I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Hey Friends,
We’re looking for 2 to 3 new bloggers at our site PoliticalStrategy.org.
It’s time to take our site to the next level and we would like to make the site a powerful presence in the progressive Blogsphere.
If you’re interested, then please check out the site…browse around a bit and then drop us a line at tball@politicalstrategy.org.
Please be sure to tell us:
·How active you would like to be (e.g. posting every day, three times per week, etc.)
·About your background in politics, policy, writing. (Of course no professional experience is required)
·About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.
·Where we can find a sample of your writing (e.g. perhaps at your own site, in a Dkos diary, etc.)
From there we will contact you with further details.
Thank you very much.
Hey Friends,
We’re looking for 2 to 3 new bloggers at our site PoliticalStrategy.org.
It’s time to take our site to the next level and we would like to make the site a powerful presence in the progressive Blogsphere.
If you’re interested, then please check out the site…browse around a bit and then drop us a line at tball@politicalstrategy.org.
Please be sure to tell us:
·How active you would like to be (e.g. posting every day, three times per week, etc.)
·About your background in politics, policy, writing. (Of course no professional experience is required)
·About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.
·Where we can find a sample of your writing (e.g. perhaps at your own site, in a Dkos diary, etc.)
From there we will contact you with further details.
Thank you very much.
Good story. It's encouraging to remember that lots of people are really decent and not consumed with hate.
Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments, so I don't understand how anyone can even question whether or not it's wrong--it is. However, I wish that the same people fulminating about gay marriage et al. would, just ONCE, express similar indignation over adultery, infidelity, etc. Homosexuality is by no means the only sin condemned in Scripture, so let's start hearing people saying, "Enough already!" to hetero sexual sin. Oh, and let's not forget that Britney (or whoever) getting married for 4 hours, or "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" aren;t in the least mockeries of marriage.
"...so I don't understand how anyone can even question whether or not it's wrong--it is."
It's wrong because your big book says so? Bullshit.
A phrase that gets tossed around a bit on another site I frequent: If someone wants to do something, and it isn't hurting you... DON'T BE A FUCKING DICK!"
I said it earlier but I will repeat: because Sen. Santorum fears man on dog and Sen. Cornyn fears man on box turtle?
Stop blogging on this Non-Issue. We all know that the constitution was not designed to be exclusionary.
Stop debating this, concentrate on Bush's Lies and Cheney's Cheneying and the actual issues.
This is a RoveCo distraction. Don't let him win.
Also, don't bite on the troll's bait above.
The biggest question....Is your hairstylist planning to vote? Otherwise, all the sound and fury signifies nothing.
Where in the New Testament does it condemn Homosexuality?
What if you don't believe what the bible says, Ken? What if you don't believe in a God? As for the other *wrongs*, what punishment would you choose for those who committed them?
Stay out of my life, please. She was so right about the personal relationship aspect.
I agree wholeheartedly about familiarity. I know my parents are good people at heart, but living in white-bred sub-rural New Hampster, they get hardly any experience with people of color, or any other minority for that matter. I know my mom wouldn't make the comments she does if she had a friend or family member who was black, gay, whatever.
Thank god I moved to MA...to a city with a lot of minorities. I feel much more exposed to life here. Yes, MA is still primarily white-bred, but nothing beats northern NE for closed-mindedness.
I also recently visited Providence and was reminded how awesome that town is. I may have to move there.
Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments
New Testament reference, please?
Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments - Ken
actually not really. Jesus is quite silent on the issue in the gospels (you know the four actually important books of the bible - Matty, Markey, Lukey, and Johny).
One might point out the references to this in the letters of Paul, but hey, I'm disciple of Jesus Christ, not Paul. Are you?
Unfortunatly, one can make that damn book say literally anything one wants. It's amazing to me how some so-called christians can pull the most obscure quotes out of the bible to somehow justify their hate/anger/greed/ignorance.
Is your hairstylist planning to vote? Otherwise, all the sound and fury signifies nothing.
You better believe it, buster. And she has a big circle of friends who also are more than alarmed about Bush's policies and are definitely voting in November. As she said, this is a very important election. Four more years of him would be disastrous.
She is very happy with the personal relationship she has with God.
Not for nothing, but what the hell does this mean? What stupidity. Does god come over and watch videos with you? take you out to dinner? come over and fuck you on Saturday night? No?
Then you don't have personal relationship with him anymore than I do with Casper the friendly fucking ghost.
And Ken, your big book is a bunch of crap.
OT: Just got this hilarious link to to Bush and Kerry doing "This land is my land" in animation. One of the best political cartoons I have ever seen.
Click here.
PS - Warning, file is large for any of you on dialup.
Just what I thought Outrider.
The Old Testament condemns it but that testament also says don't touch pig skin (so Football players are really equal sinners in that context) ..and it says nothing about it in the gospels as far as I know.
Sorry if I offended any religious eschatonians.
Actually I'm not. Quit believing fairy tales that pedophiles in black robes try to foist on you.
"Stop blogging on this Non-Issue. We all know that the constitution was not designed to be exclusionary."
-non issue! this one decides if i get to marry someone i love or be given second class citizenship. despite the fact that it is not going to be passed it is still important to discuss. i has enormous societal implications and is also politically relevant to the upcoming election.
During my most recent haircut, my stylist informed me that the owner of the shop had forbidden employees from discussing politics with customers.
Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments
Though I am unaware of any NT prohibitions against love, that is beside the point.
Because of this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My religion says my man and I can get married if we choose.
Who are you to say we can't?
Kate, Outrider, keep it up, I want to know the answer. I've yet to hear any "Christian" able to justify their hatred with a quote from the big J.
4legs, don't knock her because she believes in God. Be happy that she keeps her religious views to herself and doesn't try to foist them on anyone else.
GOB, um, it's very much an issue, this week especially.
Bumpersticker seen in California recently:
Marry 'em all -- let God sort 'em out.
The two sites I like best for the "Bible tells me so" argument is www.godhatesfigs.com and www.godhatesshrimp.com
Good reading... and I think all us God-fearing Christians should send letters to Nabisco about their unholy Newtons.
E.g., St. Paul's letter to the Romans, 1.27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." See also 1st Cor. 6.9; 1st Tim. 1.10.
There is considerable debate over how these apparent references to homosexuality are to be interpreted (see in particular Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago 1980) and subsequent literature).
For those quoting The Book, remember. This book was designed to be the yardstick by which you measure yourself, not the rod with which you beat another person.
"Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments"
I don't have a bible in front of me, Ken, but doesn't the old testement also forbid mixing clothing of different materials? and make it a capital offense for a child to talk back to his parents?
You right-wing bible-thumpers always pick and choose those sections that support your bigotry. Until you are prepared to explain every bizarre, antiquated, contradictory statement in the "good book", please take your bullshit somewhere else.
Juls
It's a non issue because it's clearly unconstitutional. It's clearly designed to get the left's panties in a wad about this while they sneak huge white elephants past us like more lies about Iraq, Plamegate, 911 inquiry, f911, almost 1000 dead us soldiers, countless dead iraqis, tortured prisoners, kids, and women, and all the rest of it.
No matter how stacked the Scotus is, there's no way it can be ruled constitutional. There's no way it passes.
Whether someone feels that homosexuality is improper or against the bible or their religious beliefs is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Our governement is not supposed to be based on any particular religious beliefs. It is supposed to be based on the rule of law. Legalizing discriminaton based on anything is ridiculous and should not be even discussed.
pie, I don't mind that she believes in God, I'm just sick of this "personal relationship" crap.
I'm sure she's a nice young woman who gives you excellent haircuts. You don't have to repeat my rant to her ya know. 
(I wouldn't want to hurt her feelings or jeapardize your styling ways)
I'm just sick of all this pious crap I hear everyday of my goddamned life here in Texas. It's like living in the middle of a huge Kum-by- yah fest.
Some one save me, please. (and not you jeebus, I've heard enough of your crap for one lifetime)
kiki - I notice Ken also leaves out parts about how to treat your slaves, women being submissive, etc.
have them look up where abortion is expressly condemned as a grave sin.
I can tell you where it says that punishment for striking a pregnant woman wherein the fetus is lost (essentially compensation to the father for a lost future earnings) is less than that of murder.
Better that she keeps it to herself than the other alternative, 4legs.
"It's a non issue because it's clearly unconstitutional." -GOB
a constitutional amendment cannot by nature be unconstitutional. the SCOTUS would have to rule on any conflict it has with other pieces of the constitution. however, it could not invalidate it, it actually has a higher power than "activist judges".
For those quoting The Book, remember. This book was designed to be the yardstick by which you measure yourself, not the rod with which you beat another person.
I suggest we get a really big version and beat Ken about the head and shoulders with it until he shuts the hell up with his homophobic bullshit.
About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.
Group blogs bite the big one.
No matter how stacked the Scotus is, there's no way it can be ruled constitutional. There's no way it passes.
So after it comes to a vote and fails, we won't have to worry anymore, right?
True, pie.
I'm just ranting. Pay no attention. You know how I get about fundies.
yeah,
Holden, pie, Athenea, you guys suck!
I'm never going to post again!
Wow. I was about to wade in here to hold up the "Religion is a Load of Crap" end of the argument, but I see that Four Legs has that well in hand. Nice work, man.
OT: OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (Reuters) - President Bush was forced to switch planes on Monday when a mechanical problem was found on his regular Air Force One Boeing 747 jet.
He routinely uses the 747 to make journeys of a few 100 miles. You'd think the 757 would make more sense. (And save a huge amount of money).
No matter how stacked the Scotus is, there's no way it can be ruled constitutional. There's no way it passes.
GOB 07.12.04 - 4:34 pm | #
It is constitutional if it becomes an amendment. Right now I don't think they have the numbers to make it one, but they still want to use it to attack Dems.
I think Wonkette has it right on this one: Some folks just aren't comfortable with the idea of guys ass fucking.
I know, fourlegs. Didn't mean to open old wounds. Just thought it was nice to see that someone who calls herself religious also is smart enough to understand that religion has no business interfering in this matter and we should be trying to emphasize and support equal rights for all, rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Dear fourlegs good: what is your issue? you seem to be on an anti-religious rant which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you are potentially offending a lot of people for no good purpose except to exhibit your personal anti-religious bigotry.
Calm down. Everyone has a bone of contention, but not everyone has to beat others over the head with it as you are doing.
I'll give Ken credit, at least he is consistent in what he says. I think his basic premise is wrong (that right and wrong comes from religion - and that immoral = illegal).
However, I've talked to the nutjobs at Gay Pride marches - If you bring up outlawing divorce, stoning adulterers etc. they usually try to run away (and if you bring up poly-cotton being a capital crime, they run faster).
So Ken - I think you're wrong, but at least you're consistent.
If you think this is a non-issue you should be watching the Hate Parade on CSPAN. These guys are serious and it is just the first inning. They know they won't even get the vote, but they are lining up to spew the rhetoric and fire up the whackjobs. And they are good at it. They keep using the phrase "when the court declare traditional marriage unconstitutional", as if there is something about same-sex marriage that nullifies opposite sex marriage.
God I hope Santorum's kids eventually come out of the closet and denounce him and his beastiality fetish.
Send the RNC a message in New York: Shut It Down
I'll give Ken credit, at least he is consistent in what he says. I think his basic premise is wrong (that right and wrong comes from religion - and that immoral = illegal).
However, I've talked to the nutjobs at Gay Pride marches - If you bring up outlawing divorce, stoning adulterers etc. they usually try to run away (and if you bring up poly-cotton being a capital crime, they run faster).
So Ken - I think you're wrong, but at least you're consistent.
Sorry for the double post - Haloscan wigged out.
On a personal note, I got married this past year and am [sarcasm] looking forward to the restroation of traditional marriage, one man and as many wives and slave concubines as he wants. I was also very disappointed not to receive any goats or chickens for a dowry. Yep, when traditional marriage is upheld, I'll be lookin' to acquire a couple more wives, preferably with large dowries. Anyone meeting that description interested? [/sarcasm]
I do find it odd that the leader of this charge in MA is a Mormon governor talking about "traditional marriage" being 'one man one woman'. Hey Mitt, that wasn't your tradition about 50 years ago...
I think these trolls are way, way too ugly and evil to feed.
It's a non issue because it's clearly unconstitutional.
Yes, folks, 7 of 9 SCOTUS justices were appointed by republican administrations...this conservative court has told us time and again that the reduction or oppression of civil liberties on this basis is not proper according to our constitution.
But what does the ruling class do when they can't win by the rules...they change the rules.
Folks, changing the constitution is a big effin' deal. This isn't a game of 4 square on the playground...this is the document that protects us all. This now, what next?
Even if you do agree with the policy ; you must disagree with the method.
I'm sure your friend means well but you should break it to her, gently, tbat 'God' doesn't actually exist.
Gay marriage? What aboutW Ketchup, so right minded conservatives don't have to support that boring Kerry and his obnoxious wife.
Juls,
If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, they can't make laws that violate the constitution. I could be wrong, but that song was pretty good.
I'm for same sex marriage. I think it's a no brainer. But I think the debate is just to rile up the fundies on the right to support Pantload McFlightsuit and make the left ignore the more important issues.
And Same Sex marriage isn't remotely as important as Iraq, the economy, etc.
Sorry.
There is no word for "individual" in NT Greek, but a large number of synomyms for commuity.
An "individual relationship" with God, for a Christian, is not biblical.
That said, the prohibition of homosexuality in the NT is clear. However, the OT prohibition (not the make-believe one about Onan, I mean the real one), only applies to non-Jews living in Jewish cities.
Oh, and that bit about 'abomination' is crap. The OT really says 'that's what gentiles do,' not 'ABOMINATION!!!'
The Bible also says grasshoppers have four legs:
LEV 11:20
" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.
Now, somebody tell be the Buy-bull is inerrant...
dc, she doesn't tell me what to believe, and I don't tell her that I don't believe.
That's fair, isn't it?
Oops, forgot to mention. The citation from Romans is the only solid one. Not having my NEB here at work, the Corinthians citation is another mistranslation of an idiom, and Timothy is a forgery.
But that's for another day.
Four legs:
Good for you. I lived for awhile in SW Ohio - used to call it the northern outpost of the Bible Belt - and the "praise the lord" crapola was more than a sensible person could take occasionally. If they want to believe in the invisible cloud being, fine. Just don't try to make the rest of us follow their interpretation of what a few bronze-age middle eastern people thought 2000+ years ago.
Especially not in this country, where the government is supposed to be barred from religious activity.
Why that's so hard to accept is beyond me.
:.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
I sure wish somebody would take Jesus up on that with BushCo.
Good news over the weekend: The leadership of the Texas Baptist Convention has made some critical comments about the Bush administration trying to get religious people to recruit in their churches. So that's one good thing that has come out of my home state this year.
About that new testament: it says women should not wear gold jewelry or plaited hair to church. I don't see that being enforced at the local Fellowship Bible Megachurch.
If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, they can't make laws that violate the constitution.
Ah, you must mean this song:
I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag-burners who have got too much freedom
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
At least, I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far
[Little Boy] But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?
[Amendment] Because that law would be unconstitutional
But if we change the constitution -
[Little Boy] - Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
[Amendment] Now you're catching on!
[Little Boy] But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the constitution?
[Amendment] Then I'll crush all opposition to me!
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The Bible says an awful lot of things, some of which are peculiar to say the least. Read the above link and see for yourself... The Song Of Solomon for instance is actually an erotic love poem which somehow got mixed up with the canon...
'Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.'
'My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.'
...*ahem* Although we are expected to believe that it's a metaphor for God's love for Israel. Yes indeed.
fourlegsgood,
I play squash with the Lord every other Thursday, and every now and then we meet for coffee and a bagel, or a hike in the mountains, so yeah, I'd say that my relationship with the creator is personal.
I don't think everyone does that, though, so I can see your point.
There's some wingnuttery afoot here in Massachusetts to get the 4 "activist" judges on the Supreme Judicial Court removed because they voted in favor of equality.
Needless to say, the wingnuts are reduced to pathetic little 30 second radio screeds in an attempt to get a largely unconcerned public to back the wingnut bill to remove the judges.
It hasn't a chance of passage.
somebody stop me if i'm wrong, but...
when you amend the constitution it cannot be invalidated without another amendment: for example prohibition. one amendment made it illegal and the other repealed it. now, if somehow an amendment was passed that conflicted with another part of the constitution the SCOTUS would have to rule which clause takes precedence.
"Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments, so I don't understand how anyone can even question whether or not it's wrong"
Well, I question it because I don't give a frap what it says in both, one, or any of your stupid "testaments." Here's what my religion teaches: All acts of love and pleasure are rituals of the Goddess.
Now, I don't go around imposing that on you or demanding to know how anyone can act as if any consensual sex act is anything less than an act of religious devotion, so please take your dirty-minded, anti-human, death-cult "testaments" and keep them to yourself.
If the intelligent, well-informed and well-spoken folks here at Eschaton are confused about the impact of a constitutional amendment, imagine how in the dark all the mouth-breathing rubes out there are. And yes, that includes the president.
I'm sorry, but I make it a rule to NEVER discuss politics with the person cutting my hair. Even if it's my wife. It gets her too wound up.
Listening to C-Span and I'm feeling my ire well up. I know, I know...they're doing this to distract from the real issues, and perhaps there is no way the amendment will pass.
But they are spouting false statements about the principal objective of marriage ...blah, blah...raising children.
The issue of children is a hot one for fundies...very few fundies (and moderate repubs) have let go of the myth that homosexual parents are proper. There are all kinds of unspoken (and spoken) accusations about homosexual adults and their effect on children.
I just don't like how the rhetoric is being construed to fit what many unknowing people may believe.
While the amendment may not pass, the damage is still being done.
"Dear fourlegs good: what is your issue? you seem to be on an anti-religious rant"
Yeah, 4-legs, quit being so shrill. The religious rants on CNN today are fine, but you shrill anti-religious liberals, well that's just not nice.
Homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in both testaments, so I don't understand how anyone can even question whether or not it's wrong--it is.
Try understanding that not everyone thinks that the Bible is all that and a bag of chips. Some people think independently of religious dogma.
However, I wish that the same people fulminating about gay marriage et al. would, just ONCE, express similar indignation over adultery, infidelity, etc.
Ohhh, but we DO. Every time an anti-gay bill is floated, I find myself saying, "Why don't we breeders get our own house in order before involving ourselves in someone elses's." But my fellow heteros can't keep their hands off of the gays.
Homosexuality is by no means the only sin condemned in Scripture, so let's start hearing people saying, "Enough already!" to hetero sexual sin.
You are confusing sin and law. Learn to separate the two, and things will appear clearer.
However, if we are to start applying the Christian holy book equally on a sin-for-sin basis, and enforcing it's laws, then when do we start gearing up to stone people, and where do I sign up for a shot at Ann Coulter?
Oh, and let's not forget that Britney (or whoever) getting married for 4 hours, or "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" aren;t in the least mockeries of marriage.
A lot of people who hear about such things roll their eyes and wonder how people can be so stupid. Hey, if she want's to get married, though, let her. It's a free country.
As for mockeries of marriage, I wouldn't take it so hard. Just because SOME people can't get it right doesn't spoil it for me or anyone else. Live honestly and honorably, and you'll do alright.
This sounds rather like the anti-gay marriage debate: it is ok NOT to marry someone of the same gender. Your hetero marriage is not threatened, unless you are hiding something besides skeletons in your closet...
So chill out, man!
Ken:
"
Ken:
"...You want to talk about homosexuALITY?
Sit down CHRIStian. Give me that bible you’re waving before you hurt yourself...I will tear you a new biblical asshole..."
I love that entry 
Dear fourlegs good: what is your issue?
Get a sense of humor, would ya? Actually, for the record, I didn't seem to be on an anti-religious rant, I was on an anti-religious rant. Just in case there was any question.
Hecate, I stand corrected. I will defer to the masters of hate on C-span. Heaven knows on my worst day I can't hold a candle to those asswipes.
Hellhound, good to know. BTW, who wins?
Paul said this about slaves for example:
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who {merely} please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
But, President Bush just said that whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is OK with him. Now, it does not seem to matter whether it is adultery involving people of the opposite sex or sex between two same sex individuals. As long as they are adults and consenting and it is done in private, it is OK.
You guys ever notice how it's okay for fundies to call us gay-loving, fornicating, marriage ruining, hell-bound, damned for all eternity sinners, but if we say one little itty bitty thing about jeebus being a myth and suddenly we're....
anti-religious hate mongers.
Pot, meet Kettle! you're both black as night!
hey where's the love? no sweet honeys taking me up on my offer to be my second biblically-endorsed wife or concubine?
You are confusing sin and law.
I think our government is too. The latter they can say something about...the former is subjective and none of their damn business...
I for one amd getting really pissed about the slander on the tv right now.
Whether or not the amendment passes, the rhetoric being validated by time on the senate floor is doing damage..They are directly associating hetero problems with marriage in the homosexual population.
They are also saying that if more people are allowed to marry, children will be damaged by broken homes (gay ones?) they're not clear on how more marriage weakens marriage.
While the amendment may not pass, the damage is still being done.
weblackey
I think time will tell. I think that a lot of people are really, really turned off about this mean-spirited attack and these perpetrators will increasingly become marginalized from the wider, non-fundie America.
It will be interesting to see what happens here in MO come August, when voters will decide a similar ammendment to the state constitution.
Some speculate that the conservatives are really geared up for this, but the Dems also have a rather hotly contested gubernatorial fight going on, so it should be a close call.
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who {merely} please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
You think the rethugs will remember this when we take over?
Will they bow and welcome their new democratic overlords?
Look, you guys chill about the C-span stuff. Think of all the free commercial footage we're getting out of this!
We can beat the shit out of all these bigots forever and a day with their own words.
Please allow me to qualify my rant a bit. C-Span is good. I'm ranting about the senate floor being used to spread slander and propaganda.
good for Seanator Reid, Nevada:
He opens without even addressing the last hour's comments about the hate amendment. He talks about casualties on Iraq.
Whew
One would think that after 2000 years of christianity the human race would have its act together...the whole thing is naught but an excuse for lazy morals, weakness of the flesh, an easy way out (absolution, contrition, confession, call it what you like)...the most confusing aspect is that fundies tend to be conservative, and conservatives yap endlessly about "personal responsibility", then run to communion, looking for the sky guy to absolve them of their responsibility for their actions... I think religion is an excellent argument for evolution, showing that we have a long way to go before we're fully human and can treat each other as well as we treat our pets...
The Select Smart web site is very handy for discussing candidates and Christian values with people. I blogged about that this weekend
Scorpio
Eccentricity
OK, that does it. Time to trot out the "beloved disciple" comments, and the Terence McNally play postulating a gay Jesus. Not to mention the more mainstream speculations, by a heterosexual Episcopal bishop a decade or more ago, about Paul being a closet case.
An "individual relationship" with God, for a Christian, is not biblical.
Each apostle was given an individual choice whether to follow Christ or not. We know the names of other individuals who were presented the decision to follow Christ, including Nicademus, Saul (Paul), Zaccheus, etc. The meme of personal responsibility for one's relationship with God is central to the New Testament and in stark contrast to the "chosen nation" of the Old Testament.
From individual choice to individual relationship?
non sequitur
And it never fails to amaze me that folks who worship a man running around the country with 12 other men, who was then turned in when one of those 12 got his feelings hurt over something, we're not sure what, want to criticize homosexuality.
I thought you had a problem with the lack of the word "individual" in the NT Greek. I was merely trying to demonstrate that while Jesus did preach to masses on occasion, the decision to follow Christ (physically during the Eartly misinstry, spiritually otherwise) is often presented as an individual choice.
I am claiming as a constant theme of the Bible the interactions of God w/ his people and they with him, forming "relationships". In the OT it is more the Hebrews as chosen people talking to God in sacrifices and the Levites, God responding with prophets (of course with elements of personal interaction). In the NT, it is more individual prayer and response (with some interaction with the Church as a body).
Yesterday I went to church for the first time in an year, to an open and inclusive Methodist church in the heart of Phoenix. It was a wonderful experience, but also heartwrenching. It was hard to hear the woman standing up and asking for prayer re the proposed hate amendment (that's not what she called it, she referred to it as the federal marriage amendment) and reminding us that in other churches this was Protect Marriage Sunday and the bigotry that was being spewed out in the name of Jesus. It also made me feel good to see gay and lesbian couples and their children go up together to the communion table together. Anyone who denies that these were families same as everyone else has a heart of stone.
Double good on Senator Harry Reid: he's Mormon and the Mormon Church is heavily behind this marriage amendment (despite weasel words from the Church Office Building last week). He's doing the right thing despite the actions of the Elders of Zion.
If you take the Bible literally, you better OBEY YOUR HUSBAND!!!
The New Testament also says women shouldn't cut their hair. Funny how all these GOP women have short or shortish dos (not counting Coulter as a woman).
Whenever confronted by the Jeebofascists about homosexuality, my response is to ask them what, exactly, Jesus Christ said was wrong with it. The answer: nothing. It wasn't high on his list of priorities. Period. So why is it at the top of theirs? Go feed the poor and comfort some prisoners and then get back to me.
All I wanna know is what does it say in the Bible about box turtles.
I have a personal stake in the answer.
RE: Bryan's comments on "The Individual"
Bryan--let them eat Kirkegaard!
Christians cannot be minted like so many coins...faith is an individual choice, hence "individual relationship." Sprinkles and biscuits don't equal faith, only individual choice does. That goes for Islam, Judaism, and just about any other religion I can think of.
...so even if your husband is a lying, violent, alcoholic lech, you still need to obey his every word in order to follow the dictates of the Bible. Personally, I prefer Darwin!
God hates bunnies.
And the rabbit, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. - Leviticus 11:5
Zeb,
WARNING: The Atrios Fire Marshal has determined that Straw Men are a serious fire hazard!
The female box turtle must submit to her husband's authority--that's the word on Box Turtles.
Zeb,
But what about two-headed female box turtles? Which head has to submit?
The Atrios Fire Marshall will find his place in the lake of fire, along with liberated women, gays and apostate box turtles.
God hates box turtles.
Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. Leviticus 11: 9-10
And Zeb,
Man, you just keep rollin' with those logical fallacies!
Either SUBMIT!!!! or DARWIN
I think that's what they call a "false dichotomy."
Zeb,
Do apostate box turtles think out of the box?
'''And in the end, their faces will be as the faces of men, and their bodies will be as the bodies of scorpions...you people really believe this shit?
Zeb,
Try some Valium...maybe Quaaludes.
See, youse are always assuming we're all heterosexual. I don't wanna know about female box turtles. I’m male and I wanna marry my male box turtle, so please provide Chapter and Verse.
Thank you.
"so please provide Chapter and Verse."
I did. Read up a few posts.
My how this thread has diverged. It starts with a post by Pie talking about the golden rule and winds up in anti-Semitic ranting. Or didn't you realize that Jews have traditionally revered the books of Moses?
People and their personal relationships with god..... is there anything more tedious? For every ten christians like the one in Pie's anecdote, there are ten with cudgels, and they all have personal relationships with god. It's so vain.
It probly thinks this song is about it.
It's not anti-semitic. I find all mythology equally silly.
Chapter and verse? Here you go...
Romans 12:10:
"Love each other as brothers and sisters and honor others more than you do yourself."
Clonecone,
Define mythology...and do it without a reference to any a priori assumptions.
clonecone,
Lordy, I thought it was satire.
Now I’m really in trouble.
Thanks a whole lot.
Firenze,
Ma non dimenticare le parole di Dante:
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Deek,
People and their personal relationships with people...is there anything more tedious?
A body or collection of stories belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
Clonecone,
That could be history, could be mythology, could be a mix of the two. How do we tell?
Fred,
Che e 'speranza'?
Mythology is the religion of a dead civilization.
Firenze,
"Speranza" = "hope". The quote is from "Dante's Inferno": 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter.' Gates of hell and all that.
My favorite Paul teaching is:
So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because the angels are watching.
Fred,
Mai mente.
Grazie
The bit about rabbits (hares) is another biblical falsehood... Rabits do not chew cud; rabits are not even ruminates. They do, however, pass protein packets anally, which they re-ingest -- but that is not cud by anyone's definition.
Capital J,
And what if the civiliozation isn't dead?
History and mythology are inseparable in most cultures.
Mythology has always been a tool for explaining the unexplainable. Myths give way as logical explanations are discovered. Why should the monotheistic religions be exempt from logical analysis? In my opinion, a world created in 7 days by an all powerful being is just as illogical as Zeus battling the titans or Paul Bunyan creating lakes with his footsteps.
Fred,
It took me too long to figure "speranza" from context, but alas, too late.
I need some coffee.
Firenze,
Va bene. No blood, no foul.
Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the person and organisation usually quoted for school prayer and church political participation controversies, is an ordained Methodist minister, and to all appearances a believer. Lynn is a minister in GWB's own denomination.
Clonecone,
But why is it illogical? What is logic, anyway? And who's on first?
Well, let's see. How about Romans 1:26? or 1 Corinthians 6:9?
I think it remarkable that folks like pie and many others here can be so gentle and tolerant and accomodating...until someone mentions God, the bible, etc. Then that tolerance which was so much in evidence vanishes and is replaced by all this jollity. Interesting...
How can a perfect God make an imperfect creation? Ask any fundy and watch them sputter and turn red.
Well, let's see. How about Romans 1:26? or 1 Corinthians 6:9?
I think it remarkable that folks like pie and many others here can be so gentle and tolerant and accomodating...until someone mentions God, the bible, etc. Then that tolerance which was so much in evidence vanishes and is replaced by all this jollity. Interesting...
Trand,
Non sequitir...
"And who's on first?"
Who is on first. Everyone knows that.
I'm a pretty good speller...but I kan misspel if I want too...so a perfect spellur cud m ispel as wel if they wantid too
Clonecone,
Naturally.
Abbott and Costello...in them is hid the wisdom of the ages...
Ken,
A paltry 2 references from the entire NT? Plus, in Romans 1 Paul is sucking in the self-righteous, not condemning homosexuality per se. Flip over to Romans 2: "So, you think these people are bad? What you don't realize is that, when you damn them, you damn yourselves, because you do the same things!"
Ken:
Its because you stated that clearly there is no question that homosexuality is wrong. Of course people are going to act negatively to that presumption, because, the fact is, it clearly isn't wrong at all.
You assume a couple of things. That the bible is the only authority rather than your personal belief system..and also that the bible may only have a fundamentalist interpretation and cannot be seen as a document written in its historical context.
And as I have pointed out..Paul was very clearly wrong about other things. Such as say..slavery. And I also don't think that football players are unclean for touching pig skin. Well, they may have fingernails that are unclean, but you know what I mean.
It will be interesting to see what happens here in MO come August, when voters will decide a similar ammendment to the state constitution.
Some speculate that the conservatives are really geared up for this, but the Dems also have a rather hotly contested gubernatorial fight going on, so it should be a close call.
Well, we still dodged a bullet in being able to get it on the August ballot, rather than November. I'd rather have the fundies all geared up for the primary vote than for the big one.
Anyway...yes, I love watching the Supply Side Jesus crowd get their undies in a bunch over what amounts to controlling people's sex lives. Didn't both testaments also have something to say about usury? Why aren't they out there protesting Visa and MasterCard? And didn't Jesus have something pithy to say about rich people and camels and needles?
"until someone mentions God, the bible"
It's not mentioning God, the bible, etc. It's using them to force your own beliefs on the rest of us. It's assuming that no one could possible disagree with something just because it happens to show up in YOUR holy book.
Listen, bub, I've got things in my holy book that would curl your toenails. The difference is that I haven't spent the last 2000 years killing everyone who didn't agree with my holy book. I haven't been burning Xians at the stake. I haven't tried to turn what's in my holy book into the law of the land. I don't insist on installing the Wiccan rede inside court houses and demand that children in schools learn how to do spells and incantations. I don't impose my holidays on the rest of the country or stand outside your door and try to convert you to my religion.
Frankly, after 2000 years of Xian persecution of everyone from pagan Europeans to Native Americans to Africans to even other Xians who have a different interpretation of the Xian holy book, I really can't take listening to all the crap about how people are picking on the Xians because we don't want to have your claptrap shoved down our throats.
Jeeze
I reserve the right to be wrong... and I'm not sure by whose authority, but I really don't care about authority ordaining my right to be wrong.
So, if a person disagrees with me, or finds me wrong, I'm very comfortable with that.
[scarcasm]But if I'm wrong...why does it feel so right?[/sarcasm]
Well, let's see. How about Romans 1:26?
Romans 1:26 doesn't really condemn homosexuality, although it does suggest that God punished certain people for diregarding him by making them homosexual among other thigns -- homosexuality is among the methods of punishments for the perversity of worhsipping false gods in God's place, not the sin condemned in itself. In context:
see Romans 1:20-32, rather than just Romans 1:26.
There is a sort of implied criticism of homosexuality as "improper", but even then one could argue that what is improper is a heterosexual person giving up their natural desire -- and possibly there existing marriages, since it is suggested those involved had licit relations prior to the change -- in favor of homosexuality, which is what God causes them to do as part of the punishment described.
or 1 Corinthians 6:9?
1 Cor 6:9 does not appear to be a general condemnation of homosexuality. It condemns "boy prostitutes" and "sodomites", true, but, well, here's the footnote from the NAB: The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys.
So, yes, being involved, on either end, in homosexual child prostitution is clearly condemned by 1 Cor 6:9.
Note also that the condemnation of "practicing homosexuals" in 1 Tim 1:10 also apparently is a reference to the "sodomites" described above, at least according to the NAB footnotes.
It's not mentioning God, the bible, etc.
Bull.
It's using them to force your own beliefs on the rest of us.
Or for saying, contrarily, that the Bible doesn't support that when someone claims that it does based on an isolated passage taken out of context.
It's assuming that no one could possible disagree with something just because it happens to show up in YOUR holy book.
Or, its for arguing that the people who act that way aren't, in fact, paying much attention to that book, at all.
Listen, bub, I've got things in my holy book that would curl your toenails. The difference is that I haven't spent the last 2000 years killing everyone who didn't agree with my holy book.
That's not a difference. Neither has any Christian. And as a modern "Wiccan", your "holy book" hasn't been around anywhere close to 2000 years, your religion hasn't had much power to kill people if it wanted to, you've never had very many members, and the old pagan religions yours is modelled on weren't, as a general rule, all that tolerant of outsiders, either, though they didn't, often, have actual books to use to excuse their intolerance.
Frankly, after 2000 years of Xian persecution of everyone from pagan Europeans to Native Americans to Africans to even other Xians who have a different interpretation of the Xian holy book, I really can't take listening to all the crap about how people are picking on the Xians because we don't want to have your claptrap shoved down our throats.
Then maybe you should listen to the things people are actually complaining about -- which isn't just that. Or maybe engaging in blanket hostility and prejudice, rather than judging people based on their individual action, is something you feel isn't harmful ("An it harm none, do as ye will"), but then, you shouldn't complain when others do it to you, either.
The Mayan creation story, the Popul Vuh, is the only true creation story.
Over a universe wrapped in the gloom of a dense and primeval night passed the god Hurakan, the mighty wind. He called out "earth," and the solid land appeared. The chief gods took counsel; they were Hurakan, Gucumatz, the serpent covered with green feathers, and Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, the mother and father gods. As the result of their deliberations animals were created. But as yet man was not. To supply the deficiency the divine beings resolved to create mannikins carved out of wood. But these soon incurred the displeasure of the gods, who, irritated by their lack of reverence, resolved to destroy them.
Non-believers shall suffer in the pits of Xibalba until the end of time.
Arguing about what anyone thinks the Bible says is a waste of time. First, there's that little 'ol principle of separation of church and state. No matter what anyone thinks the Bible says, none of it is supposed to be made into any kind of law.
Second, over the past 150 years, the fundies have sworn on a stack of Bibles that God hates the following:
1. Gays getting married.
2. Anyone getting married to a person of a different race.
3. Women voting or holding office.
4. Women speaking out publicly on any issues whatsoever.
5. Women using pain control while in labor (I kid you not--the Bible clearly forbade this according to mid-19th century wingnuts).
There's a clear pattern of stupid and/or scared people twisting the Bible to their own ends to oppose any progressive belief that came along. Rather than arguing our own differing inerpretations, let's point out and attack this pattern.
Or does anyone out there want to defend any of the nutty "Bible-based" claims of the past?
>>that football players are unclean for
>>touching pig skin. Well, they may have
>> fingernails that are unclean, but you
>> know what I mean.
Hee, hee! Reminds me of when I got my first leather jacket. I was surprise by how strong the smell was...until I remembered that the cow had worn it before I had.
cm,
Your insane rantings are getting more and more insane. Now, you're sticking your nose into my discussion w/ Ken.
Look, sweetie, sorry to break it to you, but your holy book is not the only holy book in the world.
You want to believe in your holy book and spend hours arguing w/ other Xians about what your holy book does or doesn't say, have at it. You find one quote that says one thing; they'll find another one that says something else; you come back and argue that if they'd just read the inconvenient quote in context it doesn't really mean what it says. They'll come back with another quote; you come back with an arcane interpretation of a Greek word that absolutely definitively proves that black means white. Fine. It amuses you and it doesn't hurt the rest of us, so knock your socks off. Have a ball.
Start burning us at the stake, taking children away from their parents and refusing to let them learn their native languages, sexually abusing children, forcing everyone to have sex the way you want, discriminating against gays -- and you've got a fight on your hands.
I've seen lots of religious references here at Eschaton, including references to the Xian god and the bible, that don't cause any kind of a stir. The references that will always get me and some others on our high horses are those, like Ken's earlier one, that assume that if it's in the Xian holy book then no one could possibly disagree with it.
And then, when people point out that they don't like have Xianity shoved down their throats, we always hear this "Boo hoo, you mean people are being intolerant of us Xians." Which is pretty fucking ironic coming from a group of folks who've spent the last 2000 years being the poster child for intolerance.
The nice thing for the fundies about this issue is that there are such hot tempers about it due to religious convction or the many other objections that could be lodged, up to and including "separation of church and state"
It's perfect, piss everyone off, have them at each others throats over Bible verse VS Constitutional verse (make it a you're with us or against us dichotomy), divide and conquer.
I like the fact that in Pie's story, a person highlights one can posess both, although I do not. It was heartwarming to know that there is someone out there that believes differently than myself and still cares about my civil liberties.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Once again, I reserve my right to be wrong on the authority of myself.
Hecate,
I don't want YOUR claptrap to be required in every public building, or taught in schools.
Hecate, dear:
Your insane rantings are getting more and more insane.
Projection?
Now, you're sticking your nose into my discussion w/ Ken.
If you want to have a private discussion, then use a private medium.
Look, sweetie, sorry to break it to you, but your holy book is not the only holy book in the world.
I've never claimed it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've made at least one reference to the Tao Te Ching in a comments thread here.
You want to believe in your holy book and spend hours arguing w/ other Xians about what your holy book does or doesn't say, have at it.
Really, I'd rather not argue about it. But when someone says something not true (or even not necessarily true) about what it says -- whether its a self-righteous neo-pagan like you or a misguided fellow Christian -- I'll say something. And support it. And I've seen as many claims about what the Bible says and what it really means from you, personally, as anyone else.
The references that will always get me and some others on our high horses are those, like Ken's earlier one, that assume that if it's in the Xian holy book then no one could possibly disagree with it.
I've seen you get on your high horse over much less. Recently, even. But continue in your delusions about your righteousness and justification.
And then, when people point out that they don't like have Xianity shoved down their throats, we always hear this "Boo hoo, you mean people are being intolerant of us Xians."
That's generally not what provokes the claims of intolerance. Those are usually provoked by people making intolerant prejudiced statements lumping all Christians together.
Which is pretty fucking ironic coming from a group of folks who've spent the last 2000 years being the poster child for intolerance.
So? Intolerance can be found in every race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (or absence of the latter), its hardly any better when the target merely happens to be a group that has collectively had the most power. The evil of intolerance is in not dealing with people on their personal merits, which isn't mitigated just because you may find it ironic that a particular group becomes the victim of intolerance.
Clonecone,
Nay, brother, only the 'Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit' saga of Sri Darwin is the true creation myth. As stated in the holy text, 'Genesis Genou,' in the beginning was the holy ooze. And then, the nothingness said, 'Let there be amino acids!' And it was so. And in the unobservable eons spanning billions of years that followed, the amino acids bumped into each other often enough that proteins were formed, then polymers, then plastic...and finally Barbie, the pinnacle of creation, came forth,
Anyone see the Samatha Bee Daily Show piece on Gay Penguins. Clearly, the Good Lord made her creatures that way. Besides, girl on girl penguin love is hot.
"I don't want YOUR claptrap to be required in every public building, or taught in schools."
Ken,
That's where you and I agree. No one's religion should be required in public buildings or taught in schools. Separation of church and state protects religion from the state as much as it protects the state from religion.
If you'll read my post, you'll see that I said I haven't been posting the Wiccan rede in courthouses or demanding that school children lean to do spells or incantations. Similarly, I don't want the ten commandments posted in courtrooms or xian prayers taught in public schools.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop assuming that just because your holy book says homosexuality is wrong that no one can possibly question that. Which is what your original post said.
"the amino acids bumped into each other often enough"
Fred,
Please tell us that there were no boy amino acids bumping into boy amino acids!
Cmdicely,
As I have said several times on this forum (and on others),
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our faiths but in ourselves."
The one common denominator throughout history in man's inhumanity to man has been man. You can slide out one ideology and slide in another and the story is still the same. If the 'casus belli' isn't religion, it's skin color, language, ethnicity, hairstyles, or which side of the egg to break first. We have met the enemy and they is us.
And the Lord said, "All amino acid bumping is good!" And it was so.
>>Separation of church and state
>>protects religion from the state as
>>much as it protects the state from
>>religion.
I do think that the more poeple try to live as if there were no God, the worse off we as a society are. However, given the theocracy the country seems to be heading toward, perhaps separation of church and state isn't such a bad idea.
>>posted in courtrooms or xian prayers
>> taught in public schools.
Kewl. I agree. But I don't want Christians to be on the receiving end of an excrement storm if they do pray.
>>assuming that just because your holy
>> book says homosexuality is wrong
>>that no one can possibly question
>>that. Which is what your original
>>post said.
Indeed it did.
"If the 'casus belli' isn't religion, it's skin color, language, ethnicity, hairstyles, or which side of the egg to break first."
I hate those smug Star Bellied Sneetches. Everyone knows that the Non-Star Bellied Sneetches are God's chosen people.
>>Separation of church and state
>>protects religion from the state as
>>much as it protects the state from
>>religion.
I do think that the more poeple try to live as if there were no God, the worse off we as a society are. However, given the theocracy the country seems to be heading toward, perhaps separation of church and state isn't such a bad idea.
>>posted in courtrooms or xian prayers
>> taught in public schools.
Kewl. I agree. But I don't want Christians to be on the receiving end of an excrement storm if they do pray.
>>assuming that just because your holy
>> book says homosexuality is wrong
>>that no one can possibly question
>>that. Which is what your original
>>post said.
Indeed it did.
Hecate, Ken, Clone, et alii...
Let's chill and simonize our watches. We don't agree about everything, but we do agree about one thing... DUBYA HAS GOT TO GO!!!!!!
Let's put aside our disagreements for the mo and concentrate on that. 'Unlearn, you must!' saith Yoda.
The Force be with us.
Clone,
Amen. Outies for Kerry!
"Really, I'd rather not argue about it. But when someone says something not true (or even not necessarily true) about what it says -- whether its a self-righteous neo-pagan like you or a misguided fellow Christian"
Aw, cm, get off it, you fucking LOVE this stuff. You live for the chance to pull up abtruse translations and concordances. And, thank goodness that we have the font of all earthly and spiritual wisdom here to provide the one true interpretation of the xian holy book for not only those of us who think it's all a bunch of hooey but also those "misguided fellow xians."
Maybe it wouldn't be too much to ask you and your fellow "misguided" (i.e. anyone who doesn't see things the way cm's pedophile says they are) xians to get together and agree sometime in the next 2000 years over what your holy book really does or doesn't say before you start telling the rest of us whether or not it allows gays to get married?
Like I said, take your time, pull up one quote after another; discount those books that you don't agree with the most; search for the translation that gives you just exactly the meaning that you want; have at it. Creats schisms and credos and excommunicate each other to your little heart's content. Just leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
>>Separation of church and state
>>protects religion from the state as
>>much as it protects the state from
>>religion.
I do think that the more poeple try to live as if there were no God, the worse off we as a society are. However, given the theocracy the country seems to be heading toward, perhaps separation of church and state isn't such a bad idea.
>>posted in courtrooms or xian prayers
>> taught in public schools.
Kewl. I agree. But I don't want Christians to be on the receiving end of an excrement storm if they do pray.
>>assuming that just because your holy
>> book says homosexuality is wrong
>>that no one can possibly question
>>that. Which is what your original
>>post said.
Indeed it did.
>>Separation of church and state
>>protects religion from the state as
>>much as it protects the state from
>>religion.
I do think that the more poeple try to live as if there were no God, the worse off we as a society are. However, given the theocracy the country seems to be heading toward, perhaps separation of church and state isn't such a bad idea.
>>posted in courtrooms or xian prayers
>> taught in public schools.
Kewl. I agree. But I don't want Christians to be on the receiving end of an excrement storm if they do pray.
>>assuming that just because your holy
>> book says homosexuality is wrong
>>that no one can possibly question
>>that. Which is what your original
>>post said.
Indeed it did.
Ken,
The fundie case against same sex relations is rather weak...OT citations buried in the middle of interdictions of sex during menstruation...gang rape in Sodom that doesn't specifically condemn same sex relations (hetero gang rape is OK?), a few NT citations, at least one of which is a tactic to bait the opposition...
All things considered, I would rather let God judge. God doesn't need our help.
Fred: Sounds like a plan.
Hecate: There are three dames here to see you: Stheno, Euryale, and Med...Med...something. BOY, are they ug
Hecate,
I love you. You my fave Wiccan in the whole world. But we gotta keep it real. After we calm down, let's all nip off to the pub for a pint or two and burn Dubya in effigy after closing time.
DUBYA HAS GOT TO GO!!!!!!
Meanwhile on the senate floor...hate mongering is reigning, on tv people are cheering on the hate amendment, and the schism on "values" succeeds to lump fundies that disagree with W to vote for him.
BC04 can see they are in trouble even with their base. This is a wingdinger of a sure shot to keep everyone aboard the BC04 ship that may otherwise vote his arse out.
THis should be postponed, like that damn "senate report on intellegence part 2", until after the election.
Hecate Redux,
And no deadly nightshade in the ale!
Fifty years from now (God willing), our posterity will look back on FMA like we look back on 'miscegenation' and wonder: 'What the fuck was up with that?'
Fred,
And you're one of my favorite xians. I am all for dumping Dubya, but as you know I am not going to let xians pretend that they are the only ones living in the new nited states of murica. Not gonna happen. They leave me alone; I know how to play real nice. They tell me no one can possibly question their holy book, well, then we've got a whole 'nother problem.
Ken, don't talk trash about my girls; you seriously do not want to piss those babies off. And, just click "ok" and wait after you make a post. I know you xians don't believe this, but saying something over and over again doesn't make it so.
"And no deadly nightshade in the ale!"
Watch out for the Law of Return. Nightshade in the ale would have some nasty repercussions down the road.
WebLackey,
But the Thugs won't rest if they see a chance to lock in the base. Remember, if all other reason fails: IOKIYAR.
"And no deadly nightshade in the ale!"
~kicks rock and shuffles off like Uncle Fester told he couldn't feed the Venus fly trap~
Fred spoils *all* my fun!
Hecate,
OK, but just enough to give 'em an out of body experience and a wicked hangover.
"a pint or two and burn Dubya in effigy after closing time."
Hey, you bitches, who told Fred what was in our Book of Shadows? Seriously, what kind of coven is this where you go around telling the xians what we're going to do on the dark moon? You think just because you didn't reveal the sacred chant: "Like father like son, one term and you're done! As it was for forty-one so it is for forty-three; this is our will so mote it be!" that it's ok to give away our dark moon rituals?
~runs off after coveners with broom flailing~
Hecate,
Here, try my Dust Devil...it's harder to swing than a broom, but it packs a helluva punch!!
Yeah, I see the politics. Since so much of it directly affects me, sometimes when these arguments occur I feel like a small child again hearing my parents argue about what's right for me (or hurting each other in my name).
I should be more adult about it, but it hurts to know that something so personal to me is being used to damage another faction.
I just want to be left alone by the government (fundies) with my issues. Wahhh. *pouting*
>>you seriously do not want to piss
>>those babies off.
's OK; they're playing cards with Alecto and the Erinyes.
>>believe this, but saying something
>>over and over again doesn't make it so
That was HaloScan, not me. So mote your boat!
Now we're talking!
As it was for forty-one so it is for forty-three;
yeah.
>>you seriously do not want to piss
>>those babies off.
's OK; they're playing cards with Alecto and the Erinyes.
>>believe this, but saying something
>>over and over again doesn't make it so
That was HaloScan, not me. So mote your boat!
>>you seriously do not want to piss
>>those babies off.
's OK; they're playing cards with Alecto and the Erinyes.
>>believe this, but saying something
>>over and over again doesn't make it so
That was HaloScan, not me. So mote your boat!
weblackey,
You have to say it three times and really want that lightbulb to change!
>>>And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop assuming that just because your holy book says homosexuality is wrong that no one can possibly question that. Which is what your original post said.
The Old Testament condemns it but that testament also says don't touch pig skin (so Football players are really equal sinners in that context) ..and it says nothing about it in the gospels as far as I know. - Kate
IIRC, it is actually ok to touch pigskin once it is turned into leather. A Jew is not allowed to touch the product before that, though. And those laws of the Hebrew Bible do not apply to non-Jews, so unless your Jewish, y'all don't have to worry about them.
The anti-"homosexuality" part does likely apply to non-Jews, though (note - the word used in that context for abomination is not the same word used to condemn shrimp eating ... shrimp eating is something prohibited only to Jews, although the Hebrew word used is best translated as disgusting - which shellfish certainly are - would you eat an insect? if you answer no, then why do you eat crustaceans?). The problem is that what is prohibited is not necessarily what we today know as homosexuality. Likely what is prohibited is homosexual practices by people who are otherwise heterosexuals (e.g. the ancient Greek habit of male teachers having sex with their male students). Consentual homosexual relationships between adults are held by many (liberal - but even a smattering of Orthodox) Jewish authorities to be allowable (although certain sexual acts, in particular unprotected anal sex) are generally considered to be prohibited.
Of course, as many pointed out, this is all a moot point as this nation is supposed to be secular - that is one of our strengths!
Still, we ought to empathize more with Ken and his type. There are many people who believe homosexuality is wrong because they believe the Bible forbids it. We need to reach out to these people so that they realize, as Ken does, that they ought neither to cherry-pick the Bible or urge legislation based solely on Biblical principles anyway.
Perhaps we need to reach out to religious people and at least remind those who do not already realize this fact that it is precisely because this country has a "wall of separation between Church and State" that religion does so well here. I mean look at Europe with its history of established religion - look at how much less religious life there is in Europe than here!
The religious and the working class need to understand that it is liberal Democratic politicies that help them the most. If the benefits of Democratic policies to the common good don't reach the swing voters, maybe self-interest will?
Of course, we need to be able to drown out the might Wurlitzer in order to teach people where their interests lay!
Ken,
You gotta lay off that refresh button. Haloscan no likey.
Oh yes - two more things ...
Some traditional Jews who do view homosexual acts as a sin are willing to condone homosexuals who engage in such acts because their actions are dictated by deep-seated desires beyond their control - I guess since we Jews have so many things we consider to be tresspasses, we have collectively actually gotten quite good at "hating the sin and loving the sinner" (or even "loving the sin and the sinner!" ) ...
Some liberal Jews hold that the Biblical passages prohibiting homosexual acts (at least for heterosexuals) might also prohibit homosexuals from engaging in straight sex - i.e. as soon as one comes to terms with being gay, one shouldn't try to be straight ... the situation gets even more confusing with bisexuals, then, though.
Suffice it to say, there is a reason why we Jews make such good lawyers
DAS,
Honey do you often have this room-clearing effect? :;
Perhaps what the Democrats need to do is to reach out to Gay people..and let them know that they the anti-gay rhetoric is inappropriate in the political arena. People can believe what they choose, but if someone just flat out says "Homosexuality is wrong", well don't expect me to be silent.
I adore Atrios for many reasons, but one of the important ones is that although he cares deeply about the Democrats winning, he never ever wimps out on this issue.
so, the religious rite is against MARRIAGE and would PREFER that gays continued to fornicate and live in sin.
dang, where are their family values?
And not a word about the evil Big-Endians, and how we need a constitutional amendment to forbid people from opening a boiled egg at the big end! 
Folks, this FMA crap is designed to fire up the base, and keep voters on the reservation who might otherwise be tempted to vote Dem on economic grounds. Smirk couldn't give a flying Cheney if it's ever enacted,
Wile E. Yes, that is clearly the point and unfortunately it works.
On the other hand, it has finally upset the Log Cabin Republicans. All I can say is..About time!
And don't trash pie's stylist! I'd expect someone like her to be a big kool-aide drinker, so I'm happy to see she's not.
Besides, if pie's stylist got wind of this, she might do something frightful to pie next time, and Eschatonians wouldn't like that!
[Rabbits] do, however, pass protein packets anally, which they re-ingest
Reason enough not to eat them, I think
(Yeah, yeah, I know, "so says the guy who named himself after a rabbit". But it's a fictional rabbit, so there.)
I have a question for self-described Christians who oppose gay marriage. Why are you supporting unmarried sex?
Because, basically, if homosexuality exists, then these folks are having sex. By banning marriage, you're saying, "Go have sex, but not within a legally-recognized committed relationship."
Is that what you want, those of you who oppose gay marriage? Jesus himself said, "Flee fornication." You're saying, "Go at it!"
I don't get it. Sorry.
Ed
I can't make sense of this issue.
Civil marriage is a spiritually meaningless contract, and most Christians believe, I think, that it ain't a REAL marriage unless God is involved, and the Minister/Priest has been properly tipped. So gay civil marriage is no big deal.
Then again, if the word "marriage" has a greater meaning than "civil union" it either derives from religion or tradition, both of which in the main see the sexual act as the essence of the marriage AND as an inherently reproductive act, which it kinda is, if you think about it, even if the Bible may not find it necessary to point out that penises and vaginas are for making babies, not orgasms. So gay marriage is a revolutionary concept based on a rejection of the obvious and undeniable meaning of the sexual act.
At this juncture someone usually argues "God (or nature) made gays, so gay sex is cool with Him (or is 'natural')" which also doesn't make sense since it basically just means "everything is right and nothing is wrong." (God/nature made everything, including Dick Cheney, you see.)
Just to make my position more internally inconsistent, I value gays as individuals, figure it's none of my business where they spill their seed, and am fully aware that world civilization would be a lot poorer without all the incredible contributions gays have made and continue to make.
I think this jumble of contradictory impulses is why many European nations are de facto letting the concept of civil marriage just wither away. It's too confusing.
"marriage is a revolutionary concept based on a rejection of the obvious and undeniable meaning of the sexual act."
One more time: not all religions define "the meaning of the sexual act" the way that you do. In my religion it has many, many meanings that have nothing at all to do with procreation, and penises and vaginas have many many purposes other than making babies.
If your religion defines sex as meaningful only when it results in making babies. that's fine. I've got absolutely no problem with that. You should only have sex to make babies. You can teach your children that sex is only for making babies. You can go to a church where everyone agrees with you and would only use their penises and vaginas to make babies. It's fine; knock your socks off.
This has nothing to do with the current debate which involves whether it is ok to discriminate against a group of people and deny them a privilege afforded to all other Americans -- and to do so based on the religious beliefs of one group of Americans.
Aw, cm, get off it, you fucking LOVE this stuff.
You are not quite as good a mind-reader as you think you are, I see.
You live for the chance to pull up abtruse translations and concordances.
The NAB and its footnotes -- about the only Bible translation I've quoted, and the footnotes thereto the closest thing to a concordance -- are hardly "abstruse", being the principal American Catholic version of the Bible.
And, thank goodness that we have the font of all earthly and spiritual wisdom here to provide the one true interpretation of the xian holy book for not only those of us who think it's all a bunch of hooey but also those "misguided fellow xians."
Again with imputing things to me that I don't claim, and, you know, if you are going to use direct quotations, you oughtn't alter them to use your epithets within the quote when they aren't used in the original.
Maybe it wouldn't be too much to ask you and your fellow "misguided" (i.e. anyone who doesn't see things the way cm's pedophile says they are) xians to get together and agree sometime in the next 2000 years over what your holy book really does or doesn't say before you start telling the rest of us whether or not it allows gays to get married?
Wow. Look at all the presumption and bigotry just in that one question. Let's catalog it:
In the parenthetical, the assumption that my use of misguided refers to people who disagree with "my" "pedophile" is both a presumption that I rely for my interpretation on a priest, and a presumption based on scandal that all priests are pedophiles, which is about as warrant as presuming, say, that all schoolteachers are.
And then the lumping of Christians together as a group to associate me the actions of a group I have -- on the threads here -- specifically advocated against, those who would use the Bible as the justification for policy -- either way -- on gay marriage.
But then you'll continue to deny that you are practicing anti-Christian bigotry and prejudice.
This has nothing to do with the current debate which involves whether it is ok to discriminate against a group of people and deny them a privilege afforded to all other Americans -- and to do so based on the religious beliefs of one group of Americans.
I think one of the real problems, here, is that the civil institution of marriage as it is currently practiced has no clearly envisioned public secular purpose. It derives from an institution which was traditional, religious, economic, and civic all rolled into one, which both Church and State claimed when the two were separated, without -- at least on the state side -- really re-examining. Since then, there have been piecemeal changes to the way things work, but no wholesale effort to define the public purpose served and clip off everything that doesn't serve that purpose, or that is based on outdated attempts to serve that public purpose.
If the principal public purpose of marriage is to provide a presumption of paternity and an environment for raising the natural children of a union, and all else is secondary, it makes sense from a purely secular point of view to restrict it to opposite-sex pairs.
But its not clear that that is the principal public purpose of marriage, and even less clear that, of all the ends it serves, that should be considered the primary secular purpose.
It seems to me that, from the point of view of securing purely secular benefit, the unitive function of marriage (and sex) is far more important than the procreative purpose, at least in an industrial or post-industrial liberal mixed economy like, say, the entire developed world. While certain religious organizations -- the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, included -- may declare it immoral if those purposes are separated, that has no bearing on the purely secular considerations of public purpose and benefit around which civil law, in a system like that of the United States, must be organized.
The other day, while W was stomping around in favor of the FMA, he said something to the effect that he didn't care what happened in the privacy of the bedroom, but marriage was between a man and a woman, etc. But is this true? Wasn't there a longstanding Texas case involving two men who were busted for having sex? Didn't the Bushies argue that Texas sodomy laws prevailed over privacy rights? Could this be yet another Bush flip-flop?
your article is excellent,i really love it. hoping to read your following post
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
links of london | links london | links london jewelry
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
