Dave -- The Greek of the New Testament uses the word "krinein" for "to judge", and from it we get the words critical, criticism et. al. Implicit in this Greek root is the distinction of truth from falsity by the exercise of one's reason.

I hope you know how far outside mainstream Christianity you are on this. Most Christians would think you're nuts to insist on checking your reason at the door before attempting to read the Bible, treating Christian faith like your own little gated country club free of all nuance and interpretation. That's corn-fed fundamentalism pure and simple, with the emphasis on simple.

Oh and in fact I *do* know the Jesus of the New Testament -- better than you probably, since I read him mostly in the Koine Greek of the original. To me it's hilarious to see you transmogrify the preacher of the Beatitudes into some kind Norman Schwarzkopf with whom you have a private and exclusive understanding. Could you be wrong? Of course not, because true belief absolves you from self-doubt or questioning of your own smugness. Thanks Dave for your show of Christian humility.

js I owe you a reply to your thoughtful post on religion a few days ago, sorry...

Dave -- Looking back at my post I'd be more measured in my criticism. If you think belief is necessary for a genuine understanding of the Bible, who am I to say otherwise? You were thoughtful in stating your point of view and I was snotty. Sorry.

Percy,
I have read your several entries attentively. Now, I can begin to sum up my thoughts with a question.
Given that you initiated this conversation with Christians without any invitation that I can see. Then your entries have essentially consisted of an attack on a way of viewing the world that you obviously know little about I have to ask you what your motive is?
You don't seem to be in a rage attributable to your past treatment by Christians. You give some evidence of being offended by the lack of rationality in Christianity in your opinion but people rarely attack Christian because they don't agree. Instead they ignore Christianity. Finally I am having difficulty believe that you are simply reporting what Bill Maher is saying. We had equal access to Bill Maher. Even a second's regard would inform you that we don't care what his opinion is.
So, I repeat. What motivated you?
Ron
Ron

I do in fact initiate conversations without invitation as you put it. It's called the Gatto Debate and Discussion Forum, Ron, not the Gatto invitational.

Please don't confuse disagreement with "obviously knowing little." As far as I know I'm the only person on this board who reads the New Testament in its original language. So my ignorance as you put it is not at all apparent to me. You and Dave, on the other hand, make pretzel-like contortions to turn the Prince of Peace into a lover of "just wars" -- if you want to make corn beef hash out of Christianity then I, as a non-believer, am allowed to laugh about it.

Then by your own logic you would have ignored Louise long ago. No, in truth we all enjoy "attacking" positions with which we disagree, and a person who is secure in his or her convictions welcomes disagreement. I can say that 3 years of reading js's arguments for anarcho-libertarianism has shaken a couple of my longer-held opinions (others she doesn't have a chance with). Her "motive", as you would put it, has been to present the better argument -- nothing more and nothing less.

Bloodsport and ridicule are the currency I deal in Ron. Now you tell me I have to worry about whether you care about my posts? Hel-LO sleepless nights.

Percy, Have you read any of Lawrence Vances columns on this topic? He's an LRC Christian columnist. I think you'd enjoy them.

Laurence Vance on A Christian Killer Par Excellence

I'm surprised you didn't post this article for Percy to read, since you thought he'd enjoy Vance's columns. A May 25th publication date. What could be more timely?

Of course, some might find it offensive. Better to go with a piece on "art" from Instauration.

Am I supposed to be upset that you posted this? It IS from LRC, you know.

Louise,
"A Christian fighting the bogus war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan while in the "service" of the U.S. military is a Christian killer.e,"
This lead to the article informs us that we are not likely to find anything for our serious consideration in the rest of the Article.
First who informed the writer that the war in Afghanistan is "bogus?" The Taliban had displaced the Afghani government through violence. OBL had long used Afghanistan as a base for himself and for his training camps. From there he had attacked New York City killing 3,000 of our citizens and guests. We followed international law and demanded Afghanistan kick him out. The Afghanistan illegal government, the Taliban, refused to do so. In effect they chanllenged us to "come get him." We did as was our right under international law. International law allows us to legally defend ourselves.
Second, the writer seems to think that Christians forfeit the right to defend themselves under the tenets of Christianity. That belief by the writer proves only that his knowledge of Christianity is badly lacking.
The story is often told about how Jesus didn't want Peter to defend him from the Roman soldiers with a sword. The article writer did not happened to explain why Peter had the sword. Traveling together in a small band Jesus and his disciples pooled their money into a community purse. From that common purse they bought a sword to defend themselves. Jesus took exception because the Roman soldiers were there as an arm of the law. They were not robbers. As Christians we retain the right to defend ourselves, our families and our homes at a minimum.
That fits neatly into what is going on in Afghanistan. Today Islam surrounds an area known as "The land of Islam." If our friend looked up those countries making up the land of Islam he or she would be able to draw on the map a perimeter around the entire land of Islam. Upon further examination he would find the land of Islam is attacking every neighbor around the entire perimeter. Their announced intention is to expand the land of Islam. This has been Islamic policy since the time of the Prophet back in the 7th Century.
OBL had announced his intention to carry on that policy and was actively doing so. He attacked us.
The rest of the article is equally based on BS or ignorance.
Ron

js -- Belated reply as usual sorry but I'm not familiar with Lawrence Vances and will educate myself this weekend. Thanks much for the tip!

Percy,
"Bloodsport and ridicule are the currency I deal in Ron. Now you tell me I have to worry about whether you care about my posts? Hel-LO sleepless nights."
No, you got me wrong on several points. First I am not accusing you of bad manners in initiating an uninvited conversation. As you correctly point out that hardly applies on the Gatto Forum. Second, I am not attempting to cause you concern. As I clearly stated I was concerned with your motive. Now you seem to have answered my question. You were motivated by the prospect of "blood sport and ridicule."
As a Christian I am quit comfortable with your motives. We have had roughly two thousand years of experience with folks with the same motive as yourself.
Thank you,
Ron

Percy, have you read Chestertons "Orthodoxy" and "Heretics"?