Some of my best friends

    are liberals....Gerard Alexander in yesterday's Times.

    Does cause one to wonder. About them.

    To improve Junior's chance of acceptance at the University of Virginia? Or perhaps to join its political science department which appears to need help? 

    Moving on.

    In the past few weeks, says Alexander Michelle Wolf and Kanye West either were A(....)unfunny or B(...)bravely n an ideological commitment.A quiz. Prizes will be awarded to the first 10,000 readers guessing which was which. When I get around to it. Hint, one of the two contestants is burdened by Maxime Waters' judgement "maybe he should not have so much to say". She knows how to counsel a guy.Probably will motivate a ton of sympathy.

    "Liberals" writes Alexander "energize people to vote  for the other side by their control of the commanding American cabl..".




    True. that would generate animosity. Fortunately  (for him) his supporters only dominate the electronic media. Nothing like the potential downside of dominating the Correspondents  Dinner.

    Moving on

    Some people have cavalierly leveled the charge of Racism against ....more than 60 million people who voted for Mr. Trump

    Oh? References ,please. Who were those cavaliers? Name and rank and serial number where applicable.Or withdraw the unsubstantiated charge in the interests of Jefferson's beloved achievement.

    Personally I differed with the Trumpers for many reasons-not because  I actually  believe the whole 65 million of them believed  it when they chorused "lock her up" ,mindless campaign rhetoric at the level of a high school Pep Rally .A vicious one.

    So who were the Racism mongers?

    Let's review the bidding.

    Were any of Hillary's voters racists?  Sure. Where any sizable group of Americans are you'll find racists whether they are Republicans, Democrats or Flat earthers. Racism is as American as apple pie. 

    Which party has the highest proportion? I leave that to 538. None of my democrat friends are racists. How about you Gerry?

    Moving on Alexander attempted a piquant comparison

    Pressing a political view from the Oscar stage


    declaring a conservative campus speaker unacceptable

    As a pretend parallel it was a stretch. At least this liberal feels that no views from the Oscar stage merit consideration whereas the only campus speakers declared unacceptable should  those inciting violence.

    But more than being  a stretch , it was a cheap shot linking

    banning speakers


    Feeling convinced that conservatives were their intellectual and moral inferiors


    without providing any  basis that such a link exists any place other than the  mind of G. Alexander

    I have certainly heard my share of intellectually inferior arguments advanced by liberals as well as University of Virginia professors. AOBTW by Hannity&Co. I'm not your best witness on whether conservatives advance better ones.. Whatever.

    But with respect to moral judgements, for me it's a whole 'nother ball game. 

    Alexander's counsel is

    People determined to stand against racism can raise concerns

    I like determined and raise concerns.

     About groups that espouse hate

    without smearing huge numbers of Americans many of whom might ....otherwise be Democrats


    If that's the price , I ain't buying,



    From the comment section:

    Our once-democratic republic has drifted ever further to the right. We see a resurgence in racism, white nationalism, backlash against women's rights, punitive attitudes toward immigrants, the obliteration of the line between religion and civic life, a sell-off our democratic institutions to a growing cadre of plutocrats and more.

    So, you think we should be more subdued? I suspect I am not alone in committing myself to be more strident. You write as though the political right and left are just reasonable points on an ideological spectrum. That, Mr. Alexander, is the most dangerous false equivalence in American history. We have lying, anti-democratic charlatans controlling the White House and Congress. The President is a liar and fool. Some members of Congress are treasonous (Nunes, for example). And you think we should be polite?

    The problem is that the primary basis of Republican action is to cause Liberal brains to explode. Religious morality and fiscal responsibility are no longer Republican goals. If people see clear suggestions of Russia tampering in United States politics and pass it off as the work of the Deep State, how can you not consider them intellectually challenged?

    Once they were morally challenged but that was settled long ago. Morals lost.



    There is a post about the embassy move to Jerusalem here at Dagblog.. A rabbi who blessed Javanka once compared blacks to monkeys.

    An Evangelical pastor invited to speak at the embassy opening says Mormonism is wrong and Jews can’t be saved.

    This is their version of religion.


    The things done in the  name of God must make Her weep,

    John 14:6 and 15:6 say that only Christians can be saved. So it isn't just "their" version of religion, it is the Bible's version(the NT, I mean).

    Romans 11

    25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “The Deliverer will come from Zion,

    He will remove godlessness from Jacob. 

    27And this is My covenant with them

    when I take away their sins.”f

    28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 

    30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all.


    The nice thing about being a Christian is no matter what your views, no matter how moral, murderous, or even pathological, you can always find a passage in the bible that supports your view.

    Yes, you don't even have to be that picky about which passage. Just pick one and claim it says something that is not at all obvious to others. Because like Aaron and some preacher or liturgy he got the idea from, you just take passages like John 14:6 and 15:6 (no matter what version you use) and say they mean something when it's not at all clear when you read them that they mean that something he's saying they mean.

    Back to square one: this is belief by choice, not by literal biblical command as Aaron claims. They chose that those vague words mean that.

    All those citations say to me, for example: John recounts that Jesus implied he was the messiah, and to follow his teachings to get good with God. Doesn't say anything about any Christian religion. There was no such thing at the time! John was working on it, is all, didn't even finish.

    Christians are sinners. Christians battle among themselves. Institutions split during the Civil War. We have the Religious Right supporting Trump, and a Poor People’s campaign formed by Christians on the Left. Bishop Curry and Reverend Barber led a protest at the White House just this week. The beauty of the Bible is that you can find passages that support MLK, Curry, and Barber.

    And the problem with the bible is you can also find passages that support the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and every other right wing hate group.

    People twist words. Nothing new. 


    John 14:6
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

    John 15:6

    If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.


    Apparently there is a direct message to physically harm Jews.

    Well no rmrd. No one needs to twist words. The message of hate is quite clearly stated in many passages of the bible. You do what every other christian does. You chose the parts of the bible you like and discard the parts you don't. Then you pretend the hate filled parts aren't there.

    Different Christians receive different messages from the Bible. That is why there are Baptists, Southern Baptists, and National Baptists,for example. Baptists and Methodists split on the issue of slavery. No one pretends that the message cannot be twisted. During the Jim Crow era, churches were battling each over over white supremacy. The argument is about the takeaway message of the Bible. You can take way a pro-slavery message or you can take away an anti-slavery message. 

    There is a passage in the Old Testament that suggests parents take a disobedient, drunkard child out to the public square, present him to village elders, and stone the child if that were the decision of the elders. Most Christians would label should action insanity. Christians have free will. The law is insane. I think it is a positive thing that Christians reject the act. By the way, the law applies to Jews of the Old Testament. Most Christians see themselves as New Testament folk.

    You appear to be upset that Christians express free will. Catholics often reject Catholic doctrine. Ireland appears to have overturned its Catholic inspired anti-abortion law.

    I'm not upset at all since it's clear to anyone rational that the bible is bullshit. I'm just pointing out that you, like all christians decide what is true for you, in large part due to your secular education and culture, then use the bible to justify the decisions you made.  Different christians don't receive different messages from the bible. You all just choose the parts that agree with you and discard the rest.

    So you got that off your chest. The fact remains that many people who follow their cherrypicked tenants from the Bible still find time to fight for social issues. Christians do receive different messages from the Bible. Civil War churches read passages like those below and found anti-slavery messages. 

    Deuteronomy 23:15

    You shall not deliver unto his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto you:

    1 Corinthians 7:21

    Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather

    Christians are not bound by the Old Testament.

    Romans 7:6

     6 But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit.

    Yes, we cherry-pick. It is the Christian thing to do.




    Of course you cherry pick. The more liberal a christian is the more they have to discard vast portions of the bible. Because the bible is so evil, as you put it, "insane." And you find some passage somewhere that you decide justifies discarding vast portions of the book that is claimed to be the revealed word of god. Even though Jesus, the one you claim to revere and worship quite clearly told you not to in Matthew 5.

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus and the disciples broke with the Law.


    PROBLEM: Jesus said very explicitly, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” However, on one occasion Jesus approved of His disciples when they broke the Jewish law about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:24), and Jesus Himself apparently did away with the ceremonial law by declaring all meats clean (Mark 7:19). Jesus’ disciples clearly rejected much of the OT law, including circumcision (Acts 15Gal. 5:66:15). Indeed, Paul declared that “You are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14) and that the Ten Commandments engraved in stone have been “taken away in Christ” (2 Cor. 3:14).

    SOLUTION: In the matter of whether the Law of Moses was done away with by Christ, confusion results from failing to distinguish several things.

    First of all, there is a confusion of time. During His lifetime, Jesus always kept the Law of Moses Himself, including offering sacrifices to the Jewish priests (Matt. 8:4), attending Jewish festivals (John 7:10), and eating the passover lamb (Matt. 26:19). He did on occasion violate the pharisaical (and false) traditions that had grown up around the Law (cf. Matt. 5:43–44), chiding them, “You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:6). The verses that indicate the law has been fulfilled refer to after the Cross when there is “neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

    Second, there is a confusion of aspect. At least some of the references (if not all) to the Law being done away with in the NT are speaking of OT ceremonies and types. These ceremonial and typological aspects of the OT Law of Moses were clearly done away with when Jesus, our passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), fulfilled the Law’s types and predictions about His first coming (cf. Heb. 7–10). In this sense, Jesus clearly did away with the ceremonial and typological aspects of the Law, not by destroying the Law, but by fulfilling it.

    Finally, there is a confusion about context. Even when the moral dimensions of the law are discussed, there is a confusion. For example, not only did Jesus fulfill the moral demands of the Law for us (Rom. 8:2–3), but the nationaland theocratic context in which God’s moral principles were expressed in the OT no longer apply to Christians today. For example, we are not under the commands as Moses expressed them for Israel, since, when expressed for them in the Ten Commandments, it had as its reward that the Jews would live “long upon the land [of Palestine] which the Lord your God is giving you [Israelites]” (e.g., Ex. 20:12). When the moral principle expressed in this OT commandment is stated in the NT, it is expressed in a different context, namely, one that is not national or theocratic, but is personal and universal. For all persons who honor their parents, Paul declares that they will “live long on the earth” (Eph. 6:3). Likewise, Christians are no longer under the commandment of Moses to worship on Saturday (Ex. 20:8–11), for, since the Resurrection, appearances, and Ascension (all of which occurred on Sunday), Christians worship on Sunday instead (see Acts 20:71 Cor. 16:2). Sabbath worship, declared Paul, was only an OT “shadow” of the real substance which was inaugurated by Christ (Col. 2:16–17). Since even the Ten Commandments as such were expressed in a national Jewish, theocratic framework, the NT can speak correctly about that which was “engraved on stones” being “taken away in Christ “ (2 Cor. 3:713–14).

    However, this does not mean that the moral principles embodied in the Ten Commandments, that reflect the very nature of an unchanging God, are not still binding on believers today. Indeed, every one of these principles contained in the Ten Commandments is restated in another context in the NT, except of course the command to rest and worship on Saturday.

    Christians today are no more under the Ten Commandments as given by Moses to Israel than we are under the Mosaic Law’s requirement to be circumcised (see Acts 15Gal. 3) or to bring a lamb to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice. The fact that we are bound by similar moral laws against adultery, lying, stealing, and murder no more proves we are still under the Ten Commandments than the fact that there are similar traffic laws in North Carolina and Texas proves that a Texan is under the laws of North Carolina. The truth is that when one violates the speed laws in Texas he has not thereby violated a similar law in North Carolina, nor is he thereby bound by the penalties of such laws in North Carolina. In like manner, although both the OT and NT speak against adultery, nevertheless, the penalty was different—capital punishment in the OT (Lev. 20:10) and only excommunication from the church in the NT (1 Cor. 5:1–13), with the hope of restoration upon repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 2:6–8).



    I'm sure you know I could find a link from some biblical scholar that claims the exact opposite of your excerpt above. The core belief of all christians whether it be the Westboro Baptist Church or the most liberal progressive church is what ever I believe the bible endorses. It's too funny, really.

    People twist things. A majority of Republicans don’t think that the Russian probe is an honest investigation. People disagree on the message in the Bible. 

    Your basic argument is that if someone doesn't agree with your particular choices as to what passages of the bible are still true and what passages of the bible are no longer true and should be ignored and discarded because they're "insane" then they are twisting things. It's exactly the same argument the Westboro Baptist Church makes against you.

    I think the head of Westboro Baptist is dead.

    You are arguing that different people have different interpretations. It is the same thing thing that happens in secular life. Different conclusions from the same observations.

    The head and founder of the whole "christian" movement is dead too, for almost 2,000 years but the nonsense still continues. I'm not sure what your point is. The Westboro Baptist Church still exists too. 2,000 years of irrationality is a monumental example of human gullibility. One wonders how many more years people will continue to be conned by a 2,000 year old scam.

    Paul says that the Jewish law isn't binding on Christians, and every Christian sect I know of considers that canon.


    Yes, Paul was the first christian to reject Jesus' clear injunction to hold to the law. According to the stories the actual disciples of Jesus disagreed with him on that and many other issues. Paul was actually such a strong influence on christianity and made so many changes to Christ's teachings that the religion should more appropriately be called Paulism.

    Hey Flav - they're quoting bible scripture over here. Are you a prophet, or what have you done? I'm expecting an ecstatic movement for 2018, but not *this* ecstatic. "walk across that swimming pool" indeed.

    Yes, but I'm quoting the bible as a joke. Kinda like I'd quote Infowars. But just like Infowars some people actually believe the crap written in the bible. Com trails, walking on water, Agenda 21, the virgin birth, mostly I can't tell the difference. Except that Alex Jones isn't nearly as pathologically savage and murderous as many of the authors of the bible.

    Though the problem with jokes is sometimes they turn into more serious than funny and gain a life of their own - like Trump, initially he seemed preposterous, and then gradually the word "preposterous" lost its prior energy.
    But whatever, it's Sunday, might as well have Sunday school. 

    But Catholics don't do Sunday School! And they don't read the Bible either!  So there. The priests get educated and they then tell you about which parts of the Bible to believe. And they don't quote the other parts, no need for you to bother your pretty head about the other parts. Simple theocracy! Works for a religion! Started before there were printed books and before most people could read, but worked so well they continued with it.  None of this reading and interpreting things for oneself, tends to muck things up. laugh

    Well that tree of life thing in the Garden of Eden was about readin', weren't it? People getting too smart for their own britches before they even owned britches. If Eve had been collecting grocery coupons like she was supposed to and not getting Adam all conflicted & genuflected over a bunch of fool writings he didn't have any inkling of... well, you see where it got to, them boys fighting with each other, and then a snake's a snake, ain't it? Took Trump to step on it, crush them misguided thoughts out of existence. Bet they had a wall around Eden, keep all the riffraff out - why they called it Paradise.

    PS - them Catholics are going to hell. Just see what they did in Ireland. Can't trust em. And that Pope of theirs - might as well wrap up the world with a bow and deliver it to Satan. Not that I'm prejudiced or anything, but some things are just too damn much.

    You reminded me of my once-an-altar-boy and still-churchgoing father's way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance. One of the things he couldn't exactly swallow after being the first in family to go to college and eat some of the apple is this place called limbo that the Catholic church invented as a place babies go when they die before being baptized. Until the second coming, then it will all be made right. (That and some other crazy things like transubstantiation made him into a regular churchgoer who decided never to take communion.) Purgatory just didn't seem right, nor did any of Dante's circles, to say the least, so they just invented a new place. Catholic church way ahead of its time in "curating" a new narrative out of the ancient texts. You can't just leave to the faithful, heck, they'll never be done with it, Torah scholars still argue all day every day after millennia, you've got to tell them what to think.

    Latest Comments