Night Rider and Jim Stewart both sent me e-mails about similar subjects today. Got me thinking about Ann Coulter's accusations of the left being Godless. Are they truly that Godless? So Godless that they are becoming anti-God?
In light of Foley's Folly (which turned out to be computer chatting with Congressional pages over eighteen, homosexual sex talk with other men of legal age if you want to get technical - though he was still wrong in what he did in my book) the liberal left has once again shown that they can be hypocritical and more immoral.
Andrew Reed is the producer of the North Carolina League of Women Voters, responsible for the redesign and monthly editing of the newsletter. This particular newsletter is considered by many as the best local League of Women's Voters publication in North Carolina. The League is highly involved in American Politics, particularly the left-wing of politics. Andrew Reed is also a Democratic community leader highly involved with the party. Andrew Reed was just found to be duplicating and disseminating child pornography involving children as young as six years old engaging in sex acts with adults and other children. With his liberal friends in his corner, he only received ten months for his crime. HotAir Story. World Net Daily Story.
In Canada the liberals are worse than they are here in the states - maybe. In Canada the legal age of consent for sex is fourteen, rather than eighteen as it is here. However, anal intercourse is eighteen. The Liberal Party is calling for lowering the age of consent for such activity to fourteen years of age. By the way, Howard Dean will be a keynote speaker at their upcoming Liberal Convention in Montreal. Story at Canada Free Press.
An ongoing struggle over the words "In God We Trust" is in appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Known atheists and liberals support the cause they call "separation of church and state" which is actually not in the Constitution. Story.
Barack Obama is one of those charismatic anti-God liberals. He has a long history of defying the intended morality of scripture. He actively supports abortion being performed at any time during the nine months of pregnancy. He opposes parental notification when a minor is receiving an abortion. He supports partial birth abortion and post-birth abortion of infants with severe handicaps. He supports the homosexual activist lobby. He supports taking legal actions using "hate crimes" legislation against any clergy that preaches that homosexuality is wrong. He supports urging our youth to engage in sexual activity before marriage, just as long as a condom is used for protection.
Rick Warren, author of A Purpose Driven Life, and pastor of Saddleback Church in California, made an error in judgment and asked Obama to speak at his church (because they agreed on the issue that the rampage of AIDS through Africa is a bad thing). Obama will no doubt use the footage from this when he runs for the office of President of the United States in 2008 to gain Christian votes. Evil is a liar and a counterfeiter. Obama is the embodiment of such. Story by Kevin McCullough at TownHall.
Godless and immoral - but how quick the left is to jump on the right if they even sneeze wrong.
32 comments:
Ya'll, c'mon....we gotta do more'n yak about it! I like what ya done wif this site--fine work...but looky, cain't we do sompin' about all this?
Jam yore senator's fax machine, flood emails to yore gub'nor let him know youse got a few hundred/thousand folks who is mad as hornets over the inequity of the application of law, that youse in favor of & support morality in the public square...
force local talk radio to discuss these topics..raise awerness, go to the scholl board meetings and inist that pro-gay material be dumped...that real American history be taught--
if half as many of us spoke up as the culture destroyers, why, we'd be tradin' receipies rather than horror stories.
set up a citizen guerllia network--or as I call it, we'uns is becomin' a new form of "non-state actors" ourselves.
Gotta git in gear...ain't much time left.
Me thunk Auntie Belle is yanking ours legs???
How can an athiest be anti something they don't believe exists? That would be shadow boxing, to say the least.
As for the left, the vast majority of leftists are Xian.
*****
You guys haven't got any viable presidential candidates.
Auntie Belle, I don't know what to say.
Mudkitty - I didn't say that all atheists are Democrats, not true, but I doubt there are any Democrats that are true Christians due to the immorality the party spreads. But religion is not the point. We are talking a simple idea of right and wrong, and when immorality is that rampant, then Godless they must be. As for viable presidential candidates, so Rudy Giuliani isn't viable? Oh, and Obama's deceipt, and Hillary's feminazism is viable?
How can an athiest be anti something they don't believe exists?
You tell me, Mudkitty, because Atheists are surely anti-Christian, Anti-God, and so on quite often - - sorry, liberal atheists are - - there are some Republican Atheists that at least have common sense and recognize that this nation was founded on Christian principles, and doesn't find a cross on a hill offensive.
DG - It's not up to you to decide who a true Xian is. Am I wrong? Isn't that up to your diety? Over 80% of democrats identify as Xian. Aren't you a little wary of defining "true Xian" on behalf of others?
Rudy is not viable. He's an adulterous catholic whose first wife was his cousin. He carried on a public affair while in office, something you guys tried to impeach Clinton for. When he moved out of Gracie Mansion, he moved in with a gay couple. He's pro-gay and pro-choice. He only ran as a republican in the first place because he couldn't win in the primary against Dinkins. Guliani is in business with Bernard Kerik, who couldn't be Homeland Security Czar, since he is under several criminal, mob related investigations.
Besides that, the base hates him.
That's why Guliani is not a viable candidate. Who else ya got?
I know who our candidates will be, and it won't be Hill on the top of the ticket...you can drive yourselves to distraction with that one all you want. But Hill will be in the 2nd slot in '08.
*****
DG - why would you speak for atheists? I am an athist. Let an athist speak for her/himself. You have a viseral hate for the mere idea of atheism and non-Xianity, and that makes you mischaracterize atheiests.
Athism is nothing more, nothing less, than a lack of belief in supernatural dieties. All politics aside.
It's impossible, logicly, to be anti-something that you don't even believe exists in the first place.
Not all, but most atheists are either irregligious, or anti-religious. Xianity being only one of many religions.
As for Dems and liberals and leftists of all stripes, we believe this nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom, not on the Xian religion, which would really be the Judeo-Xian religion, if you want to get into theocracy and religious laws.
I disagree with Rudy on social issues, but his economics and national security issues are right on target. I think he is viable. I didn't agree with most of what Daddy Bush represented either, but I voted for him because the alternative liberal was too much to bear. As for speaking for atheism, I am just going by what I have been told by my friends that are atheists. And funny, none of them are like you. In fact, the only person that you remind me of is a cousin of mine who out of total frustration has written me off and doesn't communicate with me anymore because I am too Christian. Sounds like such a positive atheistic attribute. Howabout accepting that we differ in faith, I'll hear your side, you hear mine, and let's not hit below the belt.
We don't differ in faith, because I don't utilize faith at all. I prefer evidence of extrordinary claims, and I think that supernatural claims are extrordinary claims.
I care not to hit below the belt, but you have to admit that believeing that I, your very own mudkitty, will actually burn in hell for all etenity, just because we "differ" is a little below the belt, right off the bat. Wouldn't you say?
Just the same, I would never write you off. Your underlying, inherent human goodness and intellegence shines through too much.
But I do have a question...just how many atheist "friends" do you have, and how often do you hang out with them? Because I sincerely believe you are mischaracterizing their postion, and that if they knew it, they might beg to "differ."
My dear Mudkitty:
I am not being judgemental by saying anyone is going to hell (which is an idea created by the Catholic Church - it is actually the Lake of Fire that will be prepared for the Devil and his angels, but the word Hell will suffice) because it is not I that is making that decision. God has made that decision, I am just relaying the message. The good news is there is a way to miss it. Analogy: Let's say you plan to visit a friend who I know is plotting to kill you - by warning you does that make me judgemental?
As for the atheist friends, one told me two nights ago that a true atheist is not offended by Christianity or a cross in their view, blah blah blah because how can one be offended by something they don't believe exists? So that goes back to, why be upset that I believe by not accepting Christ you are headed to Hell if you don't believe that Hell, or even God, exists in the first place?
so when are you going to call into the MyPoint Radio Show? They would love to have you.
I didn't say you're making the decision, I said you "believe" that I am going to hell since you believe that anyone who isn't "saved" is going to the "lake of fire" or whatever euphamism you want to call it. Do you deny that you think I will end up cast in the lake if I die an honest non-believer? I think you're analogy just doesn't suffice.
I agree with what your atheist friend said btw. I am not offended by crosses, or Xmas, or anything like that. In fact I adore religious art, arkitecture, music...holidays, etc.
What offends me, but not to any great degree, since I think it's basically non-sensical, is that anyone in their right mind would find it acceptable to believe in a diety or religion that would cast someone in a lake of fire, simply because they couldn't bring themselves to believe in that diety.
Phew! That said, I will do my best to call in tomorrow, will you be there?
Well said, Mudkitty. Oh, I prefer not to use Xmas (I don't like taking Christ out of Christmas). I believe what is Biblical - and Hell is a consequence. God is a just God, but when there is justice, there must be consequences. The only unpardonable sin is rejection of Jesus, and believing that, I tell you or anybody else about Christ out of love - because I wish for you not to wind up in the Lake of Fire. However, that is ultimately between you and God. Kind of like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. So really, I don't tell you that you are doomed without Christ to be judgmental, but because I fear for you, and I warn you out of love. I believe in that diety because there is a consequence. And because He has worked in my life - when you face death eyeball to eyeball like I have, luck goes out the window. There had to be the hand of God in my survival. But that is a story for another time. And no, I will not be able to call in on the show because I will be driving a big rig on the freeway - cell phones are not a safe combo when driving 68,000 pounds on a crowded Southern California freeway. But I will listen to the archived version later.
If you loved me, you wouldn't put up with a god that would cast me in a lake of fire. I'm not a bad person. I don't deserve that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "god is just god." Gods are supernatural beings that can defy the laws of physics at will, are they not?
As for Jesus, I don't even believe that a Jesus of Nazerath ever even walked the face of the earth there's no secular evidence) so how can I reject something that I don't think exists in the first place? And then be penalized for it for all eternity? Sorry, even if it all were real, I'd reject it on principle as a lousy system.
Question: As jesus was quoted as saying (in the bible) that he came to "fulfill the law, not replace it"...the law being Leviticus, do you eat shellfish or pork? Do you sacrifice turtle doves on the steps of the temple, and not touch your wife for two weeks out of the month? Because Leviticus means "law" and those are biblical laws.
This article may help in regards to the "Jesus-Myth"
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
I meant that God is a just God - as in the application of justice.
You're not a bad person? Have you ever lied? Even a white lie? Lusted after another? Took something that wasn't yours? If so, by admission, that would make you a lying, thieving, adulterer. Me too. And that's only three of the Ten Commandments. We are all bad people and we all deserve that (eternity in Hell) - however, Christ gave us a way out of that. You say I shouldn't put up with a God that would cast anybody into the Lake of Fire. I cannot shape God into what I want Him to be. He is what He is, and it is up to me to accept that I fall short of His Glory, and need a savior. As for the secular evidence, refer to the site above. There is Roman documentation (totally seperate from the Bible) that refer to Christ. The fulfillment of the law is in reference to the Ten Commandments - by following him one's spirit is reborn and the law will be fulfilled. As for the laws in Leviticus you brought up those were prepared for the Jewish people at that time in history for their safety, and to teach them to be obedient. The New Covenant supercedes these things -
In reference to your comments regarding eating pork, shellfish, etc., refer to this article:
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/peruncln.html
A "just" God...I think not.
Would you have lied to save Ann Frank, or yourself, if Ann Frank was living in your attic? Yes, I've lied. But I'm not a bad person, I'm a human.
Lusted after another? Since I've been married (at 48?) Honey, I'm in menopause, so I barely lust at all. Ex-nay on the adultery-ay. I am not an adulterer. Not even in my heart. But even if I were, it wouldn't make me a bad person, it would make me human.
Do I have eyes to see that many people are attractive, but the vast majority aren't? Sure. I didn't go blind when I got married.
Besides, I don't think monagomy is inherently sacred. I think what's sacred, so to speak, is an agreement between two people.
Have I ever stolen anything? Yes, when I was a child, I stoll candy, and when I was a teen I stoll a couple of magazines. I hope to have redeemed myself since then. Stealing is wrong, but then, would you condem someone whose starving, say...from wartime conditions, for stealing a loaf of bread? I call that human, not evil.
I don't think you deserve an eternity in hell, and I'm sad that you think I do.
I'm sad at the idea of a religion that sees things that way. And I'm sad that that way of thinking, which to my mind is somewhat sado-masochistic and uncreative, is so pervasive.
"You're a bad girl, and you deserve to be punished..." that get's old after a while. It's unjustifiable.
*****
As for Roman documentation, it's not true. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, especially about executions. If you're refering to Josephus, he is generally discredited by most legit historians.
Where to begin with this post...
"In light of Foley's Folly (which turned out to be computer chatting with Congressional pages over eighteen," You didn't say if that was years or months old. Fact: Your hero Mark Foley (not a Democrat, as Faux Nes tried to say but a Republican) was trying to get some with 16 year olds. Who knows how much younger he would have (or did) gone after? Not only that, but he tried to get them drunk first. Nice try on the revisionism, though.
"An ongoing struggle over the words "In God We Trust" is in appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. Known atheists and liberals support the cause they call "separation of church and state" which is actually not in the Constitution." Not in the Constitution? What part of "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, nor deny the free exercise thereof..." do you not understand?
So, how is homosexuality immoral? Because it says so in the bible? Which part, New or Old Testament? Weel if you are going to take that so literally, how about this:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Leviticus 20:30. So when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I can simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 also clearly states it to be an abomination...end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Leviticus 24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?
It is readily apparent that you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Speaking of immorality, do you think it's OK to crush a child's testicles in front of their parents in order to get information? Let me answer that for you. Yes you not only support it, but also encourage it.
That's just for starters...Leviticus is practically a recipe book for animal sacrifice.
Why do people say they take the bible literally, then choose not to abide by the law that the bible says that Jesus came to fulfil, not replace.
Something I've wondered for a long time myself.
Where to begin in response to the last three comments?
Foley was trying to get 16 year olds. Fine. Howard Dean was keynote speaker for the Democratic Party's colleagues in Canada, the Liberal Pary, who are trying to drop the age of consent for anal sex to the age of 14.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, nor deny the free exercise thereof... is not seperation of church and state. Those words make it unlawful for the government to create a state religion, and makes it unlawful for the government to regulate religion. It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Folks like you always think that those verses in Leviticus are the law. The Law is the Mosaic Law (the Ten Commandments) - Leviticus is specifically to Israel of that era for their protection and obedience. Those in Leviticus to not apply to us now - thousands of years ago certain meats (shellfish, pork) were dirty (as they are now) but now we have the knowledge and ability to make those meats safe for consumption. You can't apply today's standards to Israel's existence thousands of years ago. As for Jesus fulfilling the law: Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
Yes, I have studied these things extensively and enjoy considerable expertise in such matters. God's Word is eternal and unchanging - but if twisted by folks by you I can see how the truth can be confusing.
OK, but you speak of homosexuality as though it is an abomination, yet there is nothing to back it up in the New Testament. I always hear Leviticus used to justify peoples' belief that it is immoral. My point parallels yours in the sense that it was thousands of years ago and times have changed. Most (I won't say all) people have moved on from the animal sacrifices, the slave ownership, and the killing of those who grow two different crops in the same field, the wearing of two different kinds of material, or the cuttijng of hair around one's temples. So why is it still an abomination to be gay, especially in an already overcrowded planet? You even said so yourself that, "Those in Leviticus to not apply to us now."
But at the end of your response you say that, "God's Word is eternal and unchanging - but if twisted by folks by you I can see how the truth can be confusing." How did I twist anything? Those are verses straight from the Bible. And if G-d's Word is eternal and unchanging, then why can't I own slaves? Why can't I sell my daughter into slavery? Why can't I burn a bull as a sacrifice? Why can't I have my boss killed for making me work on the sabbath? Why can't I have most of the people I know killed for eating shellfish?
My answer to those questions: because we know better now, because those rules are a bit extreme by today's standards, and because there is no rational reason for continuing those practices. And that is my point on homosexuality. The world is not going to fall apart if gay marriage is recognized by the government. Your religion will remain intact and will be unaffected by it as well.
As to the debate of whether we have freedom of religion or freedom from religion in this country, I would agree that we are free to practice whatever religion we choose and furthermore that there is to be no state sponsored religion. But I also think that the First Amendment concurs a certain amount of freedom from religion in the sense that no one should have another's religion crammed down their throats if they don't want it. Whether that is me cramming Judaism down yours or you cramming Christianity down mine, people should be free to choose the religion (or lack thereof) of their choice. The founders of this nation came here to escape religious persecution not to perpetuate it.
That being said, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response. We may disagree, but I respect your right to your opinions as I hope you do mine. Have a great day.
There are several states in the U.S. where the age of consent for marriage is 14.
DG - don't sell me short. I am a life long student of comparitive religion, and I know all about the hygine laws of Judaism, which were the most sensible and advanced at the time.
You're actually making my point. When a family member drops dead in front of you after eating shellfish, it would tend to make anybody superstitious. (All populations have a percentage of people who are alergic to shellfish, or peanuts, but people in biblical times didn't know what an alergy was.)
Some people are alergic to shell fish, and most aren't. Most people are heterosexual, some aren't. This is why the bible, certainly isn't MY bible. That's fer sure.
And of course there are the biblical laws governing sex with your own wife, and how you can't touch her, or anything she's touched, for two weeks out of the month, if you take the bible at it's word, and literally think menstuation is "unclean" (meaning dirty) and a curse. They didn't know what menstuation was back then. So how can anyone take the bible literally?
I find that most Xians have never read Daniel, for example (the ravings of a mad man) much less Duteronomy or Leviticus.
And let's not forget that Jesus, according to the bible, said he came to fulfill Leviticus, not replace it.
Ignorance is not OK, especially if you believe we live in dangerous times.
Freedom of relgion HAS to mean I'm free from your religion, from having to practice it, or support it. That's why freedom of relgion IMPLIES freedom from religion.
The comment of the liberal hopes of 14 as an age of consent for anal sex by liberals in Canada was intended to be an example of the Left's hypocrisy - as well as their willingness to side with Pedophiles. The laws of Leviticus was designed for the Jews to protect them because, as you said, some people were allergic to shellfish, etc. All people are heterosexual, but some decide to sway from it (choice). I was not around 5,000 years ago and I haven't studied all of the text regarding sex with one's wife during menstruation, but once again that was a law designed for the Jews of that era and do not apply to us. I have read Daniel extensively, but primarily regarding the prophecies regarding Christ and the End Times. Jesus did not come to fulfill Leviticus, he came to fulfill the law, or Mosaic Law, more specifically The Ten Commandments. To continue to reject that and state that it has all to do with Leviticus is ignorant to say the least. We do live in dangerous times, and in response to your other comment, I realize the bad guys will never go away. The statement I made you jumped all over was a bit of sarcasm, but you apparently can't tell the difference, so I will not speak sarcastically to you anymore. I don't expect anybody to practice my religion, I am not self-righteous, and I don't think that gays should die. I believe that I have a relationship with Christ, and it is necessary to secure my eternal future. Like the analogy you didn't like before, you're eternal life is in danger, so I am only trying to warn you, or whoever else, that the danger exists, hoping to help and spread to you the good news that eternal damnation is not necessary because Christ provided a way out of God's Judgement, and for caring enough to warn you, I am called ignorant, narrow-minded, and judgmental.
It is the equivalent of trying to pull someone from a burning house and being attacked and criticized for doing it.
"The comment of the liberal hopes of 14 as an age of consent for anal sex by liberals in Canada was intended to be an example of the Left's hypocrisy - as well as their willingness to side with Pedophiles." Yeah, that seems weird, especially since it is the conservatives in this country who try to have anal sex with 14 year olds. Of course there may be more to the story in Canada than what the media spins.
As to your other points, isn't religion based on faith? You speak about yours as though it is a proven fact, like gravity or the need to breathe oxygen (really a mixture of gases as pure oxygen would be poisonous, but you know what I mean). What if you're wrong? The first word of the New Testament wasn't written until more than 50 years after the death of Jesus. The 12 disciples were also long gone and the stories had been told and retold for more than a generation afterwards. It has been translated and retranslated through many languages, and it has been rewritten many times over the past 2000 years. From my point of view, it is hard to take it too literally. But that's me, and because I think that way, I am told that I will burn in hell for an eternity.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Why would anyone choose that life of persecution and oppression? That is equal to a white person choosing to be black in 1960's South Africa.
p.s. I love sarcasm (used humorously) and thought I was giving some back to you. I'll try to be less dry the next time!
Thanks for the comment. Doug - wait, that's my name - howabout Liberal Doug - I guess that makes you my evil twin . . . of course I speak about my faith as if it is fact - if I didn't believe it was fact it wouldn't be much of a faith, would it? Your arguments have been used over and over for 2,000 years. In fact, in 2 Thessalonians Paul warns the Church of these tactics. The Scripture is what I have, and as I have studied it I find that it is the only such work of its kind in the sense of its perfection and consistency. Trust me, I have studied a lot (still working on the Koran) of different other false scriptures, but here's the thing: why are you so upset that I believe your rejection of Christ will result in an eternity in Hell? You don't believe there is a Hell, you don't believe in my faith, and you think I follow fairy tales of mismanaged and ill translated words from a big dusty book of rules. So, why get all bent out of shape? Christianity spreads what is believed to be good news, but Christians don't strap bombs on their bodies and threaten you to become a Christian or else they will rape you or chop off your head. Okay, there have been atrocities performed in the name of Christianity - but don't confuse those with the real faith of Christianity - point is, instead of being like Rosie O'Donnell and convinced that the Christians are coming to take over the world with our "narrow-minded" religion (as you and your liberal friends would say) how about focusing on the real enemy - Islam. The Islamics wish to cram their religion down your throat, or else cut your head off. They make Naziism look like a walk in the park, and they will not stop until they succeed. We will never defeat it, but we must be actively engaged to keep them from spreading their madness everywhere. The truth shall set you free.
Oh, yeah, you asked what if I'm wrong. If that's the case, we are all worm food. But if you are wrong, you have problems, not me.
DG - who's really bent out of shape? I'm not the one trying to codify a religion in law so that other's have to follow it (as in laws pertaining to adult human sexuality and civil marriage.) One might want to ask you, why are you getting bent out of shape because we express lack of faith as freely as you profess your faith?
Xians do, and have, killed in the name of Jesus, all throughout history. And I don't care what you call it, Islam, Xianity, Jesus or Mohammad, people throughout history have been killing other people in the name of religion, and it's nothing new.
As for Canadian rules of consent for specific sex acts themselves...I'm not refering to that, as I don't know anything about it, and find it irrelevent to the conversation at hand.
Homosexuality is not a choice anymore than heterosexulity is a choice. Do you, DG, wake up every morning and have to make a choice between homosexuality or heterosexuality? Of course not, and neither do homosexuals, or bisexuals. (If you knew, or cared about a homosexual or bisexual, you'd know that.) How sheltered a life do you live?
As for your "burning house" metaphor, I see it more as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, where there's no fire, even though you think you smelled smoke. Life is not a burning house. Life is beautiful, and tragic, and many things. But a burning house it is not. I do not need to be saved from living life, and dying death. If there are Gods who would judge me harshly for this way of thinking, then I reject them on principle.
NO WHERE in the bible, new or old, does the bible say that the laws of Leviticus do not apply to Xians. In fact, in Jesus's own words (according to the NEW TESTAMENT) Jesus said he came to "fufill Leviticus, not replace it." Leviticus means "Law" in Hebrew. That is the translation. You need to know these things. And the bible DOES say that gays should be executed. That's just one small reason why I can't take the bible seriously.
Another reason I can't take the bible seriously is because the believers who claim to be literalists are really cafetirians. They pick and choose what they like about Leviticus, and leave the rest. They say they don't HAVE to abide by Leviticus (the Law) but for some perverse reason, they WANT to abide by the anti-gay parts? Now that's what I call perverse, and that's what I call irony.
Seriously DG - it's your bible, you should be vell versed, if you're going to place all you faith in the one book.
By the same token, you're arguments have been made for 2000 years as well.
Faith as fact: There's an old fashioned expression that goes: A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith doesn't prove anything.
Tell me something DG - when you started out reading other "scriptures" as you call them (scriptures meaning nothing more or less than "writing", but we know you mean other religious holy books) did you start with the pre-concieved notion that they were "false scriptures?" And if the bible is all you have to go on, or compare them to, how would you know that the other scriptures are false?
But please DG - don't stop being humourous and "sarcastic" with me (didn't you really mean, satirical?) In the immortal words of (yuck) Billy Joel, or to paraphrase them, "I like you just the way you are." I didn't mean to "jump all over you," or for you to percieve that I that that's what I was doing. I'm just being me, and I would like it very much if you would just go on being you. So please don't change your tone for me.
In response to Evildoug's comment that homosexuality is not referred to in the New Testament:
"God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27).
"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10).
The condemnation of the law applies for those "who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers" ( 1 Tim 1:9-10).
I did not begin reading other writings with the pre-concieved notion that they were false scriptures, and in fact was searching for what I thought would be more true. What I found was nothing made sense but Christianity. I had trouble believing that God required me to cut off the heads of those that don't convert to Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses prophecies fail to come true (they predicted Armageddon to take place in 1914, then 1915, 1916, 1918, 1925, 1975. . . ), The Book of Mormon's 1830 edition supported the Trinity, then has changed not to support it, recently the advent of DNA testing has disproved the Mormon belief that the American Indians are descended from Hebrews. Catholicism practices many unbiblical rituals and practices-and was the driving force behind the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Witch Trials. Yes, Catholicism. New Age Mysticism believes that the Christian God exists, but is an evil god because he created a material world, and materialism is evil in the eyes of the Sacred Feminine. Shall I go on? As for the falsities of the Bible, have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Some books were Gnostic Gospels and such and can be dismissed as false, but the writings in the dead sea scrolls of the existing books of the Bible (only one book was complete - Isaiah) were perfectly consistant with the existing Bible. As for your interpretations of certain books, what was said and how it was said, I believe you are going into these scriptures with the pre-concieved notion that it is a bunch of BS and are looking for anything to drum up, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Here's the thing about the law. I don't have to know the law. I don't have to try to follow it. I make mistakes, I am human. I follow the law because of my faith because when a person has a relationship with Christ the law is obvious. Also, I am not trying to force anybody to follow God's law. That is between that person and God. The persecution of Christians is what gets me - and then it is named as something else. Every religion is tolerated by the so-called society of tolerance, except Christianity. Every religion is given space to do whatever they do, except Christianity. At my daughters school there are banners in classrooms to celebrate Hannakuh and the Holiday Season. A picture of Buddha is on the wall in one of her teacher's classes. The belief system of Darwinism is taught as fact in the science class. Satanic symbols are draped across the shirts of many of the students in celebration of their music. Jehovah's Witnesses are given special consideration to not have to say the pledge because of their beliefs. A handfull of Muslim students are permitted to leave class at certain times of the day to pray. However, if a cross, or the word Christmas, makes an appearance, it's wrong and must be taken away. You tell me if that is society being tolerant. Don't believe me? Try singing Silent Night at the school musical. It's a no no. Anything else is fine.
We don't want to offend the non-Christians - but who cares if the Christians are offended.
I'm done with this discussion. All I can say is that I am praying for all of you. I hope you find your way, but remember that Christ is the only way. That's not me being judgmental, or me being self-righteous. That is just the way it is. And if I'm wrong, more power to ya. If I'm right, I'm sorry, and hope you reconsider.
You may continue this discussion if you like. I am done with it for now.
Do you want me to find my way, or Christ's way? And if I can't manage to find your way, then I'm thrown into the lake of fire. You see, this is why I find it hard to believe that in all your searching for something that is " more true" that you would settle on this.
I'm sorry, mudkitty, I've said all that I can say. Christ died so that you may have eternal life. That's the length of it. I don't intend to mold God into my image as you have - He is who He is, and it is as it is. I have witnessed to you, but in the end it is your choice. For your sake, I hope that in the long run you make the choice of salvation. God Bless.
The whole bible must be understood spiritually. For God is spirit. For example when it speak of ram it means our own human spirit that has to be offered (burned, destroyed) before we can enter into the peace and rest of the Lord.
May God bless you and for those willing to know him and the meaning of His Word he will make a way.
dear mudkitty,
In response to you saying that Leviticus is a recipe for animal sacrifice.
When the bible is taken spiritually, meaning applying to our spirit within not without (physical) we begin to realize that the animals in Genesis and those in Leviticus are not sacrified in the natural sense.But they are describing part of the human nature.
Noah'ark speak also of animals to bring under the control of the spirit of God (holy spirit. Those animals are characteristics in man.
One must come to faithfulnes Revelation- To you, my faithfull servant the mystery will be revealed.
The majority of people approach the bible in the natural sense. But it must be understood spiritually. It is a marvellous and divine interpretation we can come into when we show faithfulness and respect to Him. He opens his Word in ways never seen before(eyes not seen, ear not heard what is recorded in God's word)
One must be like a child to come to the kingdom of God. If we are clever in our own knowledge we are not able to receive the right understanding.
Post a Comment