A sighting of Mary 152 years ago by someone already predisposed by religious programing to believe such rubbish is "proved" how? "Theological experts" has to be Catholic code for fairy-tale enablers.

If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

It seems to me to be a problem of someone not being happy in their life and wanting someone to take it out on more than anything else. It is like the guy who sees his neighbor picking up trash in his yard and the street so he gets out of his car and throws more to upset him. It is childish.

I must finally agree with you Clay.

The opposite of that is a Harvard educated lawyer who used to be my neighbor. I came home during a thunderstorm and saw him in his front lawn watering a tree he had recently planted.

"O.K." I said, "I know they don't offer a degree program in common sense at Harvard. But why the **** are you watering your plants in the rain?"

Looking up from his bright yellow hood he said, "If God thinks its a good time to water my tree I'll follow his lead."

True story Clay. He is a very well known name in Maryland politics right now. He still follows God's lead too!

God bless you Clay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoNEJyuWhUI

Clay a good analogy. It seems to me someone who is at peace with their beliefs wouldn't need to resort to petty name calling and ridiculing others for their beliefs.

Yes, and I would much rather live next to him than the guy who throws the trash. Unfortunately the guy who throws the trash doesnt see it that way, and is more likely to be a renter and jealous for some reason also. He ends up picking on someone who is much better off in some ways than himself. Have a good one.

I was responding to the comment by Dana but yes I agree with both of you. If anyone is picking on someone who is better off than himself, it is someone who is a non believer who is picking on Christians who make an honest effort. Thanks.

OK, Clay, your analogy is starting to stretch into deformity. I am a non-believer. I am not a "renter" -- either in real - life, or in the sense of your analogy. I am as much an "owner" of my place here on earth as you are. Your embrace of a particular (yes) mythology and its attendant visions and ghosts does not make you in any sense "better" than me.

I keep a tidy secular home, Clay. I'd very much appreciate your not tossing your trash (imposing your dogma on my rights in a secular nation, for example) into my yard.

Christians cant be tossing trash if they are spreading God's word. Also, we can own a place here on earth but it is only temporary. Only those who are saved have a place reserved for them in heaven. Those who are jealous of others tend to see something that the other has that they dont, including a better job and place to live or whatever. For whatever reason they, and others not necessarily jealous of something, sometimes resort to picking on people because they arent happy. What these people need, whether here on the blogs or elsewhere, is what Christ can give them if they will let Him. Thanks.

Clay,

Your being a Christian does not exempt you from the rules of the neighborhood. I have absolutely no problem with your ornamenting your yard (i.e., your church) with your beliefs. The town ordinances (i.e., the Constitution) give you that right. When you "spread God's word" into my space (i.e., my laws, my life) you have violated those rules and, yes, you have strewn my "yard" with trash.

Oh, and by the way, Clay ... I am not "jealous" of you in any sense. You have nothing that I desire or need, either in "this world," nor in the eternal span of time after our respective brain function has ceased.

Clay while I would tend to agree with the general statement that "Christians cant be tossing trash if they are spreading God's word" The question you need to ask yourself should be am I spreading God's word? At times your posts tend to come off as boastful or belittling to non-Christians. How we conduct ourselves does as much, maybe more, in witnessing as what we say. At the end of the day it's up to the indvidual to make the choice of their own free will. Those who choose not to accept Christ need to be treated with the same respect, courtesy and love we show for those who choose to come to Christ.

Bankstreet has as much right to believe what he wishes as you or I and if he has chosen not to accept Christ he still needs to be treated with the same respect, compassion and love we expect to be treated with. Also he is correct with his comments as they regard the secular nation and it's laws.

And I never suggested that he was jealous of anything. I was clearing up a statement I started about a possible cause for what people do. Also, any government cannot continue to exist without following what God wants. Sooner or later it will collapse. God bless.

Clay I'm hard pressed to think of any secular government that follows what God wants entirely. In the case of the US Government it is bound by the Constitution which had as it's intent keeping religion and government seperate. I would suggest you leave to God the passing of judgement on what governments will not continue to exist. God also does not want the government forcing his will on the people as well. The same laws that allow you and I the freedom to worship God also allow others to choose to doubt or deny Him.

Since Christ is coming back to rule the earth, obviously He would want governments now to follow Him. Our country has been successful for so many years because of the faith of the founding fathers and things like the pledge of allegiance with "one nation, under God" etc. Now we arent being blessed. We are going the other way, and that certainly includes with our government. Thanks.

OK, Clay ... as you have been told many times before, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, more as a politcal (i.e., anti-Communist) gesture than as a religious impulse. That being said, let's take 1954 as your benchmark of when "we were blessed."

- Racial segregtion (Supreme Court heard Brown v. Kansas Board of Ed.)
NOTE: Maryland State Law in 1955 required that any white woman who delivered a child conceived with a Negro or mulatto would be sentenced to the penitentiary for 18 months to five years.

- Cold-war anxiety

- Polio epidemic (vaccine released

- Avalanches in Austria killed more than 200

- Landslides caused by heavy rains hit Salerno, Italy, killing about 300

- Hydrogen-bomb tests in South Pacific

- Puerto Rican nationalists open fire in the United States House of Representatives chamber and wound five

- Earthquake centered on the city of Orleansville, Algeria killed 1,500 and left thousands homeless

- Japanese ferry Toya Maru sank during a typhoon in the Tsugaru Strait. More than 1,100 people killed

- Hurricane Hazel crossed over Haiti, killing 1,000

Oh ... and the Lone Ranger broadcast its final radio episode ... TV Dinners first appeared ... and Godzilla came to the big screen.

Ah yes, the Good Old Days in the US of A. When all was right (blacks knew their place, commies were on the run, and God was in his heaven)

Clay now you are inserting your opinion into the mix. Unless God has revealed something to you not recorded in scripture. The New Testament is largely silent on the issue of governments. Much of your reasoning is based on the Old Testament stories of Israel and God's dealings with them. The founding fathers were careful to keep their religious beliefs out of the government.

The orginal pledge of allegiance did not have the words "under God" in it. The orginal version written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist Minister and socialist, was as follows:

" pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The words under God did not become part of the pledge until around 1954.

Do you honestly think God was happy with how African Amreicans or the Indians were treated by the government? The government never followed the teachings of Jesus or the 10 commandments. Christ is not concerned with governments.

I was aware of when "under God" was added. We are in more danger now with our deficit and the possibility of the collapse of the dollar than we were in the 50's, even though there was unfairness then. When WW2 ended, we were the undisputed number one economic and military power in the world. If God wants us to follow His Son, it cant exclude governments. It means everyone. Thanks.

If you knew when the words "under God" then why did you link them to the founding fathers? The problems you now speak of are of our own doing. Governments are nothing more than a particular group of people, and the administrative bureaucracy, who control a nation at a given time. Governments are not saved, people are saved. Nowhere in the NT is there anything to support the idea that people will be punished for the actions of government.

All people are supposed to be obedient. That includes people in the government. If Christ wants us to witness for Him and not be afraid of what will happen then people in government are supposed to do the same. That includes the president witnessing for Christ, along with everyone else. It doesnt matter how the government and constitution are set up. If everyone was obedient, you would automatically have a government based on God. The fact that most people dont do it or that someone will complain isnt an excuse not to when we stand before Him. Thanks.

Clay,

In 1950, the deficit (national debt) was 80.2% of this country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2010, the deficit was 62.2% of the GDP. This is not to say that the deficit is not a problem (it has generally risen as a percentage of GDP since 1960), but the current situation is hardly unparalleled in American economic history.

I do find it curious that you seem to equate American (military and economic) power and prestige with godliness. Is your god by any chance a Republican?

Clay not everyone in the country is Christian. The government was formed in a way to allow people the freedom to choose to follow God or not. The government was formed in a manner to allow Christians the right to worship and witness. It does not give them the right to force Christianity on those who choose not to accept it. Nowhere in the NT does Christ suggest the civil government be used to witness for him. As Christians we are called to witness for Christ not to force Christ on those who do not want to accept him. Mixing witnessing and civil government are not in the NT anywhere. You are essentially bending scripture to fit how you think things should be. You as a Christian should not be commenting on how the President or anyone else witnesses for Christ. Worry about the log in your eye not the speck in someone else’s. When we stand before God we will not be judged based on the actions of government.

If you want to speak of the constitution, the president is supposed to uphold the laws passed by congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act. However, the president has told his attorney general to not support the defense of it, because there is no reason to believe that it is fair. That is, there is no reason to believe that God is fair in what He has decided to set forth in rules that we should follow. That is, there is no reason to follow God and what He wants. But it is Christians who twist and turn the constitution to what we want? No one will be successful according to God, government employee or otherwise, who isnt obedient to what God wants.

What the President did was tell the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That is not the same as upholding it. Sooner or later it’s going to end up being deemed unconstitutional by the courts anyway. The President’s first priory protecting and defending the constitution. At one time slavery was legal, later segregation was legal. Would you criticize a president for not defending those laws? The only one mentioning God is you Clay. Regardless of what you like the laws are written for everyone, Christians, non-Christians, atheists and agnostics. It is you who is doing the twisting and turning by mixing secular government and religion. God isn’t looking for the government to enforce anything for Him. He will judge each of us based not on what the government or someone else does or doesn’t do. Those who wish to not listen to God will answer to Him not you and those who do will not be punished for the sins of others Clay. Nothing in scripture supports your idea that the government needs to enforce what God wants. Considering your attacks on the President’s faith and a Church you do not know you might want to ask yourself if you are being obedient to what God wants or what Clay wants.

What the Attorney General said was that Section 3 of the act was unconstitutional because it treats people differently based on their sexual orientation "without a significant reason for doing so." In other words, what God wants is insignificant. No one has to answer to Clay and I never inferred that. As you state, we all have to answer to God for what we do. God expects us to consider what He wants, government employees or McDonald's employees. When these people stand before Him they will have to answer for what they have done, in spite of any law, constitution, expectations of public office or expectations of voters. Thanks for your comments.

Clay the secular Government is not interested in God one way or the other. Its charge is protecting the rights of all citizens. Making sure the rights of all are protected. Moral judgements are God's province not the government.

I agree that we all will stand before God. The government is not a person so it will not be. Nothing that is being done directly effects you or any other Christian. Like you I believe homosexual relations to be immoral. However, I don't expect the governemnt to force my beliefs on those who reject them. God has no interest in secular governments.

Anonymous,

In Clay's vision of America, the government and Christianity would be synonymous, and citizen-Christians would have no need (or ability) to make moral decisions. Those would be dictated by the State. How to dress, what to eat, who to love -- these would all be determined by Scripture (or at least by Clay's interpretation of Scripture). His America would be characterized by forced conversion and abandonment of much of the Constitution -- especially that pesky First Amendment.

As it is, I'm a little frightened by the notion that Clay even votes.

Yes Bankstreet. What you have described pretty much covers what will happen when Christ returns, and with the looks of what is happening in our news everyday, it doesnt appear to be too far off. Christ will come back to rule the world. He will sit on the throne, which will be more powerful than a government, which wont be necessary. There will be peace on earth and we wont have to worry about the problems we have because His rules and His love will reign. That is exactly what is about to happen. In the meantime, I never suggested that our government would be like that. What I said is that all employees, politicians or anyone who works for or represents the government will have to stand before Christ and explain what they have done and why they did or didnt support Him while in their jobs. He expects us to support Him. Have a good one.

Clay,

Your eschatological fantasies aside, do you deny that the scenario I describe -- secular leaders proclaiming the divinity of your christ and the supremacy of Christianity over all other religions -- would make you very happy? In short, that even before the Second Coming, you would like to see a theocracy established in the United Sates, with Clay's version of Christianity triumphant? If so (Option A) , you are living in the wrong country. If not (Option B), you embrace the religious and cultural diversity allowed under our very secular Constitution. Which is it? A or B? Choose one. For the purposes of this exercise, I will permit no equivocation, Clay. A or B?

As I said, if politicans were obedient it would automatically be there, and if the voters were obedient they wouldnt mind it being there. Thanks.

Give it up, BankStreet. The collective will vote and act with one mind. Obey. Resistance is futile.

Sounds like equivocation, Clay. Which do you prefer? Option A? Option B? Perhaps your "obdedient" voters casting their votes to establish an American theocracy? And to hell (so to speak) for us sentient, rational non-believers. Off to the boxcars, I presume. Thanks.

If the voters were "obedient" Clay then we wouldn't need elections, would we?

Oh I don't know, Dana. A periodic "election" might be called for. Wouldn't be "American" without it. No nail-biting late-night cliffhangers, though. They only happen when elections are -- you know -- contested. Besides, all good Christians are in bed by eight, aided by a glass of warm milk. How nice.

I have been following the twisted exputations* of Clay in this thread, without comment until now. He is without a doubt a complete and total idiot who, by his blind stupid world view, has shown that the possibility exists that his type of Christianity is little more than Bible Nazism at its worst. Fortunately only a tiny percentage of the members of the Cults of Jesus suffer from his particular and acute form of brain disorder.

* Exputations - Not a real word, but it sounds so right and you know what it means, so maybe it should be.

@Messrs. Littel & Street: If you are so offended by religion, why do you spend so much time on an internet forum that deals with the subject?

Just wondering.....

Gary - For the same reason "Doctors Without Borders" go to the poorest places on Earth, because that is where the most fetid and in need of treatment disease is to be found.

Satan doesnt like it when the word of God is spread, and he will go to any end of the earth to try to stop it. He often uses people who dont suspect what he is doing.

And speaking of tiny diseased minds reaching out from the peanut gallery. Clay, produce proof of your god, or the equally un-demonstrable satan god and maybe, just maybe, I won't continue to consider you the stupidest poster I have EVER seen.

Gary,

(Sorry to be so late in responding, but I just noticed your posting this morning.)

I am not "offended" by religion. I am intrigued by it, from an anthropological perspective. I respect religious faith, so long as it admits its inherently speculative nature. I try to avoid the absolutist tenor of Mr Littel's postings, just as I try to avoid his beligerent tone. Clay's mindless fundamentalism and insistance that others share his narrow views do tempt me toward derison from time to time, I confess.