Monday, March 10, 2008
Id jits
Eliot Spitzer is an idiot. We got one high-profile law-and-order Democrat. And he's an idiot. Go away.
Sally Kern is an idiot. Say your piece. But homosexuals are worse than terrorists? She's an idiot. Go away.
That is all.
--ER
Sally Kern is an idiot. Say your piece. But homosexuals are worse than terrorists? She's an idiot. Go away.
That is all.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Spitzer needs a good dope slap. I think dragging his wife with him for his little presser this afternoon was the height of tacky - like Jimmy Swaggart's crocodile tears as he brayed "I have sinned against you, my Lord."
Re, "dragging his wife ..."
Can you imagine? Their marriages is their own affair -- pardon the expression -- but why do women allow themselvws to be trotted out at moments like that? ... But then, there's no tellin' how high the lies and perfidies stack up.
Said Dr. ER: "Him and Bubba. They do these things because they CAN." Yep. And that's a matter of power, only incidentally about sex.
Can you imagine? Their marriages is their own affair -- pardon the expression -- but why do women allow themselvws to be trotted out at moments like that? ... But then, there's no tellin' how high the lies and perfidies stack up.
Said Dr. ER: "Him and Bubba. They do these things because they CAN." Yep. And that's a matter of power, only incidentally about sex.
On Kern:
Her sin isn't her opinion, or that she expressed it. The offense is saying that homosexuals are a bigger threat than terrorism! LOLOL And that's two different kinds of offense: Bein' an id jit -- AND goin' off message as a turrist-fightin' Repub!
Her sin isn't her opinion, or that she expressed it. The offense is saying that homosexuals are a bigger threat than terrorism! LOLOL And that's two different kinds of offense: Bein' an id jit -- AND goin' off message as a turrist-fightin' Repub!
Spitzer,so how many people died today because Eliot Spitzer had to pay for his "unsafe" sex. Eight Americans died in Iraq today because GW couldn't get his up without a war. Hell. I'll even pay for Cheney's illicit sex if that would just satisfy him.
You know if the Feds actually had anything on Spitzer from their two criminal investigations they wouldn't have paraded this little tid bit out. This will kill what ever else they were doing. So why do it? Yep, Spitzer is stupid. Guess we are going to have to just elect guys without balls. No wait, we've done that, didn't work.
Kern, well the bitch will now be a Christian Martyr and hero of the first amendment. Her re-election is assured, and she may even make a run for Govenor with these kinds of credentials.
You know if the Feds actually had anything on Spitzer from their two criminal investigations they wouldn't have paraded this little tid bit out. This will kill what ever else they were doing. So why do it? Yep, Spitzer is stupid. Guess we are going to have to just elect guys without balls. No wait, we've done that, didn't work.
Kern, well the bitch will now be a Christian Martyr and hero of the first amendment. Her re-election is assured, and she may even make a run for Govenor with these kinds of credentials.
On Kern:
Two thoughts for both sides of this issue...
Kerns-o-the-world: try using strategic and subtle influence to push your agenda, and consider the likely outcomes, which often won't include making a jackass of yourself and those who hold common the faith you invoked in your diatribe.
"Victims"-o-the-Kerns-o-the-world: Try just calling a jackass a jackass and letting said jackass continue to be a jackass. They might be a worse enemy to themselves than you can with all your death threats and over the top rage you respond with, which often legitimizes their words in the first place and undermines your victim status. They're words, and just that.
Two thoughts for both sides of this issue...
Kerns-o-the-world: try using strategic and subtle influence to push your agenda, and consider the likely outcomes, which often won't include making a jackass of yourself and those who hold common the faith you invoked in your diatribe.
"Victims"-o-the-Kerns-o-the-world: Try just calling a jackass a jackass and letting said jackass continue to be a jackass. They might be a worse enemy to themselves than you can with all your death threats and over the top rage you respond with, which often legitimizes their words in the first place and undermines your victim status. They're words, and just that.
# posted by 
: 9:24 PM
: 9:24 PM
The best thing about fundies like Kern is that it takes real stupidity to believe that stuff in the first place. Not just garden-variety stupidity, but monumental stupidity. And that kind of stupidity always comes out eventually.
Liberal blogs keep commenting about the fact that she apparently didn't know she was being recorded. Really? You mean she wouldn't have said such things if she thought she was being recorded? Feh. She would have talked louder. It's not as if such attitudes could actually hurt one's chances at reelection.
Liberal blogs keep commenting about the fact that she apparently didn't know she was being recorded. Really? You mean she wouldn't have said such things if she thought she was being recorded? Feh. She would have talked louder. It's not as if such attitudes could actually hurt one's chances at reelection.
BTW, I just read this little tidbit:
"A state lawmaker who declared that homosexuality is a greaterthreat to the United States than terrorism said Monday that she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republican legislators."
Nice.
"A state lawmaker who declared that homosexuality is a greaterthreat to the United States than terrorism said Monday that she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republican legislators."
Nice.
Liberals tend to find it hard to believe that people like Kern are honest. I have no doubt that she's honest. I know how she reads the Bible -- and she doesn't take it as literaly as she probably would say she does.
For her it's trapped in an amber of time-place -- another time and another place, which means it's an artifact. Not the "living Word of God" at all.
For her it's trapped in an amber of time-place -- another time and another place, which means it's an artifact. Not the "living Word of God" at all.
Oh, but she's not a hater. She said so! She's not preaching hate, she says.
To quote the great Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it does."
To quote the great Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it does."
No, no, no. These people say over and over again that they're just preaching the truth in love. L.U.V. She totally loves the gays, she just wishes they'd stop their endless evil crusade to destroy the universe.
So she got a standing ovation in the House today, I told you it would put her on the road to State Governor.
The real problem with Social Justice and Civil Rights in any culture is that they are a 51% proposition.
Until 51% of the power structure agree that a right exist and should be allowed , enforced, etc. it simple doesn't matter what document it is written in.
I know, sure, that's why we have the "Bill of Rights". Supposedly that is the way it should work. The legal cocept of Equity says that no wrong should be without a rememdy. But in America, the English Common Law of Equity is not actually practiced.
In our country, if it ain't written, it doesn't exist.
Problem is we have 50 countries and some territories to boot, under the flag here. You can win a battle for Social Justice in Alabama and lose the same battle in Oregon. You can get your Civil Rights as an X,Y or Z honored in California and spit on in Oklahoma.
The various offices for Civil Rights charged with Civil Rights enforcement within the various Federal Agencies have been asleep since George H. Bush took Office. (notice that is "H" Bush) That is the Federal laws have been barely tolerated for the last 20 years.
We are still a generation away from the rule of Equity in America. Meanwhile, brothers and sisters, to the barricades!
The real problem with Social Justice and Civil Rights in any culture is that they are a 51% proposition.
Until 51% of the power structure agree that a right exist and should be allowed , enforced, etc. it simple doesn't matter what document it is written in.
I know, sure, that's why we have the "Bill of Rights". Supposedly that is the way it should work. The legal cocept of Equity says that no wrong should be without a rememdy. But in America, the English Common Law of Equity is not actually practiced.
In our country, if it ain't written, it doesn't exist.
Problem is we have 50 countries and some territories to boot, under the flag here. You can win a battle for Social Justice in Alabama and lose the same battle in Oregon. You can get your Civil Rights as an X,Y or Z honored in California and spit on in Oklahoma.
The various offices for Civil Rights charged with Civil Rights enforcement within the various Federal Agencies have been asleep since George H. Bush took Office. (notice that is "H" Bush) That is the Federal laws have been barely tolerated for the last 20 years.
We are still a generation away from the rule of Equity in America. Meanwhile, brothers and sisters, to the barricades!
Kerns' comment was idiotic, but so is the suggestion by "drlobojo" that we're in Iraq so that President Bush can become sexually aroused.
But, please, let's continue this civil discussion about other people's boorish behavior.
But, please, let's continue this civil discussion about other people's boorish behavior.
# posted by : 1:29 PM
: 1:29 PM
Hey, boorishness is no sin, political or literal. Comparing the homosexual "threat" to turrism -- saying it's WORSE even -- would gain her censure, not applause, in a just world.
Bubba says: "...idiotic, but so is the suggestion by "drlobojo" that we're in Iraq so that President Bush can become sexually aroused."
Well that's about as good an explanation as to why we went there and have stayed five years as anything I've heard out of the White House. But, in point, the comment is really more about the need to have "power" than "sex", even though in some personality types the two seem to be indistinguishably linked. As for the suggestion itself being idiotic, I rather think is was more Freudian. He does after all have openly serious issues about his daddy and his mommy. It is not such a leap I think that he is showing his mother how much more a man he is, than daddy was. After all GW has gone all the way to Bagdad and even beyond, to the gates of Ishtar, and on into the very bowls of Babylon just as God has decreed.
Well that's about as good an explanation as to why we went there and have stayed five years as anything I've heard out of the White House. But, in point, the comment is really more about the need to have "power" than "sex", even though in some personality types the two seem to be indistinguishably linked. As for the suggestion itself being idiotic, I rather think is was more Freudian. He does after all have openly serious issues about his daddy and his mommy. It is not such a leap I think that he is showing his mother how much more a man he is, than daddy was. After all GW has gone all the way to Bagdad and even beyond, to the gates of Ishtar, and on into the very bowls of Babylon just as God has decreed.
I'm sorry to find my own fun in this, but...
"
"A state lawmaker who declared that homosexuality is a greaterthreat to the United States than terrorism said Monday that she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republican legislators."
I totally mis-read that as saying she got a standing ovulation. Now that's a trick the gays can't do!
"
"A state lawmaker who declared that homosexuality is a greaterthreat to the United States than terrorism said Monday that she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republican legislators."
I totally mis-read that as saying she got a standing ovulation. Now that's a trick the gays can't do!
"It's rare to find psychoanalysis that rivals that of Lucy van Pelt."
This from a guy who believes gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers. ROFL
This from a guy who believes gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers. ROFL
Alan is welcome to his idiotic opinion of me if he can provide a single shred of evidence to back it up.
Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to hateful ignorance on his part.
Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to hateful ignorance on his part.
# posted by : 9:38 AM
: 9:38 AM
Hateful, idiotic, and boorish?
How can you stand to read this blog after all that, unless you are either a masochist or practicing a little cybersadism?
Another five cents, please.
How can you stand to read this blog after all that, unless you are either a masochist or practicing a little cybersadism?
Another five cents, please.
"Alan is welcome to his idiotic opinion of me if he can provide a single shred of evidence to back it up."
Interesting.... Why does ignorance have to be hateful? Alan wonders why conservatives always ascribe hateful motivations to liberals. It must be that Bubba is filled with hate. LOL
And actually Bubba, sweetie, Alan is entitled to Alan's opinion of Bubba whether or not Alan can back it up. LOL Just as Bubba seems to believe Bubba is entitled to think of Alan as hateful without any evidence to back that up. ;)
Now as to the comment, I seem to remember you saying something like that somewhere, but I could be wrong, though I'd wager it probably isn't too far off. Forgive me, sometimes it's hard to keep all the crazy coming from you folks straight (so to speak.) LOL
Interesting.... Why does ignorance have to be hateful? Alan wonders why conservatives always ascribe hateful motivations to liberals. It must be that Bubba is filled with hate. LOL
And actually Bubba, sweetie, Alan is entitled to Alan's opinion of Bubba whether or not Alan can back it up. LOL Just as Bubba seems to believe Bubba is entitled to think of Alan as hateful without any evidence to back that up. ;)
Now as to the comment, I seem to remember you saying something like that somewhere, but I could be wrong, though I'd wager it probably isn't too far off. Forgive me, sometimes it's hard to keep all the crazy coming from you folks straight (so to speak.) LOL
I'd say that if Bubba thinks people *decide* to be gay, then that, alone, represents a shred of evidence that Bubba shares in the conventional wisdom that "gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers."
Shred presented.
Shred presented.
Alan, IF you have no actual evidence that I believe "gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers" then I believe it's fair to say that A) you don't know what you're talking about and B) you assumed the worst about me: ignorance and hate would be apt descriptions.
Your claim that you "seem to remember" my saying something to that effect is hardly persuasive evidence. Your admission that you can't keep all our crazy positions straight is probably a good sign that you should keep your mouth shut the next time you want to smear a particular person with a specific position.
ER:
A) The belief that people decide to be gay is actually very different than the belief that homosexuality is a result of overbearing mothers or absentee fathers: one is the belief that people choose their sexual orientation, the other is that it's determined by environmental factors.
B) Even if your argument wasn't illogical on its face, you would STILL have to demonstrate that I held or hold that belief in order for you to have presented a "shred" of evidence that Alan's smear of me was accurate. You have not, and I don't believe you can, as I don't believe I've enunciated that particular position.
For what it's worth, I don't have any firm theories about the origins of homosexual desire in an individual. Genetics, prenatal development, childhood upbringing, even personal behavior may all play a role: I don't deny outright any of these causes or firmly believe that any one of these causes is primary.
I also don't think that feelings of homosexual attraction are immoral. Those feelings are not freely chosen and morality is only concerned with our free choices.
Now, I do think that most people -- clinical nymphomaniacs aside -- do have a choice about whether they act on and embrace a particular feeling of attraction. I believe the Bible is God's inerrant and authoritative written revelation to man, and I believe the Bible is clear that sexual desire is intended to be consummated only within the confines of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Therefore, while involuntary homosexual desire is itself not something that can be moral or immoral, I believe acting on that desire is categorically immoral.
Now, you might think that my belief is just as odd and crazy and weird and dispicable as the belief that "gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers."
But it's still the case that those two beliefs are different.
The very least you could do as a civilized adult is criticize me for the beliefs I actually hold rather than for beliefs that I don't hold. To do otherwise, to fabricate beliefs and attach them to me, is the very essence of straw-man tactics.
Your claim that you "seem to remember" my saying something to that effect is hardly persuasive evidence. Your admission that you can't keep all our crazy positions straight is probably a good sign that you should keep your mouth shut the next time you want to smear a particular person with a specific position.
ER:
A) The belief that people decide to be gay is actually very different than the belief that homosexuality is a result of overbearing mothers or absentee fathers: one is the belief that people choose their sexual orientation, the other is that it's determined by environmental factors.
B) Even if your argument wasn't illogical on its face, you would STILL have to demonstrate that I held or hold that belief in order for you to have presented a "shred" of evidence that Alan's smear of me was accurate. You have not, and I don't believe you can, as I don't believe I've enunciated that particular position.
For what it's worth, I don't have any firm theories about the origins of homosexual desire in an individual. Genetics, prenatal development, childhood upbringing, even personal behavior may all play a role: I don't deny outright any of these causes or firmly believe that any one of these causes is primary.
I also don't think that feelings of homosexual attraction are immoral. Those feelings are not freely chosen and morality is only concerned with our free choices.
Now, I do think that most people -- clinical nymphomaniacs aside -- do have a choice about whether they act on and embrace a particular feeling of attraction. I believe the Bible is God's inerrant and authoritative written revelation to man, and I believe the Bible is clear that sexual desire is intended to be consummated only within the confines of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Therefore, while involuntary homosexual desire is itself not something that can be moral or immoral, I believe acting on that desire is categorically immoral.
Now, you might think that my belief is just as odd and crazy and weird and dispicable as the belief that "gay people are created by overbearing mothers and absent fathers."
But it's still the case that those two beliefs are different.
The very least you could do as a civilized adult is criticize me for the beliefs I actually hold rather than for beliefs that I don't hold. To do otherwise, to fabricate beliefs and attach them to me, is the very essence of straw-man tactics.
# posted by : 2:50 PM
: 2:50 PM
Bubba: "you should keep your mouth shut the next time you want to smear a particular person with a specific position."
Yellow flag. I will bounce you, who rarely, rarely come around here -- and then only to drop hit-and-run snide remarks -- for being an ass to a regular.
Yellow flag. I will bounce you, who rarely, rarely come around here -- and then only to drop hit-and-run snide remarks -- for being an ass to a regular.
Bubba, now I've read your last comment.
One, you mistake my remarks for "arguing." They are no such thing. So keep your precious straw men in your quiver.
You further mistake me for someone who cares how you arrive at your position regarding homosexuals vis-a-vis the church. If it's anything short of "open and affirming," while it may very well be "biblical," as you understand the term, it certainly is unChristian. And therefore wrong.
One, you mistake my remarks for "arguing." They are no such thing. So keep your precious straw men in your quiver.
You further mistake me for someone who cares how you arrive at your position regarding homosexuals vis-a-vis the church. If it's anything short of "open and affirming," while it may very well be "biblical," as you understand the term, it certainly is unChristian. And therefore wrong.
ER, it's worth noting that you raised no yellow flags when Alan tried to smear me with a position I do not hold. It is only my comment that he shouldn't attempt such smears that prompted you to threaten to bounce anyone.
My point was not to explain how I arrived at my position, but only to explain that my position is very different from the one Alan thinks I have.
And let me be clear that my position is that the church should reach out to homosexuals just as it does to everyone: we are all sinners in desperate need of salvation.
But the church is not supposed to affirm our sinful behavior. Jesus certainly didn't, as He came to save us from our sins and called us to repent from our sins.
My point was not to explain how I arrived at my position, but only to explain that my position is very different from the one Alan thinks I have.
And let me be clear that my position is that the church should reach out to homosexuals just as it does to everyone: we are all sinners in desperate need of salvation.
But the church is not supposed to affirm our sinful behavior. Jesus certainly didn't, as He came to save us from our sins and called us to repent from our sins.
# posted by : 3:43 PM
: 3:43 PM
" A) you don't know what you're talking about and B) you assumed the worst about me: ignorance and hate would be apt descriptions."
Ignorance? Yeah...I've got no problem with that. Hate? Feh. I don't know you well enough to hate you yet, Bubba. ROFL.
"Your admission that you can't keep all our crazy positions straight is probably a good sign that you should keep your mouth shut"
Well, they are pretty much all the same, from a practical level. Doesn't matter if someone hates you because they think you were screwed up by your parents or if they hate you because they think you've made a bad choice. All ends up pretty much the same, doesn't it?
BTW, I almost always read and type these days with my mouth shut. In fact, I've finally gotten to the point that when I read you can't even see my lips move. But thanks for the advice...I shall give it all the consideration it deserves. ;)
Seriously though. Get a different hobby, or grow a thicker skin. Smear? Not hardly. More like sarcastic joke. And listen sweetie, I've taken FAR worse from the likes of you and done so with a smile and good cheer. So get over yourself Mary.
xxxooo
Ignorance? Yeah...I've got no problem with that. Hate? Feh. I don't know you well enough to hate you yet, Bubba. ROFL.
"Your admission that you can't keep all our crazy positions straight is probably a good sign that you should keep your mouth shut"
Well, they are pretty much all the same, from a practical level. Doesn't matter if someone hates you because they think you were screwed up by your parents or if they hate you because they think you've made a bad choice. All ends up pretty much the same, doesn't it?
BTW, I almost always read and type these days with my mouth shut. In fact, I've finally gotten to the point that when I read you can't even see my lips move. But thanks for the advice...I shall give it all the consideration it deserves. ;)
Seriously though. Get a different hobby, or grow a thicker skin. Smear? Not hardly. More like sarcastic joke. And listen sweetie, I've taken FAR worse from the likes of you and done so with a smile and good cheer. So get over yourself Mary.
xxxooo
Bubba, Re, "I believe the Bible is God's inerrant and authoritative written revelation to man ..."
Many Christians, including me, do not.
Re, "and I believe the Bible is clear that sexual desire is intended to be consummated only within the confines of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage."
No, it is not clear at all. In fact, LOL, it's far from it! ESPECIALLY the monogamous part. Are you daft?
On the bouncing part: you came in here and slapped DrLoboJo upside the head, right off the bat, because you didn't like something he said. Then, you snidely jumped ugly on him again, Lucy. You started it, in other words. And I'm tellin' ya to cool it. If you don't like it, you know where the door is.
Many Christians, including me, do not.
Re, "and I believe the Bible is clear that sexual desire is intended to be consummated only within the confines of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage."
No, it is not clear at all. In fact, LOL, it's far from it! ESPECIALLY the monogamous part. Are you daft?
On the bouncing part: you came in here and slapped DrLoboJo upside the head, right off the bat, because you didn't like something he said. Then, you snidely jumped ugly on him again, Lucy. You started it, in other words. And I'm tellin' ya to cool it. If you don't like it, you know where the door is.
Alan, I for one do not hate homosexuals, and I don't appreciate the implication that I do.
In hindsight I wish I was more civil the first time I made this point, but I do wish you would not misconstrue my beliefs. I was wrong to presume you're doing so out of malice, but it's still uncharitable of you to do so for the sake of a sarcastic joke.
In hindsight I wish I was more civil the first time I made this point, but I do wish you would not misconstrue my beliefs. I was wrong to presume you're doing so out of malice, but it's still uncharitable of you to do so for the sake of a sarcastic joke.
# posted by : 4:38 PM
: 4:38 PM
ER, in Matthew 19, Jesus personally affirmed the teaching from Genesis 2 that God created us male and female so that a man (singular) would join his wife (singular) and the two become one flesh. I think that makes it absolutely clear that monogamy is normative in the Bible even if some figures in the Old Testament were polygamous.
In hindsight civility should have prompted me to be less abrasive in my approach, but the fact remains that the belief that we're in Iraq so Bush can get sexually aroused is so fundamentally unserious that it undercuts the proper indignation your commenters have for Sally Kern.
In hindsight civility should have prompted me to be less abrasive in my approach, but the fact remains that the belief that we're in Iraq so Bush can get sexually aroused is so fundamentally unserious that it undercuts the proper indignation your commenters have for Sally Kern.
# posted by : 4:55 PM
: 4:55 PM
ER don't be too hard on Bubba on my account. He just thought he was defending the manhood of his President. I was just pissed because eight of our children were killed yesterday in a stupid war in Iraq and the lead story in most of the media was about the hubris of of an arrogant and self rightous elite who had enough money to afford a thousand dollar an hour sexual surgate.
If Bubba didn't come around every once in a while, we might begin to think the world agreed with us, and/or our wit and wisdom was appreciated by all.
If Bubba didn't come around every once in a while, we might begin to think the world agreed with us, and/or our wit and wisdom was appreciated by all.
Mathew 19:
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a]
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Seems straight forward don't it? But when you begin to understand that for a homosexual person his/her opposite will seem to him/her biologically, psychologically, and functionally his/her opposite sex. They will feel, see, and embrace the other person as a straight person would their spouse. What they are seeking is what is being talked about here.
They are for all purposes in their own minds and souls, man and woman, and want to be the same as that.
So what does Jesus say about that?
After all God, his Father, made them that way. Is any variation that God allows a sinful thing?
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a]
5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Seems straight forward don't it? But when you begin to understand that for a homosexual person his/her opposite will seem to him/her biologically, psychologically, and functionally his/her opposite sex. They will feel, see, and embrace the other person as a straight person would their spouse. What they are seeking is what is being talked about here.
They are for all purposes in their own minds and souls, man and woman, and want to be the same as that.
So what does Jesus say about that?
After all God, his Father, made them that way. Is any variation that God allows a sinful thing?
There's that.
There is also the likelihood that the writer of Matthew took something that Jesus that he and-or others vaguely recalled hearing, and went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired.
Besides. I think Acts 10 trumps Matthew 19.
There is also the likelihood that the writer of Matthew took something that Jesus that he and-or others vaguely recalled hearing, and went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired.
Besides. I think Acts 10 trumps Matthew 19.
drlojobo, the question is not whether a relationship is comparable to marriage in the minds of the people involved: it's whether it fits the design of marriage as God instituted it.
As I said earlier, I don't believe any desire is moral or immoral because those desires cannot be helped. But whether we choose to indulge those desires can be helped, and the choice can be either moral or immoral.
Christianity teaches that humanity is fallen: created good, we've been corrupted by sin. Some of us have very short tempers, but that doesn't lessen the moral obligation to practice patience and forbearance. Some of us are disposed to drunkenness, but that doesn't lessen the obligation to sober moderation. And some of us have "wandering eyes", but that doesn't mitigate the need for marital fidelity.
Likewise, I grant that homosexual desire probably cannot be helped, but that doesn't mean that indulging that desire is ipso facto given divine sanction.
As I said earlier, I don't believe any desire is moral or immoral because those desires cannot be helped. But whether we choose to indulge those desires can be helped, and the choice can be either moral or immoral.
Christianity teaches that humanity is fallen: created good, we've been corrupted by sin. Some of us have very short tempers, but that doesn't lessen the moral obligation to practice patience and forbearance. Some of us are disposed to drunkenness, but that doesn't lessen the obligation to sober moderation. And some of us have "wandering eyes", but that doesn't mitigate the need for marital fidelity.
Likewise, I grant that homosexual desire probably cannot be helped, but that doesn't mean that indulging that desire is ipso facto given divine sanction.
# posted by : 6:05 PM
: 6:05 PM
I've been thinking about the assertion that Jesus "affirmed" the "inerrancy" of Scripture by referring to it, or quoting from it. I'm not convinced that that he means that he took it literally! And even if he DID, he did purposefully defy it, in advancing humankind's conception of God! "You have heard it said X, but I say Y." And hardshell would-be Jews beholden to the Law have been kicking and screaming ever since. Bubba. Peter, himself, went kicking and screaming, into the New Covenant! But he utlimately went.
ER, I'm not sure what you could possibly mean that Acts 10 trumps Matthew 19, and I frankly think your theory about Matthew is untenable.
What possible justification could you give for this supposed "likelihood" that passages were fabricated? What possible standard could you invoke to determine authentic teachings of Jesus?
I think that a self-described who discards as inauthentic teachings of Jesus he doesn't like runs a significant risk of creating a false picture of Jesus after his own image.
About the authority of Scripture, Jesus not only quotes Scripture, He quotes it as if it really is the final authority. The "you have heard" passages were rebukes of extra-biblical traditions, and Jesus explicitly affirmed the Old Testament to the smallest penstroke.
What possible justification could you give for this supposed "likelihood" that passages were fabricated? What possible standard could you invoke to determine authentic teachings of Jesus?
I think that a self-described who discards as inauthentic teachings of Jesus he doesn't like runs a significant risk of creating a false picture of Jesus after his own image.
About the authority of Scripture, Jesus not only quotes Scripture, He quotes it as if it really is the final authority. The "you have heard" passages were rebukes of extra-biblical traditions, and Jesus explicitly affirmed the Old Testament to the smallest penstroke.
# posted by : 6:23 PM
: 6:23 PM
Re, "I think that a self-described who discards as inauthentic teachings of Jesus he doesn't like runs a significant risk of creating a false picture of Jesus after his own image."
I think you left out a word (after self-described), but I agree with you: And it's YOU, I believe, who have created a false picture of Jesus after your own image. You nailed it exactly.
It's a real pickle, ain't it?
I think you left out a word (after self-described), but I agree with you: And it's YOU, I believe, who have created a false picture of Jesus after your own image. You nailed it exactly.
It's a real pickle, ain't it?
Yes, I meant to say, a self-described Christian who discards as inauthentic teachings of Jesus he doesn't like runs a significant risk of creating a false picture of Jesus after his own image.
To be clear, even a Christian who affirms Scripture's inerrant authority is capable of idolatrous misconceptions of who God is. But here's the thing: he is buttressed against that temptation by the belief that he should try his conceptions against the totality of the Bible.
On what basis do you think that I'm the one with a false picture of Jesus while you have a true picture of Jesus? To what can you possibly appeal if you reject the Bible's inerrant authority and even discard as inauthentic Gospel passages that you don't like?
I'm genuinely curious about whether you can answer this rather simple and fundamental question.
To be clear, even a Christian who affirms Scripture's inerrant authority is capable of idolatrous misconceptions of who God is. But here's the thing: he is buttressed against that temptation by the belief that he should try his conceptions against the totality of the Bible.
On what basis do you think that I'm the one with a false picture of Jesus while you have a true picture of Jesus? To what can you possibly appeal if you reject the Bible's inerrant authority and even discard as inauthentic Gospel passages that you don't like?
I'm genuinely curious about whether you can answer this rather simple and fundamental question.
# posted by : 6:37 PM
: 6:37 PM
What I was trying to get across is that it is not just "desire" "sex" "lust", it can also be "love" "commitment" and all the other quality male-female interactions that make a pair bond.
As for whether of not Mathew 19 is an inerrant historical statement by Jesus that was recorded exactly as said, comes into play in that:
1: It is a statement repeated from the Gospel of Mark. Although the writter of Mathew is believed to have used Mark as a basis for his Gospel, it does show that both authors took this to be Jesus' words.
2: The fellows of the Jesus Seminar, classify these statements
As not a statement made by Jesus, but probably reflected what he thought.
Bubba says to ER: "I'm genuinely curious about whether you can answer this rather simple and fundamental question."
Bubba is so proud of himself. I would wonder how many times he has used this cookie cutter refutation.
Get some new material. Oh well, don't bother, just move to new unused sandbox and leave your stuff there.
-30-
As for whether of not Mathew 19 is an inerrant historical statement by Jesus that was recorded exactly as said, comes into play in that:
1: It is a statement repeated from the Gospel of Mark. Although the writter of Mathew is believed to have used Mark as a basis for his Gospel, it does show that both authors took this to be Jesus' words.
2: The fellows of the Jesus Seminar, classify these statements
As not a statement made by Jesus, but probably reflected what he thought.
Bubba says to ER: "I'm genuinely curious about whether you can answer this rather simple and fundamental question."
Bubba is so proud of himself. I would wonder how many times he has used this cookie cutter refutation.
Get some new material. Oh well, don't bother, just move to new unused sandbox and leave your stuff there.
-30-
"Alan, I for one do not hate homosexuals, and I don't appreciate the implication that I do."
I used the word "hate" specifically because you'd called me hateful. So perhaps you understand why I don't appreciate the implication that I'm hateful? Ignorant? Fine. Hateful? Nope.
drlobojo wrote, "They will feel, see, and embrace the other person as a straight person would their spouse. What they are seeking is what is being talked about here."
Actually, since the context of Matt 19 is heterosexual divorce, this homosexual doesn't see anything at all of my relationship with my husband in that verse. :) Straight people need far more instruction about divorce than we do.
Listen! Take our yolk upon you and learn from us, for our yolk is easy, and our burden is light.
And that, dear friends, was not meant as a joke.
Sometimes I wonder how you folks even managed to people the planet given how screwed up at least half of your relationships are. If I sound arrogant and superior that's because I've got good reason to be. (The statistics back me up on that. Dissolution of civil unions in Vermont, for example are at less than half the rate of divorce for Vermont heterosexuals married for the same amount of time. Just one example, there are others...)
I used the word "hate" specifically because you'd called me hateful. So perhaps you understand why I don't appreciate the implication that I'm hateful? Ignorant? Fine. Hateful? Nope.
drlobojo wrote, "They will feel, see, and embrace the other person as a straight person would their spouse. What they are seeking is what is being talked about here."
Actually, since the context of Matt 19 is heterosexual divorce, this homosexual doesn't see anything at all of my relationship with my husband in that verse. :) Straight people need far more instruction about divorce than we do.
Listen! Take our yolk upon you and learn from us, for our yolk is easy, and our burden is light.
And that, dear friends, was not meant as a joke.
Sometimes I wonder how you folks even managed to people the planet given how screwed up at least half of your relationships are. If I sound arrogant and superior that's because I've got good reason to be. (The statistics back me up on that. Dissolution of civil unions in Vermont, for example are at less than half the rate of divorce for Vermont heterosexuals married for the same amount of time. Just one example, there are others...)
To be sure, there may be many noble qualities in the feelings that a gay couple shares and there can ignoble qualities in the feelings a heterosexual couple can share, but the case has to be made that these qualities aren't the sole determination of what's moral. I don't think they are, because in any relationship the question of what's moral isn't just the individual human beings feel, but what their Creator intended. I believe that God has clearly revealed that we were made male and female for a reason.
Anyway, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask ER: if the Bible isn't his final authority on what Jesus taught, what in the world is?
I believe that the Jesus Seminar is frankly not an credible authority on what's authentic sayings of Jesus. For instance, without any good justification, they dismiss as inauthentic any saying that either sounds Jewish or Christian, despite the fact that Jesus is Jewish and that He founded Christianity. That they rejected a particular passage must be supported by a good reason why it should be rejected: I don't think it is.
Anyway, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask ER: if the Bible isn't his final authority on what Jesus taught, what in the world is?
I believe that the Jesus Seminar is frankly not an credible authority on what's authentic sayings of Jesus. For instance, without any good justification, they dismiss as inauthentic any saying that either sounds Jewish or Christian, despite the fact that Jesus is Jewish and that He founded Christianity. That they rejected a particular passage must be supported by a good reason why it should be rejected: I don't think it is.
# posted by : 7:42 PM
: 7:42 PM
"I believe that God has clearly revealed that we were made male and female for a reason."
Sure, no question. But the population has gotten along quite well, even with a small percent of gay people. So you were made for a reason, and so were we. The one does not preclude the other.
I think, like all minorities, we were made to teach you a lesson.
Sure, no question. But the population has gotten along quite well, even with a small percent of gay people. So you were made for a reason, and so were we. The one does not preclude the other.
I think, like all minorities, we were made to teach you a lesson.
Alan, the context of Matthew 19 indeed is the question of divorce, but Jesus didn't just give a yes or no answer: He grounded His answer on a much broader principle which has other applications.
If you ask a math teacher if 12 is a prime number and he says, "No, because no even number greater than two is prime," the context of his answer doesn't mean that the answer has no bearing on whether, say, 1254 is prime.
If a child asks his mom for a cookie before dinner and she says, "No, because I don't want you to ruin your appetite," it's not as if her answer didn't also address the question of whether the kid is free to eat potato chips.
In this case, Jesus was asked about divorce, sure, but His answer is that divorce is permissible only in very difficult circumstances and was never God's intent for marriage.
The important thing to note is this: He grounded His answer in the principle that we were created male and female so that a man and his wife would become one flesh.
To focus entirely on the context of divorce and act as if this principle has no other application is to act as if the principle was never enunciated at all.
About the statistics regarding divorce and the dissolution of civil unions, I wonder: do you have statistics about how many couples -- gay and straight -- never enter into such unions to begin with? If a significantly higher percentage of cohabitating gay couples never enter a civil union in the first place, the dissolution stat is a lot less meaningful. And, Stanley Kurtz has noted that in Sweden, which has had civil unions for about a decade, also initially had similar stats but is now reporting that gay couples are much more likely to dissolve their unions.
Regardless, heterosexual divorce should be seen as a significant deviation from God's will, too. If gay couples dissolve their unions at a lower rate, good for them, but I don't see how that proves the inherent morality of that relationship.
It's not a question of whether society can manage, nor is it a question of whether people can learn from each other. It's a matter of seeking to know God's will and having the courage to obey that will as best as we can.
Putting anything else ahead of that is to presume that we know better than God who made us.
If you ask a math teacher if 12 is a prime number and he says, "No, because no even number greater than two is prime," the context of his answer doesn't mean that the answer has no bearing on whether, say, 1254 is prime.
If a child asks his mom for a cookie before dinner and she says, "No, because I don't want you to ruin your appetite," it's not as if her answer didn't also address the question of whether the kid is free to eat potato chips.
In this case, Jesus was asked about divorce, sure, but His answer is that divorce is permissible only in very difficult circumstances and was never God's intent for marriage.
The important thing to note is this: He grounded His answer in the principle that we were created male and female so that a man and his wife would become one flesh.
To focus entirely on the context of divorce and act as if this principle has no other application is to act as if the principle was never enunciated at all.
About the statistics regarding divorce and the dissolution of civil unions, I wonder: do you have statistics about how many couples -- gay and straight -- never enter into such unions to begin with? If a significantly higher percentage of cohabitating gay couples never enter a civil union in the first place, the dissolution stat is a lot less meaningful. And, Stanley Kurtz has noted that in Sweden, which has had civil unions for about a decade, also initially had similar stats but is now reporting that gay couples are much more likely to dissolve their unions.
Regardless, heterosexual divorce should be seen as a significant deviation from God's will, too. If gay couples dissolve their unions at a lower rate, good for them, but I don't see how that proves the inherent morality of that relationship.
It's not a question of whether society can manage, nor is it a question of whether people can learn from each other. It's a matter of seeking to know God's will and having the courage to obey that will as best as we can.
Putting anything else ahead of that is to presume that we know better than God who made us.
# posted by : 8:12 PM
: 8:12 PM
Bubba, I do not profess to have a ttrue picture of Jesus. I declare that you do NOT, and for you to insist that I sdee have the same concept as you do is wrong. None of us has the true picture. Some of us are closer than others, and those whop us who don't keep God in a box labeled "The Bible" are closer than those who do, I think. I appeal to the following authorities: the gist of the Christian message as found in the Bible, where the devil is in the details; the general tradition of the church, paying special attention to how it deal with revolutions in conceptions of the world and of God; and my own prayerful thinking and thoughtful prayer. But really, there is no need to "appeal" to an "authority."
Re, "It's a matter of seeking to know God's will and having the courage to obey that will as best as we can."
No, no no. It's a matter of seeking the truth and having the courage to accept it, even when it contradicts inherited interpretation or even the fallible human words of the nonetheless sacred Scriptures themselves.
Re, "having the courage to obey that will as best as we can."
Keep that hangdog, poor-pitiful-me crap to yourself. It's an insult to the wonder of Creation that you are, and the wonder of God's Grace that feeds everything you will ever become -- and all the more the less you cling to your own social biases that you mistake for Holy conscience.
Re, "It's a matter of seeking to know God's will and having the courage to obey that will as best as we can."
No, no no. It's a matter of seeking the truth and having the courage to accept it, even when it contradicts inherited interpretation or even the fallible human words of the nonetheless sacred Scriptures themselves.
Re, "having the courage to obey that will as best as we can."
Keep that hangdog, poor-pitiful-me crap to yourself. It's an insult to the wonder of Creation that you are, and the wonder of God's Grace that feeds everything you will ever become -- and all the more the less you cling to your own social biases that you mistake for Holy conscience.
Red flag warning: ANY allusions cast upon ANYONE's Christianity will be deleted without comment.
No "self-described," no "so-called, no "alleged," no gratuitous use of "quote marks," as in "Christian."
None. No, not one.
That shit flies at Neil's place. Not here. It is it's own evil, and I will shoot it down.
No "self-described," no "so-called, no "alleged," no gratuitous use of "quote marks," as in "Christian."
None. No, not one.
That shit flies at Neil's place. Not here. It is it's own evil, and I will shoot it down.
Bubba, you rock. I can't believe you have the patience to dialogue with these phonies. And I really can't believe I actually came back here and read this thread.
"There is also the likelihood that the writer of Matthew took something that Jesus that he and-or others vaguely recalled hearing, and went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired."
What an idiot.
" . . . Jesus seminar . . ."
What a double idiot for looking to those super-frauds for any truth about Jesus.
Re. Alan - the resident poster boy for gay marriage is another super fraud. He plays the otherwise-doctrinally sound Christian here then waxes eloquent on his own blog about the virtues of gay camping: tubes of lube on the picnic tables, fluid sleeping arrangements, and checking out other guys equipment when hanging out with dozens of naked guys in a pool. Yeah, I love hearing guys like him teach me about the biblical view of human sexuality.
Go ahead and delete this, ER. I'll copy it so I can use it at my own blog sometime.
And you have the nerve to criticize my blog! What a raging hypocritical heretic you are.
"There is also the likelihood that the writer of Matthew took something that Jesus that he and-or others vaguely recalled hearing, and went to Scripture to give it the spin he desired."
What an idiot.
" . . . Jesus seminar . . ."
What a double idiot for looking to those super-frauds for any truth about Jesus.
Re. Alan - the resident poster boy for gay marriage is another super fraud. He plays the otherwise-doctrinally sound Christian here then waxes eloquent on his own blog about the virtues of gay camping: tubes of lube on the picnic tables, fluid sleeping arrangements, and checking out other guys equipment when hanging out with dozens of naked guys in a pool. Yeah, I love hearing guys like him teach me about the biblical view of human sexuality.
Go ahead and delete this, ER. I'll copy it so I can use it at my own blog sometime.
And you have the nerve to criticize my blog! What a raging hypocritical heretic you are.
Sir, you are more to be pitied than censured. But you should be both.
Thread closed. 'Cause Neil just elevated to its own post. Yee haw!
Thread closed. 'Cause Neil just elevated to its own post. Yee haw!
<< Home
