Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Code Huckabee – By Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post

Posted by truthtalklive on December 19, 2007


Code Huckabee

By Eugene RobinsonFriday, December 14, 2007;

Is the thought of Mike Huckabee as president just vaguely scary? Or have we learned enough about the man that we should be hair-on-fire alarmed at the prospect, still pretty remote, that he could actually win? True, none of his opponents for the Republican nomination inspires much confidence.  Read more…

48 Responses to “Code Huckabee – By Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post”

  1. Huckabee support team said

    This article is rubish. “women’s reproductive right”, evolution “scientific truth”, and assuming Mormonism doesn’t say “Satan and Jesus are brothers”?

    Lord, please allow Huckabee to be the Rublican candidate for U.S. president.

    He is obviously a better man than Hillary for the job 🙂

  2. Anonymous said

    Ann Coulter’s most recent column…

    December 19, 2007

    Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh’s review of Stan Evans’ book, this week’s column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

    To paraphrase the Jews, this is “bad for the evangelicals.”

    As far as I can tell, it’s mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

    The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn’t believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

    I went on a massive book tour for Godless just last year, including a boffo opening interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today,” a one-on-one, full-hour interview with Chris Matthews on “Hardball,” and various other hostile interviews from the organs of establishmentarian opinion.

    But I didn’t get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.

    If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can also name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have rejected Darwin’s discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.

    But they won’t ask us, because, unlike the cornpone, we won’t immediately collapse under gentle questioning. It’s one thing to be “easily led” by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

    Asked on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

    I don’t understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it’s a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions — as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism — does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

    Admittedly, the truth about Darwinism would be jarring in textbooks that promote other frauds and hoaxes, such as “man-made global warming.” Why confuse the little tykes with fact-based textbooks?

    Huckabee immediately dropped his alleged skepticism of Darwinism and turned to his main goal as president of the United States: teaching children more art and music. This, he said, was his “passion” because “I think our education system is failing kids because we’re not touching the right side of the brain — the creative side. We are focusing on the left side.”

    I think I know someone who has just read an article in Reader’s Digest about left brain/right brain differences!

    When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible’s rather pointed remarks about sodomy — fitting the MSM’s image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I’m usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.)

    And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court’s lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

    In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) — despite the allegedly hallowed principle of “stare decisis.” As explained in Godless, stare decisis means: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”

    Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays’ rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

    Lawrence was promptly denounced not only by Republican governors and Christian groups across the nation, but also by anyone with sufficient reading comprehension skills to see that the Constitution says nothing about a right to sodomy.

    But when Huckabee was asked about this jaw-dropping ruling from the high court, he said the majority opinion “probably was appropriate.”

    He made these remarks on his monthly radio show, “Ask the Governor,” as was widely reported at the time, including a July 3, 2003, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article titled, “Huckabee Says Sex Lives of Adults Not State Affair.” I stress that “Ask the Governor” was not a wacky, comedy-based, morning zoo-type radio program. It was supposed to be serious.

    Employing the ACLU’s “any law I don’t like is unconstitutional” test, Huckabee said he supported the court’s decision because a law “that prohibited private behavior among adults” would be difficult to enforce. Next he’ll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers “nonstarters.”

    How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage?

    Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Nope, Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking but thinks state laws banning sodomy are “probably” unconstitutional.

    Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a spirited dissent in Lawrence, joined by Justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, raising the somewhat embarrassing point that homosexual sodomy is not technically mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise, our Founding Fathers would have been our “Founding Life Partners.”

    Scalia said that inasmuch as the Texas law furthered “the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity,” the court’s ruling placed all these laws in jeopardy.

    Most important, Scalia said: “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.” At least no court has tried to legalize gay marriage since that 2003 ruling, so we can be grateful for — Hey, wait a minute!

    Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but he supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a “constitutional right” to gay marriage. I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

    No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.


  3. Brad said

    Much is made, and rightly so, of Huckabee’s vocation as a Baptist minister and his promise that his actions as president would be in accord with his fundamentalist beliefs. “My faith is my life — it defines me. I don’t separate my faith from my personal and professional lives,” he says on his campaign Web site.

    I’m glad – it will be refreshing to have someone in office who’s faith actually DOES guide what he does, a person with a faith like mine, and certainly not a Mormon or Muslim faith. I’m glad that his faith DOES define him.

    The truth is, though, that as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee didn’t behave like the theocrat he makes himself out to be. His absolute reverence for human life didn’t stop him from enforcing the death penalty, for example.

    Robinson apparently can’t see the difference between reverence for human life, and punishment in place by law for people who have no reverence for human life. I don’t think Huckabee would be a fan of murdering anyone, but I think in his mind (as in mine), he can make the clear distinction between murder and the death penalty for those who do murder. The Bible says “Thou shalt not murder”, not “thou shalt not kill”. Big difference. But I don’t expect Robinson to know it.

    I do believe that if he became president he would do everything in his power to deny women the right to reproductive choice, and that alone is reason enough to fear his emergence as a legitimate contender.

    Good – I hope if he does become president, that he is able to implement laws that would completely restrict abortions, the horrible and irresponsible procedure that they usually are. Women already have the innate right to reproductive choice – get pregnant, or don’t get pregnant. What they do have, but shouldn’t, is the right to end the living being’s life, once they get pregnant but don’t really want to be. You know what, should have thought of that BEFORE you got pregnant. It is society’s way of letting women not have to be responsible for their actions with their bodies. I’m all in favor of a president who will try to stop it.

    It would be ridiculous, in this day and age, to have a president who completely rejects evolution, saying to those who disagree, “If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that.” But at least he pledges not to try to keep schools from teaching accepted scientific truth.

    I’m beginning to think less and less of Robinson. I completely reject evolution, as do many people. I don’t consider that ridiculous, I consider that Christian and informed. The fact that Robinson appears to accept evolution, gives us a lot of insight into where he’s coming from, I think. I’m glad for a candidate who doesn’t believe in evolution.

    Huckabee’s religious certainty would be problematic — possibly even disastrous — if he were to let it dictate his official actions.

    I hope he DOES let his religious certainty dictate his actions. Robinson is free to move out of the country, if he would like.

    He apologizes later — as he did this week for his false suggestion that Mormons believe Satan is Jesus’s brother — but by then, of course, the damage is done.

    It’s not a false suggestion, Eugene. They actually believe that. I know it seems like it’s too strange to really be true, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

    Huckabee could easily allay fundamentalist voters’ qualms about Romney’s beliefs, or at least put them in context. He chooses not to.

    That doesn’t strike me as a very Christian way for an ordained minister to behave.

    He could allay the qualms, if he believed they were ill-founded. However, he doesn’t (as I don’t), b/c he knows better, he knows there are real, doctrinal differences, and that they are night and day. In context, it still makes no difference, b/c the differences still don’t disappear. I’m not sure what strikes Robinson as un-Christian, but to me, exposing other religions to be false isn’t anything un-Christian.

    But, if you want to base your comments on what a mis-informed Eugene Robinson has to say, more power to you.

  4. Mike Sears said

    “But at least he pledges not to try to keep schools from teaching accepted scientific truth.”

    These kind of statements (“accepted scientific truth”, “Evolution is proven fact”, etc.) are totally false and irresponsible, but are very common in the market place of ideas. And people call “Bible believing Christians” fundamentalist extremists!

    Putting religious beliefs and Bible teaching aside for a moment, good science practice always challenges current theory and ideas. Yet the “fundamentalist evolutionists” cry foul whenever anyone challenges their theories and sadly much of the general public has bought into this lie. They falsely associate evolution theories as being on the same level of “provability” as “gravity” and other “testable” theories. Even the judge in Kansas was convinced of this lie.

    When will the scientific community take a stand for TRUE science and stop bowing to the “Evolution Extremists”? To bring Bible TRUTH back into the picture, they are simply “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:18-22

  5. Fred said

    I agree with everything in Mr. Robinson’s column. Thanks for letting us read it.

    Happy Winter Solstice Everyone!


    P.S.- Science (Natural Philosophy) is not, and does not claim to be what Coulter, Mike Sears, Brad, etc. would have us think it is. I think they desire more to disseminate the propaganda of their minority religious and political agendas than to challenge any scientific hypotheses.

  6. Fred said

    Mr. Moderator, did the author of POST #2 have permission to post an entire copyrighted essay on this blog? If not, what is the blog’s policy towards redistributing copyrighted material?



    P.S. – I know it’s not my job to bring these things to your attention, and really I usually wouldn’t butt in, but… Ann Coulter? Surely you agree that this was an extenuating circumstance?

  7. We can post articles and reference the source. There are tons of sites out there that do that. This comment containing Coulter’s column is a diffrent scenario. It’s relevant to the discussion, however. We’ll check into it.

  8. Mike Sears said

    “I think they desire more to disseminate the propaganda of their minority religious and political agendas than to challenge any scientific hypotheses.”

    You obviously miss the point Fred. Or you are judging my motives without any basis for doing so. Make a point or share some basis for disagreement and we can reasonably explore it, or you can just continue with your judgemental accusations and I will just ignore them. Merry Christmas!! Mike

  9. Fred said

    Mike, must we derail another thread? Your statements in POST #4 demonstrate my point, which you obviously didn’t get, that your side (fundamentalist conservative Christians) regularly misrepresent the body of human endeavor we call science. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Ho Ho Ho,

  10. James said

    The fact that Huckabee is rising in the polls because of his religion shows the ignorance of the people supporting him. Huckabee isn’t running on his record, he is running on his religion which makes him no more qualified than me. Huckabee has no solution to abortion and he has no record to run with on taxes and spending. Every “pro life” person needs to read the following article…http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm

    Also, check out http://www.lulu.com/content/1526654, and check the “BOOK PREVIEW”

  11. Brad said


    Depends on what you think “qualifies” a person to run for office, and the particular characteristics you are looking for when voting. You are free to choose whatever candidate you want, based upon whatever criteria you want. If we have differences in criteria, I might very well think that you are also “ignorant”, as you say, just as you might think I am “ignorant” for judging on different criteria. I much prefer a person of like religion and moral viewpoints, with not so strong a record, to someone with maybe a stronger record, but not like religion.

    But that’s just me – your mileage may vary.

  12. Mike Sears said

    Ok Fred, then please give me some basis for the point you are attempting to make. Since you know what my motives are, please give me a clue as to what you think they are and why. Tell me, what would I have you think science is?

  13. Fred said

    Mike, I can only refer you to your own and others’ comments that make statements contrary to what an understanding of the modern scientific method teaches us. I only guessed at your motives.

    I’ll take another guess and say that you would consider Ken Ham’s answersingenesis.org to be a scientifically correct alternative to more mainstream science websites such as talkorigins.org? Or that you would have some sort of Intelligent Design pseudo-science included in Biology class?

    The scientific community is virtually unanimous in discrediting fundamentalist Christian designs to include Intelligent Design, and Biblical Creationism as accepted scientific hypotheses.

    Anyways, I hope you know that as I take exception to what you say in some of your posts that I do so in good humor as I understand you do?

    Merry Xmas!


  14. John said

    Happy Winter Solstice,or Yule as we call it, to you too Fred.
    We’ll burn the log tonight.
    As for the topic at hand, I don’t think any of them are trustworthy.The very act of becoming a politician is self-corrupting.They may start out O.K.,but by the time these people have reached the point of being a senator they have had to compromise their personal principals so much that the end result is a personality that you wouldn’t trust with your bank account,let alone office.They are just big salesmen.
    Sorry if I offended anyone here who’s a salesman.

  15. Scott said

    Hey, wait a minute, John. I’m a salesman. You’ve offended the dignity of my…of my…of my…oh well, you’re right. Happy Yule!

  16. Mike Sears said

    While you are incorrect in claiming the unanimity of the “majority” of the scientific community, as well as guessing my motives, you have also bought in “hook, line, and sinker” to the lie that evolution is a proven fact and should not be questioned. If you go back and read every single post I have made, you will not find a single one in which I claim we should be teaching creationism or intelligent design in the science or biology classrooms. That is not my point or purpose at all.

    Like I said in previous posts, it is irresponsible and NOT science to make claims of purpose or lack of purpose in regards to life processes like many evolutionary “so called scientists” do. There are text books that make such claims. It is also irresponsible to completely ignore the huge gaps in the fossil record, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the degenerative process of mutations while claiming that the evolution process has been proven. That is just pure out and out ignorance. I am all for healthy research without an agenda! While I would agree that there are many creationists with an agenda, there are also (way too many) evolutionists with an agenda. I have read enough to know the philisophical underpinnigs of the Stephen Gould’s, Julian Huxley’s of the science world.

    Here is a quote from the forward of Darwins “Origin of Species” 100th anniversary edition, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation
    which is unthinkable.” (Keith, Arthur, forward to 100th anniversary
    edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, 1959)

  17. Fred said

    Mike, go to any non-fundamentalist university Biology department in the world and present your Theory of Special Creation to the assembled scholars and demand your sheepskin.

    Otherwise, give me credit for not being a complete dolt.


    P.S. The quote you gave us is false. Google it.

  18. Jeff said


    I googled it and found nothing stating that quote was a hoax. Do you have a more specific link? I’m not saying one way or the other, but it would be nice to know.

  19. Mike Sears said

    Where have I said anything about making a case for or claimed a theory creation? NO WHERE. Do you actually read what I write or do you just assume that I am a fool because I believe in God? All I am saying that it is irresponsible and ignorant to claim evolution is proven fact when it simply is not. There are too many holes in the theory for anyone to responsibly claim it as fact.

  20. John said

    Where’s MonkeyMan when you need him, eh?[grin]

  21. Fred said

    Mike, why does every Biology department in every non-fundamentalist university in the world accept Darwin’s Origin of Species as a landmark of scientific study? Why do they all disagree with you? Do they all have it wrong? Is it a vast conspiracy? No, Darwin’s theory is accepted because it best explains the origin of species scientifically!

    The National Academy of Sciences says in a passage from their upcoming book, Science, Evolution and Creation:

    “In the book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution…”

    Again, from the the N.A.S. website statement to the Kansas Board of Education:

    “Based on compelling evidence, the overwhelming majority of scientists and science educators accept evolution as the most reasonable explanation for the current diversity of life on earth and the set of processes that has led to this diversity.”

    Link to NAS: http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

    Hope this helps!


  22. Fred said

    Jeff, did you find that quote? Must I do yours and Mike’s homework, too?

    Oh, alright, here:


  23. Mike Sears said

    Check this guy out Fred

  24. Anonymous said

    Mike, I agree with the sentiments expressed in that brief interview with Dr. Collins. Do you? It would be jolly to end up agreeing with each other about something!

    I wish all here a Joyous holiday season!


  25. Jack said

    All you guys (generic expression for men and women) are college types right? It makes me feel good to see that my brain is still onpar with you, at least in that, I have the ability to do critical thinking which you can’t express.
    The Hubble telescope hasn’t found city lights 100 million light years out yet right? What are the odds if life just happens given infinite time and space.
    2008 years ago God sent his son to earth and gave us a perfect way to have a perfect society.
    The belief in a just God verses the concept that “the strong should revel in cruelty, and the weak are obligated to die” is easy for me. And as clear as a sunny day!!
    This election has been laid out in such a way that the Christian vote has been painted into a corner.
    The RNC’s Carl Rove isn’t a hero to me. And George Soros has his finger prints all over this one too.
    Huckabee is enjoying a bump only because we (Christians that take their faith seriously, doesn’t think rich people should have to pay more to drive on the same road as me,believe that we should promote that which make our society better and fight that which weakens it ) have no where else to turn. as it stands now I’ll be up on a ridge enjoying Gods beautiful handy work Nov 2.

  26. Mike Sears said

    Yes I do agree! Science is a wonderful tool for revealing more of the glory of God through His creation. Be Blessed! Merry Christmas!

  27. ADB said

    Psalm 19 has these magestic words- “the heavens declare the glory of the Lord, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” I really don’t enjoy debating creation, but since Mike mentioned it, I had to toss in one of my favorite portions of scripture.

    Seasons greetings NOT! Happy Holidays NOT!
    Have a great Christmas!

  28. MonkeyMan said

    MonkeyMan here…….

    I’m currently reading through my sister-in-laws old Biology text book. It is a 1990’s edition. Interesting reading. I’m noticing that it shows no true evidence for what is coined “macro-evolution” or molecules to man evolution, or fish to mammal evolution. It give hypothetical examples of macro-evolution, then throws in true examples of “micro-evolution” to somehow show that macro-evolution is on the same level.

    Appears this textbook has an agenda….. 🙂 dare I say it is indoctrinating, not teaching.

    It also gives a “pre-Darwin” belief system and a “post-Darwin” belief system. Before Darwin was a young-earth creationist belief system. After Darwin came the old-earth evolutionary belief system. Darwin was influenced by strong atheists/agnostics including his own father and grandfather. Dare I say Darwin had an agenda as well 😦

    One last thought. This textbook gives the “origin of life” theory of the modern day – Read this “Today we do not believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife, and we say that “life comes from life.” But if this is so, how did the first form of life come about? Since it was the very first living thing, it HAD to come from nonliving chemicals.” pg 333 – Biology 5th edition, 1996, Sylvia S.Mader

    Now, that my friends is indoctrination. They’re not coming right out and saying “there is no God” but lets read it with understanding. That is exactly what is being pushed on our children. At least we fundamentalist young-earth creationists teach both sides of the issue. Even with our bias, we’re still allowing reason and thought to come into the equation.

    Also, the quote from the “Origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” is legit. There are also quotes from Bozarth and Dawkins that attest to this same belief – if evolution is false, the only alternative is special creation by a Deity. And that is a NO-NO!!!! 🙂

    And, Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night……….


  29. John said

    You wimped out on me on the “Combating the lie of Evolution” site, MonkeyMan.
    Would you like to try and go back for round two?[Toothy grin]

  30. Mike Sears said

    Thought this might be of interest. It’s about that “horrible” practice of praying in the name of Christ, or any other name. I believe that we will prevail in NC in the same way. Time will tell. Merry Christmas! Mike




  31. MonkeyMan said


    Actually I’ll just ignore you. You are what I would term “willing ignorant” according to Romans 1. It is also said of you “they went out from us, because they were not of us.” You once believed the Christian God was the true God, yet have walked away from Him. You purposely deny/reject Him, instead accepting a god created in the image of man sustained by the religion of paganism.

    It is clear to me based on your past posts that you will not accept Jesus Christ as the One True God no matter how much evidence is given. You accept evolution as fact, yet evolution is unprovable. And the core of evolution is a denial of any deity, including paganistic/wiccan gods.

    So, did I wimp out? Nope. I just understand your motives. You seem to be a man well-read. If, and I do mean if, you are seeking truth, there is more than enough information on the web and I believe my God is powerful enough to reveal the truth to you. There are many former atheists and wiccans that can attest to this truth – yet Christian Scripture tells us that there are few that find the Truth. Not because of God but because of their own desires and self-love.

    You say wicca/paganism is the oldest religion. Yet, is religion what man needs? No Christian has religion. Our God is the only God who’s tomb is empty and the evidence for this fact is overwhelming. Our God is the only God who lives today. That is why I do not believe you were ever a believer in Jesus Christ. I’ve been on the agnostic road. And to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is far better than a life without Him. No matter what, He is King of kings and Lord of all creation.

    For Christ my Creator and Savior,

  32. John said

    I think that you and King Thomas should get together and go bowling sometime[smile].You sound only slightly more rational.Like when you said above “You once believed the Christian God was the true God…”, and then said “…I believe you were never a believer in Jesus Christ.” Does this actually make sense to you?Because it sounds like a contradiction to me.
    I never claimed that Wicca[notice the uppercase W. Or were you just trying to be disrespectful?] was the oldest religion,as that title belongs to a 700,000 year old African python cult.So far.You should also know that I don’t disbelieve in the existence your Christian God or Jesus Christ.Only that Christianity is the only one way for everyone in the whole universe.That’s one of the freedoms of being polytheistic.
    But you wouldn’t know anything about stuff like that, I guess.

    You are a v e r y p o o r theological test subject and scientific and theological theorist.If you are too ignorant to answer my questions,if you don’t have what it takes to go one on one with me in a debate on this or related topics, then all you had to do was say so, MonkeyMan.

  33. Summer said

    And should you decide to change your mind…..we’ll be waiting.

  34. MonkeyMan said


    See, your presupositions are what I consider error – 700,000 yr old python cult. I have been asking atheists and evolutionists this question for years – How do you know humanity is over 100,000 yrs old? And being a “polytheist” how can you consider one religion a “cult” and your religion not a cult?

    I have no need to debate you concerning evolution. Even staunch atheists laugh at you for you are a religious person seeking to adhere to an atheistic dogma. You should really read some of G.Richard Bozarth’s writings.

    Also, what do you say about Jesus Christ? Good man, moral teacher, prophet, etc.? Was He really resurrected? If so, does that prove any thing?

    And for my words, forgive me – It should have read “You say you once believed….” and “I believe….”

    Ignorance is bliss, so they say. I have answered you repeatedly concerning most of your questions. Yet, as I stated in my last post and as you just stated. I don’t believe you are seeking truth. You are simply using us as “test subjects”.

    You are a “polytheist” by your own admission. Then you have no right nor authority to condemn or question my concept of God – specifically a God who specially created the universe no more than 8,000 yrs ago and did this during a literal creation week of six 24hr days, resting on the 7th.

    I have given quotes from atheists, websites from young-earth Creationists. Yet, you are on the evolutionary side – a belief in only one so-called absolute “There is NO God.” A dogma attested to by every hardcore evolutionist. So, either you are ignorant of the true meaning of evolution. Or you are so much in distain for Christianity that you will believe anything that somehow gives doubt to its authenticity.

    Again, the web is full of information. Lee Strobel even has a new book and DVD out regarding Christ and His resurrection. He even deals with other religious teachings concerning their gods “virgin” births and “resurrections”.

    The evidence is there. The issue is how do we interpret it. Do we interpret it based on our presupositions or do we interpret it based on the evidence itself and the facts?

    Merry Christmas John…… & Summer,
    Don’t be bitter. You have your gods/goddesses/magic, etc. Heck, you can even incorporate all other deities into your polytheistic beliefs. Can’t go wrong with that………Or can you?

    Reminds me of Acts 17 and Paul’s dialogue with the athenians on Mars Hill. Read how he answered the polytheists of his day.

    To the God who is, who was, and is to come, be glory forever,

  35. F. L. A. said


  36. John said

    Indeed.We are not bitter MonkeyMan, only disappointed.In you.
    If ignorance is bliss, then you must be orgasmic.T.T.F.N., MonkeyMan.[grin]

  37. MonkeyMan said


    Merry Christmas to you too. Didn’t mean to discriminate against any “W”iccan’s.

    The bottom line is there are those who post here because they have anger in their hearts toward the Christian God, Jesus and His followers.

    Yet, where is your evidence to disprove Christ’s resurrection or the accuracy of the Bible? No other miracle by any other religious leader can stand up to the skeptics. No other religious writing can stand up to the skeptics.

    We don’t even have to go to the Bible to verify these claims. Just read some non-Christian writings from the past concerning Christ and the Bible. Again, these are noted in Strobels new book and DVD.

    It’s not about who’s religion is older, or even who has more followers. It’s about which Deity is real and alive and which(in southern slang) ain’t.

    Wiccan deities have no power, nor are they alive. They neither create nor sustain life. You attribute your being here to some evolutionary theory that is unprovable, that denies the very deities you worship.

    Yes, I will believe in Who helps me get to sleep at night. For Christ is Creator of all and Lord of all. He is my life and my hope. His birth was miraculous, His death likewise, His resurrection beyond compare – and yet, He did something even greater – He gave me a new life in Him – Colossians 3:4, II Corinthians 5:17, John 3:15-18.

    The core of my belief makes me dogmatic and absolute concerning some of my beliefs. Especially concerning Deity, evolution, and authority. Thus I can state emphatically what I believe and why I believe it. As Christians, we should be consistant with the Scriptures we uphold as accurate. Sadly, we have some poor examples in Christiandom.

    Wiccans cannot be dogmatic about anything – being polytheists, you cannot deny my concept of God nor can you judge me as narrow-minded or extreme. To do that would be to have an absolute, which is contradictory of polytheism. You are relative in your understanding of truth – which goes back to my comments on the other thread “combatting evolution”. The only absolute you can claim is that there is no absolutes, which in itself is an absolute statement. What a tangled web we can weave when we deny absolute truth, and then try to put forth our “truth” as an authority on truth.

    All I can say is: “Read the manual before starting to assemble the product.” In other words, read the Bible in search of truth and the meaning of life. Not to somehow disprove it, which you will not do.

    Happy Holidays if it makes you feel better,

  38. F. L. A. said


  39. MonkeyMan said

    Feliz Navidad!

  40. John said

    MonkeyMan, you’re the very definition of “wishful thinking”.
    In addition to what I typed in post #36, you also have our pity.I could explain why, but you’d never get it.There are so many things that you will never experience, so many quality people that you will never meet, so many things that you’ll never learn and know.You may even be happy about that in some weird way.
    Where ever you got your ideas about Wicca, polytheism, and theistic evolution[along with the sciences],you where misinformed.Do you really wish for me to answer all of your questions in reply #34? If so, then I would be happy to.
    If not then that’s fine too.We actually need people like you in the world,whether you believe it or not.

  41. the Paulinian said

    John, I definately believe you need people like me(Christians) in the world.

    I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions in #34.

    While you’re at it, if you would give me your definitions of Wicca, polytheism, science, and theistic evolution.

    Do I know any Wiccans personally? No, I don’t. Have I always been a Christian? No, I haven’t. I was for most of my life what I would term a theistic evolutionist. While at the same time dabbled in typical American agnosticism.

    Am I missing out by not knowing a Wiccan? Can’t say for sure. But I do know we would have some very interesting sometimes heated conversations. Ultimately, it is a heart issue concerning Jesus Christ. That is the core of all divisions among religions. We, Christians, uphold a Biblical understanding of Jesus. All the religions hold Him in a different light. Either the Bible is right and y’all are wrong, or y’all are right and the Bible is wrong.

    – MonkeyMan

  42. John said

    I was not referring to Christians in general, I meant we need people like YOU, MonkeyMan, or The Paulinian, whichever you prefer.A person with your mindset.Don’t ask[grin].I also wasn’t talking exclusively about Wiccans or other pagans,when I used the words “quality people”.Anyway, because I type very,VERY slow and almost never give short answers, you may have to get your answers in “parts”,especially since I’m going out of town tomorrow afternoon till next Tuesday.So….

    I was one zero off[never was very good at numbers]. It was 70,000years old.And I called it a “cult” because that’s how it was described by the archaeologist who did the study.I could just as easily call it “religion”, but I wanted to try and stay true to the story.So you see, me being a polytheist had nothing to do with it. Being that these ancient python-deity worshipers were both pagans AND shouldn’t exist anyway, in your 8,000 year old version of the universe[it takes longer than that just to make petroleum!No wonder you can’t accept macro-evolution.There wouldn’t be enough time.How did you come by this figure of 8,000 years?I thought most fundamentalists thought it was 6,000 years.], what do you care about them for anyway?I know that mankind has existed for over 100,000years[although they weren’t very much like men as we know them today, mind you.]because we have bones and artifacts from these time periods,according to the modern scientific dating techniques.Techniques for dating that you won’t believe, anyway.Atheists laugh at you even louder, and why should I care what arrogant Atheists laugh over anyway? As I told you on the other site, evolution is only atheistic if you WANT IT TO BE.And I think that you do.In this since you’re just as bad as the atheistic scientists that you condemn,because you[accidentally?] both promote the same view of humanity and evolution.I have read the writings of G. Richard Bozarth.
    That’s some of that “flawed”,scientific biasness that I told you about on the other site.Scientific impartiality, remember?The sites that you’ve recommended don’t have any, either. As for Jesus Christ, I think that he was all of those things, and the son of a God too.But only for one part of the world.At least originally.
    You don’t think I’m seeking truth?Not YOUR truth for myself,as it’s not for my kind, but I am still interested in learning about it from other peoples perspectives.I learn about and study all theologies.Why do you think that I’m here, anyway?Just to heckle the posters?It’s not JUST for amusement, you know.That’s only 1/3rd of the reason[smile].I’ve got to go now and eat things,and may not return this night[gotta get ready for that trip], but in a few days I’ll be back to finish answering the rest of your questions.So I bid you all a good night and weekend.

  43. John said

    Well, I’m back now. shall I finish, or is this “old hat” and nobody cares anymore?
    Nothing was posted in response to my last post, so it seems this way.Oh well, who cares.I don’t.

  44. MonkeyMan said

    “As for Jesus Christ, I think that he was all of those things, and the son of a God too.But only for one part of the world.At least originally.”

    John, lets skip through the rest of your post and get to this quote above.

    You think that Jesus was “Good man, moral teacher, prophet, etc. He really resurrected.” – post #34

    And even the son of “a” God. But where did this God come from and where did you get your understanding of Him? Considering this is Jesus Christ we are referencing, shouldn’t we get our understanding of Him from the writings specifically about Him – ie the Bible?

    How can Jesus be a good man if the Biblical account of His life is inaccurate?
    How can Jesus be a moral teacher if what He taught was error?
    How can Jesus be a prophet if what he fortold didn’t occur?
    What point was there in Him dying and being resurrected if He is just one way to one God among many other ways and deities?
    And if he is just the son of a God, then why was He so narrow-minded in His teachings?

    Tell me, how can you accept Jesus as one thing, yet deny the very words He spoke? Either He is who He said He was, or He isn’t. Either He is a liar, lunatic or Life. There is no middle ground with Jesus Christ.

    According to the Bible, He is not only Son of God and son of man – He is Creator of Heaven and earth, Maker of all that is and sustains all by the power of His might. Yes, Jesus being God is very narrow-minded and will not share His glory with no other deities.

    See, the issue goes far beyond creation/evolution. Ultimately, it is an issue of what will we do with Jesus Christ.

    – MonkeyMan
    happy new year everyone!

  45. John said

    Hello again, MonkeyMan.Have it your way, although you’re really just wasting time playing this dualistic Christian mind game with a pagan monster like me. Unless you’re just using this to test me as a theological test subject, you will not be satisfied with my answers.Not at all.And I’ll have to keep my answers short,as I have much to do, so sorry about that.
    Anyway, my understanding of Jesus Christ comes from what I’ve read about him in the various bibles and other related religious articles,books, and tracts.as far as I am concerned,in my opinion, the person that we know of as Jesus Christ SEEMS to be a best of breed, all around great guy, as far as humans go,anyway.Whether he was insane or not is anyones guess, and this possibility does not cancel out the possibility that he was what others claimed him to be.Theology and insanity often go hand in hand, you know.Notice that I said in the above sentence “…what others claimed him to be.” There in lies the big problem concerning people of such great antiquity,….especially if they left behind no physical evidence of any kind, and made claims of divinity, and had nobody to vouch for his existence until they decided to finally write his life story down loooonnng after his death, when they realized that he was not coming back anytime real soon.We know of Jesus through the writings of others, his closest friends, who helped to create the Bible[Which I might add, is about the most copied,rewritten,edited, and rewritten collection of stories in the world].I have it in 17 different versions,remember?This throws everything into suspicion. And yet you make the bible and Christian doctrine sound absolutely infallible, even though you have been disagreeing with fellow Christians like JaSOn[Sorry Jason, I forgot that special way that you spell your name] on another site as “The Paulinian” about how to interpret the theology. What I guess I’m trying to get at here is that although I believe in the possibility of Jesus being real, and the son of a Middle Eastern God, I have doubts that he was everything that others made and continue to make him out to be.Even his closest friends couldn’t agree on everything that he said and did. Have you never, ever, wondered about these matters as a Christian? I’m not even sure if he actually existed, but I’d like to think that he did.Almost every great legend has a grain of truth in it somewhere.This is how a Witch can believe in the person of Jesus Christ, and yet not be a follower of him.Also remember that,according to history[real history],Christianity and Judaism were not the first theologies in the world.Before it was yours, it was ours.And this is no big deal, really,from the perspective of one such as myself.I bring this up only to try and help you understand that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, that your horrible concept of Original Sin, belongs exclusively to your theology, which was born within the Middle East and has since spread across the globe.I’ve got to go now MonkeyMan, but if you wish we can discuss this some more at another time, although it may be a little while before I respond back.

  46. MonkeyMan said

    There is no need to continue our discussion. You have made it clear to me that religion is whatever man can come up with to get himself through the day. I must say that if what you say is true, then I understand exactly what atheists are saying. Yet, what you are saying is not true. Whether you have the Bible in 17 versions or not, the issue is Jesus Christ – to you He is a legend and great example. But, you are basically calling Him a liar, or at least His followers who “wrote” the Bible “loooong” after His death. Considering His life and death was prophesied “looong” before His birth disputes your accusation.

    There is too much evidence to the contrary of what you believe concerning Jesus Christ. I was not always a Christian, not even brought up in a Christian home. To me the evidence was overwhelming, and I was a skeptic myself.

    Take care John.
    – MonkeyMan

  47. John said

    As if I didn’t know that Jesus was a Jew.
    I told you that you would not like my answers, but then I never really cared to try and change your mind about anything, anyway.
    I like keeping people like yourself exactly the way you are.
    But you DID ask. Hopefully Mr.Sears got what he wanted out of this [very short] discussion between the two of us.
    Take care of yourself, MonkeyMan.

  48. Mike Sears said

    Probably is best to keep it short as neither one of us takes the other seriously or believes that anything we type is going to change what the other believes? Although I do enjoy reading your posts. Go prepare that soil for a good harvest to come. Happy tilling! Mike

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: