For My Christian Friends : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I've tried to say something like this a few times already. But when I find someone who says it better, I'm delighted to be able to link to his essay.

The Environmental Ethics & Public Policy Program is a core project of the Center for the Study of Values in Public Life at Harvard Divinity School. As part of the effort to educate people who will undertake professional work in positions of public responsibility in churches, denominational organizations, social agencies, educational institutions and civic organizations, the Environmental Ethics and Public Policy Program trains students to conduct their own ongoing research on the ethical implications of important environmental issues. Dr. Timothy Weiskel is its director and is the author of this essay "'While Angels Weep...' Doing Theology on a Small Planet" at:

The home page, which includes fine contributions by Father Thomas Berry, Ralph Waldo Emerson and others, is at:


And this our life, exempt from public haunt,

Finds tongues in trees,

Books in running brooks,

Sermons in stones and good in everything.

---'As you like it' 2:1 William Shakespeare

-- Hallyx (, April 19, 1999




Hallyx, you've flushed out a "Buddha troll"! An auto-reflex bot response? Do the autobots have Dogma Wars? Is it an artifical intelligence trick? More ...

-- Leska (, April 19, 1999.

Hallyx -- for this guy who believes the Nazarene was really dead and then was/is really alive (ya know, the old literal meaning of the word, not symbolic), the main page for me was like making chalk screech (HELP!!!), but the Occasional Papers look interesting and I've bookmarked them for later study. Anyway, there are strange bedfellows and strange points of convergence as well as divergence when it comes to "intentional technology" choices in the future.

Heck, as witness the Your-done-for forum! Thanks for the link.

-- BigDog (, April 19, 1999.

The "Center for the Study of Values in Public Life at Harvard Divinity School."

Oxymoron number 1: Values in Public Life (ya mean like Billy Jeff's "Most ethical administration ever"?)

Oxymoron number 2: Harvard Divinity (this institution, originally founded to train preachers of the Word of God, is now one of the most secular, politically-correct, faith-loathing spots on the planet.)

P.S. Didn't care for the essay. Too much pantheistic earth- worshipping for my tastes. I'd rather worship the Creator rather than created things (Rom 1:25), while, of course, being vigilant not to trash what He did create.

-- rick blaine (, April 19, 1999.

I think most Christians confuse Jesus the man with Jesus the myth. And this begs an important question:

If I beleive in God, why do I need to believe in Jesus?

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

Hey a, my man, email me offline (if you dare!) and we can chat a bit. Not sure Yourdonites appreciate the bandwidth on this otherwise ...

-- BigDog (, April 19, 1999.

a--- or, maybe better, post the question over at Pastor Chris' forum and we can have a rip-roaring fiery time (nothing better than Christians for disagreeing with each other about just about everything ..... it's why Jesus had to keep leaving them alone and pray on the mountaintops ;-)

All kidding aside, if it's a serious question, I'm sure me, Arlin and others would be glad to talk over there.


-- BigDog (, April 19, 1999.

[article snip]

"In our era, this kind of arrogant science, like the self-important religious traditions of the past, must be questioned by a new, ecumenical theology of creation and a realistic understanding of human agency. If we are going to survive as a species, we need now to develop a radical sense of humility and subordination to a re-sanctified and holy nature."

[end snip]

Hmmmm. Am I surprised that the Harvard "Divinity" School is trashing Christian beliefs and blaming them for what they perceive to be an impending ecological disaster? No. Am I surprised that they are trying to subplant the worship of God with the worship of nature? No. Am I surprised at their hypocrisy in labeling Christians as "arrogant" for believing in God, yet fail to see their own arrogance for presuming to play God through their proposed mass-cultural re-engineering and de-population measures. No.

Just more Christian bigotry wrapped in pseudo-intellectual arrogance.

-- David (, April 19, 1999.


If Jesus was just a man, he was a nut case. I mean, he claimed to have seen eternity from the inside. He said his death was necessary to redeem sinful mankind. He said he and the Father (God) were one. He said that he was the Way and the Truth and the Life, and that no one could get to heaven except through him.

If he was just a man, he was NOT a good and wise teacher. If he was good (humble, sincere, honest) then he was not wise enough to know those claims were insane. And if he was wise, then he knew he was lying and therefore not good.

There are only three choices: liar, lunatic, or Lord.

Based on first-hand claims that he was deader than a door nail but then three days later alive and vibrant, and based on my own first- hand experience of seeing broken lives restored through faith in him, I'm picking door number three: Lord!

So basically, you need to believe in Jesus because he said so. Walking out of that tomb gives authority to everything else he said.

-- rick blaine (, April 19, 1999.

Oh and a question . . . will those who so quickly condemn OT Christians threads display similar enthusiasm in condemning an OT anti-Christian thread such as this? Or does the double standard continue?

-- David (, April 19, 1999.

I don't mean to come across as anti-Christian, although I am as leery of that group as any other (doctors, lawyers, etc).

And I'm not interested in a point-by -point dissection of why Jesus "just has to be" Lord (because he allegedly rose from the dead). It's like this:

There are millions of folks that believe in Budda, millions in Shiva, millions in Mohammed, millions in Jehovah, millions in get the picture (as someone said, "With over 3000 different religions to choose from, you are pretty much guaranteed to choose the wrong one"). I just find it hard to believe that the God (I'm nondenominational, and do not attend church) I pray to would condescend those that did not adhere to the "Jesus" belief. However, I find it easy to believe that people of such an inclination would kill each other over the petty differences in these beliefs. And that I find disturbing.

Bill Moyers wrote a good book on the subject called The Power of Myth.

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.


Gotta give Joseph Campbell his due regarding The Power of Myth. Or not. Can't find my copy, but I believe it is the work of Campbell. Either way it's a mind-opening read.

-- Bingo1 (, April 19, 1999.

The Power of Myth was a 6-part series of interviews and discussions with Joseph Campbell, hosted by Bill Moyers. Campbell's most well-known work is probably The Hero With a Thousand Faces, which was written back in the '40's and reportedly served as an inspiration for George Lucas in his creation of the Star Wars "universe".

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 19, 1999.

Who was it on here that said they's rather worship Gaia than some little old man in the sky. Me too. But the most logical explanation I've enjoyed reading, and haven't finished yet is, The Earth Chronicles, by Zecharia Sitchin. Laugh if you want to, I think they are great.

-- gilda jessie (, April 19, 1999.

Yeah sorry, Joseph Campbell. Was the Hero of a Thousand Faces the one about the "the hero's journey" myth? An outcast get sent to a boundary, encounters some helpful friends, conquers evil, and returns as a shaman? Said to be the basis of most modern classics from Wizard of Oz on?

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

a ... I wasn't intending a dissection. I thought your question was seriously intended as I have assumed Hallyx's post was sincere? But maybe it was intended as a pretext to trash or mock things that are, indeed, precious to me. Catch you on some other thread.

-- BigDog (, April 19, 1999.

Not at all, my friend. Mocking was not on my mind. I had hoped that my point, in the mouth of a Doctor of Divinity, might carry more ethos than my paltry contribution.

I don't knock Christianity or any other belief ststem based merely on theology or morality (or preciousness). My sole criticism is how a paradigm or belief effects my planet, it's creatures and, ultimately, us. Simply put, as I have put it before, any belief or praxis which cannot continue to be practiced even unto the seventh generation (American Indian ref) is unsustainable. ANY unsustainable practice is immoral


"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."--- H.L. Mencken [Nobody mock better than Mencken~~~~~;-)

-- Hallyx (, April 19, 1999.

Hallyx: re your sig:

"Religion is like sex with your wife. It's damn good, but you don't go around telling everyone about it."

-- a (a@a.a), April 19, 1999.

I have to agree with Mr. Rick Blaine here. But as I've said before, this Y2K thing is so parallel with belief in Jesus, its almost scary. Either you believe or you don't. Nothing I say or do will change anyone's mind. All anyone can do is pass along the information and hope God blesses it.

He IS risen.

pamela ;)

-- pamela (, April 19, 1999.

First off I'd like to thank B.D. for volunteering me into this discussion after I so carefully avoided it earlier today...thanks, BD, and I WILL return the favor! :-)

a.- the bottom line of what is being discussed here is something called faith. The problem that you (and others here - I'm not singling out just you) have in understanding us is that our arguments are based on several relatively inflexible absolutes which are accepted due to our faith in their source. This stance is, of course, counter to modern western thought and tends to upset a lot of non-Christians in the bargain. We can be nice about it, we can do the C.S. Lewis thing and discuss "Mere Christianity" (a great book, by the way) or we can get Chapter and verse with the fundamentalists, or we can get historical with the writings of the Church Fathers, or we can get into signs and wonders with Pentecostals and Charismatics or whatever. We can do a lot of different things but in the end it still boils down to a faith based and somewhat exclusive (though not neccessarily exclusionary) theology. I am reminded of what someone once wrote about the prophetic messages from Lourdes: "If you believe, no explanation is neccessary. If you do not believe, no explanation will suffice."


-- Arlin H. Adams (, April 19, 1999.

Arlin, Big Dog, et al: I remember last year when I was in "warn everyone you meet" mode I asked an elderly waitress what she was planning on doing for the upcoming y2k crisis. She said "Oh that? I'm not worried about that, the Lord will take care of me." Well, that's the kind of faith that has got us into this mess to begin with!

I still don't see what is wrong with accepting the reality of Jesus the myth. Why does it have to have been an actual event?

Here's a good question for Christians: If it turned out that it was just a myth, how would that affect your behavior? And of course, it should not affect it at all, because the belief in doing good (Jesus the man's teachings) is still a belief in doing good. That is the beauty and power of the myth: it transcends reality.

-- a (a@a.a), April 20, 1999.

a - since it's late, let me at least take a shot at answering your last two questions with the proviso that I'm not trying to start a shooting war here (okay Hal??).

1. I don't think any of us are saying that you can't choose to accept the concept of Jesus as a myth - what we *are* saying is that there is no eternal salvation in doing so. What we proclaim, and what bothers non-Christians so much is that the *only* means of attaining eternal salvation is either through absolutely obeying all of the Old Testament laws, or through accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior, literally, factually, as historical reality. anything other than that is insufficient.

2. To a Christian, your second question is inherently nonsensical, since you are, by definition, asking us to accept what for us would be the ultimate dichotomy - roughly put, you're asking us what would we do if it turned out that reality was a myth.

St. Paul writes about this at some length, but basicly if Jesus did not exist as the perfect atonement for our sins; and if he did not rise from the dead, then we are not saved, there is no salvation, no way to escape eternal condemnation, and certainly no reason in the world to seriously follow something which has no more validity than the writings of the brother's Grimm. No, if the Bible is not inerrantly true than there is no need to do anything other than as one might wish to do...for nothing one does will effect how one spends eternity. If Christ is not raised, then the 'survival of the fittest' arguments promulgated by, and even the extremist 'antibreeder' arguments propounded by the zero population growth troll are at least as valid as any feel-good oriented belief system based on the gentler aspects of what Jesus taught.

It is only because Christ was born, and crucified and then raised from the dead; only because He is and ever will be our only hope of salvation that there is any merit in Christianity.

IMHO that's really the bottom line for those of us who are Christians.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, April 20, 1999.

a- Sounds more like the Gilgamesh story.

arlin- ref Lourdes- sounds suspiciouisly like my answer to "What's it take (or like) to be a Paramedic? How do you handle the STUFF on scene?" and a friend's answer to "What's it like in combat?" He and I use exactly the same answer:
Because you had to ask the question, there is no answer I could give you that you would understand.

OR (in a less kind mood)

If ya hadda ask the question, ya couldn't understand the answer!


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 20, 1999.

"Mocking was not on my mind. I had hoped that my point, in the mouth of a Doctor of Divinity, might carry more ethos than my paltry contribution."

Hallyx, but the person who wrote the article clearly does not believe in God and certainly not in Jesus Christ, so his title of "doctor of divinity" is merely a disguise for he is what the Bible calls a wolf in sheep's clothing. We recognize his attempts at deception and reject them. I would more readily listen to your opinion because I know where you're coming from. You're not pretending to be something you're not. I might not agree with it, but I have no problem with you stating your opinion. I simply object when someone who appears to be an "expert" at Christianity, but in reality is working an agenda to destroy faith.

"My sole criticism is how a paradigm or belief effects my planet, it's creatures and, ultimately, us. Simply put, as I have put it before, any belief or praxis which cannot continue to be practiced even unto the seventh generation (American Indian ref) is unsustainable. ANY unsustainable practice is immoral."

It may surprise you, but I agree that our current practices must change. God gave mankind dominion over this planet and we've been terrible stewards over his gift. But the source of the problem is not in Christian beliefs, but in the sinful, rebellious nature of man which Jesus came to redeem and correct. It is man's greed and ignorance that has led to pollution and resource depletion (industry and capitalism), not the teachings of Jesus. If you're looking for a target to blame, perhaps self-centeredness and materialism better fit the bill. Some may try to excuse such sins by claiming the Bible gives them the right to do whatever they want to the environment, but they obviously do not follow Jesus, who's life was/is the epitomy of selflessness and asceticism. If Christians were to truly follow the teachings of Jesus, we would be the best friends the environment had.

Now, there is also the issue of why Christians frequently seem opposed to the environmental movement. The problem has been, IMO, twofold:

  1. Christians have avoided being associated with the environmental movement because it is frequently headed by those who worship nature which is a form of idolatry. In not wanting to be associated with idolatry, Christians have, unfortunately, avoided environmental responsibility and in effect thrown the baby out with the bath water.
  2. Christians are, in fact, understandably opposed to the underlying agenda of many in the environmental movement. If it were a simple matter of using resources more responsibly, finding and using non-fossil fuels, recycling trash, curbing/stopping water, ground and air pollution, then we could all come into agreement in our efforts to better manage our environment. But more is going on than just this. There are political and social agendas that are the true motivation of many environmentalists. For example, most environmentalists openly support population control through forced contraception and forced abortions ala China. If that wasn't bad enough, many even are willing to use war and deliberately-introduced disease and famine to satisfy their agenda to de-populate the world in order to maintain a level of population that is, in their opinion, more in tune with the level of resources the earth can sustain. Recently, Al Gore made a public statement to an environmental group promoting the concept of reducing world-wide population in order to "save the earth". THAT is the kind of thing that keeps Christians away.

    -- David (, April 20, 1999.

close ordered list . . .

-- David (, April 20, 1999.

Outstanding answer, David. I agree with you completely. We really do need to promote an authentically Christian environmental worldview. "Dominion" over nature must be cast along the lines of the servant-leadership of our Lord, not the despotic-dominance of a Khan. Some Christians have seen it more in terms of the latter, although I think that has been exaggerated. Ironically the very worst rapists of the environment in the history of the planet have been atheistic Marxists.

One thing Y2K has done for me is awaken me to greater urgency to 1) formulate a more coherent theory of sustainable living within a Christian worldview as well as 2) start living that way!

"a" wrote:

<< I still don't see what is wrong with accepting the reality of Jesus the myth. Why does it have to have been an actual event? >>

It does not "have to have been an actual event"...but it (or better, he) was an actual event so belief in Jesus the Christ corresponds to reality whereas belief in Jesus the Myth does not. That surely makes a difference.

Personally, if it was somehow demonstrated that Jesus the Christ was a myth (not sure how that would happen, given the intrinsic strength of the evidence) then I would become an orthodox Jew and continue waiting for the Messiah; in that regard my basic moral framework would not change all that much. That's what I would do, that is, if my psyche could actually sustain such a climactic paradigm shift.

Good thread.

-- David Palm (, April 20, 1999.

I thank my lucky stars every day that I am married to a kind, generous, smart, good natured man that feels no need to spout any kind of religion, but returns more to the earth than he takes from it, and doesn't worry about whether he is worshiping the Bible sanctioned god or any god at all.

-- gilda jessie (, April 20, 1999.

Davids --- one of the reasons for my visit with Critt next week is to discuss these sorts of ideas and, perhaps, to draft a short paper. To forum regulars, email me if you'd like to be kept abreast of this effort, tentatively to be titled, "Intentional Technology and the Economy of God". (Economy here used in its classical sense).

-- BigDog (, April 20, 1999.

I can believe that any single "holy man/prophet" might be mentally ill; and thus the teachings of Joseph Smith or Muhammad, for example, may be the result of that illness.

But we know that James, Andrew and Peter were ordinary fishermen who at different times in different places (Jerusalem, Asia Minor and Rome) independently of each other were willing to be killed rather than retract their utterly ridiculous story that they knew a fellow who rose from the dead (and a number of other things they all claimed to have witnessed).

I find their willingness to die rather than change their story to be convincing that they spoke their truth.

One more thing - It has become fashionable for intellectuals to say that the New Testament was hogwash written in the third century by Church leaders for their own purposes. They say that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but rather that his folowers experienced a significant spiritual moment which they could not put into words.

If that were true, do you think that all of those people would have willingly faced the lions in the Colisseum for the sake of a story they knew was not literally true?

-- GA Russell (, April 20, 1999.

What happened to the people facing the liions in the Colisseum was a mere blip compared to the following hundreds of years of wholesale, murder, torture, inquisitions, witch burning, hangings, book burnings, animal slaugher, crusades, library burnings, heretic burnings, the rack, and on and on, that plunged civilization into the dark ages after the Christians seized control and began their reign of Christian terror.

-- gilda jessie (, April 21, 1999.

Gilda, you are thoroughly brainwashed. What a load of horsehockey you served up there.

I supposed it's time for this thread to get shut down. As soon as religious bigots like Gilda start spouting nonsense like that it's time to move on. Sigh.

-- David Palm (, April 21, 1999.

Mr. Palm, didn't ya know? gilda is speaking from personal "past-life" experience when she mentions witch burning. Kinda explains the intense hatred she displays all over this forum.

-- historian (Puritan@Salem.mass), April 21, 1999.

"This is what you shall do: love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence towards people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown, re-examine all you have been told at church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem."--- Walt Whitman (Preface to the first edition of Leaves of Grass)

I am truly sorry, my Christian friends. My posting of Dr. Weiskel's essay was a sincere attempt at allowing a Christian viewpoint, admittedly at variance to the fundamentalist positions espoused by so many on this thread and on this forum. As there are so many flavors of Christianity, I'm unclear as to what the consensus belief really is. I would recommend Daniel Quinn's perspective---he was enrolled in seminary before his epiphany---but I doubt you could handle it. You can't seem to handle much of anything that isn't included in one, singular book--- the "Reader's Digest" of Christian thought---and your own personal interpretation, at that.

I've been apprised of a new revisionist interpretation of "multiply and subdue the Earth," one of stewardship towards God's creation. If I thought we, as a species, were smart enough and ethical enough, I might even support that. I regret that two thousand years of Christian metrics do not give me great cause for optimism in the efficacy of the Christian paradigm. Einstein pointed out the futility of attempting to fix a problem using the tools that caused it. I invite those of you who so love to quote scripture to enlighten me with biblical references relating to our responsibility toward our planet.

I find David Pacman's apologia refreshing but inadequate. True, there is more to this issue than recycling and responsible resource use. It's more than social and political agendas, as well. Bearing in mind Einstein's observation, I submit that nothing short of a major revision in worldview will have anything more than a perfunctory effect on our predicament.

David, dear friend, your perception of "most environmentalists" is so ignorant that I can only assume that it's willful. And, while we're on the subject, David Palm egregiously errs when he opines that, "Ironically the very worst rapists of the environment in the history of the planet have been atheistic Marxists." The USSR and China, the only major adherents of Marx, have never equaled the waste and resource consumption of predominantly Christian, Western civilization, perhaps exceeding our depredations only in nuclear pollution. My proofs were lost in a hard-drive crash, but I'm prepared to substantiate this if challenged. And I'm sure you understand that Communism (as currently practiced) is about as communal as Democracy (as practiced) is democratic. However, I do appreciate your understanding that one need not be a Christian to be a moral person. Not all believers are so magnanimous.

Mr. Russell, over the eons, countless millions have died in defense of lies or misinterpretations---as recently as the 1940's and 1970's---perhaps soon again.

I become even less optimistic when confronted by Christian hubris. I don't understand why you think your particular belief is any more Earth-friendly than that of the Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, or any other major sect---not to mention the Druids, Wiccans, Pantheists, animists and other Earth-centered ideologies and indigenous beliefs. What was your master's caveat about overweening pride that goeth before a fall?

(Allow me to pause for a moment while I heave a soul-wracking sigh at the dark irony of a religious-based culture that decimates hundreds of aboriginal cultures, destroying millions in the process, then whines about being persecuted.)

"Only two things threaten our existence: A breakdown of society as we know it. The continuation of society as we know it." --- Jan Blum

While certain few Deep Ecologists and Gaians may esteem the natural world above humankind, most environmentalists that I know are forthright enough to admit that their chief concern is the continuation of the species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. (Man Smart Smart. What other species would be that arrogant in naming itself?) And I fail to see how we might accomplish that while subscribing to the principal paradigm of the last 7000 years, particularly the last 2000.

David has inadvertently asked for my opinion. If you haven't punched your monitor yet in frustration and anger at my unconcealed sarcasm, unapologetically ventured above, I have included an essay, which I wrote thirty years ago in commemoration of the first Earthday. Perhaps it has even more poignancy and applicability today, as we approach Earthday '99.

"Of Mice and Men......and Humpback Whales"

We worry about the land, and we fret about the forest. We're concerned about the critters who call it home. Upset about the air we breathe, we complain and pester our government to do something, anything, please. Just make it better. And why do we profess to care for the planet and the other creatures with whom we share it? May I submit that we don't---not really.

All this whining and moaning about the state of our environment derives from fear. But not fear of mounting the last spotted owl and displaying it in a Museum of Natural History next to the last passenger pigeon. No one should be seriously aggrieved if our surf-line no longer features porpoises at play. Some people suggest that the millions of dollars being spent to reintroduce the California Condor into its natural habitat might better be spent on the homeless, schools or a cure for the common cold or hangnails. No, I'm afraid our recently acquired awareness and purported concern is less for the so-called environment than it is for our highly vaunted selves.

Humans subscribe to a plethora of "isms." Racism, sexism, classism are a few of the negative "isms" discussed daily in the media and among the public at large. Perhaps the most deplorable and environmentally destructive "ism" that we practice is one of which we are barely aware. We are so innocent and naive that we don't even have a proper title for it. And so, even though the word sounds contrived, with a paucity of euphony and rhythm, I would like to suggest "speciesism."

Now before you start thinking that this crackpot has forgotten who --- or more exactly, what --- he is, allow me to admit that every class, order, family, genera and species on this planet has the same fundamental lack of concern for all others. Its primary focus is on itself and on its personal and collective survival. Without this survival instinct we wouldn't have a biosphere to worry about and this paper could never have been written. Neither predator nor prey cares in the least for the welfare of the other---not lion nor gazelle, not falcon nor pheasant. Lack of environmental awareness has doomed hundreds of thousands of lifeforms to extinction and will, in all likelihood, condemn millions more. This is as it has been and is, arguably, how it ought to be.

Self-awareness is of course what primarily distinguishes human beings from animals. It is this delusion that we, in the arrogance of our species chauvinism, like to wrap around our shoulders like a child's blanket. Neither right nor wrong in a primal sense, this attitude engenders moral implications only when viewed through the metaphysical eyes of a self-aware species. And you know who that is.

So please, don't get all teary-eyed and maudlin about the demise of the Comodo Dragon. You needn't compose depressing lists of those little furry creatures whose imminent extinction effects you little, if at all. This is the way of Gaia. It has always been; will always be.

That feeling of foreboding is misplaced and misdirected. The planet will do just fine without whooping cranes and snail darters. It has before and will again. Endangered species send a message misread by those of the sapient persuasion. The foreboding we feel is for the simian, H. Sapiens, and rightfully so. It is an appropriate emotion for a species in our predicament---a correct and natural sentiment; other animals would feel this way if their consciousness allowed.

"At the end, we leave the world to the cockroaches and the kelp," quipped Buckminster Fuller, and they will sing no requiem for you. The California Condor despairs not of his dilemma; so why then should he care a whit for yours.

"And, therefore, never send to ask for whom the bell tolls...."

-- Hallyx (, April 21, 1999.

Thanks Hallyx.

-- a (a@a.a), April 21, 1999.

Thanks Hallyx, a good article. I'm glad "values and public policy" are being used in the same topic.

First, I did not think the Doctor of Divinity was trashing Christian beliefs. Second, I do think Christians are arrogant. Third, I think that David 1 & 2, rick and historian are typical Christians that hate anyone who dares to disagrees with them in a less gentle manner than Hallyx, a, and Big Dog.

According to David and historian, I'm a bigot, and was a burned witch in my "past life." That's Christians for you; always measuring others by their narrow, short yardsticks.

Frankly most Christians make me sick. All I have to do is think about what they did to the American Indians and I'm disgusted all over again. Just call me Red Jacket, who was as hostile toward Christians as I am. (No, I have no Indian ancestors.)

Here he is referring to missionary Cram, "The White people were not content with the wrongs they had done his people, but wanted to cram their doctrines down their throats."

Why should they care about the earth? All they've ever cared about is their precious souls so they can be saved, redeemed and achieve immortality. They've hurt every culture they've come in contact with. What business is it of theirs, or ours, how China handles her overwhelming population--nosy busybodies. As Red Jacket said, "These black coats talk to the Great Spirit, and ask for light that we may see as they do, when they are blind themselves and quarrel about the light that guides them."

Why don't you arrogant Christians read something besides the Bible and find out about truth and religion.. You might begin with Touch the Earth by T. C. McLuhan, The Last Days of the Sioux Nation by Robert M. Utley, The Missionaries: God against the Indians, by Norman Lewis, Missioinary Conquest:The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide, by George E. Tinker, for starters and end with Ishmael, by D. Quinn and Voice of the Planet by Michael Tobias.

You accuse me of hate. Look in the mirror.

-- gilda jessie (, April 22, 1999.

Hallyx , Thanks for the great Whitman quote. I love that one and the one about the animals.

Here's a line from Whitman for you Christians. "They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God."

Cheers from Witch Gilda, the godless gadfly!

-- gilda jessie (, April 22, 1999.

You do love to read one side of things, dontcha Gilda? I never waste breath on the anti-religious fundamentalist. Keep basking in your hatred of religion; maybe it'll keep you warm on cold post-Y2K nights.

Hallyx, I would really like to respond to your interesting posting above, especially your challenge to me. I'm not going to be able to for a while. Too busy with Y2K preps ;-D. If I never get around to it, well, let's just say that we have some disagreements but I appreciate the depth of your thought. I don't share your hopelessness about formulating an authentic Christian environmentalism. Getting people to embrace it, well, that's a different matter.

-- David Palm (, April 23, 1999.

I couldn't pass this up. Missionary activity among indigenous populations, that's anathema to Gilda. But forced sterilizations, forced abortions, infanticide, and selective destruction of female babies in the name of population control? No problemo! Only a religious busybody would have a problem with that.

Way to go, Gilda.

-- David Palm (, April 23, 1999.

Excellent point David! Who's really using the "narrow, short yardsticks" here?

Despite the very un-Christ-like actions of some men and women who have called themselves Christian over the centuries, historically, the church that has remained true to Christ has been the single greatest influence for promoting and implementing education, medical care, hospice care, food and clothing for the needy, caring for orphans and the aged, and charitable works of all kinds.

And if we're able to look into the mirror ladies, I suggest you do the same. Atheists, pagans and non-Christian religions have been responsible for far greater destruction and death than you're willing to admit. In the Sudan alone, 1.9 million Christians have been slaughtered in just the past 15 years by their Islamic countryman just because they were Christians. In this country, how many millions of unborn babies have been murdered in the name of Atheism the past 27 years (30-35 million)? How many tens of millions of deaths have been at the hands of atheistic communism in the Soviet Union and China alone? They even exceeded the horror of Hitler's occultic-based Holocaust. And pagan ancient Rome was no picnic for hundreds of cultures that were conquered and slaughtered.

With a history like that, how can you possibly fail to see the hypocrisy in your claims. Just remember, that whatever measuring stick you choose to use will be used on yourself as well.

-- David (, April 23, 1999.

I think that the person on earth that most exemplifies Goodness is the black forklift driver I read about in the paper last week that has donated a $1 million over his lifetime to charity. Now, I could never be such a person, because I have too many human traits like greed, jealousy, lust, etc. But this fellow gets off on helping other folks out, and says he doesn't need any fancy material things, just the basics. He's 78 and still works 12 hour days at Ford Motor Co.

I don't think it's all about worship and obedience to God and who's theologic ideology is correct. I think that, as the song by Jewel says, "in the end, only kindness matters."

I just wish I had it in me to be more like that forklift driver.

-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.

Oh, no, please don't start quoting Jewel! It really *is* time to shut down this thread.

-- madeline (, April 23, 1999.

David, and all you anti-abortion nuts, why don't you take your "murdered babies" crusade to the Randall Terry website. Now that man is a fine Christian. He said openly: "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it." Good old Terry, playing God.

Or maybe you prefer the Extremist Groups Anti-Abortion Violence Movement. If always amazes me that you pure, washed in the blood of the lamb folks, always worry about people before they are born, don't blink at shooting abortion doctors, rather than worrying about the living who are struggling to keep going.

a" that forklift driver is the ideal human. I donate a paltry amount to Environmental groups and Planned Parenthood, but I too could never be that good, although I admire the man.

The reasonable people, in the articles that Hallyx posted, are to be commended for searching for new, workable solutions to helping the environment and combining public policy.

-- gilda (, April 24, 1999.

As I said, no time wasted on bigots and anti-Christian fundamentalists. Hatred and mindless drivel is the greatest argument against itself.

-- David Palm (, April 24, 1999.

As I said, no [more] time wasted on bigots and Christian fundamentalists. Hatred and mindless drivel is the greatest argument against itself.

-- Hallyx (, April 25, 1999.

Gilda, being cognizant and protective of life in the womb does not in the least mean I support killing anyone. You seem too intelligent to actually believe such idiotic blather. Pro-life means pro-life. It is our desire to protect ALL life, including the lives of abortion doctors and their staffs. The actions of a handful of lunatics is no excuse to avoid confronting the real issue. Abortion kills babies.

My guess is that your words and beliefs are more of a defense mechanism for your conscience. If you can paint all pro-lifers as violent killers, you might be able to avoid having to deal with the fact that it is actually you who are the dealers of violent death. You cry for the handful of abortionists who've died over the years (as tragic as that is), yet think nothing of the millions of innocent lives they've violently snuffed out. You rage and rail against those who speak out to protect the babies from this horrible death, labelling them as killers. Can't you see? Your hatred for pro-lifers is an obvious projection in an attempt to avoid self-condemnation.

You may find it hard to believe, but most pro-lifers that I know diligently pray for abortion doctors and the mothers who are kiling their babies; that they would know the wrong they are doing; that they would repent and turn to God for mercy, forgiveness of sins and salvation. To me, that is the only solution to this abomination.

-- David (, April 25, 1999.

Well said, David. Gilda models well the truth in the saying (from Stalin, I think), "The death of one is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic."

Hallyx, I presume you're talking about a different thread, since here it is Gilda, the anti-Christian bigot, who has spouted all the hate; the Christians here have been opinionated, but cogent and decent.

-- David Palm (, April 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ