Letters to the Editor
-
More For JimC--The Bible Supports Slavery, Flat Earth
The Bible says nothing explicit about abortion, nothing at all about lesbianism, and very little about male homosexuality. Wearing cotton/polyester blends gets about as much space, and it's an abomination, in case you were wondering.
So after you've burned all you clothes, get your mind around this: The Bible says much, much more about slavery. Indeed, once the Abolitionists started mounting an effective attack on slavery, the dominant means of defending slavery was to quote from the Bible. This was extensively documented in the book, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701-1840.
Here's Leviticus 25:
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
And here's Ephesians 6:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
It's perfectly clear that the Bible condones slavery. So how's about it pal? Ready to repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments? After all, if America is broken, like you say, it's pretty clear what broke it: the abolition of slavery, that's what!
Oh, yeah, and about the flat earth:
"The Flat-Earth Bible" by Robert J. Schadewald
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
which has been on the web since forever.
It begins thus:
When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. I have since assembled and read an extensive collection of flat-earth literature. The Biblical arguments for flat-earthism that follow come mainly from my reading of flat-earth literature, augmented by my own reading of the Bible.
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:
1 Chronicles 16:30: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.�
Psalm 93:1: �Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...�
Psalm 96:10: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...�
Psalm 104:5: �Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.�
Isaiah 45:18: �...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...�
Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.
Like geocentrists, flat-earth advocates often give long lists of texts. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited 76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental second edition of Earth not a Globe. Apostle Anton Darms, assistant to the Reverend Wilbur Glenn Voliva, America's best known flat-earther, compiled 50 questions about the creation and the shape of the earth, bolstering his answers with up to 20 scriptures each. Rather than presenting an exhaustive compendium of flat-earth scriptures, I focus on those which seem to me the strongest. I also comment on some attempts to find the earth's sphericity in the Bible.
Scriptural quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the New English Bible. Hebrew and Greek translations are from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book.
Of course, there is a way out of all this, a way which was known from the very beginning, long before our modern understanding made such views into a laughingstock. And that is, quite simply, not to read the Bible literally. This makes a great deal of sense, since the Bible is quite obviously not meant to be read literally. From the very beginning, the first two books of Genesis tell two different stories of creation. They are reconcilable--but only if one does not read them literally, and if one introduces Lilith into the equation.
Indeed, some of the earliest Church fathers explicitly warned against reading the Bible literally. After all, Jesus taught in parables that would be utterly useless as instruction if taken literally. Their entire power to instruct comes entirely from their metaphorical import. When it is said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," no one in their right mind thinks this is only about casting stones, and that it's perfectly okay to attack sinners in any other way.
The problem with not reading the Bible literally is simple: it means you have to think. And this does not go well with being an authoritarian.
So here's the rub, JimC: Not only are you anti-American. You're not really a Christian, either. You are an authoritarian who is fundamentally incapable of reading the Bible the way it was intended to be read.
-
Pelosi wrong
I read Greenwald's piece and then read far more of the letters than I should have. It is clear to me - a Bush supporting conservative - that most of Glenn's readers (or the ones who respond in this forum) are people I would consider far left or ultraliberal. No problem there - I live in a very liberal town, work in a very liberal profession and count amongst my closest friends a very intelligent married lesbian Kucinich voting vegan who is about to have a son. So try to lay down the stereotypes for a minute.
Here are my thoughts re Pelosi's diplomatic efforts:
It doesn't matter if you think Bush is an incompetent moron whose Middle East policy is a total failure. He is the President of the United States. The American govenment MUST speak with only one voice to foreign governments. If foreign governments believe they can go over a President's head to appeal directly to the American people concerning our foreign policy - wow. That's a problem - it certainly weakens the President's ability to influence events. I would think liberals, who hope to win the White House in a little over a year, would want to be careful about setting such a precedent.
Greenwald makes much of Newt Gringich's alleged hypocrisy. (I say alleged because his points on this matter seem less than definitive - he doesn't really take ownership of them, but hastily relies on others' information.)But let's say the allegations are true. So what, Glenn? Gingrich a hypocrite - you've discovered a first! (Note sarcasm.)
Gingrich's hypocrisy doesn't make Pelosi right.
Finally, it amuses me - and I don't mean that patronizingly - to read a bunch of stuff ripping the CONSERVATIVE media. I take it for granted that the media is hopelessly liberal, and I believe I can prove that. I also recognize there is no way in hell anyone here would agree with me, so I won't reiterate the familiar arguments. But I think this point actually strengthens my argument re Pelosi. Americans understand the give and take of free speech. I read what seems to me to be vitriolic, but I'm imbued with the concept of free speech. Bashir Assad and his ilk don't understand disagreement amongst Americans in this light. They see only an exploitable opportunity. Ergo, Pelosi is behaving in a very dangerous fashion.
P+elo
si