see through her deception and brainwashing of the masses and were trying to enlighten people. Coulture just like the Bush Administration never want to debate issues with people with open minds, thats why she did not respond to you, she just gave you that low blow cheapshot and made it appear that you are some ditzy airhead liberal actress princess that doesnt even deserve a response from her and will run away and hide her head in the sand then move on to some other cause as soon as you break a nail, she wanted you to doubt yourself and be fearful. which I hope doesnt happen because we need someone like you right now.

    the last few years I also have gotten this sick feeling in my gut that in some ways the US now with The Religous Right/Neo Cons in charge is very similar to when the Nazi's were trying to seize power in Germany. I see the Deceivers and Hatemongers and Eliteists trying circumvent the constitution to take away more and more of our rights and liberties, seize or cement their power (ie Supreme Court, Patriot Act etc) not to mention how they deceive voters into thinking Liberals are a dirty work and Democrats are weak and all they want to do is raise taxes, they also seem to have stolen the south and midwest by not only appealing to religious conservatives but also rednecks and young votors by their tough and vulgar talk and their painting Democrats and liberals as weak or sissies that no real man would vote for. Also this notion that it is unpatriotic to question our leaders or this war I find both disgusting and disturbing. I think our imperial or is it imperious leaders seem to be forgeting that they are there to serve us, not the other way around.

    Every time I see these people spewing their propaganda and deceiving the masses I get this sick feeling in my stomach that we are about to live through the Nazi's seizing power in Germany, or the Emperor seizing power in Star Wars, Lydia you seem very well versed in History, could you recommend any books on when Hitler and The Nazi's seized power in Germany, or what happened in Russia under Stalin (I know absolutely nothing about that.)

    In closing I just want to say i'll think i'll be visiting your website alot more, as I have a great deal of respect for you, I hope you keep up what you are doing and dont let slime like Ann Coulter and her followers get you down, because you are too good a person for that.

    PS, I know your probably really busy, but I really hope you respond to the similar e-mail I sent regarding the Blog

    Happy New Year
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Mike. You don't know it, but you speak for tens of millions of Americans who feel exactly like you.

    And your fears are justified. There is a reason tens of Millions of Americans and most of the civilized world fear the same things you are talking about, because we see the same pitfalls, the same trappings, sucking our people in.

    If you want a good book on how it all started for the German people, I suggest starting by reading My Battle, by Adolph Hitler, (aka Mein Kampf). While it's not a historic account it is full of good right winged war machine talking points, like condemning homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and other so called Christian ideals, condemning those who will not sign on to pre-emptive war, etc.

    It's a real page turner.

    ReplyDelete
  31. BTW Eric,

    Lydia has stated repeatedly that she does not condone casual or non-essential abortions.

    That entire paragraph you wrote on abortion is moot.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hello Lydia,

    Just discovered your blog and it's fantastic! I really admire your courage to speak out about important social issues and stand your ground when you're being attacked.

    It was also interesting that you quoted the number of people who have been injured in Iraq; so many people just think about the death toll and forget that sometimes serious injuries are worse than death because people have to live for decades with amputations or other diseases or disfigurements.

    I'm not religious or spiritual, so I'm going to bow out of the Christian discussion :-) However, as a native of New Jersey who is currently residing in Canada, I will say that we are much more evolved here in terms of legislation.

    For example, same-sex marriage is legal (and it's quite possible that marijuana and prostitution will be legalized within the near future). However, that doesn't mean that gays are treated equally. There's still a stigma but that would depend on where someone lives. Downtown Toronto would be much more accepting than a small town in Saskatchewan.

    Anyway, keep up the great work, Lydia, and don't let anyone intimidate you into backing down or retracting your statements. What saddens me about the present political climate is that debate has become so personalized.

    Debate and disagreement are healthy. I would think that it was really strange if everyone agreed with me! That would only happen in a Stepford World. We all benefit by disagreement, but only when it's done in a respectful fashion without ad hominem attacks.

    Happy New Year to you, Lydia, and to the other posters here on the board.

    Best, Sigrid

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous3:59 PM

    Einsatzgruppen - Russia - WW2- I believe it was Erich Koch who was walking around a large pit filled with dozens of little children. Suddenly engulfed in flames, the children screamed in unimaginable agony while reaching out for their little lives. Smiling, Koch casually threw candy at them ignoring their pleas. Death penalty...ABSOLUTELY. Hanging an innocent man due to the flawed justice system. ABSOLUTELY NOT.


    I instantly recognized, while watching the video of her bashing Canada, that Ann Coulter is a controversial attention getter and do not take her seriously - kind of like a crazy Howard Stern whom, I do like, but do not always agree with. I actually thought she was kind of funny and may have even liked her had she not posted Lydias personal information; this was not funny and potentially dangerous. However, Lydia is very correct when she speaks of conditioning through comedic like tactics. Whether Ann is doing this I dont know as I have never met her personally. But I do place all my bets on Lydia.

    I agree with Lydia and Worfeus that peace/diplomacy is by far the best soluton to war; WAR IS NEVER A PICNIC! However, Eric is correct as well. Sometimes war can bring people /countries closer together and can actually, in the long run, save lives. A type of chrysalis takes place that starts with calamity and then, slowly & evevtually, turns to
    acceptance and friendship. On a small scale, Worfeus and Stevie are proof of this. Sadly ,a chrysalis may not be given the proper chance to run its full course.

    Although there are many social factors to consider, I generally agree with "Jo" (I think that was her name) from Brad Blog. Beautiful, I could not have said it better myself.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  34. worf,

    I believe this is what prophet was refering to:

    http://www.chattablogs.com/aionioszoe/archives/cat_orthodox_feasts_and_fasts.html

    Probably in regard to your posting of April 1 as Christs birthday.
    (It's rather lengthy, but the first several paragraphs pretty much spell it out....)

    ReplyDelete
  35. War is always evil Johnny. Sometimes it's what is referred to as a necessary evil, but it's always bad.

    Saying it is no picnic is more than an understatement.

    Try telling that to the Iraqi women picking up peices of their own children off the street.

    No picnic?

    The horrors, and unspeakable bloodshed that occurs in war never justifies the commencement of it.

    The only time war is justified is as a defensive measure, to protect your country, or an ally of your country who is under direct or imminent attack.

    Anything else is Ratsach, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Johnny,

    As I stated before, I think Lydia (and some others) mean well. In a utopian world these ideas would be fantastic.
    However we don't live in a utopian world. Here, if someone smites you on your cheek and you turn the other one as well your family will be planning your funeral tomorrow. Its fine to believe in Jesus and love, but evil also exists in the world. Not everyone can be rehabilitated or retrained, sometimes evil is simply their nature.
    Peace and diplomacy work fine with reasonable people, but sometimes peace and diplomacy allows evil time to grow stronger and harder to depose. Chamberlain tried that with Hitler and led the brits into a slaughter that sucked in most of the rest of the world. Until the rest of the world is ready to turn their other cheeks we cannot.
    I don't know if many people know this, but during the cold war the USSR wasn't the only country we had our nukes trained on. We were set to take out most of our enemies as well.
    The reason is pretty simple. After an all out nuclear confrontation we would be ill prepared or equipped to defend ourselves from the other vultures who would likely descend on us in our weakened state afterwards.
    Just food for thought.

    Also, I have to admit I am quite an admirer of Patton. Who would want to live in a utopia anyway? Nothing to strive for, no new worlds to tame and conquer?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eric,

    That's fine. You just said your feelings as they are, for all to read. Kudos.

    Just don't ever make the mistake of calling yourself a Christian.

    Nazi? Sure. Roman? Maybe. Phillistine? Why not.

    But Christian? Not in a pigs eye.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Also Eric, since you are in so truthful of a mood tonight, I never said Christs birthday was on April 1st.

    I did say it was likely sometime between April 1st and April 11th as is believed, and has been believed by theologians and scholars for over a thousand years.

    The entire argument by the way from Tighe, was not to determine Christs birthday, but to discredit the idea that Christmas descended from Pagan holidays.

    His argument, while amusing, does not hold water, particularly compared to the thousands of Judeo-Christian scholars who disagree with him. Primarly the first Church, that is the Roman Catholic Church.

    Christmas was designed to celebrate the birth of Christ, and does corrospond to Roman pagan rituals that coincide with the date. And the early Roman Catholic Church used those celebrations to gradually introduce the idea of a Christmas holiday.

    That is simply a fact, and is a completely different argument as to the actual date of Christs birth.

    I have written at length on his actual date of birth in earlier posts, so I won't elaborate further, other than to say that this little blog article you guys ran across does not deter from the endless volumes of data published on this topic for the last 2000 years.

    The idea of where Christmas came from is as always, a complete distraction from the issues we were discussing in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  39. worfeus said...

    "...Try telling that to the Iraqi women picking up peices of their own children off the street."

    Try telling THAT to Iraqi fathers wrongly jailed who had to watch their wives and daughters raped and sodomized in front of them. Tell it to the famillies of the victims uncovered in the mass graves. Tell it to the people who had to watch loved ones fed alive into meat grinders.

    Sometimes the evil ones are the ones who simply stand by and do nothing.

    As I said before, we can debate wether going in was right or wrong, but we're there NOW. It's a shame that humanitarian interests have to take a backseat to our national interests but we simply cannot be everywhere.

    And worf, while I see you condemn this administration quite often, I've yet to see you critisize Saddam with the same vehemence.

    ReplyDelete
  40. worfeus said...

    "...Try telling that to the Iraqi women picking up peices of their own children off the street."

    Try telling THAT to Iraqi fathers wrongly jailed who had to watch their wives and daughters raped and sodomized in front of them. Tell it to the famillies of the victims uncovered in the mass graves. Tell it to the people who had to watch loved ones fed alive into meat grinders.

    Sometimes the evil ones are the ones who simply stand by and do nothing.

    As I said before, we can debate wether going in was right or wrong, but we're there NOW. It's a shame that humanitarian interests have to take a backseat to our national interests but we simply cannot be everywhere.

    And worf, while I see you condemn this administration quite often, I've yet to see you critisize Saddam with the same vehemence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sorry for the double.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Try telling that to the 50,000 Iraqi men and boys currently enjoying a full featured stay at the new and improved Abu Ghraib prison courtesy of their new benevolant taskmasters, the mighty US war machine.

    We now offer them a fully featured vaction experience, with all the comforts of the old regime, including illegal detainments, beatings, waterboarding, barbwire necties, rape, sodomy, etc. It's a fabulous vacation experience.

    And I bet they can't wait to tip the bellhops.

    The Iraqi people were not liberated.

    They were simply handed from one evil tyrant, to another.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eric Said

    It's a shame that humanitarian interests have to take a backseat to our national interests

    No, what's a shame is that our humanity would ever take a backseat to the semi-national cowardice of men like you.

    Men who would sell out our countries humanity because of thier snibbling paranoid little fears.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Worf,

    You seem to hold our military in such high regard. As I recall it was only a few involved in that particular incident and they were punished or are being punished for it. In any large group you always get a few who are unbalanced. Your side has more than its share. And again comparing our administration and soldiers to Saddam is reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  45. As opposed to the cowardice of sitting on your hands and ignoring the drumbeat of war in the rest of the world? We did that once or twice. Remember the Cole? How about the World Trade Center?
    I don't know about you but after turning 4 cheeks I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous5:29 PM

    Hopefully President Bush will go after Iran soon to give you liberals something to really whine about.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Eric Said

    As I recall it was only a few involved in that particular incident and they were punished or are being punished for it

    Nice argument Eric.

    Now where have I heard that defense before? Hmmm...lemme think...


    "These so-called ill-treatments and this torturing... were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual leaders, subleaders, and men who laid violent hands on internees...

    It is obvious that there were elements among them who would ill-treat internees, but this ill-treatment was never tolerated."


    Auschwitz Kommandant Rudolf Hoess From his Cell at Nuremberg
    Nazi War Crimes Trials

    ReplyDelete
  48. And yes Eric,

    If you were afraid of the tiny nation of Iraq then you are a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  49. My only problem with Bush is that he didn't go far enough. My way, not one American soldier would have died. Israel would've had about 30 days to construct a big lead wall and the rest of the middle east would've been a big smoking crater. Then I'd go drill the oil out from under the smouldering dead flesh/ashes. If the Saudis didn't like it, I'd smoke them too.

    Now run out and get a job swinging a hammer for about eight to ten hours a day, and you won't have the time to sit around and think about this stupid crap.

    And if you don't think war is biblical, Try reading the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eric said

    Remember the Cole? How about the World Trade Center?

    Bearing false witness against our neighbors in Iraq, is not going to absolve you, or the millions like you who supported the butchering of their people in their own streets, from the crime of murder.

    You'll have to take that one up with the Big Guy.

    Just tell him you were scared, cause big, bad Iraq was gonna come get you. :|

    He'll understand.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't believe it IS bearing "false witness". Militant Islam is the enemy here not specifically Iraq. And they were involved even if indirectly.

    And you STILL want to blame our country over and above the real criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jim said

    My way,,,,

    ,,,the middle east would've been a big smoking crater.

    Then I'd go drill the oil out from under the smouldering dead flesh/ashes. If the Saudis didn't like it, I'd smoke them too.


    To the rest of you reading, who are not raving lunatics, here is a prime example of how mass murderers rise to power.

    Idiots like poor carpenter Jim, who preach mass genocide like they are describing weeding their gardens, are the yeast. They help the tyrants rise.

    If the people support mass murder, then it's easy for the tyrants to push it.

    Hurry Jim, I think 24 is coming on. Tell your wife to put down the National Enquirer, open you another can of Pabst, and turn on the tube.

    You can watch as Jack Bauer saves the world by shooting his own people in the head, or torturing American senator’s children on US soil.

    Hurry though, cause I think I here Armageddon coming. :|

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous5:47 PM

    Eric: WOW!

    Eric said: " Peace and diplomacy work fine with reasonable people" etc...

    I have always said, one cannot walk into a mental hospital and simply say: " Okay people, I want everyone to start being reasonable by tomorrow!"

    And your absolutely right about Chamberlain as his good intentions are pretty much written down in history as being weak kneed and appeasing which may have actually somewhat contributed to the start of the war.

    I agree with every single last word you have written except the Patton thing and feel I am actually looking in a mirror.

    You also left room open for respect towards Lydia and Worfeus and their very noble intentions that I too admire.

    Outstanding post! However, I suggest that one remembers a point of futility can be reached in war as well.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  54. Eric,

    You are bearing false witness and you know it. There was never a tie between Bin Laden, Alqeada and Saddam.

    And Saddam Hussien and the Baathist regime were anything but fundemental muslims. They were enemies to fundemental extremeists.

    But if you think Iraq had something to do with 911, then I have some land for sale.

    In Florida. :|

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hey sissy boy, ever been in a street fight? Did you just hit em once and let em get back up to kick your ass. No............you knock them down, and keep stomping on them until you win. Iraq is just a larger scale way of taking care of a block bully.

    If we could go back in time and give them nuclear weapons, you'd soon find out.

    If you don't like the way the US is doing things, You're welcome to pick ANY middle eastern country and move there. See how sorry you feel for them then.

    If and when the economy of this country ever fails you'll be one of the ones who starves to death because you think skinning an animal is the same as unwrapping your big mac and fries.

    Love Jim

    ReplyDelete
  56. Worf,

    There are documents uncovered that show that emissaries of Al queda and bin Laden had approached Saddam. Saddam was also financing suicide bombers in Israel. Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction if he didn't have them now. He used them against his own people. He was trying to aquire them when we invaded. Even Joe Wilsons report belies his public statements. Do you want to wait until the terrorists have a nuke or get them before? The enemy is Extremist Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The Cowardly Carpenter Jim said

    Iraq is just a larger scale way of taking care of a block bully

    No genius, in this case we're the bully.

    See were bigger. For them to be the bully, they'd have to be bigger than us.

    :|

    It's easy if you think about it.

    Of course, you would have to have a functional brain to do that.

    Here let me suggest this.

    Why don't you sell your doublwide (not your wife, your trailer), buy one of those steel Panic rooms, you know, the steel bunkers, and bury in underground.

    Crawl in, pull the lid shut and hide out for 20 or 30 years.

    Let the years of malted hops and bong resin clean itself out of your cranium, and we'll call you when it's safe to come out.

    ReplyDelete
  58. To you Eric, like I said, if you think there were ties between the anti Islamic Baathists, and the Bin Laden gang, then get out your checkbook genius, cause I got some nice swampland for sale and I'm dying to move it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous6:10 PM

    Worfeus- There is a very powerful story behind the "war is never a picnic" quote that I still do not understand and probably never will. I can certainly understand how you would find this odd.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  60. Johnny,

    Thank you. I believe there are some out there with good intentions. That said there aren't many. (also, I think they are quite naive as well.) Most of the left are much more dictatorial than the right.
    They preach love, and hate anyone who disagrees. They preach free speech and want to stifle the speech of those who disagree. They act as if they know whats best for the rest of us. I prefer free will.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Eric Said

    They act as if they know whats best for the rest of us

    In case you have not seen a TV in a while, you guys are in charge.

    And as long as your side is murdering in my name, and waving a bible at me while doing it, I will continue to speak up, and speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Eric Said

    They preach love, and hate anyone who disagrees

    You're wrong again.

    Lydia preaches love.

    WORFEUS preaches hate.

    The subtle type of back door evil that is creeping into our nation, in the guise of the Christian right, Moral Strength, and National Defense deserves nothing less than all out hatred.

    WORFEUS does not love these things, nor does he love the people who endorse these things.

    That I'll leave up to Lydia and God.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Eric Said

    They preach free speech and want to stifle the speech of those who disagree

    Wrong again.

    No one here is stifling free speech.

    Lydia even went to the trouble of putting up this site so you can freely speak.

    Your freely speaking now, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  64. As I suspected worfeus, you more and more prove yourself to be some 300 lb lesbian sitting on their couch in Frisco wondering who their newest little convert is with. Amazing how the internet can make even the most simple of beings look complex.

    The mosquito carries west nile virus. It's small and unassuming, but it kills many. It goes to show how insignificant little creatures can do much damage with the right weaponry. Much like you and the internet. I know the women in your life would disagree, but size doesn't really matter. A small bully with big guns can become a large threat in a hurry. Genocide or not. Best to eliminate the threat early and often.

    Just for the record, I'm not a carpenter. I was just trying to pick a job for you that would be more complementary than the apptitude you've shown. Fry Cook. You know, "Would you like fries with that?"

    And please have a heart. Stop stalking Wesley Crusher. He already has a boyfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Like I said Jim, sell the double-wide, (no, not the wife),buy a bunker and crawl on in.

    When the big bad terrorist are gone, well call you and the other murderous cowards, sissies and other assorted punkites, who lash out at anything that moves whenever they get hit.

    As for the lesbian comment?

    I do like women exclusively, so maybe I am a lesbian :D

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh and BTW, nothing wrong with being a carpenter.

    My dad was one for 48 years and I myself swung a 20 ounce framing hammer for a decade myself back in the 80's.

    There is nothing wrong with being a carpenter. Just a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Worf,

    You personally may not stifle free speech, nor Lydia. My point was a majority of those on the left DO.

    Jim also has a point. If you don't mind a personal story, My son recently came out of a movie theater and encountered some older school mates beating up a 15 year old. He broke up the fight and gave them a taste of their own medicine. I don't think thats criminal and I didn't demonize him for it. Likewise, I can't demonize this administration for bullying a bully like Sadam.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Eric, Buddy, Pal, Compadre,

    If you can't see the difference between intervening in a fist fight to help someone on our own soil, and travelling across the ocean against the will of the entire world, to wage all out war on a civilian population, contributing to what by our own standards equates to genocide, in a foreign land and in a soverign nation, then I am not sure if I can help you.

    I will try, but I am not sure I can.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Eric said

    You personally may not stifle free speech, nor Lydia. My point was a majority of those on the left DO.


    You are referring to the shout out of Ann Coulter at Conn U I believe.

    If so, know that I agree with you on that point. I think what they did to Ann Coulter was criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Well fags suck.

    Not critisizing just a statment of fact. And Wesley Crusher more so.

    In all the so called statements I've made, I've made at least one valid political point in each. What amazes me most is that you've chosen to ignore the political points that this web site claims to hold dear and make my petty insults the focus of your replies.

    Whether or not my opinion is right or wrong, (and I am RIGHT) You seem to be more interested in arguing than anything else. I ran across this web site by chance. If my luck holds, I'll never see it again. I did enjoy it though. I've always enjoyed a good exchange of insults.

    The problem is, It's all you have. If you elect Satan to be president in your next election, my life won't change one tittle. I'll bet yours won't either.

    I could wonk forever, but I won't. The short and sweet of it is, Ya'll need a hobby.

    Thanks for the laughs

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hey Jim? Still there?

    I think I found a buyer for your double-wide.

    Find that panic bunker yet? Got enough to eat? I think I can spare a few MRE's.

    Uh oh, what's that?

    Looks like the big bad terrorists are all in a boat, coming from Iraq, and they're heading this way!

    Run JIM, RUN!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jim said

    If you elect Satan to be president in your next election

    Uhh, actually Jim, I think that horse has already left the barn. :|

    ReplyDelete
  73. Worf,

    It was an analogy. Just as people in this country are neighbors, so too other countries on this planet are neighbors. I think that the microcosm is pretty much equal to the macrocosm.
    If it applies on a small scale, it probably does on a much larger one as well.

    The Ann Coulter thing at UConn is only one such incident, there are MANY.

    By the way, if you really want to know what we're up against check out Craig Winns site:

    www.prophetofdoom.net

    Also, of interest to you as a bible scholar you might check the link "Yada Yahweh" at the top.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Jim said...

    Well fags suck.

    No Jim

    You suck.

    Oh and BTW, the buyer crapped out on purchasing your doublewide.

    Turns out they thought I was talking about your wife. :|

    ReplyDelete
  75. Much like the mass media, you take snippits of what people say, and try to promote your own useless opinions Join CNN. It's not difficult to take sound bites or video bites and make someone else look like an asshole.

    Of course you don't need that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sarcasm is the proof a weak mind.

    I intentionally insulted you to sidetrack you from the point.

    Seems you'd argue than debate.

    I have no further use for you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Jim Said

    It's not difficult to take sound bites or video bites and make someone else look like an asshole

    You can say that again brother :D

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous7:20 PM

    Jim: Out of respect for Lydia, we all try to check our language and keep the site clean.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  79. Jim Said

    I intentionally insulted you to sidetrack you from the point.


    Oh, well thank you.

    I appreciate it. One question, wheres the insult again? :|

    ReplyDelete
  80. #######SANITY CHECK########

    THE FOLLOWING IS A SANITY CHECK

    PLEASE REMAIN SEATED :|


    Jim said

    Seems you'd (rather) argue than debate

    But earlier Jim said

    I intentionally insulted you to sidetrack you from the point.

    Hmmmmm......:|

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jim said

    Sarcasm is the proof a weak mind

    Actually Jim, I think the saying goes more like; profanity is the sign of a weak mind

    But nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think now would be a good time to repost a quote by a great Republican President, that Lydia used to start this thread.

    It may help us all get back on track.

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    President Theodore Roosevelt

    ReplyDelete
  83. Last post came from Jim. Don't want anyone else blamed.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    President Theodore Roosevelt

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous7:52 PM

    BTW Lydia, I like the funny picture of you with the demon and hope you understand I was only teasing you in my earlier post.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  86. I didn't quote anyone.

    I have thoughts of my own

    I don't need to regurgitate what other's say.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Jim, what are you babbling about?

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian."

    -Theodore Roosevelt

    ReplyDelete
  89. What does what Teddy Roosevelt think about Indians have to do with what he said about blindly following our leaders?

    It's funny everytime there is a post that is pertinent to the thread someone posts some idle chatter or meaninless chit chat or unrelated quote that deters from the threads origins and purpose.


    Wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  90. The question is not about cowboys and indians Eric, although I know it is likely a favorite literary topic of yours.

    The question is, do you agree with Roosevelts concept on following the President blindly, or not?

    It's a simple matter really.

    Besides, didn't I tell you no cap pistols in the house?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Here, let me post it again, since we seem to be missing the point.
    _________________________________

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    President Theodore Roosevelt
    ________________________________


    This is the core topic of this particular thread.

    Not what racist bigots so many republicans turn out to be. :|

    We can discuss that another day

    ReplyDelete
  92. Wow, a lot has happened in the last few days. And all the anti Catholic stuff. You guys are really trying to pick a fight with me, I see. Well, I am not taking the bait. On that issue I will only say this. The Catholic Church has withstood attacks for 2000 years. Not you, not any force on this earth with destroy her. If all you can do is to attack the good people there with the bad, it is your eternity. There have been grievous errors, no question, but if that is your sole reason for putting off the entire thing you may look to your own life and judge how much better you are to be teaching others anything. There are literally thousands of great religious people for every one that makes the news. But those priests feeding and clothing the poor, or living in squalor in some third world country trying to heal the sick are of no interest to you, because they do not give you any ammunition to attack them. I said it before, I will say it again. For one who calls themselves Christian to say another is not is wrong. Who are you to judge their faith?

    On the subject of homosexuals, the real debate as it began. I did not say I judged them, or their actions. And again, violence to them for the sake of religion is despicable. Christ did tell us to go forth and teach all nations. Instruction is not biased, and if you do not heed the warning, you can take it up with God at the end of days. I will have my own sins to attend to, as we all will. Instruction is simply meant for the benefit of those being instructed, if you reject it, that is your business.

    I do find it almost ironic that Lydia is writing a book about how to talk to people like me. She seams wholly unable to do it, so how can she write a book. I mentioned on BradBlog that she constantly ignored questions people had. She seamed less interested in talking with, than she did in talking at people who had a differing opinion.

    Happy New Year, ladies and gentlemen. And God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Big K.

    Lydia did respond. Did you bother to read it?

    But as for responding to the rapid fire posts I would doubt she has the time.

    But do consider WORFEUS at your service.

    ReplyDelete
  94. See Big K, you may have overlooked their, let us say, untidy history but I did not.

    Jesus even warned the apostles repeatedly about the coming corruption in the church, and provided parables and idioms to help his followers discern the divinity of those professing to teach his gospel.

    " Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


    Matthew 7:15 - 20

    See, no good fruit is going to come from a bad tree, at least according to Christ, the guy supposedly at the head of the Church.

    So if the fruits bad, so is the vine.

    And of course the holy inquistions, the tortures, the crimes, these are what one might call, bad fruit.

    The Inquistions which were ordered by Papal decree, spanned a 700 year nightmare reign of the most unspeakable tortures, rapes and murders our world has ever seen.

    When Pope Gregory IX wrote the French Bishops in the early 1200's advising them that the Church would condone more strict methods of determining heretics in the congregations, he was merely adding to a long list of henious crimes and murder committed in the name of Christ by the Holy Mother Church at Rome.

    Early saints and leaders and teachers in the Church were already condeming the Church and the atrocities being commited in the name of Christ long before Gregory and the holy inquisitions.

    Lactantius was admonishing the church for vile crimes and tortures, as early as the 4th century.

    In 308 Lactantius wrote;
    ___________________________

    "What has the rack to do with piety?

    Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.

    If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult".

    Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius
    From the Divinarum Institutionum Libri V (Divine Institutes)
    ___________________________

    The horrific crimes of the Holy Church of Rome, are not my opinion, they are fact.

    And they have been well documented for the last 2000 years.

    Even today we find the Church is a literal haven of child molesters with thousands of cases being reported over the last 5 decades. And more and more cases are coming out every day.

    And the Churches response to this?

    Negotiate, shuffle Priests, etc. They support it by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear.

    And you think they have anything to do with Christ?

    If you are comfy with a Church whose history is full of blood, murder, corruption, vice, torture, and whose current claim to fame is not feeding the Children, but f@#%!$ng the children, then cool, that's your gig.

    But don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ok, so I'm down on the Roman Catholic Church.

    But I do feel moved to say this with regards to Catholicism.

    My critique on the Mother Church, should never be taken as a dismissal of the membership.

    Some of my finest friends as well as teachers either were, or are, Catholic.

    And some of the greatest theological minds in the world are and were Catholic.

    And it is not hard to understand why someone would believe in Catholicism. After all, the Catholic Church is the only Church to be able to boast of direct ties to the diciples of Christ.

    So it is not hard to understand why someone would believe in the Church, at first anyway.

    But unfortunately I know too much about the Church, to many horrible, terrible facts, that I could never assume for even one fleeting moment, that the Mother Church even remotely resembles the teachings of Christ, or the life that he led.

    I have intimately studied the life and teachings of the Historical Jesus, and I have likewise studied the Roman Catholic Church.

    And the two I have found, have little to do with each other.

    The evils and atrocities commited by the Roman Catholic Church, far outweighs any good that ever came from it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous4:44 AM

    The last paragraph of my 3:59 PM post, I was talking about abortion.

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  97. Big K -- I love and adore all my Catholic friends, and I can tell you are a really good person. Sometimes we go to Catholic Mass because we love the ritual and the beauty of the church. I also am fond of St. Agatha's Father Ken -- who is truly an inspirational priest. When I say my husband is a recovering Catholic, it means he has opened his eyes to a more liberating way of actually living as Christ himself taught: by putting God directly in his heart and healing. One doesn't have to go through a priest or a certain saint, just pray the Lord's prayer and turn your burdens over to God.

    If you and Ann Coulter are one and the same, then I guess my book is directed at you. I had no idea I was writing a book about you. You have no idea what this particular book contains. My personal book "Falling UP" is about my own spiritual growth, the Hollywood crash & burn and my experience in finding God --and in this book I discuss the prayer miracles I have experienced and the most direct route that anyone can take to access God's power in their lives. The past 11 years have been the most thrilling journey of my life and I want nothing more than to help others understand that they too can actually have this amazing gift. Remember Herbert Spencer's quote: "There is nothing that will keep a man in everlasting ignorance, so much as 'contempt PRIOR to investigation.'

    ReplyDelete
  98. Oh -- and I forgot the most important part of Christ's teachings. God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of love. Love casts out fear. Love your neighbor as yourself. Bless those who persecute you. Resist NOT evil. (Do not fight ANYTHING, it will only hit you back harder. Evil proliferates the more you give it power by fighting it.) My son tried this with a school bully; he simply didn't react to his cruelty and the guy stopped. A year later, now they are friends andgo to the same church!

    Why do the current right-wing Republicans make fun of Democrats for wanting to understand our enemy's motives? WE're not trying to do "therapy" or be soft -- we're trying to figure out where they're coming from so we can STOP FIGHTING.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous9:48 AM

    But isn't fighting SEXY Lydia? Isn't that why you wrote "Death is Sexier than sex?"

    If we're not fighting we're not turned on. I guess we're not ready for heaven yet.
    James W

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous10:54 AM

    Instead of asking Lydia that Question, you should be asking it of our leaders, because to The Religious Right/Neo Cons, death and power is certainly sexier than sex.

    Btw if you had read what Lydia wrote with an open mind, it would have been obvious that she does not fell that Death is sexier than sex herself, she was merely trying to make a point.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous11:06 AM

    Lydia and people like her are nothing but bigots hiding in California. Come to the heartland Lydia and see the real world.

    I do hope that if the liverals succeed in limiting our war against terrorists, the terrorists show their thanks by striking against them first.

    a Guy from Bush Country

    ReplyDelete
  102. Gee, a guy from Bush Country :|

    Hmmm...You're not too bright are you?

    Calling Lydia a bigot is about as smart as calling your hometown Bush Country,, as if that were some kind of compliment to it.

    But thanks for demonstrating publically your cowardice, that is your overwhelming fear of terrorists. A fear that causes you to discard courage, reason, wisdom and our American liberties so you and your Security-Mom wife can sleep a little safer in your lime green double-wide.

    Bin Laden really did put the fear of God in a lot of you "good-ole-boys" didn't he?

    Got you guys running around chasing your tails, jumping at shadows and shootin anything that moves.

    You guys look like a bunch of little chickens running around with your head cut off.

    Oh wait look, I think I see more terrorists!

    No really, they're on a boat coming from Iraq and they're headed right towards Bush Country!

    Run Dude RUN!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous2:16 PM

    How does speaking her mind make Lydia a Bigot?, And as for The "War On Terror" if this Administration REALLY cared about the war On Terror they would be focusing ALL Their efforts on Afghanistan and rooting out Al Queda and Terrorism, not entangling us in a useless war in Iraq that is their personsal agenda. They are using Terrorism as a means to justify their corrupt agenda and seize power. They even admit to going to war under "Misimformation" They cloak this war in a lot of honey tongued talk and good intentions such as removing a dictator or fighting terrorism, or intalling democracy however the war is really nothing more than a means to build up and secure a rich supply of oil with the side benefit of installing democracy and hopefully creating an ally in the Middle East so we have access to that oil. they are also using this propaganda as a means to alter the constitution and seize power. There were no ties between Iraq to Al Quada, just the lies spewed by Cheney and the Neo Cons to deceive people and make them think there was a link to justify the war. The Iraqis dont want us occupying their land, and we Good soldiers dying everyday because of this, in my oppinion I would feel safer if they were back home securing our borders or rooting out terrorism in Afghanistan like they should have been.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  104. Well said Mike. Really well said.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous2:40 PM

    BTW, if you dont like Lydia or the views of the majority of people on this site, then why are you here?, don't know about you, but I have a limited amout of leisure time and prefer spending it with people I like and respect and who have similar views on life, being open to others point of view and being willing to engage in intelligent and respectful debate with them is one thing but choosing to spend your time picking fights with and writing hateful message to people you obviously dont like or agree with is the sign of a hatefull person with not a lot of good things going on in their life.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonymous2:43 PM

    I like your reply also Worf.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous2:45 PM

    "How does speaking her mind make Lydia a Bigot?, "

    How does Ann Coulter speaking her mind make her "Stalin"?

    Lord the invective never stops, does it?


    I hope Lydia's book comes out the same time as Ann Coulter's next book to see which one hits the NY Times bestseller list first.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous4:06 PM

    I believe anyone who writes ".. how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian..." or that Ann Coulter is a part of the anti-Christ is a hater and a bigot.

    Wow I didn't mean to get all of you liberals upset - I am real suprised that you folks have a backbone.

    Y'all have a good night and may God bless President Bush for keeping us safe!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous4:21 PM

    Well I guess every sight has its troll trying to stir things up, so i'll repeat my last statement then wont dignify your hatemongering with another one

    BTW, if you dont like Lydia or the views of the majority of people on this site, then why are you here?, don't know about you, but I have a limited amout of leisure time and prefer spending it with people I like and respect and who have similar views on life, being open to others point of view and being willing to engage in intelligent and respectful debate with them is one thing but choosing to spend your time picking fights with and writing hateful message to people you obviously dont like or agree with is the sign of a hatefull person with not a lot of good things going on in their life.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous4:25 PM

    The personality of a Stalin and a Coulter: According to the checklist under "Profile of a Sociopath" -- both suffer from a disorder called "Sociopathic Narcissism". They both have ZERO empathy or compassion for others.

    Comparing someone's personality to Stalin does not in itself imply they are a mass murderer; simply that they are "dictatorial" and suffer from a lack of human empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  111. The person brave enough to call themselves, Anonymous said

    I am real suprised that you folks have a backbone.

    Really?

    Well that's good. :|

    You just keep on underestimating us lilly livered liberals.

    The person brave enough to call themselves, Anonymous said;

    may God bless President Bush for keeping us safe!


    Gee, anyone think it's odd that the big, bad tough talking warmongering republicans are sooooo afraid of getting hurt by the terrorists?

    While you brave, patriotic right wingers are busy trading away our civil liberites and the things that make us truly American and commiting all forms of crimes and attrocities for your fear, and hiding under George Bushes Coattails, the rest of us are busy living free, and protecting our democracy from your traitorous cowardice, (punklike even),and your "get with the program" goosestepping mentality.

    We are living in Orwellian times, and I for one, fear the corruption of Americas soul, more than I ever will fear any terrorists.

    You gotta die sometime fella. Nobody lives forever.

    But we can choose how we face that death and more importantly, how we live up until that time.

    As for me and mine?

    We say, LIVE FREE OR DIE!

    ReplyDelete

  112. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government


    Edward Abbey

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous7:48 PM

    Lydia said:

    " Resist NOT evil.(Do not fight anything, it will only hit you back harder....etc

    Lydia, this is very true, but, this philosophy's effectiveness only go's so far and is limited/governed by specific situations and the reasonable mentality of the individual who is evil. Your son simply had a reasonable bully (Thank God) - others are not so fortunate!

    Once again - Everything MUST have balance and I am extremely vehement on this.

    What if Abraham Lincoln did not resist? This thought chills me.

    And, are you suggesting that the many millions of docile Russians who died from Stalins warped policies did the right thing by not resisting because Stalin might hit back harder?

    Im sorry Lydia, but I would have snapped Koch's neck like a chicken and wiped out every officer there at that pit to save those burning children as I am absolutely convinced that giving these scum a hug, smile, and the peace sign, would not have prevented their horrible sufferings.

    Even Dr. Wayne Dyer, whom you seem to admire, strongly recommends standing up to a bully for positive reasons. He clearly says people respect strength and we should not allow ourselves to become victims.

    Chamberlain tried your way OVER and OVER again and failed miserably, simply allowing Hitler to become more powerful.

    To say: "War is the answer to all of lifes problems" is lunacy and unbalanced.

    However, to say: "A smile, a hug, and being resonable, defeats all evil each and every time" is also unbalanced.

    " If you believe there is one right way to do everything, and that you must perform this manner in every situation, then you lack spontaneity and creativity. If you impose this one way standard on others, youll become a victim every time circumstances change ...."

    Dr.Wayne W Dyer

    I dislike war Lydia, but know there are no absolutes. Nevertheless, I am in agreement with Worfeus that a CIA backed rebellion was a very real possibility.

    Johnny moo moo
    aethist
    war historian

    ReplyDelete
  114. You know, I don't think there is a morning in my life where I have gotten out of bed and said, hey, I think I will agree with Jesse Ventura on something.

    But listen to this.

    Donny Deutsch just asked Jessie Ventura what would make our country safe from terrorists.

    His response?

    "well we could start by going after some terrorists"

    He continued by saying that the War in Iraq is wrong and we have NO business being there when we should have put all our resources into finding Bin Laden.

    He said if we did, we would have had him by now.

    He really tore up the administration for starting the War in Iraq, and ignoring the actual terrorists, letting them get away while we diverted all of our resources to Iraq.

    He said it was a joke.

    Of course, he was just a Navy Seal for 6 years, and served for 18 months in combat operations in East Asia, so he's probably just a coward and a traitor, right?

    But what I really liked was when he explained that taking away our rights will never make us safe.

    He said that restricting freedoms, or relaxing civil liberties was foolish, and would not keep us safe.

    Oh and LOL, he also called George Bush, and Bill O'reilly and Rush Limbaugh, Chicken Hawks. :D

    He said "when it was THEIR time to go to war, they were Chickens, but now, 20 years later, they're Hawks, waging wars since they don't have to fight in them".

    LOL :D

    Like I said, there never was a day when I woke up thinking today I will agree with Jesse Ventura on anything.

    But today, not only do I agree with EVERYTHING he said on this interview, but if he runs for President, and the Dems are dumb enough to put up Hillary or another milktoast candidate, you may find WORFEUS working for the campaign to elect Jesse Ventura for President.

    Gee, I guess Katie Couric was right.

    Navy Seals are cool. :|

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Now, how is it that these planes were able to be hijacked at half hour intervals, turned directly opposite the way they're supposed to be going and no bells went off, no emergency sirens went off, no fighter jets were scrambled?

    Just what the hell happened in that area of time?!

    And that's the part that troubles me about 9/11"
    .

    Jesse Ventura
    July 1st 2005

    ReplyDelete
  116. GOV. VENTURA:

    "I mean, here's the Pentagon, the head of our military.

    How was this plane able to circle the city of Arlington at least once, picking out a target, and then drive into it, and we didn't have nothing up in the air?

    There wasn't one scrambled fighter jet up there to defend in any way, shape, or form?

    Wow.

    And the thing that troubles me about the Bush Administration, nobody ever gets fired"
    .

    Jesse Ventura
    July 1st 2005

    ReplyDelete
  117. "Attacking Iraq after 911 would be like us attacking,,,,oh say North Korea,,, after Pearl Harbor.

    I mean come on, they're Asians too......right?"


    Jesse Ventura
    January 1st, 2006

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous8:25 PM

    Warfeces - I stand by my comment calling Lydia a bigot. You on the other hand, are the reason the Democratic party is in trouble. I
    Victor Davis Hanson makes an excellent observation:

    After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.
    After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today's sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.

    Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.


    To the left, the problem facing the United States is President George W. Bush; to the left, he is the enemy - the man bent on destroying us...and so what was once a War on Terrorism for the United States has now become the Republican's War on Terrorism while the left engages in its War on Bush. Not since the Copperheads during the Civil War has the United States faced such a defeatist and pro-enemy political opposition as we face today...even the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era pale in comparison to the aid and comfort being provided to the terrorists today. And the problem is that as long as President Bush advances from success to success, the stronger the opposition becomes - that is, it will be this way if we allow it to be so.

    It is we, the average Joe's and Jane's of the center/right in the United States who must take a stand - it is up to us to ensure that when President Bush leads the charge, he doesn't find himself alone out there, being attacked from behind by the left. In the slang of the day, we have to have President Bush's back.


    Are you ready for the battle?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Uh, genius, before you associate me with the Democrats, you may want to find out if I am one.

    I am not a Democrat. :|

    Don't pester me with your tales of spineless democrats.

    I don't like most of them any more than I like you.

    Clear it up any?

    ReplyDelete
  120. But as for being ready for the battle?

    You bet.

    Battling traitors like you that is.

    In fact, I won't rest until cowards and traitors like you are safely back in your lime green doublewides, or behind bars, or streching a rope with your scrawny necks for selling out our country for your cowardice.

    Your spineless, snibbling, don't let the terrorists hurt me Mr. Bush cowardice.

    In the words of Flavius Maximus,

    "the time for honoring yourselves will soon be at an end".

    ReplyDelete
  121. Anonymous8:45 PM

    I'm surprised more people havent said that, john Kerry should have been drilling that into people's heads during his campaign.

    I am 100% Democrat and firmly against the current administration as well as the Religious Right/Neo Cons like Coulture, but I have to say the Dems waged a pitifully weak campaign, they didnt really point out that the war in Iraq has actually hurt the fight against terrorism for many reason's, primarily because we should have been using ALL OUR RESOURCES as Jesse Ventura said to fight the Terrorist in Afghanistan and also because the Iraqi's as well as the rest of the world dont want us there and that is stirring up hatred against the USA. The Democrats are really in disarray though and should have been pointing this out.

    Right now though we need people like Lydia and Jesse Ventura, people who have the power to shine the into the dark place these people are trying to lead us to and expose their deception and manipulation before its too late.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  122. Ok,

    The Flavius Maximus quote was a strech :|

    But Gladiator is still my favorite movie :D.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anonymous8:50 PM

    Jesse Ventura is right. And Lydia and Worfeus you're both right: a CIA-backed, underground plot to get Sadaam would have been brilliant. This is the phoniest dirtiest war ever. These sleazeballs in the administration are the very definition of evil.

    This guy is a nut! Obviously a troll who never even read Lydia's blog at all. Calling her a bigot is insane. Maybe she's a bigot against HATRED -- which is Coulter's middle name. Has this guy ever read anything?

    Question is - how do we turn all this damage around? America is not the nation people look to anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I will admit for voting for John Kerry in the last election Mike.

    You know, the enemy of my enemy thingy?

    And I will vote for Howard Dean if he runs. I believe in Howard Dean.

    But Jesse Ventura's starting to look awful good.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous9:02 PM

    I agree -- Jesse Ventura is looking good. Tough on real terror. Not a wimp like Bush, who is a puppet with a daddy complex. Why doesn't this bozo troll bring up KATRINA? Even some Republicans I know have turned against Bush after his reaction to Katrina. And I hear he appointed another insular evangelical Neo-con to another important post.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anonymous9:14 PM

    I voted for Kerry also, because Bush wasnt much of a choice, but I have to admit he ran a weak campaign against Bush.

    As for that anonymous guy, he's just a troll, maybe he'll go away if everyone ignores him. although in my opinion its pretty ridiculous to waste your time typing hateful messages to people you dont like or agree with. If you dont like Lydia, then why are you wasting your time on her site, and its obvious your not going to convince anyone here to like Bush, and no one here is going to convince you that he's evil so what is the point of you repeatedly typing hateful messages, is your life that boring that you dont have anything more positive to do, I would think you would prefer to associate with like minded people.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  127. Question is - how do we turn all this damage around? America is not the nation people look to anymore

    Well, if you are a Christian, I would say America needs to repent.

    Repentence is a common Christian ideal that is lost on the likes of Bush and his cronies.

    In their minds, everyone else is always in the wrong, so what do they need to repent of?

    Think I'm lying?

    Just listen to Bush when asked to recount the mistakes he has made as President.

    "I can't think of any" is his normal reply.

    Repentence for a self professed Christian country would be a good place to start.

    Repentence means acknowledging, confessing and forsaking a sin.

    I would first start by apologizing to the International Community for letting this little spoiled cowboy run wild over the 3rd World like he was Wyatt Earp and the Middle East was Dodge City.

    Now I know that the prideful republicans and right wingers cringe at the notion of apologizing for anything, but if they are the Christians they claim to be, it should be easy.

    Besides, we were wrong. :|

    It's the only decent thing to do.

    If we did, I think we would be surprised at how quickly our allies came to our aid again.

    Leave the tough talk in the barn. Treat our neighbors with respect and they will respect us again.

    Then I would relocate our troops to just over the horizon, like Jack Murtha recommened. I would keep them close by, and have in place rapid response strike teams in place, and then help the Iraqi people stabalize their own country, with the form of government they choose for themselves.

    Not one we think they should have.

    I know guys like anonymous think it's ok to force democracy down peoples throats, because they believe inside every Iraqi, is an American,,,,trying to get out.

    They didn't learn from Viet Nam, and they won't learn here. Some people think forcing others to live their way is the only way societies can work.

    Others think letting people choose their own form of government is the best way.

    And those people are called our Founding Fathers

    ReplyDelete
  128. Anonymous9:25 PM

    Very well said, great points

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  129. Anonymous10:50 PM

    BRAVO Worfeus! Now we need for THEM to read this. There is not one national TV show speaking like this. Can you think of any? How do we reach the people who are brainwashed by right-wing radio on 600+ channels across America?

    ReplyDelete
  130. No Ms. Cornell, I am not Anne. On BradBlog I mentioned I was a male, long haired, 30 year old engineering student at Arizona State University. That is all the truth. Aside from the long hair, I have little in common with Anne. And she seams to hold some disdain for Catholics as many of the people here do. There is some proof that she and I do not see eye to eye on everything, in case you needed it.

    As far as Worfeus’ comments are concerned. Your Bible quotes are interesting, but prove little as far as the corruption of the Church. Upon some inspection of the Bible in whole you may find one interesting trait among all God’s chosen people, New Testament and Old. They were all weak. The Philistines were stronger people in faith and arms, but the Jews were chosen. The Jews fell from grace with God many times, but they were still the chosen people. When Christ came, He did not pick saints, he picked fishermen, a tax collector, a womanizer, among others. The stereotypes of fisherman have not changed much in the last 2000 years. At the marriage at Cana, they ran out of wine because 12 drunkards descended on the party and drank their stuff. They fought, they did not listen. It was not until after the death of Jesus did they really start to get it. Lydia has said it herself, Jesus brings sinners to Him, that is who He is interested in. That the Church has sinners in her midst is not proof that her teachings are wrong. But that she has lasted 2000 years despite those horrible people may be proof that God still works through His church.

    One more thing, just because you keep bringing it up. The Inquisition saw many abuses of power. You know a little bit about it, I can see that. But did you know that the lay people of the time asked for the church to take action against the errors going on? People were tired of liars painting signs of stigmata on themselves and talking money out of innocent people. Or worse crimes. The Inquisition lasted 400 years (not 700) because many generations of people thought it necessary. Read books of the time and you will see the lay people had little fear of the officers doing this work. An example of this would be Miguel de Cervantes’ famous book “Don Quixote.” He lived during the time, mentions the Inquisition, but not in a way you might expect.

    ReplyDelete
  131. One more thing before I lay down for my beauty sleep (Lord knows I could use it).

    It has been bothering me that people think that the Catholic church does not allow an inward, personal spiritual journey. That is patently false. True, the priest must be present to administer Sacraments. But this does not exclude the need for God to be present in a person. That someone may do all the things right, but not have God in their hearts is an absolute fact, and one the church warns against repeatedly. It may be too late in the evening for me to articulate my thoughts well enough, forgive me that. But I can recommend a great book that describes what I am talking about perfectly. Saint Thomas a Kempis’ “The Imitation of Christ.” It is a classic of literature, and a good read. However, it is written, like many books of the same subject of the time, for people in a vocation. So, when he talks about limiting your friends, separating from the world, living in real, literal poverty he is talking about priests. (So much for those funny hats, huh?) But the rest about making sure you have God inside you, and really follow His example is amazing.

    Ms. Cornell, I think you are a decent person as well. That is why I keep bugging you. That and you wrote a whole article on your web page and mentioned me so much. I could not believe that you read anything I wrote. And in my earlier post I did not mean to say that you have an obligation to respond to me. Who am I, but some weirdo on the internet? What I was meaning was that it seamed that a lot of peoples honest opinions and questions were looked over if they did not fit with your ideas. Maybe that was just my perception and not reality. But it is what I thought. And if you are writing a book about how to talk to conservatives, I just found it funny you should call it that, seeing it from that light. No offense was meant.

    Good night ladies and gentlemen. My wife and my pillow are calling.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Big K said
    Your Bible quotes are interesting, but prove little as far as the corruption of the Church


    Oh no? Better tell Martin Luther that. Those scriptures have been used for centuries to point to the
    apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Big K said That the Church has sinners in her midst is not proof that her teachings are wrong

    I think you need to go back and re-read my 120AM post that you are responding to.

    Having sinners in her midst is not the same as the heirarchy being populated by evil, corrupt devils and murderers.

    It was not the membership my post was referring to.

    It was the clergy.

    And the clergy is the Church. If the priesthood is corrupt, so is the Church. If the fruit is corrupt, so is the tree. At least that's what Jesus said.

    Big K said

    The Inquisition lasted 400 years (not 700) because many generations of people thought it necessary.


    Lets see about that.

    Pope Gregory IX first introduced the Papal decree in 1251, which manifested in letters to the French Bishops, ordering stricter methods of weeding out heresy.

    In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued the now famous Ad exstirpanda, a Papal "Bull" or Bulla, which authorized the use of harsher torture (hmmm, sound familiar?) for rooting out heretics, witches and necromancers. The 1251 Fransiscan letters, coupled with the 1252 Papal Bull, began the official start of what is referred to as the Papal Inquisition, which spread it's bony fingers throughout southern France and northern Italy.

    The interesting thing about the Ad exstirpanda issued by the peculiarly named Pope Innocent IV, is that it not only specfically authorized the use of not only torture, but burning heretics alive at the stake.

    See Big K, this is not just a few sinners in her midst.

    It is the entire mother Church at Rome, ordering that people, human beings, be burned alive.

    This is also what you call, bad fruits.

    And it was not the membership. It was the leadership.

    In 1478 Sixtus IV authorized the Holy "inquiro" or inquistion, which happily brought the joys of good ole Christian torture to the sinful people of Spain, and elsewhere. It also introduced the world to such Christlike figures as Tomas Torquemada, who single-handedly burned alive over 2000 people deemed to be heretics.

    Nice guy. :|

    And lets not forget the oh so lovely Christians, Ferdinand and Isabella, who sent ravaging Christian armies throughout the Iberian peninsula forcing the Jews and Muslims to join the mother church.

    Of course, they didn't have to join.

    They just sent the ones who didn't to Jesus a little early, for some onsite instruction.

    Now the Spanish Inquistion did not start to wind down until 1808 with the Holy Office officially abolished by Mother Cristina inn 1834, and since it was a branch of the Bull Ad exstirpanda of 1252, a year after Gregory IX sent his letters to the french Bishops, were are looking at 582 years there alone, 583 if you count the Gregory Fransican letters.

    183 years higher than your 400 years estimate.

    But lets not stop there. I said 700 years, so lets see why I said that.

    The Papal Inquistion began to be semi-officially dismantled in 1768, but the official inquirio was not replaced by the Holy Office until 1908, a whopping 657 years after the official order was first introduced, at least that we have records of. And then technically this institution, which was just an extension of the Inquistion, was not replaced until 1965 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. So altogether, that adds up to a whopping 714 years after the original Papal decree, which was the point where the Church actually admitted to, and began to repent of the Inquistion. The current Holy father, who mysteriously turns out to be a former Nazi party member, go figure, just recently asked for forgiveness from God, for the Church, for the atrocoties committed during the Inquisitions.

    714 years is a far cry from your 400 year estimate. And that is why I said 700 years.

    But ok, I hear you crying now, you think they probably weren't torturing people into the 1900's. Probably not. At least not in the industrialized regions anyway.

    But alas, theres more.

    See the Inquistion was not the beginning of the torture for Jesus campaigns. This had been going on un-officially, for at least another 800 years. I explained that in my earlier post.

    200 years prior to the official start of the Inquistion, Pope Urban II ordered the first official armed invasion of Muslim Holy land.

    He assembled a semi-noble group of crusaders, headed by Peter the Hermit, Walter the Penniless, Godfrey of Bouillon, Baldwin and Eustace of Flanders, and other pious nobles, and went off to kill Turks, and anyone else who got in their way.

    And it was a bloody mess.

    We learn from Flavius Theodosius about the sixty-eight enactments issued from the mother church over a period of about 50 years that persecuted heretics with death, imprisonment and seizing of property as early as 380CE (AD).

    And of course we know from the Divinarum Institutionum that early Church scholars were admonishing the Holy Mother Church at Rome to end their henious tortures trying to force confessions of Christ from suspected heretics.

    Lactantius was admonishing the church for vile crimes and tortures, as early as the 4th century.

    In 308 CE (AD) Lactantius wrote;
    ___________________________

    "What has the rack to do with piety?

    Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.

    If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult".


    Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius
    From the Divinarum Institutionum Libri (Divine Institutes)
    ___________________________

    Lucius was not talking about a Ski Rack here. :|

    He had witnessed first hands the beautiful, joyous confessions from penitent heretics as their bones left their sockets on the rack, and watched as not so lucky heretics were burned alive as they screamed their defience. It is believed that Lucius himself may have felt the hand of the tormenter once or twice, as he dared to speak out against the church.

    In other words, Lactantius' war against the use of torture was 944 years, almost a full millenia prior to the Ad exstirpanda and the onset of the official Inquistion.

    There is volumes of data on the tortures, murders, burnings, and unholy wars waged in the name of Christ by the Holy Mother Church, that span pretty much the entire history of the Church.

    Now what's amazing is how much informtation we do have on this topic, considering the lengths the Church went to to hide their crimes against humanity. But we do.

    As far as your statement about early Christians actually asking for the Inquistion? LOL.

    Sorry buddy, but this was an old, old argument that I heard back when I studied from a master at Catholic Universtity.

    The Church has been pulling out that one for a long time, because there is evidence that some people who had difficult cases in secular court, (and usually knew they were guilty), asked for the Inquistion, some even acting like Heretics so they could escape the secular courts.

    In fact, you likely either got this from your parish Priest or you took it right of www.catholic.com

    It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing

    Taken from Catholic.Com,
    (http://www.catholic.com
    /library/inquisition.asp)

    Of course they would. This is not at all surprising.

    See what they, the Church neglect to discuss, is that like our system, where someone pleads insanity, then just plays the system, telling the doctors what they want to hear, and eventually getting released, once the doctors cure them, these criminals were doing likewise.

    These were not heretics or political or religious prisoners. These were criminals who were usually guilty, and knew if they acted as a heretic, then, let the inquistor cure them, and confess them, then they could get through the Inquisition with very little trouble.

    The Inquistors were always ready to accept the confessions of a penitent heretic, so they could show the Mother Church their effectivness at healing with the tools of Christ (torture instruments), unless of course there were some political reasons for not accepting the confessions.

    It's the ones that didn't confess or were considered enemies of the Church, that bore the brunt of the unspeakable horrors you call a few errant sins.

    In fact, it is estimated over 3 Million people suffered at the hands of the Inquisitors over a 500 year span, with more than 300,000 being burned alive at the stake.

    But hey, what's a few mass atrocities amongst friends, right?

    Now I have just touched upon some of the events that span over a 1000 years of history, and I have not mentioned one one-hundredth what I could go into.

    But I do not feel inclined to write you a book. Short story, sure. But not a book.

    Suffice it to say there is ample evidence throughout the ages clearly demonstrating to anyone with a reasonable mind, that the Catholic Church stooped into apostasy sometime around 250 AD, and never looked back.

    So I suggest you go read one of those books that you suggested I read, cause chances is are, I already read it.

    About 25 years ago. :|

    ReplyDelete
  133. P.S Big K.

    You seem like a decent guy, and the Church can use all the good people it can get, so I will say this to you.

    I can understand why someone could believe in the Mother Church.

    I have believed in things too, within my lifetime, and the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that can claim direct ties to the diciples of Christ. And thanks to the Mother Church, we have Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus etc, which brought us our Bible.

    So it did do some good. At first. But like I said, it all went south sometime around 250 CE, and it never looked back.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Anonymous8:21 AM

    I agree - they completely go against most of Christ's teachings! I went to Catechism and they didn't want me to read the Bible directly. All my years going to chruch (I still do) -- in my heart I always knew there was something wrong here -- even though I never studied Catholic history like you did. If you read Jesus Christ's words they say not to worship idols or fancy hats or "fathers". It's weird. They keep people in chains believing in a "fear and punishment" God and then annoint themselves God as torturers. It is the sickest thing. They also put too much emphasis on the externals. But I like the Greek Orthodox church with the incense and fancy robes. It makes it feel more "religious".

    ReplyDelete
  135. When I mentioned the Inquisition, I was referring to the Spanish Inquisition, which by my records lasted from Sixtus IV decreeing his papal Bull in 1478 until it was finally ended on 15 July 1834. Actually, the last person executed under the Inquisition was said to be Cayetano Ripoli on 26 July, 1826. That the office of the Inquisition lasted longer than that, and in some capacity still does, proves nothing of your point.

    When I mentioned that sinners in the midst of the church. I submit to you that it is not the policy of the church to breed such things, and that, again, since some impurities in the church have bubbled to the top means nothing. The church still stands, and will stand as the greatest force of charity in the world. More sick are medicated by the church than any other group. More money and food are given to the poor than any other group. More good is done in general. Again, it seams that those facts are overlooked for the few that are horrible. And so you can feel that I am not ignoring your point that the hierarchy of the church is corrupt and the tree that bears bad fruit is in need of cutting down I may remind you that all men have free will. Even priests. If a man decides to fall from grace and commit horrible atrocities God will not stop them. He will judge them on it, however.

    As for the anonymous post, read your Bible. Please do. The church has maintained the whole truth in it is a mix of scripture and tradition. That is why they are trying to get you to read it with someone. It is not that you are going to find something there that contradicts your faith, but that you may need to have some things explained properly. My earlier post about Mosaic Law is a perfect example. Are we to do violence to sinners? No, but there are some passages that say that. you will find human sacrifice in the Old Testament as well, we are not to engage in that, and they were not either. If questions arise, as they invariably will, the church would like someone who went to college to answer them for you. (and in case anyone was unaware, yes, priests have to be educated men).

    ReplyDelete
  136. I am so happy that the wonderful people of Iraq are no longer living under a ruthless dictator like Sadaam. I have had the priviledge of meeting Iraqis in the past and it struck me how they seem so much like Americans. When I graduated high school 11 years ago I played soccer in a park with about 20 young men from Iraq. They were very warm and friendly. They shared with me what it was like living under Sadaam and what he had done to members of their family. Anyone who has a humanitarian spirit should be proud that our military has liberated millions of wonderful people and allowing them to live with freedoms that you and I take for granted everyday.

    I don't claim to know whether Sadaam has ever had Weapons of Mass Destruction, however he blocked investigators from seeing what they wanted to see in Iraq. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens and he would have always tried to increase his power through creating Weapons of Mass Destruction and willingly using them against the U.S. It may have taken him 10 years, but in a post 9/11 environment I am glad we don't have to worry about his devious motives. Here is a man who found great joy when the Twin Towers fell. I am glad he is not able to harbor terrorists, devise evil plots, or torture his own people.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Anonymous12:02 PM

    On and off I still attend my local Catholic church and I remember one Sunday the priest asked people to give generously in the donation. Then he said: "Catholics, as a rule, give the LEAST money than any other Christian church in America. We must reverse this." I think it's because of the fear and confusing messages about "vows of poverty." Maybe people don't think they have a right to think of themselves as rich enough, so they stay in limitation. But if everyone tithed, imagine we wouldn't need taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anonymous12:11 PM

    Oh and also heard this about Mother Theresa, who has to be a saint by now. Once she was tending to AIDS patients and was told by the papal hierarchy that the Holy Father didn't approve of her tending to homosexuals in their sickness. And she answered, "But JESUS wants me to. I listen to the Holy Spirit and Jesus, our Lord."
    There are good priests though, and I loved Pope John Paul. He was clearly a true Christian, even though he went with the party line sometimes.

    Hey -- who says "college-educated" priests are interpreting Christ's words correctly. It seems they misinterpreted them to me and covered them up with too much fancy dressing. It's sort of hard to see the simplicity in Christ's teachings with so many "punishments."

    ReplyDelete
  139. Big K said;

    it is not the policy of the church to breed such things

    Sorry Big K, but since you obviously did not read the post I took the time to write for you, so let me briefly explain.

    The Pope does set the policy for the Church.

    In other words the Bull Ad exstirpanda , a Papal Bulla, does constitute Church Policy

    But this is becoming tedious. You know this, or at least you should.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Big K1:49 PM

    Worfeus,

    Sorry, I did read your post. The Bull you cite is correct, and the pope made such policy. What I meant was the history of the Inquisition has been skewed in ways that originally it did not intend, and there is literature of the time that supports my point. Obviously, as I have already stated, and the church has as well, errors were committed, and are no longer in effect. Errors will continue to be present, as we are all fallible humans. Errors exist in every human endeavor, every group, every religion, every country, even families have skeletons in their closets. To judge the church is to go against another post I read here, “he who is without sin” and so forth. I cannot stand idle while people are attacking the church I love so much. If you think this is tedious, then change the subject, but I will not stand idle in the midst of such attacks.

    Here I said I would not get into a fight about this, and that is exactly what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Big K said

    the Inquisition has been skewed in ways that originally it did not intend,

    I'm sorry, I took the order from the Holy Pope to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE literally.

    What do you think it meant?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Big K said

    That the office of the Inquisition lasted longer than that, and in some capacity still does, proves nothing of your point

    It proves the Inquistion officially lasted much longer than you claimed.

    Here you are just playing word games and I really should not respond.

    Because it also proves your mind has blocked out the fact the supression of heresy began almost a 1000 years before the actual launch of the Inquistion.

    I put out volumes of data for you to refute, and you come back with this pitiful response.

    Like I said, go back an read the post I was kind enough to take the time to write for you.

    Read about how the practices of the Inquisition were well ingrained into the Churches as early as 300 CE, almost a THOUSAND years before the official launch of the Holy Inquisition.

    The Inquisition was not something that was absolutely new to the Church when it was ordered in 1252.

    They did not just wake up one day and say hey, let's torture people and burn them alive. :|

    These were practices already firmly ingrained in the Churches purification rituals.

    Scholars and Historians have written about the suppression of heresy that imbibed the Holy Priesthood centuries prior to the Inquistion.

    The tools used in the Inquistion Tools of Christ were not manufactured the day of the Bulla.

    This stuff had been going on for close to a 1000 years prior to the commonly recognized start of the Inquistion, which is the primary focus of my lengthy post I took the time to write you last night, and which you.

    You seem to have no problem ignoring the blood that has been spilt by this Church for a thousand years, and talk about charitible deeds. I

    It is funny how guys like you who defend the countless crimes of the Mother Church, also are the same ones defending the murderous crimes committed by the Bush administration.

    Everyone does charitible deeds big guy.

    And most people don't have to get paid to do it, like Priests. :|

    Priests live off the Church, and when they are working in charitible efforts, they are essentially on the clock.

    My Priest friend drove a Cadillac.

    Charitible deeds don't erase, at least for me, the horrible crimes against humanity perpetuated by the Church for more than a 1000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Big K said

    When I mentioned the Inquisition, I was referring to the Spanish Inquisition

    You didn't mention the Inquistions.

    You were attempting to correct me with regards to the timespan of the Inquistions.

    And like most Catholic apologists you chose to focus on the Spanish Inquistion alone, thinking we all got our historical data by watching Monty Python. :|

    The Inquistion in Spain was only one part of the Inquisitions, and either you knew this, and chose to conveiently disregard it, or you are as uninformed as most of the Parishioners I have met throughout my life.

    ReplyDelete
  144. This is for Bryan --
    (later I have a response for Big K)

    Bryan, as Mike said earlier: "There were no ties between Iraq to Al Qaeda." Sadaam was a non-religious secularist and he and Osama Bin Laden were diametrically opposed. If anything, Sadaam's lust for gold was his Achilles heel -- a tool we could have used to beat him at his own game. Bin Laden hated Sadaam as much as we did. There were many more clever, intelligent ways to usurp this dictator -- rather than to carpet bomb Iraqi children, kill 2,000 of our own soldiers, (15,000 U.S. soldiers now have no arms or legs) and start WWIII in the process. EVERYONE hates us now. I have heard from all over the world that America has the most shameful reputation. We were once a blessed nation; but this administration (which is neither conservative nor democratic; just power-mad) has ruined the basic freedoms we stand for. Bush has singlehandedly inflamed the whole world against us and actually CREATED MORE TERRORISM! It's obvious; wake up and stop denying it.

    If a "good" nation dropped bombs on us "for our own good" wouldn't you rise up to attack the invaders? More and more regular Muslims have become extremists just to combat American aggression. And you aren't hearing all the stories because our propaganda machine is working overtime. And new terrorist groups are pouring into Iraq from all over.

    Also, the U.S. is not supposed to have a policy of assassination. When did all this change -- that we publicly announce we are going to kill Sadaam, rather than secretly usurping him with allies in the underground?

    My whole beef with Bush is that he calls himself a Christian, yet operates TOTALLY FROM FEAR (which is the opposite of love, or God. "I did not give you a spirit of fear" God says, and "Love casts out fear." Bush attacks his enemies preemptively, making everyone more fearful, and drumming up fake data to convince us to be more afraid -- rather than taking 911 as a wakeup call to be more vigilant, and more thoughtful in our national policty. We should have saved our precious soldier's lives and stayed united (remember how Americans from both parties came together right after 911, flags on cars, patriotism ) -- before Bush and Homeland Security started scaring us with the duct-tape on windows hogwash. We could have built a solid nation -- not by going out to attack others, but by cleaning up our own wrongs, our own homeland. Rebuilding our nation internally, wisely. And learning about our enemies instead of saying it's weak to "understand the enemy!" What motivates the mindset of suicide bombers? How can they hate us so much as to blow themselves up? Wouldn't it be good to know the root of all this vengeance -- before we triple the damage? Haven't we learned enough about an eye-for-an-eye from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?


    Mike went on to say: The Iraqis dont want us occupying their land...Good soldiers dying everyday because of this, in my opinion I would feel safer if they were back home securing our borders or rooting out terrorism in Afghanistan like they should have been."

    Sadaam was a sadistic tyrant and a mass murderer and a buffoon, but we had the whole world watching him, we were hovering over him and THERE WAS NO NEED to carpet bomb Iraq just to get one man; there was no imminent danger or need to rush to war. Even the CIA has admitted there was no evidence of WMD. And later they said Sadaam was all bluster and ego, everyone kept saying he had no real weapons. WAR SHOULD ALWAYS BE A LAST RESORT. Everyone with an ounce of sense, morality or compassion for their fellow man KNEW BUSH WAS LYING, MANIPULATING, FORCING A WAR DOWN OUT THROATS. What a heinous thing to do, to take war so lightly. Deep inside you knew it, but you don't want to admit it; it would tear down all your assumptions about being on the " good side". We all wanted to believe the evidence was there to justify this evil, evil "war" , but EVERY SINGLE SPIRITUAL LEADER, INCLUDING POPE JOHN PAUL beseeched bush to stop, but he knew better.
    He could not have been listening to the God of Love. 


    ReplyDelete
  145. Big K3:20 PM

    Worfeus,

    Man you are able to write quick, and you mentioned my rapid fire posts. I do not over look your points and the wrongs commited. I acknowledged them, numerous times. And the church has as well, numerous times. And you have not responded to my earlier post, that ordinary people of the time had no fear of the Inquisition. At least Cervantes did not, he seamed to think it was a good thing.

    You went into the history of the church at great length, and I have nothing to dispute. I never said those things never happened, and I will not. I know they did. What I am disputing is your assertion that the whole thing is corrupt. That is it, period. By your reasoning they look for the most evil guy they can find to be the next pope. That is simply false. You also assert that there is no shame in the past according to me and others. Also false. I sought to show you there was a legitimate reason for the Inquisition, and there was good produced from it. That there were grievous offenses to the teaching of the church, I say again, I am not disputing. That you have done much reading and are a learned individual I have much respect for. You should know I have done no small amount of reading myself, and are fairly knowledgeable regarding the religion I profess.

    As to when the Inquisition actually began or ended, we are arguing over semantics. You produced names and dates, so did I. We each get a star and a smiley face. That the church was aware of torture techniques I will also not dispute. They were used on Catholics by the Romans for a few hundred years. I am sure they learned something in that time. And later the Romans became Catholics, and I am sure they did not forget their old tricks. All I asserted was the official dates of its beginning and official end.

    Lastly, I have never known a priest with a Cadillac. That is a new one on me. All of the priests I know drive donated vehicles, and have little money for gas to come to my home for a free meal. Your experience could be different, but I doubt it is the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Big K said;

    And you have not responded to my earlier post, that ordinary people of the time had no fear of the Inquisition.

    Like I said fella, you need to go back and actually read posts.

    I dedictated an entire section to this.

    You just didn't bother to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  147. YESTERDAY at 3:24 AM, WORFEUS SAID
    ________________________________

    As far as your statement about early Christians actually asking for the Inquistion? LOL.

    Sorry buddy, but this was an old, old argument that I heard back when I studied from a master at Catholic Universtity.

    The Church has been pulling out that one for a long time, because there is evidence that some people who had difficult cases in secular court, (and usually knew they were guilty), asked for the Inquistion, some even acting like Heretics so they could escape the secular courts.

    In fact, you likely either got this from your parish Priest or you took it right of www.catholic.com

    It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing

    Taken from Catholic.Com,
    (http://www.catholic.com
    /library/inquisition.asp)

    Of course they would. This is not at all surprising.

    See what they, the Church neglected to discuss, is that like our system, where someone pleads insanity, then just plays the system, telling the doctors what they want to hear, and eventually getting released, once the doctors cure them, these criminals were doing likewise.

    These were not heretics or political or religious prisoners.

    These were criminals who were usually guilty, and knew if they acted as a heretic, then, let the inquistor cure them, and confess them, then they could get through the Inquisition with very little trouble.

    The Inquistors were always ready to accept the confessions of a penitent heretic, so they could show the Mother Church their effectivness at healing with the tools of Christ (torture instruments), unless of course there were some political reasons for not accepting the confessions.

    It's the ones that didn't confess or were considered enemies of the Church, that bore the brunt of the unspeakable horrors you call a few errant sins.

    In fact, it is estimated over 3 Million people suffered at the hands of the Inquisitors over a 500 year span, with more than 300,000 being burned alive at the stake.

    But hey, what's a few mass atrocities amongst friends, right?
    _____________________________

    I wrote this Yesterday in answer the post you just accused me of not answering.

    Maybe today you'll read it.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous4:26 PM

    "Here the country had finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism and they didn't want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States." -- Ann Coulter

    ReplyDelete
  149. Big K4:29 PM

    I did read that post. I did not respond to it because I thought it did not fully respond to mine. That some people used the system is your whole argument? So what? And that was not the reason (or at least not the only reason) the people were looking for an Inquisition. There were numerous examples of people stealing and worse from the lay people at the time by using their faith against them. What of that? And no, I did not get this idea from catholic.com, or any other .com for that matter. This information was presented in many books, by many people over the years many of whom LIVED THROUGH IT. I would not trust much from the internet on this regard.

    It is an old argument, because it was used originally to get the papacy to pay attention to the problems they were interested in correcting. That does not show that the arguement is false. You have failed to convince me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Anonymous4:49 PM

    Anonymous said - "And Lydia and Worfeus your both right. A CIA backed underground plot to get Saddam would have been brilliant."

    I have never heard Lydia mention or approve/disaprove of a rebellion.

    The option of a possible rebellion was discussed by both Worfeus and myself using various quotes, facts, etc..on a previous blog in a debate with Stevie and Eric.


    And Worfeus, I had no idea the catholic church was that screwed up. :|

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  151. Well it does address your argument, and it does address it in detail.

    Your claim was not that you did not address my response because you felt it did not address your argument.


    Your claim was I never responded to that question, which was 100 percent false.

    Here, let me refresh your memory.

    BIG K JUST SAID

    "And you have not responded to my earlier post, that ordinary people of the time had no fear of the Inquisition"

    But the TRUTH?

    I responded in detail. :|

    And my response is not my argument, it is an prevelant theory that most serious Historians assert, and have for a hundred years.

    And any first year seminary student would know this.

    It is common knowledge that the Inquistion was an easy way to escape a criminal charge.

    See during the first few weeks of the Investigation process, once a person has been identified as a hereitc, a Term of Grace allowed an accused heretic of voluntarily confess to the Grand Inquisitor, and thus normally being spared any actual torture, or penalties.

    Like I said, you need a reasonable mind to understand this stuff, not a religious mind.

    Think about it chief, you are in here, defending the act of burning alive over 300,000 people, the torturing and raping of millions, the sodomizing of young boys, the wars and crusades which converted pagans to Christ, or sent them to him, the rack.

    If that's what passes for spirituality with you, and humanity, and reason, then ok.

    Tried my best.

    I'll see you at the fish fry. :|

    ReplyDelete
  152. What's that you're writing now Big K?

    Are you getting ready to tell me that's not what you're defending?

    BIG K SAID

    "I sought to show you there was a legitimate reason for the Inquisition, and there was good produced from it"

    Well, I guess if I tried really hard I could see some good coming from torture.

    I mean with the rack , they must have had one hell of a Christian League Basketball team :P

    ReplyDelete
  153. Big K5:11 PM

    Every first year seminarian? I have discussed this with completed seminarians, and they did not share your view. Produce a book, not a web page, and I will read it. Especially one that a seminarian would read. Otherwise, read my posts. I am not defending those practices, and I have said that. However, no amount of apology and public repentance will get you off that subject. It has been done, and I stated the atrocities were a source of shame. You have glossed over that acknowledgement, and thus this is getting tedious. You have not proven my assertion wrong, and I have not argued that the occurrences you cite did not happen. I simply say it is not the whole truth.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Big K5:20 PM

    Sorry my posts do not seam to be coming fast enough for you Worfeus. I am at work, and can not post that fast. I am not backing down, or thinking something up quick. Just busy. Don't get your hair in a knot over it.

    ReplyDelete
  155. BIG K tried to back out of 2 days worth of voluminous factual data posted by WORFEUS by SAYING

    "Produce a book, not a web page, and I will read it"

    In these and other posts I have quoted from the Bible including comparisions to the Masoretic Text, the Codex Vaticanus, the Libray at Nag Hammadi, the Papal Letters to the Fransiscans, the Antiquities, the writings of Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius and the Divinarum Institutionum Libri, blah blah blah.

    I'm sorry you don't know that these are books.

    Let me explain something to you there slappy, cause I have been kind up until now.

    EVERYTHING I post, unless otherwise noted, comes directly from my fingers to my keyboard.

    The fact that almost every book ever written on the subject, including the the complete works of Flavius Josephus, and Farrar's Life of Christ is available on the Internet, is not my problem.

    What is interesting about your last post here, is the very right winged tactic, of having nothing, and I mean NOTHING of value to counter the arguments, and now all your doing is crying.

    Keep it up, and I'll start reposting, so you can read MY WORDS, and the quotes from famous ancient historic documents, that I studied over a quarter of a Century ago here at Catholic University , something else I have also told you, that you repeatedly fail to grasp.

    This ain't a battle of who's smarter Big guy.

    I'm just posting facts, facts which apparently do not sit will with your little Happy Valley view of the Catholicism.

    I don't claim to have all the answers.

    But I do claim to have the right questions.

    ReplyDelete
  156. "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

    Voltaire

    ReplyDelete

  157. "People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true."

    Francis Bacon

    ReplyDelete

  158. "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."


    George Bernard Shaw

    ReplyDelete
  159. "there was a legitimate reason for the Inquisition, and there was good produced from it"

    BIG K

    ReplyDelete
  160. Big K6:24 PM

    “EVERYTHING I post, unless otherwise noted, comes directly from my fingers to my keyboard.”

    That is good to know. Everything I have posted has been from my reading and study as well. That it differs from yours does not make it inferior. And since we are generalizing each others comments based on political stereotypes your last post of substance is typical of liberals. You call yourself a bona fide expert on every subject, ignore questions, and simultaneously insult the person you are talking to. I have not insulted you. It seams that you are not above that, however. When I said I wanted a book a seminarian would read I was meaning I did not want an article or opinion piece. A history book. I read history books. I would be interested in that. To often I ask for a source, a real source, and your liberal friends send me a link to a guy sitting in a basement making stuff up. If a book is on the internet, that is fine. I further was looking for a book that deals with the Inquisition that a seminarian would read. The Bible would not work here. Flavius Josephus is too old to be relevant here since he lived during the lifetime of Christ, not during the Inquisition. And Farrar's Life of Christ does not work since it does not refer to that period either. So, go fish.

    ReplyDelete
  161. BIG K Said

    I was meaning I did not want an article or opinion piece. A history book.

    This is why you deserve my contempt.

    Because once again you just ignore the voluminous data I do quote, and LIE that I qoute from aritcles.

    SHOW ME ONE ARTICLE GENIUS, OR OPINION PEICE THAT I QUOTED FROM.

    JUST ONE

    That's why you deserve my contempt.

    You have repeatedly bore false witness against me for this, and others that I have pointed out, and you think I give a crap if you mind being called slappy?

    Your just lying now, trying to take away from the volumes of data I referenced and took the time to post for you last night.

    If that's all you got, perhaps now would be a good time for a repost, so everyone can see what I wrote.

    Show me one article, or one opinion peice. You won't be able to, because I NEVER quoted one.

    In that, you LIE.

    ReplyDelete
  162. And as far as the quotes I made?

    I never said every quote was in our discussion. WHAT I DID SAY WAS THIS:

    In these and other posts I have quoted from the Bible including comparisions to the Masoretic Text, the Codex Vaticanus, the Libray at Nag Hammadi, the Papal Letters to the Fransiscans, the Antiquities, the writings of Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius and the Divinarum Institutionum Libri, blah blah blah.

    If you think the writings of of the Judeo-Roman Historian Flavius Josephus are only valid for the period covering the brief 63 years he was alive, well, ok.

    Of course in that same context we can throw out the most of the New Testament, and half the Torah.

    Cause it wasn't written during the subjects lifetimes either.

    So if we throw out the New Testament, and the Old, and every other historical document we have that was not written during the period it covers, then I guess you might as well stop going to Church right now.

    Cause if the New Testament is completely useless, then so is anything that spawned from it.

    And so is yours, and every Christian Church in the World.

    Nice Logic there chief.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Big K7:07 PM

    There is no reason for contempt and I did not lie. Never did I say you cited such things. I said your liberal friends have, it was a joke since I am sure the people I mentioned you do not actually know. I wanted to make sure that if I asked for reference you did not cite a web page in the future. No need for offense there. The works you did cite I intend to read. But I noticed they do not mention the Inquisition, which is our discussion, and that is what I wanted a reference concerning. For someone not concerned with offending and name calling you sure are sensitive. Glass houses, buddy.

    I am going home tonight, once there I will probably be tending to my sick wife (she has a really nasty cold). So if I do not post tonight, do not miss me too much.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Big K7:13 PM

    Worfeus, really. Get a hold on yourself. If we are talking about the Inquisition, it did not exist at the time of the New Testament, and definitely not during the Old. Flavius Josephus lived from 37-100AD. Definitely before the Inquisition. I am not saying those books are not relevant in my life in general. I am saying they do not pertain to the history of events concerning our discussion. I think you know that. If I am interested in the Great Depression I would not consult the Bible there either.

    Again, to all a good night.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Good lord, Lydia...

    We didn't carpet bomb iraqi children. We didn't "carpet bomb" Iraq at all.

    And not everyone hates us. Mostly old Europe does and how many times have we been forced to pull their lilly livered butts out of a sling? The French hate us, but they always have.
    It's interesting that a lot of our allies in this are former Soviet block countries who know what it's like to live under a tyrant.

    If we lived under a totalitarian dictatorship that ruthlessly murdered our own people, I for one would thank god if a "good nation" dropped bombs on those in power and the forces which backed them up.

    Muslims have always been extremists, most just like life too much to obey the Koran.
    http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes2.html#hypocrites

    Your country is not always wrong, no matter how many Europeans get ticked off.

    ReplyDelete
  166. I wonder how many here would agree with this:

    " THE BATTLE FOR THE FUTURE WILL BE FOUGHT FROM HERE FORWARD!

    YOU THINK YOU KNOW…………….BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA…………..JUST WHAT BUSH HAS IN STORE FOR…..YOU…..US…..THE WORLD…..OUR FUTURE!

    Straight up—Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian Fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages.

    Those who compare Bush to Hitler are right! But, don’t be waiting for people wearing little mustaches and marching the Nazi goose-step to come to your town. This brand of fascism is coming differently, and it’s coming straight from the White House.
    Staring at Christian Fascism

    People say, “they couldn’t, no they just wouldn’t” strip away “classic” U.S. democracy and plunge us into fascism. But let’s see what they’ve done… and what they plan to do.

    Bush believes that he is on a “mission from God,” and so do his cronies. Army General William Boykin recently declared that the Iraqi people were the “face of Satan,” that the Christian God was the only true and “real” god, and that “God himself” put Bush in the White House. He said all this publicly and in uniform, no less—and after people protested it, Boykin was promoted! Over the years these Christian Fascists have dug in at every level of the courts, the army and Congress. BUT NOW THEY PLAN TO GO FURTHER, moving more thoroughly into the highest levels of power. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and other highly placed Republicans want to wipe out the separation of church and state, and use government to support and enforce religious belief.

    Bush has launched a worldwide “crusade.” In the name of “good vs. evil,” he’s killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq, and maybe more—and still the war rages. In the name of “fighting terror”, he justifies torturing people in prisons like Guantanamo and murdering wounded prisoners in Iraq. This proven liar has rammed through a new “doctrine” that lets him wage war whenever and wherever he says he “sees a threat”, and there is no telling where he’ll stop. The U.S. has long committed monstrous crimes around the world … and NOW THEY PLAN TO GO FURTHER. The imperialists in power—all of them, with Bush at the core—want total global empire. Bush himself believes in Armageddon, that Islam is “evil”, and that he is “fighting for God.” How many people, halfway ’round the world or right down the block, will lose their lives to this lunacy? Lunacy backed up by, and serving, imperialism.

    Bush’s gang suppresses science. They’ve taken control of scientific agencies. They promote “creationism” against evolution and they suppress scientific research on life-and-death issues like global warming, the AIDS epidemic, and stem-cell research. Unless they can use it to make money or make weapons, Bush’s people hate the scientific spirit of trying to figure out how the world really works. Science calls into question their dogmatic interpretation of the Bible that prepares people to sacrifice for “god and country”—and never ask why.

    Bush is dismantling democratic rights. Tens of thousands of immigrants have been detained and deported for little, if any, reason and thousands more have been imprisoned with no charges—many for years. The Bush regime spies on political and religious groups. It suppresses ordinary protests with massive force, including even tanks in the streets. And it openly disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Black voters in the last election. All this, AND NOW THEY PLAN ON GOING FURTHER. Bush aims to pass more fascist laws, his flunkies threaten artists and intellectuals who dare to step outside the lines, they are invading all aspects of daily life—and it is an open question as to whether any rights at all will be left standing.

    Bush’s Morality: Hypocrisy and Hatred

    Bush talks about “values,” but if you’re a single woman and you want to live your own life … or if you’re gay and proud … these Christian Fascists have you in their cross-hairs. They’ve severely restricted the right to abortion and tried to put independent-minded women on the defensive. They whipped up anti-gay hatred as a big part of their presidential campaign. BUT NOW THEY ARE GOING MUCH FURTHER. Bush aims to appoint new Supreme Court justices who will totally outlaw abortion, and he wants to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. And these fascists also go after the more humane forms of Christianity that don’t share their hateful bigotry.

    “Values?” These people have the morality of a lynch mob! If you are Black or Latino, and especially if you are up against the merciless conditions of the inner city … then you too are in the cross-hairs. Bush plans to rip out even social security. He wants to do health care, education, welfare, and even prisons through churches that are directly approved, funded by and answering to the government. These churches will not “lift people up”—and these programs will degrade people, insisting that they agree that their hunger, their homelessness, and their problems flow from their “sins”—and not from a system that has oppressed them from Day One. And the full Christian Fascist plan—which includes vastly expanded capital punishment for minor crimes, in accord with Old Testament “morality”—is far worse, with a downright genocidal direction to it.

    A Time for Resistance

    Are we exaggerating? If anything, people have always under-estimated just how fast and how far Bush would go. And now he claims a “mandate” for his lunacy. No, Bush and the people around him are deadly serious and aim to go much further than almost anyone expects.

    As for “mandate?” BULL! The will of the people was NOT expressed in this election. Kerry didn’t call Bush out for his lies and deception, or expose the real horrors of Bush’s deeds—and his plans. There was no real fight, and people should not grant a shred of legitimacy to Bush.

    And waiting for yet another Democrat to disappoint and betray people four years from now is not only worthless—it may be way too late. What we need now, very urgently and very immediately, is RESISTANCE."


    Sound like this thread so far?...

    ReplyDelete
  167. In case you were wondering, here's the rest:

    "Resistance, in the words of Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, “that refuses to be bound by the terms of mainstream politics or the notion that this politics represents the ’ultimate word’ on the ’will of the people.’ Resistance that will not just protest the juggernaut of war and fascism but go all-out to STOP it. Resistance that will reach out and win over people who have been deceived by this madness but whose deepest interests are opposed to it. Resistance that will be united—but will still include space for dreams and debate.”

    We can build on the past resistance to the Iraq war and other Bush outrages. But this must come back together and take a huge leap with major actions when Bush is inaugurated on January 20th, 2005. People everywhere must see that there really ARE “two Americas,” squaring off over the future.

    The Revolutionary Way Out

    This Christian Fascism didn’t materialize out of thin air. It arose on the basis of CAPITALISM and the most powerful capitalists support it (even as they fight among themselves).

    What do we mean by capitalism? Today, people could produce enough food, housing and clothing to provide a decent life to everyone on the planet. But the means to do this are owned and controlled by a handful of global capitalist-imperialists who are driven to get ever greater profit, or else go under. And so half the people on the planet live on less than $2 a day. Billions go hungry. People are driven from country to city and then around the world, desperately seeking work, while communities in the U.S. are left to rot. And now the Bush lunacy has taken this to an even more terrible level.

    But imagine a different future. A future where people consciously learn about and transform the world, and are not imprisoned in the chains of tradition and ignorance. A world without racism and without borders. A vibrant place, where people together debate and decide how to develop society. A world where people no longer wonder where their next meal will come from, or if they will be homeless, or abandoned or sick in their old age—a world of abundance, where people together hold all of society’s resources in common. A world where people not only work to produce the necessities of life, but get into art and culture and science—and have fun doing it! A world without the domination of women by men, where people interact with each other based on mutual respect, concern and love for humanity. A world that looks out for and takes care of the environment.

    That world is communism. And we can get to that world.

    A Revolutionary Society

    But how? Through revolution—where those who are today exploited and oppressed rise up and defeat the powers-that-be. A revolution led by the class that owns nothing but its ability to work, and yet works together to make the world run. A revolution in which this class steps on to the stage of history and leads tens of millions more—including the millions who hate the cruel reign of Bush and the Christian fascists.

    Revolutions don’t happen overnight, or by accident. But when a deep crisis suddenly erupts in society, and when a revolutionary party has been actively organizing and preparing people for such an opening, and when millions of people begin to think we need a basic change … and become a “revolutionary people” … then dreams can be seized in the clear light of day. No, we’re not there yet—but the extreme changes being wrought by the Bush crew could very well lead to such a crisis. And our Party is doing all it can to bring forward a revolutionary people to seize that time, whenever it may come.

    People have made this kind of revolution before—first in Russia, then in China. And they accomplished amazing things. In the end, however, those revolutions were finally turned back and defeated by the guardians of the old order. But building on their tremendous accomplishments—and examining deeply and unsparingly their negative experiences—Bob Avakian has brought forward a radical new “model” and vision of what this socialist society must be all about.

    Socialist society will enable people to solve the most burning problems that bedevil us today. The “rule of profit” will be shattered and there will be jobs, health care, decent housing and stimulating education—for everyone. Communities will be centers where people join to solve the problems that hold society back. The racism and white supremacy that is woven so deeply into the fabric of American capitalism, and the chains of women’s oppression that still weigh so heavily, will be struggled against and uprooted—from the gitgo! And the socialist state will not oppress other nations—instead, it will support revolution all around the world.

    But even more crucially, the new society will unleash people to change the world. People will count for something—in fact, for everything. Those who were formerly locked out of working with ideas will do exactly that—they will work with their minds and participate in society in an all-round way. The leadership of society will work to unleash diverse thinking and action from the bottom up and everywhere else. It will foster dissent, including opposition to the government itself; it will learn all it can from people, so that society can move forward. The youth will be treasured for their dreams, their daring … and their impatience. There will be ferment and upheaval—far beyond what we can imagine today.

    And yes, there must be, and there will be, firm leadership to hold onto power for the people and to guide all the complex and challenging struggle. Through this whole process, and as other revolutions develop around the world, the state itself will draw more and more millions into the direct rule of every part of society until the division of people into ruler and ruled is finally overcome, in communist society.

    This socialism, as envisioned by Bob Avakian, will embrace scientists, intellectuals, and artists. They’ll continue their intellectual and artistic work, deepening the store of human knowledge, even as they break down barriers with other sections of society, especially the formerly exploited and oppressed. The leadership of society won’t fear their tendency to question everything, or to look at things in new ways. On the contrary, it will welcome this in a way that no other society can—for without lively questioning and “air to breathe”, socialism would not be a place people would want to live, nor would it open up the road to communism.

    In this revolutionary society people will be able to practice religion and go to church—or not—as they please. But the schools, and the government generally, will promote a scientific approach to understanding and changing material reality. On that basis, a new morality will be forged. It will cherish the lives of the people of the world and uphold equality between nations and peoples and between men and women. It will value struggle against the oppressive relations that still remain, and not resignation and surrender to them.
    The Clash of Two Futures

    Two futures confront each other. Will imperialism force a future of darkness and suffocation onto the people? Will tens of millions more needlessly suffer and die? OR, will the critical spirit be unleashed in a way that does a great GOOD for humanity? Will society move forward in a revolutionary direction and set about removing the great suffering and misery cast down on the people by capitalism?

    To put it another way, which vision will prevail: that of George W. Bush? Or of Bob Avakian?

    Each of us has a part in answering this question. We know that the job is huge, the time is short, and the odds are long. Yet we are down for this, all the way down, and optimistic as well.

    But let us put it to YOU: if you’ve been agonizing about the future, if you nodded your head as you read this statement, then… what are YOU gonna do? Are YOU going to be one of thousands who come together now and help create the force that can lead millions against this madness, when millions are ready to be led? Will you help create and bring onto the stage a revolutionary people? Are you ready to check out this Party and this leader? Will you bring your ideas, your creativity, your questions and yes, your disagreements to us, and help figure out how we can rise to the occasion? Are YOU ready to make a real difference—to not only spread the word of resistance and revolution, but make that a real alternative in society?

    Don’t let Bush determine the future. Spread this statement to your friends. Talk about it with them. And check us out. Now."

    Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

    Websites: http://rwor.org and http://bobavakian.net

    ReplyDelete
  168. You can tell a lot about a person (or a group) by who their allies are...

    ReplyDelete
  169. Eric,

    You are now officially little more than a spammer.

    You saw a discussion going on, and you posted as always, and entire article written by someone else, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

    At least this time you gave the author of the article credit.

    Unlike previous times.

    You know, you can tell a lot about a person from their character. And you demonstrated your character to us weeks ago, when you plaigiarized someone elses work, and posted it as your own.

    That's what we call, poor character.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Gee worf,

    That high horse gets taller every day don't it?

    And what makes you think I was even talking to you?

    ReplyDelete
  171. And that's "unlike previous TIME"

    Of course that's good for you though, because now you get to malign and dismiss me. How convienient for you.

    Sorry I interupted YOUR longwinded pontificating.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Anonymous8:47 PM

    I read the following and was reminded of Lydia and Worfeus.

    E.J. Dionne:

    "Ah, yes, the president and his people have a lot of enemies out there, but his friends are just as exercised. A reader from San Diego offered a view that was repeated in many different forms: 'Most liberals and some Democrats hate this president and will do anything to bring him down, including siding with terrorists against the president.'

    That is why the approval ratings for President Bush are bouncing back. Nothing he has done but the stupidity of the liberals.

    We know who makes America safe - thanks again Bush and co.

    I better run to get back to my double-wide in time to watch O'Reilly.

    P.S. Don't put duct tape on your windows Lydia - it is tough to get the glue off later:)

    a Guy from Bush Country

    ReplyDelete
  173. Eric I know you weren't talking to me.

    You were just talking over me, which is fine, but it's called spam.

    It was off topic, and not even peritnent.

    In fact, you really weren't talking, just cutting and pasting non pertinent material, like you always do. And followed it with a nice little hatful comment that has NOTHING to do with the current coversation in the room.

    People usually try to talk to the thread. Trolls come in and post random anti-room articles they found on the Internet.

    Anyway since you were not talking to me, don't let me keep you.

    I am busy talking with someone who actually has something to say

    ReplyDelete
  174. BIG K.

    I am reposting this because Eric the SPAMMER decided to post some mindless hate rhetoric that is off topic and distracted from our discussion.
    _______________________________

    BIG K.

    If you think the Antiquities of the Jews by the Judeo-Roman Historian Flavius Josephus, is not pertinent to a discussions of the historical context of the rise of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the background and correlation to biblical events, then WORFEUS says stay in school.

    Sunday school that is.

    Because there’s about 10,000 theologians out there that's gonna disagree with you.

    And one lowly layperson.

    Either way it's moot.

    Because I never quoted Josephus to you in our discussions.

    Just in other discussions in here.
    Like I said earlier, I used Jospehus as an example of books I quote from, since you started subtly trying to undermine volumes of information I posted on your behalf, by casually accusing me of quoting from online articles. :|

    As for your previous post?

    That sounds good and all, and I only take offense when someone accuses me or even hints of accusing me of plagiarizing.

    I put in a great deal of my own time in Blogs like this one, pro-bono, because I believe in the truth.

    And you know what's really funny?

    In all the replies since my mini dissertation on the History of the suppression of heresy in the early Mother Church, you have made nothing more than off the cuff remarks without once even cutting and pasting my OWN words from my OWN post, and trying to refute any of it.

    You perhaps were trying to focus on the Spanish Inquisition only, but my entire post had to do with the Suppression of Heresy THROUGHOUT the history of the Church.

    I never, EVER focused on just the Spanish Inquisition, no matter how hard you tried to distract from my position.

    I still have not. And you still have not addressed that fact, in all your detracting responses.

    And your constant attempts to discredit my sources by injecting the notion of online articles or opinion pieces was nothing more than a Red Herring.

    Even now you have not yet addressed the fact that I demonstrated from the writings of a universally famous early church father, Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, (whose writings are NOT an opinion piece, or an internet article as you charged me twice with now, but they were from the Divine Institutes)that the Mother Church was extracting confessions from torture as a common practice, long before the onset of the Inquisitions.

    You have dismissed me with all the ease that a 17 year old dismisses a credit card bill.

    Without even bothering to look at it.

    My original argument was that the Inquisition was an evil that came from the offices of the Mother Church, and not a few errant members as you tried to assert, and that the practices of the Inquisition were commonplace in the church centuries before the onset of the Inquisitions.

    I made that argument. And I think I made it well.

    Looking back, I almost wish now I had not spent as much time on it as I did, as it may be wasted on you.

    You responded by dismissing it without so much as one supporting fact, then accused me of not addressing your point when I clearly went to great lengths to do so, then when I brought this fact to your attention, even going as far as re-posting an entire section of my earlier post where I did address your question, you simply dismissed it, and practically accused me of plagiarizing.

    I am not trying to shake your faith in God, Christ or his teachings.

    The teaching of Christ, are the greatest words man has ever heard, and the hardest to follow.

    And I thank the Catholic Church every day for my Red Letter edition of the New Testament.

    Then I remember what they did to so many people, and in many instances are still doing, and the gratitude fades and the anger comes in.(don't make me bring up the feeding the children reference again :I.)

    But the history is there, if you’re willing to look.

    But there’s a lot of it out there. Like I said last night, I barely scratched the surface in my post.

    But then again how could I? How could anyone cover 2000 years of history, and millions of pages of data, in a little blog.

    And why should? I can write an entire book, and you would just dismiss it like a child dismisses a critique by saying "I know you are but what am I ?".

    I am not here to write a Thesis for you, (although I'm getting close at this point), but I did put in some real effort because I thought you deserved it.

    But if you don't come back with meaningful responses and address the data I provide, it makes putting together valuable and relevant data, kinda futile. :\

    The truths all that work for me in here, not your willingness to profess the Emperor is wearing a fine new suit, when we can all see he is clearly naked as a j-bird.

    But I hold no ill feeling towards you, (ok, maybe just a few :P ).

    No, like I said earlier, you seem like a decent guy, but you're the one that walked into a liberal blog with an axe to grind. Your the one that wants to dismiss over a thousand years of rape, murder, torture, and other unspeakable acts committed not by the membership, but by the leadership of the Mother Church.

    You’re the one whose faith helps him get past all that.

    But I hope you do take the time to see ponder not just the Spanish Inquisition, but the original Papal Inquisition which it branched off from, as well as the heinous commonplace practices and belief systems that led up to that point.

    Correlate that to try and see my points.

    After all, I spent over a decade of my life trying to see yours.

    deus cum discedo

    ReplyDelete
  175. Gee,

    It's interesting that when someone discusses a topic that doesn't fit your sensibilities its:

    "if you actually took the time too read the articles that define this Blogs very purpose, you will see that there are two arguments.

    The war is wrong.

    And the Christian Right is influencing the division of Church and State.


    And when YOU'RE off topic its:

    "a nice little hatful comment that has NOTHING to do with the current coversation in the room.

    People usually try to talk to the thread."


    I'm sure you have a wonderfully contorted and manufactured explanation though...

    ReplyDelete
  176. I have NO idea what that means.

    I was not the one off topic moron.You were.

    I was in the middle of a 2 day long discussion on the suppression of heresy in the early Mother Church.

    You just popped in and lazly posted a complete article of someone elses to try and stir things up and distract from real Bloggers.

    Like the scummy little Blog troll you are, you slimed in, posted someone elses entire article, added a few snide comments, and left.

    Totally distracting from the current thread.

    If you had done that in another Blog, your cut and paste job would have been cut.

    See no one posts somebody elses ENTIRE article into a blog thread there Wordsmith. :|

    They post excerpts, that are pertainent to the discussion at hand, or to a point they are making, and then comment on them, giving their insights and reason.

    Only lazy, worthless Blog Trolls and dimwits who have nothing intellgent to say, come in and slotfully cut and past an entire article from someone else and take up two feet of page that distracts from the entire discussion.

    Like I told you before;

    negotium adepto

    ReplyDelete
  177. You've been having a 2 day "discussion" and I need to get a job?
    wow

    Well, I'm tired so I'll leave you to it for now. On a cautionary note, he'll get tired of your semantics and word games eventually. Of course you'll declare victory. Easy to win when you make up the rules as you go along....

    Have fun!

    Asinus asinum fricat

    ReplyDelete
  178. The reason I always tell you to get a job, is because cheep hacks and lazy plagiarizers have no business in here.

    You don't even have a clue what where discussing. It is out of your plagiarizing skill level.

    I at least respect people like Steve, and Big K, because they have something of their own to say.

    I give credit where credits due.

    It's not my fault you're morally bankrupt and can't talk to anything intelligent except for stealing other peoples work.

    Schmuck.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Anonymous10:14 PM

    Great Post Lydia, I also was surprised about that ridiculous Duct Tape Fiasco, what did certain government officials own stock in 3M and were trying to make a quick buck, or was it an experiment to see how easily they could manipulate the sheep like masses.

    And Worfeus, I watched Jesse Ventura last night right after you mentioned it in your post, he was awesome, everything he said was 100% right. too bad there arent more intelligent people like him in politics who care about doing what is right and making the world a better place for everyone instead of just for themselves.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  180. That's right Mike, I may have to watch Mr. Ventura a little more closely from now on.

    He makes a lot of sense lately.

    Perotesque, Naderlike even.

    ReplyDelete
  181. For BIG K

    "A man is accepted into church for what he believes and turned out for what he knows."

    Mark Twain

    ReplyDelete
  182. Prophet3:27 AM

    Jan 4 1943

    Josef Stalin appears as Time's 1942 "Man of the Year".

    ReplyDelete
  183. Big K8:15 AM

    Wow worfeus. That was a long post. One thing it missed. A book, a seminarian would read, regarding the history of the Inquisition, whereby the cause of it is found to be criminals trying to get a better court to try their case. It is what you assert. It is what I have agreed to read. You can post one example and call victory for yourself. I have tried in the last few days to find something that supports that and have been unable. If my absolute ignorance is such that I slept through that lesson in Sunday School and missed that episode on the History Channel and cannot find those books though they are right in front of my face, I ask you to help me cure myself of it. I would be eternally grateful. However, if you are unable to produce such a work in this, the second day I have asked for it, what choice do I have but to believe what I have read, flawed as it may be?

    As for the rest, you did not plagiarize. Did everyone get that? I never said you did. You never cited a web site. I never said you did. You never cut and pasted from a web cite. I never said you did. Are you starting to see a pattern here? What I did say was that I had respect for your study and reading. Would you like me to retract that? I grow tired of pandering to your ego while enduring your insults and misinterpretations. It is not becoming of an educated person. I never tried to discredit your sources, I have said repeatedly I would like to read one!!!!

    I never refuted your facts. I have said that as well. I simply shed light on what may have been a misunderstanding between us. You looked at all suppression of heresy. Great, I said in the beginning I was talking about the Spanish Inquisition as it was commonly known and understood. It was not “perhaps” what I meant, it was exactly what I said. I thought that would clear up confusion. Apparently not. You want to expand our discussion to encompass more, that is great. But the history lesson is something I am well aware of. I think the fact that I did not resist your information is what made you so mad. Be that as it may, you were right, can we finally move on?

    As for not reposting your comments before discussing them, I rarely do that, anywhere. I think the people I have these discourses with are smart enough to remember what they wrote. If you would like a reminder, let me know and I will oblige. Call it a personal thing. Some people do not capitalize anything, I do not repost comments or use many contractions.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Anonymous9:27 AM

    Hey Worthless, why don't you get a job! No wonder you are not a republican, as you sit at home doing blogs all day.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Anonymous9:33 AM

    John Kerry was beating the Hell out of Bush on election day. Then when the Republicans got out of work and Bush won. Hopefully, we can get more unemployed people in America so Democrats can win!

    ReplyDelete
  186. BIG K SAID

    "I do not repost comments or use many contractions".

    Whatever that means.

    It is common practice in a blog to do this, so you don't get away with subtle implications like saying subtle little suggestions,that you later deny.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, you did try to subtly dismiss what I took a great deal of time to write you, as is clear from your words.

    BIG K DID SAY;

    I would not trust much from the internet on this regard

    and

    Produce a book, not a web page, and I will read it.

    You clearly were attempting to discredit everything I said by simply dismissing it, and if you don't want to admit it, that's fine.

    And if you want to appear aloof because as you say, I do not repost comments or use many contractions, then whatever helps you up the hill.

    But reposting the persons words you are having a discussion with, keeps them honest.

    Or at least shows the rest of the readers when they're not.

    ReplyDelete
  187. As far as the argument on why someone would prefer the inquistion over the secular courts, I made it rather well I think.

    And I discussed FACTS, like the TERM OF GRACE.

    Are you saying becuase I did not quote from a book that the TERMS OF GRACE did not exist?

    Perhaps you think without an accompanying reference that the TERM OF GRACE is just a fabrication of mine?

    How about Pope Gregory or Pope Innocent? I referenced them repeatedly, but never provided you with a book to back it up.

    Perhaps you think Pope Gregory and Pope Innocent are fabrications of mine as well.

    And as for the Inquistion? I mentioned the Papal Inquistions, and the Spanish Inquistions, but never once did I reference a book that you can read in seminary to support the concept of an Inquistion.

    Perhaps you believe the inquistion is a fabrication of mine as well?

    I clearly made a sound argument, an argument that only a fool or someone with a religious axe to grind could not at least see the logic in, that is, that the Inquistion was an easy way to escape a Criminal Charge.

    WORFEUS WROTE
    ________________________________

    See during the first few weeks of the Investigation process, once a person has been identified as a hereitc, a Term of Grace allowed an accused heretic of voluntarily confess to the Grand Inquisitor, and thus normally being spared any actual torture, or penalties.

    Like I said, you need a reasonable mind to understand this stuff, not a religious mind.

    ________________________________

    It is an very easy argument to understand, and I used our own penal system as an example.

    Every day guilty people use the "Insanity Defense" in American courts because fooling the Doctors is easier than fooling the Judge.

    And it doesn't take too much gray matter to understand that if a criminal, facing a charge for which he knows he will be found guilty in secular court, that if he simply pretends to be a heretic, that he can escape harsh civil punishments by simply confessing to the Grand Inquistor during the Term of Grace.

    In fact, except for anyone other than a religious nut, who thinks the Inquistion was a good thing, it's a No Brainer. :|

    But if you are saying that the only discussions, ideas or reason you will listen to is one that comes from a book, then ok, you will find it under the Book Of Worfeus, Chapter 9 Verse 11

    Behold, if a man is a foolish enough to believe that the general populace prefered the Inquistion, to the Secular courts, because they thought it was more fair, then sell that sucker some swampland in Florida..... cause he's a keeper

    WORFEUS 9:11

    10:25 AM

    ReplyDelete
  188. Like I said, where is your book I should read. I am still waiting.

    And if you want to read into my posts and get your underwear in a bunch that is your issue. I did not say anything you allege I did, and if you took it that way it was not my intent. I will not waste my time continuing to assuage your hurt feelings, that I admittedly did not intend to offend. As stated, a few times.

    As to my blog etiquette, sorry. I just never did that. I think it wastes space. I can read, and I announce what I am talking about. I think it is fair enough. Not reposting your comments so you can read them again does not mean I ignored them.

    Anyway, we went from the Inquisition to your hurt feelings. I prefer more substantial intellectual fare than your emotions. And on the subject of the Inquisition I see only one thing left to discuss, as I have agreed with most of what you said, but the reason for the thing. And on that subject, again, I am looking for a book that I can read to cure me of my ignorance. Either you have one in the sea of information you have read over the many years of your study, or not. At first I sincerely thought you did, and was looking forward to seeing it. After 2 days I am beginning to wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  189. I don't know of a particular book off hand where you may find that argument.

    I suggest you go to the Library and look for one if you can't see the PLAIN, SIMPLE LOGIC in it.

    You're the one in here defending the Inquistion.

    ReplyDelete
  190. It is an very easy argument to understand, and I used our own penal system as an example.

    Every day guilty people use the "Insanity Defense" in American courts because fooling the Doctors is easier than fooling the Judge.

    And it doesn't take too much gray matter to understand that if a criminal, facing a charge for which he knows he will be found guilty in secular court, that if he simply pretends to be a heretic, that he can escape harsh civil punishments by simply confessing to the Grand Inquistor during the Term of Grace.

    In fact, except for anyone other than a religious nut, who thinks the Inquistion was a good thing, it's a No Brainer. :|

    ReplyDelete
  191. And don't think for one minute I forgot your avoidence of my original argument.

    You first stated the Inquistion only lasted 400 years, trying to reference the Spanish Inquistion only.

    I demonstrated your errors there, and you ignored it and moved on.

    I also made it clear that I was not talking about the Inquisition only, but the suppression of heresy throughout the life of the Church, and I clearly demonstrated from ancient works, how the use of torture to extract confessions was prevelent almost a 1000 years prior to the start of the inquistion.

    Another point you conveninetly refuse to address.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I conveniently refused to address? I ACKNOLEDGED IT. Man, I should not have to repeat myself so many times in a place where you can simply go back and read my previous posts. At this point you are ignoring my request for a book. Fair enough, but it is you avoiding the argument, not me. You said...

    “The fact that almost every book ever written on the subject, including the the complete works of Flavius Josephus, and Farrar's Life of Christ is available on the Internet, is not my problem.”

    Those are not about the Inquisition. And there, I posted your own post, you should be happy.

    You also said....

    “Keep it up, and I'll start reposting, so you can read MY WORDS, and the quotes from famous ancient historic documents, that I studied over a quarter of a Century ago here at Catholic University , something else I have also told you, that you repeatedly fail to grasp.”

    As I said, I am interested in a book. Unless you have a PhD in Catholic History pertaining to the Inquisition, you are not a reference for me. And even if you were, you would have read at least one book.

    You said my facts were wrong, you contradict the reading and honest study I have made. You allege I am ignorant of apparent fact “every first year seminarian would know.” Fine, tell me what to read. Put up or shut up.

    Lydia, please pay special attention to this. I have paid this person respect, actually said twice I respect them. I have not made personal attacks, have apologized for perceived attacks, and simply asked for information this person says is prevalent. How else could I have tried to come to common ground? And all this after they picked a fight I said I did not want.

    ReplyDelete
  193. BIG K SAID

    At this point you are ignoring my request for a book.

    But wait, could BIG K be misrepresenting the facts again?

    WORFEUS JUST SAID

    I don't know of a particular book off hand where you may find that argument

    Another example of you falsely accusing me of things I never did.

    Now I understand EVERYTHING you believe must be written by someone else in order to get your mind around it, but I gave you logic, and you dismissed it with a fleeting passing remark, without backing it up once.

    I wrote you volumes, putting my logic, and reasoning on display for ALL to see.

    YOU are the one AVOIDING the debate.

    Gimme a Book to read, Gimme a Book to read, is not a debate. It's you crying because you have nothing to say.

    And now your crying to Lydia, waa waa, WORFEUS is being mean.

    It's you RUNNING from a logical argument, not me.

    I have reposted the argument, and you still just say, Gimme a book, gimme a book.

    You said Cervantes thought the inquistions were a good thing?

    Fine. Prove it. Cause you never did.

    And after you show where he said something that you construe to mean he wanted to feel the tongs of the Grand Inquistor, then you can explain HOW that makes the Inquistion a GOOD THING.

    I am ALL EARS.

    I do remember a little about Cervantes, and I remember he was brought before the Inquistion for Crimes against the Church, so I am not sure where he would have had the option between secular and Ecclesiastical courts.

    In fact, as I recall it had something to do with throwing some monks into debtors prison or something for not paying a debt.

    I am not sure how any of this constituted his desiring the inquistion, or that he even had a choice in the matter, but perhaps you could share it with me.

    Because for all you claims against me, you NEVER referenced ONE quote, NOR any accompying elaboration or dialogue of your own following an actual quote.

    Of course, even if Cervantes had said something nice about the inquistions, it would still not complete your argument.

    YOU have to produce some reason, some wisdom on the topic, not a vague fleeting reference, what was it you said?

    Sorry, I have to re-post cause I'm not as smart as you :|

    BIG K SAID

    Read books of the time and you will see the lay people had little fear of the officers doing this work. An example of this would be Miguel de Cervantes’ famous book “Don Quixote.” He lived during the time, mentions the Inquisition, but not in a way you might expect.


    Not once have you actually quoted from this book, or provided ANY meaningful commentary on it.

    NOT ONCE.

    You made the claim that people preferred the inquistion.

    But you NEVER said WHY.

    I did not debate the point that some people may have preferred the Inquistion. I even offered you supporting Catholic commentary on the subject.

    I merely offered some reasoning as to WHY they would have preferred the inquistion to the secular courts.

    And so far, you have not said ONE intelligent thing to counter that.

    Not ONE.

    ReplyDelete
  194. I see your point Big K. I haven't read all of Worfeus & your own posts in detail -- am working on a deadline and can't do it now -- but in general I think what Worfeus is appalled by, is anyone defending the Inquisition AT ALL, EVER. (Any book or anything on the web written by an apologist, has to be taken with a grain of salt. One must always investigate the background and motives of the writer, ie: what is their motive in defending it?)

    The Inquisition was one of the most shameful times in human history -- and it's like being an apologist for the Nazi holocaust. How can anyone say that any good came out of it? All the books ever written about it say the same thing. I'm sure there's one or two book out there that defend it, but the horrors been written countless times. Edgar Allen Poe wrote horror stories about the Inquisition and so did Dostoevsky. These were novels of course, but nonetheless, based on fact. "Torquemada en la Hoguera" was a novel by Galdos which I read in Spanish, (I speak Spanish.) Maybe this is the book - which tries to recreate Torquemada as a good guy, but not for the reasons you think.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Big K1:02 PM

    Alright, I keep asking you for a book. I will give you one.

    “They Catholic Church Through the Ages” by John Vidmar. John has a PhD in History and is a University professor. His credentials are impeccable. According to him, the Inquisition of the Middle Ages is not to be confused with the Spanish Inquisition, whose dates coincide with the ones I earlier stated. But the two put together are consistent with your dates. The reasons for the Inquisition in the middle ages were that many people were being led astray by lay people preaching things differing from the Church. This gets interesting, and an inquisition was ordered when people started to preach Jesus was evil, and that suicide was a good idea. The first execution happened in 350 AD against the wishes of the pope, and the bishop of the province. Many abuses were perpetrated, as all of us know. Many of them were done by the church authorities, but many were also committed by the local government to gain the land of the people accused. 1 out of 100 people accused were executed, 15 out of 100 were given prison dates. Many of the prison sentences were reduced when the inquisitors left town. Everyone thinks that the Inquisition only had to do with heretical activity. But things far more benign were included at the time. King Henry’s divorce came under the Inquisition, for instance.

    The Spanish Inquisition, he said, should be considered separate because after the initial involvement of Rome, the King of Spain began exceeding his mandate according to Sixtus. When the pope arrested the archbishop for this and tried to reign in the proceedings, the king denied the pope and excluded him from the process. Thus, much of the Spanish Inquisition happened against the wishes of the papacy.

    While, again, abuses certainly happened, and people were tortured for confessions and forcibly converted, the numbers are generally exaggerated, according to Vidmar. Some positives came from it, however. The process of investigation produced for the Inquisition of the Middle Ages is still used by the FBI today.

    Look at the book, it was a good read. I found it at Barnes and Noble on my lunch break just now.

    ReplyDelete
  196. In fact waterboarding was taken from a technique used by the Inquistors.

    SO?

    Doesn't make it right.

    And nice job going to Barnes and Noble, but next time, give us a quote from the book whose argument you are making for the author.

    At least thats the standard you want to hold me to.

    ReplyDelete
  197. I know BIG K you are worried about saving space and all (don't worry, ASCII text on an HTML page takes up minimal resources), but the reason we repost stuff, is so guys like you actually have to talk to the argument instead of trying to invent my argument for me, something you have been doing since we started.

    And of course you successfully buried my original argument which was full of SPECIFIC POINTS, and REFERENCES for you to refute.

    So to be clear, I am going to repost it, so you can't sit here and tell people what you THINK I said.

    Here is what WORFEUS orginally posted.
    _______________________________

    BIG K SAID

    Your Bible quotes are interesting, but prove little as far as the corruption of the Church

    Oh no? Better tell Martin Luther that. Those scriptures have been used for centuries to point to the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Big K said

    That the Church has sinners in her midst is not proof that her teachings are wrong

    I think you need to go back and re-read my 120AM post that you are responding to.

    Having sinners in her midst is not the same as the heirarchy being populated by evil, corrupt devils and murderers.

    It was not the membership my post was referring to.

    It was the clergy.

    And the clergy is the Church. If the priesthood is corrupt, so is the Church. If the fruit is corrupt, so is the tree. At least that's what Jesus said.

    Big K said

    The Inquisition lasted 400 years (not 700) because many generations of people thought it necessary.

    Lets see about that.

    Pope Gregory IX first introduced the Papal decree in 1251, which manifested in letters to the French Bishops, ordering stricter methods of weeding out heresy.

    In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued the now famous Ad exstirpanda, a Papal "Bull" or Bulla, which authorized the use of harsher torture (hmmm, sound familiar?) for rooting out heretics, witches and necromancers. The 1251 Fransiscan letters, coupled with the 1252 Papal Bull, began the official start of what is referred to as the Papal Inquisition, which spread it's bony fingers throughout southern France and northern Italy.

    The interesting thing about the Ad exstirpanda issued by the peculiarly named Pope Innocent IV, is that it not only specfically authorized the use of not only torture, but burning heretics alive at the stake.

    See Big K, this is not just a few sinners in her midst.

    It is the entire mother Church at Rome, ordering that people, human beings, be burned alive.

    This is also what you call, bad fruits.

    And it was not the membership. It was the leadership.

    In 1478 Sixtus IV authorized the Holy "inquiro" or inquistion, which happily brought the joys of good ole Christian torture to the sinful people of Spain, and elsewhere. It also introduced the world to such Christlike figures as Tomas Torquemada, who single-handedly burned alive over 2000 people deemed to be heretics.

    Nice guy. :|

    And lets not forget the oh so lovely Christians, Ferdinand and Isabella, who sent ravaging Christian armies throughout the Iberian peninsula forcing the Jews and Muslims to join the mother church.

    Of course, they didn't have to join.

    They just sent the ones who didn't to Jesus a little early, for some onsite instruction.

    Now the Spanish Inquistion did not start to wind down until 1808 with the Holy Office officially abolished by Mother Cristina inn 1834, and since it was a branch of the Bull Ad exstirpanda of 1252, a year after Gregory IX sent his letters to the french Bishops, were are looking at 582 years there alone, 583 if you count the Gregory Fransican letters.

    183 years higher than your 400 years estimate.

    But lets not stop there. I said 700 years, so lets see why I said that.

    The Papal Inquistion began to be semi-officially dismantled in 1768, but the official inquirio was not replaced by the Holy Office until 1908, a whopping 657 years after the official order was first introduced, at least that we have records of. And then technically this institution, which was just an extension of the Inquistion, was not replaced until 1965 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. So altogether, that adds up to a whopping 714 years after the original Papal decree, which was the point where the Church actually admitted to, and began to repent of the Inquistion. The current Holy father, who mysteriously turns out to be a former Nazi party member, go figure, just recently asked for forgiveness from God, for the Church, for the atrocoties committed during the Inquisitions.

    714 years is a far cry from your 400 year estimate. And that is why I said 700 years.

    But ok, I hear you crying now, you think they probably weren't torturing people into the 1900's. Probably not. At least not in the industrialized regions anyway.

    But alas, theres more.

    See the Inquistion was not the beginning of the torture for Jesus campaigns. This had been going on un-officially, for at least another 800 years. I explained that in my earlier post.

    200 years prior to the official start of the Inquistion, Pope Urban II ordered the first official armed invasion of Muslim Holy land.

    He assembled a semi-noble group of crusaders, headed by Peter the Hermit, Walter the Penniless, Godfrey of Bouillon, Baldwin and Eustace of Flanders, and other pious nobles, and went off to kill Turks, and anyone else who got in their way.

    And it was a bloody mess.

    We learn from Flavius Theodosius about the sixty-eight enactments issued from the mother church over a period of about 50 years that persecuted heretics with death, imprisonment and seizing of property as early as 380CE (AD).

    And of course we know from the Divinarum Institutionum that early Church scholars were admonishing the Holy Mother Church at Rome to end their henious tortures trying to force confessions of Christ from suspected heretics.

    Lactantius was admonishing the church for vile crimes and tortures, as early as the 4th century.

    In 308 CE (AD) Lactantius wrote;
    ___________________________

    "What has the rack to do with piety?

    Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.

    If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult".

    Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius
    From the Divinarum Institutionum Libri (Divine Institutes)
    ___________________________

    Lucius was not talking about a Ski Rack here. :|

    He had witnessed first hands the beautiful, joyous confessions from penitent heretics as their bones left their sockets on the rack, and watched as not so lucky heretics were burned alive as they screamed their defience. It is believed that Lucius himself may have felt the hand of the tormenter once or twice, as he dared to speak out against the church.

    In other words, Lactantius' war against the use of torture was 944 years, almost a full millenia prior to the Ad exstirpanda and the onset of the official Inquistion.

    There is volumes of data on the tortures, murders, burnings, and unholy wars waged in the name of Christ by the Holy Mother Church, that span pretty much the entire history of the Church.

    Now what's amazing is how much informtation we do have on this topic, considering the lengths the Church went to to hide their crimes against humanity. But we do.

    As far as your statement about early Christians actually asking for the Inquistion? LOL.

    Sorry buddy, but this was an old, old argument that I heard back when I studied from a master at Catholic Universtity.

    The Church has been pulling out that one for a long time, because there is evidence that some people who had difficult cases in secular court, (and usually knew they were guilty), asked for the Inquistion, some even acting like Heretics so they could escape the secular courts.

    In fact, you likely either got this from your parish Priest or you took it right of www.catholic.com


    It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing


    Taken from Catholic.Com,
    (http://www.catholic.com
    /library/inquisition.asp)

    Of course they would. This is not at all surprising.

    See what they, the Church neglect to discuss, is that like our system, where someone pleads insanity, then just plays the system, telling the doctors what they want to hear, and eventually getting released, once the doctors cure them, these criminals were doing likewise.

    These were not heretics or political or religious prisoners. These were criminals who were usually guilty, and knew if they acted as a heretic, then, let the inquistor cure them, and confess them, then they could get through the Inquisition with very little trouble.

    The Inquistors were always ready to accept the confessions of a penitent heretic, so they could show the Mother Church their effectivness at healing with the tools of Christ (torture instruments), unless of course there were some political reasons for not accepting the confessions.

    It's the ones that didn't confess or were considered enemies of the Church, that bore the brunt of the unspeakable horrors you call a few errant sins.

    In fact, it is estimated over 3 Million people suffered at the hands of the Inquisitors over a 500 year span, with more than 300,000 being burned alive at the stake.

    But hey, what's a few mass atrocities amongst friends, right?

    Now I have just touched upon some of the events that span over a 1000 years of history, and I have not mentioned one one-hundredth what I could go into.

    But I do not feel inclined to write you a book. Short story, sure. But not a book.

    Suffice it to say there is ample evidence throughout the ages clearly demonstrating to anyone with a reasonable mind, that the Catholic Church stooped into apostasy sometime around 250 AD, and never looked back.

    So I suggest you go read one of those books that you suggested I read, cause chances is are, I already read it.

    About 25 years ago. :|

    ReplyDelete
  198. Big K2:02 PM

    Again, here is your post Worfeus.

    “And any first year seminary student would know this.

    It is common knowledge that the Inquistion was an easy way to escape a criminal charge.”

    You later disagree with me by saying that the escape of criminal charge is the reason for the Inquisition.

    Hence my charge that you should come up with a book that every first year seminarian would read to back it up. I produced one. You should too. The fact that the author of this book agrees with me is not the point. I am looking for a book that agrees with you. I can not find one. So I ask you to delve into your abundant resources and find one. But alas. You now say it does not exist.

    “I don't know of a particular book off hand where you may find that argument”

    So did you make it up? I hope not. If you did not, there should be a reference. As for Cervantes, the book is at home, let me see if I can find what I am talking about in the 700 pages contained therein tonight and get back to you. It was a while since I read the book, I admit, but that part made an impression on me.

    Lydia. I am not defending the Inquisition. I am interested in the facts, and learning more. But when you have someone obviously biased writing “history” you end up with some funny ideas that never happened. There is nothing wrong with knowing the facts. And that is all I am interested in feting here. The grievous abuses during the Inquisition are not to be defended. Please do not think I am so callous as to say that.

    ReplyDelete
  199. (Observe the beauty of the repost Big K, observe)

    BIG K JUST SAID

    "The grievous abuses during the Inquisition are not to be defended.

    Please do not think I am so callous as to say that"


    BUT WAIT, BIG K SAID THIS EARLIER


    "I sought to show you there was a legitimate reason for the Inquisition, and there was good produced from it"

    See?

    There's a reason we RE-POST in here.

    Because when you try to slither your way out of what you actually said, we can re-post it, for ALL to see.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  200. Anonymous2:43 PM

    I think a very good point was made that Bush utilizes fear, both on our own citizens as well as on his enemies to achieve what he desires.

    He uses fear to make people think his wars and assaults on our civil liberties and personal freedoms are justified and he tries to brainwash people to make them believe we need his protection.

    He also appears to want the rest of the world fear us, particularly those nations he considers enemys, an example of this is when he called North Korea and Iraq an Axis of Evil, basically implying that they were next on his hit list. tactics and propaganda like this only serve to inflame the rest of the world against us, even our allies have to question blindly following our lead

    Another unnerving thing about his philosophy is his "you're either with us or against us mentality" despite what he says there are always shades of grey in life, nothing is black and white. just because someone doesnt agree with you, doesnt make them an ememy. I have to say that although Star Wars doesnt compare to Lord of The Rings or many of the other great classics, there are some eerie parallels, particularly "The if you're not with me your my ememy" philosophy, and the war that isnt what it appears to be, and is actually a first step to seizing power and installing a dictatorship to enslave the masses.

    My question is does anyone think Lucas wrote this story as is years ago and it is just an eerie coincidence that it mirrors in many ways our political climate today, or do you think he purposely revised the story to resemble the world we live in today

    Mike

    ReplyDelete