PDA

View Full Version : Hmm, Doesn't Fit The Narrative. Carry On With The Name Calling



LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 06:50 PM
"When you look at Santorum’s actual record and involvement with black Americans, you find something entirely different from the media caricatures of a racist Republican. Longtime staff member Robert Traynham served with Santorum for ten years. Traynham is an openly homosexual black man who has repeatedly defended Santorum from these assaults on his character,"

http://bigjournalism.com/cjohnson/2012/02/10/no-msm-santorum-is-not-a-racist/#more-259624

It sucks when facts get in the way of demagoguery.

I don't get it. I've been told by the media that he (along with all conservatives) is a racist homophobe that hates everyone that's not rich.

What was that John Adams quote about facts, SP?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/10/2012, 07:31 PM
"When you look at Santorum’s actual record and involvement with black Americans, you find something entirely different from the media caricatures of a racist Republican. Longtime staff member Robert Traynham served with Santorum for ten years. Traynham is an openly homosexual black man who has repeatedly defended Santorum from these assaults on his character,"

http://bigjournalism.com/cjohnson/2012/02/10/no-msm-santorum-is-not-a-racist/#more-259624

It sucks when facts get in the way of demagoguery.

I don't get it. I've been told by the media that he (along with all conservatives) is a racist homophobe that hates everyone that's not rich.What was that John Adams quote about facts, SP?

I've watched the Anderson Cooper video and he is not accusing Santorum of being racist. He is simply making Santorum look bad for being in denial about what he said. Santorum says, "it kinda sounds like I said "black" Americans, but it really wasn't the word "black." I be word pivoting when I be talking."

SicEmBaylor
2/10/2012, 07:40 PM
Santorum is the most dangerous man running for President up to and including Obama. If he were to get the GOP nomination, god forbid*, then I'm reasonably sure that I would never vote Republican again. If he gets the nomination, I will join in whatever effort to make sure the Republican Party dies a painful but quick death as soon as possible.

*Pun intended

cccasooner2
2/10/2012, 07:49 PM
Santorum is the most dangerous man running for President up to and including Obama. If he were to get the GOP nomination, god forbid*, then I'm reasonably sure that I would never vote Republican again. If he gets the nomination, I will join in whatever effort to make sure the Republican Party dies a painful but quick death as soon as possible.

*Pun intended

But, but, but ....h..his daughter was sick.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/10/2012, 07:50 PM
Also, Santorum had a strange (not racist) comment -- that the movie "Waiting for Superman" was about black children.

If a movie has some characters who are black, the movie is about black people?

soonercruiser
2/10/2012, 09:38 PM
Santorum is the most dangerous man running for President up to and including Obama. If he were to get the GOP nomination, god forbid*, then I'm reasonably sure that I would never vote Republican again. If he gets the nomination, I will join in whatever effort to make sure the Republican Party dies a painful but quick death as soon as possible.

*Pun intended

SicEm!
Would you leave the country if Santorum is elected?
No pun intended....

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 10:06 PM
"When you look at Santorum’s actual record and involvement with black Americans, you find something entirely different from the media caricatures of a racist Republican. Longtime staff member Robert Traynham served with Santorum for ten years. Traynham is an openly homosexual black man who has repeatedly defended Santorum from these assaults on his character,"

http://bigjournalism.com/cjohnson/2012/02/10/no-msm-santorum-is-not-a-racist/#more-259624

It sucks when facts get in the way of demagoguery.

I don't get it. I've been told by the media that he (along with all conservatives) is a racist homophobe that hates everyone that's not rich.

What was that John Adams quote about facts, SP?

You act as though I've never heard of Robert Traynham before. He's been on TV quite a bit and is a known quantity. At first blush I thought he was just a shill or possibly lying. Over the past months when I've seen him speak about Santorum I've decided he was sincere. Rick Santorum was not personally hateful to his face.

That leaves two distinct possiblities...

1. Rick Santorum is a fraud. He espouses all the right wing talking points about gays, and the gay agenda, but in private accepts them and even encourages them and welcomes them and their partners into his home for dinner and drinks. So he's possibly a hypocrite. There's a whole lot of that in Washington. The "do as I say not as I do" credo.

or

2. Robert Traynham is willing to overlook Santorum's political stance which is anethma to his own lifestyle for his own personal career and political gain. There is a term for people like that derived from a character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, but I find it offensive to call someone that. But the description of the behavior pattern fits.

Besides how he may treat someone face to face, the main point is what he believes government should do. Santorum advocates for personal freedom everywhere but in the bedroom, where he thinks the state can outlaw contraception and sodomy (gay or straight). Um, dude, keep your nose out of everyone's private affairs. Santorum's policy positions are a frothy mix of repression and idiocy.

AlboSooner
2/10/2012, 10:14 PM
. Rick Santorum is a fraud. He espouses all the right wing talking points about gays, and the gay agenda, but in private accepts them and even encourages them and welcomes them and their partners into his home for dinner and drinks. So he's possibly a hypocrite. There's a whole lot of that in Washington. The "do as I say not as I do" credo.


That's the opposite of being a hypocrite. The Christian position has ALWAYS been, hate the sin, love the sinner. And we are all sinners. Looks like Santorum is practicing good Christian doctrine.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 10:28 PM
That's the opposite of being a hypocrite. The Christian position has ALWAYS been, hate the sin, love the sinner. And we are all sinners. Looks like Santorum is practicing good Christian doctrine.

Yeah, you can always feel the love around Chrisitians.

If Jesus was on Earth today, he'd be stoned to death as a liberal.

AlboSooner
2/10/2012, 10:42 PM
If Jesus was on Earth today, he'd be stoned to death as a liberal.

Not for being a liberal, but for being Holy. Love, compassion, sacrifice, holiness and so on are neither conservative values, nor liberal values, those are values that come from God.

Jesus would do exactly what Santorum did, by hanging around and being friendly to people who don't practice the same values he does.

SicEmBaylor
2/10/2012, 10:50 PM
Jesus was a self-righteous d-bag.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 10:55 PM
Jesus was a self-righteous d-bag.

You're doing that whole Baylor thing wrong.

SicEmBaylor
2/10/2012, 11:00 PM
SicEm!
Would you leave the country if Santorum is elected?
No pun intended....

No. I'm going to be too busy here at home working to see the GOP consigned to the dustbin of history. I see no reason to have TWO parties who believe in nanny-state government -- one is more than enough. Let there be one party that believes in a government that serves by protecting and expanding liberty and another party for everyone else.

Rick Santorum would be an American Ahmadinejad.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 11:23 PM
Rick Santorum would be an American Ahmadinejad.

Same thing was said about GW Bush. It was a lame scare tactic then, and it's the same with Santorum.

I do agree that he isn't conservative enough (the nanny state stuff), but none of the three left are.

The whole theocracy stuff is just pure trash though. I know Christians, Christians are dear friends of mine, I don't know any that want a theocracy. None. In any fashion.

I've heard my pastor preach on our Constitution numerous times, I've never heard him say we need to push for a theocracy. Never. In any fashion.

Chuck Bao
2/10/2012, 11:30 PM
You act as though I've never heard of Robert Traynham before. He's been on TV quite a bit and is a known quantity. At first blush I thought he was just a shill or possibly lying. Over the past months when I've seen him speak about Santorum I've decided he was sincere. Rick Santorum was not personally hateful to his face.

That leaves two distinct possiblities...

1. Rick Santorum is a fraud. He espouses all the right wing talking points about gays, and the gay agenda, but in private accepts them and even encourages them and welcomes them and their partners into his home for dinner and drinks. So he's possibly a hypocrite. There's a whole lot of that in Washington. The "do as I say not as I do" credo.

or

2. Robert Traynham is willing to overlook Santorum's political stance which is anethma to his own lifestyle for his own personal career and political gain. There is a term for people like that derived from a character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, but I find it offensive to call someone that. But the description of the behavior pattern fits.

Besides how he may treat someone face to face, the main point is what he believes government should do. Santorum advocates for personal freedom everywhere but in the bedroom, where he thinks the state can outlaw contraception and sodomy (gay or straight). Um, dude, keep your nose out of everyone's private affairs. Santorum's policy positions are a frothy mix of repression and idiocy.

^^^This

Besides, I remember Sarah Palin stating with a straight face that she wasn't homophobic because she has some gay friends. That's the GOP ticket: spread bigotry and fear, but make sure that you have a few gay friends/employees to serve as cover. Dammit, where can I sign up for this gig.

SicEmBaylor
2/10/2012, 11:37 PM
Same thing was said about GW Bush. It was a lame scare tactic then, and it's the same with Santorum.

I do agree that he isn't conservative enough (the nanny state stuff), but none of the three left are.

The whole theocracy stuff is just pure trash though. I know Christians, Christians are dear friends of mine, I don't know any that want a theocracy. None. In any fashion.

I've heard my pastor preach on our Constitution numerous times, I've never heard him say we need to push for a theocracy. Never. In any fashion.

Uh...there are four left not three and one of those four sure as hell is.

Christians love to preach the Constitution. The problem is their interpretation of the document. Many view it like it was some sort of God ordained document from the heavens....like God handed the outline to Madison like he handed the commandments to Moses.

Santorum has said almost as much throughout his career.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 11:52 PM
Uh...there are four left not three and one of those four sure as hell is.

Christians love to preach the Constitution. The problem is their interpretation of the document. Many view it like it was some sort of God ordained document from the heavens....like God handed the outline to Madison like he handed the commandments to Moses.

Santorum has said almost as much throughout his career.

Sorry but there are only three that have a chance. Your guy isn't one of them, Praise God!

As for the Constitution being handed down from God. Well, the Founders believed they were certainly following his tenants in it's creation. They fasted and prayed before creating it:


"in a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, John Adams writes, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Noah Webster stated, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

Delegate Governor Morris of Pennsylvania forthrightly professed, "I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals, and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."


Good read here: http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government


"We had an atheist visit our site and expressed a good bit of displeasure with some of the above citations. We responded that he should relish the freedom of expression that a Christian culture put in place for him. And that he should be thankful that our culture was not founded on atheism, given the horrible result of atheistic governments in the past (such as Communist Russia, etc.).

Jesus did not usher in a political kingdom. But Christianity has been the single largest influence on western society. America's Founding Fathers had the benefit of thousands of years of history to draw on when establishing their government. They could see what had failed in the past. There had been times when the state had absolute authority and persecuted the church. At other times the church had effective control of the state. The founders saw that neither of these extremes were ideal. They developed a system that stood the test of time. Observers everywhere generally agree that American's Founding Fathers achieved a solid balance between church and state, one consistent with biblical concepts."

I google stuff.

IBleedCrimson
2/11/2012, 12:30 AM
I thought the founders believed in a clockwork universe... that if there is a perfect God, then the universe he created must be perfect, and he wouldn't need to intervene to correct imperfections...

You use as citation "faithfacts.org" How on earth can that be considered objective?

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 12:43 AM
I thought the founders believed in a clockwork universe... that if there is a perfect God, then the universe he created must be perfect, and he wouldn't need to intervene to correct imperfections...

You use as citation "faithfacts.org" How on earth can that be considered objective?

Didn't say faithfacts was an objective source. I said it was a good read. You can disagree.

The quotes from Adams et al were not from that source. They were from a quick google search of quotes by our founding fathers.

I don't believe the founders had any single Christian philosophy, clockwork or otherwise. 50 of the 54, or 54 of the 59 (can't recall the exact number) were Christians of one denomination or another.

I know Dickson of Pennsylvania was a staunch Quaker. Adams was a Methodist I believe, or Episcopalian. Can't recall off my head. Even Franklin who was considered a "rounder" for back then, cites the God of Providence as being the true creator of our Republic.

You do realize, the British were considered unbeatable at that time. We were farmers with old muskets. Most of the founders believed they were signing their death warrants when they signed the Declaration.

Even with France's aid they thought it a long shot. Yet time and time again, things happened the way we needed them to happen. God? Providence? Happenstance? Pure luck?

The vast majority of them saw it for what it was. Franklin was right, as usual.

It strikes me as almost laughable if it weren't so sad, at how many hoops people will jump through to deny God in today's world.

SicEmBaylor
2/11/2012, 12:44 AM
I thought the founders believed in a clockwork universe... that if there is a perfect God, then the universe he created must be perfect, and he wouldn't need to intervene to correct imperfections...

You use as citation "faithfacts.org" How on earth can that be considered objective?

This is exactly right. The Founding Fathers, by and large, believed in a conceptual God. Their view of God was as the great-architect. When you read what they say about God, it isn't the evangelical Christian-style God of 20/21st century America.

You have to remember that our Founding Fathers were the extreme liberals of their day. The principles they espoused come from the Enlightenment. The "great experiment" of the United States is that it was based on these principles and not on religious beliefs, ancient claims to land, or even Hellenistic values. There had been plenty of nations and civilizations based on religious texts and there certainly had been other democracies and republics before ours. The United States is unique in that it was in the incarnation of enlightenment principles.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 12:46 AM
If the religious right's selective reading of the US Constitution is anything like their selective reading of the Holy Bible, yeah we have a problem.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who is campaigning on his own ideas/principles/morals and the only one that I would consider voting for.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 12:58 AM
This is exactly right. The Founding Fathers, by and large, believed in a conceptual God. Their view of God was as the great-architect. When you read what they say about God, it isn't the evangelical Christian-style God of 20/21st century America.

You have to remember that our Founding Fathers were the extreme liberals of their day. The principles they espoused come from the Enlightenment. The "great experiment" of the United States is that it was based on these principles and not on religious beliefs, ancient claims to land, or even Hellenistic values. There had been plenty of nations and civilizations based on religious texts and there certainly had been other democracies and republics before ours. The United States is unique in that it was in the incarnation of enlightenment principles.

Complete and utter hogwash. If it makes you feel better than believe it. But it doesn't make it true. They didn't believe in some "conceptual" God. They believed in the God of the Bible.

In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America's founders and determined that 34% of their quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.

Yes, some conceptual God indeed. I guess you would have me believe you and not my lying eyes. It's a different spin on our founders mindset I must say. A conceptual God. Hadn't heard that drivel before.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 01:04 AM
If the religious right's selective reading of the US Constitution is anything like their selective reading of the Holy Bible, yeah we have a problem.

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who is campaigning on his own ideas/principles/morals and the only one that I would consider voting for.

As opposed to liberals just making stuff up out of whole cloth in the Constitution. Since you know so much about what we "religious right" selectively read in the Holy Bible, why don't you clue me in?

This should be good.

Oh and Ron Paul stands zero chance, and if by some miracle he were the nominee, you still wouldn't vote for him over Obama. How many times did I hear the same about McCain?

Paul is an anti-semite, and a total nut job.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 02:07 AM
Complete and utter hogwash. If it makes you feel better than believe it. But it doesn't make it true. They didn't believe in some "conceptual" God. They believed in the God of the Bible.

In a ten-year study undertaken at the Univesity of Houston, researchers examined 15,000 documents from America's founders and determined that 34% of their quotations came from the Bible, the highest by far of any source.

Yes, some conceptual God indeed. I guess you would have me believe you and not my lying eyes. It's a different spin on our founders mindset I must say. A conceptual God. Hadn't heard that drivel before.

First of all, LiveLaughLove, I have to commend you on your choice of username.

Secondly, I don't think it would get much milage for the religious right to claim legitimacy based on the founding fathers quoting scripture. Their ideas, which as someone pointed out earlier, were radical at that time. 18th century Christian beliefs were very different from our current Christian belief system. For starters, the writers of the US Constitution didn't enumerate a Bill of Wrongs, as the religious right wants to do today. In fact, the founding fathers didn't even address the slavery issue, but I doubt that we will see today's religious republicans spouting Biblical quotes on that.

Our society changes over time. And that is the relevancy of the US Constitution is testiment to their wisdom and possibly God inspired, like the Bible, if taken in context. Anyway, I'd like to think so.

soonerhubs
2/11/2012, 02:30 AM
Paul's an anti-Semite? Someone is full of ****.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 02:34 AM
First of all, LiveLaughLove, I have to commend you on your choice of username.

Secondly, I don't think it would get much milage for the religious right to claim legitimacy based on the founding fathers quoting scripture. Their ideas, which as someone pointed out earlier, were radical at that time. 18th century Christian beliefs were very different from our current Christian belief system. For starters, the writers of the US Constitution didn't enumerate a Bill of Wrongs, as the religious right wants to do today. In fact, the founding fathers didn't even address the slavery issue, but I doubt that we will see today's religious republicans spouting Biblical quotes on that.

Our society changes over time. And that is the relevancy of the US Constitution is testiment to their wisdom and possibly God inspired, like the Bible, if taken in context. Anyway, I'd like to think so.

Thanks for the compliment. The name was actually an inside joke between my wife and I, but I like it too.

Supposition on how the Founding Fathers thought of the Bible as opposed to how we currently think are just that, supposition. I would say that is an argument made by someone who doesn't like what the alternative would be. Being they were much closer to the current religious right than is comfortable to you and yours. I don't think you can give me a quote that agrees with your statement, other than your statement. The sermons I have read from that era are very much in line with a modern conservative Christian church of today. In fact, if you took out the old English that some of them used, I don't think you could tell them apart.

Devout Christians were the driving force for the abolition of slavery, not just in America, but in the world. Jefferson himself said it was an abomination, and he counted the slaves at Monticello as his family in the census. "How many people in your family? His answer, 37 souls. William Wilberforce, an evangelical minister almost singlehandedly brought slavery to an end in Britain (not that many years ahead of us I might add).

I think the problem is in this caricature by people today of the current religious right. You say that we want a Bill of Wrongs. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we don't want are imaginary rights that aren't actually in the Constitution. The judicial was set up to be an equal part of our government but for half a century now it has become the defacto rulers of this country through judicial fiat. They were never supposed to make law. Only say whether law was Constitutional or not. They became an arm of the Democratic party. If you want a "right to privacy" or "right for gays to marry" or anything else. You should be required to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. THEN it becomes actual law.

So no, I am not in favor of a Bill of Wrongs. But I am very much opposed to the adulteration of the Constitution that is occurring now.

Your last statement is the crux of the problem. You see the Constitution as a malleable document that should be worked and reworked as times and norms change. I see it as only changeable or being added to through the Amendment process. I believe my view is what our founders had in mind, since I can find no documents from them saying, "hey change it as you feel you future Americans" outside of that process.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 02:40 AM
As opposed to liberals just making stuff up out of whole cloth in the Constitution. Since you know so much about what we "religious right" selectively read in the Holy Bible, why don't you clue me in?

This should be good.

Oh and Ron Paul stands zero chance, and if by some miracle he were the nominee, you still wouldn't vote for him over Obama. How many times did I hear the same about McCain?

Paul is an anti-semite, and a total nut job.

I'm not sure that I could ever make your "this should be good" day, but I'll try.

Please tell me the verses in the Bible that specifically mention abortion.

Please tell me the verses in the Bible that Jesus specifically excluded gays/lesbians from entering Heaven. If this is so important, why wouldn't the son of God tell us straight?

In the New Testatment, Paul wrote letters to the early churches which clearly condemned homosexual practices, but he also condemned all sorts of carnal knowledge that isn't apparent in reported behavior some of the republican candidates promoting these religious right ideals.

Am I the only one who is getting a total kick out of your derision of Saint Paul?

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 02:51 AM
Paul's an anti-Semite? Someone is full of ****.

Oh boy, here we go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/opinion/mr-pauls-discredited-campaign.html

In fairness to him, he does say now that he didn't actually write the articles. They just used his name on them. His own aid said he isn't anti-semitic, just anti-Israel. I guess that makes it somewhat better. Maybe.

He's a fringe candidate. He's like Pat Paulsen. Only not funny.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 03:16 AM
I'm not sure that I could ever make your "this should be good" day, but I'll try.

Please tell me the verses in the Bible that specifically mention abortion.

Please tell me the verses in the Bible that Jesus specifically excluded gays/lesbians from entering Heaven. If this is so important, why wouldn't the son of God tell us straight?

In the New Testatment, Paul wrote letters to the early churches which clearly condemned homosexual practices, but he also condemned all sorts of carnal knowledge that isn't apparent in reported behavior some of the republican candidates promoting these religious right ideals.

Am I the only one who is getting a total kick out of your derision of Saint Paul?

Well, of course, it doesn't mention "abortion" by name. It does say the sacrificing of children is an abomination. I think clearly we sacrifice our children on the altar of convenience. My main argument for it would be Luke 1:41 through about 48ish. Paraphrasing, When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth (John the Baptists mother), and spoke, John the Baptist "leapt" inside the womb of his mother. She was filled with the Holy Spirit and knew the truth of whom Mary was carrying.

Mary of all people should have wanted an abortion. She was under the death penalty if Joseph had simply said anything about her being pregnant to anyone. He honored her and the Lord and kept it quiet. I believe those passages in Luke clearly show a living John the Baptist and a living Jesus Christ. If they were alive in the womb, then it is not a stretch to conclude other babies are too. Here's a fact. If we had age enhanced pictures of each baby that is aborted and what they would have looked like had they been allowed to live, we wouldn't be as much for abortion as we are. The simple truth is, we sympathize with the woman, because we can see and touch her. We don't have that opportunity with the murdered child.

As for gays/lesbians entering Heaven. Well clearly sexual sin is sin and keeps us apart from God and therefore Heaven. That's ANY sexual sin. I don't consider homosexuals worse people than adulterers or simple fornicators. I don't think the Bible does either. If any of these type individuals repent (meaning do a 180 degree turn) of their sin, and accept Christ they most definitely will be in Heaven. Now if they say they accept Christ, but don't change their lifestyle, then I personally don't believe they are truly repentant or Christ filled. To be a Christian means to be Christ-like. You can't be willfully sinning and be Christ-like at the same time. You can only serve one master.

You mentioned Paul's letters and that indeed is the basis, not the Leviticus Laws that the homosexual agenda folks throw out as a red herring to say what bad people we are.

Look, I'm just as guilty of sin and just as worthy of judgement as anybody on these boards. Maybe more so. But I know what I am saying is right on this. The homosexual agenda will lead more people to ruin than it will ever help. I hate to see that happen. I know they don't believe it, but I love my fellow people. All people...well almost all. :) I try. And even if they don't fear for their souls. I and other religious right types do.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 03:36 AM
I think much of this confusion starts with Dems are bad GOP is a pure Christian driven devout entity that is better than any position any Dem could deliver via a political stance. Thus the GOP then turns toward all the things that will fill their Pacs and Super Pacs with unlimited funding do that they can begin to expose their message to the American Public and then begin to compare their voting records to the other multiple candidates that all have some huge lobbyist orgs lining their pockets. Then they can argue over who can make the Republican Base the most happy. Now it seems as if it will come down to who didn't do any negative campaigning in the last 4 weeks and who has the most whole some cookies and milk message.

All the while Obama is sitting around watching them **** block legislation that could help the country and the GOP uses the folks who have dropped out to deliver a message via Fox about how we can't afford for Obama to continue to do nothing so that the 3 or 4 candidates who are left to choose from don't have to take any heat for negative campaigning or a Obama attack that will disprove who actually was stopping the legislation. The GOP Candidate gets a pass and they try to confuse the base by saying they never said anything bad, it was Bachman, Perry or Cain.

What a clusterf**k Campaign we are seeing.

It was awesome to see 4000 folks show up at the Mabee Center on ORU to kiss Rick's a$$ the other day in Tulsa. He is playing to his strengths instead of trying to win new folks over. I think it's working too. Newt and Mitt seem to be putting their PAC $ where their experts think it will do the most good and Rick goes on trying to win over the Tea Party and angry voters who are disgusted by Gingrich and Romney.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 03:36 AM
Well, of course, it doesn't mention "abortion" by name. It does say the sacrificing of children is an abomination. I think clearly we sacrifice our children on the altar of convenience. My main argument for it would be Luke 1:41 through about 48ish. Paraphrasing, When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth (John the Baptists mother), and spoke, John the Baptist "leapt" inside the womb of his mother. She was filled with the Holy Spirit and knew the truth of whom Mary was carrying.

Mary of all people should have wanted an abortion. She was under the death penalty if Joseph had simply said anything about her being pregnant to anyone. He honored her and the Lord and kept it quiet. I believe those passages in Luke clearly show a living John the Baptist and a living Jesus Christ. If they were alive in the womb, then it is not a stretch to conclude other babies are too. Here's a fact. If we had age enhanced pictures of each baby that is aborted and what they would have looked like had they been allowed to live, we wouldn't be as much for abortion as we are. The simple truth is, we sympathize with the woman, because we can see and touch her. We don't have that opportunity with the murdered child.

As for gays/lesbians entering Heaven. Well clearly sexual sin is sin and keeps us apart from God and therefore Heaven. That's ANY sexual sin. I don't consider homosexuals worse people than adulterers or simple fornicators. I don't think the Bible does either. If any of these type individuals repent (meaning do a 180 degree turn) of their sin, and accept Christ they most definitely will be in Heaven. Now if they say they accept Christ, but don't change their lifestyle, then I personally don't believe they are truly repentant or Christ filled. To be a Christian means to be Christ-like. You can't be willfully sinning and be Christ-like at the same time. You can only serve one master.

You mentioned Paul's letters and that indeed is the basis, not the Leviticus Laws that the homosexual agenda folks throw out as a red herring to say what bad people we are.

Look, I'm just as guilty of sin and just as worthy of judgement as anybody on these boards. Maybe more so. But I know what I am saying is right on this. The homosexual agenda will lead more people to ruin than it will ever help. I hate to see that happen. I know they don't believe it, but I love my fellow people. All people...well almost all. :) I try. And even if they don't fear for their souls. I and other religious right types do.

You know that I am as moral and compassionate as the next Christian. I can clearly say that the homosexual agenda is not leading anyone astray (if that is not in their nature). That is the crux of it all, after you take away the fear and the hate-mongering..

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 03:51 AM
You know that I am as moral and compassionate as the next Christian. I can clearly say that the homosexual agenda is not leading anyone astray (if that is not in their nature). That is the crux of it all, after you take away the fear and the hate-mongering..

You can clearly say it if you want, but you can't stand on that biblically. You can't say, yes the Bible says it's sin, but it's not hurting anyone. Of course it is.

Matthew 26:24 - "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Judas represents those of us that fall away from Christ or worse, lead others astray (the betrayal). Jesus doesn't mince words there. Judas is not going to find his happy place any time soon.

You could say that is an abortion advocacy verse. In Judas' case it would have been better. But sin compounding sin is no case.

The only thing I "fear" about the homosexual agenda are them leading people astray. I have 12 children, by percentages 1 or 2 of my children should be homosexual. I have too many to number family members. I have 1 family member that is homosexual and I love him dearly. He always is smiling and he always makes me smile. Unfortunately, he is a family member in the part of my family who did not go to church, did not fear God, and had an abusive alcoholic father.

It's not a coincidence. I have never feared my children becoming homosexuals. They are prayed over ceaselessly, and they have been taught Christian morals from toddler on up.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 03:59 AM
You know that I am as moral and compassionate as the next Christian. I can clearly say that the homosexual agenda is not leading anyone astray (if that is not in their nature). That is the crux of it all, after you take away the fear and the hate-mongering..
I'm just not able to buy into the Homosexual Agenda as being one entity.

There seems to be so many alternative lifestyles and then debate between all of them as to how they should come together and approach their positions via a Homosexual Agenda but in reality they are all galaxies apart when it comes to agreement on the many topics discussed when talking about the Gay and Lesbian and other lifestyles. It just all became one agenda as each understands that if they don't come together many of the more important topics they all agree with won't stand a chance against the Christian agenda to pray that they will repent and thus change their ways.

I think gay men have a different agenda than gay women. I'm not sure they really get along unless they also can agree that they must fight the fear mongering Christians. Then we must begin to speak about the gay men and women who don't believe in God or Christian Principles. It's a hodge poge mess IMO and if there is an Agenda it's only to strengthen the position of the many to later be able to ague the positions of the few. In other words, I think it's a lie just to avoid the fact that repenting really is what is being asked of them as individuals.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 03:59 AM
I think much of this confusion starts with Dems are bad GOP is a pure Christian driven devout entity that is better than any position any Dem could deliver via a political stance. Thus the GOP then turns toward all the things that will fill their Pacs and Super Pacs with unlimited funding do that they can begin to expose their message to the American Public and then begin to compare their voting records to the other multiple candidates that all have some huge lobbyist orgs lining their pockets. Then they can argue over who can make the Republican Base the most happy. Now it seems as if it will come down to who didn't do any negative campaigning in the last 4 weeks and who has the most whole some cookies and milk message.

You could reverse almost all of this when Bush was President and it would be true. Dems blocked Bush all of the time. Except for spending. Obama had both houses, he still didn't get stuff done. The Senate has been his for I don't know how long, and yet no budget. If the Republicans held the Senate for this long without a budget, the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the MSM would drown out two cats mating.

Obama was Senator "Present" before he was President for a reason.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 04:04 AM
You can clearly say it if you want, but you can't stand on that biblically. You can't say, yes the Bible says it's sin, but it's not hurting anyone. Of course it is.

Matthew 26:24 - "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Judas represents those of us that fall away from Christ or worse, lead others astray (the betrayal). Jesus doesn't mince words there. Judas is not going to find his happy place any time soon.

You could say that is an abortion advocacy verse. In Judas' case it would have been better. But sin compounding sin is no case.

The only thing I "fear" about the homosexual agenda are them leading people astray. I have 12 children, by percentages 1 or 2 of my children should be homosexual. I have too many to number family members. I have 1 family member that is homosexual and I love him dearly. He always is smiling and he always makes me smile. Unfortunately, he is a family member in the part of my family who did not go to church, did not fear God, and had an abusive alcoholic father.

It's not a coincidence. I have never feared my children becoming homosexuals. They are prayed over ceaselessly, and they have been taught Christian morals from toddler on up.

Great Post

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 04:26 AM
You could reverse almost all of this when Bush was President and it would be true. Dems blocked Bush all of the time. Except for spending. Obama had both houses, he still didn't get stuff done. The Senate has been his for I don't know how long, and yet no budget. If the Republicans held the Senate for this long without a budget, the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the MSM would drown out two cats mating.

Obama was Senator "Present" before he was President for a reason.

I will agree to a point. Bush was faced with 9-11-01 and his promise to bring the perpetrators to justice. That turned into WMDs and then a War on Terror and then him trying to reel in Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove from trying to get him to sign onto a War in Iran.

Obama came in with Hope and Change and a promise to get OBL and put an end to the War. I think he's done a pretty good job considering he had an economic disaster on his hands. Has he met all his promises? Nope. Do any of them ever meet them? Nope.

I think you see the best out of Presidents in their 2nd terms as they will never again get an opportunity to do what they promised. I know many folks think that most Presidents just become power consumed out of control jerks but I think that it's in the 2nd term that Reagan, Clinton and W really looked in the mirror as Americans and Patriots as to how History would judge them. The one term Presidents like Ford, George Bush and Carter seem to really get labeled as complete screw ups. I think it's because they didn't get that 2nd term.

Now we can argue over whether we think Obama will be like the other 2term Presidents and work the next three years to help America out of the trouble it finds itself in or whether the American Public made the biggest post war mistake in History by putting him back in for a 2nd term.

Right now I think all you can argue is that "W" and Obama's 1st terms were riddled with huge mistakes.

Yeah you take a risk putting him back in but I think you take just as big a risk by putting in a Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Paul for their 1st Term and having to wait another 4 years before the real American in them comes out and America finally sees a POTUS that doesn't worry about being re-elected, instead they worry about the Country their children and Grandchildren will live in.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 06:10 AM
You can clearly say it if you want, but you can't stand on that biblically. You can't say, yes the Bible says it's sin, but it's not hurting anyone. Of course it is.

Matthew 26:24 - "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Judas represents those of us that fall away from Christ or worse, lead others astray (the betrayal). Jesus doesn't mince words there. Judas is not going to find his happy place any time soon.

You could say that is an abortion advocacy verse. In Judas' case it would have been better. But sin compounding sin is no case.

The only thing I "fear" about the homosexual agenda are them leading people astray. I have 12 children, by percentages 1 or 2 of my children should be homosexual. I have too many to number family members. I have 1 family member that is homosexual and I love him dearly. He always is smiling and he always makes me smile. Unfortunately, he is a family member in the part of my family who did not go to church, did not fear God, and had an abusive alcoholic father.

It's not a coincidence. I have never feared my children becoming homosexuals. They are prayed over ceaselessly, and they have been taught Christian morals from toddler on up.

What? I have no clue what Judas has to do with gay crhistians. And, yes I can say that gay christians can worship God and live their lives in christian faith as much as any christian.

Cngrats to you and the wife for raising 12 kids. Wow.

Would you accept people who don't want children? Do you think that they're selfish or going against God's plan? What about those who accept that they aren't quite ready or right for children, would their own wishes matter?

I don't see any scriptural basis for an argument against birth control. I'd hate to think that being closer to God is all about making babies. Having numerous children would be a blessing for some, but surely you can't imply that that principle be applied univerally.

soonerhubs
2/11/2012, 07:19 AM
Oh to have such a narrow world view. Prescribing the same pair of glasses to the whole world based on your own single life's experience. So if everyone prays over their children and raises them in your style they will be "perfect" little not-gay Christians.

If Ron Paul is an anti-Semite, then you're a genuine homophobe.

You may want to do a little research on homosexuality and its various precursors before making such "wise" conclusions. In other words, put down that precious "infallible" Bible that has been interpreted so "clearly" to have thousands of differing sects spawn from it, and actually look at some sound research studies.

Santorum will grow the federal government. If you enjoy big government, vote for him, but in the mean time those who support this guy should stop bitching about their taxes going up and their freedoms going down. His social engineering plans are just as scary to me as the activities conducted by the current administration. Why do so many Americans hate liberty?

East Coast Bias
2/11/2012, 11:23 AM
I would like to know where Jesus spoke to some of these issues? Most of the New Testament comes from the writings of Paul, rather than Jesus. Paul is really the basis for the modern church, and there is controversy regarding his representation of the Gospel of Jesus. Most of The Gospel of Jesus can be found in The Sermon on the Mount. Interesting that everyone looks to the founders for Christian values, Jefferson is someone to look at. Any one read the Jefferson Bible?

AlboSooner
2/11/2012, 12:02 PM
The Bible teaches that anybody who loves sin, lives in sin, cannot be a follower of Christ regardless of what they claim.

We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. ~ 1 John 2


We have talked about homosexuality around here a lot, and I'd like to say that homosexuality is not the only sin that concerns God or Christianity. Ultimately God loves everybody, and hates all sin from sexual sins, to overeating and so on. I don't want people to think we're singling out homosexuality.

SoonerPride
2/11/2012, 01:04 PM
How would the world be different if there was no god?

IBleedCrimson
2/11/2012, 06:28 PM
Fewer wars? No 9/11?

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 09:29 PM
Fewer wars? No 9/11?

You'd still have religion.

None of that would go away.

You'd basically be Russia. Remember how they tried to have a Country that didn't allow folks to have Religion? That worked out great.

I'll pass on the no God thing.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 09:42 PM
SicEm!
Would you leave the country if Santorum is elected?
No pun intended....

I heard people say they would leave if Hillary was elected and then it was if Obama was elected. They all have stayed as far as I know and it really hasn't affected my life in any way. If they left...or stayed....it's the folks that got elected that continued to argue and complain about each others views. It's like the 2008 election never ended. We went through the motions of putting a guys hand on the Bible and asking him to be a good POTUS and such but the folks who asked him to do it have continued to just blow steam out of their ears and really be poor sports about losing the election. When you lose...you are supposed to take a long hard look as to why it happened. Instead the GOP created a faction of voters that is helping destroy our system of Government. They lost and instead of negotiate and find middle ground they have tried to just hold things up (Which hasn't worked - Obamacare) and then run more candidates that are promising to spend even more money we don't have to repeal Obamacare instead of just fix the things they might not like.

We have never ever had such a political split like this and it's really awful and counterproductive as we have some serious economic problems due to the Wars we are trying to end.

Ike
2/12/2012, 01:58 AM
Why do so many Americans hate liberty?
Because it gets in the way. You cant get anything done with it, unless there exists a fairly high degree of trust. And really, who on earth is going to trust a 21st century American Politician?

Ike
2/12/2012, 02:01 AM
How would the world be different if there was no god?

If there was no God, or no believers in God?

StoopTroup
2/12/2012, 02:08 AM
If there was no God, or no believers in God?

There wouldn't be any Obamafest 2012 Forum and many of you would have to talk Football or tell about the latest movie you saw in the SO. :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTywHAFZxcU

StoopTroup
2/12/2012, 02:08 AM
Basically the World would live as one and texas would still suck. :D

Chuck Bao
2/12/2012, 05:01 AM
Thanks for the compliment. The name was actually an inside joke between my wife and I, but I like it too.

Supposition on how the Founding Fathers thought of the Bible as opposed to how we currently think are just that, supposition. I would say that is an argument made by someone who doesn't like what the alternative would be. Being they were much closer to the current religious right than is comfortable to you and yours. I don't think you can give me a quote that agrees with your statement, other than your statement. The sermons I have read from that era are very much in line with a modern conservative Christian church of today. In fact, if you took out the old English that some of them used, I don't think you could tell them apart.

Devout Christians were the driving force for the abolition of slavery, not just in America, but in the world. Jefferson himself said it was an abomination, and he counted the slaves at Monticello as his family in the census. "How many people in your family? His answer, 37 souls. William Wilberforce, an evangelical minister almost singlehandedly brought slavery to an end in Britain (not that many years ahead of us I might add).

I think the problem is in this caricature by people today of the current religious right. You say that we want a Bill of Wrongs. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we don't want are imaginary rights that aren't actually in the Constitution. The judicial was set up to be an equal part of our government but for half a century now it has become the defacto rulers of this country through judicial fiat. They were never supposed to make law. Only say whether law was Constitutional or not. They became an arm of the Democratic party. If you want a "right to privacy" or "right for gays to marry" or anything else. You should be required to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. THEN it becomes actual law.

So no, I am not in favor of a Bill of Wrongs. But I am very much opposed to the adulteration of the Constitution that is occurring now.

Your last statement is the crux of the problem. You see the Constitution as a malleable document that should be worked and reworked as times and norms change. I see it as only changeable or being added to through the Amendment process. I believe my view is what our founders had in mind, since I can find no documents from them saying, "hey change it as you feel you future Americans" outside of that process.

How about this quote from Thomas Jefferson?


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. - Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr, 10 August 1787.

You don’t hear many politicians today proposing such bold self-searching of reason and truth. Instead, we get politicians mouthing sound bytes of blindfolded fear as sanctioned by the religious right, telling us how to live our lives. It only makes it more laughable because we all know that these same politicans don’t live up to their own espoused standards.


The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.- outlines of the views which led Jefferson to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.

All I can say is that we are very fortunate to have had Jefferson as an author of our US Constitution.

I believe that the US Constitution is in fact quite malleable and that is its beauty. It was written in broad strokes and open-ended enough to be relevant for society in the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

The fact that protections prescribed under the Constitution and subsequent amendments allowed for a federal court to strike down state bans on inter-racial marriages is one of those malleable cases. I am hoping that we see gay marriage bans similarly struck down. And, marriage equality restored and reaffirmed in our 21st century reading of a living law.

This if very much different that fundamentalist Christians who insistently believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and then have the audacity to ignore the most fundamental aspects of the message.

Chuck Bao
2/12/2012, 05:58 AM
The Bible teaches that anybody who loves sin, lives in sin, cannot be a follower of Christ regardless of what they claim.

We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. ~ 1 John 2


We have talked about homosexuality around here a lot, and I'd like to say that homosexuality is not the only sin that concerns God or Christianity. Ultimately God loves everybody, and hates all sin from sexual sins, to overeating and so on. I don't want people to think we're singling out homosexuality.

I disagree. I strongly believe with every fiber in my body that God created me and He didn't create me to be outside of his love and compassion.

The commandment of “go and sin no more” is not at all useful when we are actually talking about love and commitment and well, basically who we are.

You guys never get this, so I don’t think you will get it this time either, but I’ll give it one more college try. What would it feel like if your heavenly salvation depended on admitting that sex with your wife was only for procreation purposes and everything other than that is a sin. Yeah, you go and sin no more.

I am a Christian and I think I do follow the spiritual aspect of living according to God’s love. I will not, however, join a church who doesn’t allow for women to speak out in church. Women are not second class in God’s eyes any more than gays are.

To tie this in with the original post, Robert Traynham is not thinking clearly in supporting Santorum for president. He is either an idiot or self-depreciates himself by allowing that association.

AlboSooner
2/12/2012, 10:38 AM
Chuck I want to apologize to you if my posts have seemed lacking in love lately. Although what I have posted on homosexuality is Biblically true, I could have done a better job injecting more love in my posts. Let me tell you this, I love you. I would hang out with anybody on here with whom I have disagreements.

When we talk about a certain faith we must abide by the Scripture. I block out the Church's teachings and focus solely on the Scripture when trying to decide what is true. If the church taught that sex is only for procreation I would show them this verse:
"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love." Proverbs 5:18-19

When Jesus saved the woman to be stoned, he didn't tell her "continue sinning because I created you to be an adulteress," He said like you quoted "Go and sin no more." He commanded her to stop being an adulteress. I believe Scripture is very clear on what is a sin and what is not a sin. Scripture can't say murder is wrong, and on the other hand say "God creates us in the sinful manner we are, even if you are a murderer." Not only does that violate the Law of Non-contradiction, which is a law Jesus used when dealing with the Pharisees who accused him of being demon-possessed, but also makes God the author of sin, and evil. Which in turn makes God, not-God.

That line of thought is not found in Scripture.
:)

SanJoaquinSooner
2/12/2012, 07:41 PM
When we talk about a certain faith we must abide by the Scripture. :)

Well Albo, a big problem we have in discussing issues like this is that not everyone argues under the same set of assumptions about the bible. Some people think, in some respect, that the bible is written by the hand of God.

Others think it was written by lots of different men who had varying agendas. That there was competition among different groups of Christians about what to believe and each wanted to have authority to back up their views. So people claiming to be Peter and John - and all sorts of people who claimed to know Jesus - went into publishing overdrive. …with lots created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church. The early church was embroiled in conflict - people argued over the treatment of women, leadership, and relations between masters and slaves.

Some people don’t believe all the books attributed to Paul were written by Paul. And then you have the problem of translation. People with agendas may have chosen to translate in a way that didn’t hold the original meaning in Greek.

East Coast Bias
2/12/2012, 08:00 PM
For myself i think the Bible is one of the finest works of fiction out there. Close to "Lord of the Rings", "Ulysses" and "heart of Darkness".

AlboSooner
2/12/2012, 11:20 PM
Well Albo, a big problem we have in discussing issues like this is that not everyone argues under the same set of assumptions about the bible. Some people think, in some respect, that the bible is written by the hand of God.

Others think it was written by lots of different men who had varying agendas. That there was competition among different groups of Christians about what to believe and each wanted to have authority to back up their views. So people claiming to be Peter and John - and all sorts of people who claimed to know Jesus - went into publishing overdrive. …with lots created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church. The early church was embroiled in conflict - people argued over the treatment of women, leadership, and relations between masters and slaves.

Some people don’t believe all the books attributed to Paul were written by Paul. And then you have the problem of translation. People with agendas may have chosen to translate in a way that didn’t hold the original meaning in Greek.

But we can deal with Biblical veracity in a different thread. I posted under the umbrella of Christianity, and under that umbrella we have agreed that the Bible is true. As soon as someone invokes the words "I am a Christian" they have automatically inferred that they believe the Bible to be true. You cannot say I am a Christian but I don't think the Bible is true, because the very definition of what it means to be Christian depends on the Bible being true. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, said Jesus.

You are providing here an objection which does not pertain to the argument of this thread. I can assure you that there is no other historical document at the time of the Bible, with the same amount of documentation from biased and unbiased sources. There is a reason why the Bible is still the number one selling book word wide. This is not an appeal to popularity, but I'm saying that very smart people have read it, checked the facts, and have found it to be true.

Chuck Bao
2/13/2012, 04:06 AM
Chuck I want to apologize to you if my posts have seemed lacking in love lately. Although what I have posted on homosexuality is Biblically true, I could have done a better job injecting more love in my posts. Let me tell you this, I love you. I would hang out with anybody on here with whom I have disagreements.

When we talk about a certain faith we must abide by the Scripture. I block out the Church's teachings and focus solely on the Scripture when trying to decide what is true. If the church taught that sex is only for procreation I would show them this verse:
"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love." Proverbs 5:18-19

When Jesus saved the woman to be stoned, he didn't tell her "continue sinning because I created you to be an adulteress," He said like you quoted "Go and sin no more." He commanded her to stop being an adulteress. I believe Scripture is very clear on what is a sin and what is not a sin. Scripture can't say murder is wrong, and on the other hand say "God creates us in the sinful manner we are, even if you are a murderer." Not only does that violate the Law of Non-contradiction, which is a law Jesus used when dealing with the Pharisees who accused him of being demon-possessed, but also makes God the author of sin, and evil. Which in turn makes God, not-God.

That line of thought is not found in Scripture.
:)

And, I apologize, AlboSooner, if I seem lacking in love and respect for others’ religious beliefs. But, I have to say that my respect ends when others try to judge me based on pick-and-choose Biblical scripture.

1) If you are right and being gay precludes direct fellowship with God (though Jesus, as some of us Christians believe), then why can’t we just let God be the judge? I don’t think I’m doing it wrong and I’m willing to bet just that. Why would that bother you?

2) Good for you for finding an Old Testament verse about enjoying your wife’s breasts. There are many, many more Old Testament verses about multiple wives/forced marriage/slavery that the vast majority Christians would not find acceptable in our modern society. In the New Testament, the role of marriage suddenly changes, particularly with Paul’s letters to the churches. Do you think that this is important and for God to use a man who never married to write his word on this topic?

3) I love the scripture of Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning and telling her to go sin no more. But, I still don’t believe this scripture can be used by self- righteous religious folks to tell gays to go sin no more (i.e., remain celibate), any more than they should tell heterosexuals that their place in heaven is dependent on remaining celibate. Does anyone else find it funny how a committed relationship/marriage gay or straight enters the picture here?

4) AlboSooner, you mentioned murder as an example in one of your points. I will give you the benefit of doubt that you did not just equate being gay to being a murderer. But, I assume that you do know that it is trick of the religious right to always mention murder, sex offender, pedophile, bestiality, whatever whenever talking about the gays in a word association ploy. That tactic is just sick, in my opinion.

5) It is pretty funny too that the religious right so hates the idea of anyone being born gay. Of course, they are so into soul creation at the point of conception that this whole born gay thing is pretty inconvenient.

If being gay is like a murderer, well then I’m a serial killer. You know what? I don’t feel bad about it at all and I don’t doubt for a second that God is on my side, so there! :)

Chuck Bao
2/13/2012, 06:34 AM
But we can deal with Biblical veracity in a different thread. I posted under the umbrella of Christianity, and under that umbrella we have agreed that the Bible is true. As soon as someone invokes the words "I am a Christian" they have automatically inferred that they believe the Bible to be true. You cannot say I am a Christian but I don't think the Bible is true, because the very definition of what it means to be Christian depends on the Bible being true. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, said Jesus.

You are providing here an objection which does not pertain to the argument of this thread. I can assure you that there is no other historical document at the time of the Bible, with the same amount of documentation from biased and unbiased sources. There is a reason why the Bible is still the number one selling book word wide. This is not an appeal to popularity, but I'm saying that very smart people have read it, checked the facts, and have found it to be true.

We can deal with the veracity of the Bible in the other thread. However, AlboSooner, since it appears that you are referred to my “I am Christian” comment in your previous post, I’d rather respond here.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

In fact, archeology seems to be uncovering more evidence that the Old Testament was written circa 1400 BC by religious clerics of a rather insignificant, sheep-herder, war-mongering mountain hill tribe people. Okay, I have to admit that I like the idea that the Bible was written by a hillbilly god for the chosen hillbillies of that time. I guess that is preferable to a big city god of cabaret numbers and show tunes.

Still, the whole kill all the men, women, children of the neighboring hill tribe village is still a bit dramatic and pretty petty to me. I wonder how my Germanic and Celtic forefathers got by without God revealed, as well as the ancestors of my Asian friends.

Then, suddenly we change from a vengeful, racist, warrior god of the Old Testament to a god of love, compassion and all inclusion in the New Testament. I like that more universal approach, but I do wonder what happened to our God in the before and after phases. If God can let himself be revealed in such different guises, who is to say that he doesn’t have another greatest hit coming out and another revelation.

I believe in God and salvation through Jesus, but I do not believe that man wrote down the definitive word of God and our eternal salvation is based on the narrowly interpreted views of the religious right. I more so believe in the priesthood of the believer and personal access to God through Jesus Christ and his teachings. If you take just the gospels alone, it is wonderful and pure and glorious and enough to feel whole. Okay, that is how I think. And, I still feel that I can call myself a Christian gay, who I am.

Whet
2/13/2012, 07:31 AM
The Shakers were a religious group that did not believe in have sexual relations. Since they never procreated, they eventually all died off. Their sole contribution to society was creation of the round silo.

Why bring up the Shakers? Because without reproduction, the natural replenishment of a species will die off. Hence, nature intends for species to procreate via male and female copulation. Copulation with the same gender will not sustain the species, thus not considered a "natural" act.

That being said, I don't care who copulates with who, or what.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 07:44 AM
Why bring up the Shakers? Because without reproduction, the natural replenishment of a species will die off. Hence, nature intends for species to procreate via male and female copulation. Copulation with the same gender will not sustain the species, thus not considered a "natural" act.

So only acts which result in pregnancy are natural? That's a bizarre standard.

And what are you suggesting? That homosexuality threatens the continuity of our species?

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 09:57 AM
No, it means quit wiping poop off your crank and expecting the rest of us view that as mainstream.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 10:02 AM
No, it means quit wiping poop off your crank and expecting the rest of us view that as mainstream.

Why do "the rest of you" even care where someone puts their crank? Afraid of cooties?

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 10:23 AM
No, it means quit wiping poop off your crank and expecting the rest of us view that as mainstream.

Sodomy ain't just for gays.

Frozen Sooner
2/13/2012, 10:55 AM
How would the world be different if there was no god?

It's be what we have now. 'Cause it is.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 10:56 AM
It's be what we have now. 'Cause it is.

That's my point.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 11:03 AM
Why do "the rest of you" even care where someone puts their crank? Afraid of cooties?

I don't care. However, I bet some 80's hemophiliacs were concerned about "cooties."

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 11:07 AM
Sodomy ain't just for gays.

You're right, I forgot about pedaphiles.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 11:14 AM
um, ok. sure.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 11:24 AM
I don't care. However, I bet some 80's hemophiliacs were concerned about "cooties."

Okay, so some hemophiliacs catching an STD through blood transfusions 30 years ago justifies what, exactly? Is that even tangentially connected to gay marriage? Wouldn't encouraging monogamy for homosexuals actually decrease the chances of STD spread? Your emotional vitriol does not point you towards constructive solutions.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 11:31 AM
Okay, so some hemophiliacs catching an STD through blood transfusions 30 years ago justifies what, exactly? Is that even tangentially connected to gay marriage? Wouldn't encouraging monogamy for homosexuals actually decrease the chances of STD spread? Your emotional vitriol does not point you towards constructive solutions.

You're the one that brought up cooties, and I apologize if I upset you or your partner.

soonercruiser
2/13/2012, 11:37 AM
Fiffy! I didn't realize that.....

Sooner98
2/13/2012, 12:09 PM
If there was no God, or no believers in God?

Well, if there were no believers in God, if history is any indication, tens of millions would be savagely murdered for opposing the atheist state.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 01:45 PM
You're the one that brought up cooties, and I apologize if I upset you or your partner.

So is it cooties you're afraid of or a few transfusion patients in 20 years ago? What's your rational reasoning? Or are you just going to call me gay (which I'm definitely not, but what would it matter if I was?)?? Are you 12?

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 01:53 PM
So is it cooties you're afraid of or a few transfusion patients in 20 years ago? What's your rational reasoning? Or are you just going to call me gay (which I'm definitely not, but what would it matter if I was?)?? Are you 12?

Yes. That's the IQ. Not the age.

TUSooner
2/13/2012, 02:14 PM
Arguments about the religious beliefs of the Founders miss the point altogether. Even if the Founders were a bunch of rock-ribbed shouting evangelical pentacostal literalist Bible thumpers, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?!?!?!? The Founders were morally conscious and recognized that a nation of immoral people is doomed. But the Constitution is not a document of religious dogma, it recognizes that the government will be comprised or mortals, not angels, and it tries to divide the government's powers to keep it from becoming oppressive. Anyone who claims that, based on the Founders' 18th Century religious views, the Government should impose or favor specific Christian theology and dogma (not merely hign standards of morality and ethics), deserves to be....well, ridiculed in the harshest terms... or something -- especially by thoughtful Christians. Should we also adopt the Founders' views on medicine, chemistry, and electricity?!

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 02:15 PM
Should we also adopt the Founders' views on medicine, chemistry, and electricity?!

Hey! Leaches still have many valid medical and therapeutic uses!

TUSooner
2/13/2012, 02:18 PM
I heard people say they would leave if Hillary was elected and then it was if Obama was elected. They all have stayed as far as I know and it really hasn't affected my life in any way. If they left...or stayed....it's the folks that got elected that continued to argue and complain about each others views. It's like the 2008 election never ended. We went through the motions of putting a guys hand on the Bible and asking him to be a good POTUS and such but the folks who asked him to do it have continued to just blow steam out of their ears and really be poor sports about losing the election. When you lose...you are supposed to take a long hard look as to why it happened. Instead the GOP created a faction of voters that is helping destroy our system of Government. They lost and instead of negotiate and find middle ground they have tried to just hold things up (Which hasn't worked - Obamacare) and then run more candidates that are promising to spend even more money we don't have to repeal Obamacare instead of just fix the things they might not like.

We have never ever had such a political split like this and it's really awful and counterproductive as we have some serious economic problems due to the Wars we are trying to end.

This is really good stuff, some of y'all need to pay attention.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 03:34 PM
So is it cooties you're afraid of or a few transfusion patients in 20 years ago? What's your rational reasoning? Or are you just going to call me gay (which I'm definitely not, but what would it matter if I was?)?? Are you 12?

You made a reference to cooties and and I provided an example of how gay men contributed to thousands of innocent deaths. At least they continued to gang bang in bathhouses for a year and a half (SF shut them down) after the CDC released it was blood born and sexually transmitted and innocent men, women and children were dying right and left. That's just what happened.

Now, what's that have to do with gay marriage. Pretty much nothing. Never said it did. You just ignorantly mentioned "cooties" and I threw it back in your face. Deal with it.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 04:06 PM
So is it cooties you're afraid of or a few transfusion patients in 20 years ago? What's your rational reasoning? Or are you just going to call me gay (which I'm definitely not, but what would it matter if I was?)?? Are you 12?

You made a reference to cooties and and I provided an example of how gay men contributed to thousands of innocent deaths. At least they continued to gang bang in bathhouses for a year and a half (SF shut them down) after the CDC released it was blood born and sexually transmitted and innocent men, women and children were dying right and left. That's just what happened.

Now, what's that have to do with gay marriage. Pretty much nothing. Never said it did. You just ignorantly mentioned "cooties" and I threw it back in your face. Deal with it.

Your ability to grasp complex thought is impaired by your latent homosexual tendencies which you mask with an outward homophobia.

Deal with it.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 04:08 PM
I heard people say they would leave if Hillary was elected and then it was if Obama was elected. They all have stayed as far as I know and it really hasn't affected my life in any way. If they left...or stayed....it's the folks that got elected that continued to argue and complain about each others views. It's like the 2008 election never ended. We went through the motions of putting a guys hand on the Bible and asking him to be a good POTUS and such but the folks who asked him to do it have continued to just blow steam out of their ears and really be poor sports about losing the election. When you lose...you are supposed to take a long hard look as to why it happened. Instead the GOP created a faction of voters that is helping destroy our system of Government. They lost and instead of negotiate and find middle ground they have tried to just hold things up (Which hasn't worked - Obamacare) and then run more candidates that are promising to spend even more money we don't have to repeal Obamacare instead of just fix the things they might not like.
We have never ever had such a political split like this and it's really awful and counterproductive as we have some serious economic problems due to the Wars we are trying to end.



Yeah, pubs took a long, hard look at what happened in 2008, then summarily kicked the ever-lovin sh*t out of the food stamp party in 2010. Most dominant mid-term ***-kicking in 70 years. Ask the fools who voted for obamacare how their career is working out for them

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 04:20 PM
Your ability to grasp complex thought is impaired by your latent homosexual tendencies which you mask with an outward homophobia.

Deal with it.

Sooooo, even though everything I posted was a fact, unpopular, but factual nonetheless, you go with the "you must be gay" effort. Of course, that's probably all you have. Anyone who says we should cut our military by 90%, probably has mashed potatoes in their hair.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 04:26 PM
Sooooo, even though everything I posted was a fact, unpopular, but factual nonetheless, you go with the "you must be gay" effort. Of course, that's probably all you have. Anyone who says we should cut our military by 90%, probably has mashed potatoes in their hair.

Noooooooo, anyone who talks excessively about gay sex as much as you has latent homosexual tendencies.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 04:43 PM
Noooooooo, anyone who talks excessively about gay sex as much as you has latent homosexual tendencies.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I'm not cool enough to be gay, plus I can't stand Bette Midler..so I don't have much of a chance if that's my goal. Good luck with the job search and the mashed potatoes. Heh.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 05:05 PM
Sooooo, even though everything I posted was a fact, unpopular, but factual nonetheless, you go with the "you must be gay" effort. Of course, that's probably all you have. Anyone who says we should cut our military by 90%, probably has mashed potatoes in their hair.

Talking about the results of homosexual activity with regard to the original GRID/AIDS outbreak 20-30 years ago is related to what? You brought it up. Are you alleging that sort of behavior and harm is continuing?

XingTheRubicon
2/13/2012, 05:31 PM
No, I'm not. You mentioned cooties and I joked about the worst cooties of all that happened to have a gay tie-in. It was probably insensitive, but I'll probably have a hard time caring. Hope this helps.

Whet
2/13/2012, 10:20 PM
So only acts which result in pregnancy are natural? That's a bizarre standard.

And what are you suggesting? That homosexuality threatens the continuity of our species?

With your strange reply to my post, I am assuming you are not a scientist. I made no statement that you somehow derived from my post. Actually, your response is somewhat disturbing, knowing that is how you interpreted my post. Had you taken a junior high biology course, you may have understood. the science behind the post.

Liberalism - sometimes the facts get in the way of the agenda.

Midtowner
2/13/2012, 11:06 PM
With your strange reply to my post, I am assuming you are not a scientist. I made no statement that you somehow derived from my post. Actually, your response is somewhat disturbing, knowing that is how you interpreted my post. Had you taken a junior high biology course, you may have understood. the science behind the post.

Liberalism - sometimes the facts get in the way of the agenda.

Ah, back to your wheelhouse... playground nonsense.

Whet
2/13/2012, 11:07 PM
Yes, science is playground nonsense for the kool aid crowd.