Oh frabjous day

bite them in the tukhus, sorry>

Socially conservative Democrats?

Don't believe it! Thought they drummed those guys out of the party years ago!

Dems got the House and Pelosi's the Majority Leader now. Sure as Heck aint no social conservative there.

Senate's still GOP! Was expecting a Dem clean sweep. Didn't happen. Gawd, here it comes! Dems are gonna scream "Voter fraud" again...>

Rod, The next two years will be a very a rude awakening for you. A Dem controlled Congress will not be a more conservative Congress. Mark my words, two years from tonight you will be beseeching your readers to put in the GOP.

Be careful what you wish for . . .>

From The Dallas Morning News Webpage:

Voters swept aside years of Republican domination in Dallas County on Tuesday, electing the county's first black district attorney, dumping the favored Republican county judge and giving dozens of GOP judgeships to Democrats. The upheaval was probably a surprise for many Republicans, including Dallas County Judge Margaret Keliher, who lost a squeaker to Democrat Jim Foster.

Can the blame/reason for this be laid squarely at Bush's feet? I think maybe.>

Hate to agree with Palmer, but I do. The national Dem party is as socialist as ever, and a couple of "conservative" freshman congress critters is not going to make a whit of difference in the national party.

Nice work for the Dems. Good times ahead for Islamists and tyrants the world over.>

"I think this is just wishfull thinking on the part of conservatives on a very bleak day for conservatives."

Palmer, I think you're wrong here but not because I think Will is necessarily right. Many of the conservatives who chose either to sit this one out or in some instances to vote Dem, did so because they felt that their GOP candidates weren't conservative ENOUGH. I know several folks personally who had that opinion and who took that route, and it was repeated nationwide. Although the CW is that this is a big blow to the Right, that's only minimally true; it's a far bigger blow to the GOP's middle-to-left leadership.>

Many of the conservatives who chose either to sit this one out

This was what surprised me yesterday. Three of my most favorite friends and republicans (they can be friends btw) admitted to not voting yesterday.

These are three people that I can depend upon engaging me in political discussions just about everytime we get together. None of them are religious conservatives, all of them are fiscal and social conservatives.

They stayed home.

I'm sure they're not alone and if I was a republican I'd want to know why.

What it says to me as a liberal to the left of Pelosi is that we have a moral victory besides the political one.>

"What will be hard will be keeping the grin off my face."

Yeah, you and the majority of the Jihadists.

"What it says to me as a liberal to the left of Pelosi is that we have a moral victory besides the political one."

I wouldn't break out the Montrachet yet. The fact that many conservatives were able to put principle above party loyalty bodes well for the long-term future of the traditional Right.>

Bush II ran this campaign like Bush I ran his re-election campaign - i.e., POORLY. I don't think Republicans can blame a liberal media for this loss. George W. Bush has had nearly 6 years to use the White House as a bully pulpit to articulate and promote Republican and Conservative beliefs and politics. Apart from a few dynamic convention and "War on Terrorism" speeches - e.g., after 9./11 - I think he has done a poor job.

It makes you wonder sometimes if he and the Clintons aren't in some big conspiracy to trade offices back and forth between each other.>

It's raining outside, but the sun is shining inside Watsy's home.

Now we'll see if the Democrats have or have not had any ideas.

A more conservative House? I don't see that happening. I think that they'll pass stem cell funding which will not be signed by Bush and might not pass the Senate. But they'll try. I'd like to see them pass some abortion legislation. They should take the initiative to pass legislation that limits 2nd trimester abortion with health of mother and fetus exceptions included. It would do more to change perceptions than anything. They'll leave gay marriage to the states and courts. I would like to see them pass domestic partnership legislation or leave the whole thing to the states and courts. Really, I don't see this making much of a difference in terms of abortion or gay marriage. Republicans had their chance to be prolife and they blew it. If they were serious about the prolife cause, they should have started writing and passing legislation when they had the whole Congress and Oval Office and put Alito on the court. They didn't do it. I don't blame social conservatives for being miffed. I really don't blame fiscal conservatives for being unhappy.

Palmer Haas, I'm no fan of Santorums, but he's a Christian. Calling him a "fake Christian" isn't nice.

Dan, How do you know that Terrorists think of Democrats as appeasers? Unless you're talking to them and part of their group, I'd have to say that you're just buying right wing rhetoric.>

Senate's still GOP! Was expecting a Dem clean sweep. Didn't happen. Gawd, here it comes! Dems are gonna scream "Voter fraud" again...


mlyons619, do you have some special privy inside knowledge that the rest of use don't have? According to NPR this morning, the Democracts picked up 4 Senate seats, and the races in Montana and Virginia are still too close to call, with the Democrats leading very slightly in both. So don't uncork the champagne just yet.>

Harvey -- I apologize for that statement in relation to you and your personal history. But the fact is, the Jihadists DO pay attention to our news and they are undoubtedly happy this a.m.>

Reading the number of "the sky is falling" posts, one would think Hillary was elected president or something.
GIITTV | 11.08.06 - 10:02 am | #

I guess some people are just practicing for Wednesday, November 5, 2008!>

I don't even know which comment to start with. Maybe the "Good times ahead for Islamists and tyrants the world over." comment.

Last time I checked the CIA, and other intelligence agencies in the government that Bush can't seem to shut up, all seem to agree. The consensus is that this war is one of the greatest things ever to happen to the Jihad movement. Terrorist recruitment is up. This is a fact. If you want the terrorists to continue to grow in number then this president's policies are the way to do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/22/1093113058224.html?oneclick=true

from this link -
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/intelligence_09-25.html

PAUL PILLAR, Former Deputy Director, CIA Counterterrorism Center: I would characterize it the same way, Jim. One of the things noted in your report was how the war has served as a sort of recruitment poster and recruiting device. Well, that's something that's plain for all to see. The videotapes and audiotapes from the likes of Zawahiri, and bin Laden, and the other terrorist recruitment efforts has made that quite clear.

There are so many other things I'd like to either disprove or discuss but I don't know where to start.

I would like to know why I am a worm though Tim F.>

Fine, maybe this is good for the House and the GOP in the short and middle run, but I am so disappointed that we (GOPers) will probably lose the Senate. For in my book, it is all about judges. With a democrat majority, Bush (should he nominate one) would have no chance of getting a conservative justice confirmed. So, little chance of advancing life issues, little chance of restraining sexual unrestraint in society, more taking of private homes for private economic concerns.

I hope Rod is happy. The GOP may be a mess, but the dems as a party are simply going to advance an neo-pagan agenda hostile to Christian faith; through things like ESCR and such, they will continue their hatred of and war on the human race. And I hope Rod is happy. Because that's what it is all about, right?>

It'll be business as usual come the start of the next term. Corporate lobbyists will still be writing bills that make rich people richer.

Exactly so. Say goodbye to the old, worthless, unprincipled weasels. Say hello to the new worthless, unprincipled weasels.

'Bout all I can celebrate is that the war-mongering Bush got a thumb stuck in his eye. And I am one of those conservative Republicans who sat this one out because I am so disgusted with the GOP, of which I have been a member for 26 years.

Pat Buchanan was right: the Republican and Democratic parties are just two wings on the same bird of prey.>

No problem Palmer. Your calling Rick Santorum a fraud of a Christian. Worms live in the dirt and the muck.>

IH, I never thought I'd see anyone here be more gloom-and-doom than I have been, but you just left me in your dust. Sorry, but last I read the Speaker is third in line according to the 25th amendment, not capable of any executive power short of the pres and vice pres leaving office.

Anyway, please provide a citation on the NY law concerning birth certificates. My Google search found several citations of the exact opposite, that NY does not (for example) recognize a marriage where one person is a post-op transsexual, let alone anything referring to "[n]o operation needed.">

Seriously, why don't all of the sexual moralists who are bemoaning the impending downfal of western civilization move to Texas and secede?

Then you can put chastity belts and burkhas on your women and tie them to the crib or stove (freedom of choice in Red Amerika), and deport your gays to the USA.>

Not a good day for some Crunchy Con issues... Amendment 2 passed in Missouri. It is a sad morning for those of us who worked to keep Amendment 2 from passing in Missouri. Now the right to clone human life is in our Missouri Constitution, and not only that, all Missourians have to subsidize it through their tax dollars. This in a state where polls show a vast majority of its citizens are against cloning! This whole thing makes me sick. I really searching for the path forward... It grieves me that we are now manufacturing human life for harvest, for scientific experimentation... human life is now a commodity.>

As I said to an older post of Rod's: I suddenly realize why this blog will be so worthwhile to keep following the next couple of years: Rod, you are in for one colossal disappointment. First-term backbenchers (like these "conservative Democrats") almost never (except perhaps 1994 and the War Hawks of 1812) steer their caucus rather than being steered themselves. Your other critics are talking about your naivete in expecting the Dem leadership to start adopting social conservatism; I'd also add that you aren't going to see much economic populism from them either: not if that means serious immigration law enforcement or stemming the worst of the housing bust. The face to look at here isn't Pelosi--it's Emmanuel, who as an ex-Clintonite knows all about cutting cozy deals between the Democrat leadership and non-crunchy multinational business.>

Joshua, thank you. I'm still not sure why this didn't come up in my search. If NYT is still behind a registration requirement, that would explain it, but gasp, Google isn't perfect!!

IH,

...be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

Hmm. Somehow, that feels like just a little bit more than your [n]o operation needed. Just the feeling that, even though I was born a boy, I consider myself a woman. Change my birth certificate. Now!

You might want to amend your post. Wouldn't want anyone accusing you of lying, now would you?>

Harvey -- what you say makes sense, but only under the assumption that the Jihadists will leave us alone if we pull out. I'm not sure that's the case. We can say "it's not about us anymore," but they certainly have the will and the wherewithal to bring it to us. Will a pull-out, redeployment or whatever be perceived by them as a sign of a weak will? Afraid so. They'll know by experience that Americans can't stomach a protracted conflict and that in any case, we won't hit them either hard or long.>

While it's too early to celebrate, I think it is quite likely the Senate will stay GOP. With the two races yet to be decided, the Dems have to get both. The GOP only has to retain one.>

Harvey -- what you say makes sense, but only under the assumption that the Jihadists will leave us alone if we pull out. I'm not sure that's the case. We can say "it's not about us anymore," but they certainly have the will and the wherewithal to bring it to us. Will a pull-out, redeployment or whatever be perceived by them as a sign of a weak will? Afraid so. They'll know by experience that Americans can't stomach a protracted conflict and that in any case, we won't hit them either hard or long.
Rob Grano

Double doggone it darn Rob I'm itchin' like a five year old at the barbershop waiting for his third haircut, been out weed eatin', ain't near as much fun as it once was, especially with fire ants all over the place.

Tnanks for the civility, that's really appreciated (scratch scratch).

The Jihadists aren't what I fear, maybe wrong, have been before, might be again in the distant future, what I fear is the empowerment of the Jihadist by our forcing all Muslims to support them by attacking Islam instead of concentrating on terrorists.

Islam is not our enemy. There are millions more Muslims that want and are pursuing peacefull dreams than there are ones wanting to cut off heads, hundreds of millions more. We just have to give them the opportunity to step up to the plate as Muslims and the Jihadists will disappear into the ether.

What we have going for us is the Muslims are just exactly like us. We know this by comparing their faith to the most popular faith in this country. They, the faiths, have much more in common than they don't. Their biggest difference is the name and method of redemption. That's like deciding whether the door to the auditorium would be best opening in or opening out.

All we have to do is provide them with the opportunity to succeed. They will and they'll be our friends, guaranteed.

The best gift you can give another human being is believing in them, let's show a little faith instead of talking about it.>

The best gift you can give another human being is believing in them, let's show a little faith instead of talking about it.


Dang, harvey, that's humbling.

Thanks.>

And if there are "millions more Muslims that want and are pursuing peacefull dreams than there are ones wanting to cut off heads" why don't they speak up against their co-religionists' extremes and atrocities? If they are speaking up, why aren't we hearing it?


It's probably the case that they mostly live in places that don't have a CNN reporter in their faces every moment of every day.

And remember, the history you know was written by people with your worldview. Of course from that view, Islam will be a religion of the sword.>

Rob G., I beg your pardon, but if you wish to invoke historical perspective, you must be prepared to be challenged:

...this is not to say that Christianity hasn't on occasion done the same, but when it has done so it's been an aberration. Can't say the same for Islam, unfortunately.

Historians and their readers can say anything they want to say. We no longer have eyewitness testimony that deserves the label. What we do have is a bunch of perspectives, and if you are arguing for balance, you should make a better effort at it yourself.

The Holy Roman Empire was hardly an "aberration", and it practiced every major form of conquest during its tenure (as well as gave rise to subsequent empires who continued the tradition).

The litany is long, and I personally would find it easier to list the times of peace instead, it would take much less time and space to do so.

No one, outside of a few disaffecteds who have their own competing agenda (and desire to rewrite history), intends to indict modern Christianity on the basis of its past. Indeed, if you want a favorable comparison, make it along chronological and developmental lines: Islam is somewhere in the mid-teens century in its development vis a vis secular government and dealing with non-believers. Christianity has come a long way from that point.

Let me ask you: should the world have given up on Christianity at some point and gone on a final crusade to wipe it out before it could conquer the world? This is precisely the question being asked about Islam today. Your answer could be instructive.

BTW, from the perspective of this pagan, the Muslim drive to impose sharia and the Christian drive to bring everyone to Jesus is no different in my view. Only the methods of implementation provide any sort of distinction. Shall we let me write the next histories, eh?>

Does this include the millions in the U.S. that we seldom hear from?

Why not contact the mass media and find out why they aren't asking those folks how they feel about the situation?

Dancing jihadists burning flags generates more ad revenue.

Seriously - you appear to have no idea how the media business works. You don't see regular Muslims because the corporate owners who profit from conflict don't want you to.>

If the "corporate owners who profit from the conflict" don't want us to see these regular Muslims for that reason, why do they give so much time to the Lefty anti-war Hollywood types?

It's not a zero-sum game, Rob.

The lefty-types can afford to pay for some air time, too.

Network executives aren't stupid. If Celebrity X calls a press conference, the networks know they'll get an audience because it's Celebrity X speaking.

There's a concept in Communications called "Mediated Reality," that states that one's view of the world is colored by what media one is exposed to, if critical viewing skills are absent.

Media doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Follow up the one broadcast anti-war rant with 3 stories about "terrorism" one about the chemical weapon fantasy du jour, and a new sex offender scandal it's all lost in the fear-noise.

Look at the sum-total of the message conveyed by mass media, and you see a very fearful worldview being propagated - despite the one or two voices of sanity that get broadcast.>

Surely one can appreciate and learn from some of Chomsky's insights into communication and linguistics without buying into his worldview?

"How many of *your* books are standard curricula in Communications?"

Pretty elitist statement isn't that? I can't be critical of something unless I've written a book on it?>

Franklin -- I think I understand what you are saying. Allow me to rephrase, and you can correct me if I'm wrong: 'Both Christianity and Islam claim to be the "true" religion. The former has largely evolved past its stage of using violence as a means of converting people but the latter has not. However, the mere fact that both religions attempt to convert nonadherents is evidence of an inherent violence in each.'

Does that sum it up?

"the underlying principles spring from the same source."

What would that be?>

The former has largely evolved past its stage of using violence as a means of converting people but the latter has not.

The former has evolved from actual physical violence to the threat of eternal violence. While they won't tie heretics to the rack, per se, they will delight in the fantasy that everyone who disagrees with them will have their flesh flayed from their bones by demons for all eternity.

In other words, not much evolution at all.>

Rob,

However, the mere fact that both religions attempt to convert nonadherents is evidence of an inherent violence in each.

So long as we can agree on the precise usage and connotations of "violence" in this context, yes, I accept your rephrasing without hesitation. I don't expect us to find that agreement, necessarily, especially since I do impose a personal bias on the use of "violence" in this context. Having said that, my goal is your understanding. Agreement is a secondary result, and not necessary to a sincere exchange of ideas.

I've had this discussion many times. I've followed the logic of proselytizing stemming from love and the desire to share something good with others. My bias is this: I insist that the notion of dogma is a human construct, built on human egos and the human need and desire to control and have power. There is never only one way to express the Good Word, and those who insist on one way have a completely human agenda and are as far from the divine as it is possible to be.>

How then are valid expressions differentiated from invalid ones?

One place to start ... how about ones that actively hurt people vs. ones that don't? (i.e. crusades, jihads, inquisitions, heresy trials, "Kill them all, let God sort them out," forced conversions, etc.?) Just a thought.>

Franklin - well stated.>

And if those answers are mutually exclusive, as they often are, then what? Accept the resultant anarchy or attempt to refine your beliefs? As Dorothy Sayers put it, "Creed or Chaos?"


What ever happened to "Live and let live?"

Why must every individual with cognitive abilities cogitate exactly the way YOU do?>

'Why must every individual with cognitive abilities cogitate exactly the way YOU do?'

Throw out the principal of non-contradiction and you get inconsistency, irrationality, and ultimately insanity. Plus you will be necessarily the slave or victim of those who maintain some degree of rationality.>

Franklin -- have you read C.S. Lewis's ABOLITION OF MAN? He makes a similar point to yours, except from the opposite side, so to speak. If you haven't read it, you might want to take a look at it; it's not a Christian apologetic, but a defense of an abiding ethical standard, the Tau, as he calls it.

'I believe that the opposite is true, that we should celebrate the commonality of human striving towards good across the world and time, and "one way" claims only serve to diminish the value of those concepts being claimed.'

If there is a God, and if there is such a thing as truth, then all truth is God's truth. The 'one way' claims don't affect or diminish that at all. "Honor your father and mother" is equally valid for the Moslem as it is for the Christian or the Buddhist.
However, when you move to metaphysical concepts is when you encounter mutual exclusivity. For instance, the notion of reincarnation in some of the Eastern Religions cannot be reconciled with the idea of bodily resurrection that Christianity holds. Obviously both may be wrong, but they can't both be right (despite the efforts of some theologians to make the attempt).

And it does no good to say that the one is "true" for the Hindu and the other is "true" for the Christian; if something of this nature is really true, then by definition it is true for everyone. Can't be otherwise unless you jettison the concept of truth altogether.>

Rob,

...if something of this nature is really true, then by definition it is true for everyone. Can't be otherwise unless you jettison the concept of truth altogether.

Well, we don't seem to be finding common ground with this, but we should not be surprised, I'm sure.

I prefer to consider the possibility that truth is a process, not a destination. If you examine one of the many sharings of crises of faith (and there are many outside of the Christian scope of this literature, but any of them will do), you will find in most if not all of them a single common factor: it wasn't that the truth as told was wrong or false, but that the telling prevented the person from experiencing the truth fully and directly.

Any crisis of faith will have two outcomes. Either the person will abandon that faith (something that my mother and many Holocaust survivors did), or the person will come out the other side with a strengthened and renewed sense of faith, enriched by the crisis rather than beaten down by it. Those in the latter category do not find untruth, they find and expanded horizon.

I've lost count of the number of people who have recommended The Abolition of Man to me. You may be sure that I shall be finding it soon -- my local Barnes & Noble does not have it, but there are lots of book stores yet to check. As with all such writings, I urge you to find it in you to approach the Bible with the same open-mind and grains of salt with which I shall approach Lewis (I gloated over the thorns that Screwtape planted in Christians, but I didn't appreciate Lewis' profound insights until the second reading many years of maturity later). God's truth is not in the words, it is in God (saying such a thing as I shouldn't, I know). Words are of humans. Words, like humans, can lie, hide, confuse or distract.>

"God's truth is not in the words, it is in God (saying such a thing as I shouldn't, I know). Words are of humans. Words, like humans, can lie, hide, confuse or distract."

Franklin, you are right -- the words are not truth. But they can carry the truth, even though completely pure language is impossible. This shouldn't make us despair of finding any truth at all, however. You seem to be saying that the truth is hidden in God and we, as creatures dependent on words, can only grope around, so to speak, in hopes that we find it. Christianity teaches otherwise, that not only is God there but that he has spoken. The truth is indeed "in God" as you say, but he has made it known, and it is personal not abstract. Indeed, one of the primary tenets of Christianity is that the Truth is not only personal, but is in fact, embodied in a person, Christ. This is why the 2nd person of the Trinity is called 'The Word of God.' You gain the truth by knowing the person who embodies it. As such it can't be reduced to propositions.>

We're not talking about creating square circles, though, Rob. We're simply talking about people being able to decide for themselves how they want to live.

I do so love a good slippery slope or leap of logic, so please, keep posting.>

Logic like what:

Do what we say or when you die the sky monster is going to burn you for all eternity?

That logic?>

I don't think we need to look towards cultural anthropology OR dogma. Let's start with a very simple principle. Most people would rather live than die. (Not talking about the suicidal here; let's stay with the majority.)

To me, it's a very fundamental criterion for truth. Do those who adhere to the belief systems in question kill people who either don't believe, or once believed and then decide to leave, OR does it leave them alone?

It doesn't matter if the latter belief systems (the ones that *don't* kill you, or in lesser instances lock you up, take your property, etc.) contradict each other six ways from Sunday. That's up to the people involved, to sort all that out.

Gosh, does that make me a pagan - "First do no harm?" ; )>

Ah, Aristotle. Rob, are you familiar with a body of thought called Null-A? It didn't acquire many proponents, but it is a fascinating study.

LNC is an absolute, so while I wouldn't make the mistake of calling it dogma, it certainly can be used to support dogma, and you are correct, I'm going to object to it on that basis.

We are patterned beings. We define stability and safety in terms of patterns (bringing order out of chaos). We dislike intensely what programmers call re-inventing the wheel, meaning that we much prefer the well-beaten track and its familiar bumps and turns. Dogma (over-simplifying way too much in the interest of brevity) is the direct consequence of pattern.

Contradiction is a threat to order, a threat to safety and stability. Dogma becomes the specific tool, or barrier, that protects us from that threat.

If dogma prevents the re-invention of enough wheels, it stifles creativity and ends up creating that which it was originally used to prevent: the chaos of revolution.

I'm dealing with generalities here, because I hope you can see how all that applies to my argument. It is my contention that there are certain wheels that very naturally got invented in different places and times, and upon cursory examination can look very different from one another. But, they are all round, they all roll, and they all get used for the same purposes and to accomplish the same goals. Some of those purposes and goals are universally agreed to be good. Some are universally agreed to be bad. Neither set of results defines the wheels. The wheels simply exist.

I always hate argument by analogy. Feel free to rip my wheel metaphor to shreds. My point is that faith is not a rational process, and for either of us (and I take this caution very much to heart) to try to shoehorn faith into a rational structure is to destroy the one thing faith does that no other thing can do: bridge the gap between the rational and the irrational.>

Franklin -- your wheel analogy sounds a bit like the "all roads lead to the top of the mountain" analogy. My problem with that is that in metaphysics, as in life, that's an unsafe assumption. There are dead ends, there are paths that lead to sheer drop-offs, there are paths that may get you to the top but only by a circuitous and dangerous route.

I don't think that by applying rationality to matters of faith you are necessarily "shoehorning" it into a rational structure. Seems to me that's a radical either/or that one need not fall into. Faith can be rational without being rationalistic; I'd argue for a pre-Enlightenment approach to faith that doesn't require the crossing of every T and the dotting of every I; but I don't believe that that necessitates the chucking of rationality altogether.>

I don't believe that that necessitates the chucking of rationality altogether.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Do you see, though, that an absolute like LNC leaves little or no room for flexibility?

Not meaning to be flippant, but following your lead: my problem is that in metaphysics, the subjective must be accorded as much respect as the objective. This balance, IMO, is critical. Too much to one side or the other, and the tension between rational and emotional becomes the name of the game. Dialogue is difficult -- if not impossible -- without that balance.

Maybe a clarifying question would help here.

Do you deny that there are many paths to the top of the mountain? I'm not asking if one path may be easier or harder than another, just whether they exist or not.

It seems to me that your answer determines whether we can even have the rest of this discussion.>

'You believe in supernatural beings, and talk about "logic."'

As do/did Einstein, Polanyi, Florensky, Faraday, Pascal, the Curies, Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, De Chardin, Francis Collins, etc., etc. Not that I'm putting myself in that category, but the phenomenon isn't entirely unknown.>

I believe that there is one BEST way to the top of the mountain.

A fair answer, and an honest one. I put it that way because it is also rare for me to see that answer.

...do you believe that there are ways that are dead ends or that are wrong to the point of being deadly, spiritually speaking?

I have to answer that in two ways, but that is also an echo of your caution to remain agnostic on it because I'm not God. I wouldn't phrase it that way (not having a personal belief in an anthropomorphic deity), but I certainly accept and try to follow the principle involved.

1) I have encountered many seekers who thought they found what they needed on a pagan path, but were in fact lost in their seeking and in serious danger both spiritual and physical (that last requiring a ream or two of explanation, so I suggest you take it at face value). I do not hesitate to be bluntly honest with such people. We have in pagandom, too, a category that we perjoratively call fluffy bunnies, those who seem to see a one-note, all sweetness and light picture of spirit and are convinced that every aspect of spirit (and I do mean every) can be explained or "cured" by "the Light". That POV carries its own set of dangers, not the least of which is the harsh slap in the face of reality sooner or later. Blunt honesty is not appropriate or effective with fluffy bunnies; I don't personally know of any method of learning to be cautious around fire other than getting burned, though I do not wish it on anyone. It does seem to be the only way for most of them.

2) For those who are not siblings-in-faith, and especially for those whose faith group can or does carry some level of hostility to my faith, I refrain from offering an opinion or observation of their path. If they ask me (and they do, sometimes), I have one two-part answer: if your god speaks to you, and you are listening, you will know the answer without my help or the help of anyone else. If you harbor doubts, then again no help will be of any use to you, because faith is something that, in the end, must live inside of you, no matter where it may have originated.

To be honest, there was a long period of my life where I considered Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) a deadend. I've come to learn that this was hostility speaking, not observation and not truth. This has inspired me to try to engender that same awareness from the "other side" concerning my path. That's why you and I are having this discussion in the first place. :)>

This is going to be fun...

As do/did Einstein, Polanyi, Florensky, Faraday, Pascal, the Curies, Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, De Chardin, Francis Collins, etc., etc. Not that I'm putting myself in that category, but the phenomenon isn't entirely unknown.


Well, if Einstein, Polanyi, Florensky, Faraday, Pascal, the Curies, Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, De Chardin, Francis Collins, etc., etc. jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?


Heh. I crack me up.>

Rob, I am not accusing you of being dishonest, but you're not honestly stating the case.

I guess my objection to your approach falls back on my belief that our minds were created with the capacity to know truth, and that when we avoid or reject truth (in this case, the LNC) we do damage to ourselves and others.

My approach does not avoid or reject truth. It rejects the imposition of a Christian definition of truth. This is an inherent blindness in dogma. I don't have a polite way of putting that. Sorry.>