What is Digg?269 Comments
- Nannybell, on 12/19/2008, -8/+21Pilgrim, with all due respect, what does someone being African have to do with this issue?
- LifeguardMom, on 12/19/2008, -24/+37This article is right on the money. People just don't want to admit that it's true. Modern day liberalism is indeed akin to Baal-worship.
Funny thing, the truth. No matter how you try to contort it or twist it to fit your own agenda, it's still the truth. - inactive, on 12/19/2008, -24/+36Another hilarious association.
These people can't decide whether to link progressives to Nazis, Baal-worshippers, Communists, or the mentally ill. I guess when you're that crazy with hatred for liberals, you'll associate them with -anything-, even concepts which completely oppose each other (like calling them atheists and demon worshippers at the same time).
Settle down, children. - inactive, on 12/19/2008, -21/+33I thought this was taken from the front page of the LA Times:
"Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth.""
Ok...but then there is this:
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV)"
""Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And, the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.""
Great job Matt Barber!! - inactive, on 12/19/2008, -13/+24Even liberals seek to call themselves something other than liberal. Alan Colmes had me rolling in the isle with his use of "progressives".
Its not the word, its the ideological thought that leads to ... what ever you want to cal yourselves. - StaticThunder, on 12/19/2008, -13/+24I thought we were moving towards Socialism or Marxism, not Communism, so which is it exactly? Are liberals Stalinists or Trotskyite-Leninists?
I mean, how are we to achieve a successful revolutionary consciousness without the efforts of a vanguard party composed of full-time professional revolutionaries? Non-revolutionary reforms such as Democratic-Socialism are doomed to fail, according to Lenin. - ironhide, on 12/19/2008, -13/+24Nav - that is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -7/+17@WeAreSparta--Thank you. Very sound advice indeed. And may God Bless you and yours as well. Merry Christmas to you!
- inactive, on 12/19/2008, -7/+17First this is the second time you have called me untrue names! I don't why but it's going to stop. Something is really WRONG with you.
- r250r, on 12/21/2008, -1/+10@Glynth:
The devil is a metaphor for free will. We don't believe that either existed, but if you're going to believe in a fairy tale, it is sometimes easier for us to explain ourselves in terms of one of the characters, hoping that it will force you to think critically about the fairytale.
Read http://www.lucifer.com/lucifer.html - if you dare. "... I must first make it clear that I am not here claiming ontological status for the Devil; that is, I am not claiming that he exists in the sense that you and I exist. ..." - Revyloution, on 12/21/2008, -1/+10I love this quote:
"KCLorelei39 - and honestly, I didn't read further"
So you admit that you failed to read his post, but you find it failing? Funny, thats how most Christians deal with the bible. They haven't read it, they just think that its right. And your 'rebuttal' quoting more of Kings just goes to further show how belief in Christianity is belief in a weak, ill tempered spiteful god who lacks foresight.
Alheithinn brings up a good many issues that are never dealt with in these types of discussions. Over and over again, I see, or post, these objections to Christianities holy text, and the best answer I get is "with faith, you can understand". What you believers fail to understand is I, and others like me, are incapable of simply believing in something. We need a reason to believe. So you told us to read the bible. We did, and it raised a whole bunch of questions. You fail to answer our questions, and tell us we just need 'faith'. So we are back at the beginning. I have no idea how to have faith, without knowing what I'm supposed to have faith in. To understand your faith, I need to read your bible. When I read your bible, I see an amoral evil petty deity that is not worth worship. Then, there is the conflicting passages in book 2, where god turns himself into his son, and sacrifices himself to abolish the original sin, that he gave us in the first place.
You must be arguing to preserve your own faith, not to change the minds of others. It can be the only explanation for why you are unable to defend the 'one true word of god'. - Alheithinn, on 12/19/2008, -9/+18
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV)
Modern-day liberals – or "progressives" as they more discreetly prefer – labor under an awkward misconception; namely, that there is anything remotely "progressive" about the fundamental canons of their blind, secular-humanist faith. In fact, today's liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.
*A judgmental, value-laden, not to say unsubstantiated claim if there ever was one. The essential claim being made here seems to be that biblical Christianity is a progressive movement, one by which all other movements and religions are to be judged.
While visiting the Rivermont Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, Va., a few weeks back, I heard a troubling, albeit thought-provoking, sermon
. Pastor John Mabray addressed the ancient Canaanite practice of Baal worship and, though he didn't reveal it by name, connected the dots to its present-day progeny: liberalism. Baal, the half-bull, half-man god of fertility, was the focal point of pagan idolatry in Semitic Israel until God revealed His monotheistic nature to Judaism's forebears.
* Baal. Let’s talk about Baal because this is an old piece of monotheistic nonsense that has been disproven by scholars. Mr. Barber is simply repeating ancient propaganda, as was Pastor Mabray, peddling cheap anti-Paganism cloaked in the guise of piety. Albright, among many other scholars (and needless to say, most Christians and Jews), hold a very low regard for Canaanite religion. Delbert Hillers points to the problem of the study of Canaanite religion being the domain largely of Christian and Jewish scholars in that “our picture of this alien ancient faith is drawn by those who are committed to finding it inferior, puerile, barbarous, retarded, or shocking.” In short, these scholars “may have been patiently and elaborately analyzing an ancient belief-system in order to reach the inevitable and foregone conclusion that it is an abomination.” His fears certainly seem well-founded: The Old Testament, as Hillers notes, casts the Canaanites in the role of villains, a portrayal Christian and Jewish scholars seem eager to perpetuate. Albright, for instance, called it a “low level” religion and claimed that it “inherited some of the most demoralizing cultic practices then existing in the near east.” But that was not the end of his condemnation, for in his view “the brutality of Canaanite mythology…passes belief.” For Albright, the Canaanite rites are “orgiastic” and “savage” and he contrasts this negatively with the shining example of Israelite morality. This is perhaps no surprise when we consider the privileging of the Bible as a source over literary and archaeological evidence, especially when they do not agree. After all, everyone knows that the worship of YHWH is the legitimate religion and that Canaanite polytheism is its wicked counterpart; any evidence to the contrary must be dismissed as mistaken because it has already been determined what the truth is. But when considerations of dogma are laid aside, this dismissal of Canaanite religion is of no small matter, since it is proven to be the religion of the Israelites themselves. El, Baal, Asherah, Mot, Shapsu, these were the Gods of pre-exilic Israel. As Smith points out, recent scholarship (from the 1970s on) has resulted in an understanding of “‘Canaanite practices’ as eminently Israelite.” Halpern points to the fact that “scholars sometimes speak of the ‘introduction’ of the cult of Baal ‘into Israel’ in the 9th century B.C.E., of Canaanite influence of Israel’s religion – much as their 19th century forerunners spoke of Babylonian influence on the Second Commonwealth. But Israelite religion did not import Canaanite. Israel’s religion was a Canaanite religion.”
In his sermon, Pastor Mabray illustrated that, although they've now assumed a more contemporary flair, the fundamentals of Baal worship remain alive and well today. The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator).
Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth."
*Ritualistic YHWH worship looked something like this: We are constantly told that one of the great evils of polytheism and Paganism is human sacrifice, particularly child sacrifice, in particular that of the Phoenicians to Moloch and of the Assyrians to Adad and Ishtar. The Canaanites significantly, from what we have learned of Israelite origins, also stand accused. Eusebius used human sacrifice to prove the inherent inhumanity of Paganism:
For what can be a greater proof of madness, than to offer human sacrifice, to pollute every city, and even their own houses, with kindred blood? Do not the Greeks themselves attest this, and is not all history filled with records of the same impiety? The Phoenicians devoted their best beloved and only children as an annual sacrifice to Saturn. The Rhodians, on the sixth day of the month Metageitnion, offered human victims to the same god. At Salamis, a man was pursued in the temple of Minerva Agraulis and Diomede, compelled to run thrice round the altar, afterwards pierced with a lance by the priest, and consumed as a burnt offering on the blazing pile. In Egypt, human sacrifice was most abundant. At Heliopolis three victims were daily offered to Juno, for whom king Amoses, impressed with the atrocity of the practice, commanded the substitution of an equal number of waxen figures. In Chios, and again in Tenedos, a man was slain and offered up to Omadian Bacchus. At Sparta they immolated human beings to Mars. In Crete they did likewise, offering human sacrifices to Saturn. In Laodicea of Syria a virgin was yearly slain in honor of Minerva, for whom a hart is now the substitute. The Libyans and Carthaginians appeased their gods with human victims. The Dumateni of Arabia buried a boy annually beneath the altar. History informs us that the Greeks without exception, the Thracians also, and Scythians, were accustomed to human sacrifice before they marched forth to battle. The Athenians record the immolation of the virgin children of Leus, and the daughter of Erechtheus. Who knows not that at this day a human victim is offered in Rome itself at the festival of Jupiter Latiaris ? And these facts are confirmed by the testimony of the most approved philosophers. Diodorus, the epitomizer of libraries, affirms that two hundred of the noblest youths were sacrificed to Saturn by the Libyan people, and that three hundred more were voluntarily offered by their own parents. Dionysius, the compiler of Roman history, expressly says that Jupiter and Apollo demanded human sacrifices of the so-called Aborigines, in Italy. He relates that on this demand they offered a proportion of all their produce to the gods; but that, because of their refusal to slay human victims, they became involved in manifold calamities, from which they could obtain no release until they had decimated themselves, a sacrifice of life which proved the desolation of their country. Such and so great were the evils which of old afflicted the whole human race.
This is quite the list (Those nasty Pagans!) And nowhere, of course, does Eusebius mention his own God, who is allegedly the same as the Jewish God, or his own demands for the sacrifice of infants. But if we take Exodus 22.29 literally, YHWH demanded human sacrifice as well: that of the first-born son:
Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
Ezekiel (20.26) certainly takes God’s command in this way, in a literal sense: “I let them become defiled through their gifts – the sacrifice of every firstborn – that I might fill them with horrors so they would know that I am the LORD.” The ever-reviled Baal and Moloch have nothing on this guy. YHWH was demanding the first-born as a sacrifice to him, just as he was demanding the sacrifice of the first born of cattle and sheep. There is no mistaking the context. Robin Lane Fox rather hopefully suggests that “probably, the order meant consecration only” but admits that 2 Kings 21.6 shows how King Manasseh “sacrificed his own son to the fire.” How then are we to know that Fox is right? It is difficult to mistake the meaning of that passage in Exodus, after all. It is quite clear what YHWH wanted. We can’t put the reviled behavior of Manasseh in 2 Kings down to devotion to idols, since he was only doing what YHWH himself had commanded much earlier in Israel’s history.
Another example of YHWH accepting human sacrifice is found in the story of Jephthah, one of the Judges of Israel who lived in the time before the first king. When the Ammonites invaded, Jephthah vowed to YHWH, “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering (Judges 11.29-31).” Of course, Jephthah won and when he returned home from his campaign, the first to come out of his house was his daughter, who “was only a child.” Her father, we are told “did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin” (11.32-39). This event was not decried afterwards. Rather, it was celebrated, since “From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite” (11.40). The whole history of human sacrifice in Israel then is not just a matter of Jews behaving badly, falling prey to the wicked foreign mores of their neighbors. This is easily seen when we consider the testimony of Levicitus (27.28-29) where we find the following, a command that seems to argue against the idea of simple consecration:
But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD – whether man or animal or family land – may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
As we are told in the very final passage of Leviticus: “These are the commands the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites” (27.34). In any event, as Morton Smith points out, even if leha’lavir ba’esh means “to sanctify” as in a “temple servant or priest or something of the sort…what became of all these sanctified first born?” In the end, Smith finds that “the arguments advanced for figurative interpretation are indefensible; we may plausibly presume the texts mean what they say.” R.H. Sales concludes that
Sacrifice was an integral part of Hebrew ritual and worship. Important to the philosophy of the practice was the idea that blood was necessary to effect atonement or for achieving the desired relationship between man and God; also the more valuable the sacrifice the more effect it would have, and hence the highest sacrifice a man could offer was his first-born son.
This is a bit of a problem, to say the least. After all, those Christians who defend the literal truth of the Bible are put in the rather uncomfortable position of accepting that one of the demands their God made on His people was the sacrifice of infants, the very evil they decry in Paganism. In fact, it is human sacrifice that alongside sexual promiscuity are always held forth as the very essence of Paganism. This author well remembers Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses coming to his home and engaging him in discussion. When told I was a Pagan, they launched immediately into the evils of human sacrifice, with nary a word about how their own God demanded it. In this we could argue that Pagans are superior. Pagans have learned that there are other suitable ways to show devotion to our Gods that do not require the death of an infant. But Christianity, following later Judaism, seems to have rejected the command of their God in this respect. He demands infant sacrifice. Given Leviticus 27.34, what is their excuse for not rendering it? After all, Jesus said he had come not to destroy the Law but to uphold it.
One might argue that Ex. 13.12-13 contradicts these findings, where the Israelites are told to “Redeem every firstborn among your sons”. But as Morton Smith observes “this is a modification of the old law that still stands in the Convenant Code…The provision for a substitutionary sacrifice had to be justified by a legend, the story that (the angel of) Yahweh intervened to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac and to provide as a substitute a ram, which Abraham sacrificed ‘instead of his son’ (Gen 22:13).” But this modification to the Law creates its own problems. A perfect God cannot change his mind. That would negate his perfection as it would demonstrate that he had be - Glynth, on 12/21/2008, -2/+11cat: You obviously have zero grasp on the subjects of American history or the Founding Fathers. A product of the government's public education system, perhaps? Or is it just some ridiculously biased Lefty professor?
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -12/+21I advise all my conservative Christian digging friends, just limit your digg exposure in the days approaching Christmas, don't let these bitter, miserable people get the best of you. Enjoy the your families, enjoy the celebration of the birth of Christ, and enjoy the people that haven't lost sight of the true meaning of life. God Bless everybody :-)
- joand315, on 12/19/2008, -6/+15Liberal Christians read and believe the Bible, even study it, and find inspiration in it. Liberal Christians by definition do not worship Baal, but Jesus. They also put special emphasis on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which they believe replaces the Ten Commandments.
A lot of attention is paid to the beautitudes, but Jesus also gave Christians new laws to replace the old laws.
New law and old law
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder
You have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not commit murder" and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court."
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, "You good-for-nothing," shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, "You fool," shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Reconcile your differences
Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.
Adultery
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
It was said, "Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce."
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Making false vows
Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord."
But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
But let your statement be, "Yes, yes" or "No, no." Anything beyond these is of evil.
Go the extra mile
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Love your neighbor
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. - oldhick, on 12/22/2008, -1/+10And Christians continue to fret and worry about everyone but themselves... Is name calling really beneficial? Abortion and infant sacrifice are completely different things in motivation and in action. To compare them is pathetic and embarrassing. If you truly love the Lord with all of your hear than you would have no time to waste on such ridiculous and petty notions.
Yes, the world outside is NOT entirely Christian. Welcome to the world Christians. And yes, those who are NOT Christian do typically hold belief in science and creation above the creator. This is the logical outcome of NOT believing in one God.
Of what benefit to anyone is this article? It does nothing but offend. As a Christian it provides us with no hope and no benefit. As a Christian I find this article offensive and without merit. This does not help me love my Lord more. This does not help me show the love, peace, and salvation that I find in the Lord to others. This does nothing but belittle people, ostracize them, and label them.
Freedom and free will are not pagan ideologies. They are Christian traditions. We are FREE to chose for ourselves. We are FREE to turn from sin or towards. You as Christians have no right to take away free will and freedom. Give me liberty or give me death comes to mind... - Batfishy, on 12/19/2008, -14/+22Okay, Nav, I'll bite.
Document each and every statement please. No WND, wiki, or conservapedia citations accepted.
Or bible. No bible citations either. - Alheithinn, on 12/20/2008, -8/+16(Thought I'd finish my rebuttal):
One might argue that Ex. 13.12-13 contradicts these findings, where the Israelites are told to “Redeem every firstborn among your sons”. But as Morton Smith observes “this is a modification of the old law that still stands in the Convenant Code…The provision for a substitutionary sacrifice had to be justified by a legend, the story that (the angel of) Yahweh intervened to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac and to provide as a substitute a ram, which Abraham sacrificed ‘instead of his son’ (Gen 22:13).” But this modification to the Law creates its own problems. A perfect God cannot change his mind. That would negate his perfection as it would demonstrate that he had been wrong in a previous judgment and had to correct his earlier mistake. Nor does acceptance of this as a revision of the law negate the fact of Jewish infant sacrifice to their God, YHWH.
The claim of bisexual orgies is simply prurient (and probably wishful) propaganda on the part of the Jewish scribes. The Jewish monotheists were obsessed with sex. Jewish attraction to other gods was referred to as whoring and sexual infidelity.
The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of "unplanned parenthood" were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to "terminate" the unwanted child.
*Now Mr. Barber is simply making things up out of whole cloth, and given that his own god demanded human sacrifice, he might well be speaking of his own religion.
Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. The worship of "fertility" has been replaced with worship of "reproductive freedom" or "choice." Child sacrifice via burnt offering has been updated, ever so slightly, to become child sacrifice by way of abortion. The ritualistic promotion, practice and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual immorality and promiscuity have been carefully whitewashed – yet wholeheartedly embraced – by the cults of radical feminism, militant "gay rights" and "comprehensive sex education." And, the pantheistic worship of "mother earth" has been substituted – in name only – for radical environmentalism.
• Fertility Worship: First of all, Mr. Barber is rejecting what was well respected by millions for many centuries before anyone heard of YHWH or introduced his worship into the highlands of Canaan.
• Child Sacrifice: As we have seen, this was engaged in by more than one ancient culture, including the Jewish, whose god demanded of parents their first-born son.
• Sexual immorality: Mr. Barber, like his intolerant ancestors, believes that any form of sex which falls outside his narrow window of tolerance (man and woman, missionary position, no pleasure, just for making babies) is immoral. While he is entitled to feel that way, to peddle his intolerant views as some sort of universal truth is without merit.
• Radical Environmentalism: I shall cite Celsus here, since he said it best: I shall have to show that their stupidity really hinges on their doctrine of creation, since they hold that God made all things for the sake of men, whereas our philosophy maintains that the world was made as much for the benefit of the irrational animals as for men - I mean, why should thing have been created more for man's nourishment than for the benefit of the planets and trees, the grass and the thorns? I suppose they ignore the fact that things do not grow without human endeavor - we struggle to make things fertile, whatever God may have to do with the case - whereas they attribute everything to God as though everything grew without sowing and tillage. As Euripides says, "Sun and light serve mortals"but they serve the ants and flies as well. For in their case, too, the night is for sleeping and the day for doing.
The Christians, like the Jews, boast that we are the rulers and Lords of creation - because we hunt and feast on animals. I might reply by asking why rather they are not our masters, and why it cannot be said that we were made for their sake, since they also hunt and feed on us. And while they go to hunt alone, we tend to need dogs, weapons, and other men to help us against the prey! And so to those who say that man is superior to the irrational animals, I reply that God indeed gave us the ability to catch the wild beasts and to make use of them; yet it is also true that before there were cities, arts, culture, weapons, and nets - men were captured and eaten by the wild beasts, and it was rarely the other way around.
But it's not just self-styled "progressives" or secular humanists who have adopted the fundamental pillars of Baalism. In these postmodern times, we've also been graced, regrettably, by the advent of counter-biblical "emergent Christianity" or "quasi-Christianity," as I prefer to call it.
* Quasi Christianity. Mr. Barber falls into the trap of claiming that his own narrow definition of Christianity is the only one and that all other forms are false, or to use an old term, “heresies.” But history does not prove this. In fact, Orthodox Christianity was in fact a late-comer. Many forms of Christianity existed in the ancient world. In fact, the original followers of Jesus were Jews and remained Jews. The Jerusalem Community opposed Paul and ended up bringing to an end his disgraceful apostasy. Only the unhappy chance of the revolt against Rome in 66 CE, which led to the destruction of the community led by James the Just, allowed Mr. Barber’s type of Christianity to claim to be normative. In fact, Gentile Christianity is hardly original but rather a syncretic and derivative mixture of Judaism and Pagan ritual and liturgy.
This is merely liberalism all dolled up and gratuitously stamped "Christian." It's a way for left-wing ideologues to have their "religion" cake and eat it too. Under the guise of "social justice," its adherents often support – or at least rationalize – the same pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and radical environmental policies pushed by the modern-day Baal worshiper.
* Here we go with the name calling again. Nobody who fails to support Mr. Barber’s narrow view of religion and his utter intolerance for views not his own, can be considered either a Christian or a moral person. Ideas of morality outside his own are foreign to him.
Though the "Christian left" represent what is arguably a negligible minority within larger Christianity, the liberal media have, nonetheless, embraced their cause and seized upon their popularity among elites as evidence that the so-called "Christian right" (read: biblical Christianity) is losing influence – that Christianity is, somehow, "catching up with the times."
* In fact it is the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians who are a minority, making false claims to both numbers and influence. In fact, Christianity is “somehow catching up with the times” as more and more Christians understand that social causes and not moral crusades are where their efforts should be focused. Fundamentalist Christianity is a reactionary force, a reaction against the Enlightenment of several centuries ago, of its continued success and against loss of control over the hearts and minds of humankind.
Because emergent Christianity fails the authenticity test whenever subjected to even the most perfunctory biblical scrutiny, I suspect it will eventually go – for the most part – the way of the pet rock or the Macarena. But this does not absolve leaders within the evangelical community from a duty to call leaders of this counter-biblical revolution on their heresy. It's not a matter of right versus left; it's a matter of right versus wrong – of biblical versus non-biblical.
* The interesting thing is that Mr. Barber’s Christianity also fails the authenticity test when subjected to “the most perfunctory biblical scrutiny.” And in fact, Fundamentalism’s failing membership proves that the opposite of Mr. Barber’s claims are true.
Nonetheless, the aforementioned pillars of postmodern Baalism – abortion, sexual relativism and radical environmentalism – will almost certainly make rapid headway over the next four to eight years, with or without help from the Christian left. The gods of liberalism have a new high priest in Barack Obama, and enjoy many devout followers in the Democratic-controlled Congress, liberal media and halls of academia.
* Mr. Barber toes the company line by blaming a tolerant and diverse society. He sounds more than a little bitter that his bid for theocracy fell short of the mark. He is showing signs of denial all through this piece; a refusal to face the fact that his message of intolerance did not appeal to the majority of the American voters; an unwillingness to accept the fact that his type of Christianity is very much in a minority in this country and failing fast.
Both Obama's social agenda and that of the 111th Congress are rife with unfettered pro-abortion, freedom-chilling, pro-homosexual and power-grabbing environmentalist objectives. The same kind of "hope, action and change," I suppose, that was swallowed up by the Baalist Canaanites of old.
* Pro-homosexual should be substituted with pro-equality and Constitutional. Mr. Barber is accusing the ancient Baalists of being tolerant of diversity and friendly to the environment, and I cannot imagine a higher compliment being paid.
So, today's liberalism is really just a very old book with a shiny new cover. A philosophy rooted in ancient pagan traditions, of which there is naught to be proud.
There's "nothing new under the sun," indeed.
* And we should be thankful for a return to Paganism, which celebrated tolerance and diversity. We could (and have) done much worse than a return to Paganism.
Notes (sorry for the lack of reference back to the text but no html here makes this difficult):
[1] Delbert Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985), 254. As Hillers points out (p. 260), the “characterization of the Canaanite religion as primitive turns out on examination to be vague, possibly inaccurate, inconsistent in application, and finally a rather dubious way of justifying the course of our religious history.”
[2] F.M. Albright, “The Role of Canaanites in the History of Civilization,” Pp. 438-487 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of W.F. Albright, edited by G.E. Wright (NY: Doubleday, 1961). See also idem, “The Biblical Period,” Pp. 3-69 in The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, second edition. Volume 1. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1949).
[3] F.M. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York and Evanston, 1963), 35.
[4] Smith (2002), 21. Baal, the storm god whose name means “Lord” and whose worshippers saw him as both generous and a champion of his people, became demonized as Beelzebub by the later monotheists. His worshippers would not have recognized this negative image of Baal created by the monotheistic spin machine.
[5] Halpern (1983), 246.
[6] For a study of Canaanite human sacrifice see Delbert R. Hillers, “Analyzing the Abominable: Our Undersatnding of Canaannite Religion,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1985), 253-269. Hillers concludes that “In sum, we confront references to human sacrifices in the Bible, and apparently illuminating evidence from North Africa, but no literary or archaeological evidence for such a thing from Phoenicia or Syria.”
[7] Eusebius, Panegyric of Constantine 13.
[8] Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, 57.
[9] Morton Smith, “A Note on Burning Babies,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95 (1975), 479.
[10] R.H. Sales, “Human Sacrifice in Biblical Thought,” Journal of Bible and Religion 25 (1957), 113.
[11] As do some Jews as well. For instance, David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus (NY: Doubleday, 2006), 15 identifies the hallmarks of Paganism as “relativism, nature worship, sexual corruption, and a willingness to sacrifice children to the cause.”
[12] Morton Smith, “A Note on Burning Babies,” 478.
[13] Celsus, On the True Doctrine. A Discourse Against the Christians. Tr. by R. Joseph Hoffmann (Oxford, 1987, 82-83).
[14] Debra Dickerson, "The Myth of the Moral Majority," Mother Jones (May/June 2008), http://www.motherjones.com/arts/feature/2008/05/th ...
- KCLorelei39, on 12/19/2008, -11/+19Wiggle and squirm, O Jacob, thou worm....It's encouraging to see that God is busily convicting a few hearts via this article, lol.
It's also interesting that the anti-God, digg-down brigade, is mostly present and accounted for on this itty bitty thread. There must be some truth in the article for this much 'tolerance' to be evident....4 times as many comments as there are diggs.
Methinks yawl protest a bit too much. - ironhide, on 12/19/2008, -11/+19My response was as substantive as yours. I don't see your complaint.
- inactive, on 12/20/2008, -3/+11[whispers]
i read you
shhhhhhh - r250r, on 12/21/2008, -1/+9Remember, Lucifer means "bringer of light". Your religion needs more light shed on it. People would ridicule it.
These verses aren't related to the subject, but if you're going to pick and choose which verses best describe your beliefs and god (and how they make sense), then I am going to also pick verses to describe your beliefs and god, and how they DON'T make sense.
Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces
Ezekiel 16:17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, - StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -1/+9Glynth, with the exception of the choice of symbols, you're talking about the Catholic church, and no one here was talking about worshipping Satan. We're saying God, even if he was real, WOULDN'T DESERVE worship. He made you to be pets in a gilded cage and punished you for figuring out how to work the lock. He killed all of humanity except for Moses and family off in a fit of petty rage, and your reply is "well, they had it coming."
No. Don't you get it? It is and was always OUR job to decide who had it coming. Otherwise we're always children, never adults, never making our own decisions and finding our own way. - inactive, on 12/19/2008, -9/+17Jesus was a dark skinned Jew dumbass! Not that I really care as an atheist, but racism based on untrue statements is so galling that I had to say something. Racist ***** story is buried.
- lydecker, on 12/20/2008, -3/+11"An American citizen would surely be aware of this."
Really? You think this is something American citizens know?
It's a good point, but not something I know. American citizens aren't that familiar with American laws. - ironhide, on 12/19/2008, -16/+24From what I can see, conservative ideological thought leads to self-righteousness, paranoia, fear, and a tendency to see conspiracy where none exist.
- seala, on 12/22/2008, -0/+7@these3remain
They are the biggest supporters of the invasion of Iraq 74%
57% of Southern Evangelicals support Americas use of torture
70% support the death penalty
they are some of the biggest supporters of the NRA
-Richard Land, the chief public policy spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, decried what he called “a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.”
"Call to Arms" the book promoted by WND
Only 9% believe in helping the poor of other nations (Pew Poll Statistics)
The my interpretation of the Bible is right-everyone else is wrong judgementalisn of the Janet Porter type "Everyone who votes for Obama will go to Hell "
Actually I couldnt put it better than joand315 s post.
If the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Joy PEACE Patience Kindness and Understanding very little fruit comes out of the Evangelical Right
The most "fruitful" Christians I know, those most Christ-like, would, consider themselves Socialist/Pacifist/Environmentalist - StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -2/+9Yeah only those with blind devotion to an ancient superstition are entitled to comment. The stone was thrown when you called liberals Baal worshippers and proved that you have no clue about anything. Everything is fair game now, including your idiotic, hate-filled false religion.
- inactive, on 12/19/2008, -19/+26Ex 22:20 Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed.
Ex 32:4 Aaron made a molten calf; and they said, "these are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, " I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him"
There are only two camps :
1. Those that follow the WORD of the Most High
Lord GOD Almighty
2. Those that follow Lucifer, Satan, Caesar. - ironhide, on 12/19/2008, -8/+15According to your own stories tho, Jesus and "The Holy Spirit" all all also God, so where was the sacrifice? If someone either can't die or doesn't stay dead, is it a sacrifice?
- pnunn, on 12/19/2008, -17/+24Forgive them father, for worldnet know not what they are talking about nor what they see in the mirror.
- inactive, on 12/19/2008, -15/+22You wouldn't know Communism if it bit you in the ass.
- Nannybell, on 12/19/2008, -16/+23Lutrasimilis,
Calling a thing what it is is not hatred. It is merely identifying it. Progressives are progressively moving toward Communism but are too blind to recognize it. I do think there is a mental problem involved in moving toward one's own personal destruction, and we have every right to complain very loudly about it because they are attempting to take us with them (although you are Canadian, not American, and are already living in a more socialist *paradise*). Baal-worshipers weren't atheists, nor are many liberals. This article was more about liberalism than atheism, though many liberals are atheists. - ApokalypseNow, on 12/22/2008, -1/+8An all-powerful entity would not need to go through the rigmarole of killing himself and bringing himself back to life to accomplish his goals - he could simply will it done and it would be so.
Before you attempt to make a freewill argument, remember that an all powerful entity could change the rules such that no options for evil were present while still allowing freewill - and don't give me any of that "mysterious ways" crap either, as an all powerful entity would not need mysterious ways either, that's just a cop out. - hookedonjesus, on 12/20/2008, -3/+10How sad you are, pole-cat. How much time do you spend trying to disprove God Almighty? You can't, you know. You can try, but you can never disprove Him. You just keep coming up with ways to try and convince others that He does not exist, using phrases that if you were to break them down with the cerebral cortex within (perhaps?) your reptilian brain they wouldn't make any sense at all. None. I have no reptilian brain or reptilian anscestors. Sorry for you. You seem like you could maybe be an intelligent person if you would just not try so hard to sound as if you knew what you were talking about. I'll pray for something good to happen to you to offset how miserable you are ( you SOUND like you are, anyway.)
- StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -1/+8And you're just so proud of your devotion to your sick fairy tales you won't bother to stop and question it. It would be cute if it weren't so misanthropic and blind.
- ApokalypseNow, on 12/22/2008, -2/+9No, the axial tilt of the planet is the reason for the season - this season and all others.
Don't forget that Christmas was just a stolen Pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice. - inactive, on 12/22/2008, -2/+9'Evil-ena ... nice name, fitting'
With a collapsing economy and a worldwide energy crisis, whoever gets the biggest lump of coal in their stocking wins. Marry Christmas. - StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -1/+8Apokalypse, the myth assumes that omnipotent, omniscient God, creator of the life, the universe and everything, could come up with NO BETTER way of disseminating what he wanted out of mankind than a cult leader. Free will isn't even needed, he could have put giant diamonds inscribed with universally understood declarations of his will every 100 feet on the planet. But instead he chose this convoluted, bizarre, sadomasochistic, inelegant, inefficient, unfair way of handling the salvation of mankind. If he did it this way, he's incompetent, and anybody who wasn't scared witless of questioning God's judgment could see it.
- StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -0/+7"I've just about come to believe conservative evangelicals really despise Jesus and everything He stands for. They have a vicious, vengeful, violent view of Christianity that has little to do with Christs' teachings. Actually if Jesus walked into their churches, He would probably get shot as a commie traitor."
Ramen. - ApokalypseNow, on 12/22/2008, -0/+6An all powerful being would not need to go through all that rigmarole, he could simply will his goals into existence.
- StaticThunder, on 12/22/2008, -0/+6Yes you would 4Christ. Its very clear that you look forward to the nonbelievers, atheists, liberals, getting their comeuppance. I mean, NOTHING could be better than the Lord doing what he wants to the people that have the audacity to flaunt HIS authority.
"I'll tell you what buddy-- I can't WAIT to hear you say that to our Lord! If you weren't such a pitiable creature serving the darkest of all deceptions? Perhaps you'd get your own so-called "intellect""
Those are not the words of someone who wants to convince. Those are the words of someone who wants to bully. - KCLorelei39, on 12/20/2008, -3/+9LD: Interesting, in a driving-by-the-scene-of-a-horrible-train-wreck kind of way. Both fascinating and repulsive at the same time.....I understand the depths of pain and emotional wreckage they wanted to avoid with the course they took upon themselves, but that is not something I would choose for myself. I'd rather adopt than have to decide to dispose of 'undesirable' embryos. *I* would not put myself in the position to have to make that choice. Not ever again...
Sure, they now have a baby on the way that is free of that one gene. There is no guarantee, however, that something else won't happen to that child, ya know?
Perhaps they just needed to instead suck it up and accept the hand they were dealt, genetically. A more noble approach is fostering or adoption, imo.
Should there be a law to remove the option of genetic selection? Perhaps, but I think we've traveled too far on the Eugenics Express to reverse course now. - ApokalypseNow, on 12/22/2008, -0/+6@4Christ
Please provide objective, empirical evidence for your assertions regarding your mythology. - Revyloution, on 12/21/2008, -1/+7I can't understand what your motives are. I don't see any difference between your faith, Baal worship, or Harri Krishna's. If you truely want to see me saved, you would give me a way to believe. Instead, all you do is give me threats.
As for true altruism, I doubt that. I can just see 4Christ gleefully rubbing his hands together in anticipation of my eternal torture from his loving god when he says 'I'll tell you what buddy-- I can't WAIT to hear you say that to our Lord!'
That doesn't seem like a loving god to me. It just seems bizarre. I'll explain it again (and im sure, not for the last time) I have NO BELIEF. If you want non-believers to have any respect for your religion, you have to give a reason to believe. The only reason you offer is the bible. When ever questions are raised about the bible, I end up getting insulted, prayed for, or threatened with hell. None of these inspire any respect from me.
If you want to learn about why species adapt to their environments, I can point out evidence. If you want to know how we understand distant galaxies, I can show testable experiments that help you understand. Why can't you offer something similar?
As for me being condescending Glynth, perhaps that is true. But I don't claim to have a belief that makes me a better person. I don't claim to ask 'what would Jesus do' before I act. Christians DO make that claim. When I see them not living up to the standards they place on everyone else, I doubt they truly believe in the first place. Many of the Christians I speak with rarely exhibit the 'turn the other cheek' lessons that Jesus taught. - featheredchick, on 12/21/2008, -3/+8"I don't think you're familiar with our American laws, a lie made to defame in print is called libel, not slander. An American citizen would surely be aware of this."
I believe you are trying to slander and in that case perhaps both would be appropriate. By the way, it seems the liberals are the ones not following the Constitution and are therefore the ones who obviously don't know the law. From Bush to Roosevelt to Obama ... liberals are all alike. - ironhide, on 12/19/2008, -13/+18Caesar? People worship a long-dead Roman emperor?
Guess that would make as much sense as worshiping an invisible sky-god. - inactive, on 12/20/2008, -8/+13Understanding comes thru WISDOM.
WISDOM comes from the HOLY SPIRIT.
The HOLY SPRIT comes from FAITH in CHRIST ! - KCLorelei39, on 12/20/2008, -5/+10That is some serious origami you've made out of Scripture.
The most obvious error (and honestly, I didn't read further after catching this one, there's no need to indulge bad doctrine further) is your cherry-picking of Manasseh's wicked behavior as 'proof' that God had told them to do such things:
2Ki 21:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
2Ki 21:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
2Ki 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.
2Ki 21:4 And he built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD said, In Jerusalem will I put my name.
2Ki 21:5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD.
2Ki 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2Ki 21:7 And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:
2Ki 21:8 Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.
2Ki 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.
2Ki 21:10 And the LORD spake by his servants the prophets, saying,
2Ki 21:11 Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols:
2Ki 21:12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.
2Ki 21:13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down.
2Ki 21:14 And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies;
2Ki 21:15 Because they have done that which was evil in my sight, and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day.
2Ki 21:16 Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
2Ki 21:17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Blaming God for Manassah's behavior is just what Adam tried to do after following his wife's lead that day in the Garden: It's YOUR FAULT, God, you're the one that gave me this woman!
Better study up on the concept of redemption, a little bit more....Your words only fool those that are already deceived about their Creator and His plans. Anyone with a Bible, and God's Spirit leading them, can unravel your origami inventions with little effort. - KCLorelei39, on 12/20/2008, -4/+9Also, cherry-picking Ex 22:29 as 'proof' that God demanded child sacrifice is equally foolish:
Exo 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.
Exo 13:13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.
Exo 13:14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:
Exo 13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
The firstborn of the children are not tossed in flames, but redeemed.
Just as Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, sacrificed once for the sins of many, to take away the sins of the world, redeems those that believe not with gold or silver, but something infinitely more precious: His own blood.
It all makes perfect sense, should you even care to sit down and reason together with Your Maker. -
Show 51 - 100 of 282 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is