Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I was going to join the anarchists, but the rules were too harsh.

I would be happy to discuss these matters with you. Please. Small bites. If you ask too many questions all at once, or if they are too vague, it's difficult to respond. Please, be specific. Now then, how can I assist?

There is a similar American Indian story. Scorpion wants to ride on Frog's back, to cross a river. Frog is afraid that Scorpion will sting him. Scorpion persuades Frog. Halfway across, Scorpion does sting Frog and they both die. It was Scorpion's nature. Ideas get around. Or people discover the same truth in parallel.

A cautionary Buddhist tale. A young Buddhist monk was making his way through a snow covered wood. It was very cold. As the young monk was making his way through the woods, he heard a voice. "I'm dying. Please. Have compassion. Save me." The monk looked about and saw a snake, dying from the cold. "Save me" said the snake. "Bring me into your robe, before the cold kills me." "I can't do that" said the monk. "You will surely bite me. Then I will die from your poison." "Why would I bite You?" asked the snake. "Then we will both die." This reasoning appealed to the monk's idealistic nature. He placed the freezing snake inside his robe. The snake promptly bit him. As the monk lay dying, he asked -- "Why did you bite me? Now we will both perish". "I couldn't help myself" said the snake. "It's my nature."

1. I think you are trying to do too much with one word. "Respect." I respect you. I tolerate Dan. I endure Scripture. 2. You are an idealist. I like that about you. I don't agree with your conclusions. Understand the basic positions of a Fundamentalist. Not just Christian. Any Fundamentalist. A. He's right. B. You need correcting. That leaves small room for mutual respect. You might respect him. He will never respect you. That leaves appeasement. 3. You think the Fundamentalist wants to meet us in the middle of the bridge? He owns the bridge. It's his job to correct us. There is nothing mutual going on. The view is so much better, when I'm not on my knees, begging for the respect that will never be granted.

God can judge his heart. All I have is his words.

The New Testament is a collection of documents, put together by people with political agenda. Said agenda resulted in 2,000 years of persecution, which culminated in the Holocaust. Culminated may be the wrong word, since the same documents are still spreading their poison. This is about the time when someone insists that Jesus, his mother and the Apostles, were all Jewish, so Christian Scripture can't be antisemitic. This is also the time, when I'm told that the monsters who persecuted my ancestors were not true Christians. Generally about now, there is a challenge to show, from Scripture, that following the example of Christ is a bad thing. This leaves me with what? Arguing against the plausibility of the trial -- the same way I argue against the plausibility of Noah's flood? And a thousand other red herrings? It doesn't make a difference. It never makes a difference. The past lives on. I'm done with arguing the details and I'm done with kissing up. People who spout bigotry, find that quoting Scripture is a wonderful hiding place. Before I forget to mention it, my concerns do not stop with antisemitism. I'm also mindful of all the people who have been murdered, because they were accused of being witches. Not the same thing as being witches. Still going on in Christian Ghana. Or the people who were murdered or otherwise persecuted for the crime of being homosexual. Another on-going horror. None of it is going to go away with a clinical discussion about mythology, or a linguistic analysis of what was truly stated in Scripture. In the end, none of the excuses matter. And no. It is too late to censor Scripture. The harm is already done.

When you say bigoted things, you're a bigot. Stop hiding behind Scripture.

Normal? The ULC? Normal?

Feel welcome and please, join the other conversations.

The core of the Hebrew Scriptures is the first five "Books of Mosses". I would like to focus on the third. The Book of Leviticus. In other words, the Levitican priesthood. In Leviticus, there are extensive rules for the selection of sacrificial animals. More rules for how the animals are to be killed and then cooked. Who eats the sacrifice? The priests. In a society where meat is hard to come by, the priests eat well. There are other rules for grain sacrifice. How the grains are selected. How they are cooked. Who gets to eat the grain sacrifice. Again, the priests. The priests eat well. Among other things, Leviticus is a cook book. What are the other things we know about the priesthood? Being a farmer is a lot more work. Very hard, tedious work, with long hours. Being a soldier in the army is way more dangerous. Some things don't change. Soldiers have always been "grunts". It's good to be a priest. Since I lack piety, I have my own take on all this. The function of the Levitican priesthood, is to give the priests a better life than anybody else. In the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations -- that tradition is alive and well. I think it also holds true for much of Islam. Note please. I am being careful not to say "religion." It does no good to over generalize.

It's the productive part that I'm not getting. There comes a time when my own serenity becomes the priority. That is when I stop arguing. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but it has to want to change.

I understand what you are saying. It's valid. When someone tells me that I'm going to Hell, because I have not accepted Christ into my heart -- I find a one finger salute at least makes me feel better. There are times when turning the other cheek, will only get me the shaft up the center. I'm done with being respectful to the disrespectful. I find it to be a losing strategy. I lack sainthood. I have limits. It brings me small joy to hurt the feelings of a bigot, with rudeness. Sometimes, it's enough.

Just one obvious example for now. In America, we now have "marriage equality." How? Because gay people were wiling to hurt the feelings of bigots. Because they spoke up for themselves. Because they were willing to be "uppity" -- not know their place -- and even, to be rude. It's a good model for Atheists. The first step is coming out of the closet. The second step is not being afraid to get in the face of bigots.

I'm having difficulty untangling some of that. Smaller bites, please. I am frequently inconsistent. I do my best. When there are no good answers, I do the best I can. When I am confronted with bigotry and other forms of evil -- I do not have the God's eye view. I deal with what is in front of me -- filtered through my own understanding. It's not enough. It's what I have. Show me an oaf spouting antisemitism. I don't care if he is hiding behind Scripture. Scripture is the ultimate excuse to say hateful things. It is the same thing with people who oppose gay rights -- because the Bible said so. Or the Koran. We can prove anything we want with Scripture. Anything. Haters pick the verses that support their hate. People with love in their hearts focus on different verses.

I have discovered that a lot of people are so ignorant, it's staggering. If you say "questarian" -- people will think you are talking about horses. I know. It's stupid. Such is the state of things. A few years back, when I was using the Pantheist label, people got it confused with Polytheism. I also know how Atheism gets misunderstood. I still remember one party in particular. I was making casual conversation. I was asked what my religion was. I said "Atheist". The next thing I knew, I was getting lectured about mutual tolerance and respect. I also remember the time that I was shopping in my local grocery store. A classmate rushed up to me -- with her room mate -- and said -- "This is the Atheist I was telling you about." Like I was an exotic species. One of those jaw dropping moments that clings to my memory. Truly, I don't mind friendly conversation. I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy is getting dragged into stupid conversations by ignorant fools. Back to the thread. When I want to speak with intellectual precision, I say "Agnostic". I am Agnostic about God. I don't know. When I need to be so clear in my meaning, that the person I'm talking with will understand, I say "Atheist". I do not just mean Christian Fundamentalists. I have also had to resort to the Atheist label with Islamic oafs. Agnostic was too subtle for them.

We should not tell bigots that they are bigots? It might put them in a bad mood?

I have committed a serious error of omission. I should have denounced antisemitism, along with racism. "The Jews" ??? Your bigotry continues to astonish me.

We are getting into some complex things here. When people have harmed others, what does it count for to be forgiven by God? I am not confusing harm with violence. For instance, there is Bernard Madeoff, who has done harm beyond cataloging or calculation. He should feel like subhuman crap. He's lucky he wasn't sentenced to death by slow torture. Even that would have been so inadequate.

I think it was Mark Twain who said: "Always do the right thing. Your friends will be gratified. Your enemies will be astonished." Civility is important; If only to negotiate a peace treaty. For me, to respect someone, I need to feel at least neutral towards them. There are some people who should not receive respect. People who make plain that they are racists, or otherwise support persecution. Or the people who support their evil efforts. Respecting evil is not a virtue. No, meredog. I am not advocating violence. Only the withholding of respect.

Respect can also be lost.

When an expert tells me that someone else is more skilled -- I'm inclined to go with it.

Since you liked that, I have something else for you. One of the first things I learned in civil service. A parable for our times. This thread is about authority. The story of the Elephant and the Butterfly An elephant fell madly in love with a butterfly. Because he wasn't a complete fool, he thought there might be a few problems with the relationship. So he went to the wise old owl for advice. The wise old owl looked down from his perch and said -- "The answer is simple. You must become a butterfly." The elephant was very happy with this and went tripping off across the meadow. Then he started thinking about his advice. "Become a butterfly." What does that mean? "Become a butterfly." WHAT??? So, the elephant went back to the wise old owl for clarification. Again, the wise old owl looked down from his perch and said -- "I only set policy. I don't implement."

Respecting people is a great idea. The truth is, there are a lot of people that I don't respect, for various reasons. No matter how much the truth stinks, it is still truth. It's not in me to pretend respecting others -- when I don't. I also don't love everybody.

My first encounter with this saying, was at my job. It was about forty years ago when I was a civil service clerk. People would put little placards up on their walls. Placards like -- You want it when??? Searching my memory, I think it was -- If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull **. In the context of a civil service job, nobody talked about diamonds.