Coburn's part of another Supreme Court nomination! [Archive]

badger

6/28/2010, 02:41 PM

I absolutely love Tom Coburn. I like his anti-pork stance and the fact that he will never get the full backing of a political party and many other fun topics. I voted for him in 2004 and probably will again this November.

But these Supreme Court hearings really, really produce a lot of Coburn material in the national media.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_g2G9XZSAzPY/Rl0oS48u8iI/AAAAAAAAAzE/vaBLHqRBFFI/s400/coburn-crossword.JPG
(yes, that is the infamous crossword puzzle)

(Do you) agree that the opposite of being dead is being alive?

You have lots of 'splaining to do!

With Kagan debate starting, it will be interesting to see what Coburn does or says. :D

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 02:48 PM

I'm paralyzed by the fact that someone actually publicly likes Coburn. That's like admitting that you like syphilis.

badger

6/28/2010, 02:54 PM

I'm paralyzed by the fact that someone actually publicly likes Coburn. That's like admitting that you like syphilis.

Yes, he's a little bit different (ok, a lot) different from other senators. But yeah, I voted for him. Sorry :P

OUMallen

6/28/2010, 02:56 PM

I'm paralyzed by the fact that someone actually publicly likes Coburn. That's like admitting that you like syphilis.

I can't stand many of his hyperconservative stances, but I'll vote for him anyway because his fiscal policy, to me, trumps all.

GrapevineSooner

6/28/2010, 02:56 PM

Truth be told, he's the closest to a fiscal conservative that the Republicans have in Washington.

Which is a sad commentary in and of itself on the GOP.

OUMallen

6/28/2010, 03:00 PM

Truth be told, he's the closest to a fiscal conservative in Washington.

FTFY :)

badger

6/28/2010, 03:03 PM

I can't stand many of his hyperconservative stances

Oh yes, and I've been embarrassed by a few of the things he's said and done... like those listed above. Here's another from a few years ago:

Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?

That statement was too unbelievable to really be taken seriously, of course. But, the fact that he will not compromise or give any ground should be encouraging to those worried about Washington giving into pet projects, special interests and lobbyists

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 03:05 PM

Why can't his deplorable homophobia be "taken seriously"? Seemed pretty believable to me. I think he meant it.

Would you vote for an ardent racist simply because you liked his politics? I wouldn't.

badger

6/28/2010, 03:14 PM

Why can't his deplorable homophobia be "taken seriously"? Seemed pretty believable to me. I think he meant it.

Would you vote for an ardent racist simply because you liked his politics? I wouldn't.

I didn't take it seriously because a lot of what he says seems far-fetched or really, really off-the-cuff just to get attention. And it works, oh yes. Trapping armadillos with marshmallows (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090725_16_A1_WASHIN362521&allcom=1), is a headline grabber :D

OUMallen

6/28/2010, 03:14 PM

Why can't his deplorable homophobia be "taken seriously"? Seemed pretty believable to me. I think he meant it.

Would you vote for an ardent racist simply because you liked his politics? I wouldn't.

It's never that simple though. In my world, I'm usually choosing between the lesser of my two perceived evils. There are plenty of ridiculous conservatives in DC. But not any true fiscal conservatives really. So I'll try to send Coburn, even though I am pro-choice.

GrapevineSooner

6/28/2010, 03:14 PM

Stitch Face

6/28/2010, 03:18 PM

Would you vote for an ardent racist simply because you liked his politics? I wouldn't.

Are you referring to all the praise for Sen. Byrd today?

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 03:21 PM

badger

6/28/2010, 03:29 PM

Oklahoma voters are stupid for rewarding him for using it.

Since Oklahoma is a no write-in state and very few opportunities for third candidates on main ballots it was either him or Brad Carson back in 2004. Therefore, it might not be fair to label voters "stupid" for voting for Coburn. They just didn't have very many other options. If you look back to the primary, the other choices were Kirk Humphries (the former OKC mayor) or that Corp Commish that really doesn't do much (Bob Anthony, I think???).

It is ironic that you mention abortion stance, as it sounds like you are pro-choice. Ironic because Oklahoma elections are setup to not provide many choices for voters. Hell, if you're registered as an independent, you are shutout of voting in primaries.

C&CDean

6/28/2010, 03:32 PM

Gender and sexual orientation is not a race. But the arbitrary hatred of gay people (and homosexuality itself) is still bigotry. Tom Coburn is a bigot.

With that said, the rumor is that Coburn himself performed abortions, and he now advocates the death penalty for abortionists? Even if he never did perform an abortion, his stance on the abortion issue is still crazy--this sort of rhetoric is ridiculous, and Oklahoma voters are stupid for rewarding him for using it.

Does Coburn "hate" gay people? Have you heard him say it? You think abortion is groovy. Coburn thinks it's murder. BFD. Finally, Oklahoma voters are the smartest in the nation. This past POTUS election proved that.

BillyBall

6/28/2010, 03:35 PM

I'm paralyzed by the fact that someone actually publicly likes Coburn. That's like admitting that you like syphilis.

Heh...

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 03:36 PM

Therefore, it might not be fair to label voters "stupid" for voting for Coburn. They just didn't have very many other options.

Okay, that's a fair point and I can retract my generalized statements about Oklahoma-voters and stupidity.

The only stupid voters are the ones that agree with this craziness, and I'm afraid that that's a fairly significant portion of his constituency (sadly this means he might be a good Senator, albeit a crazy, bigoted one).

badger

6/28/2010, 03:52 PM

OK, I think we've come to a amicable agreement then :D

I "love" Coburn not because of policy, but because everytime he speaks, you want to hear what he has to say... not because you'll agree, but because it will be so incredibly... out there. He will not be "politically correct," he will not issue bland statements that will in no way end his ability to get re-elected. He's just say stuff. Often.

That's why I started this thread... because I know that he will say something during this Kagan hearing that will be blasted by the national media, bloggies and political opponents. And it'll be fun to sit back and watch the meltdown :P

Harry Beanbag

6/28/2010, 03:52 PM

Can Serge Ibaka make a 1000 yard jump shot?

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 03:56 PM

Can Serge Ibaka make a 1000 yard jump shot?

Stupid question. He can probably make a 10-15 footer with regularity, but that's totally OT.

SicEmBaylor

6/28/2010, 03:58 PM

Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and to a lesser extent Jeff Sessions are the only three individuals in the Senate worthy of their office. The other 97 bozos are utterly and totally useless.

GottaHavePride

6/28/2010, 04:11 PM

Well, at least you won't have to worry about Brownback much longer - he wants to be Governor of Kansas. (Because he thinks he has a better shot at a Presidency from a Governor's seat.)

God, I hope Kansans aren't dumb enough to elect that moron Governor.

SicEmBaylor

6/28/2010, 04:13 PM

Brownback is horrid. Horrid. In fact, he's one Senator that truly scares the bejesus out of me (no pun intended).

GottaHavePride

6/28/2010, 04:16 PM

Brownback is horrid. Horrid. In fact, he's one Senator that truly scares the bejesus out of me (no pun intended).

YOU think he's bad? I can't understand why they keep ****ing re-electing him! He should scare ANYone with an IQ over 25.

delhalew

6/28/2010, 06:28 PM

Kansas is lost.

Leroy Lizard

6/28/2010, 07:23 PM

Would you vote for an ardent racist simply because you liked his politics? I wouldn't.

A man is entitled to his opinions. ;)

On a more serious note, rejection of homosexuality is not the same as racism. Homosexuality is a behavior that has been specifically condemned (for lack of a better word) by religious scripture. Whether one thinks homosexuality is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/28/2010, 07:51 PM

Kansas is lost.Proof: Kathleen Sebilius!

Serge Ibaka

6/28/2010, 07:52 PM

A man is entitled to his opinions. ;)

On a more serious note, rejection of homosexuality is not the same as racism. Homosexuality is a behavior that has been specifically condemned (for lack of a better word) by religious scripture. Whether one thinks homosexuality is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

Nope. Religion has been used in similar ways to validate the subjugation of ethnic minorities as well as women, and mainstream-society has since decried such "scriptures" as outdated and deplorable.

There is no excuse for bigotry towards homosexuality. And by exclaiming that lesbianism is "an issue" in Oklahoma schools, Tom Coburn betrays his own bigotry.

SoonerBorn68

6/28/2010, 07:56 PM

Heh, Serge is gay.

SoonerInKCMO

6/28/2010, 08:02 PM

I didn't take it seriously because a lot of what he says seems far-fetched

It certainly seems far-fetched to most normal people; but he still believes the ****.

Leroy Lizard

6/28/2010, 08:49 PM

Nope. Religion has been used in similar ways to validate the subjugation of ethnic minorities as well as women, and mainstream-society has since decried such "scriptures" as outdated and deplorable.

Doesn't matter. Homosexuality is specifically condemned in The Bible. We've cited the passages in here numerous times. A Christian wanting to adhere to scripture has little choice but to look negatively at the behavior.

And clearly homosexual behavior IS a behavior. Race is not.

Now, whether one calls out the homosexual instead of the behavior is another matter.

SoonerJack

6/29/2010, 08:49 AM

"There is no excuse for bigotry towards homosexuality."

Of course there is. They're ruining rainbows for the rest of us.

Bourbon St Sooner

6/29/2010, 09:09 AM

"There is no excuse for bigotry towards homosexuality."

Of course there is. They're ruining rainbows for the rest of us.

Heh. My baby daughter has a toy like a radio and when she pushes the button it says "It's bumper to bumper on the rainbow bridge." I'm convinced this is some kind of gay indoctrination:)

NormanPride

6/29/2010, 09:10 AM

IMO, he does more good than bad. Him saying stupid crap is far outweighed by the fact that he stirs up crap in Washington and calls attention to when the good ol boys are trying to pull a fast one on us.

OUMallen

6/29/2010, 09:33 AM

It's bumper to bumper on the rainbow bridge.

http://www.ohjonah.com/pictures/BBJrGayConga.jpg

OklahomaTuba

6/29/2010, 09:47 AM

Perhaps Senator Coburn (who not only is wildly popular in this state, but is perhaps the best Senator this state has ever had) can help find out why this scrunt thinks she should be a SCOTUS Justice when she is obviously an anti-military radical who also seems to think banning books is OK as well???

OklahomaTuba

6/29/2010, 09:51 AM

With Kagan debate starting, it will be interesting to see what Coburn does or says. :DHopefully he doesn't fall asleep, like Stewart Smally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVyuB-cy_wY&feature=player_embedded

delhalew

6/30/2010, 12:40 PM

I'm not going to find a link from my blackberry, but Coburn made Kagen look like a FOOL today when asking if the federal government can make you eat your vegetables.

badger

6/30/2010, 12:52 PM

So you know how I said Coburn would be quoted by the national media for his quotent quotables?

Is it within the constitution for me to write a bill having been duly elected by the people of Oklahoma to say -- and get it signed by the president -- that you have to eat three fruits and three vegetables every day?

and

You do get the Arthur Murray award, much to my chagrin... You are dancing a bit — maybe you should be on 'Dancing with the Stars.

(later in media interviews)She's doing exactly what she criticized other nominees for doing. She's dancing.

So Coburn hates veggie/fruit laws and dancing. What a square :P

delhalew

6/30/2010, 01:06 PM

Miss Kagen! The answer is no!

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 01:21 PM

So you know how I said Coburn would be quoted by the national media for his quotent quotables?

and

So Coburn hates veggie/fruit laws and dancing. What a square :P

Nice. What did she say?

badger

6/30/2010, 01:41 PM

Her response to Coburn's veggies:

Sounds like a dumb law... But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from ... the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 02:01 PM

Doesn't matter. Homosexuality is specifically condemned in The Bible. We've cited the passages in here numerous times. A Christian wanting to adhere to scripture has little choice but to look negatively at the behavior.

And clearly homosexual behavior IS a behavior.

Great, you're using Leviticus 20:13, yeah? I'm going to disagree with you because the Bible says a lot of things. Here's a list:

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. (Leviticus 19:27)

You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together. (Leviticus 19:19)

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:10)

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. (Titus 2:3)

So according to the Bible: it is an abomination to shave your head or beard; it is an abomination to breed separate types of cows; it is an abomination to mix your field with different sorts of plants; it is an abomination to wear clothes with 2 different kids of material; it is an abomination to eat shrimp; it is an abomination for women to not submit entirely to their husbands or to teach Sunday school classes. And to be clear, all of these things are behaviors, and they are behaviors that even the most devout Christians perform.

How do you value some biblical laws over others? It is arbitrary to use the Bible as guidance for some issues and ignore it for others.

Unless you're some sort of Super-Christian!!!11, religion is not an excuse for the rejection of homosexuality. Not to mention, using literature that is several millennia old for moral/ethical guidance is an ignorant activity in itself (and it's especially alarming when other people are being negatively affected).

Did I mention that Tom Coburn is a bigot?

47straight

6/30/2010, 02:17 PM

Not to mention, using literature that is several millennia old for moral/ethical guidance is an ignorant activity in itself ...

Did I mention that Tom Coburn is a bigot?

Not half the bigot you are, bigot.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 02:18 PM

Not half the bigot you are, bigot.

Good one! But not really. That doesn't even make sense.

47straight

6/30/2010, 02:19 PM

Her response to Coburn's veggies:

She ducked the question of whether the commerce clause was broad enough to encompass it.

47straight

6/30/2010, 02:19 PM

Good one! But not really. That doesn't even make sense.

Whatever you say, bigot.

KABOOKIE

6/30/2010, 02:25 PM

leave troll bigot alone. he's smart and can spell Obama.

47straight

6/30/2010, 02:28 PM

leave troll bigot alone. he's smart and can spell Obama.

Was the bigot engaging in spelling smack?

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 02:31 PM

leave troll bigot alone. he's smart and can spell Obama.

Was the bigot engaging in spelling smack?

Psh! Only with Kabookie because it's fun. But with that said, I am smart and I can spell Obama.

The jury is still out on my trollness.

As for my bigotry? It's only against ignorant people who make arbitrary decisions to hate homosexuals/homosexuality while still eating shellfish and cutting their hair. I think that's fair because such ignorant people are deplorable bigots.

Just like Tom Coburn!

KABOOKIE

6/30/2010, 02:36 PM

Reassuring thoughts by, Stuart Smiley.

47straight

6/30/2010, 02:51 PM

Psh! Only with Kabookie because it's fun. But with that said, I am smart and I can spell Obama.

The jury is still out on my trollness.

As for my bigotry? It's only against ignorant people who make arbitrary decisions to hate homosexuals/homosexuality while still eating shellfish and cutting their hair. I think that's fair because such ignorant people are deplorable bigots.

Just like Tom Coburn!

Nope, you said anyone who believes in millenia old texts for their moral/ethical guidance.

So that's 80-90% of Americans. 1.5 billion Christians and Jews worldwide.

Let's not forget the hundreds of millions of Buddhists, their texts are a least millenia old. Same with Confucian followers and Taoists.

The whole Indian subcontinent comes under your umbrella. Upwards of a billion.

Can't look to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle for anything, so that kind of wipes out the foundations of Western Civilization.

Don't know whether the shinto have any texts per se or not, so maybe the bigot is fine with Japan.

For your own sake, we'll pretend you didn't mean Islam, since their texts aren't really *millenia* old, at least for 700 more years or so.

Your brush sure did manage to cover a lot of people that you're prejudiced against. So in reality, you're much more of a bigot than you could ever make Coburn out to be, bigot.

But there's something else at work here. You pose questions of how to reconcile different scriptures, as if noone had ever dreamt of that before, and willfully choose not to even seek an answer. Then you call someone else "ignorant." Then you call someone else a bigot right after you show yourself to be the one of biggest ones imaginable (80-90% of Americans, etc.).

That's why you're not only a bigot, you're also a hypocrite, bigot.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 02:54 PM

She ducked the question of whether the commerce clause was broad enough to encompass it.

Our country is in big trouble.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 02:56 PM

47straight: Uh, here's what I said: "using literature that is several millennia old for moral/ethical guidance is an ignorant activity in itself."

And I mean it. But does this make me a bigot? I am not intolerant of religious people (only when their arbitrary ideological decisions hurt innocent people).

You would probably agree that people who cross the road without looking both directions are ignorant. Does this make you a bigoted against such pedestrians? I wouldn't say so.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 02:58 PM

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 03:01 PM

Do you have to eat shellfish and have your hair cut at the same time to be considered a bigot?

What if you don't cut your hair but eat shellfish? What about those that cut their hair but don't eat shellfish.

What if you can't eat shellfish because you're allergic to iodine, but really want to?

lol. +1.

I still say my points are valid, at any rate. Religion isn't an excuse for lawfully (or socially) subjugating homosexuals. And, indeed, there isn't any excuse.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:06 PM

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 03:08 PM

She ducked the question of whether the commerce clause was broad enough to encompass it.

Yep, totally danced.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 03:10 PM

If a Christian derided a Hindu's religious beliefs you certainly wouldn't hesitate to yank out the bigot label.

Not really. I would call them ignorant and hypocritical. Bigot doesn't really fit in that context.

And I would say the same if the roles were reversed, for the record.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:21 PM

lol. +1.

I still say my points are valid, at any rate. Religion isn't an excuse for lawfully (or socially) subjugating homosexuals. And, indeed, there isn't any excuse.

When religious scripture commands its followers must adhere to certain beliefs, they must adhere to those beliefs. Is that an excuse? Well it's a pretty damn good one if you ask me.

To His followers, God calls the plays. If a person believes in the Christian god and wants to be saved, they have no choice in the matter.

Calling oneself a Christian while picking and choosing which scriptures to follow is pointless. Believing in Christianity is not like throwing hand grenades; close is not enough.

So can an avowed homosexual be a Christian? No, probably not. Can true Christians support homosexuality? No, probably not. But don't blame Christians; they didn't write the playbook.

Viking Kitten

6/30/2010, 03:23 PM

A true Christian isn't supposed to judge others either, but you seem to have no problem doing that.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 03:27 PM

When religious scripture commands its followers must adhere to certain beliefs, they must adhere to those beliefs. Is that an excuse? Well it's a pretty damn good one if you ask me.

To His followers, God calls the plays. If a person believes in the Christian god and wants to be saved, they have no choice in the matter.

Calling oneself a Christian while picking and choosing which scriptures to follow is pointless. Believing in Christianity is not like throwing hand grenades; close is not enough.

So can an avowed homosexual be a Christian? No, probably not. Can true Christians support homosexuality? No, probably not. But don't blame Christians; they didn't write the playbook.

That was my whole point! Didn't you even read my post above? Sheesh.

Almost every Christian who nods in agreement with your post is "picking and choosing which scriptures to follow." Homosexuality, as an "abomination" is not particularly outlined in the bible as more abominable than tons of other things that many Christians perform on a regular basis (or do not criticize, at least).

So then, why is homosexuality so bad?

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:29 PM

A true Christian isn't supposed to judge others either, but you seem to have no problem doing that.

True Christians can judge the behaviors of others. In fact, God commands it.

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 03:30 PM

A true Christian isn't supposed to judge others either, but you seem to have no problem doing that.

Haven't you heard, Dudette?

those Christians that irritate the public the most are probably those following His commandments the closest!

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:34 PM

That was my whole point! Didn't you even read my post above? Sheesh.

Almost every Christian who nods in agreement with your post is "picking and choosing which scriptures to follow." Homosexuality, as an "abomination" is not particularly outlined in the bible as more abominable than tons of other things that many Christians perform on a regular basis (or do not criticize, at least).

So then, why is homosexuality so bad?

Because it is a sin, not just a custom. Christianity is full of customs. One does not need to follow them to be a true Christian.

And even if one does violate one of God's commandments, he can still repent. It isn't the act but the belief.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:35 PM

Haven't you heard, Dudette?

those Christians that irritate the public the most are probably those following His commandments the closest!

Gee, could you take my quote any more out of context?

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 03:37 PM

Because it is a sin, not just a custom. Christianity is full of customs. One does not need to follow them to be a true Christian.

And even if one does violate one of God's commandments, he can still repent. It isn't the act but the belief.

What? No, you're not making any sense.

I'm saying: most Christians will dismiss the Leviticus chapters that ban shellfish and shaving as being meaningless. What's the difference between this and the same book's ban on homosexuality? It's senseless.

Stitch Face

6/30/2010, 03:38 PM

Right on schedule...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/30/elena-kagan-vegtables-and-the-state

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 03:48 PM

Gee, could you take my quote any more out of context?

Did you not say the following quote?

Keep in mind that Christianity is not a hobby. God commands his followers to fight evil and exhort others to join the belief. Witnessing is not merely an option.

In other words, those Christians that irritate the public the most are probably those following His commandments the closest.

It couldn't be anymore in context. Judging by this thread alone, you're doing a pretty good job of backing up your quote.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:50 PM

What? No, you're not making any sense.

I'm saying: most Christians will dismiss the Leviticus chapters that ban shellfish and shaving as being meaningless. What's the difference between this and the same book's ban on homosexuality? It's senseless.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This is far stronger condemnation than cutting hair or eating shellfish.

The cutting of hair was to prevent Christians from adopting a custom practiced at the time by heathens. God wasn't laying down a commandment for all future generations to follow, but rather commanding those at the time not to mimic the popular customs of nonbelievers. The ban on shellfish may have had a similar purpose. I'm not much of a Bible historian.

Context is everything.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:52 PM

Did you not say the following quote?

Keep in mind that Christianity is not a hobby. God commands his followers to fight evil and exhort others to join the belief. Witnessing is not merely an option.

In other words, those Christians that irritate the public the most are probably those following His commandments the closest.

There is nothing in there about judging others.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 03:53 PM

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

This is far stronger condemnation than cutting hair or eating shellfish.

The cutting of hair was to prevent Christians from adopting a custom practiced at the time by heathens. God wasn't laying down a commandment for all future generations to follow, but rather commanding those at the time not to mimic the popular customs of nonbelievers. The ban on shellfish may have had a similar purpose. I'm not much of a Bible historian.

Context is everything.

That's stupid. So some biblical laws are merely sociological phenomenon, and some biblical laws are meant to guide our ideas and laws nowadays? How do we decide which is which? Still, at any rate:

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Are these "stronger" condemnations better evidence of the hypocrisy of Christians when it comes to homosexuality?

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 03:56 PM

Right on schedule...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/30/elena-kagan-vegtables-and-the-state

So we have an endorsement of over-reaching government intrusion offered by The Guardian. Gee, what a surprise.

BTW, at what point do we tell the Brits to stay the **** out of our affairs?

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 03:56 PM

When religious scripture commands its followers must adhere to certain beliefs, they must adhere to those beliefs. Is that an excuse? Well it's a pretty damn good one if you ask me.

To His followers, God calls the plays. If a person believes in the Christian god and wants to be saved, they have no choice in the matter.

Calling oneself a Christian while picking and choosing which scriptures to follow is pointless. Believing in Christianity is not like throwing hand grenades; close is not enough.

So can an avowed homosexual be a Christian? No, probably not. Can true Christians support homosexuality? No, probably not. But don't blame Christians; they didn't write the playbook.

1. The Council of Nicea, full of Christians, did indeed choose what comprised the playbook.
2. Every denomination does or doesn't follow every word of the Bible in some way or another.

This thread is getting super off-topic, but I think you're over-simplifying a little, that's all.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 04:01 PM

That's stupid. So some biblical laws are merely sociological phenomenon, and some biblical laws are meant to guide our ideas and laws nowadays? How do we decide which is which? Still, at any rate:

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Are these "stronger" condemnations better evidence of the hypocrisy of Christians when it comes to homosexuality?

God is laying out sins that are worthy of capital punishment. Homosexuality is among those. But God also allows for one to repent.

So when judgment comes, those that have not repented for cursing at their parents or having sex with women on their periods will face eternal damnation. Homosexuality is one of those sins.

So a homosexual can repent and still be saved. I think all Christians (other than a certain bunch from Kansas) believe that.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 04:04 PM

1. The Council of Nicea, full of Christians, did indeed choose what comprised the playbook.

Maybe, but we're talking about Christians today. (I'm not that familiar with the Council of Nicea.)

2. Every denomination does or doesn't follow every word of the Bible in some way or another.

And when Judgment comes, they will find out the implications of their pickin' and a choosin'. But again, one must differentiate between a commandment and a custom.

Serge Ibaka

6/30/2010, 04:09 PM

God is laying out sins that are worthy of capital punishment. Homosexuality is among those. But God also allows for one to repent.

So let me get this straight: it's okay to eat shellfish and cut your hair because the Bible merely says you shouldn't do it, but it's not okay to curse your parents or perform homosexual acts because the 2,000 year old document (that has been translated and rescribed so many times since then) says that if you do those things, you should be killed?

Is it possible that God actually considers the offenses equal but the guy who was writing it down accidentally forgot to add the clause about shellfish-eating being worthy of death? Maybe he was taking a sip of water and lost his place in the sentence.

I'm alarmed that this actually makes sense in your brain.

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 04:11 PM

There is nothing in there about judging others.

I think it's safe to say that irritate the public the most translates well to meaning judgement.

Let's just toss this other quote of yours in there for good measure, just to seal the deal.

True Christians can judge the behaviors of others. In fact, God commands.

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 04:13 PM

Maybe, but we're talking about Christians today. (I'm not that familiar with the Council of Nicea.)

And when Judgment comes, they will find out the implications of their pickin' and a choosin'.

Indeed. Then I'd say, logically, no one will be going ot heaven because no denomination follows the Bible word for word.

Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical (meaning worldwide, but really just the Roman Empire) gathering of the then-Bishops/Cardinals/People that began deciding doctrine, creeds, canons, etc. Deciding the rules, basically. As they met over and over later on, they successively starting making up answers to questions, raising some things into church law as what the Bible "means" etc. After the first metting, Bibles were commissioned to be created.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 04:48 PM

So let me get this straight: it's okay to eat shellfish and cut your hair because the Bible merely says you shouldn't do it...

No, no, no. You don't get it. God was commanding those in the day not to adopt practices that resembled those of non-believers. I thought I already explained this.

I once told my daughter that she would be in big trouble if I caught her drinking alcohol. The other day she had a glass of wine in my very presence. Egads! Am I being inconsistent? No, I told her to stay away from alcohol when she was 16. But to you, context means nothing.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 04:54 PM

Indeed. Then I'd say, logically, no one will be going ot heaven because no denomination follows the Bible word for word.

It depends on what you mean by "word for word." Again, consider the context. No document can withstand criticism if the critic pulls quotes out of context.

So how does one know for sure? Christians will tell you that once you establish a relationship with God the Truth will appear and there will be no doubt.

The biggest mistake that non-believers make is it consider The Bible as a rule book. Going to Heaven does not occur because one follows the rules. However, there are things that God considers sins and one must repent if he has any hope of salvation. God is very clear on that.

Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical (meaning worldwide, but really just the Roman Empire) gathering of the then-Bishops/Cardinals/People that began deciding doctrine, creeds, canons, etc. Deciding the rules, basically. As they met over and over later on, they successively starting making up answers to questions, raising some things into church law as what the Bible "means" etc. After the first metting, Bibles were commissioned to be created.

That's all fine, but again the discussion about modern Christians deciding not to follow God's words because others find them unpopular. God is not pc. Never has been.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 04:58 PM

I think it's safe to say that irritate the public the most translates well to meaning judgement.

If I go to a cashier every day and ask him to go to my church, that is not judging him. But I am sure it will irritate him. To witness you don't have to judge people, although you can judge their actions. But witnessing is considered an irritating activity.

Again, CONTEXT. You should have been able to ascertain the context when I stated "Christianity is not a hobby." Clearly I am referring to witnessing, i.e., taking Christianity to others and not merely being satisfied with one's own salvation.

[As you quoted me earlier]: [I]True Christians can judge the behaviors of others.

Abso-****ing-lutely. I can judge the BEHAVIORS of people, just not the people themselves. Hate the sin, not the sinner. This is hardly a novel idea.

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 05:06 PM

You really gotta stop huffing paint.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 05:08 PM

You really gotta stop huffing paint.

It looks like you're "down for the count" in this thread.

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 05:09 PM

It depends on what you mean by "word for word." Again, consider the context. No document can withstand criticism if the critic pulls quotes out of context.

So how does one know for sure? Christians will tell you that once you establish a relationship with God the Truth will appear and there will be no doubt.

The biggest mistake that non-believers make is it consider The Bible as a rule book. Going to Heaven does not occur because one follows the rules. However, there are things that God considers sins and one must repent if he has any hope of salvation. God is very clear on that.

I'm telling you, logically and in context, you're nary going to find a denomination that follows "all" of the Bible. Not a Catholic or a Baptist, and nothing in-between.

And the bolded part, is that something you personally, truly believe?

OUMallen

6/30/2010, 05:11 PM

also,

http://www.zoneshot.com/server/dg/thread%20is%20going.jpg

SouthFortySooner

6/30/2010, 05:12 PM

A true Christian isn't supposed to judge others either, but you seem to have no problem doing that.

Actually it says just the opposite as you opine. It says, to not judge others UNLESS you care to be judged with the same judgement. If we didn't judge others how would we ever distinguish right and wrong? Which I feel is the reasoning behind 'most' misinterpretation, not wanting to admit there is a right or wrong.

A true Christian is however to, 'esteem others better than themselves', try working on this for a while and if your like me, total fail.

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 05:14 PM

It looks like you're "down for the count" in this thread.

Gee, it sounds like you have no real response.....

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 05:15 PM

I'm telling you, logically and in context, you're nary going to find a denomination that follows "all" of the Bible. Not a Catholic or a Baptist, and nothing in-between.

And I already responded to that point. Again, The Bible is not a rule book. Those that try to analyze The Bible apart by examining verses in isolation just don't get it and maybe never will.

And the bolded part, is that something you personally, truly believe?

I haven't formed such a relationship, so I cannot say.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 05:17 PM

Gee, it sounds like you have no real response.....

Instead of responding to my point in a logical fashion you resorted to a grade-school insult. So other than to submit a blood test showing absence of paint-based toxins, what's their to say?

KC//CRIMSON

6/30/2010, 05:19 PM

Instead of responding to my point in a logical fashion you resorted to a grade-school insult. So other than to submit a blood test showing absence of paint-based toxins, what's their to say?

Careful, you're not thinking about the downside again....

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 05:20 PM

Whatever.

delhalew

6/30/2010, 06:24 PM

Supreme court conformation and Coburn...you ninnies are talking about neither.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 06:29 PM

Supreme court conformation and Coburn...you ninnies are talking about neither.

Well, the whole "Is a disgust with homosexual behavior a form of bigotry?" argument started very early on.

And not by me. :D

47straight

6/30/2010, 06:44 PM

Yep, totally danced.

NTTTAWWT.

delhalew

6/30/2010, 06:46 PM

It was stupid on page one and its still stupid on page five.
Makes me regret waking this thread with an actual current event.

Leroy Lizard

6/30/2010, 06:49 PM

It was stupid on page one and its still stupid on page five.
Makes me regret waking this thread with an actual current event.

The thread was supposed to be about Kagan and her Big Brother dreams, but as usual people got fixated on the questioner. Does it matter who asked her the question about vegetables?

delhalew

6/30/2010, 07:04 PM

Only in so much as Coburn is very good at making someone like Kagen show their ***.
Think back to making Obama look like a tool during the "health care summit".

Harry Beanbag

6/30/2010, 10:43 PM

Obama is a tool. And I have no interest in seeing Kagan's ***.

PDXsooner

7/1/2010, 09:16 PM

The biggest mistake that non-believers make is it consider The Bible as a rule book. Going to Heaven does not occur because one follows the rules.

This could quite possibly be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Are you serious? Why would "non-believers" (whatever that means) consider it anything?

It's precisely the other way around, if anything. The only people considering it a rulebook are what I would call religious extremists.

And the things you mentioned above are EXACTLY what Oklahoma Baptists taught me every single time I had the misfortune of getting into a discussion with them as a kid.

Leroy Lizard

7/1/2010, 09:27 PM

This could quite possibly be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Are you serious? Why would "non-believers" (whatever that means) consider it anything?

It's precisely the other way around, if anything. The only people considering it a rulebook are what I would call religious extremists.

Not in any church I have ever attended. Just about every Christian I have ever met agrees that simply following the rules (what to eat, what to say, what to do) means nothing without repentance.

Think of the old saying: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's a duck. That doesn't hold for Christianity. You can look like a Christian, speak like a Christian, and act like a Christian and still spend your afterlife being eternally impaled on Satan's manhood.

And if you don't understand that, you need to sit down with your minister a little longer.

One more thing: You may be misled because your parents used Christian principles to keep you in line. "If you want to go to Heaven, you must eat your broccoli."

PDXsooner

7/1/2010, 11:45 PM

and still spend your afterlife being eternally impaled on Satan's manhood.

That is the root of the belief of many "believers".

Leroy Lizard

7/2/2010, 01:22 AM

That is the root of the belief of many "believers".

Well, duh!

PDXsooner

7/2/2010, 12:44 PM

Well, duh!

Do you really believe in a God that would sentence Ghandi and the Dali Lama to be impaled on Satan's manhood for all eternity? I have no respect for a God that would create a world like that.

Leroy Lizard

7/2/2010, 01:08 PM

Do you really believe in a God that would sentence Ghandi and the Dali Lama to be impaled on Satan's manhood for all eternity? I have no respect for a God that would create a world like that.

You plan to vote Him out of office?

"I don't believe you! I need my car to go to work. I could be fired if I don't show up. I'm a good man! You... you're a jerk for even making such a statement!"

"Sir, your engine block is cracked. You may refuse to believe that or not, but it is. Don't blame me; I didn't crack it."

IOW, God either exists or He doesn't, regardless of our views on Scripture. As for me, I think Satan is sticking a fork in the Ghandi's behind right about now. 'Hmmm... still a little rare. I like my Hindu meat well done."