what change in the Law?
randy
justice. What he wanted was a change from temporality to eternity. He wanted
to go from a Law that brought about temporary atonement to a system that
completed the process of redemption.
This is a change that does not effectively dismiss the Law in irreverence
and in inconsistency. This was, in fact, the very purpose of the Law, to
begin a process of redemption that would start with temporary forms of
atonement and end with final atonement.
That is what we even see under the system of Law itself. It had various
prescriptions for making sin offerings, all through the year. There were
burnt offerings, peace offerings, and sin offerings. The fact they were
*offerings* at all indicated that this had something to do with atoning for
human failure in the garden of Eden, when all mankind was condemned to die.
And so, the Law prescribed sacrifices under all occasions for sin under the
Law, for intentional sins as well as for unintentional sins, for sins
committed by the priest, the leader, the people, or individuals, for matters
of having a sin nature, as well as for matters of committting sins. But in
the fulness of the calendar year, sin was dealt with in finality on the Day
of Atonement, which I believe represents a culmination of atonement,
symbolizing the culminating sacrifice of atonement Christ was to make. All
sins had to be dealt with as they took place. But they also were to have a
time in which sin was dealt with legally *for all time.* At some point,
temporary methods of atonement had to give way to a final and lasting
atonement, that required no more repeating.
And so, when Jesus acknowledged that the elements of the Law were eternally
binding, what he was saying was that this temporary Law had to come to final
fulfillment in his own eternal atonement, in his final means of dealing with
sin legally. Then no more sacrifices would have to be done. The Law itself
would no longer serve a purpose, because the process of redemption would
have been completed forever.
randy
Rob Strom
...
>
> And so, when Jesus acknowledged that the elements of the Law were eternally
> binding, what he was saying was that this temporary Law had to come to final
> fulfillment in his own eternal atonement, in his final means of dealing with
> sin legally. Then no more sacrifices would have to be done. The Law itself
> would no longer serve a purpose,
except for having to be studied and obeyed forever.
Glad you are retracting your earlier position that the law was passing
away.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> And so, when Jesus acknowledged that the elements of the Law were
> eternally
> binding, what he was saying was that this temporary Law had to come to
> final
> fulfillment in his own eternal atonement, in his final means of dealing
> with
> sin legally. Then no more sacrifices would have to be done. The Law itself
> would no longer serve a purpose,
"except for having to be studied and obeyed forever."
Christians still study the Law, in order to understand how temporary
sacrifices gave way to the eternal sacrifice of Christ. The inviolable
principles of the Law required a change in covenant so that our trust would
be placed in an eternal source, in Christ himself. We are therefore no
longer under a Law that provided temporary mediation. Rather, we now live
under a system of eternal righteousness, centered on the eternal Christ
himself.
"Glad you are retracting your earlier position that the law was passing
away."
It is gone, because it was just a temporary form of redemption. Its
inviolable principles demanded final absolution from sin--not the temporary
absolution it had been offering.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> > The Law itself
> > would no longer serve a purpose,
>
> "except for having to be studied and obeyed forever."
>
> Christians still study the Law, in order to understand how temporary
> sacrifices gave way to the eternal sacrifice of Christ.
That's not what the law says.
> The inviolable
> principles of the Law required a change in covenant
Not a change in *covenant*, because Jesus said that wouldn't happen.
> ... We are therefore no
> longer under a Law that provided temporary mediation.
You may not be *under* it (I can never figure out how
Christians use prepositions), but you are *subject to* it.
...
>
> "Glad you are retracting your earlier position that the law was passing
> away."
>
> It is gone, because it was just a temporary form of redemption. Its
> inviolable principles demanded final absolution from sin--not the temporary
> absolution it had been offering.
You just admitted it was *permanently binding*.
You agreed "This is a change that does *not* effectively dismiss the
Law".
You don't get to take that back.
--
Rob Strom
Sam Taylor
WHO DOES G-D THINK HE IS ANYWAY?
I doez what I doez and G-D better get use to that
to BE WORTHY OF ME!
"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:1daf99dd-17cb-47bc...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Christians still study the Law, in order to understand how temporary
> sacrifices gave way to the eternal sacrifice of Christ.
"That's not what the law says."
What I'm saying is that the Law implied the need for *final* atonement, for
a completion to the process of redemption. Since this could not take place
under the Law, the Law itself demanded that its fulfillment must come
*beyond itself,* in the coming of Messiah.
> The inviolable
> principles of the Law required a change in covenant
"Not a change in *covenant*, because Jesus said that wouldn't happen."
Not only did he imply a change had to take place in covenants, but he
explicitly said he was initiating a brand new covenant! Jesus' emphasis was
not on a change in the *principles* of the Law, in the "jots and tittles" of
the Law. Rather, he focused on what they meant, and those concepts were
inviolable.
The process of redemption had to be completed. That's what the jots and
tittles suggested. That's what the unchangeable character of the Law
demanded. But in order for this process of redemption to be completed a
change in covenant was required. And so, the Law demanded this change in
covenant. It did not call for a change in this principle of change, which
simply *had to* take place.
randy
randy
"Sam Taylor"
> HOW DARE G-D TELL ME or RANDY WHAT TO DO!
> WHO DOES G-D THINK HE IS ANYWAY?
> I doez what I doez and G-D better get use to that
> to BE WORTHY OF ME!
That begs the question, Sam: What does God actually want from me? I think
God demands that I follow His Son, model myself after his Son, live through
his Son spiritually. In modelling my life after God's Son, I choose to model
myself after God Himself, and display His character, His morality.
We cannot do that any longer through the Law, even though the Law called for
many of the same things that Christ demands. We cannot observe the Law any
longer because God would be insulted by our trying to offer sacrifices of
atonement when He has already offered the final sacrifice for this
atonement. It is an insult to what He has *already done for us.*
But we may follow morality under the new Christian system, which uses pretty
much the same morality. We just don't try to continue offering sacrifices
for our sins. And we recognize that final purity comes from within, by the
Spirit, and not by water purifications and rituals of cleansing by blood.
randy
Sam Taylor
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:4r2dnQFHkprU82HX...@wavecable.com...
>
> "Sam Taylor"
> > HOW DARE G-D TELL ME or RANDY WHAT TO DO!
> > WHO DOES G-D THINK HE IS ANYWAY?
> > I doez what I doez and G-D better get use to that
> > to BE WORTHY OF ME!
>
> That begs the question, Sam: What does God actually want from me? I think
The Testomony of jesus IS....."FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS"
randy
"Sam Taylor"
randy
> The Testomony of jesus IS....."FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS"
Whose commandments, Sam? Jesus told those who were currently under the Law
to follow the Law. But when he offered himself up as the ultimate sacrifice
there is no indication that he wanted men to follow the Law anymore.
The commandments he taught included both old commandments and new
commandments. The old commandments were the commandments that were
applicable while the Law was still in effect. But the new commandments had
to do with following Jesus himself, and receiving his life as something
eternal. We no longer require laws of redemption, laws of purification, and
laws of atonement. All we need to do is accept God's Spirit from the one who
has *already atoned for us.*
So the new commandments we follow have to do with modelling ourselves after
the life of Christ, and living in his spirit. We don't do this by returning
to the Law, but by understanding that the Law was fulfilled in the life and
example of Jesus. We are to follow *him*--not Moses. (Remember the
transfiguration account, in which the disciples of Jesus was told to listen
to Jesus, and not to Moses and Elijah?)
randy
Rob Strom
> > The inviolable
> > principles of the Law required a change in covenant
>
> "Not a change in *covenant*, because Jesus said that wouldn't happen."
>
> Not only did he imply a change had to take place in covenants, but he
> explicitly said he was initiating a brand new covenant!
He said not a dot would pass. Doesn't sound like implying a change to
me.
> Jesus' emphasis was
> not on a change in the *principles* of the Law, in the "jots and tittles" of
> the Law.
But you guys *reject* the principles.
For example, there's a law saying don't go out as a talebearer,
and vince has been adamant that this *isn't* a principle,
it's dead, and you don't have to observe it.
Same with animal welfare or any of the other things we disagree about.
> And so, the Law demanded this change in
> covenant. It did not call for a change in this principle of change,
I don't know what you mean by a "change in the principle of change".
The principle of change was that it wasn't going to change.
So why do conservatives like you and vince think that
the laws against hunting and the laws against lying
and the laws against gossip are obsolete and nailed
to the cross and dead on the cross, if you think
there are principles that carry over to the world post-Jesus?
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Nov 12, 3:15 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > "Rob Strom"
> ...
> > > The inviolable
> > > principles of the Law required a change in covenant
> >
> > "Not a change in *covenant*, because Jesus said that wouldn't happen."
> >
> > Not only did he imply a change had to take place in covenants, but he
> > explicitly said he was initiating a brand new covenant!
>
> He said not a dot would pass. Doesn't sound like implying a change to
> me.
>
> > Jesus' emphasis was
> > not on a change in the *principles* of the Law, in the "jots and tittles" of
> > the Law.
>
> But you guys *reject* the principles.
>
> For example, there's a law saying don't go out as a talebearer,
> and vince has been adamant that this *isn't* a principle,
> it's dead, and you don't have to observe it.
didn't say that. Said it's not a salvation issue.
>
> Same with animal welfare or any of the other things we disagree about.
>
> > And so, the Law demanded this change in
> > covenant. It did not call for a change in this principle of change,
>
> I don't know what you mean by a "change in the principle of change".
>
> The principle of change was that it wasn't going to change.
>
> So why do conservatives like you and vince think that
> the laws against hunting and the laws against lying
> and the laws against gossip are obsolete and nailed
> to the cross and dead on the cross, if you think
> there are principles that carry over to the world post-Jesus?
Because your religion--which damns you--is a religion of earning
salvation through works, whereas ours is a gift thru faith.
deal with it
>
> --
> Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 12, 3:15 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > > "Rob Strom"
> > ...
> > > > The inviolable
> > > > principles of the Law required a change in covenant
> > >
> > > "Not a change in *covenant*, because Jesus said that wouldn't happen."
> > >
> > > Not only did he imply a change had to take place in covenants, but he
> > > explicitly said he was initiating a brand new covenant!
> >
> > He said not a dot would pass. Doesn't sound like implying a change to
> > me.
> >
> > > Jesus' emphasis was
> > > not on a change in the *principles* of the Law, in the "jots and tittles" of
> > > the Law.
> >
> > But you guys *reject* the principles.
> >
> > For example, there's a law saying don't go out as a talebearer,
> > and vince has been adamant that this *isn't* a principle,
> > it's dead, and you don't have to observe it.
>
> didn't say that. Said it's not a salvation issue.
>
and i have to add, for clarification since you aren't getting it, lashon
hara is a jewish concept articulated in a jewish way, and we certainly
do not go to the jews to define for us what sin is, and how it works or
what it does.
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Not only did he imply a change had to take place in covenants, but he
> explicitly said he was initiating a brand new covenant!
"He said not a dot would pass. Doesn't sound like implying a change to
me."
Either you understand or refuse to understand what I'm saying here. I'm
saying that the inviolable principles of the Law *demanded change.*
Let me make this unmistakeably clear. Let's say there is a contract that
calls for a house to be built. As long as the house remains unbuilt the
contract remains unchanged in character--it continues to call for a house to
be built. But at the point where the house is actually built, the character
of the contract changes. It no longer calls for a house to be built. Its
principles remain basically the same, to call for a house to be built. But
inasmuch as the house has already been built, it is a contract that no
longer applies, because the change it called for, the end of the contract,
has been fulfilled.
"The principle of change was that it wasn't going to change."
It called for a new house to be built, the house of Messiah. It called for
every aspect of redemption to be finished--every particle, every element of
redemption to be fulfilled. This called for change, and its requirements for
final salvation were etched in stone! What could not be compromised is the
fact that something *beyond the Law* was needed, to bring to an end this
process of human redemption.
"So why do conservatives like you and vince think that
the laws against hunting and the laws against lying
and the laws against gossip are obsolete and nailed
to the cross and dead on the cross, if you think
there are principles that carry over to the world post-Jesus?"
As I've said repeatedly, laws of morality are etched on the human heart, and
not confined to any one covenant of the past. But the final covenant God
designed for mankind, the Christian covenant, is designed with all of these
morals in mind. They don't include things like "hunting," because that is
something people have always required for food.
randy
randy
"vince garcia"
>> But you guys *reject* the principles.
>> For example, there's a law saying don't go out as a talebearer,
>> and vince has been adamant that this *isn't* a principle,
>> it's dead, and you don't have to observe it.
> didn't say that. Said it's not a salvation issue.
Glad you set the record straight! I don't know why Rob says things like
this, that if the Law *as a covenant* is now dead, that somehow morality
doesn't matter anymore. In other words, if we're not an ancient Jew under
the Law of Moses we supposedly believe murder is okay, along with armed
robbery, and rape.
And I've said this repeatedly to Rob, which he just continues to ignore,
because he seems to feel compelled to argue at the expense of tarnishing our
reputations as moral Christians. It's unnecessary, in my view--obviously!
Morality is available, in some form, in *all* religious systems, and in all
of God's covenants. What matters to me is what particular covenant is
current *today.* If we maintain good morals in every conceivable way, and
yet do not stay current on what covenant God is applying *today,* then we've
effectively neutralized our morality. We've really gone back on all of the
good things we hoped to do by eliminating God as a necessary partner in our
good works.
And I fully agree with you, that even if we view the Law as still applicable
in terms of *doing good,* it was never intended to bring about eternal
salvation. That simply *had* to take place by Jesus Christ, because only he
could overcome death on behalf of mankind. And I think he does this by
distributing his spirit to those who accept his moral testimony.
randy
vince garcia
He's bent out of shape because i mistakenly suggested that liberal
republican who was not backed by the party was a lesbian (because I
thought I heard that she was). And because I didn't beg his forgiveness,
but simply stood corrected by him on that, he's whining and bitching
about the whole thing because I won't make it a salvation issue to keep
from making 'unfounded' statements like tha.
'course you don't HIM hold back about insulting republicans, do you?
Sam Taylor
ground and believe the truth.news:69ydnShKY6jElJzW...@wavecable.com...
Sam Taylor
SITUATIONAL ETHICS!
What wins is good
what doesn't isn'tnews:jeCdnW2K84T6cJ_W...@wavecable.com...
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
> He's bent out of shape because i mistakenly suggested that liberal
> republican who was not backed by the party was a lesbian (because I
> thought I heard that she was). And because I didn't beg his forgiveness,
> but simply stood corrected by him on that, he's whining and bitching
> about the whole thing because I won't make it a salvation issue to keep
> from making 'unfounded' statements like tha.
Glad you explained that. Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it, why someone
has to play "gotcha" with Christians like that? Could be it's an attempt to
avoid the Christian message, which is love, grace, mercy, kindness and a
whole host of things that *all* human beings need?
But it still doesn't explain why he continues to claim *I* abandon morality
when I view the Law of Moses as basically a dead contract? Why is he so
shocked that the Christian religion takes its stand on a brand new,
nonJewish covenant, when that is simply what we're all about? We're
obviously not opposed to morality, because that is what Jesus taught and
lived. And it isn't antiJewish, because the church began with Jews. So we're
just adding to morality a message of salvation, just as you're claiming.
> 'course you don't HIM hold back about insulting republicans, do you?
Little hypocritical, I'd say. Yes, anything Republican is evil, just like he
hopes to prove that Christianity is wrong by proving you or I make an
occasional error in judgment. The truth is, political parties contain
varying shades of morality, some better and some worse. I happen to think
that even though Democrats stand for a greater compassion for people, in
reality the Christians' morality stands more on the Republican side.
But both parties have moral problems, as we all know. Making single moral
issues the cause for rebuking a whole party is just "playing politics," in
my opinion. And attacking Christians for a single error, here or there, is
just an attempt to sidetrack you from our message, which is that we *all*
need moral reform, and that this reform needs to come by the New Covenant.
randy
randy
"Sam Taylor"
> if there is NO law, there is no Sin
> SITUATIONAL ETHICS!
> What wins is good
> what doesn't isn't
Didn't you even read the response below that addressed the issue? The Law of
Moses was a covenant structure that *included* human morality. Whether or
not the covenant remained in force, human morality *always remains!*
So when Christians view the Law of Moses as fulfilled and terminated, they
don't see the end of human morality. Human morality has always existed, from
the creation of man, and will always exist, as long as man exists. We don't
need the Law of Moses to have human morality!
So now, we don't have "situational ethics." We have the same kind of
morality as it is described under the Law. But when the Law passes away, or
rather, is fulfilled, what we have is a morality stripped of all of the
structure connecting it to the Law. That's because when the Law is no longer
in play, morality no longer requires behavior attached to the Law. Morality
stands independent of the Law, when God no longer requires us to obey the
Law.
Practically, what that means is that where once it was the moral thing to
offer up animal sacrifices, it is no longer considered "moral" by God for us
to do this. But where the Law once said we should not murder or commit
adultery, these moral principles still apply, because they are an intrinsic
part of human morality, that has always existed, whether under the Law or
without it.
>> Either you understand or refuse to understand what I'm saying here. I'm
>> saying that the inviolable principles of the Law *demanded change.*
>> Let me make this unmistakeably clear. Let's say there is a contract that
>> calls for a house to be built. As long as the house remains unbuilt the
>> contract remains unchanged in character--it continues to call for a house
>> to be built. But at the point where the house is actually built, the
>> character of the contract changes. It no longer calls for a house to be
>> built. Its principles remain basically the same, to call for a house to
>> be built. But inasmuch as the house has already been built, it is a
>> contract that no longer applies, because the change it called for, the
>> end of the contract, has been fulfilled.
randy
vince garcia
>
> "vince garcia"
> randy
>
> > He's bent out of shape because i mistakenly suggested that liberal
> > republican who was not backed by the party was a lesbian (because I
> > thought I heard that she was). And because I didn't beg his forgiveness,
> > but simply stood corrected by him on that, he's whining and bitching
> > about the whole thing because I won't make it a salvation issue to keep
> > from making 'unfounded' statements like tha.
>
> Glad you explained that. Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it, why someone
> has to play "gotcha" with Christians like that?
Perhaps becauze he is entertained by doing so. I say a number of things
to him in order to keep myself entertained, so perhaps he does likewise.
I often think he is arguing in a tongue in cheek manner calculated for
shock effect
Also, he needs to criticise our religion to make his own look good.
Could be it's an attempt to
> avoid the Christian message, which is love, grace, mercy, kindness and a
> whole host of things that *all* human beings need?
It all boils down to that he wants to define a 'real' Christian religion
as one that says he gets to go to heaven as a jew. If he can establish
that, he doesn't have to worry about being right or wrong.
>
> But it still doesn't explain why he continues to claim *I* abandon morality
> when I view the Law of Moses as basically a dead contract? Why is he so
> shocked that the Christian religion takes its stand on a brand new,
> nonJewish covenant, when that is simply what we're all about? We're
> obviously not opposed to morality, because that is what Jesus taught and
> lived. And it isn't antiJewish, because the church began with Jews. So we're
> just adding to morality a message of salvation, just as you're claiming.
well...part of the answer is that God has blinded him:
jn 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said
again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they
should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be
converted, and I should heal them.
We have to acknowledge that there is a blindness God has allowed to come
upon the jews to allow them to feel 'good' about their unbelief:
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the
election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
But God elects at least 7000 jews from each generation to believe, and I
pray he and zev get in the club. Till then, they will be fully persuaded
by jewish counter arguments to christianity.
>
> > 'course you don't HIM hold back about insulting republicans, do you?
>
> Little hypocritical, I'd say.
VERY hypocritical. He's so hypocritical he implies he really doesn't
know if Mossad uses torture, so he won't criticize IT, but has no
problem criticizing bush for it
Yes, anything Republican is evil, just like he
> hopes to prove that Christianity is wrong by proving you or I make an
> occasional error in judgment. The truth is, political parties contain
> varying shades of morality, some better and some worse. I happen to think
> that even though Democrats stand for a greater compassion for people, in
> reality the Christians' morality stands more on the Republican side.
Well, you're dealing with someone who sincerely thinks gay marriage is
righteous and approved of by God. That says it all for his biblical
morality
>
> But both parties have moral problems, as we all know. Making single moral
> issues the cause for rebuking a whole party is just "playing politics," in
> my opinion. And attacking Christians for a single error, here or there, is
> just an attempt to sidetrack you from our message, which is that we *all*
> need moral reform, and that this reform needs to come by the New Covenant.
yes
> randy
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
>> Glad you explained that. Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it, why
>> someone
>> has to play "gotcha" with Christians like that?
> Perhaps becauze he is entertained by doing so. I say a number of things
> to him in order to keep myself entertained, so perhaps he does likewise.
> I often think he is arguing in a tongue in cheek manner calculated for
> shock effect
> Also, he needs to criticise our religion to make his own look good.
He's probably bored. I think there's something in Christianity that bothers
him the same way the Apostle Paul was bothered. He was here in this ng from
the very beginning, and has been infuriated by what Christianity has done to
his relatives. Frankly, I don't see what bad happened to his relatives.
> It all boils down to that he wants to define a 'real' Christian religion
> as one that says he gets to go to heaven as a jew. If he can establish
> that, he doesn't have to worry about being right or wrong.
He says he doesn't care to have eternal life. Doesn't think it exists for
us. Doesn't think the Scriptures teach it. I don't believe he doesn't want
eternal life, but that's what he says.
>> ...So we're just adding to morality a message of salvation, just as
>> you're claiming.
> well...part of the answer is that God has blinded him:
He's blinded by his own anger. I would be very confused if he didn't have
"personal issues." But he does.
> We have to acknowledge that there is a blindness God has allowed to come
> upon the jews to allow them to feel 'good' about their unbelief...
That's an interesting thought--blindness designed especially for *Jews?*
Don't know how to take that, but there are references in Scriptures that
seem to suggest that. Perhaps true religious culture, when it has stagnated,
becomes almost immune to God's outreach? Yet the Scriptures also suggest
that one day a massive number of Jews will embrace Christianity, and Israel
will become a Christian nation. Do you believe this yourself?
> But God elects at least 7000 jews from each generation to believe, and I
> pray he and zev get in the club. Till then, they will be fully persuaded
> by jewish counter arguments to christianity.
To be truthful, I wouldn't waste time with any of these guys unless I
believed I was somehow giving something useful to them. I'm not so arrogant
as to think I will be the direct tool of salvation for anybody, but I do
believe that with true spiritual love from God we might tip the balance in
favor of helping them to choose Christianity, if not soon, perhaps some
distant time in the future.
> VERY hypocritical. He's so hypocritical he implies he really doesn't
> know if Mossad uses torture, so he won't criticize IT, but has no
> problem criticizing bush for it
Yes, I read that one. Excellent point. Sidesteps it entirely.
> Well, you're dealing with someone who sincerely thinks gay marriage is
> righteous and approved of by God. That says it all for his biblical
> morality
Yet I think he is driven by moral concerns. His concern for individual
rights and for respect for individuals of all kinds suggests he has a moral
bent, even if it overshadows some of the problems associated with
"diversity."
randy
Rob Strom
> "vince garcia"
>
> >> But you guys *reject* the principles.
> >> For example, there's a law saying don't go out as a talebearer,
> >> and vince has been adamant that this *isn't* a principle,
> >> it's dead, and you don't have to observe it.
> > didn't say that. Said it's not a salvation issue.
>
> Glad you set the record straight! I don't know why Rob says things like
> this, that if the Law *as a covenant* is now dead, that somehow morality
> doesn't matter anymore. In other words, if we're not an ancient Jew under
> the Law of Moses we supposedly believe murder is okay, along with armed
> robbery, and rape.
Because if you read the thread, you'll see that some Christians
*do* use the phrase "nailed to the cross" to mean that they
don't have to obey those particular laws. And in particular,
I asked Vince about his Lutheran friend, and the law of
lashon hara, and he explicitly said why should he care
about that since he wasn't Jewish?
So let's put aside murder and rape, and agree that
there are known Christians who literally believe that
the laws of lashon hara *do not apply*.
>
> And I've said this repeatedly to Rob, which he just continues to ignore,
> because he seems to feel compelled to argue at the expense of tarnishing our
> reputations as moral Christians. It's unnecessary, in my view--obviously!
I think Christians *do* have moral systems, but they don't
codify them, and therefore they tend to vary from person to person.
I criticized Conservative Christians, not because of what's
in their moral codes, but because of what they actually
do with respect to Jesus' commandments on the poor.
As you perfectly well know, I'm not criticizing Christianity,
since I don't believe conservative Christians are
followers of Christianity -- they label themselves
as Christians but are not Christians.
>
> Morality is available, in some form, in *all* religious systems, and in all
> of God's covenants. What matters to me is what particular covenant is
> current *today.*
That matters to me, too.
I can't pin you guys down, though, on whether torture is
moral or not. CCs definitely behave as though
the morality of torture and lying and other things
is relative to who's doing the torturing.
> If we maintain good morals in every conceivable way, and
> yet do not stay current on what covenant God is applying *today,* then we've
> effectively neutralized our morality. We've really gone back on all of the
> good things we hoped to do by eliminating God as a necessary partner in our
> good works.
>
> And I fully agree with you, that even if we view the Law as still applicable
> in terms of *doing good,* it was never intended to bring about eternal
> salvation.
I don't care about that part. Eternal salvation is something that's
totally optional for me.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "vince garcia"
> randy
>
> >> Glad you explained that. Makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it, why
> >> someone
> >> has to play "gotcha" with Christians like that?
> > Perhaps becauze he is entertained by doing so. I say a number of things
> > to him in order to keep myself entertained, so perhaps he does likewise.
> > I often think he is arguing in a tongue in cheek manner calculated for
> > shock effect
> > Also, he needs to criticise our religion to make his own look good.
I don't criticize Christianity. I agree with most of what Jesus said.
I disagree with just a few points of Christianity, like
Jesus being divine and the bit about dying for our sins;
otherwise I agree with enough of it that I think
that Christianity is a fine religion for gentiles and
wish that more people claiming to be Christian
actually followed it.
I don't think the political positions
of the christian right follow it at all.
> ... Frankly, I don't see what bad happened to his relatives.
>
That's because you're spiritually blinded.
If people secretly met with your children
and successfully lured them into abandoning Christ
to follow their own path, you'd call them
demon-inspired evil people and you'd
recognize that their deeds were wicked.
But when the shoe is on the other foot, all of
a sudden everything is fine because you
think a Christian can do no wrong.
> ... I don't believe he doesn't want
> eternal life, but that's what he says.
I don't think there is such a thing.
It's not that I think there is heaven and I don't
want it; it's that I don't think there is heaven.
...
>
> To be truthful, I wouldn't waste time with any of these guys unless I
> believed I was somehow giving something useful to them. I'm not so arrogant
> as to think I will be the direct tool of salvation for anybody, but I do
> believe that with true spiritual love from God we might tip the balance in
> favor of helping them to choose Christianity, if not soon, perhaps some
> distant time in the future.
You used to think that I could be saved without being a Christian.
>
> > VERY hypocritical. He's so hypocritical he implies he really doesn't
> > know if Mossad uses torture, so he won't criticize IT, but has no
> > problem criticizing bush for it
>
> Yes, I read that one. Excellent point. Sidesteps it entirely.
>
That's because you don't believe in the idea of evidence.
We *know* about what was done in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib,
and we know who officially supported it and who opposed it.
We don't know about any such thing for torture by Mossad.
> > Well, you're dealing with someone who sincerely thinks gay marriage is
> > righteous and approved of by God. That says it all for his biblical
> > morality
>
> Yet I think he is driven by moral concerns. His concern for individual
> rights and for respect for individuals of all kinds suggests he has a moral
> bent, even if it overshadows some of the problems associated with
> "diversity."
Remember that I have a revealed religion and you don't, which makes
it much harder for you to see things clearly.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"I don't criticize Christianity. I agree with most of what Jesus said."
It is that kind of comment that makes you approachable for me, and makes me
commend your congeniality. However, you do take Jesus' words and apply them
in a very nonChristian way. Liberal theology does support some of your
contentions, though, as much as I may disagree with them as a conservative.
"I disagree with just a few points of Christianity, like
Jesus being divine and the bit about dying for our sins;
otherwise I agree with enough of it that I think
that Christianity is a fine religion for gentiles and
wish that more people claiming to be Christian
actually followed it."
Yes, that's sort of Jefferson's vision of Christianity, as well as the
vision of the original deists in our country. Obviously, it is not the
*conservative* Christian vision. And it is by no means orthodox theology, as
determined by the historic creeds of the church.
"I don't think the political positions
of the christian right follow it at all."
A lot of Christian Democrats agree with you. My point has been that there
are Christians on both sides, who attack the moral problems of the other
side for political purposes. Those political purposes are not necessarily
wrong. It is good for Democrats to serve the cause of individual liberty and
compassion. And it is not wrong for Republicans to want to keep government
out of business, and the courts out of our religious life.
> ... Frankly, I don't see what bad happened to his relatives.
"If people secretly met with your children
and successfully lured them into abandoning Christ
to follow their own path, you'd call them
demon-inspired evil people and you'd
recognize that their deeds were wicked."
No, that has happened, and I chalk it up to free choices. Sometimes people
are pulled by the "dark side," ie their temptations and lusts. But sometimes
they are trying to weed through the moral inconsistencies on all sides, and
find more truth in the enemy camp than in the home camp. It grieves me, but
I still have confidence that truth will win out when debate is allowed.
> ... I don't believe he doesn't want
> eternal life, but that's what he says.
"I don't think there is such a thing.
It's not that I think there is heaven and I don't
want it; it's that I don't think there is heaven."
So what are you saying, that you don't *want* eternal life, or just that you
don't believe it exists? The problem is, if you really *want* eternal life,
it suggests there might be such a thing that grips you. It's kind of like
the old Anselmian argument that the very *idea* of God proves its existence,
because the conception of God is greater than a theoretical concept.
Perception of Him is greater than theorizing about whether He exists.
(Anyway, that's how I, personally, view the argument of Anselm, and that's
how I also see our personal desire for eternal life.)
"You used to think that I could be saved without being a Christian."
I'm a predestinarian, Rob, of a very particular kind. I can discern, at
times, who gravitates towards God's Spirit, and who does not. Those who
gravitate towards God will be saved, even if they are not technically saved
in a Christian sense right now. What matters is that they *want* spiritual
life with God, that they *want* eternal fellowship with deity. That is the
only true basis for eternal salvation.
But salvation in the Christian sense has more to do with participating *with
God* in this current life to work with God now. Salvation, thus, is a form
of showing how God makes a difference in our life *now*--not just in
eternity.
> Yet I think he is driven by moral concerns. His concern for individual
> rights and for respect for individuals of all kinds suggests he has a
> moral
> bent, even if it overshadows some of the problems associated with
> "diversity."
"Remember that I have a revealed religion and you don't, which makes
it much harder for you to see things clearly."
Yea, yea, yea...tit for a tat.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Glad you set the record straight! I don't know why Rob says things like
> this, that if the Law *as a covenant* is now dead, that somehow morality
> doesn't matter anymore. In other words, if we're not an ancient Jew under
> the Law of Moses we supposedly believe murder is okay, along with armed
> robbery, and rape.
"Because if you read the thread, you'll see that some Christians
*do* use the phrase "nailed to the cross" to mean that they
don't have to obey those particular laws. And in particular,
I asked Vince about his Lutheran friend, and the law of
lashon hara, and he explicitly said why should he care
about that since he wasn't Jewish?"
I will grant you that I was not privy to the whole discussion. Nevertheless,
the matter is easily dealt with. Those who believe the Law was nailed to the
cross, with all of its "moral laws," continue to believe in moral law. They
just don't believe that moral law is observed *under covenant of the Law.*
Moral law is now observed with respect to following Christ's example, which
is an entirely new covenant. The Old Covenant no longer functions, except as
a support, in principle, of what Christ taught.
"So let's put aside murder and rape, and agree that
there are known Christians who literally believe that
the laws of lashon hara *do not apply*."
I don't know any such Christians. They just don't believe that such laws
apply *under the Law of Moses.* That covenant was "nailed to the cross."
However, the same moral principles apply under the new covenant, which
commands us to follow the example of Christ. And Christ indicated the Law
was his predecessor, his "John the Baptist," so to speak.
The Law expressed morality as a temporary rule for Israel until morality
could more properly be understood in Jesus. Jesus was a perfect example of
morality, unlike any morality expressed by Israelites under the Law. And
because his moral example was perfect he was not personally subject to
death.
And because he was divine he could transfer his own legal rights of eternity
to us, by giving us his own spirit. The spirituality under the Law was
temporary, interrupted by all of the requirements for atonement. But the
spirituality that Jesus gives us is different inasmuch as his spirit
transfers legal rights of eternity to us, along with the ability to rise
from the dead.
"I think Christians *do* have moral systems, but they don't
codify them, and therefore they tend to vary from person to person."
Well, there are many unstudied Christians, yes. However, those who are more
studied should understand that Christ came in the pathway prepared for him
by the Law. He was to show in his life the perfect example of what the Law
displayed. Israel could never display perfection under the Law, because
Israel was imperfect. But the Law suggested a morality that could be
displayed in Christ, who displayed himself as perfect.
Christianity now follows morality as it was exemplified in Christ, and in
his perfection. Any other covenant system falls short of granting divine
spirituality, because with Christ's death spirituality itself died, and
could no longer be offered apart from his resurrection. And no other system
offers eternal life, because eternal life for man has only ever existed
within Jesus.
> Morality is available, in some form, in *all* religious systems, and in
> all
> of God's covenants. What matters to me is what particular covenant is
> current *today.*
"That matters to me, too.
I can't pin you guys down, though, on whether torture is
moral or not. CCs definitely behave as though
the morality of torture and lying and other things
is relative to who's doing the torturing."
It's the *definition*of torture that's difficult for me. Medieval
inquisitions that put people in intense pain is torture, no doubt about it.
And I agree that's wrong. I have more difficulty with waterboarding, if
that's a form of execution, holding out for somebody being willing to talk.
Drowning is a form of execution, and I do believe in capital punishment.
Whether it is cruel and unusual is unknown to me, because I've never
drowned. I do lean towards belief that it is "cruel and unusual." Better
just to put someone up before a firing squad, and give them one last chance
to talk.
> And I fully agree with you, that even if we view the Law as still
> applicable
> in terms of *doing good,* it was never intended to bring about eternal
> salvation.
"I don't care about that part. Eternal salvation is something that's
totally optional for me."
I understand. But it's the "eternal" part that for me distinguishes between
the Law and the Christian covenant. They both share a common morality. One
seeks redemption for our imperfections. And the other goes on, recognizing
that forgiveness has already taken place.
There is no longer need for laws of redemption, since eternal life has
already been granted us in the spirituality of Jesus. But it is the same
basic morality, less the redemptive requirements.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Because if you read the thread, you'll see that some Christians
> *do* use the phrase "nailed to the cross" to mean that they
> don't have to obey those particular laws. And in particular,
> I asked Vince about his Lutheran friend, and the law of
> lashon hara, and he explicitly said why should he care
> about that since he wasn't Jewish?"
>
> I will grant you that I was not privy to the whole discussion.
It's in the archives.
> Nevertheless,
> the matter is easily dealt with. Those who believe the Law was nailed to the
> cross, with all of its "moral laws," continue to believe in moral law. They
> just don't believe that moral law is observed *under covenant of the Law.*
No. That's not what Vince said. He didn't
use your funny locution that his friend believes
in avoiding lashon hara, just not in
"avoiding lashon hara under covenant of the law".
His exact words were:
"Perhaps because he's not a jew and could care less about lashon
hara".
Let me repeat: Vince's friend
*could care less about lashon hara*.
Meaning that it's not a moral law for him, not that it's
still a law, but with a new name and a new cover.
That means that Vince's friend has *different morality*
than the one Jesus taught. For him, Jesus' death
didn't just take away sacrifices or ceremonies
or what you call "redemptive requirements".
It changed the set of moral behaviors so that a particular
behavior that was considered wrong in Jesus'
lifetime is no longer, in the opinion of Vince's
Lutheran friend, no longer considered wrong in 2009.
A behavior which has nothing to do with
ceremonies and everything to do with
how people are to relate to one another.
...
>
> "So let's put aside murder and rape, and agree that
> there are known Christians who literally believe that
> the laws of lashon hara *do not apply*."
>
> I don't know any such Christians.
Now you do. Vince Garcia and his friend.
> They just don't believe that such laws
> apply *under the Law of Moses.*
No, they don't believe that such laws apply *at all*.
> That covenant was "nailed to the cross."
> However, the same moral principles apply under the new covenant,
Not for Vince and his friend.
...
>
> "That matters to me, too.
> I can't pin you guys down, though, on whether torture is
> moral or not. CCs definitely behave as though
> the morality of torture and lying and other things
> is relative to who's doing the torturing."
>
> It's the *definition*of torture that's difficult for me.
I don't care about whether the label "torture" applies.
I was talking about a very specific set of things
that we, Americans, did at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
...
> And I agree that's wrong. I have more difficulty with waterboarding, if
> that's a form of execution, holding out for somebody being willing to talk.
What's difficult about the particular cases we're discussing?
There was no trial, and you're giving them the sensation of
drowning, in order to force them to talk.
> Drowning is a form of execution, and I do believe in capital punishment.
> Whether it is cruel and unusual is unknown to me, because I've never
> drowned. I do lean towards belief that it is "cruel and unusual." Better
> just to put someone up before a firing squad, and give them one last chance
> to talk.
The fact that you're subverting justice by (a) punishing people
without trial,
and (b) coercing testimony using pain should be enough to make
it obvious that it countermands the biblical commandment to let
justice flow like a river.
It should be obvious. It's straight out of the Bible. You can't
argue that
avoiding torture is a "redemptive ceremony" that was nailed to the
cross.
It's part of the morality.
The fact that so many watchers of the "42" show and so many
conservative Christians even have an inkling of doubt about this
makes it clear that they have a totally different moral system.
>
> > And I fully agree with you, that even if we view the Law as still
> > applicable
> > in terms of *doing good,* it was never intended to bring about eternal
> > salvation.
>
> "I don't care about that part. Eternal salvation is something that's
> totally optional for me."
>
> I understand. But it's the "eternal" part that for me distinguishes between
> the Law and the Christian covenant. They both share a common morality.
Maybe the regular Christian one does, but not the conservative
Christian one.
I've given two examples of things that are quite obviously moral
questions
about which the Law and CCs give different answers.
> One
> seeks redemption for our imperfections. And the other goes on, recognizing
> that forgiveness has already taken place.
I think it's totally crazy for a religion to teach that forgiveness
has already
taken place before someone's repented and before someone has
even become aware of the law that one has violated. The Gitmo
torturers, assuming they are born-again Christians, are, according to
you, already forgiven even though they may not have repented and may
not have even studied enough Law to know that they were wrong.
>
> There is no longer need for laws of redemption,
I don't want to talk about "laws of redemption" ever again.
When I discuss the Law, as I've mentioned dozens of times before,
let's just pretend that every single sacrifice and redemption ceremony
has already been removed from it.
> since eternal life has
> already been granted us in the spirituality of Jesus. But it is the same
> basic morality, less the redemptive requirements.
No it isn't.
Conservative Christians don't have the Biblical morality. Otherwise
they'd study it more, they'd have rulings on it, and they'd agree with
rabbis about it more.
Vince in particular thinks that every *moral* law from the Bible
is gone, and only those that are repeated in the book of Acts
(plus the law about homosexuality) is a moral law, and every
other law is not a moral law. That's not the same as the
claim that it is "the same basic morality" less
the "redemptive requirements". Conservative Christians
in the US very clearly do *not* have the same basic morality;
that is why I attack their morality here so much. I'm a values
voter; I believe that our actions as a nation should reflect
our basic morality. Conservative Christians either don't
believe that, or else they define basic morality in such
a different way that it can't be recognized as Biblical morality
at all.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Nevertheless,
> the matter is easily dealt with. Those who believe the Law was nailed to
> the
> cross, with all of its "moral laws," continue to believe in moral law.
> They
> just don't believe that moral law is observed *under covenant of the Law.*
"No. That's not what Vince said...."
I'll let you discuss that with Vince. I find many Christians have a less
than certain way of dealing with the change from the Law to the Gospel. In
reality, the Apostle Paul said the Law was in effect "nailed to the cross."
This includes "lashon hara" under the Law. That includes "do not murder"
under the Law. It means that morality is no longer to be practised *under
the Law.* It does not mean Christians now preach the right to murder, just
because we are no longer under the Law.
Christian morality is summed up in the example of perfect righteousness set
by Christ. We are to participate in his spirit, albeit imperfectly, by
receiving this spiritual life as a gift, under the commitment to put that
spirituality ahead of all else. We are to produce the *same kind of
morality* that Jesus himself exemplified. And these were the same moral
characteristics that we find in the Law of Moses. It's just that for
Christians the Law is now passe. Redemption is now completed in Christian
spirituality, and cannot be perpetuated in rituals of sacrifice long after
forgiveness has been finished.
> It's the *definition*of torture that's difficult for me.
"I don't care about whether the label "torture" applies.
I was talking about a very specific set of things
that we, Americans, did at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib."
I tend to agree with you on those things.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Nevertheless,
> > the matter is easily dealt with. Those who believe the Law was nailed to
> > the
> > cross, with all of its "moral laws," continue to believe in moral law.
> > They
> > just don't believe that moral law is observed *under covenant of the Law.*
>
> "No. That's not what Vince said...."
>
> I'll let you discuss that with Vince. I find many Christians have a less
> than certain way of dealing with the change from the Law to the Gospel. In
> reality, the Apostle Paul said the Law was in effect "nailed to the cross."
> This includes "lashon hara" under the Law.
I just find inconsistency when I argue these issues.
Some laws, like murder and homosexuality, they want to keep,
and for that I start hearing the bit about "it's the same moral code,
just 'over the law' instead of 'underneath the law'".
Other laws they don't want to observe, like lashon hara,
hunting, and (in your case) torture, in which case I hear
"we're not jews, so it doesn't matter to us, it's
nailed to the cross, our righteousness comes through
grace".
So your theological principles vary with the
particular conclusion you've drawn in the
particular discussion we happen to be in.
That's what I find disturbing. It's
called consequentialism, and it's
bothersome because if the
principle changes depending on
what issue you're arguing, then
you don't really have any principle at all.
> ... We are to produce the *same kind of
> morality* that Jesus himself exemplified.
Well he didn't hunt, and he was supposed
to be meek and mild and
a peace-maker -- all these things
christian conservatives complain about
when political candidates they don't like act that way!
> And these were the same moral
> characteristics that we find in the Law of Moses. It's just that for
> Christians the Law is now passe. Redemption is now completed in Christian
> spirituality, and cannot be perpetuated in rituals of sacrifice long after
> forgiveness has been finished.
Of course I disagree with all that. Forgiving you
before you even did it, for sins you don't
even understand because you consider
the laws forbidding them to be passe -- balderdash!
>
> > It's the *definition*of torture that's difficult for me.
>
> "I don't care about whether the label "torture" applies.
> I was talking about a very specific set of things
> that we, Americans, did at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib."
>
> I tend to agree with you on those things.
That wasn't at all clear from the discussions where
it sounded like you thought these things might
have been justified or at least ambiguous.
And definitely Vince, a lover of the show "42"
and of supposed mossad acts of torture,
doesn't agree with me on these things!
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> I'll let you discuss that with Vince. I find many Christians have a less
> than certain way of dealing with the change from the Law to the Gospel. In
> reality, the Apostle Paul said the Law was in effect "nailed to the
> cross."
> This includes "lashon hara" under the Law.
"I just find inconsistency when I argue these issues.
Some laws, like murder and homosexuality, they want to keep,
and for that I start hearing the bit about "it's the same moral code,
just 'over the law' instead of 'underneath the law'".
Other laws they don't want to observe, like lashon hara,
hunting, and (in your case) torture, in which case I hear
"we're not jews, so it doesn't matter to us, it's
nailed to the cross, our righteousness comes through
grace"."
Let me clarify some things. I am against torture, period. What I've had
difficulty with is in judging people who define torture a little
differently, and find some forms of harsh treatment not "torture." I may
disagree with them, but I will concede that these lesser forms of torture
are arguable matters. If it was as cut and dried as "murder," then I would
condemn them instantly. But as it is, I simply have to state my protest to
all questionable practises under the heading "torture," whether they
represent "torture" or simply "harsh treatment."
As for whether something is done "under the Law," I find no inconsistency in
that whatsoever. It really does matter *why* you're following a particular
moral principle, because the covenant under which you practise it indicates
why you're following it. For example, if you follow the principle of lashon
hara under the Law, then you're not just trying to be moral, but you're also
trying to show that the Law is in force. Christians do not do that, or
rather, *should not* do that.
Regarding hunting, I've already registered my complaint against you that
hunting is not included in the list of prohibited items. Hunting is not
prohibited in the Bible at all.
> And these were the same moral
> characteristics that we find in the Law of Moses. It's just that for
> Christians the Law is now passe. Redemption is now completed in Christian
> spirituality, and cannot be perpetuated in rituals of sacrifice long after
> forgiveness has been finished.
"Of course I disagree with all that. Forgiving you
before you even did it, for sins you don't
even understand because you consider
the laws forbidding them to be passe -- balderdash!"
You say that only because you don't deal with the fact this is a matter of
*legal redemption,* an historic process of redemption, and not just a matter
of forgiving people for specific sins in real time. If we're just talking
about what we do wrong today *of course* you have to be forgiven now, and
not some time in the past!
But that isn't the issue at all. I'm arguing, and the New Testament argues,
that redemption is an historic process leading to legal redemption in a
final way. All of the redemption made available under the Law took place
both legally, in a sanctioned liturgy, and also in real time.
It is no different in Christianity. Christians are forgiven every day in
real time, when they apologize for their sins. But there is also the matter
of *legal redemption,* which had to set up the framework for this
forgiveness in the work of Christ. He said up a system by which animal
sacrifices were no longer necessary. His divine word alone was good for any
application for forgiveness. And it upgraded forgiveness from the Law by
offering an eternal spirit, as opposed to temporary atonement for various
sins.
What I'm saying is that today the appeal for forgiveness takes place without
reference to temporary sacrifices, because today we have resort to an
eternal spirit that makes a system of temporary forgiveness unnecessary. We
can have *eternal salvation* today, because we have access to an eternal
spirit, as opposed to reprieves made available under the Law, but which
nevertheless still led to our deaths. It is thus the *system* of redemption
that has changed, but not the morality of the system in play.
> > It's the *definition*of torture that's difficult for me.
> "I don't care about whether the label "torture" applies.
> I was talking about a very specific set of things
> that we, Americans, did at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib."
> I tend to agree with you on those things.
"That wasn't at all clear from the discussions where
it sounded like you thought these things might
have been justified or at least ambiguous."
That's because I've been changing my mind, and altering my stance somewhat.
I wasn't sure, as I said, about what constitutes torture. But I'm leaning
against *all* forms of torture.
"And definitely Vince, a lover of the show "42"
and of supposed mossad acts of torture,
doesn't agree with me on these things!"
I like and respect Vince, and think you need to see him as a "complete
package," and not just as a single-issue guy. He is very conversational and
friendly, and talks fairly with his opponents.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> "I just find inconsistency when I argue these issues.
> Some laws, like murder and homosexuality, they want to keep,
> and for that I start hearing the bit about "it's the same moral code,
> just 'over the law' instead of 'underneath the law'".
> Other laws they don't want to observe, like lashon hara,
> hunting, and (in your case) torture, in which case I hear
> "we're not jews, so it doesn't matter to us, it's
> nailed to the cross, our righteousness comes through
> grace"."
>
> Let me clarify some things.
That's always good!
> I am against torture, period. What I've had
> difficulty with is in judging people who define torture a little
> differently, and find some forms of harsh treatment not "torture."
The cases I've been discussing are cut-and-dried. Many
people in the last administration thought it was ok to
do it anyway because the torturees were bad guys.
Sadly, the same folks who condemned the Japanese
and the Koreans for doing this kind of stuff to us
had few scruples about our doing it to
captured prisoners, especially of a different
religion and skin color.
> I may
> disagree with them, but I will concede that these lesser forms of torture
> are arguable matters. If it was as cut and dried as "murder," then I would
> condemn them instantly.
Waterboarding, sticking objects in people's rectums, hanging
people up on walls for hours on end, that sort of thing.
I call it cut and dried.
...
> As for whether something is done "under the Law," I find no inconsistency in
> that whatsoever. It really does matter *why* you're following a particular
> moral principle, because the covenant under which you practise it indicates
> why you're following it. For example, if you follow the principle of lashon
> hara under the Law, then you're not just trying to be moral, but you're also
> trying to show that the Law is in force. Christians do not do that, or
> rather, *should not* do that.
We're mixing up two questions.
One is what covenant you think
prohibits the acts. That's an issue that you get more excited
about than I. You think it's important that thus and such
act is required or prohibited, but *under the new law*
rather than *under the old law*. I don't really care,
so long as we're talking about the same acts.
The other is whether the required or prohibited acts are
the *same set of acts* or not. That's a totally different
question. My concern is that many people, especially
Vince, but I think sometimes you as well, don't put the same set
of acts in this category as the Jews. And the argument seems
to shift based on the act in question. So for adultery,
you'll say "oh yes, it's the same moral code, just
under covenant B instead of covenant A". But
for lashon hara, vince will say "oh no, who cares
about that, the law is nailed to the cross and
dead as a doornail". So the rule seems to change
based on which conclusion you want. The
"new covenant" gets treated as the same when
you feel like supporting a law and as different
when you feel like not.
>
> Regarding hunting, I've already registered my complaint against you that
> hunting is not included in the list of prohibited items. Hunting is not
> prohibited in the Bible at all.
Hunting is in exactly the same situation as homosexual sex.
[As before, I'm confining to hunting for sport, not
hunting when it is needed to sustain oneself, or
hunting by trained professionals for ecological reasons --
that is, the hunting that is popular in the "hunting lifestyles"
of rural America.]
Neither is explicitly forbidden in so many words.
But in each case, something related is forbidden and the
rabbis (in Judaism) or catechism writers (in Christianity)
have generalized the forbidden things.
For hunting, we have the example of Esau and Nimrod,
Biblical villains who were characterized by this behavior.
Further, there are laws forbidding certain hunting practices,
like "don't take a mother bird with the young". And there
is the narrow prescription "when you slaughter meat,
do it only in the manner I prescribed for you".
Over time, the tradition became that Jews don't
hunt for sport. Rabbis explicitly gave responsa
prohibiting hunting for sport.
For homosexual sex, we have the story of
Sodom, though this was not actual homosexual
sex of the kind you want to prohibit, but rather
forcible rape -- obviously not something
you can generalize to sex in general.
Then there is the commandment in Leviticus
that prohibits anal sex between males
(but is silent about other acts).
Extra-biblically, this was generalized by
the rabbis and some Christians to include
all homosexual sex acts between men,
homosexual relationships in general, and
lesbian relationships. That's all tradition
and not biblical. Reform, on the basis
of the fact that the nature of homosexuality
not being understood at the time, and
on the basis of the fact that the most
well known types of homosexual relationships
were the exploitative ones and not the
loving ones, are re-examining the
rabbinical extensions, especially since
it isn't really possible for a homosexually-oriented
person to go through life at all without
violating some rule or another. (Christians
have already, without explanation,
discarded the commandment to be
fruitful and multiply).
Same problem I have with Vince. He mocks
us when we don't want to understand the rule
about homosexuality the way it's been
understood for centuries, but it's
ok to bend the rule about hunting the
way *it's* been understood for centuries???
And what exactly should a homosexual
man do? Do you really want him to
marry your daughter? (or anybody's daughter?)
And if not, he's violating another Biblical
commandment, so you're trading off
one violation for another.
>
> > And these were the same moral
> > characteristics that we find in the Law of Moses. It's just that for
> > Christians the Law is now passe. Redemption is now completed in Christian
> > spirituality, and cannot be perpetuated in rituals of sacrifice long after
> > forgiveness has been finished.
>
> "Of course I disagree with all that. Forgiving you
> before you even did it, for sins you don't
> even understand because you consider
> the laws forbidding them to be passe -- balderdash!"
>
> You say that only because you don't deal with the fact this is a matter of
> *legal redemption,* an historic process of redemption, and not just a matter
> of forgiving people for specific sins in real time. If we're just talking
> about what we do wrong today *of course* you have to be forgiven now, and
> not some time in the past!
Please clarify: are you saying that when Jesus forgave the sins
of the world, he *didn't* actually forgive them, because if you
sin tomorrow, you'll still have to (a) understand that
what you did was a sin and (b) repent and get forgiven
again after tomorrow? Because if that's so, it was just
very confusing to say that Jesus forgives you ahead of time
when what you meant is that people need to be forgiven
once by Jesus in advance and once by God after the fact.
I still don't know why the first forgiveness matters.
...
> It is no different in Christianity. Christians are forgiven every day in
> real time, when they apologize for their sins. But there is also the matter
> of *legal redemption,* which had to set up the framework for this
> forgiveness in the work of Christ. He said up a system by which animal
> sacrifices were no longer necessary. His divine word alone was good for any
> application for forgiveness. And it upgraded forgiveness from the Law by
> offering an eternal spirit, as opposed to temporary atonement for various
> sins.
I don't know what means "offering an eternal spirit".
What's wrong with regular repentance?
> ...
>
> "And definitely Vince, a lover of the show "42"
> and of supposed mossad acts of torture,
> doesn't agree with me on these things!"
>
> I like and respect Vince, and think you need to see him as a "complete
> package," and not just as a single-issue guy.
Oh, I argue with Vince on multiple issues from
torture to lashon hara to the orthodox theology.
My problem is he acts as though he's 100% sure
of how things work, and not only is he the only
right person, but all the wrong people will
be punished by God for being wrong.
And he of course hasn't a speck more evidence
for his position than anyone else does for theirs.
Reminds me of that soundproof room in heaven reserved
for the "folks who think they're the only ones here".
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
>> I am against torture, period. What I've had
>> difficulty with is in judging people who define torture a little
>> differently, and find some forms of harsh treatment not "torture."
> The cases I've been discussing are cut-and-dried. Many
> people in the last administration thought it was ok to
> do it anyway because the torturees were bad guys.
Okay, I've already dealt with this.
>> As for whether something is done "under the Law," I find no inconsistency
>> in
>> that whatsoever. It really does matter *why* you're following a
>> particular
>> moral principle, because the covenant under which you practise it
>> indicates
>> why you're following it. For example, if you follow the principle of
>> lashon
>> hara under the Law, then you're not just trying to be moral, but you're
>> also
>> trying to show that the Law is in force. Christians do not do that, or
>> rather, *should not* do that.
> We're mixing up two questions.
> One is what covenant you think
> prohibits the acts. That's an issue that you get more excited
> about than I. You think it's important that thus and such
> act is required or prohibited, but *under the new law*
> rather than *under the old law*. I don't really care,
> so long as we're talking about the same acts.
Then let's agree we're talking about lashon hara *under any covenant
system.*
> The other is whether the required or prohibited acts are
> the *same set of acts* or not. That's a totally different
> question. My concern is that many people, especially
> Vince, but I think sometimes you as well, don't put the same set
> of acts in this category as the Jews. And the argument seems
> to shift based on the act in question. So for adultery,
> you'll say "oh yes, it's the same moral code, just
> under covenant B instead of covenant A". But
> for lashon hara, vince will say "oh no, who cares
> about that, the law is nailed to the cross and
> dead as a doornail". So the rule seems to change
> based on which conclusion you want. The
> "new covenant" gets treated as the same when
> you feel like supporting a law and as different
> when you feel like not.
That's between you and Vince. I don't redefine "lashon hara" at all, under
any set of circumstances. Murder is murder in any culture, under any
covenant, under any and all circumstances.
> Hunting is in exactly the same situation as homosexual sex.
> [As before, I'm confining to hunting for sport, not
> hunting when it is needed to sustain oneself, or
> hunting by trained professionals for ecological reasons --
> that is, the hunting that is popular in the "hunting lifestyles"
> of rural America.]
> Neither is explicitly forbidden in so many words.
That isn't true. Homosexuality itself is being prohibitted--no matter how
you want to dissect it.
> But in each case, something related is forbidden and the
> rabbis (in Judaism) or catechism writers (in Christianity)
> have generalized the forbidden things.
No, the laws themselves created the general impression. And it was not just
implied--it was explicitly expressed as such.
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination.
What makes homosexual sex "abominable" is the fact that human males were
designed from the beginning to lie with females.
It means that "homosexuality" itself is a sin, because it is a *rebellion*
against the divine order as expressed from the beginning.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them.
Gen 2: 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to
his wife, and they become one flesh.
> For hunting, we have the example of Esau and Nimrod,
> Biblical villains who were characterized by this behavior.
> Further, there are laws forbidding certain hunting practices,
> like "don't take a mother bird with the young". And there
> is the narrow prescription "when you slaughter meat,
> do it only in the manner I prescribed for you".
> Over time, the tradition became that Jews don't
> hunt for sport. Rabbis explicitly gave responsa
> prohibiting hunting for sport.
The rabbis extrapolated much from the Scriptures that were not explicitly
said in the Scriptures. Those who wish to be bound by Scriptural truth alone
should not *add* to the word of God. There is absolutely no prohibition
against sport hunting, explicit or implied. What is here explicitly
prohibited is any act exhibiting ruthless disregard for God as Creator. We
are to avoid setting any example that suggests any interest in cruelty,
including torture. I suppose I can agree, then, with Jewish opinion that
often sports hunting exhibits this careless disregard for animals, and
should be judged as such. But to consign all "sports hunters" to this group
having "reckless disregard" is wrong, not just in my consideration, but
also in my experience.
> ...(Christians have already, without explanation, discarded the
> commandment to be fruitful and multiply).
Christians have not discarded this commandment. They continue to marry and
have children. Christians do not agree with Jews that this commandment had
anything to do with the covenant of Law, and thus represented a matter of
conformity to a particular covenant. Rather, the commandment to multiply and
have children represents for Christians more a matter of creative design
than a specific moral command. We are not scolded when we don't marry.
Rather, we are told that our natural impulse to want the opposite sex is
normal, but must be sanctified by married commitment.
>> You say that only because you don't deal with the fact this is a matter
>> of
>> *legal redemption,* an historic process of redemption, and not just a
>> matter
>> of forgiving people for specific sins in real time. If we're just talking
>> about what we do wrong today *of course* you have to be forgiven now, and
>> not some time in the past!
> Please clarify: are you saying that when Jesus forgave the sins
> of the world, he *didn't* actually forgive them, because if you
> sin tomorrow, you'll still have to (a) understand that
> what you did was a sin and (b) repent and get forgiven
> again after tomorrow? Because if that's so, it was just
> very confusing to say that Jesus forgives you ahead of time
> when what you meant is that people need to be forgiven
> once by Jesus in advance and once by God after the fact.
> I still don't know why the first forgiveness matters.
Well, that's the whole problem. You need to understand that for Christians
this "first forgiveness," the death of Christ, is a matter of *legal
forgiveness.* It sets up the basis for *eternal* forgiveness--not just for
temporary forgiveness until we die. When I talk about "eternal" forgiveness
I'm talking about a forgiveness that leads to eternal life, regardless of
any imperfections we continue to display.
After it is determined that we have received an eternal spirit, we have to
go on dealing with our sins and imperfections, apologizing whenever we do
wrong. This is so that we will correct our course, and make our life's
testimony more proper. And thus, we will be more fruitful in the way we
serve God's eternal purposes.
> I don't know what means "offering an eternal spirit".
> What's wrong with regular repentance?
Under the Law you repented of sin, offered an offering, and was forgiven.
But you still ended up dying, without any guarantee of a resurrection to
immortality. But under Christ, you receive an eternal spirit in real time,
and thus have a downpayment on eternal life. It is a guarantee of our
resurrection to immortality. Under the Law Israel did experience divine
spirituality, and a righteousness that pleased God. But again, it had no
guarantee of a resurrection to immortality. But in Christ you have a
spirituality originating from Christ himself, whose own human immortality
can be transferred to us legally, by his own word of forgiveness. We are not
just given a promise of eternity, but we are also given his very spirit as a
downpayment on that immortal existence. As Jesus said, we would not only
have eternal life in the resurrection, but we already have it now. Even
though we will die, we will certainly rise from the dead, since we have
Jesus' own spirit within us, ie his divine spirit.
> Reminds me of that soundproof room in heaven reserved
> for the "folks who think they're the only ones here".
Rob, I'm virtually certain you'll be there as well in that "soundproof room"
with us. Only then you'll be glad to silence the voices outside the room
that claim Jesus is a lie.
randy
Rob Strom
> calls for a house to be built. As long as the house remains unbuilt the
> contract remains unchanged in character--it continues to call for a house to
> be built. But at the point where the house is actually built, the character
> of the contract changes. It no longer calls for a house to be built. Its
> principles remain basically the same, to call for a house to be built. But
> inasmuch as the house has already been built, it is a contract that no
> longer applies, because the change it called for, the end of the contract,
> has been fulfilled.
Yes, but the Torah is more like a contract that calls for
continual action. It is like a contract that says,
"Paint the house every spring".
And Jesus' speeches are like someone coming and
saying "you've been sloppy about painting the house;
I'm going to show you how to do it right. I'm not
here to overturn the instruction to paint it every spring,
in fact you're to paint it every spring as long as the
earth is here".
And Paulinism is like someone coming and interpreting
that as "Jesus did such a good job painting that
house that it will never need painting again" :(
...
>
> As I've said repeatedly, laws of morality are etched on the human heart,
they're not. That's why we have religion in the first place.
> and
> not confined to any one covenant of the past. But the final covenant God
> designed for mankind, the Christian covenant, is designed with all of these
> morals in mind. They don't include things like "hunting," because that is
> something people have always required for food.
Uh, no.
I don't believe that your neighbors will starve if they don't hunt.
That area of Washington State isn't *that* rural!
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > One is what covenant you think
> > prohibits the acts. That's an issue that you get more excited
> > about than I. You think it's important that thus and such
> > act is required or prohibited, but *under the new law*
> > rather than *under the old law*. I don't really care,
> > so long as we're talking about the same acts.
>
> Then let's agree we're talking about lashon hara *under any covenant
> system.*
Yes.
>
> > The other is whether the required or prohibited acts are
> > the *same set of acts* or not. That's a totally different
> > question. My concern is that many people, especially
> > Vince, but I think sometimes you as well, don't put the same set
> > of acts in this category as the Jews. And the argument seems
> > to shift based on the act in question. So for adultery,
> > you'll say "oh yes, it's the same moral code, just
> > under covenant B instead of covenant A". But
> > for lashon hara, vince will say "oh no, who cares
> > about that, the law is nailed to the cross and
> > dead as a doornail". So the rule seems to change
> > based on which conclusion you want. The
> > "new covenant" gets treated as the same when
> > you feel like supporting a law and as different
> > when you feel like not.
>
> That's between you and Vince. I don't redefine "lashon hara" at all, under
> any set of circumstances.
It seems that you do, since you forgive lashon hara
and other kinds of lying like Bush's lying when
you like the politics or the religion of the people
doing the lying and lashon hara.
...
>
> That isn't true. Homosexuality itself is being prohibitted--no matter how
> you want to dissect it.
No. There isn't anything in the Bible that prohibits homosexuality
itself.
>
> > But in each case, something related is forbidden and the
> > rabbis (in Judaism) or catechism writers (in Christianity)
> > have generalized the forbidden things.
>
> No, the laws themselves created the general impression. And it was not just
> implied--it was explicitly expressed as such.
It wasn't explicitly expressed. Like hunting, it was inferred
from other laws by generalization.
> Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
> abomination.
>
This prohibits anal sex between men only. (also only
to Jews, but for now we're going to assume that
Christians accept being bound by laws that apply to Jews --
something you don't always agree when it's a law you don't like)
> What makes homosexual sex "abominable" is the fact that human males were
> designed from the beginning to lie with females.
That's an assumption you're making; it's not in the Bible.
> It means that "homosexuality" itself is a sin, because it is a *rebellion*
> against the divine order as expressed from the beginning.
That's an inference you're making.
The point is, that the law forbade one narrow thing: anal sex.
You have extended it: first to all sex between men, then
to all loving relationships between men, then to all same-sex
relationships, including woman-to-woman relationships about
which the Bible is totally silent.
You're generalizing, exactly as you complain hunting-opponents
are generalizing.
...
>
> > For hunting, we have the example of Esau and Nimrod,
> > Biblical villains who were characterized by this behavior.
> > Further, there are laws forbidding certain hunting practices,
> > like "don't take a mother bird with the young". And there
> > is the narrow prescription "when you slaughter meat,
> > do it only in the manner I prescribed for you".
> > Over time, the tradition became that Jews don't
> > hunt for sport. Rabbis explicitly gave responsa
> > prohibiting hunting for sport.
>
> The rabbis extrapolated much from the Scriptures that were not explicitly
> said in the Scriptures.
And so do Christians.
> Those who wish to be bound by Scriptural truth alone
> should not *add* to the word of God.
But all your talk about "rebellion against the divine order"
and prohibition of all gay sex is exactly adding to the word of God.
All of a sudden you believe in sola scriptura with respect to
hunting, after you've dropped sola scriptura like a hot potato
when it came to homosexuality, because you wanted to add to the law.
> There is absolutely no prohibition
> against sport hunting, explicit or implied.
There definitely is a prohibition implied, since
the stories of Esau and Nimrod make it clear
that their behavior was disapproved of.
> What is here explicitly
> prohibited is any act exhibiting ruthless disregard for God as Creator.
No. What is explicitly prohibited is killing any animal for meat
in any manner other than those shown to us by God. In addition
to other rules like not taking the mother bird with the young.
> We
> are to avoid setting any example that suggests any interest in cruelty,
> including torture. I suppose I can agree, then, with Jewish opinion that
> often sports hunting exhibits this careless disregard for animals, and
> should be judged as such. But to consign all "sports hunters" to this group
> having "reckless disregard" is wrong, not just in my consideration, but
> also in my experience.
If they can't dispatch a deer with a single stroke of a blade, then
I don't see how they can argue that the slaughter of that deer
is kosher.
That's a pretty demanding requirement. I'm not getting
even to the level of depravity shown by Cheney, which
even your run of the mill, NRA-dues-paying person would
find shocking.
>
> > ...(Christians have already, without explanation, discarded the
> > commandment to be fruitful and multiply).
>
> Christians have not discarded this commandment. They continue to marry and
> have children.
Huh???
Obvious exceptions are the rules forbidding priests to marry.
Other obvious exceptions are Paul's exhortations that
it would be better if his preachers of the gospel not marry,
and they should only do so if they would be tempted to
sexual sin if they didn't.
> Christians do not agree with Jews that this commandment had
> anything to do with the covenant of Law, and thus represented a matter of
> conformity to a particular covenant.
I thought we were going to discuss these things without getting
to the question of what covenant they belong to.
> Rather, the commandment to multiply and
> have children represents for Christians more a matter of creative design
> than a specific moral command. We are not scolded when we don't marry.
Are you kidding?????????????????????????????
For generations, people have been bugging their daughters
to marry, and intervening when things took
too long. Lord Capulet, a noble Christian,
thought that waiting past age *fourteen* to marry off Juliet
was waiting too long.
Would you consider that it was ok for your daughter to not
marry????????
Be fruitful and multiply.
Anyhow, once you understand what homosexuality is about,
something has to bend somewhere. Because having
a homosexual man marry your daughter
(or anyone's daughter) would be morally
wrong, and having him not marry anyone would be morally
wrong. And according to you, having him marry another
homosexual man would also be wrong! So you're in a quandary.
*Any* result is going to lead to a violation.
That's why Reform tries to take an approach of doing the least harm,
just as we try to do in the case where a man doesn't or can't
give his wife a get. We think it's better to bend the rule
and consider the wife marriageable without a get rather
than keep the rule rigid and get a worse result.
Similarly, rather than have a homosexual man marry your
daughter or forbid him to marry at all, we prefer to
let him marry another homosexual man.
...
> > Please clarify: are you saying that when Jesus forgave the sins
> > of the world, he *didn't* actually forgive them, because if you
> > sin tomorrow, you'll still have to (a) understand that
> > what you did was a sin and (b) repent and get forgiven
> > again after tomorrow? Because if that's so, it was just
> > very confusing to say that Jesus forgives you ahead of time
> > when what you meant is that people need to be forgiven
> > once by Jesus in advance and once by God after the fact.
> > I still don't know why the first forgiveness matters.
>
> Well, that's the whole problem. You need to understand that for Christians
> this "first forgiveness," the death of Christ, is a matter of *legal
> forgiveness.* It sets up the basis for *eternal* forgiveness--
What does "sets up the basis" mean?
...
> After it is determined that we have received an eternal spirit, we have to
> go on dealing with our sins and imperfections, apologizing whenever we do
> wrong.
But then you do have to know what's a sin and what's not,
which means that you can't argue that the law is nailed to the cross.
And you have to get forgiven when you do commit a sin,
which makes it odd to say "your sins are already forgiven by Jesus".
...
> > I don't know what means "offering an eternal spirit".
> > What's wrong with regular repentance?
>
> Under the Law you repented of sin, offered an offering, and was forgiven.
> But you still ended up dying, without any guarantee of a resurrection to
> immortality. But under Christ, you receive an eternal spirit in real time,
> and thus have a downpayment on eternal life.
I don't get the analogy.
When you buy a house, you make a downpayment.
Then later you pay the balance plus interest.
In your analogy, "under Christ" is the downpayment.
And I guess "eternal life" is the house.
What are the balance and the interest?
...
>
> > Reminds me of that soundproof room in heaven reserved
> > for the "folks who think they're the only ones here".
>
> Rob, I'm virtually certain you'll be there as well in that "soundproof room"
> with us. Only then you'll be glad to silence the voices outside the room
> that claim Jesus is a lie.
I'm not claiming that Jesus is a lie, but rather that the room is!
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> ....I don't redefine "lashon hara" at all, under any set of circumstances.
"It seems that you do, since you forgive lashon hara
and other kinds of lying like Bush's lying when
you like the politics or the religion of the people
doing the lying and lashon hara."
Forgiving errors in judgment and blatant acceptance of "lying" are two
different things. We don't agree on what Bush's *motives* were when he
accepted imperfect recommendations from intelligence reports. But when
you're talking about acceptance of deliberate lies that *we both agree* are
blatant examples of deliberate lying, then yes, prohibitions against lashon
hara applies.
The kind of examples you're producing would be like claiming OJ Simpson is
an example of deliberate injustice. The fact remains, we can't be sure that
anybody on the jury deliberately perverted justice. At worst it may just be
a case of simple bias. You claim to *know* what was in the mind of George
Bush when he decided to act on intelligence reports that favored action, and
ignored other intelligence that recommended against it. I tend to believe,
based on Bush's overall character, that he was biased, and wanted to believe
the worst about the presence of WMDs. That doesn't mean he "lied" at all.
And so, it cannot be used as an example of my tolerating violations of
"lashon hara."
Have to go for now.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > ....I don't redefine "lashon hara" at all, under any set of circumstances.
>
> "It seems that you do, since you forgive lashon hara
> and other kinds of lying like Bush's lying when
> you like the politics or the religion of the people
> doing the lying and lashon hara."
>
> Forgiving errors in judgment and blatant acceptance of "lying" are two
> different things.
Yup.
> We don't agree on what Bush's *motives* were when he
> accepted imperfect recommendations from intelligence reports. But when
> you're talking about acceptance of deliberate lies that *we both agree* are
> blatant examples of deliberate lying, then yes, prohibitions against lashon
> hara applies.
But you argued exactly about that.
He said "we know where the WMDs are" where actually
none of the intelligence reports said where they are.
So that was a WHAT? Oh yes, a lie.
And stuff like Catherina Wojtowitz?
(Who said the Houghs made up their story of dying
from lack of health care.)
What was she doing? LYING.
She lied. She's evil.
Cheers to Keith Olbermann, who's commentary explicitly
spoke to values voters when he said that according
to Christianity, she's headed for HELL.
(Lucky for Wojtowitz I don't believe in hell.)
But when are Christian conservatives going to finally
repudiate these lying liars?
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Forgiving errors in judgment and blatant acceptance of "lying" are two
> We don't agree on what Bush's *motives* were when he
> accepted imperfect recommendations from intelligence reports. But when
> you're talking about acceptance of deliberate lies that *we both agree*
> are
> blatant examples of deliberate lying, then yes, prohibitions against
> lashon
> hara applies.
"But you argued exactly about that.
He said "we know where the WMDs are" where actually
none of the intelligence reports said where they are."
We've been around enough on that one. As I said, we're *disagreed* on what
Bush meant when he said he "knew." He was basing his sure knowledge on the
assumption that intelligence reports were reliable, something every
president has to rely on to some degree. And I would suppose that
intelligence reports at least made logical guesses as to where they might
be, since just about all our allies believed Iraq had them! Quite frankly,
if you claim to know intelligence reports said *nothing* about where WMDs
likely were, then you know more than I do! ;)
We base our assumed knowledge on the assumption of credibility *all the
time!* When we see big rain clouds looming on the horizon, and the wind
blowing our way, we think it's definitely going to rain. The weather man
says he *knows* it's going to rain, 100% chance. But then out of nowhere,
the wind shifts, and the rain never comes. Did the weatherman lie? No, he
just based his certainty on the assumption of a credible prediction. That's
what Bush did. He relied on what he viewed were credible reports, which
assured him that we *know* where the WMDs are.
I think Rumsfield erred in saying he knew, specifically, where the WMDs
were. I think it went over the top in his confident guesswork, which only
indicated to me that he really believed they existed.
If we were talking about someone actually lying, such as when Clinton said
he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky, or when he denied guilt in other
matters where he was likely guilty, then I would agree that it's wrong.
Lying is wrong, in particular when it is used to cover up wrongdoing, or
when it is used to commit a wrongdoing.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
> That isn't true. Homosexuality itself is being prohibitted--no matter how
> you want to dissect it.
"No. There isn't anything in the Bible that prohibits homosexuality
itself."
The Bible defines homosexuality in the very law that prohibits it. I already
quoted it to you. It is "uncovering" someone illicitly, for purposes of
lust. It is lying with the same sex. It is trying to look like the opposite
sex to attract the same sex. It is considered to be "an abomination." It
inverts the very commands of God in the beginning that sought to unite
*opposite* sexes, for puposes of raising families and advancing the human
race.
> Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
> abomination.
"This prohibits anal sex between men only...."
Paul was a Torah scholar, and clearly indicated the principle of "same sex"
could be applied to females also. The matter of clothing was applied both to
males and to females. They were not to wear clothing of the opposite sex to
attract the same sex.
De 22:5 A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a
man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an
abomination to the LORD your God.
> What makes homosexual sex "abominable" is the fact that human males were
> designed from the beginning to lie with females.
"That's an assumption you're making; it's not in the Bible."
I just quoted the Bible, and I'm drawing a reasonable conclusion.
> It means that "homosexuality" itself is a sin, because it is a *rebellion*
> against the divine order as expressed from the beginning.
"That's an inference you're making."
No, the Scriptures say male-female. And the Law prohibits male-male. It is
about as logical as you can get.
> We
> are to avoid setting any example that suggests any interest in cruelty,
> including torture. I suppose I can agree, then, with Jewish opinion that
> often sports hunting exhibits this careless disregard for animals, and
> should be judged as such. But to consign all "sports hunters" to this
> group
> having "reckless disregard" is wrong, not just in my consideration, but
> also in my experience.
"If they can't dispatch a deer with a single stroke of a blade, then
I don't see how they can argue that the slaughter of that deer
is kosher."
I don't consider it important what method is employed to kill the deer, as
long as it is not designed to prolong the deer's misery. We are not to
engage in some kind of "blood-lust," a joy of gore, and interest in
perverted cruelty. Unfortunately, that is often how men treat men. And that
is the purpose of the laws, to show that what is in our heart comes out not
just in the way we treat human beings, but also in the way we treat animals.
> > ...(Christians have already, without explanation, discarded the
> > commandment to be fruitful and multiply).
> Christians have not discarded this commandment. They continue to marry and
> have children.
"Huh???
Obvious exceptions are the rules forbidding priests to marry."
You think *all* Christians follow Catholicism? You think all Catholics are
priests? If most Catholics marry, then they follow the commandment of God to
multiply and fill the earth. Those who do not marry, like Catholic priests,
are not disobeying the law. In fact, they support the law when they
encourage others under their ministry to marry and bear children. The law to
marry and to bear children is not specific to every man and woman, but
rather, a general tendency that God created in mankind. It expressed God's
intent to see mankind multiply in a general sense--not to enforce upon every
individual direct participation in sex and marriage.
> Rather, the commandment to multiply and
> have children represents for Christians more a matter of creative design
> than a specific moral command. We are not scolded when we don't marry.
"Are you kidding?????????????????????????????"
No, a sexual drive is the norm for people, but not the determining factor in
how men decide to spend their lives. It is part of their designed creation,
but it is not automatically built into their psychological frame of mind,
nor does it impose itself upon every individual's choice.
God did not give this command to demand from every individual that he or she
marry. It was only an expression of what God generally created mankind to
be, a procreative, multiplying race. And it's true, that we tend to multiply
and fill the earth. But it is not true that our conscience imposes upon us a
need to marry. Not true at all.
"Would you consider that it was ok for your daughter to not
marry????????"
Absolutely. I prefer her to have children, but it's entirely between her and
God.
"Anyhow, once you understand what homosexuality is about,
something has to bend somewhere. Because having
a homosexual man marry your daughter
(or anyone's daughter) would be morally
wrong, and having him not marry anyone would be morally
wrong. And according to you, having him marry another
homosexual man would also be wrong! So you're in a quandary.
*Any* result is going to lead to a violation."
I've never really fallen for that kind of assumption, that homosexuals have
to remain homosexual. I've always assumed that they can repent, and no
longer be homosexuals. Then they can marry as they choose.
"That's why Reform tries to take an approach of doing the least harm,
just as we try to do in the case where a man doesn't or can't
give his wife a get. We think it's better to bend the rule
and consider the wife marriageable without a get rather
than keep the rule rigid and get a worse result.
Similarly, rather than have a homosexual man marry your
daughter or forbid him to marry at all, we prefer to
let him marry another homosexual man."
Well, obviously if he is going to remain a homosexual he should choose
another, rather than my daughter! But in my world it's best that he leave a
Christian country, if indeed the country is Christian.
> Well, that's the whole problem. You need to understand that for Christians
> this "first forgiveness," the death of Christ, is a matter of *legal
> forgiveness.* It sets up the basis for *eternal* forgiveness--
"What does "sets up the basis" mean?"
1) Forgiveness under the Law was temporary. You offer your sacrifice. You
get forgiven. But later you die anyway. That is a temporary forgiveness,
because nothing completely removes from you the decree of death.
2) Forgiveness can under the gospel of Christ lead to eternity. It can do so
if it guarantees a resurrection from the dead. So what Christ did, when he
died on the cross, and arose from the dead, is establish a basis by which we
can all partake in this resurrection. We do so when we accept him as deity,
and receive from him a spirit that gives us access to his character and his
righteousness.
The death of Christ thus became the *basis* for our own eternal salvation.
It was the basis of an eternal forgiveness, a forgiveness that leads to
immortality, and not just a temporary forgiveness that ultimately ends in
death. When we are forgiven by Christ, we are given access to a spirituality
that lasts forever. It does not mean we stop sinning. It does not mean we
stop having a need to ask for forgiveness for our sins. It just means that
whatever wrong we do in the future, it cannot stop us from living by a
spirituality that will last forever. Our resurrection is sure. All we need
to do now is live in righteousness and repent of our sins, so that when we
are raised from the dead we will be proud of all we did here in this
lifetime.
> Under the Law you repented of sin, offered an offering, and was forgiven.
> But you still ended up dying, without any guarantee of a resurrection to
> immortality. But under Christ, you receive an eternal spirit in real time,
> and thus have a downpayment on eternal life.
"I don't get the analogy.
When you buy a house, you make a downpayment.
Then later you pay the balance plus interest.
In your analogy, "under Christ" is the downpayment.
And I guess "eternal life" is the house.
What are the balance and the interest?"
Yes, eternal life is the house you've bought. The balance owed is our
resurrection from the dead, which we have yet to receive. Interest has no
bearing. We can today receive a spirituality that gives to us the very
character traits of Jesus. It means we can now experience a spiritual life
that is both divine and eternal. But we will not have the balance of what
that life means to us until we are rid of our present bodies that die. We
cannot experience all that it means to be immortal until we have actually
put off our mortal bodies. The spirituality we now experience is but a
downpayment on our resurrection from the dead, when we will not only
experience Christ's spirituality but also live in immortal bodies.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
>
> > That isn't true. Homosexuality itself is being prohibitted--no matter how
> > you want to dissect it.
>
> "No. There isn't anything in the Bible that prohibits homosexuality
> itself."
>
> The Bible defines homosexuality in the very law that prohibits it.
No it doesn't.
> I already
> quoted it to you.
The law says simply don't [if you're a man] lie with a man
like you lie with a woman. It doesn't even define "lie",
but the Jews know it means penetrative intercourse,
and therefore it means men don't have penetrative
intercourse with men.
> It is "uncovering" someone illicitly, for purposes of
> lust.
The written law doesn't talk about purposes at all.
> It is lying with the same sex. It is trying to look like the opposite
> sex to attract the same sex.
There is no law talking about attracting the same sex.
> It is considered to be "an abomination."
So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
*that* law.
...
>
> "This prohibits anal sex between men only...."
>
> Paul was a Torah scholar, and clearly indicated the principle of "same sex"
> could be applied to females also.
Paul (a) didn't say any such thing, and (b) if he did, he
was mistaken. Let's not try to put Paul in the category
of the sages!
> The matter of clothing was applied both to
> males and to females. They were not to wear clothing of the opposite sex to
> attract the same sex.
It doesn't say "to attract the same sex". That's an addition you're
putting on there so that you can try to defend Sarah Palin from
the accusation of violating the commandment, which she is.
Of course she is an abomination for many other reasons, but
she openly lives the hunting lifestyle, lies, *and* wears clothing
of the opposite sex!! Not only that, she is unrepentantly
***proud*** of the lifestyle she lives!!!!
...
>
> > What makes homosexual sex "abominable" is the fact that human males were
> > designed from the beginning to lie with females.
>
> "That's an assumption you're making; it's not in the Bible."
>
> I just quoted the Bible, and I'm drawing a reasonable conclusion.
It's not in the Bible about our design, and not everything in our
"design" is good (we're also "designed" -- i.e. evolved -- to be
jealous, fight wars,
and cheat on our spouses). It should be understood that the main
purpose of the Bible is to teach us how to live *against* some of what
we were designed for!
>
> > It means that "homosexuality" itself is a sin, because it is a *rebellion*
> > against the divine order as expressed from the beginning.
>
> "That's an inference you're making."
>
> No, the Scriptures say male-female. And the Law prohibits male-male. It is
> about as logical as you can get.
It prohibits one kind of male-male sex, and doesn't say why, and
there's
a fairly good argument that the reason has to do more with the fact
that some other horrid practices of other nations were correlated with
ritual homosexual sex -- which is probably also why we forbade
certain animals.
>
...
>
> "If they can't dispatch a deer with a single stroke of a blade, then
> I don't see how they can argue that the slaughter of that deer
> is kosher."
>
> I don't consider it important what method is employed to kill the deer, as
> long as it is not designed to prolong the deer's misery.
Huh??????
The Lord God, King of the Universe, explicitly told you in Holy
Scripture,
"you need only slaughter your cattle and small animals
that God will have given you ***in the manner that I have
prescribed***"
(Deut 12:21)
And you spit on all that and say "I don't consider it important
what method is employed"???????????????????????????????
...
>
> "Huh???
> Obvious exceptions are the rules forbidding priests to marry."
>
> You think *all* Christians follow Catholicism?
Most do.
> You think all Catholics are
> priests?
It doesn't matter, since almost all of them honor priests,
consider the rules about priests proper, and hence
spit on God's commandment.
> If most Catholics marry, then they follow the commandment of God to
> multiply and fill the earth. Those who do not marry, like Catholic priests,
> are not disobeying the law.
How is that so, if God commanded be fruitful and multiply?
> In fact, they support the law when they
> encourage others under their ministry to marry and bear children.
So if gay men encouraged other men to marry, then that would be ok?
> The law to
> marry and to bear children is not specific to every man and woman, but
> rather, a general tendency that God created in mankind.
You just argued the exact opposite for gays -- that it went against
an explicit law of nature. Now you're saying that it's ok provided
*most* people obey the law!! Can you at least be consistent within
one post????...
> > Rather, the commandment to multiply and
> > have children represents for Christians more a matter of creative design
> > than a specific moral command. We are not scolded when we don't marry.
>
> "Are you kidding?????????????????????????????"
>
> No, a sexual drive is the norm for people, but not the determining factor in
> how men decide to spend their lives.
I'm talking about the view that God commanded it.
> It is part of their designed creation,
> but it is not automatically built into their psychological frame of mind,
> nor does it impose itself upon every individual's choice.
In other words, exactly like heterosexuality versus homosexuality.
>
> God did not give this command to demand from every individual that he or she
> marry.
You're saying exactly the opposite with respect to gays.
...
>
> "Would you consider that it was ok for your daughter to not
> marry????????"
>
> Absolutely. I prefer her to have children, but it's entirely between her and
> God.
Then I don't see why you can't say that it's ok for your son to be
gay.
"That's entirely between him and God".
>
> "Anyhow, once you understand what homosexuality is about,
> something has to bend somewhere. Because having
> a homosexual man marry your daughter
> (or anyone's daughter) would be morally
> wrong, and having him not marry anyone would be morally
> wrong. And according to you, having him marry another
> homosexual man would also be wrong! So you're in a quandary.
> *Any* result is going to lead to a violation."
>
> I've never really fallen for that kind of assumption, that homosexuals have
> to remain homosexual. I've always assumed that they can repent, and no
> longer be homosexuals. Then they can marry as they choose.
I don't think even you believe that. Even the older generation,
which had an unenlightened view of homosexuality, viewed that
it was a kind of "birth defect".
Anyhow that's now known to be empirically false.
...
>
> Well, obviously if he is going to remain a homosexual he should choose
> another, rather than my daughter!
Why is your daughter different from any other woman???
> But in my world it's best that he leave a
> Christian country, if indeed the country is Christian.
Why -- is it somehow less of a sin if he does it somewhere else????
> ...
>
> Yes, eternal life is the house you've bought. The balance owed is our
> resurrection from the dead, which we have yet to receive.
Bad analogy. A balance owed is an obligation on *us*. I don't
see how resurrection counts as an obligation on us.
> Interest has no
> bearing.
So 2/3 of the analogy breaks down, so maybe you can
look for a better one.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Forgiving errors in judgment and blatant acceptance of "lying" are two
> > different things...
> > We don't agree on what Bush's *motives* were when he
> > accepted imperfect recommendations from intelligence reports. But when
> > you're talking about acceptance of deliberate lies that *we both agree*
> > are
> > blatant examples of deliberate lying, then yes, prohibitions against
> > lashon
> > hara applies.
>
> "But you argued exactly about that.
> He said "we know where the WMDs are" where actually
> none of the intelligence reports said where they are."
>
> We've been around enough on that one. As I said, we're *disagreed* on what
> Bush meant when he said he "knew."
His exact words were "we know where they are".
> He was basing his sure knowledge on the
> assumption that intelligence reports were reliable, something every
> president has to rely on to some degree.
None of the intelligence reports said where they are;
if they did, we could have dispatched the inspectors
directly to that spot where they were hidden,
and dispatched also cameras and shown them
to the whole world.
> And I would suppose that
> intelligence reports at least made logical guesses as to where they might
> be, since just about all our allies believed Iraq had them
They believed that they once had them, or that there was enough
danger that they might have them that it was worth sending
inspectors to see if they were there. That is a far cry
from saying "We found them! We know where they are!"
which was a LIE.
> Quite frankly,
> if you claim to know intelligence reports said *nothing* about where WMDs
> likely were, then you know more than I do! ;)
They didn't say where they were, and they said nothing definite enough
that would justify a statement like "We know where they are."
That statement was just a lie.
> ... The weather man
> says he *knows* it's going to rain, 100% chance.
The weathermen don't usually say that, and Bush's
intelligence reports didn't say that.
Some reports said it probably will rain, and others
said it probably won't rain, and still others said we don't know.
Bush then summarized them by saying
"We KNOW there's 100% chance of rain", which
is a lie.
...
>
> I think Rumsfield erred in saying he knew, specifically, where the WMDs
> were. I think it went over the top in his confident guesswork, which only
> indicated to me that he really believed they existed.
The fact that he didn't give an order to dig at the place where
he thought they were indicated to me he didn't know that.
The sad thing about that administration, and the thing that
is going to put them all in hell if Christianity is true, is
that they made statements like this NOT because they
believed they existed at a known spot (they didn't even try to go to
this supposed spot after they had invaded the country
and they had the full force of the army at their disposal), but
because they knew that if they announced that our
national security was at stake, they could get their
opponents to shut up and give the President everything
he asked for. Disgusting evil people, taking advantage
of people's patriotism. Even more disgusting people,
calling people who doubted unpatriotic. I don't think
there's a hell, but if there is, these people are going there!
>
> If we were talking about someone actually lying, such as when Clinton said
> he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky,
AFAIK that statement was 100% true!!!
> or when he denied guilt in other
> matters where he was likely guilty, then I would agree that it's wrong.
How can you put Clinton's peccadillos in the same category
as Bush's and Clinton's outright lies that threw away trillions
of dollars and killed thousands of people???????????
And what's to laugh at now is all of his supporters trying
to say that now we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY for universal
health insurance????????????????????????????????????
That would be so to laugh at, were it not tragic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Lying is wrong, in particular when it is used to cover up wrongdoing, or
> when it is used to commit a wrongdoing.
Yes. Bush's people lied to get people to not look too carefully
at our rush into war, by saying there could be a mushroom
cloud any day. He also tortured prisoners to try to get them
to make up "supporting evidence" of weapons programs.
What a disgusting set of people. I am glad we have finally
seen the end of them. I am upset that some pundit shows
interview Cheney. Obama is very noble for forbearing to
have him put in jail, but no reputable news station should
give him a voice!
Please don't call him a Christian. Were he really a Christian,
he'd be running to confessional six days a week begging
for the salvation of his soul!!!
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> We've been around enough on that one. As I said, we're *disagreed* on what
> Bush meant when he said he "knew."
"His exact words were "we know where they are"."
His precise meaning seemed to be, our intelligence is very confident that
these WMDs are exactly where we think they are. Intelligence reports are
based on a high degree of confidence--not always a precise science. We "know
where they are" means, we are fairly confident these things are where they
appear to be.
"None of the intelligence reports said where they are;
if they did, we could have dispatched the inspectors
directly to that spot where they were hidden,
and dispatched also cameras and shown them
to the whole world."
On the contrary, if they were on mobile units, they could be moved. And
quite frankly, the inspections process were constantly being halted, and
resumed after things could've been moved.
> If we were talking about someone actually lying, such as when Clinton said
> he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky,
"AFAIK that statement was 100% true!!!"
Then you lose all credibility. He was impeached, for crying out loud!
"How can you put Clinton's peccadillos in the same category
as Bush's and Clinton's outright lies..."
The only issue here is, what is a "lie?" An assumption of certainty is not a
deliberate lie. End of discussion.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy"
> It is "uncovering" someone illicitly, for purposes of
> lust.
"The written law doesn't talk about purposes at all."
Sure it does. The purpose is "wickedness."
> It is lying with the same sex. It is trying to look like the opposite
> sex to attract the same sex.
"There is no law talking about attracting the same sex."
That is why a person wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex--to
attract the same sex.
> It is considered to be "an abomination."
"So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
*that* law."
What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body. It is
*symbolic* of wickedness. It is failure to show respect for life, in
particular *human* life, by treating death with indifference. At least that
is how I view it.
> Paul was a Torah scholar, and clearly indicated the principle of "same
> sex"
> could be applied to females also.
"Paul (a) didn't say any such thing, and (b) if he did, he
was mistaken. Let's not try to put Paul in the category
of the sages!"
He had the highest level of training in his day.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion
for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
their own persons the due penalty for their error.
> The matter of clothing was applied both to
> males and to females. They were not to wear clothing of the opposite sex
> to
> attract the same sex.
"It doesn't say "to attract the same sex"..."
It's a very reasonable deduction.
> > What makes homosexual sex "abominable" is the fact that human males were
> > designed from the beginning to lie with females.
"It's not in the Bible about our design, and not everything in our
"design" is good (we're also "designed" -- i.e. evolved -- to be
jealous, fight wars,
and cheat on our spouses). It should be understood that the main
purpose of the Bible is to teach us how to live *against* some of what
we were designed for!"
I believe our sinful nature was not designed, except to be a consequence of
our rebellion against God. We were actually created to be just like God, and
only like God, ie in terms of character. We were not created to do evil. But
God had in mind a design that would enable us to reflect whatever choice we
made, with respect to God's word.
> No, the Scriptures say male-female. And the Law prohibits male-male. It is
> about as logical as you can get.
> I don't consider it important what method is employed to kill the deer, as
> long as it is not designed to prolong the deer's misery.
"Huh??????
The Lord God, King of the Universe, explicitly told you in Holy
Scripture,
"you need only slaughter your cattle and small animals
that God will have given you ***in the manner that I have
prescribed***"
(Deut 12:21)"
That was under the Law, which determined where sacrificial rites were to be
performed, and how animals were to be eaten, ie without their blood.
Deut 12:21 If the place which the LORD your God will choose to put his name
there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock,
which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat
within your towns as much as you desire.
It seems that animals who were not to be offered on the altar at Jerusalem
could be killed at home, because they were not part of the ritual of the
Law. But they still could not, being under the Law, eat the animal with the
blood still in it. That included nonsacrificial animals as well as
sacrificial animals.
"And you spit on all that and say "I don't consider it important
what method is employed"?...
I don't spit on anything you say. I don't spit on anything Scripture says. I
just obviously interpret what the Scriptures have to say on this differently
than you do!
> You think *all* Christians follow Catholicism?
"Most do."
The measure of true Christianity is not determined by the largest majority
of those calling themselves "Christian." Rather, Christianity has a fairly
simple formula, and it isn't determined by nominal membership in a church or
by nominal membership in a Christian family. Rather, it is determined by our
faith in Jesus as Lord God, and by our faith in him that he can give us his
eternal spirit as a guarantee of our immortality and righteousness. Many
Catholics do not live like this, even if they say they believe in it. The
measure of true Christianity is in the *doing*--not just in what we claim we
believe.
Much of what has evolved out of Catholicism is a blend of true believers and
unspiritual people who simply grew up in the church. So a lot of funny
beliefs come out of Catholicism, such as prayers to Mary, Mary's eternal
virginity, transubsantiation, and the veneration of the saints. I'm not
saying that there are not many true Christians in Catholicism. I'm just
saying that beliefs that have been accepted as Catholic tradition do not
necessarily represent Scriptural doctrine. It is because of Catholic
deviation from Scriptural doctrine that Martin Luther protested Catholic
tradition and initiated the Protestant Reformation.
> In fact, they support the law when they
> encourage others under their ministry to marry and bear children.
"So if gay men encouraged other men to marry, then that would be ok?"
They could certainly encourage men to marry women, and that would be okay.
*They,* however, would not be okay, nor would it be okay if they encouraged
men to marry men.
> The law to
> marry and to bear children is not specific to every man and woman, but
> rather, a general tendency that God created in mankind.
"You just argued the exact opposite for gays -- that it went against
an explicit law of nature. Now you're saying that it's ok provided
*most* people obey the law!! Can you at least be consistent within
one post????..."
Nature guides us to be attracted to the opposite sex, but not necessarily
so. Men can render their desire for women subservient to other desires that
are best served as singles. This is not contradictory to human nature, which
attracts the opposite sex. It just means that it is equally natural for some
individuals to resist this impulse for reasonable purposes.
The apparent "command" to mankind, to bear children was a general command,
and did not require that every individual marry and bear children. That
would be utterly despotic and unreasonable of God, and God has neither
confirmed such an intent through all the generations of His dealings with
men.
When God told mankind to marry, it was a *creative* command, determining His
general purpose that mankind populate the entire earth. How that happened
specifically wasn't the concern, as long as it took place. Even if a few men
could not or would not marry, the purpose of God would ultimately be
realized, as men and women married and bore children.
It is a matter of *nature,* therefore, that men and women marry. And it is
also a matter of *nature* that men not *have to* marry. That is, it isn't
always in our psychological makeup to marry, so that there is no
psychological necessity imposed on us to marry. But if we are so inclined it
is natural for us only to be attracted to the *opposite* sex.
> God did not give this command to demand from every individual that he or
> she
> marry.
"You're saying exactly the opposite with respect to gays."
No, I'm not. I'm saying that *no individual* has to marry, if he has no
compulsion to do so--if he or she finds another competing activity more
attractive. There is no option to be homosexual. But some wish to serve God
as a single, and so find more time to do things for God, than if the family
has to be cared for as well.
The gay person has an unnatural compulsion towards the same sex. They have
turned natural desire for the opposite sex into something perverted, and
even addicting. But such addictions can be broken.
"Then I don't see why you can't say that it's ok for your son to be
gay.
"That's entirely between him and God"."
It's between him and God, but it has no place in a Christian society.
> Well, obviously if he is going to remain a homosexual he should choose
> another, rather than my daughter!
"Why is your daughter different from any other woman???"
She is a Christian woman.
> But in my world it's best that he leave a
> Christian country, if indeed the country is Christian.
"Why -- is it somehow less of a sin if he does it somewhere else????"
The country that tolerates his sin will be judged. I don't wish that
judgment upon it. It's just that if a country chooses to accept gays, they
should be the ones to find out how God views it.
randy
Zev
??????:FvydnSzVu7Q-DZLW...@wavecable.com...
> "Rob Strom"
> randy"
> "So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
> *that* law."
>
> What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
> unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body. It is
> *symbolic* of wickedness. It is failure to show respect for life, in
> particular *human* life, by treating death with indifference. At least
> that is how I view it.
Very nice idea!
But remember the Bible itself gives no clues
to the reasons for the prohibitions,
and it doesn't prohibit fish who have even less respect for life.
They eat other, smaller, *live* fish.
>> The matter of clothing was applied both to
>> males and to females. They were not to wear clothing of the opposite sex
>> to
>> attract the same sex.
>
> "It doesn't say "to attract the same sex"..."
>
> It's a very reasonable deduction.
Jewish tradition is that the law is to prevent heterosexuals
from mingling with members of the opposite sex without them knowing.
Wearing "opposite sex clothing" would attract heterosexuals,
or gays of the wrong type and would almost always
lead to dissapointment (for non-criminal types).
But it's absurd to say that homosexuality is not prohibited.
Spending one's life in a drunken stupor
isn't expressly forbidden by the Torah either.
The issue of consideration has also come up.
It's a difficult issue because it's so easy
to be strict on someone else's account.
But what about sadism, pedophilia, necrophilia?
How much consideration must we have for kleptomaniacs?
Rob Strom
>
> > It is lying with the same sex. It is trying to look like the opposite
> > sex to attract the same sex.
>
> "There is no law talking about attracting the same sex."
>
> That is why a person wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex--to
> attract the same sex.
That is a strange generalization, and I'm not sure you believe it.
So Sarah Palin wears men's clothing to attract women?
>
> > It is considered to be "an abomination."
>
> "So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
> *that* law."
>
> What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
> unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body.
So why do so many conservative Christians eat these
abominations then?
On another newsgroup, there was a very conservative Christian
man who admitted that he ate crawfish, and had no moral
qualms about it at all.
> ...
>
> He had the highest level of training in his day.
> Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
> Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
> likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion
> for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
> their own persons the due penalty for their error.
I don't see how that passage proves he had the highest
level of training in his day.
I have often quoted this passage in opposition to your view,
to prove that even Paul didn't say that homosexuality was
a sin. As you can see from this passage, he is saying
that *heterosexuals* who had previously had natural
relations with the opposite sex were being *punished*
for their sins by being transformed into homosexuals.
Not that homosexuality itself was a sin.
>
> > The matter of clothing was applied both to
> > males and to females. They were not to wear clothing of the opposite sex
> > to
> > attract the same sex.
>
> "It doesn't say "to attract the same sex"..."
>
> It's a very reasonable deduction.
>
In any case, you seem to give transvestites a bye when
they, like Sarah Palin, share your religious denomination
and political views.
(I don't think she's doing it to attract women, but
it's still a violation of a clear moral directive of
the law -- and you claim that the law of
Jesus subsumes all the moral directives
of the law of Moses, and hence you should
conclude that she's being wicked here.)
...
> "It's not in the Bible about our design, and not everything in our
> "design" is good (we're also "designed" -- i.e. evolved -- to be
> jealous, fight wars,
> and cheat on our spouses). It should be understood that the main
> purpose of the Bible is to teach us how to live *against* some of what
> we were designed for!"
>
> I believe our sinful nature was not designed, except to be a consequence of
> our rebellion against God. We were actually created to be just like God, and
> only like God, ie in terms of character. We were not created to do evil. But
> God had in mind a design that would enable us to reflect whatever choice we
> made, with respect to God's word.
You can't look at a human being's body and figure out
what morally he should do.
>
> > No, the Scriptures say male-female. And the Law prohibits male-male. It is
> > about as logical as you can get.
> > I don't consider it important what method is employed to kill the deer, as
> > long as it is not designed to prolong the deer's misery.
>
> "Huh??????
> The Lord God, King of the Universe, explicitly told you in Holy
> Scripture,
> "you need only slaughter your cattle and small animals
> that God will have given you ***in the manner that I have
> prescribed***"
> (Deut 12:21)"
>
> That was under the Law, which determined where sacrificial rites were to be
> performed, and how animals were to be eaten, ie without their blood.
> Deut 12:21 If the place which the LORD your God will choose to put his name
> there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock,
> which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat
> within your towns as much as you desire.
>
> It seems that animals who were not to be offered on the altar at Jerusalem
> could be killed at home, because they were not part of the ritual of the
> Law. But they still could not, being under the Law, eat the animal with the
> blood still in it. That included nonsacrificial animals as well as
> sacrificial animals.
You're still avoiding the fact that the Law said slaughter it only
in the manner God commanded you.
>
> "And you spit on all that and say "I don't consider it important
> what method is employed"?...
>
> I don't spit on anything you say. I don't spit on anything Scripture says. I
> just obviously interpret what the Scriptures have to say on this differently
> than you do!
It said do it **********in the manner I commanded you************
so how on earth do you once again twist the words so that
it means *********I don't consider it important what method
is employed************????????????????????
Somehow you have a set of habits and customs and
traditions that your friends do. You then just
go back and reinterpret the words of the Bible.
If it's something your friends do, you twist the words
so that they're not prohibited, even though God
said only slaughter animals only one way, or
women can't wear men's clothing. "Be fruitful
and multiply" doesn't mean everyone has to,
just that a statistical majority should. And
of course "leave the corners of your field
for the poor" gets reinterpreted as "not if
I think the poor didn't earn it and not if
I personally own the field".
If it's something your friends don't do, then
you interpret the words very strictly and
even stretch it, so
"don't lie with a man" means don't have
any kind of loving relationship, and
women can't be lesbians either, and
it doesn't mean a statistical majority here,
but absolutely everyone.
I don't think conservative Christians read
scripture seriously. They distort it
to support the customs and biases
they already have. As shown by
the different rules for "be fruitful"
versus "don't lie with a man", they
wind up having to use completely
different rules of interpretation in
order to get the results they want.
Which is why they arrange the
Bible to match their lives, rather
than their lives to match the Bible.
That's why I see them not as
bona fide religious people.
> ... Rather, it is determined by our
> faith in Jesus as Lord God, and by our faith in him that he can give us his
> eternal spirit as a guarantee of our immortality and righteousness. Many
> Catholics do not live like this, even if they say they believe in it. The
> measure of true Christianity is in the *doing*--not just in what we claim we
> believe.
>
I agree that the measure of true Christianity is in the doing,
but it is precisely for that reason that I don't think conservative
"Christians" are true Christians.
I keep praying that you abandon them and come closer
to the moral principles that we agree should be in common
between Judaism and Christianity.
> Much of what has evolved out of Catholicism is a blend of true believers and
> unspiritual people who simply grew up in the church. So a lot of funny
> beliefs come out of Catholicism, such as prayers to Mary, Mary's eternal
> virginity, transubsantiation, and the veneration of the saints.
Er ... don't you find it a bit odd to be saying this
as a Pentecostalist?
Lots and lots of funny beliefs come out of orthodox
Christianity too, such as the virgin birth, Jesus being God,
Jesus dying for our sins, hell. Even more funny beliefs
come out of Protestantism, such as sola scriptura,
sola fide, the elect, justification in advance,
the rapture. When you add your newer movements,
believing in faith healing, the slaying of the Spirits,
the four horses and the seven seals of the Revelation,
reading omens of future history (which is *explicitly forbidden* in
your scripture, so how you combine with sola scriptura
I'll never understand).
...
...
> *They,* however, would not be okay, nor would it be okay if they encouraged
> men to marry men.
I'm still not sure why encouraging gay men to marry women
is better than encouraging them to marry men or stay single.
>
> > The law to
> > marry and to bear children is not specific to every man and woman, but
> > rather, a general tendency that God created in mankind.
>
> "You just argued the exact opposite for gays -- that it went against
> an explicit law of nature. Now you're saying that it's ok provided
> *most* people obey the law!! Can you at least be consistent within
> one post????..."
>
> Nature guides us to be attracted to the opposite sex, but not necessarily
> so. Men can render their desire for women subservient to other desires that
> are best served as singles. This is not contradictory to human nature, which
> attracts the opposite sex.
Most men are attracted to the opposite sex.
You can't call homosexuals "against nature"
and then turn around and call singles not "against nature".
> It just means that it is equally natural for some
> individuals to resist this impulse for reasonable purposes.
But those "reasonable purposes" are ****explicitly forbidden****
since you're commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
You're not consistent; all these arguments you use against
homosexuals like: you should cleave to your wife, and
the one that really irks me, "it's Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve", suddenly you drop them when it comes
to singles. When you change your principles based
on what you're trying to argue for, it's proof you don't
really have principles at all!!!
Why can't we tell singles: "the Bible says you
should leave your parents and cleave to your wife",
or "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and his right hand".
>
> The apparent "command" to mankind, to bear children was a general command,
> and did not require that every individual marry and bear children.
Why do you suddenly say it's an "apparent" command
and not a command. What happened to
"It's the 10 commandments, not the 10 suggestions"?
All of a sudden when *you* don't like it, you're
turning it into a suggestion?
> That
> would be utterly despotic and unreasonable of God, and God has neither
> confirmed such an intent through all the generations of His dealings with
> men.
Once again, you don't like the result, so suddenly God couldn't
have meant it. But to condemn homosexuals to either
unnatural solitude or unfulfilling marriages is not
"utterly despotic and unreasonable" of God??????
>
> When God told mankind to marry, it was a *creative* command, determining His
> general purpose that mankind populate the entire earth. How that happened
> specifically wasn't the concern, as long as it took place. Even if a few men
> could not or would not marry, the purpose of God would ultimately be
> realized, as men and women married and bore children.
And even if a few were homosexuals, ditto.
>
> It is a matter of *nature,* therefore, that men and women marry. And it is
> also a matter of *nature* that men not *have to* marry. That is, it isn't
> always in our psychological makeup to marry, so that there is no
> psychological necessity imposed on us to marry. But if we are so inclined it
> is natural for us only to be attracted to the *opposite* sex.
But apparently that's known not to be true. It's natural
for some small fraction of us to be attracted to the same sex.
So apparently the thing about don't have sex with
the same sex is also only a suggestion.
...
>
> "You're saying exactly the opposite with respect to gays."
>
> No, I'm not. I'm saying that *no individual* has to marry, if he has no
> compulsion to do so--if he or she finds another competing activity more
> attractive. There is no option to be homosexual.
If there's an option to ignore "be fruitful and multiply",
why isn't there an option to be homosexual?
> But some wish to serve God
> as a single, and so find more time to do things for God, than if the family
> has to be cared for as well.
>
But God didn't say that.
> The gay person has an unnatural compulsion towards the same sex. They have
> turned natural desire for the opposite sex into something perverted, and
> even addicting. But such addictions can be broken.
Why is it any more unnatural than your single person's
lack of willingness to obey the commandment to marry
and have children?
The fact is that you are just supporting the customs of
your community: they are homophobic, whereas
they tolerate some people being single. So you
retrofit the commandments of God to match your customs.
The right thing to do would be to retrofit your
customs to match the commandments of God.
..
>
> "Why is your daughter different from any other woman???"
>
> She is a Christian woman.
There's some dispensation that matchmakers
should only pair her with heterosexual men,
and give the homosexual men to non-Christian women???????
>
> > But in my world it's best that he leave a
> > Christian country, if indeed the country is Christian.
>
> "Why -- is it somehow less of a sin if he does it somewhere else????"
>
> The country that tolerates his sin will be judged. I don't wish that
> judgment upon it. It's just that if a country chooses to accept gays, they
> should be the ones to find out how God views it.
I don't see how God would judge your country better
if you sent all your homosexuals into exiles and persuaded
them to marry the women of the foreign country?
If your son were homosexual, you'd exile him to France and
tell him to marry a woman there?
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Zev"
randy
>> What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
>> unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body. It is
>> *symbolic* of wickedness. It is failure to show respect for life, in
>> particular *human* life, by treating death with indifference. At least
>> that is how I view it.
> Very nice idea!
> But remember the Bible itself gives no clues
> to the reasons for the prohibitions,
> and it doesn't prohibit fish who have even less respect for life.
> They eat other, smaller, *live* fish.
It isn't fish, however, that are prohibitted from eating things with the
blood still in it! They did not become overly contaminated by eating such,
because they are not people. Neither are shrimp prohibitted from eating dead
things. But creatures that feed off of dead things do indeed become very
contaminated. The problem involves discriminating between clean creatures
and creatures that represent corruption and disease. Materials that
decompose present a problem for human beings. And Israel was not to identify
with creatures that fed off of such.
We of course know that human beings can sterilize both foods that were clean
and foods that were unclean under the Law. So it is just a matter of
typology that God gave this set of dietary laws. It involves God's created
design in man to direct him towards what leads to life and immortality.
Things that are corruptible are bad, and are not what God originally
intended for man.
There are really two issues at work here, in my opinion. One, cleanliness of
diet was a matter of avoiding things that involve corruption and disease.
And two, Israel was called upon to discriminate between the patterns of
certain kinds of animals, depending on whether they represent disease or
not. In other words, cleanliness was determined both by the level of toxins
in the food and by behavior that determines to avoid even the *appearance*
of corruption. We are to both be clean and set an example of clean behavior.
> Jewish tradition is that the law is to prevent heterosexuals
> from mingling with members of the opposite sex without them knowing.
Well of course. Heterosexuals would certainly want to avoid running into a
"drag queen." But drag queens thrive on the confusion.
> But it's absurd to say that homosexuality is not prohibited.
> Spending one's life in a drunken stupor
> isn't expressly forbidden by the Torah either.
Sure it is. A drunken stupor leads to reduced resistance to temptations.
Succumbing to temptations was against the Law.
> But what about sadism, pedophilia, necrophilia?
> How much consideration must we have for kleptomaniacs?
The Law gives us a basic outline for sexual morality. All kinds of perverted
sex is subsumed within the general category of "sexual perversion." Theft is
outright prohibited.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> That is why a person wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex--to
> attract the same sex.
"That is a strange generalization, and I'm not sure you believe it."
Are you kidding. We all see it in our society!
> "So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
> *that* law."
> What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
> unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body.
"So why do so many conservative Christians eat these
abominations then?"
They were a designed typology, representing disease and corruptibility. We
are no longer under these "shadowy" types of cleanness. Cleanliness is
really a matter of being clean within and doing good in society. Living by
the spirit of God *is* cleanness, and leads to eternal life. There is
nothing corruptible about living in the spirit of God.
> He had the highest level of training in his day.
> Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
> Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
> likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
> passion
> for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
> their own persons the due penalty for their error.
"I don't see how that passage proves he had the highest
level of training in his day."
Wasn't trying to prove that. I was proving what you denied, that Paul
applied the law prohibitting homosexuality to both males and females.
"I have often quoted this passage in opposition to your view,
to prove that even Paul didn't say that homosexuality was
a sin. As you can see from this passage, he is saying
that *heterosexuals* who had previously had natural
relations with the opposite sex were being *punished*
for their sins by being transformed into homosexuals.
Not that homosexuality itself was a sin."
That's a tortured interpretation designed to rationalize away the clearest
possible condemnation of homosexuality! What Paul is saying is that those
who abandon the ways of God simultaneously choose an alternate way of life
that brings its own shame and self-condemnation. When people abandon God's
idea of male-female relations, they turn to deviant forms of sexuality, such
as homosexuality and bestiality. It is a self-condemned lifestyle, obviously
aberrant in appearance.
> I believe our sinful nature was not designed, except to be a consequence
> of
> our rebellion against God. We were actually created to be just like God,
> and
> only like God, ie in terms of character. We were not created to do evil.
> But
> God had in mind a design that would enable us to reflect whatever choice
> we
> made, with respect to God's word.
"You can't look at a human being's body and figure out
what morally he should do."
Not if your mind refuses to focus on God as the source of revealed truth.
Then you'll fall for just about any lie or deception. If you want to know
what is true, you have to first find absolute truth. Only then can you see
clearly what men were designed to do, and what is psychologically normal for
them.
Let's take this a step further. On Mars we have men who don't have any
source of truth about morality whatsoever. For them murder is okay, cheating
is okay, lying is okay. There is nothing that is not okay, because there is
absolutely no source of moral truth.
But on earth we have men who God created in His image. That is, they can
reason along with divine reason, and receive from God an infinite source of
moral truth. We need not doubt that murder is wrong, that cheating on your
wife is wrong, that lying on your taxes is wrong. The laws were designed
into our psychology. And the only way we won't recognize this is if we turn
completely away from divine revelation, and pretend we live on Mars!
> It seems that animals who were not to be offered on the altar at Jerusalem
> could be killed at home, because they were not part of the ritual of the
> Law. But they still could not, being under the Law, eat the animal with
> the
> blood still in it. That included nonsacrificial animals as well as
> sacrificial animals.
"You're still avoiding the fact that the Law said slaughter it only
in the manner God commanded you."
It did not tell you how to slaughter animals, domestic or wild, except that
you could not slaughter them for food and *still leave the blood in it.*
"I keep praying that you abandon them and come closer
to the moral principles that we agree should be in common
between Judaism and Christianity."
Jews and Christians both have universal principles of morality. We should
dwell on that. God will have to decide who's right on areas where we
disagree.
> Much of what has evolved out of Catholicism is a blend of true believers
> and
> unspiritual people who simply grew up in the church. So a lot of funny
> beliefs come out of Catholicism, such as prayers to Mary, Mary's eternal
> virginity, transubsantiation, and the veneration of the saints.
"Er ... don't you find it a bit odd to be saying this
as a Pentecostalist?"
No, I disagree with lots of beliefs and practises that are common to
pentecostalists as well.
"Lots and lots of funny beliefs come out of orthodox
Christianity too, such as the virgin birth, Jesus being God,
Jesus dying for our sins, hell. Even more funny beliefs
come out of Protestantism, such as sola scriptura,
sola fide, the elect, justification in advance,
the rapture. When you add your newer movements,
believing in faith healing, the slaying of the Spirits,
the four horses and the seven seals of the Revelation,
reading omens of future history (which is *explicitly forbidden* in
your scripture, so how you combine with sola scriptura
I'll never understand)."
You have too many errors there to correct! What I'm saying is that miracles
of salvation are common to orthodox Christianity. Catholic tradition has
added many miracles that were *not* part of the original orthodox formula.
"You can't call homosexuals "against nature"
and then turn around and call singles not "against nature"."
Yes you can. Homosexuals who lust for the same sex are *against nature.*
They turn their nature into an unorthodox position, and define themselves
using a corrupt nature. People who remain single are not defying nature.
There is no inherent need to marry, or to live with the opposite sex. It is
only necessary that *some* men and women marry, so that the earth will be
"filled."
> The apparent "command" to mankind, to bear children was a general command,
> and did not require that every individual marry and bear children.
"Why do you suddenly say it's an "apparent" command
and not a command....
Because this was a *creative* command, such as God's command to create
light. God *created* man to be proactive in multiplying his own race. It was
instinctive and prompted biologically. But neither was it necessary in *all*
cases. Some individuals do not have to marry in order for the human race in
general to multiply and fill the earth.
"...It's natural for some small fraction of us to be attracted to the same
sex...."
No, that's a *corrupt* nature! When we turn against the nature God has
designed for us, our nature becomes *corrupted.* Yes, it still is human
nature, but it is a *corrupt* human nature.
"I don't see how God would judge your country better
if you sent all your homosexuals into exiles and persuaded
them to marry the women of the foreign country?"
I didn't suggest homosexual behavior should be tolerated *anywhere in the
world!* But if others want to give them rights and dignity, so be it! Let
God be their judge.
"If your son were homosexual, you'd exile him to France and
tell him to marry a woman there?"
I would tell him to repent, and I'd tell France to return to true
Christianity.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Let me make this unmistakeably clear. Let's say there is a contract that
> calls for a house to be built. As long as the house remains unbuilt the
> contract remains unchanged in character--it continues to call for a house
> to
> be built. But at the point where the house is actually built, the
> character
> of the contract changes. It no longer calls for a house to be built. Its
> principles remain basically the same, to call for a house to be built. But
> inasmuch as the house has already been built, it is a contract that no
> longer applies, because the change it called for, the end of the contract,
> has been fulfilled.
"Yes, but the Torah is more like a contract that calls for
continual action. It is like a contract that says,
"Paint the house every spring"."
Yes, for the duration of the contract that was true. But in the event the
contract was seriously violated, the contract would be annuled. My argument
is that even though the contract was annuled at the death of Christ, a new
contract emerged that fulfilled the original.
The new covenant of Christ accomplishes what the first covenant set out to
do. It turned Israel's inheritance into an *eternal inheritance,* something
that the Law could never do. It could only try to achieve this year after
year, never able to overcome human mortality. And as long as mankind
remained without a solution to death, it could never obtain immortality. And
so, it wasn't until Christ brought immortality to light that the Law could
actually be fulfilled by introducing a brand new contract, based on the
immortal Christ.
"And Paulinism is like someone coming and interpreting
that as "Jesus did such a good job painting that
house that it will never need painting again" :( "
Nobody can improve on the testimony of Jesus' life. It was flawless,
righteous, and compassionate. It is the *only* testimony to which mankind
can appeal for our immortality, because only the life of Jesus qualified for
immortality. And it isn't as if we let Jesus just take all the credit and
then go on ourselves to live terrible lives. On the contrary, Jesus came
with the ability to transfer his own divine life to us, so that we can
obtain his own spirituality. We can show forth the essence of his perfect
love, even though we are ourselves imperfect. We are calling for
obedience--not perfection.
"I don't believe that your neighbors will starve if they don't hunt.
That area of Washington State isn't *that* rural!"
Washington State has lots of rural areas, but that isn't the issue. Hunters
hunt for food whether they are starving or not. It is a natural way of
providing cheap food for the family. As such, many people derive a certain
amount of pleasure doing it, being out in nature and doing what God gave us
to do, to provide for our families. I don't do it, but I do like being out
in Nature. I can fully understand what hunters enjoy about hunting. And I
trust it is not a *bloodlust!*
randy
Zev
??????:Gu-dncx6q98N8Y3W...@wavecable.com...
> "Zev"
> randy
>> Jewish tradition is that the law is to prevent heterosexuals
>> from mingling with members of the opposite sex without them knowing.
>
> Well of course. Heterosexuals would certainly want to avoid running into a
> "drag queen." But drag queens thrive on the confusion.
>
>> But it's absurd to say that homosexuality is not prohibited.
>> Spending one's life in a drunken stupor
>> isn't expressly forbidden by the Torah either.
>
> Sure it is. A drunken stupor leads to reduced resistance to temptations.
> Succumbing to temptations was against the Law.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Doing something against the law is against the law?
I'm not sure if you agree with me or not,
and I have a feeling you don't know either.
>> But what about sadism, pedophilia, necrophilia?
>> How much consideration must we have for kleptomaniacs?
>
> The Law gives us a basic outline for sexual morality. All kinds of
> perverted sex is subsumed within the general category of "sexual
> perversion." Theft is outright prohibited.
I expected a more serious discussion on this.
You snipped the beginning of the paragraph,
and missed the point.
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > That is why a person wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex--to
> > attract the same sex.
>
> "That is a strange generalization, and I'm not sure you believe it."
>
> Are you kidding. We all see it in our society
Is that why Sarah Palin wears clothing belonging to the opposite sex?
>
> > "So is eating shrimp, and we all know how much care Christians give to
> > *that* law."
> > What makes it an abomination is its association with things that are
> > unclean, such as when a vulture picks the meat of a dead body.
>
> "So why do so many conservative Christians eat these
> abominations then?"
>
> They were a designed typology, representing disease and corruptibility. We
> are no longer under these "shadowy" types of cleanness.
I don't know what these sentences mean: what's does it mean to
be under a type of cleanness?
In any case, "designed typology" or not, you said it was an
abomination,
so why do so many conservative Christians eat them?
...
> "I don't see how that passage proves he had the highest
> level of training in his day."
>
> Wasn't trying to prove that.
You originally said he had the highest level of training,
followed immediately by the passage.
> I was proving what you denied, that Paul
> applied the law prohibitting homosexuality to both males and females.
He didn't. That passage quite obviously talks about heterosexual
people being punished for their sins by being turned into homosexuals.
>
> "I have often quoted this passage in opposition to your view,
> to prove that even Paul didn't say that homosexuality was
> a sin. As you can see from this passage, he is saying
> that *heterosexuals* who had previously had natural
> relations with the opposite sex were being *punished*
> for their sins by being transformed into homosexuals.
> Not that homosexuality itself was a sin."
>
> That's a tortured interpretation designed to rationalize away the clearest
> possible condemnation of homosexuality!
It is not a condemnation of homosexuality at all, much
less the "clearest possible condemnation".
Here is a candidate for "clearest possible condemnation":
"If you are a homosexual, repent and change".
It is much clearer than that statement that
you call "clearest possible", but unfortunately
for you does not appear in any sacred scripture.
> What Paul is saying is that those
> who abandon the ways of God simultaneously choose an alternate way of life
> that brings its own shame and self-condemnation. When people abandon God's
> idea of male-female relations, they turn to deviant forms of sexuality, such
> as homosexuality and bestiality. It is a self-condemned lifestyle, obviously
> aberrant in appearance.
Your bizarre interpretation of that passage totally ignores
the stand-out words. "They exchanged natural relations ...",
which would not apply to people who had been
homosexual all their life. Such a sentence obviously
means someone had once had natural relations
and stopped having them.
In context, he is talking about idolators. Let's put the context
back, shall we?
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for
images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles."
It is these folks who were punished by God by being turned
into homosexuals. He even uses the phrase
"receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error".
See the word "penalty" there? It's a synonym for "punishment",
and it makes it perfectly clear that Paul is talking
about people who were previously heterosexual
being turned into homosexuals as punishment
for the sin of turning from worshipping God
to worshipping images.
It's amazing to what lengths you go to try to turn
the meanings of these NT passages around,
just to get the conclusions you like!
...
>
> Not if your mind refuses to focus on God as the source of revealed truth.
> Then you'll fall for just about any lie or deception. If you want to know
> what is true, you have to first find absolute truth.
Duh?
...
> But on earth we have men who God created in His image. That is, they can
> reason along with divine reason, and receive from God an infinite source of
> moral truth.
Except you Christians *ignore* Jews who actually have
the only revealed religion in the world, so why are you
arguing this way????
...
>
> "You're still avoiding the fact that the Law said slaughter it only
> in the manner God commanded you."
>
> It did not tell you how to slaughter animals, domestic or wild, except that
> you could not slaughter them for food and *still leave the blood in it.*
No, it said you must slaughter them "in the manner I showed you".
So that leaves all methods of slaughter but one unkosher.
>
> "I keep praying that you abandon them and come closer
> to the moral principles that we agree should be in common
> between Judaism and Christianity."
>
> Jews and Christians both have universal principles of morality. We should
> dwell on that. God will have to decide who's right on areas where we
> disagree.
I think you guys should study harder and not keep turning
around and saying that this or that law is obsolete.
...
>
> "Lots and lots of funny beliefs come out of orthodox
> Christianity too, such as the virgin birth, Jesus being God,
> Jesus dying for our sins, hell. Even more funny beliefs
> come out of Protestantism, such as sola scriptura,
> sola fide, the elect, justification in advance,
> the rapture. When you add your newer movements,
> believing in faith healing, the slaying of the Spirits,
> the four horses and the seven seals of the Revelation,
> reading omens of future history (which is *explicitly forbidden* in
> your scripture, so how you combine with sola scriptura
> I'll never understand)."
>
> You have too many errors there to correct! What I'm saying is that miracles
> of salvation are common to orthodox Christianity. Catholic tradition has
> added many miracles that were *not* part of the original orthodox formula.
Huh??? Catholicism WAS the original orthodox formula. Protestantism
went and changed stuff around.
>
> "You can't call homosexuals "against nature"
> and then turn around and call singles not "against nature"."
>
> Yes you can. Homosexuals who lust for the same sex are *against nature.*
> They turn their nature into an unorthodox position, and define themselves
> using a corrupt nature. People who remain single are not defying nature.
And how do you know this?
> There is no inherent need to marry, or to live with the opposite sex.
Not a need, a commandment.
> It is
> only necessary that *some* men and women marry, so that the earth will be
> "filled."
Then what's the problem if a few men marry to men?
> ...
>
> Because this was a *creative* command, such as God's command to create
> light. God *created* man to be proactive in multiplying his own race.
You don't have to obey certain kinds of commands now????
> It was
> instinctive and prompted biologically. But neither was it necessary in *all*
> cases.
So why not the same way for gays?
...
>
> "...It's natural for some small fraction of us to be attracted to the same
> sex...."
>
> No, that's a *corrupt* nature! When we turn against the nature God has
> designed for us, our nature becomes *corrupted.* Yes, it still is human
> nature, but it is a *corrupt* human nature.
You are just repeating your conclusions. God says have children,
but you don't think everyone has to do that so you say that the
"commandment" is really a choice, and only
has to be followed by the majority, not everyone. You don't like
homosexuals,
so you say that that particular rule has to be followed by
everyone without exception. You change the reasoning
to conform with the outcome you like.
>
> "I don't see how God would judge your country better
> if you sent all your homosexuals into exiles and persuaded
> them to marry the women of the foreign country?"
>
> I didn't suggest homosexual behavior should be tolerated *anywhere in the
> world!* But if others want to give them rights and dignity, so be it! Let
> God be their judge.
You're evading the question of why you won't let a homosexual
marry your daughter, and think he should go to France
and marry a Frenchwoman and that would be ok.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Zev"
randy
>> Sure it is. A drunken stupor leads to reduced resistance to temptations.
>> Succumbing to temptations was against the Law.
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> Doing something against the law is against the law?
> I'm not sure if you agree with me or not,
> and I have a feeling you don't know either.
Drinking wine is not forbidden. It is sometimes encouraged. But drinking to
excess is wrong, because it leads to behavior that is unlawful. It would be
considered an *unwise* behavior, because we know it leads to reduced
resistance to temptations.
>>> But what about sadism, pedophilia, necrophilia?
>>> How much consideration must we have for kleptomaniacs?
>> The Law gives us a basic outline for sexual morality. All kinds of
>> perverted sex is subsumed within the general category of "sexual
>> perversion." Theft is outright prohibited.
> I expected a more serious discussion on this.
> You snipped the beginning of the paragraph,
> and missed the point.
I was completely serious. You need to give me more to respond to.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "So why do so many conservative Christians eat these
> abominations then?"
> They were a designed typology, representing disease and corruptibility. We
> are no longer under these "shadowy" types of cleanness.
"I don't know what these sentences mean: what's does it mean to
be under a type of cleanness?"
If I performed a Satanic ritual by eating something that looks diseased, but
is actually clean, I would be "typifying" uncleanness. Israel was told to
avoid eating animals that typified uncleanness, because these animals were
associated with behaviors that might be unclean for human beings. These
behaviors obviously were not unclean for the animals themselves, nor were
human beings necessarily made unclean by eating them. But eating them when
God made them to be symbols of evil made people participants in the
*appearance* of evil.
"In any case, "designed typology" or not, you said it was an
abomination,
so why do so many conservative Christians eat them?"
We are not under the Law anymore. And dietary laws were *symbolic*
laws--reflecting only the *appearance* of uncleanness. The acts were not
unclean in and of themselves. They were only unclean as long as God
considered them symbols of uncleanness. And that was true only under the
Law.
> I was proving what you denied, that Paul
> applied the law prohibitting homosexuality to both males and females.
"He didn't. That passage quite obviously talks about heterosexual
people being punished for their sins by being turned into homosexuals."
No, it is talking about people choosing to do things apart from God, and
being given over to an obscene spirit. And this leads to death. The
punishment was death, as we see in Sodom, and as we see today with AIDs. The
*consequence* for turning away from the spirit of God is being given over to
a reprobate, lustful spirit that is judged by God as worthy of death.
> That's a tortured interpretation designed to rationalize away the clearest
> possible condemnation of homosexuality!
"It is not a condemnation of homosexuality at all, much
less the "clearest possible condemnation"."
You have an *understanding* impairment. Not to be rude, but you have to be
too smart to not understand what the passage is saying and then convince
yourself by some tortured interpretation that you believe it is teaching in
*favor of* homosexuality.
"Here is a candidate for "clearest possible condemnation":
"If you are a homosexual, repent and change".
It is much clearer than that statement that
you call "clearest possible", but unfortunately
for you does not appear in any sacred scripture."
Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for
murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall
be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.
> What Paul is saying is that those
> who abandon the ways of God simultaneously choose an alternate way of life
> that brings its own shame and self-condemnation. When people abandon God's
> idea of male-female relations, they turn to deviant forms of sexuality,
> such
> as homosexuality and bestiality. It is a self-condemned lifestyle,
> obviously
> aberrant in appearance.
"Your bizarre interpretation of that passage totally ignores
the stand-out words. "They exchanged natural relations ...",
which would not apply to people who had been
homosexual all their life. Such a sentence obviously
means someone had once had natural relations
and stopped having them."
It could mean that or that someone had abandoned the natural predisposition
towards the opposite sex to find enjoyment in what is deviant.
"It is these folks who were punished by God by being turned
into homosexuals. He even uses the phrase
"receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error"."
The due penalty was the fires that God sent upon Sodom and Gomorrah. God
didn't turn them into homosexuals. God gave them up to their own desire for
twisted sex. They turned themselves into homosexuals, and then came under
the sentence of death, unless God gives them time to repent.
> It did not tell you how to slaughter animals, domestic or wild, except
> that
> you could not slaughter them for food and *still leave the blood in it.*
"No, it said you must slaughter them "in the manner I showed you"."
As I'm pointing out, God said not to slaughter them with the intention of
eating their blood. That is how they are to be slaughtered. Has nothing to
do with the way the animals were actually killed. It rather had to do with
how these slaughtered animals were to be eaten. It is like saying, "This is
how you are to prepare your animals to be eaten." The blood was to be
completely drained out. And the animal was to be thoroughly cooked.
> You have too many errors there to correct! What I'm saying is that
> miracles
> of salvation are common to orthodox Christianity. Catholic tradition has
> added many miracles that were *not* part of the original orthodox formula.
"Huh??? Catholicism WAS the original orthodox formula. Protestantism
went and changed stuff around."
No, the original orthodox formula came from the apostles--not from the
Catholic Church.
> "You can't call homosexuals "against nature"
> and then turn around and call singles not "against nature"."
> Yes you can. Homosexuals who lust for the same sex are *against nature.*
> They turn their nature into an unorthodox position, and define themselves
> using a corrupt nature. People who remain single are not defying nature.
"And how do you know this?"
I've been single, and I knew I wasn't defying nature.
> There is no inherent need to marry, or to live with the opposite sex.
"Not a need, a commandment."
It was a *design* commandment, a predisposition built into mankind, but not
a psychological need. Its purpose was to fill the earth with humanity. You
don't need *all* men to procreate in order to accomplish this goal.
> It is
> only necessary that *some* men and women marry, so that the earth will be
> "filled."
"Then what's the problem if a few men marry to men?"
It is not the order that God specified. And it is against the natural order
of human sexuality.
> Because this was a *creative* command, such as God's command to create
> light. God *created* man to be proactive in multiplying his own race.
"You don't have to obey certain kinds of commands now????"
God commanded light to exist, and I don't have to keep that command. God
created men male and female, and I don't have to keep that command. We are
who God made us to be. Now if there is an irregularity, such as when we have
a morphodite, we'll have to deal with that. But when we know our sex, we
also know what is natural for us as individuals.
> It was
> instinctive and prompted biologically. But neither was it necessary in
> *all*
> cases.
"So why not the same way for gays?"
It is against the order that God set for reproductive intercourse among
people. The order of marriage was male-female. There can be no disputing
that.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > "So why do so many conservative Christians eat these
> > abominations then?"
> > They were a designed typology, representing disease and corruptibility. We
> > are no longer under these "shadowy" types of cleanness.
>
> "I don't know what these sentences mean: what's does it mean to
> be under a type of cleanness?"
>
> If I performed a Satanic ritual by eating something that looks diseased, but
> is actually clean, I would be "typifying" uncleanness.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
You're saying that crustaceans perform Satanic rituals and
eat things that look diseased but are actually clean, and
that's what it means to say that they typify uncleanness???
...
>
> "In any case, "designed typology" or not, you said it was an
> abomination,
> so why do so many conservative Christians eat them?"
>
> We are not under the Law anymore. And dietary laws were *symbolic*
> laws--reflecting only the *appearance* of uncleanness. The acts were not
> unclean in and of themselves. They were only unclean as long as God
> considered them symbols of uncleanness. And that was true only under the
> Law.
Huh??? Where do you get this from?
That's not written anywhere! And why can't you apply
that to the laws against male-male sex?
...
>
> "He didn't. That passage quite obviously talks about heterosexual
> people being punished for their sins by being turned into homosexuals."
>
> No, it is talking about people choosing to do things apart from God, and
> being given over to an obscene spirit.
The passage doesn't say being given over to an obscene spirit;
it says they were caused by God to give up relations with
the opposite sex and become homosexuals instead, as a penalty
for their acts of idolatry.
> And this leads to death. The
> punishment was death, as we see in Sodom, and as we see today with AIDs.
Please don't echo the words of the really crazy folks who
say that AIDS is a punishment from God.
Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in Palin territory now!
...
> "It is not a condemnation of homosexuality at all, much
> less the "clearest possible condemnation"."
>
> You have an *understanding* impairment. Not to be rude, but you have to be
> too smart to not understand what the passage is saying and then convince
> yourself by some tortured interpretation that you believe it is teaching in
> *favor of* homosexuality.
When did I say it is teaching in favor of homosexuality? Answer:
nowhere.
You're misunderstanding the passage, and now you're
making a mockery of my explanation of the passage.
In effect you're sticking a finger in your ear and
saying "I'm not *listening*"!
I said it wasn't teaching that homosexuality was a sin,
but rather that it was a punishment that God imposed
on idolatrous heterosexuals. And I say it because
that's what the words of the passage clearly say.
Hey -- this is *your* scripture, not mine. You are
the one who should be worrying that you're not
believing in it, or on it, or whatever you folks do.
>
> "Here is a candidate for "clearest possible condemnation":
> "If you are a homosexual, repent and change".
> It is much clearer than that statement that
> you call "clearest possible", but unfortunately
> for you does not appear in any sacred scripture."
>
> Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for
> murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall
> be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.
And since you don't know whether homosexuals are a kind of
"fornicator", since the word just means "illicit sex", you need
an independent categorization of homosexuality as illicit
before you can correctly apply that to this passage.
...
>
> "Your bizarre interpretation of that passage totally ignores
> the stand-out words. "They exchanged natural relations ...",
> which would not apply to people who had been
> homosexual all their life. Such a sentence obviously
> means someone had once had natural relations
> and stopped having them."
>
> It could mean that or that someone had abandoned the natural predisposition
> towards the opposite sex to find enjoyment in what is deviant.
But the vast majority of homosexuals *don't have* a natural
predisposition
towards the opposite sex. They find the same sex attractive
before they reach an age when it is even physically possible
to act on it.
>
> "It is these folks who were punished by God by being turned
> into homosexuals. He even uses the phrase
> "receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error"."
>
> The due penalty was the fires that God sent upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now you're just making stuff up.
> God
> didn't turn them into homosexuals.
They were never homosexuals.
...
>
> "No, it said you must slaughter them "in the manner I showed you"."
>
> As I'm pointing out, God said not to slaughter them with the intention of
> eating their blood. That is how they are to be slaughtered.
That's not a "manner" of slaughtering.
> Has nothing to
> do with the way the animals were actually killed.
The passage explicitly talks about the way the animals are actually
killed.
Once again you're taking a passage that specifically says
the *manner of slaughter*, and, because you don't like
the implication that has, because you'd have to tell
your friends and neighbors that hunt that they have to repent,
or find themselves in the lake of fire,
so you go and change the meaning of the black and white
words on the scroll and say that this isn't about the manner
of slaughter, but rather about what's to be done with
them after they're slaughtered.
> It rather had to do with
> how these slaughtered animals were to be eaten. It is like saying, "This is
> how you are to prepare your animals to be eaten."
But that's not what the passage says.
You constantly take passages and say that they're
really symbolically or implicitly or "spiritually"
saying something else, because you already
have your conclusions and you work backwards
from your pre-formed conclusions to
make the passages come out the way
you want rather than saying what they say.
...
>
> > You have too many errors there to correct! What I'm saying is that
> > miracles
> > of salvation are common to orthodox Christianity. Catholic tradition has
> > added many miracles that were *not* part of the original orthodox formula.
>
> "Huh??? Catholicism WAS the original orthodox formula. Protestantism
> went and changed stuff around."
>
> No, the original orthodox formula came from the apostles--not from the
> Catholic Church.
No. They never said trinity, and Peter, Paul, and James differed
about grace and works.
>
> > "You can't call homosexuals "against nature"
> > and then turn around and call singles not "against nature"."
> > Yes you can. Homosexuals who lust for the same sex are *against nature.*
> > They turn their nature into an unorthodox position, and define themselves
> > using a corrupt nature. People who remain single are not defying nature.
>
> "And how do you know this?"
>
> I've been single, and I knew I wasn't defying nature.
Staying single would have been. You would only know you
were "defying nature" if you had studied Torah, which you
don't do enough.
>
> > There is no inherent need to marry, or to live with the opposite sex.
>
> "Not a need, a commandment."
>
> It was a *design* commandment, a predisposition built into mankind, but not
> a psychological need. Its purpose was to fill the earth with humanity. You
> don't need *all* men to procreate in order to accomplish this goal.
You don't need all men to be heterosexual either.
...
>
> "Then what's the problem if a few men marry to men?"
>
> It is not the order that God specified. And it is against the natural order
> of human sexuality.
So is celibacy, but you give celibacy a bye and homosexuality not,
because you want your predetermined conclusions to come out.
>
> > Because this was a *creative* command, such as God's command to create
> > light. God *created* man to be proactive in multiplying his own race.
>
> "You don't have to obey certain kinds of commands now????"
>
> God commanded light to exist,
Not a commandment to people.
> and I don't have to keep that command. God
> created men male and female, and I don't have to keep that command.
Not a commandment.
...
> "So why not the same way for gays?"
>
> It is against the order that God set for reproductive intercourse among
> people. The order of marriage was male-female. There can be no disputing
> that.
But what about non-reproductive intercourse?
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Let me make this unmistakeably clear. Let's say there is a contract that
> > calls for a house to be built. As long as the house remains unbuilt the
> > contract remains unchanged in character--it continues to call for a house
> > to
> > be built. But at the point where the house is actually built, the
> > character
> > of the contract changes. It no longer calls for a house to be built. Its
> > principles remain basically the same, to call for a house to be built. But
> > inasmuch as the house has already been built, it is a contract that no
> > longer applies, because the change it called for, the end of the contract,
> > has been fulfilled.
>
> "Yes, but the Torah is more like a contract that calls for
> continual action. It is like a contract that says,
> "Paint the house every spring"."
>
> Yes, for the duration of the contract that was true.
A thousand generations.
> But in the event the
> contract was seriously violated, the contract would be annuled.
That's what you were trying to prove, but it wasn't stated,
it doesn't follow from logic, and the direct opposite was
stated in Deuteronomy.
> My argument
> is that even though the contract was annuled at the death of Christ, a new
> contract emerged that fulfilled the original.
Even though Jesus said that no law was going to be annulled.
And you keep vacillating about which stuff from the old
contract is in the new.
> ... And as long as mankind
> remained without a solution to death, it could never obtain immortality.
Duh! We still don't have it!
...
> "And Paulinism is like someone coming and interpreting
> that as "Jesus did such a good job painting that
> house that it will never need painting again" :( "
>
> Nobody can improve on the testimony of Jesus' life. It was flawless,
> righteous, and compassionate.
He made a few mistakes here and there.
> It is the *only* testimony to which mankind
> can appeal for our immortality, because only the life of Jesus qualified for
> immortality. And it isn't as if we let Jesus just take all the credit and
> then go on ourselves to live terrible lives. On the contrary, Jesus came
> with the ability to transfer his own divine life to us,
Even if he were perfect, he didn't have that ability, since
Christians have as many moral failings as non-Christians.
Conservative christians have *more* moral failings,
since they have chosen to deliberately ignore
some of the moral bits that exist in the law.
...
> "I don't believe that your neighbors will starve if they don't hunt.
> That area of Washington State isn't *that* rural!"
>
> Washington State has lots of rural areas, but that isn't the issue. Hunters
> hunt for food whether they are starving or not.
Well then, they have no excuse for their perversions.
If they were starving, they could claim that they
are breaking a commandment to save a life.
If they're not starving, they have no excuse!
> It is a natural way of
> providing cheap food for the family.
So is stealing, but God wanted you to
work and do things the right way.
> As such, many people derive a certain
> amount of pleasure doing it, being out in nature and doing what God gave us
> to do, to provide for our families.
God didn't give you to do that.
The hunting lifestyle is a perversion left over from
pre-biblical times. Some of those pre-biblical
cultures actually *needed* to hunt to live,
but now you admit that you don't. So
you should be evangelizing your neighbors
that God was disappointed in Esau and
Nimrod, that He emphasized that the
hunting lifestyle was a major part of their
characters. You should emphasize that
Rabbi Landau explicitly ruled that
hunting (for sport) was sinful, and you
should tell them that as Christians
you should not be of the world, but
should be a model of moral behavior.
Since your ex-pastor is gone, you
should probably start with your
neighbor that you say is an
admitted hunter.
I think that's probably a more serious
issue for your community than
homosexuality is, and you should
work on that.
I don't do it, but I do like being out
> in Nature. I can fully understand what hunters enjoy about hunting. And I
> trust it is not a *bloodlust!*
It's wicked, and real Christians don't do it.
You should listen to Emma, who is as
committed a Christian as you are,
and who disdains hunting.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
>> If I performed a Satanic ritual by eating something that looks diseased,
>> but
>> is actually clean, I would be "typifying" uncleanness.
> This doesn't make any sense at all.
I can't help you. If a horrible witch cooked up in a black pot things that
*appeared* to be digusting, such as vegetables carved into the form of human
hands and feet, then she would be taking clean foods, such as vegetables,
and showing her delight in the *appearance* of wickedness, ie cannibalism.
If a king tells a person not to eat food for a day to observe a national
fast, his refusal to abide by the order has the *appearance* of evil--not
because eating itself is evil, but only because it *appears* in the form of
defying the king.
When God said not to eat certain animals or birds that were scavengers, it
does not mean that these scavengers have meat that in itself is unclean.
Rather, eating such foods under the prohibition of God has the *appearance*
of rebellion. The prohibited animals held for God a symbolic value,
displaying an appearance of evil that God wanted to convey to nations round
about.
>> We are not under the Law anymore. And dietary laws were *symbolic*
>> laws--reflecting only the *appearance* of uncleanness. The acts were not
>> unclean in and of themselves. They were only unclean as long as God
>> considered them symbols of uncleanness. And that was true only under the
>> Law.
> Huh??? Where do you get this from?
> That's not written anywhere!...
Not true.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that
is common or unclean."
15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed,
you must not call common."
> ....why can't you apply
> that to the laws against male-male sex?
There is, as my point indicates, a difference between explicitly moral laws
and symbolic laws. Laws prohibiting sexual relations between, for example,
family members was an explicitly moral law--not just an *appearance* of
evil. It *was* evil in and of itself.
>> No, it is talking about people choosing to do things apart from God, and
>> being given over to an obscene spirit.
> The passage doesn't say being given over to an obscene spirit;
> it says they were caused by God to give up relations with
> the opposite sex and become homosexuals instead, as a penalty
> for their acts of idolatry.
That's not what Paul is saying. He's saying that men who choose to be
obscene have given up the wholesome appearance that God intended for
mankind. God gives them up to this foolishness, to show that their rebellion
against Him results in abnormal behavior--even disgusting behavior. And in
the end it is judged by God.
> Please don't echo the words of the really crazy folks who
> say that AIDS is a punishment from God.
AIDS is a disease that has largely targeted the homosexual population. I
don't wish evil on anybody, but I do believe that God is trying to show
people that choosing to defy the natural order of sex has serious
consequences. They obviously don't believe God when He has spoken to the
world by Scriptural revelation and denied mankind the right to behave in
this way. If mankind has more proof that health is not associated with
homosexual behavior, they might consider divine revelation as true and take
warning.
> Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in Palin territory now!
You shouldn't be ashamed of the truths and judgments of deity. The Creator
has every right to determine the order of our life. You don't overrule
divine laws.
>> You have an *understanding* impairment. Not to be rude, but you have to
>> be
>> too smart to not understand what the passage is saying and then convince
>> yourself by some tortured interpretation that you believe it is teaching
>> in
>> *favor of* homosexuality.
> When did I say it is teaching in favor of homosexuality? Answer:
> nowhere....
You said the passage does not prohibit homosexuality.
> You're misunderstanding the passage, and now you're
> making a mockery of my explanation of the passage.
> In effect you're sticking a finger in your ear and
> saying "I'm not *listening*"!
> I said it wasn't teaching that homosexuality was a sin...
There you are again, insinuating that Paul did not consider homosexuality a
sin! That means that Paul was actually endorsing homosexuality when he
taught about it--not against it!
>> Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for
>> murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot
>> shall
>> be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second
>> death.
> And since you don't know whether homosexuals are a kind of
> "fornicator", since the word just means "illicit sex", you need
> an independent categorization of homosexuality as illicit
> before you can correctly apply that to this passage.
On the contrary, when John referred to the various kinds of
sexually-perverted acts, he was referring to *all categories* of sexual
perversion, such as were listed under the Law of Moses. That includes
homosexuality.
>> It could mean that or that someone had abandoned the natural
>> predisposition
>> towards the opposite sex to find enjoyment in what is deviant.
> But the vast majority of homosexuals *don't have* a natural
> predisposition
> towards the opposite sex. They find the same sex attractive
> before they reach an age when it is even physically possible
> to act on it.
I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age do
indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex. It has just somehow
been stymied by an excessive number of inherited traits, or by environmental
forces that prohibit natural development. Sometimes life does seem unfair.
But we have to prevail against negative influences and do the right thing.
>> The due penalty was the fires that God sent upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
> Now you're just making stuff up.
I made up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
>> As I'm pointing out, God said not to slaughter them with the intention of
>> eating their blood. That is how they are to be slaughtered.
> That's not a "manner" of slaughtering.
Sure it is. It's like saying, "Let me show you how to cook," and then
producing a great meal. It really has to do with the end product, a "great
meal," and not with a specific set of rules about cooking itself. God is
saying, "Let me show you how to slaughter your animals," and then denies
them the right to slaughter them for the purpose of eating them in a defiled
way. You are to slaughter your animals, *when slaughtering them for food,*
only if you intend to eat them in a pure way, ie without their blood.
Otherwise, don't slaughter your animals at all, unless you don't intend to
eat them.
>> Has nothing to
>> do with the way the animals were actually killed.
> The passage explicitly talks about the way the animals are actually
> killed.
The explanation is given. It has to do with slaughtering animals for
*eating* purposes. They are to be slaughtered for *pure* purposes--not for
impure purposes, such as eating with the blood. It is not the slaughtering
itself that is in mind. It has to do with the *purpose* of slaughtering
them, to take them down as a *meal.*
>> No, the original orthodox formula came from the apostles--not from the
>> Catholic Church.
> No. They never said trinity, and Peter, Paul, and James differed
> about grace and works.
Doctrine of the Trinity was based on the orthodoxy of Scriptures. And though
Scriptures did not use the theology of Trinitarianism, it contained theology
that Trinitarianism was based on, such as the deity of Christ and the
relationship between the Son and the Father. Also, the theology of Christian
spirituality, in other words, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, was equally a
part of biblical orthodoxy. Trinitarianism simply summarized all of these
beliefs in a formula. The orthodoxy of the Trinity was based on the
orthodoxy of the New Testament Scriptures.
>> I've been single, and I knew I wasn't defying nature.
> Staying single would have been. You would only know you
> were "defying nature" if you had studied Torah, which you
> don't do enough.
It is not a defiance of nature to remain single. It is natural for our
freewill to overrule our predisposition towards the opposite sex. That means
we can freely choose for or against marriage. Marriage is simply our
bent--not of necessity, but a matter of what is more fequently desirable,
depending on the individual and the circumstances.
>> You
>> don't need *all* men to procreate in order to accomplish this goal.
> You don't need all men to be heterosexual either.
You need two things. You need to be in the divine order of male-female
relationship. That is the created order in Genesis 1. And then you need to
procreate and fill the earth with people. You can't fill the earth with
people using homosexual sex. But neither is it acceptable to be a homosexual
even if others commit themselves to heterosexual sex and fulfil the goal of
populating the earth.
>> It is against the order that God set for reproductive intercourse among
>> people. The order of marriage was male-female. There can be no disputing
>> that.
> But what about non-reproductive intercourse?
The created order is heterosexual sex, with the purpose of filling the
earth. Even when the goal of populating the earth is achieved, homosexual
sex remains out of the created order, aberrant and prohibited.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "Yes, but the Torah is more like a contract that calls for
> continual action. It is like a contract that says,
> "Paint the house every spring"."
> Yes, for the duration of the contract that was true.
"A thousand generations."
Or even for a million generations! But of course, if the terms of the
contract were violated, the whole contract could be cancelled. And it was.
God said it would be when He said that blessings would be turned into
curses. The whole purpose of the contract was to *bless* Israel. But if
Israel could not remain in conformity with the Law, offering sacrifices for
their occasional sins, they would be cursed. And they were.
> But in the event the
> contract was seriously violated, the contract would be annuled.
"That's what you were trying to prove, but it wasn't stated,
it doesn't follow from logic, and the direct opposite was
stated in Deuteronomy."
No, what I'm stating is that there was a point where sins could no longer be
atoned for by sacrifices offered under the Law. The Law would no longer be
recognized, and the temple itself would be torn down.
The fact the Law was reinstituted after this terrible calamity under the
Assyrian and Babylonian captivities does not make the reality irrelevant.
Israel was, in fact, destroyed, and their system of Law annuled. It was,
unquestionably, reinstated. But that doesn't change the reality. The Law had
been annuled.
> ... And as long as mankind
> remained without a solution to death, it could never obtain immortality.
"Duh! We still don't have it!"
Not physically. But we do have a realistic hope that we can physically
overcome death. The theology of the New Testament is intended to ground our
hope in a resurrection to a real spiritual link with Christ, who *did*
experience resurrection. For Jesus it was an historical reality. And if we
have a genuine spiritual experience with Christ, then we have our hope for a
resurrection grounded in historical realities.
> Nobody can improve on the testimony of Jesus' life. It was flawless,
> righteous, and compassionate.
"He made a few mistakes here and there."
Anything can be disputed. Even human errors could've marred the testimony of
Scriptures. But I don't believe Jesus was flawed at all. The spirit of his
words and teachings, and the example of his life conveys a perfect *spirit*
to me. His love shines through his teaching as an example of unblemished
divine love. And God's love is perfect. This is the love mankind is to show,
even though we ourselves are imperfect.
> ...On the contrary, Jesus came with the ability to transfer his own divine
> life to us,
"Even if he were perfect, he didn't have that ability, since
Christians have as many moral failings as non-Christians."
Again, I'm not saying that Christians can *perfectly* show God's love. I'm
only saying that we can show God's perfect love! It is enough to show God's
perfect love, because in that love is a spiritual life that lives forever.
> "I don't believe that your neighbors will starve if they don't hunt.
> That area of Washington State isn't *that* rural!"
> Washington State has lots of rural areas, but that isn't the issue.
> Hunters
> hunt for food whether they are starving or not.
"Well then, they have no excuse for their perversions."
;) It isn't a perversion to hunt for food when we can get food some other
way. We don't have to choose alternative sources of food when they are
available!
> It is a natural way of
> providing cheap food for the family.
"So is stealing, but God wanted you to
work and do things the right way."
Stealing is part of an evil and corrupt nature. The nature God created man
to have is good. But we now have a perverted nature as well that inclines
towards evil.
> ...I don't do it, but I do like being out
> in Nature. I can fully understand what hunters enjoy about hunting. And I
> trust it is not a *bloodlust!*
"It's wicked, and real Christians don't do it.
You should listen to Emma, who is as
committed a Christian as you are,
and who disdains hunting."
I disagree with Emma. God made us provide for ourselves by killing animals.
It's a messy business, but I'm sure there's a lesson in it somewhere.
I really don't want to discourage my neighbors from hunting. There are
literally thousands of them out here. I'd like to pay one to come and get
the deer out of my yard, because they've been destroying my fruit trees and
my grapevines every year. And I don't have the heart to kill them myself.
I'm not sure I even have the heart to ward them off with a BB gun!
randy
Rob Strom
>
> I can't help you. If a horrible witch cooked up in a black pot things that
> *appeared* to be digusting, such as vegetables carved into the form of human
> hands and feet, then she would be taking clean foods, such as vegetables,
> and showing her delight in the *appearance* of wickedness, ie cannibalism.
And you're saying that shrimps do this?????
...
>
> When God said not to eat certain animals or birds that were scavengers, it
> does not mean that these scavengers have meat that in itself is unclean.
> Rather, eating such foods under the prohibition of God has the *appearance*
> of rebellion. The prohibited animals held for God a symbolic value,
> displaying an appearance of evil that God wanted to convey to nations round
> about.
Where does it say this, and why would it stop mattering now?
> > > ... And that was true only under the
> >> Law.
> > Huh??? Where do you get this from?
> > That's not written anywhere!...
>
> Not true.
> Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that
> is common or unclean."
> 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed,
> you must not call common."
>
But this seems only to apply to what God has cleansed, not to shrimp!
...
> That's not what Paul is saying. He's saying that men who choose to be
> obscene
He was, in context, talking about idolatry.
> have given up the wholesome appearance that God intended for
> mankind. God gives them up to this foolishness,
punishes them by turning them into homosexuals
Exactly. That's what I was trying to say all along.
...
>
> > Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in Palin territory now!
>
> You shouldn't be ashamed of the truths and judgments of deity.
You should be ashamed of listening to proclamations
of crackpots and calling them truths and judgments of deity.
It is using God's name in vain.
...
> > When did I say it is teaching in favor of homosexuality? Answer:
> > nowhere....
>
> You said the passage does not prohibit homosexuality.
Surely you understand the difference between
"it does not prohibit homosexuality" and
"it teaches in favor of homosexuality".
> ...
>
> There you are again, insinuating that Paul did not consider homosexuality a
> sin! That means that Paul was actually endorsing homosexuality when he
> taught about it--not against it!
Again with your crazy logic -- that if he didn't prohibit something
in a passage, he was endorsing it.
He also wasn't teaching against Mars exploration -- does that
mean that the passage was endorsing Mars exploration?????
What's with your logic???
...
> > And since you don't know whether homosexuals are a kind of
> > "fornicator", since the word just means "illicit sex", you need
> > an independent categorization of homosexuality as illicit
> > before you can correctly apply that to this passage.
>
> On the contrary, when John referred to the various kinds of
> sexually-perverted acts, he was referring to *all categories* of sexual
> perversion, such as were listed under the Law of Moses. That includes
> homosexuality.
No, it includes anal sex between Jews, not all homosexuality.
You are assuming your conclusion. You started by saying
that the Bible and NT go beyond the prohibitions of Leviticus,
and now you're back to saying it was prohibited in Leviticus.
You have forgotten that the entire purpose of your argument
was to show how your scriptures forbade more sex acts
than Leviticus did.
...
> > But the vast majority of homosexuals *don't have* a natural
> > predisposition
> > towards the opposite sex. They find the same sex attractive
> > before they reach an age when it is even physically possible
> > to act on it.
>
> I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age do
> indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex.
Where do you get that?
> It has just somehow
> been stymied by an excessive number of inherited traits, or by environmental
> forces that prohibit natural development.
Now you're saying that the evidence isn't there, but maybe
there's some deep explanation of why the evidence is hidden.
...
> >> The due penalty was the fires that God sent upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
> > Now you're just making stuff up.
>
> I made up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
You're making up the fact that (a) S&G were destroyed
because of homosexuality, and (b) that Paul's
comment was talking about S&G when he
mentioned "the due penalty".
The most natural interpretation of the Paul passage is
to read the words exactly as written: people committed
idolatry, and afterward as a penalty, God turned them
from heterosexuals, as they originally were,
into homosexuals.
That's what the words say. You're trying to change
the meaning of the words because you'd rather
draw a different conclusion.
>
> >> As I'm pointing out, God said not to slaughter them with the intention of
> >> eating their blood. That is how they are to be slaughtered.
> > That's not a "manner" of slaughtering.
>
> Sure it is. It's like saying, "Let me show you how to cook," and then
> producing a great meal.
It would not be accurate to say that my cooking lesson
(assuming it started with an already dead animal)
was teaching you a proper way of slaughtering.
> It really has to do with the end product, a "great
> meal," and not with a specific set of rules about cooking itself. God is
> saying, "Let me show you how to slaughter your animals," and then denies
> them the right to slaughter them for the purpose of eating them in a defiled
> way. You are to slaughter your animals, *when slaughtering them for food,*
> only if you intend to eat them in a pure way, ie without their blood.
That's not what's written. What's written is "slaughter your animals
only in the manner I previously showed you".
...
>
> The explanation is given. It has to do with slaughtering animals for
> *eating* purposes. They are to be slaughtered for *pure* purposes--not for
> impure purposes, such as eating with the blood. It is not the slaughtering
> itself that is in mind. It has to do with the *purpose* of slaughtering
> them, to take them down as a *meal.*
If that were the case, the text wouldn't say "in the manner I have
shown you".
>
> >> No, the original orthodox formula came from the apostles--not from the
> >> Catholic Church.
> > No. They never said trinity, and Peter, Paul, and James differed
> > about grace and works.
>
> Doctrine of the Trinity was based on the orthodoxy of Scriptures.
No. And the apostles were constantly wrong throughout
Jesus' life -- Peter denied him thrice, and the 12 were
constantly misunderstanding his parables until Jesus
re-explained. What makes you think they were so
much more perceptive after he was gone?
Anyhow, trinitarianism and Protestant Paulinism
seem to mesh poorly anyhow. Jesus is supposed
to be God, and yet the apostles, who were
such lousy explainers when he was alive,
suddenly found themselves after his death
correcting all Jesus' vagueness and
inarticulateness???
...
> It is not a defiance of nature to remain single.
It's inconsistent to say that remaining single is
not a defiance of nature but being gay isn't.
Either it's man's natural purpose to cleave
to his wife and make babies (in which
case both celibacy and homosexuality
would be unnatural) or else it's only
*most* men's natural purpose, in which
case an occasional Adam and Steve pair
is ok as is an occasional bachelor.
...
> You need two things. You need to be in the divine order of male-female
> relationship. That is the created order in Genesis 1. And then you need to
> procreate and fill the earth with people. You can't fill the earth with
> people using homosexual sex. But neither is it acceptable to be a homosexual
> even if others commit themselves to heterosexual sex and fulfil the goal of
> populating the earth.
Why? Why don't you take the same position about singles --
"neither is it acceptable to be a single even if others
commit themselves to heterosexual sex and fulfil the goal".
You aren't giving me reasons -- you're just saying it's so because
it's just so.
I have to use doublethink, because the reasons you apply
to one case can't be applied to the other.
Both are totally parallel: you can't fill the earth either
if most people are gay or if most people are celibate.
And both have passages that are explicit commandments:
be fruitful and multiply (required for everyone);
don't have anal sex (for Jewish males).
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> > And this leads to death. The
> > punishment was death, as we see in Sodom, and as we see today with AIDs.
>
> Please don't echo the words of the really crazy folks who
> say that AIDS is a punishment from God.
>
> Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in Palin territory now!
>
> .
You just comitted lashon hara against sarah palin, who has never said
that. You now need to find a rabbi to absolve you of your sin.
Rob Strom
I didn't say she said that. I just said that the viewpoint is in
"Palin territory",
since she's said *other* far out crazy things.
Actually her pastor Kroon believes that AIDS is a punishment from God
and that gayness can be cured by prayer.
His guest speaker, Brickner from Jews for Jesus, believes that
terrorism in Israel is God's punishment for the Jews' not converting
to Christianity.
Now I wouldn't smear Palin with what Kroon and Brickner believe,
(as everyone has tried to smear Obama based on Reverend Wright),
but Palin does believe that evolution and global warming are myths,
that the health care bill of Obama introduces "death panels",
and other related nonsense, and unlike Obama, doesn't repudiate
this other nonsense from her coreligionists.
Given that you have frequently said so-and-so believes
this and "proven" it based on "well he's a liberal and
that's the sort of thing liberals believe", you're not in
a position to complain, I don't think.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
I'm just holding you to the same standard you do me. Your words implied
palin believes this, and someone reading them might well assume she
does, and pass that on, so you comitted lashon hara.
Rob Strom
You should hold me to the standard you hold yourself.
And my words don't imply that she believes this particular thing,
only that she believes things equally hateful and absurd,
which she does.
She certainly doesn't object when people she supports
says these things.
And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
--
Rob Strom
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Rob Strom"
>randy
>
>> "Yes, but the Torah is more like a contract that calls for
>> continual action. It is like a contract that says,
>> "Paint the house every spring"."
>
>> Yes, for the duration of the contract that was true.
>
>"A thousand generations."
>
>Or even for a million generations! But of course, if the terms of the
>contract were violated, the whole contract could be cancelled. And it was.
>God said it would be when He said that blessings would be turned into
>curses. The whole purpose of the contract was to *bless* Israel. But if
>Israel could not remain in conformity with the Law, offering sacrifices for
>their occasional sins, they would be cursed. And they were.
Now learn that about the land. Especially since
I showed you right where it says that would happen,
if they did not follow Him.
But of course, you don't care about that, because
to admit to that truth, would interfere with your
doctrine and as you flat out admitted, you're
perfectly willing to change the words of the Bible,
or add to them, or take away from them, to make
your doctrine work.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
A list of the best books I have ever read!:
1) The Holy Bible, by God.
2) The Gospel According to the Apostles,
by John MacArthur.
3) End Times Fiction and Last Days Madness,
by Gary DeMar.
4) The Evolution of a Creationist,
by Dr. Jobe Martin.
5) New Complete Works of Josephus,
The New Complete Works of Josephus,
by Flavius Josephus, translated by
Paul L. Maier, with William Whiston.
6) The Gospel and the Greeks,
by Ronald H. Nash.
7) The Consummation of the Ages,
by kurt M. Simmons.
vince garcia
I disagree. When you say "Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in
Palin territory now!" YOU may know what you mean, but that statement, on
a private citizen, implies she believes that. And given the stupidity of
most anti-Palin people, one of them reading a statement like that from
an educated liberal they might respect could well believe that and pass
it on as fact.
You are being very hypocritical. You gripe about Christians not
upholding a jewish princple of lashon hara, then you go ahead and ignore
it if it's convenient for YOU on a target you don't like.
Shame
>
> She certainly doesn't object when people she supports
> says these things.
I'm trying to remember how many times you've attacked your fellow jews
when they offended US with their anti-Christian bigotry.
How many rebukes to susan cohen or Miriam Wolfe have you made?
Don't think any
How many times have you defended Moshe jr against the lashon hara of
being accused of being a child molestor? How many times did you defend
him against the daily slander from the lips of you fellow Jews here?
Don't think any
Your fellow jews are masters of LH, and you have done little or nothing
to criticize or stop it in the 14 years I have known you
>
> And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
She is a private citizen, while Scuzzafava IS a political figure, so you
indict yourself with that statement
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
>
> > And my words don't imply that she believes this particular thing,
> > only that she believes things equally hateful and absurd,
> > which she does.
>
> I disagree. When you say "Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in
> Palin territory now!" YOU may know what you mean, but that statement, on
> a private citizen, implies she believes that. And given the stupidity of
> most anti-Palin people, one of them reading a statement like that from
> an educated liberal they might respect could well believe that and pass
> it on as fact.
>
Palin territory is a shorthand for weird, not that she believes
this particular weird thing. I would not be surprised if she
did believe this particular weird thing although I haven't
actually see her say it. She does believe in exorcisms.
...
>
> I'm trying to remember how many times you've attacked your fellow jews
> when they offended US with their anti-Christian bigotry.
>
> How many rebukes to susan cohen or Miriam Wolfe have you made?
I have never seen anti-Christian bigotry from them.
They rarely post but if you say nasty things they'll respond back.
The fact that you are offended means nothing; you in particular
take pride that you don't believe in political correctness,
so it's perfectly ok to say things that offend your sensibilities.
>
> Don't think any
>
> How many times have you defended Moshe jr against the lashon hara of
> being accused of being a child molestor? How many times did you defend
> him against the daily slander from the lips of you fellow Jews here?
Moshe is not a child molestor afaik, but is a horrible violator of
usenet etiquette
and I try not to get involved in threads about him at all.
>
> Don't think any
>
> Your fellow jews are masters of LH,
No they're not.
> and you have done little or nothing
> to criticize or stop it in the 14 years I have known you
It's because you don't know what lh is.
>
>
>
> > And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
>
> She is a private citizen, while Scuzzafava IS a political figure, so you
> indict yourself with that statement
>
Sarah Palin is NOT a private citizen. She is a former governor
and vice presidential candidate being seriously brought
forward as a candidate for president in 2012. She only gets
the publicity she gets because of this, not because
she pays as a private citizen for airtime on cnn.
--
Rob Strom
Ed Form
>> How many rebukes to susan cohen or Miriam Wolfe have you made?
>
> I have never seen anti-Christian bigotry from them.
Presumably you had Miriam in your killfile? Susan was another matter; she
was certainly given to anti-Christian thinking, and she occasionally
became personally antagonised by individuals, but I don't think I recall
her saying anything on religious grounds that went beyond the normal
Jewish distaste for Christianity.
Ed Form
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 1, 7:30 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
> >
> > > And my words don't imply that she believes this particular thing,
> > > only that she believes things equally hateful and absurd,
> > > which she does.
> >
> > I disagree. When you say "Let's pretend you didn't say that! You're in
> > Palin territory now!" YOU may know what you mean, but that statement, on
> > a private citizen, implies she believes that. And given the stupidity of
> > most anti-Palin people, one of them reading a statement like that from
> > an educated liberal they might respect could well believe that and pass
> > it on as fact.
> >
>
> Palin territory is a shorthand for weird, not that she believes
> this particular weird thing. I would not be surprised if she
> did believe this particular weird thing although I haven't
> actually see her say it.
And maybe I think Scuzzafava would believe in jailing pastors who preach
homosexuality is a sin. And maybe I think she'd support taking kids away
from Christian parents and adopting them out to secular familes.
So it's perfectly fine for me to say something like, "I'm against a Dede
Scozzafava-type of concentration camp that would force Christians to be
re-educated in tolerance", right?
I mean, if I think she'd believe in that, it's fine for me to invoke her
name in association with such a thing, right?
>She does believe in exorcisms.
so did Jesus! Do sis the pharisees! So did the essenes! So does your
talmud! So did the rebbe!
This is what I mean--your fellow jews did and do (many of them) believe
in exorcism, yet you demean HER for the same belief!
Incredible
>
> >
> > I'm trying to remember how many times you've attacked your fellow jews
> > when they offended US with their anti-Christian bigotry.
> >
> > How many rebukes to susan cohen or Miriam Wolfe have you made?
>
> I have never seen anti-Christian bigotry from them.
You have selective hearing.
That's why you also think it's ridiculous to claim mossad would use
torture
amd as Ed said, you apparently have Miriam killfiled if you can say that
about her
>
> They rarely post but if you say nasty things they'll respond back.
>
> The fact that you are offended means nothing; you in particular
> take pride that you don't believe in political correctness,
> so it's perfectly ok to say things that offend your sensibilities.
sure--so long as you don't tout yourself as above that, or if you
criticize me for it when you turn a blind eye to jews doing it
>
> >
> > Don't think any
> >
> > How many times have you defended Moshe jr against the lashon hara of
> > being accused of being a child molestor? How many times did you defend
> > him against the daily slander from the lips of you fellow Jews here?
>
> Moshe is not a child molestor afaik, but is a horrible violator of
> usenet etiquette
> and I try not to get involved in threads about him at all.
You should criticize the jews who use LH against him. If you won't, who
will?
If you don't care or turn a blind eye to it, ignore us if WE do it!
>
> >
> > Don't think any
> >
> > Your fellow jews are masters of LH,
>
> No they're not.
yes they are!!!
>
> > and you have done little or nothing
> > to criticize or stop it in the 14 years I have known you
>
> It's because you don't know what lh is.
If calling someone a child molestor who has never been charged with a
crime, and there is no diect evidence he is, then I guess i don't
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
> >
> > She is a private citizen, while Scuzzafava IS a political figure, so you
> > indict yourself with that statement
> >
>
> Sarah Palin is NOT a private citizen.
What office does she currently hold?
She is a former governor
> and vice presidential candidate being seriously brought
> forward as a candidate for president in 2012. She only gets
> the publicity she gets because of this, not because
> she pays as a private citizen for airtime on cnn.
She is a private citizen rt now as Bill Clinton is
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > this particular weird thing. I would not be surprised if she
> > did believe this particular weird thing although I haven't
> > actually see her say it.
>
> And maybe I think Scuzzafava would believe in jailing pastors who preach
> homosexuality is a sin. And maybe I think she'd support taking kids away
> from Christian parents and adopting them out to secular familes.
Does she have similar outlandish views?
Whereas Palinesque is a general term for the unique
combination of stupid and off-the-mainstream.
Just like we might call a situation Orwellian, when it *reminds*
us of situations described in "Animal Farm" or "1984",
even though that particular situation was never actually
written about in exactly that way by Orwell.
> Perfectly fine for me to say something like, "I'm against a Dede
> Scozzafava-type of concentration camp that would force Christians to be
> re-educated in tolerance", right?
If Scozzafava had proposed similar types of things.
...
>
> >She does believe in exorcisms.
>
> so did Jesus! Do sis the pharisees! So did the essenes! So does your
> talmud! So did the rebbe!
I'm not sure the rebbe did, but if he did, it's crazy. People
in ancient or medieval times believing in them can
be more excused, because we knew less then.
As you know, the Chasidim are an extreme and
much more mystical branch of Orthodox Jews,
much as the Pentecostalists are extreme
branches of Christians.
>
> This is what I mean--your fellow jews did and do (many of them) believe
> in exorcism, yet you demean HER for the same belief!
The belief is crazy and irrational, and out of the mainstream
regardless of whether it is a Jew or a Christian.
...
> > I have never seen anti-Christian bigotry from them.
>
> You have selective hearing.
>
> That's why you also think it's ridiculous to claim mossad would use
> torture
I never said it's ridiculous to claim it. I said it's ridiculous
to expect me to take your word for it without proof,
on account of "everybody knows it".
Please quote where I said it was ridiculous to claim it.
...
>
> > The fact that you are offended means nothing; you in particular
> > take pride that you don't believe in political correctness,
> > so it's perfectly ok to say things that offend your sensibilities.
>
> sure--so long as you don't tout yourself as above that, or if you
> criticize me for it when you turn a blind eye to jews doing it
>
If you claim that constraining your speech by political
correctness is wrong, then don't complain when
politically incorrect things are said in your hearing.
I do have standards.
Saying a particular viewpoint about aids
(that's held by lots of conservative
Christians such as Robertson and
Hagee and Falwell) is Palinesque
I find ok. Palin believes a lot of
far-out extremist things, whether
that particular one or not I'm not sure.
I wouldn't think it right to call her
a child molestor. (rechilut) It is
ok to call her an extremist (legitimate
commentary on a political figure).
I don't think it's right to call moshe
a child molestor (rechilut), but I do think it's
right to call him a usenet troll
(not lh because he posts here).
...
>
> You should criticize the jews who use LH against him. If you won't, who
> will?
>
> If you don't care or turn a blind eye to it, ignore us if WE do it!
After many years of fruitless debate, I've begun to ignore him.
So I tend to ignore threads that are primarily responses
to him. So if somebody responds and calls him something
nasty, I probably won't see it.
...
>
> > > > And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
>
> > > She is a private citizen, while Scuzzafava IS a political figure, so you
> > > indict yourself with that statement
>
> > Sarah Palin is NOT a private citizen.
>
> What office does she currently hold?
Aside from being a recent VP candidate, she campaigned
for the disgusting Saxby Chambliss, has been publically
outspoken in the health care debate, both on news shows
and on Facebook. She has a large following that
are considering to draft her as a candidate for President in 2012.
She is much more politically active than Nixon was after
he lost the California election and told us that we wouldn't
have him "to kick around any more".
Do you seriously think that Sarah Palin has retired from politics?
No more appearances on pundit shows, commenting on issues,
no more book tours, no more political action committees,
no more involvement in issues and candidates?
...
>
> She is a private citizen rt now as Bill Clinton is
And of course nobody ever thinks of criticizing him today, do they?
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> I can't help you. If a horrible witch cooked up in a black pot things that
> *appeared* to be digusting, such as vegetables carved into the form of
> human
> hands and feet, then she would be taking clean foods, such as vegetables,
> and showing her delight in the *appearance* of wickedness, ie cannibalism.
"And you're saying that shrimps do this?????"
Yes, they are bottom feeders. They eat where there is a high degree of
bacteria and pollution. They can be cooked and made clean, but they have the
*appearance* of uncleanness, because they do, in fact, pick up uncleanness.
Today, under the Christian covenant, we simply have to make sure we cook all
of this contamination out.
> When God said not to eat certain animals or birds that were scavengers, it
> does not mean that these scavengers have meat that in itself is unclean.
> Rather, eating such foods under the prohibition of God has the
> *appearance*
> of rebellion. The prohibited animals held for God a symbolic value,
> displaying an appearance of evil that God wanted to convey to nations
> round
> about.
"Where does it say this, and why would it stop mattering now?"
We are under a new covenant, if you accept the gospel of Jesus. And we know
that protein is protein, whether it was considered "unclean" under the Law
or not. You can cook most forms of meat clean. About the only animal protein
I think of that is not digestable is slug. Of course there are probably
others.
> Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that
> is common or unclean."
> 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed,
> you must not call common."
"But this seems only to apply to what God has cleansed, not to shrimp!"
This account suggests that for the first time Peter began to understand that
prohibitions under the Law were no longer applicable, because the Law had
been trumped by the death and atonement of Jesus. Dietary laws may be
practised, but were no longer required. The Gentiles, once denied fellowship
with Israel, were now allowed to be joined with Jews in the new
international church. (And the Gentiles did not have dietary laws determined
by the Law of Moses.)
"You should be ashamed of listening to proclamations
of crackpots and calling them truths and judgments of deity.
It is using God's name in vain."
God judges sinners, whether homosexuals or simple liars. Divine judgment
takes place against *all* sin, even if using varying degrees of laxity or
severity. To think it's absurd that God would judge an entire class of
people like homosexuals or a race is a complete denial of everything the
Jewish Scriptures stand for. God judged the whole human race, and called
them "sinners!" And God judged seven nations in Canaan by giving their lands
to Israel as an inheritance. And if God judged just one man like Achan, who
horded illicit treasure, will not God judge an entire group of immoral
people like homosexuals? He certainly will, even if in our current cultural
climate this is politically incorrect!
> You said the passage does not prohibit homosexuality.
"Surely you understand the difference between
"it does not prohibit homosexuality" and
"it teaches in favor of homosexuality"."
Paul in Romans 1 taught about homosexuality in a *negative* way. It was
either in favor or it, or to tolerate it. You suggest it does not oppose it.
That would be teaching *in favor of* homosexuality. And you know Paul didn't
do this!
> On the contrary, when John referred to the various kinds of
> sexually-perverted acts, he was referring to *all categories* of sexual
> perversion, such as were listed under the Law of Moses. That includes
> homosexuality.
"No, it includes anal sex between Jews, not all homosexuality."
It includes uncovering someone to have intimate relations, and yes, that
means anal sex or anything that happens after disrobing.
"You have forgotten that the entire purpose of your argument
was to show how your scriptures forbade more sex acts
than Leviticus did."
The NT Scriptures have a morality that is based on Moses' morality. Sexual
uncleanness is virtually identical, although it is banned under a different
covenant. What is different about NT sexuality is that it includes Gentiles
as well as Jews. And it did not forbid relations between the two groups,
assuming that both were Christian.
And it further denied the *intent* to have immoral sex, even if it was not
consummated. "Intent" is something that is involved in all legal matters.
It's just that in ordinary society, it is the acts themselves that are
judged, whereas in theology, God looks upon the heart and judges the
*intent* as well.
> I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age do
> indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex.
"Where do you get that?"
Biology 101.
> It has just somehow
> been stymied by an excessive number of inherited traits, or by
> environmental
> forces that prohibit natural development.
"Now you're saying that the evidence isn't there, but maybe
there's some deep explanation of why the evidence is hidden."
No, I do admit that some factors in society cause some to be victimized by a
poor, or corrupt, environment. We nevertheless continue to have the
responsibility to avoid sin, and to reject temptation.
> I made up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
"You're making up the fact that (a) S&G were destroyed
because of homosexuality, and (b) that Paul's
comment was talking about S&G when he
mentioned "the due penalty"."
No, that's what I'm disputing. I'm saying that S&G was directly linked to
the expressed desire on the behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom to have
homosexual sex with the angelic visitors. And Paul explicitly referenced
this when he said that homosexuals receive the "due penalty" of their choice
for aberrant behavior.
"The most natural interpretation of the Paul passage is
to read the words exactly as written: people committed
idolatry, and afterward as a penalty, God turned them
from heterosexuals, as they originally were,
into homosexuals."
When you don't reason along with the writer, there is a host of ways you can
misapply the words used. Paul was saying that heterosexuals who choose to
act like homosexuals are defying the natural order set up by God, and
putting themselves in the same place as Sodom, who received the "due
penalty" for their sins.
> It really has to do with the end product, a "great
> meal," and not with a specific set of rules about cooking itself. God is
> saying, "Let me show you how to slaughter your animals," and then denies
> them the right to slaughter them for the purpose of eating them in a
> defiled
> way. You are to slaughter your animals, *when slaughtering them for food,*
> only if you intend to eat them in a pure way, ie without their blood.
"That's not what's written. What's written is "slaughter your animals
only in the manner I previously showed you"."
You're missing the *intent* of the writer, which was not to explain how to
specifically "slaughter" an animal, but rather, how to *approach*
slaughtering animals for food. It could be done outside of Jerusalem if it
was not for ceremonial purposes. But it still had to be done *without blood
in it.*
> Doctrine of the Trinity was based on the orthodoxy of Scriptures.
"No. And the apostles were constantly wrong throughout
Jesus' life -- Peter denied him thrice, and the 12 were
constantly misunderstanding his parables until Jesus
re-explained. What makes you think they were so
much more perceptive after he was gone?"
They were young disciples when they made most of their mistakes. They
learned to rely more and more on the spirituality they had been given. After
all, Christianity consists of learning how to rely on our spirituality,
rather than on our autonomous thinking.
"Anyhow, trinitarianism and Protestant Paulinism
seem to mesh poorly anyhow. Jesus is supposed
to be God, and yet the apostles, who were
such lousy explainers when he was alive,
suddenly found themselves after his death
correcting all Jesus' vagueness and
inarticulateness???"
It's not really like that. Jesus' earthly existance consisted of living
under the Law, and dying under the Law, to free men from the guilt
associated with the Law. New Testament theology centers on the new covenant,
which exists *after* the Law has passed away. Relying on apostles to teach
this new theology is no different than Moses teaching Israel the Law, with
the help of divine revelation.
> It is not a defiance of nature to remain single.
"It's inconsistent to say that remaining single is
not a defiance of nature but being gay isn't."
Not at all. Being gay is choosing a male-male order, or a female-female
order, when God's sexual order was explicitly male-female, in terms of
fulfilling God's desire to "fill the earth." Remaining single can still
cooperate with God's plan to "fill the earth," simply by contributing in
*other ways* to get the mandate accomplished.
Single people can serve as marriage counselors, or as theologians,
encouraging people to get married and raise families in a godly way. But
single people do not live outside the order of male-female relations. They
simply do not live in *any* sexual relationship.
The mandate to fill the earth simply applies to singles in a *nonsexual*
way. There is no mandate for every individual to engage in sex. The mandate
simply requires that the goal take place, and that every individual work in
conjunction with this goal, whether they marry or not. But it is not
necessary that every individual marry and have sex in order to see this goal
fulfilled.
Homosexuals may not be opposed to God's mandate to fill the earth. But they
do oppose the order God specified in order to accomplish this, which is
male-female relations.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Or even for a million generations! But of course, if the terms of the
>>contract were violated, the whole contract could be cancelled. And it was.
>>God said it would be when He said that blessings would be turned into
>>curses. The whole purpose of the contract was to *bless* Israel. But if
>>Israel could not remain in conformity with the Law, offering sacrifices
>>for
>>their occasional sins, they would be cursed. And they were.
> Now learn that about the land. Especially since
> I showed you right where it says that would happen,
> if they did not follow Him.
What do you mean? The purpose of the Law was to bless Israel. But Israel had
to do something to remain in covenant with God, and to maintain this
blessing. They had to *obey* the Law as a people. If Israel did not do this
they would be cursed. That would be the same thing as failing under the
covenant. That would be the same thing as having a failed covenant, or a
failed contract. That is how the new covenant came into play. The old
covenant failed, and the new covenant succeeded it.
At any rate, the old covenant could *never* succeed because it did not
resolve the problem of eternity. True fulfillment of God's covenants
required eternal life. But the Law had no means to deal with the problem of
human mortality. So the Law could *never* be fulfilled as a permanent
contract with Israel. It *had* to be fulfilled by a new contract, by the new
covenant of Jesus. Our salvation is based on our spiritual link to Jesus,
whose life is stronger than death, who died, and rose from the dead.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > I can't help you. If a horrible witch cooked up in a black pot things that
> > *appeared* to be digusting, such as vegetables carved into the form of
> > human
> > hands and feet, then she would be taking clean foods, such as vegetables,
> > and showing her delight in the *appearance* of wickedness, ie cannibalism.
>
> "And you're saying that shrimps do this?????"
>
> Yes, they are bottom feeders. They eat where there is a high degree of
> bacteria and pollution. They can be cooked and made clean, but they have the
> *appearance* of uncleanness, because they do, in fact, pick up uncleanness.
> Today, under the Christian covenant, we simply have to make sure we cook all
> of this contamination out.
I don't understand what you're saying at all.
Shrimps don't carve vegetables into the form of human hands and
feet and show delight in them when they eat them.
...
>
> "Where does it say this, and why would it stop mattering now?"
>
> We are under a new covenant, if you accept the gospel of Jesus.
Well no, that goes back to our other argument.
Jesus never said we're under a new covenant; he said
the existing law will not pass until heaven and earth pass.
> And we know
> that protein is protein, whether it was considered "unclean" under the Law
> or not. You can cook most forms of meat clean.
And males having sex can use condoms.
...
>
> > Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that
> > is common or unclean."
> > 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed,
> > you must not call common."
>
> "But this seems only to apply to what God has cleansed, not to shrimp!"
>
> This account suggests that for the first time Peter began to understand that
> prohibitions under the Law were no longer applicable, because the Law had
> been trumped by the death and atonement of Jesus.
You're making that up from your own views; the text doesn't say that.
...
> "You should be ashamed of listening to proclamations
> of crackpots and calling them truths and judgments of deity.
> It is using God's name in vain."
>
> God judges sinners, whether homosexuals or simple liars.
But you're assuming that homosexuals are sinning.
And the people who are saying AIDS is a punishment from
God are the most ungodly of people. Even if you object
to me calling them Palin-like (since we have no proof
Palin believes this herself), they are people like
Hagee (a notorious sinner who admitted to an
illegal divorce and is still living in sin with his
second "wife" that he's prohibited by his
own Christian religion to marry), people like
Pat Robertson, people like Jerry Falwell.
> Divine judgment
> takes place against *all* sin, even if using varying degrees of laxity or
> severity. To think it's absurd that God would judge an entire class of
> people like homosexuals or a race is a complete denial of everything the
> Jewish Scriptures stand for. God judged the whole human race, and called
> them "sinners!" And God judged seven nations in Canaan by giving their lands
> to Israel as an inheritance. And if God judged just one man like Achan, who
> horded illicit treasure, will not God judge an entire group of immoral
> people like homosexuals? He certainly will, even if in our current cultural
> climate this is politically incorrect!
I expect He will judge Republicans and the conservative "christians"
who support them reflexively very severely.
But what does that have to do with loving gay relationships being a
sin?
You keep assuming that that is true, rather than demonstrating
that it is true!
>
> > You said the passage does not prohibit homosexuality.
>
> "Surely you understand the difference between
> "it does not prohibit homosexuality" and
> "it teaches in favor of homosexuality"."
>
> Paul in Romans 1 taught about homosexuality in a *negative* way. It was
> either in favor or it, or to tolerate it.
It is negative in the sense that if you were born heterosexual,
being turned into a homosexual
such as Paul describes would be a punishment.
It doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong per se.
> You suggest it does not oppose it.
> That would be teaching *in favor of* homosexuality.
No, it isn't. You just don't have the logic the rest of us has.
...
>
> "No, it includes anal sex between Jews, not all homosexuality."
>
> It includes uncovering someone to have intimate relations, and yes, that
> means anal sex or anything that happens after disrobing.
It doesn't refer to everything that happens after disrobing.
...
>
> The NT Scriptures have a morality that is based on Moses' morality. Sexual
> uncleanness is virtually identical, although it is banned under a different
> covenant.
Then why don't Christians use the mikvah after their periods and
forbid sex or even touching until after she has returned from the
mikvah?
...
> > I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age do
> > indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex.
>
> "Where do you get that?"
>
> Biology 101.
I don't believe you. If this is really true,
please cite the author, title, and publisher
of the Biology 101 text you are using,
and quote the page where it says that people
who are homosexual even from early age
begin with a predisposition to the opposite sex.
Otherwise, please retract.
...
>
> > I made up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
>
> "You're making up the fact that (a) S&G were destroyed
> because of homosexuality, and (b) that Paul's
> comment was talking about S&G when he
> mentioned "the due penalty"."
>
> No, that's what I'm disputing. I'm saying that S&G was directly linked to
> the expressed desire on the behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom to have
> homosexual sex with the angelic visitors. And Paul explicitly referenced
> this when he said that homosexuals receive the "due penalty" of their choice
> for aberrant behavior.
Please cite where Paul *explicitly* referenced this.
(Of course S&G was about *violent, nonconsensual* sex, which
was the main point, not homosexual sex per se.)
>
> "The most natural interpretation of the Paul passage is
> to read the words exactly as written: people committed
> idolatry, and afterward as a penalty, God turned them
> from heterosexuals, as they originally were,
> into homosexuals."
>
> When you don't reason along with the writer, there is a host of ways you can
> misapply the words used. Paul was saying that heterosexuals who choose to
> act like homosexuals are defying the natural order set up by God, and
> putting themselves in the same place as Sodom, who received the "due
> penalty" for their sins.
But Paul wasn't talking in this passage about
heterosexuals who choose to
act like homosexuals; he was talking about
heterosexuals who commit idolatry, and he said nothing about Sodom.
...
> "That's not what's written. What's written is "slaughter your animals
> only in the manner I previously showed you"."
>
> You're missing the *intent* of the writer, which was not to explain how to
> specifically "slaughter" an animal, but rather, how to *approach*
> slaughtering animals for food. It could be done outside of Jerusalem if it
> was not for ceremonial purposes. But it still had to be done *without blood
> in it.*
You keep leaving out the explicit text that said
"... only slaughter [them] in the manner I have prescribed".
When the text doesn't say what you want, you pretend
that some other text was the real "intent" of the writer.
>
> > Doctrine of the Trinity was based on the orthodoxy of Scriptures.
>
> "No. And the apostles were constantly wrong throughout
> Jesus' life -- Peter denied him thrice, and the 12 were
> constantly misunderstanding his parables until Jesus
> re-explained. What makes you think they were so
> much more perceptive after he was gone?"
>
> They were young disciples when they made most of their mistakes. They
> learned to rely more and more on the spirituality they had been given. After
> all, Christianity consists of learning how to rely on our spirituality,
> rather than on our autonomous thinking.
>
I wish Christianity would encourage a bit more thinking.
In any case, the disciple/apostles made lots of mistakes
up to the very days of Jesus' death, so it's stretching
matters beyond what I'm willing to stretch to imagine
that they suddenly became infallible interpreters
afterwards.
> "Anyhow, trinitarianism and Protestant Paulinism
> seem to mesh poorly anyhow. Jesus is supposed
> to be God, and yet the apostles, who were
> such lousy explainers when he was alive,
> suddenly found themselves after his death
> correcting all Jesus' vagueness and
> inarticulateness???"
>
> It's not really like that. Jesus' earthly existance consisted of living
> under the Law, and dying under the Law, to free men from the guilt
> associated with the Law.
This makes no sense.
> New Testament theology centers on the new covenant,
> which exists *after* the Law has passed away.
That's not New Testament theology; it's *your*
theology that you keep repeating here.
Jesus said the Law wouldn't pass away until heaven
and earth had passed away.
> Relying on apostles to teach
> this new theology is no different than Moses teaching Israel the Law, with
> the help of divine revelation.
Moses had gotten it directly from God; the apostles hadn't.
>
> > It is not a defiance of nature to remain single.
>
> "It's inconsistent to say that remaining single is
> not a defiance of nature but being gay isn't."
>
> Not at all. Being gay is choosing a male-male order, or a female-female
> order, when God's sexual order was explicitly male-female,
No, it's just choosing a *partner* of the same sex, not
an "order". You're making up all this order nonsense
and doing it in a way for your conclusion to come out
right, namely that homosexuals are creating a new
order, whereas singles are just choosing for themselves.
I could equally well reverse it, saying that singles are
overturning the order that says everyone has sex,
and most of them have male-female sex, by
creating an order of their own. In fact my version
is more true to the facts, since many celibates
do call the organizations they belong to "orders".
...
>
> Single people can serve as marriage counselors, or as theologians,
> encouraging people to get married and raise families in a godly way.
So can gays.
> But
> single people do not live outside the order of male-female relations. They
> simply do not live in *any* sexual relationship.
You're making up what it means to be inside or outside an order
to make your conclusion come out. We can see that they
don't participate in male-female relations. Being in or out
of the "order" can not be seen.
...
> Homosexuals may not be opposed to God's mandate to fill the earth. But they
> do oppose the order God specified in order to accomplish this, which is
> male-female relations.
No, many homosexuals are wonderful uncles who love their
heterosexual siblings and encourage them to have children,
and dote on these children, so no.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 1, 7:41 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
> >
> > > Palin territory is a shorthand for weird, not that she believes
> > > this particular weird thing. I would not be surprised if she
> > > did believe this particular weird thing although I haven't
> > > actually see her say it.
> >
> > And maybe I think Scuzzafava would believe in jailing pastors who preach
> > homosexuality is a sin. And maybe I think she'd support taking kids away
> > from Christian parents and adopting them out to secular familes.
>
> Does she have similar outlandish views?
>
> Whereas Palinesque is a general term for the unique
> combination of stupid and off-the-mainstream.
And it's a term based on sladering the woman as 'stupid', and so you are
committing LH on her
>
> Just like we might call a situation Orwellian, when it *reminds*
> us of situations described in "Animal Farm" or "1984",
> even though that particular situation was never actually
> written about in exactly that way by Orwell.
The difference is you are not using that term as one contemptuous of
Orwell
>
> > Perfectly fine for me to say something like, "I'm against a Dede
> > Scozzafava-type of concentration camp that would force Christians to be
> > re-educated in tolerance", right?
>
> If Scozzafava had proposed similar types of things.
Doesn't matter. Palin has never said that AIDS is punishment by God on
gays, but you imply she did or would believe that.
So I imply Scuzzafava would support concentration camps run by liberals.
No difference
>
> ...
>
> >
> > >She does believe in exorcisms.
> >
> > so did Jesus! Do sis the pharisees! So did the essenes! So does your
> > talmud! So did the rebbe!
>
> I'm not sure the rebbe did, but if he did, it's crazy.
So the Bible is crazy? So the talmud is crazy?
That says it all about your religion, rob
People
> in ancient or medieval times believing in them can
> be more excused, because we knew less then.
> As you know, the Chasidim are an extreme and
> much more mystical branch of Orthodox Jews,
> much as the Pentecostalists are extreme
> branches of Christians.
At least they and we believe the BIBLE! You show you do not.
>
> >
> > This is what I mean--your fellow jews did and do (many of them) believe
> > in exorcism, yet you demean HER for the same belief!
>
> The belief is crazy and irrational, and out of the mainstream
> regardless of whether it is a Jew or a Christian.
Then stick to demonizing jews for belivieng in that, and go attack some
chassidim as ignorant people.
>
> ...
>
> > > I have never seen anti-Christian bigotry from them.
> >
> > You have selective hearing.
> >
> > That's why you also think it's ridiculous to claim mossad would use
> > torture
>
> I never said it's ridiculous to claim it. I said it's ridiculous
> to expect me to take your word for it without proof,
> on account of "everybody knows it".
I have proven it, and cited the most left-wing liberal pro-civil rights
organization there is---but that doesn't count.
So you show willing blindness to the FACT, just like a holocaust denier
won't believe the holocaust happened without what HE considers 'proof'
>
> Please quote where I said it was ridiculous to claim it.
your unwillingness to admit the fact that evryone else seems to
admit--including your fellow liberals--shows you imply the notion is
ridiculous.
>
> ...
> >
> > > The fact that you are offended means nothing; you in particular
> > > take pride that you don't believe in political correctness,
> > > so it's perfectly ok to say things that offend your sensibilities.
> >
> > sure--so long as you don't tout yourself as above that, or if you
> > criticize me for it when you turn a blind eye to jews doing it
> >
>
> If you claim that constraining your speech by political
> correctness is wrong, then don't complain when
> politically incorrect things are said in your hearing.
>
> I do have standards.
>
> Saying a particular viewpoint about aids
> (that's held by lots of conservative
> Christians such as Robertson and
> Hagee and Falwell) is Palinesque
> I find ok.
I know--and your justification is hypocritical, since you would and do
defend democrats if _I_ make similar false, broadbrush statements
against them...or if i even mistakenly get a fact wrong.
Palin believes a lot of
> far-out extremist things, whether
> that particular one or not I'm not sure.
>
> I wouldn't think it right to call her
> a child molestor. (rechilut) It is
> ok to call her an extremist (legitimate
> commentary on a political figure).
You also call her stupid, and imply she would believe things she has
never stated she believes.
You demonize bush as a 'liar', yet I have yet to hear you demonize
johnson--the chief liberal president of the 20th century--for rigging
the Gulf of Tonkin incident to drag us into an escalation into viet nam,
a far more eggregious lie that cost 250k lives.
But you have no problems indicting bush as a liar.
This is what i mean--you are not even-handed
>
> I don't think it's right to call moshe
> a child molestor (rechilut), but I do think it's
> right to call him a usenet troll
> (not lh because he posts here).
>
> ...
>
> >
> > You should criticize the jews who use LH against him. If you won't, who
> > will?
> >
> > If you don't care or turn a blind eye to it, ignore us if WE do it!
>
> After many years of fruitless debate, I've begun to ignore him.
> So I tend to ignore threads that are primarily responses
> to him. So if somebody responds and calls him something
> nasty, I probably won't see it.
>
> ...
> >
> > > > > And I've told you that lh doesn't apply to public political figures.
> >
> > > > She is a private citizen, while Scuzzafava IS a political figure, so you
> > > > indict yourself with that statement
> >
> > > Sarah Palin is NOT a private citizen.
> >
> > What office does she currently hold?
>
> Aside from being a recent VP candidate, she campaigned
> for the disgusting Saxby Chambliss, has been publically
> outspoken in the health care debate, both on news shows
> and on Facebook. She has a large following that
> are considering to draft her as a candidate for President in 2012.
So? She is still a private citizen.
>
> She is much more politically active than Nixon was after
> he lost the California election and told us that we wouldn't
> have him "to kick around any more".
>
> Do you seriously think that Sarah Palin has retired from politics?
>
> No more appearances on pundit shows, commenting on issues,
> no more book tours, no more political action committees,
> no more involvement in issues and candidates?
>
> ...
> >
> > She is a private citizen rt now as Bill Clinton is
>
> And of course nobody ever thinks of criticizing him today, do they?
I only hear criticism of his days as president. I don't recall any
criticism of stuff he is specifically doing, having left the WH
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > > homosexuality is a sin. And maybe I think she'd support taking kids away
> > > from Christian parents and adopting them out to secular familes.
>
> > Does she have similar outlandish views?
>
> > Whereas Palinesque is a general term for the unique
> > combination of stupid and off-the-mainstream.
>
> And it's a term based on sladering the woman as 'stupid', and so you are
> committing LH on her
Palin is a political figure. It is not lh to make true negative
statements
about her, and she *is* stupid.
>
>
>
> > Just like we might call a situation Orwellian, when it *reminds*
> > us of situations described in "Animal Farm" or "1984",
> > even though that particular situation was never actually
> > written about in exactly that way by Orwell.
>
> The difference is you are not using that term as one contemptuous of
> Orwell
Doesn't change the fact that "Orwellian" means
"similar to something described by Orwell",
not necessarily "something actually described by Orwell", just as
"Palin territory"
means "similar to the kinds of things Palin would say" not necessarily
"something actually said by Palin".
...
>
> Doesn't matter. Palin has never said that AIDS is punishment by God on
> gays, but you imply she did or would believe that.
I'm implying it's similar to things she does believe, namely that
evolution is wrong and global warming is a hoax. And many
people with similar views to Palin actually do believe that.
>
> So I imply Scuzzafava would support concentration camps run by liberals.
What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
In the alternative,
What close associates of Scozzafava actually have this belief?
In short, give me two kinds of ways in which this is "like Scozzafava"
in the way I showed you this position is "like Palin".
...
> > > so did Jesus! Do sis the pharisees! So did the essenes! So does your
> > > talmud! So did the rebbe!
>
> > I'm not sure the rebbe did, but if he did, it's crazy.
>
> So the Bible is crazy? So the talmud is crazy?
Exorcism in the Bible?
I don't know of a single passage in the (Jewish) Bible that talks
about exorcism.
I'll concede that the passage about the sotah ritual is weird, and
nobody
I know from Orthodox to Reform believes that such a ritual works as
literally described.
But that's not an exorcism, and I stand by my position that this is
not Biblical.
A good argument could be made that the Bible *forbids* such things.
In Deuteronomy 18, it says:
"When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you,
do not learn to do the revolting practices of those nations.
Among you, there shall not be found anyone who passes
his son or daughter through fire, who practices stick divination,
who divines auspicious times, who divines by omens, who practices
witchcraft,
who uses incantations, who consults mediums and oracles,
or who attempts to communicate with the dead.
Anyone involved in these practices is repulsive to God,
and it was because of repulsive practices such as these
that God your Lord is driving out [these nations] before you."
I would have thought exorcism would be in that category,
as well as all the stuff that you see in Christian end-times
prophecy prediction.
...
>
> > in ancient or medieval times believing in them can
> > be more excused, because we knew less then.
> > As you know, the Chasidim are an extreme and
> > much more mystical branch of Orthodox Jews,
> > much as the Pentecostalists are extreme
> > branches of Christians.
>
> At least they and we believe the BIBLE! You show you do not.
Huh??????
Please quote something from the BIBLE that says exorcisms are OK.
(that is, the Jewish Bible, the only one that Chasidim accept).
>
>
>
> > > This is what I mean--your fellow jews did and do (many of them) believe
> > > in exorcism, yet you demean HER for the same belief!
>
> > The belief is crazy and irrational, and out of the mainstream
> > regardless of whether it is a Jew or a Christian.
>
> Then stick to demonizing jews for belivieng in that, and go attack some
> chassidim as ignorant people.
>
Why? I'll attack anyone I want to attack.
You're not inhibited from saying we're all hell-bound,
so why should I be inhibited from saying that
exorcism is superstitious and ignorant?
...
> > I never said it's ridiculous to claim it. I said it's ridiculous
> > to expect me to take your word for it without proof,
> > on account of "everybody knows it".
>
> I have proven it, and cited the most left-wing liberal pro-civil rights
> organization there is---but that doesn't count.
Evidence counts, not people's opinions.
>
> So you show willing blindness to the FACT, just like a holocaust denier
> won't believe the holocaust happened without what HE considers 'proof'
I'm not a denier at all. I didn't say it didn't happen, just that I
don't know.
...
> your unwillingness to admit the fact that evryone else seems to
> admit--including your fellow liberals--shows you imply the notion is
> ridiculous.
Please cite a mainstream liberal politician referring in public to
torture
committed by mossad.
...
>
> > Saying a particular viewpoint about aids
> > (that's held by lots of conservative
> > Christians such as Robertson and
> > Hagee and Falwell) is Palinesque
> > I find ok.
>
> I know--and your justification is hypocritical, since you would and do
> defend democrats if _I_ make similar false, broadbrush statements
> against them...or if i even mistakenly get a fact wrong.
I can at least point out many of her political allies that have
said these things, whereas you attribute to liberals all
kinds of things that no mainstream figure ever says.
...
>
> You also call her stupid,
She is stupid.
> and imply she would believe things she has
> never stated she believes.
>
> You demonize bush as a 'liar', yet I have yet to hear you demonize
> johnson--the chief liberal president of the 20th century--for rigging
> the Gulf of Tonkin incident to drag us into an escalation into viet nam,
> a far more eggregious lie that cost 250k lives.
Huh????????????????????????????????????????????
You've got to be
kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I spent a good bit of the 60s in
anti-vietnam-war demonstrations, shouting
"Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
I posted that several times, including in a thread
called "vince: fitna", which from its title you must have read.
...
>
> > Aside from being a recent VP candidate, she campaigned
> > for the disgusting Saxby Chambliss, has been publically
> > outspoken in the health care debate, both on news shows
> > and on Facebook. She has a large following that
> > are considering to draft her as a candidate for President in 2012.
>
> So? She is still a private citizen.
She is a private citizen involved in public politics, who is being
considered for President.
...
>
> > And of course nobody ever thinks of criticizing him today, do they?
>
> I only hear criticism of his days as president. I don't recall any
> criticism of stuff he is specifically doing, having left the WH
If there were no term limits and he might become President again,
I think you'd hear much more.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 3, 7:08 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > > And maybe I think Scuzzafava would believe in jailing pastors who preach
> > > > homosexuality is a sin. And maybe I think she'd support taking kids away
> > > > from Christian parents and adopting them out to secular familes.
> >
> > > Does she have similar outlandish views?
> >
> > > Whereas Palinesque is a general term for the unique
> > > combination of stupid and off-the-mainstream.
> >
> > And it's a term based on sladering the woman as 'stupid', and so you are
> > committing LH on her
>
> Palin is a political figure. It is not lh to make true negative
> statements
> about her, and she *is* stupid.
I think scuzzafava is stupid, so I guess it's ok if I tell people she's
stupid, and therefore it is not LH, right?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Just like we might call a situation Orwellian, when it *reminds*
> > > us of situations described in "Animal Farm" or "1984",
> > > even though that particular situation was never actually
> > > written about in exactly that way by Orwell.
> >
> > The difference is you are not using that term as one contemptuous of
> > Orwell
>
> Doesn't change the fact that "Orwellian" means
> "similar to something described by Orwell",
> not necessarily "something actually described by Orwell", just as
> "Palin territory"
> means "similar to the kinds of things Palin would say" not necessarily
> "something actually said by Palin".
I understand that's your logic, but it falls short because Orwell is
heralded universally when 'orwellian' type themes come up, beceause he
originated/popularized many of these themes. Palin hasn't originated
anything, and so your comments are simply a personal dig at her when you
label something 'palinesque'--unless somehow it could directly be tied
to her, like female hunting, soccer moms, and so forth.
The aids comment technically was not originated by her, cannot be tied
to her, and so is wrong to be connected to her name
>
> ...
> >
> > Doesn't matter. Palin has never said that AIDS is punishment by God on
> > gays, but you imply she did or would believe that.
>
> I'm implying it's similar to things she does believe, namely that
> evolution is wrong and global warming is a hoax. And many
> people with similar views to Palin actually do believe that.
>
> >
> > So I imply Scuzzafava would support concentration camps run by liberals.
>
> What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
gay marriage. Extreme as you can get
> In the alternative,
> What close associates of Scozzafava actually have this belief?
Irrelevant. The issue is whether I can impose my (Actually, YOU, not me)
opinions of what I think someone would believe on that person even if
there is no proof that they believe it.
>
> In short, give me two kinds of ways in which this is "like Scozzafava"
> in the way I showed you this position is "like Palin".
>
> ...
>
> > > > so did Jesus! Do sis the pharisees! So did the essenes! So does your
> > > > talmud! So did the rebbe!
> >
> > > I'm not sure the rebbe did, but if he did, it's crazy.
> >
> > So the Bible is crazy? So the talmud is crazy?
>
> Exorcism in the Bible?
>
> I don't know of a single passage in the (Jewish) Bible that talks
> about exorcism.
Read david playing for saul
>
> I'll concede that the passage about the sotah ritual is weird, and
> nobody
> I know from Orthodox to Reform believes that such a ritual works as
> literally described.
> But that's not an exorcism, and I stand by my position that this is
> not Biblical.
it is NT biblical, and so it is biblical
>
> A good argument could be made that the Bible *forbids* such things.
No--not at all. Not even slightly
The bible does not end with the OT
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > This is what I mean--your fellow jews did and do (many of them) believe
> > > > in exorcism, yet you demean HER for the same belief!
> >
> > > The belief is crazy and irrational, and out of the mainstream
> > > regardless of whether it is a Jew or a Christian.
> >
> > Then stick to demonizing jews for belivieng in that, and go attack some
> > chassidim as ignorant people.
> >
>
> Why? I'll attack anyone I want to attack.
lol
>
> You're not inhibited from saying we're all hell-bound,
> so why should I be inhibited from saying that
> exorcism is superstitious and ignorant?
Uh, cuz you, as a liberal, SHOULD believe in sensitivity and political
correctness??
Or are you just like us?
In other words, I perceive liberals as constantly touting themselves as
more moral than conservatives, so why don't you display a more noble
example personally?
>
> ...
> > > I never said it's ridiculous to claim it. I said it's ridiculous
> > > to expect me to take your word for it without proof,
> > > on account of "everybody knows it".
> >
> > I have proven it, and cited the most left-wing liberal pro-civil rights
> > organization there is---but that doesn't count.
>
> Evidence counts, not people's opinions.
Dude-AI is internationally respected by liberal human rights people as a
civil rights organization, and if their word and 'evidence; isn't good
enough for you--whose would be?
Think even Ziva David admits use of Mossad torture
>
> >
> > So you show willing blindness to the FACT, just like a holocaust denier
> > won't believe the holocaust happened without what HE considers 'proof'
>
> I'm not a denier at all. I didn't say it didn't happen, just that I
> don't know.
>
> ...
>
> > your unwillingness to admit the fact that evryone else seems to
> > admit--including your fellow liberals--shows you imply the notion is
> > ridiculous.
>
> Please cite a mainstream liberal politician referring in public to
> torture
> committed by mossad.
AI should be proof enough
>
> ...
> >
> > > Saying a particular viewpoint about aids
> > > (that's held by lots of conservative
> > > Christians such as Robertson and
> > > Hagee and Falwell) is Palinesque
> > > I find ok.
> >
> > I know--and your justification is hypocritical, since you would and do
> > defend democrats if _I_ make similar false, broadbrush statements
> > against them...or if i even mistakenly get a fact wrong.
>
> I can at least point out many of her political allies that have
> said these things, whereas you attribute to liberals all
> kinds of things that no mainstream figure ever says.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > You also call her stupid,
>
> She is stupid.
so is dean. Scuzzafava. Brazile. Pelosi, and so on
>
> > and imply she would believe things she has
> > never stated she believes.
> >
> > You demonize bush as a 'liar', yet I have yet to hear you demonize
> > johnson--the chief liberal president of the 20th century--for rigging
> > the Gulf of Tonkin incident to drag us into an escalation into viet nam,
> > a far more eggregious lie that cost 250k lives.
>
> Huh????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> You've got to be
> kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I spent a good bit of the 60s in
> anti-vietnam-war demonstrations, shouting
> "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
>
> I posted that several times, including in a thread
> called "vince: fitna", which from its title you must have read.
I didn't say you supported viet nam; i said I have never heard you
demonize LBJ as a much more eggregious liar than bush ever was, which is
the case
Rob Strom
> > statements
> > about her, and she *is* stupid.
>
> I think scuzzafava is stupid, so I guess it's ok if I tell people she's
> stupid, and therefore it is not LH, right?
Just be prepared to back it up.
...
>
> I understand that's your logic, but it falls short because Orwell is
> heralded universally when 'orwellian' type themes come up, beceause he
> originated/popularized many of these themes. Palin hasn't originated
> anything,
Huh??? She's out-Quayled Quayle as far as VP cluelessness goes.
...
>
> The aids comment technically was not originated by her, cannot be tied
> to her, and so is wrong to be connected to her name
So you want me to say you're in John Hagee territory?
...
>
> > > So I imply Scuzzafava would support concentration camps run by liberals.
>
> > What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
>
> gay marriage. Extreme as you can get
Not as extreme as concentration camps, since fewer people
get gassed to death in gay marriages, I should think.
...
>
> > Exorcism in the Bible?
>
> > I don't know of a single passage in the (Jewish) Bible that talks
> > about exorcism.
>
> Read david playing for saul
There was no exorcism there.
>
>
>
> > I'll concede that the passage about the sotah ritual is weird, and
> > nobody
> > I know from Orthodox to Reform believes that such a ritual works as
> > literally described.
> > But that's not an exorcism, and I stand by my position that this is
> > not Biblical.
>
> it is NT biblical, and so it is biblical
You were talking about Chasidim; even if the NT were biblical,
the Chasidim wouldn't accept it.
>
>
>
> > A good argument could be made that the Bible *forbids* such things.
>
> No--not at all. Not even slightly
Do not learn to o the revolting practices of those nations.
Sounds like exorcism would be included among that.
Don't use witchcraft or incantations, ditto.
...
> > > > in ancient or medieval times believing in them can
> > > > be more excused, because we knew less then.
> > > > As you know, the Chasidim are an extreme and
> > > > much more mystical branch of Orthodox Jews,
> > > > much as the Pentecostalists are extreme
> > > > branches of Christians.
>
> > > At least they and we believe the BIBLE! You show you do not.
>
> > Huh??????
>
> > Please quote something from the BIBLE that says exorcisms are OK.
> > (that is, the Jewish Bible, the only one that Chasidim accept).
>
> The bible does not end with the OT
>
You were talking about Chasidim and the rebbe, so for them absolutely
the bible ends with the OT.
...
>
> > You're not inhibited from saying we're all hell-bound,
> > so why should I be inhibited from saying that
> > exorcism is superstitious and ignorant?
>
> Uh, cuz you, as a liberal, SHOULD believe in sensitivity and political
> correctness??
>
> Or are you just like us?
I'm *better* than you.
>
> In other words, I perceive liberals as constantly touting themselves as
> more moral than conservatives,
they are.
> so why don't you display a more noble
> example personally?
That doesn't mean we are mealy-mouthed and defer to
conservatives' oversensitive feelings.
...
>
> > Evidence counts, not people's opinions.
>
> Dude-AI is internationally respected by liberal human rights people as a
> civil rights organization, and if their word and 'evidence; isn't good
> enough for you--whose would be?
Oh, something like a trial, where people on both sides can
present evidence, and we can judge.
...
> > Please cite a mainstream liberal politician referring in public to
> > torture
> > committed by mossad.
>
> AI should be proof enough
I went to AI's site, looked for "mossad torture" keywords. Got
several
hits, but couldn't find one where an individual was alleged to be
tortured *by* mossad. Since this is so widely known, perhaps
you can give me the cite.
...
>
> > > You also call her stupid,
>
> > She is stupid.
>
> so is dean.
No. Dean's a doctor with impeccable grasp of the issues.
Palin is all about how she's an expert on russia because alaska is so
close.
...
> > I spent a good bit of the 60s in
> > anti-vietnam-war demonstrations, shouting
> > "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
>
> > I posted that several times, including in a thread
> > called "vince: fitna", which from its title you must have read.
>
> I didn't say you supported viet nam; i said I have never heard you
> demonize LBJ as a much more eggregious liar than bush ever was, which is
> the case
He was a liar. Was he a worse liar than Bush? I don't know.
LBJ lied about vietnam; Bush lied about Iraq's wmds, but
also about far more things, such as wiretapping.
In any case, I'm not sure you can complain I went easy
on LBJ calling him a babykiller versus calling bush a liar.
It has more to do with slogans. We happened to use
"bush lied, thousands died" versus
"hey hey lbj, how many kids did you kill today".
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 3, 8:25 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > > Palin is a political figure. It is not lh to make true negative
> > > statements
> > > about her, and she *is* stupid.
> >
> > I think scuzzafava is stupid, so I guess it's ok if I tell people she's
> > stupid, and therefore it is not LH, right?
>
> Just be prepared to back it up.
Fine. I'm getting from you that one may way what insulting things they
wish against someone if they can 'back them up' with rationale THEY
think is valid.
I hope you're not suggesting the criticizer must meet SOMEONE ELSE'S
criteria, because that would be patently unfair. (And obviously, you
don't meet mine about palin)
>
> ...
> >
> > I understand that's your logic, but it falls short because Orwell is
> > heralded universally when 'orwellian' type themes come up, beceause he
> > originated/popularized many of these themes. Palin hasn't originated
> > anything,
>
> Huh??? She's out-Quayled Quayle as far as VP cluelessness goes.
Her 'VP cluelessness' may justify your calling her 'stupid' in your
eyes, but don't begrudge my insulting and demeaning Scuzzafava if I have
my own reasons for disrespecting her
>
> ...
>
> >
> > The aids comment technically was not originated by her, cannot be tied
> > to her, and so is wrong to be connected to her name
>
> So you want me to say you're in John Hagee territory?
At least that would be accurate. I would not criticize you then because
he does believe that, and there may be at least some possibility of that
being true.
I can't say for sure one way or the other
>
> ...
> >
> > > > So I imply Scuzzafava would support concentration camps run by liberals.
> >
> > > What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
> >
> > gay marriage. Extreme as you can get
>
> Not as extreme as concentration camps, since fewer people
> get gassed to death in gay marriages, I should think.
Still an extreme perversion
>
> ...
> >
> > > Exorcism in the Bible?
> >
> > > I don't know of a single passage in the (Jewish) Bible that talks
> > > about exorcism.
> >
> > Read david playing for saul
>
> There was no exorcism there.
arguably there is, because the evil spirit would leave when david
played.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'll concede that the passage about the sotah ritual is weird, and
> > > nobody
> > > I know from Orthodox to Reform believes that such a ritual works as
> > > literally described.
> > > But that's not an exorcism, and I stand by my position that this is
> > > not Biblical.
> >
> > it is NT biblical, and so it is biblical
>
> You were talking about Chasidim; even if the NT were biblical,
> the Chasidim wouldn't accept it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > A good argument could be made that the Bible *forbids* such things.
> >
> > No--not at all. Not even slightly
>
> Do not learn to o the revolting practices of those nations.
> Sounds like exorcism would be included among that.
> Don't use witchcraft or incantations, ditto.
You are trying to force a new interpretation of that passage that no
orthodox jew or christian I know of has ever had of it. Bad idea
>
> ...
> > > > > in ancient or medieval times believing in them can
> > > > > be more excused, because we knew less then.
> > > > > As you know, the Chasidim are an extreme and
> > > > > much more mystical branch of Orthodox Jews,
> > > > > much as the Pentecostalists are extreme
> > > > > branches of Christians.
> >
> > > > At least they and we believe the BIBLE! You show you do not.
> >
> > > Huh??????
> >
> > > Please quote something from the BIBLE that says exorcisms are OK.
> > > (that is, the Jewish Bible, the only one that Chasidim accept).
> >
> > The bible does not end with the OT
> >
>
> You were talking about Chasidim and the rebbe, so for them absolutely
> the bible ends with the OT.
Then I don't have to quote the bible because THEY don't need a bible
quote. They believe in it by tradition. Go bash them if you wish
>
> ...
> >
> > > You're not inhibited from saying we're all hell-bound,
> > > so why should I be inhibited from saying that
> > > exorcism is superstitious and ignorant?
> >
> > Uh, cuz you, as a liberal, SHOULD believe in sensitivity and political
> > correctness??
> >
> > Or are you just like us?
>
> I'm *better* than you.
Not from where i stand
>
> >
> > In other words, I perceive liberals as constantly touting themselves as
> > more moral than conservatives,
>
> they are.
>
> > so why don't you display a more noble
> > example personally?
>
> That doesn't mean we are mealy-mouthed and defer to
> conservatives' oversensitive feelings.
Then don't hold yourselves up as more tolerant in comparison to our
intolerance. We're both intolerant; and we disagree on what tolerance
really is or should be.
I hear so much hate come out of the mouth of liberals.
Can't we all just get along?
>
> ...
> >
> > > Evidence counts, not people's opinions.
> >
> > Dude-AI is internationally respected by liberal human rights people as a
> > civil rights organization, and if their word and 'evidence; isn't good
> > enough for you--whose would be?
>
> Oh, something like a trial, where people on both sides can
> present evidence, and we can judge.
I guess you missed the quote from AI where they accuse the israeli SC of
ducking the issue and turning a blind eye to the torture.
So i guess that unless Roland Freisler finds the SS guilty of torture,
no one before the end of ww 2 should dogmatically say they are guilty of
torture before there is a legal trial, and both sides present their
evidence, right?
If I quoted FOX on it, you'd say it doesn't count. If I quote AI, the
most liberal human rights group around, THEY don't count.
No one counts in your world, apparently, unless a court rules against
your view...unless it's a slur against BUSH who hasn't been indicted or
tried on anything!
>
> ...
> > > Please cite a mainstream liberal politician referring in public to
> > > torture
> > > committed by mossad.
> >
> > AI should be proof enough
>
> I went to AI's site, looked for "mossad torture" keywords. Got
> several
> hits, but couldn't find one where an individual was alleged to be
> tortured *by* mossad. Since this is so widely known, perhaps
> you can give me the cite.
Well, according to some web sites, AI has this to say:
�There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained
torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,� �
Amnesty International.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
You'll again try to deny it, but I quoted you from their own site how
the SC over there is turning a blind eye to torture.
Still think Ziva David would admit to the torture, but justify it
>
> ...
> >
> > > > You also call her stupid,
> >
> > > She is stupid.
> >
> > so is dean.
>
> No. Dean's a doctor with impeccable grasp of the issues.
HA!
>
> Palin is all about how she's an expert on russia because alaska is so
> close.
Think she knows more about it than dean
>
> ...
>
> > > I spent a good bit of the 60s in
> > > anti-vietnam-war demonstrations, shouting
> > > "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
> >
> > > I posted that several times, including in a thread
> > > called "vince: fitna", which from its title you must have read.
> >
> > I didn't say you supported viet nam; i said I have never heard you
> > demonize LBJ as a much more eggregious liar than bush ever was, which is
> > the case
>
> He was a liar. Was he a worse liar than Bush? I don't know.
> LBJ lied about vietnam; Bush lied about Iraq's wmds, but
> also about far more things, such as wiretapping.
Let's measure the damage of bush vs LBJ
LBJ and his policies have nearly destroiyed this country, and in a sense
they did
Rob Strom
>
> Fine. I'm getting from you that one may way what insulting things they
> wish against someone if they can 'back them up' with rationale THEY
> think is valid.
It's the whole evidence thing.
It's ok to attack political figures (not "insult"), if you can back it
up.
It's not ok if you just make stuff up like republicans do.
...
>
> > So you want me to say you're in John Hagee territory?
>
> At least that would be accurate. I would not criticize you then because
> he does believe that, and there may be at least some possibility of that
> being true.
>
It's not true that aids is God's punishment, but it is true
that John Hagee thinks that.
...
> > > > What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
>
> > > gay marriage. Extreme as you can get
>
> > Not as extreme as concentration camps, since fewer people
> > get gassed to death in gay marriages, I should think.
>
> Still an extreme perversion
No. And definitely not "extreme as you can get".
People don't die from gay marriages.
...
>
> > > Read david playing for saul
>
> > There was no exorcism there.
>
> arguably there is, because the evil spirit would leave when david
> played.
What verses are you talking about?
In 1 Samuel 18 and 19, it was the other way around. David was
sitting there playing the lyre and God sent the evil spirit.
"And on the morrow an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul,
and he raved within his house,
**while David was playing the lyre**, as he did day by day"
>
...
>
> > Do not learn to o the revolting practices of those nations.
> > Sounds like exorcism would be included among that.
> > Don't use witchcraft or incantations, ditto.
>
> You are trying to force a new interpretation of that passage that no
> orthodox jew or christian I know of has ever had of it. Bad idea
Huh? Don't do weird superstitious stuff is
a new interpretation of that passage?
...
>
> > You were talking about Chasidim and the rebbe, so for them absolutely
> > the bible ends with the OT.
>
> Then I don't have to quote the bible because THEY don't need a bible
> quote. They believe in it by tradition. Go bash them if you wish
It's unbiblical.
...
> > That doesn't mean we are mealy-mouthed and defer to
> > conservatives' oversensitive feelings.
>
> Then don't hold yourselves up as more tolerant in comparison to our
> intolerance. We're both intolerant; and we disagree on what tolerance
> really is or should be.
I'm not intolerant. It doesn't mean I have to use euphemisms
to spare your feelings when I debate it.
It just means that I agree freedom of religion allows
you to have your crazy views.
>
> I hear so much hate come out of the mouth of liberals.
>
> Can't we all just get along?
Funny, I've been hearing from you lots about
how liberals are hell-bound and perverted,
so why should I be gentle with you?
...
>
> I guess you missed the quote from AI where they accuse the israeli SC of
> ducking the issue and turning a blind eye to the torture.
>
You were going to supply such a quote.
...
>
> If I quoted FOX on it, you'd say it doesn't count. If I quote AI, the
> most liberal human rights group around, THEY don't count.
You didn't quote AI.
> ...
>
> Well, according to some web sites, AI has this to say:
>
> “There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained
> torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,” –
> Amnesty International.
>
> http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
Huh??? You think that's an AI website?????????????????????????
Rehmat's Blooming World is an AI website?????????????????????????????
They are NOT an AI website. They're a major offthewall crazy
website, and anything they claimed AI said I'd have to check 10 times,
and so should you. And even the quote they made said nothing
about Mossad.
These folks who call Israel the "Zionist Entity" (shades of 1960s,
when Israel was in a state of permanent war and all
these nations' policies were to believe that Israel
had no right to any territory and were to be pushed into the sea)?
The same article that quoted another source saying that 9/11
was an Israeli-sponsored fake?
The article that can't mention the (moonie-owned) Washington
Times without calling it the "Jewish-owned" Washington Times?????
This is an example of your scholarship???????????????????????
...
>
> Let's measure the damage of bush vs LBJ
>
> LBJ and his policies have nearly destroiyed this country, and in a sense
> they did
>
Civil Rights Act? Oh yes, that pushed your buddies
the Southern Democrats into the arms of the Republicans.
I don't think LBJ was as bad as Bush, but that wasn't the point.
The point was you have to retract your claim that I didn't
attack LBJ for getting us into war by lies, since I demonstrated
equally fervently against both LBJ's and Bush's
wars, and made no secret of
my history as an anti-war protestor in my usenet posts.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 4, 7:46 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > > Just be prepared to back it up.
> >
> > Fine. I'm getting from you that one may way what insulting things they
> > wish against someone if they can 'back them up' with rationale THEY
> > think is valid.
>
> It's the whole evidence thing.
>
> It's ok to attack political figures (not "insult"), if you can back it
> up.
>
> It's not ok if you just make stuff up like republicans do.
I don't think liberals are above that. I hear personal attacks against
palin on a daily basis by liberal announcers and some posters here
>
> ...
> >
> > > So you want me to say you're in John Hagee territory?
> >
> > At least that would be accurate. I would not criticize you then because
> > he does believe that, and there may be at least some possibility of that
> > being true.
> >
>
> It's not true that aids is God's punishment, but it is true
> that John Hagee thinks that.
Glad you can speak for God, but I will not confirm or deny his view
since he may or may not be right
>
> ...
>
> > > > > What other beliefs actually held by Scozzafava are similarly extreme?
> >
> > > > gay marriage. Extreme as you can get
> >
> > > Not as extreme as concentration camps, since fewer people
> > > get gassed to death in gay marriages, I should think.
> >
> > Still an extreme perversion
>
> No. And definitely not "extreme as you can get".
>
> People don't die from gay marriages.
They'll sure go to hell for it! (I know--you deny that)
>
> ...
> >
> > > > Read david playing for saul
> >
> > > There was no exorcism there.
> >
> > arguably there is, because the evil spirit would leave when david
> > played.
>
> What verses are you talking about?
14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit
from the LORD troubled him.
15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from
God troubleth thee.
16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek
out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to
pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play
with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play
well, and bring him to me.
18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a
son of Jesse the Beth-lehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty
valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely
person, and the LORD is with him.
19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David
thy son, which is with the sheep.
20 And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a
kid, and sent them by David his son unto Saul.
21 And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him
greatly; and he became his armourbearer.
22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before
me; for he hath found favour in my sight.
23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul,
that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was
refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
>
> In 1 Samuel 18 and 19, it was the other way around. David was
> sitting there playing the lyre and God sent the evil spirit.
>
> "And on the morrow an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul,
> and he raved within his house,
> **while David was playing the lyre**, as he did day by day"
>
> >
> ...
> >
> > > Do not learn to o the revolting practices of those nations.
> > > Sounds like exorcism would be included among that.
> > > Don't use witchcraft or incantations, ditto.
> >
> > You are trying to force a new interpretation of that passage that no
> > orthodox jew or christian I know of has ever had of it. Bad idea
>
> Huh? Don't do weird superstitious stuff is
> a new interpretation of that passage?
Saying it forbids exorcism is 'new'
>
> ...
> >
> > > You were talking about Chasidim and the rebbe, so for them absolutely
> > > the bible ends with the OT.
> >
> > Then I don't have to quote the bible because THEY don't need a bible
> > quote. They believe in it by tradition. Go bash them if you wish
>
> It's unbiblical.
no. OJs do not teach it is unbiblical. YOU may
>
> ...
>
> > > That doesn't mean we are mealy-mouthed and defer to
> > > conservatives' oversensitive feelings.
> >
> > Then don't hold yourselves up as more tolerant in comparison to our
> > intolerance. We're both intolerant; and we disagree on what tolerance
> > really is or should be.
>
> I'm not intolerant. It doesn't mean I have to use euphemisms
> to spare your feelings when I debate it.
>
> It just means that I agree freedom of religion allows
> you to have your crazy views.
>
> >
> > I hear so much hate come out of the mouth of liberals.
> >
> > Can't we all just get along?
>
> Funny, I've been hearing from you lots about
> how liberals are hell-bound and perverted,
> so why should I be gentle with you?
I was mocking liberals whining about the 'hate' of conservatives
>
> ...
> >
> > I guess you missed the quote from AI where they accuse the israeli SC of
> > ducking the issue and turning a blind eye to the torture.
> >
>
> You were going to supply such a quote.
think I did in the very first time i brought this up and gave a link to
AI's web site where it says that
>
> ...
>
> >
> > If I quoted FOX on it, you'd say it doesn't count. If I quote AI, the
> > most liberal human rights group around, THEY don't count.
>
> You didn't quote AI.
did so
>
> > ...
> >
> > Well, according to some web sites, AI has this to say:
> >
> > �There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained
> > torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,� �
> > Amnesty International.
> >
> > http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
>
> Huh??? You think that's an AI website?????????????????????????
no--it cites that from AI, Other sites do too
>
> Rehmat's Blooming World is an AI website?????????????????????????????
>
> They are NOT an AI website. They're a major offthewall crazy
> website, and anything they claimed AI said I'd have to check 10 times,
> and so should you. And even the quote they made said nothing
> about Mossad.
>
> These folks who call Israel the "Zionist Entity" (shades of 1960s,
> when Israel was in a state of permanent war and all
> these nations' policies were to believe that Israel
> had no right to any territory and were to be pushed into the sea)?
>
> The same article that quoted another source saying that 9/11
> was an Israeli-sponsored fake?
>
> The article that can't mention the (moonie-owned) Washington
> Times without calling it the "Jewish-owned" Washington Times?????
>
> This is an example of your scholarship???????????????????????
>
> ...
> >
> > Let's measure the damage of bush vs LBJ
> >
> > LBJ and his policies have nearly destroiyed this country, and in a sense
> > they did
> >
>
> Civil Rights Act? Oh yes, that pushed your buddies
> the Southern Democrats into the arms of the Republicans.
>
> I don't think LBJ was as bad as Bush,
Then you're really in fantasyland
but that wasn't the point.
> The point was you have to retract your claim that I didn't
> attack LBJ for getting us into war by lies, since I demonstrated
> equally fervently against both LBJ's and Bush's
> wars, and made no secret of
> my history as an anti-war protestor in my usenet posts.
No. I said I have yet to hear you demonize him as a liar as you do bush.
Since I mentioned this, you now are. Prior, i don't remember hearing you
bring up HIS lies; just bush's and the republicans
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> palin on a daily basis by liberal announcers and some posters here
Uh, she made up stuff about "death panels" and "palling around with
terrorists" and lots more.
...
>
> > It's not true that aids is God's punishment, but it is true
> > that John Hagee thinks that.
>
> Glad you can speak for God, but I will not confirm or deny his view
> since he may or may not be right
God is in fact right, but why would He punish mostly
heterosexuals in Africa for alleged sins of homosexuals?
...
>
> > No. And definitely not "extreme as you can get".
>
> > People don't die from gay marriages.
>
> They'll sure go to hell for it! (I know--you deny that)
Actually they don't go to hell for it, and it's outrageous
that you think that it is worse than torturing and killing
people.
...
>
> > > arguably there is, because the evil spirit would leave when david
> > > played.
>
> > What verses are you talking about?
> ...
> 23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul,
> that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was
> refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
Well I wouldn't exactly call that an exorcism, and especially
not in view of the fact that in the later chapters, the evil spirit
went out of its way to come when David *was* playing.
...
>
>
> > In 1 Samuel 18 and 19, it was the other way around. David was
> > sitting there playing the lyre and God sent the evil spirit.
> > "And on the morrow an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul,
> > and he raved within his house,
> > **while David was playing the lyre**, as he did day by day"
See?
You were *expressing* the hate of conservatives.
...
...
>
>
>
> > > ...
>
> > > Well, according to some web sites, AI has this to say:
>
> > > “There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained
> > > torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,” –
> > > Amnesty International.
>
> > >http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
>
> > Huh??? You think that's an AI website?????????????????????????
>
> no--it cites that from AI, Other sites do too
>
I wouldn't trust that website no matter what it said.
I'm astounded that you would be reading much less relying on that
website!
...
> > The point was you have to retract your claim that I didn't
> > attack LBJ for getting us into war by lies, since I demonstrated
> > equally fervently against both LBJ's and Bush's
> > wars, and made no secret of
> > my history as an anti-war protestor in my usenet posts.
>
> No. I said I have yet to hear you demonize him as a liar as you do bush.
> Since I mentioned this, you now are. Prior, i don't remember hearing you
> bring up HIS lies; just bush's and the republicans
>
That's because there was no internet during the Vietnam war, and
there was one during Bush's dark times. So I'd obviously
be talking more about current events and my reactions to them
than to my past. But the fact is that while I generally admired
LBJ, I attacked him mercilessly about Vietnam and was
delighted when he announced he wasn't running again,
and I was eager to have anyone but Humphrey running
for President in 1968. So there it is.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"Shrimps don't carve vegetables into the form of human hands and
feet and show delight in them when they eat them."
Okay, you don't understand. Never mind...
"Jesus never said we're under a new covenant; he said
the existing law will not pass until heaven and earth pass."
Jesus himself said he was making a new covenant. He began celebrating that
even before he died. But it was a celebration of his death, indicating that
the new covenant was to begin after his death.
> > Acts 10:14 But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything
> > that
> > is common or unclean."
> > 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has
> > cleansed,
> > you must not call common."
> This account suggests that for the first time Peter began to understand
> that
> prohibitions under the Law were no longer applicable, because the Law had
> been trumped by the death and atonement of Jesus.
"You're making that up from your own views; the text doesn't say that."
No, that is both the text and the context.
Acts 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons
gathered;
28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew
to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown
me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
> God judges sinners, whether homosexuals or simple liars.
"But you're assuming that homosexuals are sinning."
The Law condemns male-male relations. The account of creation in Genesis
specifies male-female relations only. Paul in the NT corroborates this. Rob
doesn't get it.
"And the people who are saying AIDS is a punishment from
God are the most ungodly of people...."
Not at all. We must abide by God's judgment, and not presume to judge only
on our own. It is God who is the just judge, and not we ourselves. Unless we
have divine revelation we will indeed by ungodly, judgmental judges.
"But what does that have to do with loving gay relationships being a
sin?"
Gay love is at best a hybrid of true love and lust. This kind of mix is a
poison, even if there is some real human love in it.
"You keep assuming that that is true, rather than demonstrating
that it is true!"
God said it is true that homosexuality (of any kind) is a sin. And the proof
comes when we observe the fruit of gay relationships, which is often
characterized by multiple affairs, multiple breakups, and of course, the
AIDs epidemic.
> Paul in Romans 1 taught about homosexuality in a *negative* way. It was
> either in favor or it, or to tolerate it.
"It is negative in the sense that if you were born heterosexual,
being turned into a homosexual
such as Paul describes would be a punishment."
*Everybody* is born a heterosexual. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle
that a heterosexual chooses to be. The lie is the assumption that people are
*born* to be either homosexual or heterosexual.
> It includes uncovering someone to have intimate relations, and yes, that
> means anal sex or anything that happens after disrobing.
"It doesn't refer to everything that happens after disrobing."
That is what the Scriptures say about illicit sexual behaviors. It doesn't
say that it's okay to play around with your sister or neice. It says that
*any* form of incest is wrong, and is described in the euphemism of
"disrobing," or "looking upon nakedness," or "embaraassing your relatives."
> The NT Scriptures have a morality that is based on Moses' morality. Sexual
> uncleanness is virtually identical, although it is banned under a
> different
> covenant.
"Then why don't Christians use the mikvah after their periods and
forbid sex or even touching until after she has returned from the
mikvah?"
Ceremonial law is no longer in play under a *new* covenant. Only human
morality remains.
> > I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age
> > do
> > indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex.
> "Where do you get that?"
> Biology 101.
"I don't believe you. If this is really true,
please cite the author, title, and publisher
of the Biology 101 text you are using,
and quote the page where it says that people
who are homosexual even from early age
begin with a predisposition to the opposite sex.
Otherwise, please retract."
Biology 101 is my abbreviated way of saying that simple biology will tell
you the difference between a human male and a human female. We know what is
necessary for reproduction. And this, when put together with the Genesis
account of filling the earth via male-female relations, makes it clear that
God's intended order for marriage is male-female--not male-male, or
female-female. I have no need to retract something so utterly obvious!!
> No, that's what I'm disputing. I'm saying that S&G was directly linked to
> the expressed desire on the behalf of the inhabitants of Sodom to have
> homosexual sex with the angelic visitors. And Paul explicitly referenced
> this when he said that homosexuals receive the "due penalty" of their
> choice
> for aberrant behavior.
"Please cite where Paul *explicitly* referenced this.
(Of course S&G was about *violent, nonconsensual* sex, which
was the main point, not homosexual sex per se.)"
Paul did not reference *violent* homosexual behavior. He referenced
homosexual behavior in itself, which he referred to as "unnatural
relationships."
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with
men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This is only talking about lust, or passion. It is not talking about
violence.
> You're missing the *intent* of the writer, which was not to explain how to
> specifically "slaughter" an animal, but rather, how to *approach*
> slaughtering animals for food. It could be done outside of Jerusalem if it
> was not for ceremonial purposes. But it still had to be done *without
> blood
> in it.*
"You keep leaving out the explicit text that said
"... only slaughter [them] in the manner I have prescribed"."
I am not leaving it out. I am commenting on it. If you don't understand the
intent of the writer, you don't understand the context. And if you don't
understand the context, then you don't know what the writer was saying. He
was not talking about how to slaughter the animal, in terms of putting the
animal to death. He was talking about how to treat an animal that was to be
slaughtered, to eat it without its blood still in it.
"When the text doesn't say what you want, you pretend
that some other text was the real "intent" of the writer."
I'm not pretending in the least. That's what the passage says!...
Deut 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat flesh within any of your
towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God
which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the
gazelle and as of the hart. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall
pour it out upon the earth like water."
"In any case, the disciple/apostles made lots of mistakes
up to the very days of Jesus' death, so it's stretching
matters beyond what I'm willing to stretch to imagine
that they suddenly became infallible interpreters
afterwards."
As I said, the disciples of Jesus were called to be apostles when they were
quite young. They made lots of mistakes, like we all do. Spirituality is
something that you grow in. Apostleship began as discipleship and matured
with time. What was most reliable was the testimony of what *Jesus himself*
taught. All apostolic revelation is based on the life and spirituality of
Jesus, and necessarily agrees with his message.
> ...Jesus' earthly existance consisted of living
> under the Law, and dying under the Law, to free men from the guilt
> associated with the Law.
"This makes no sense."
Actually it does, if you think about it. Jesus lived side by side the Law as
a system. He was a system, and the Law was a system. What he lived was a
picture of what men had been living under the Law. It was a human experience
of mortality, a living under harsh circumstances, and then death.
But Jesus was a distinct system from the Law, and offered a distinct
spirituality that operated apart from this natural law we call "mortality."
By following Jesus, and accepting his spirituality, we operate under the
principles of his life, as it works out in our mortal existence. When Jesus'
spirituality touches the mortal existence of a Christian disciple, he is
regenerated spirituality, and begins to demonstrate Christ's own character
traits. Ultimately, it gives him positive assurance that as Jesus had power
over death, so also he will be raised from the dead.
"Jesus said the Law wouldn't pass away until heaven
and earth had passed away."
On the contrary, he said the temple system would be destroyed, which is what
the Law was! It would happen in his generation. And the temple veil itself
was torn at his death. What he said was that time itself could never be
consummated without the purpose of the Law being fulfilled, which was to
justify Israel, and to save her from her sin. Jesus did this on the cross,
by expressing his unmitigated forgiveness for her sin, and by offering her a
spirituality that brings life from the dead.
Let me just say this, for purposes of clarification. Jesus wasn't just
saying that the statutes under the Law would remain forever. Rather, he was
saying that forgiveness for breaking every law under the Law would become
permanent, in the introduction of a system that acknowledges that no more
forgiveness is necessary.
After all, many of the laws had to do with forgiveness and redemption. If
this redemption was complete, and forgiveness was no longer necessary, these
laws no longer needed to be maintained. What Jesus was calling for was a
complete new lease on life, that no longer required the Law as a system of
redemption, because in his own spirituality redemption would already have
been completed.
Jesus said that not one "jot or tittle" would be abridged until all was
"fulfilled." What Jesus meant was that every single law would be forgiven,
so that unless this forgiveness is pursued sinners would find no way into
the kingdom of heaven. But this kind of comprehensive forgiveness was the
only way the Law could be fulfilled, along with its promise of Israeli
salvation.
> Relying on apostles to teach
> this new theology is no different than Moses teaching Israel the Law, with
> the help of divine revelation.
"Moses had gotten it directly from God; the apostles hadn't."
The apostles got it from Jesus, and Jesus was the Son of God, ie God in the
flesh.
"No, it's just choosing a *partner* of the same sex, not
an "order". You're making up all this order nonsense
and doing it in a way for your conclusion to come out
right, namely that homosexuals are creating a new
order, whereas singles are just choosing for themselves."
Genesis 1 is quite explicit about the "order" I'm describing. The order
given there is male-female, and it is the only sexual order allowed, since
that is the same order by which the world is to be filled with people.
"I could equally well reverse it, saying that singles are
overturning the order that says everyone has sex,
and most of them have male-female sex, by
creating an order of their own..."
You cannot do that because there is no order for universal participation in
reproduction by sexual means alone. You could just as well participate in
God's plan by encouraging others to marry and have children. However, if
sexuality is engaged in at all, it is specified as male-female--nothing
more.
> Single people can serve as marriage counselors, or as theologians,
> encouraging people to get married and raise families in a godly way.
"So can gays."
But they violate the male-female order of sexuality. That is the only
specified order by which encouragement can take place.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "Shrimps don't carve vegetables into the form of human hands and
> feet and show delight in them when they eat them."
>
> Okay, you don't understand. Never mind...
You were trying to explain how it is that Christians
eat shrimp even though the Bible says that they're
abominations. You said it's because they
are a "designed typology". I assumed that by "they" you
meant the shrimp, not the Christians (it's often
hard to understand what you mean).
Anyhow this is one more example of how any Biblical
law you want to break you can say it's symbolic,
or a typology, or whatever, and laws you
want to enforce you say they're in the order of things.
If homosexual sex violates God's "natural order",
then so does eating shrimp, typology or not.
>
> "Jesus never said we're under a new covenant; he said
> the existing law will not pass until heaven and earth pass."
>
> Jesus himself said he was making a new covenant.
No he didn't; he said he didn't come to annul the law.
...
>
> "You're making that up from your own views; the text doesn't say that."
>
> No, that is both the text and the context.
> Acts 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons
> gathered;
> 28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew
> to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown
> me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
Peter was wrong.
>
> > God judges sinners, whether homosexuals or simple liars.
>
> "But you're assuming that homosexuals are sinning."
>
> The Law condemns male-male relations.
No, only anal sex, and only between Jews.
> The account of creation in Genesis
> specifies male-female relations only. Paul in the NT corroborates this. Rob
> doesn't get it.
The account of creation doesn't talk about limiting what kinds of sex
can be had. And in fact, the natural world has lots of different
kinds of sex.
>
> "And the people who are saying AIDS is a punishment from
> God are the most ungodly of people...."
>
> Not at all. We must abide by God's judgment, and not presume to judge only
> on our own. It is God who is the just judge, and not we ourselves. Unless we
> have divine revelation we will indeed by ungodly, judgmental judges.
I was talking about people like Hagee, who is indeed a most ungodly
person
who is absolutely the last person on earth to be pontificating
about other people's sexual behavior, given that he explicitly
violated Jesus' commandment not to divorce and remarry,
and is unrepentantly living with his mistress to this day.
>
> "But what does that have to do with loving gay relationships being a
> sin?"
>
> Gay love is at best a hybrid of true love and lust. This kind of mix is a
> poison, even if there is some real human love in it.
That is a generalization, and apparently can apply as well
to Hagee's heterosexual relationship, which Jesus
explicitly described as adultery.
...
>
> God said it is true that homosexuality (of any kind) is a sin. And the proof
> comes when we observe the fruit of gay relationships, which is often
> characterized by multiple affairs, multiple breakups, and of course, the
> AIDs epidemic.
Not "of course" at all.
The fruit of heterosexual relationships is shown in the same way,
and before penicillin, was characterized by the syphilis epidemic.
>
> > Paul in Romans 1 taught about homosexuality in a *negative* way. It was
> > either in favor or it, or to tolerate it.
>
> "It is negative in the sense that if you were born heterosexual,
> being turned into a homosexual
> such as Paul describes would be a punishment."
>
> *Everybody* is born a heterosexual. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle
> that a heterosexual chooses to be. The lie is the assumption that people are
> *born* to be either homosexual or heterosexual.
Why is that a lie? You're just making stuff up again!
I might as well say that everybody is born a Democrat, and
Republicanism is just a deviant lifestyle that demon-indwelt
Democrats choose to take on.
...
>
> That is what the Scriptures say about illicit sexual behaviors. It doesn't
> say that it's okay to play around with your sister or neice. It says that
> *any* form of incest is wrong, and is described in the euphemism of
> "disrobing," or "looking upon nakedness," or "embaraassing your relatives."
Homosexuality is not described as a kind of incest.
...
>
> "Then why don't Christians use the mikvah after their periods and
> forbid sex or even touching until after she has returned from the
> mikvah?"
>
> Ceremonial law is no longer in play under a *new* covenant. Only human
> morality remains.
Once again, every time you feel like ignoring a command of the
written Bible, you call it "ceremonial" instead of "moral".
Only when you want to condemn others, you call it moral.
>
> > > I don't agree at all. People who become homosexual at a very young age
> > > do
> > > indeed have a predisposition towards the opposite sex.
> > "Where do you get that?"
> > Biology 101.
>
> "I don't believe you. If this is really true,
> please cite the author, title, and publisher
> of the Biology 101 text you are using,
> and quote the page where it says that people
> who are homosexual even from early age
> begin with a predisposition to the opposite sex.
> Otherwise, please retract."
>
> Biology 101 is my abbreviated way of saying that simple biology will tell
> you the difference between a human male and a human female.
In short, you didn't get it from any biology course, which doesn't
surprise me, since I think I know tons more biology than you.
You just make stuff up and when called upon to explain how
you got it, you just say it's obvious, or it's the natural order,
or it comes from simple biology, when in fact you don't
have any command of simple biology.
The fact is, that the difference between homosexuals and
heterosexuals is not at all a matter of simple biology.
We do know that homosexuality is prevalent in nature
in other species -- i.e. not a "choice", because many
of these species don't have the level of conscious
understanding necessary to make "choices". We
do know that there are differences in brain
structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
We have a lot of indirect evidence that some
of these differences are manifest at ages
much earlier than the age of sexual awareness.
We're not sure what all the factors are, how
many of them are heritable and how many
of them are from prenatal environment and
how many of them are from later environment.
In short, it is not simple biology at all, but you
claim, without opening a book at all,
that if I were to open a book I would see
it all right away. Fooey.
> We know what is
> necessary for reproduction. And this, when put together with the Genesis
> account of filling the earth via male-female relations, makes it clear that
> God's intended order for marriage is male-female--not male-male, or
> female-female. I have no need to retract something so utterly obvious!!
It's not obvious at all.
You just can't argue at all! For singles, it's ok for some people
to *not* contribute to reproduction. But somehow it's ***obvious***
that the homosexual way of not contributing to reproduction is
not ok. Fooey again.
...
>
> "Please cite where Paul *explicitly* referenced this.
> (Of course S&G was about *violent, nonconsensual* sex, which
> was the main point, not homosexual sex per se.)"
>
> Paul did not reference *violent* homosexual behavior. He referenced
> homosexual behavior in itself, which he referred to as "unnatural
> relationships."
I don't see the word Sodom there.
And he referred to homosexual relationships in the context of
***penalty***.
>
> Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
> Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
> 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
> consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with
> men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
>
> This is only talking about lust, or passion. It is not talking about
> violence.
He isn't talking about Sodom at all, which originally you said he was.
He is talking about
************************idolatry*****************************.
And he is talking about turning people to homosexuals as
a ***************************************due
penalty**********************************.
And anyway he's Paul, who isn't any kind of authority on what's right
and wrong!
...
>
> "You keep leaving out the explicit text that said
> "... only slaughter [them] in the manner I have prescribed"."
>
> I am not leaving it out. I am commenting on it. If you don't understand the
> intent of the writer, you don't understand the context. And if you don't
> understand the context, then you don't know what the writer was saying. He
> was not talking about how to slaughter the animal, in terms of putting the
> animal to death. He was talking about how to treat an animal that was to be
> slaughtered, to eat it without its blood still in it.
>
> "When the text doesn't say what you want, you pretend
> that some other text was the real "intent" of the writer."
>
> I'm not pretending in the least. That's what the passage says!...
> Deut 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat flesh within any of your
> towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God
> which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the
> gazelle and as of the hart. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall
> pour it out upon the earth like water."
How about quoting the text of the ACTUAL PASSAGE
WE WERE DISCUSSING??????????????
... 12:21:
Since the place chosen by God your Lord to be dedicated to His name is
far,
you need ****only slaughter your cattle and small animals that God
will have given you in the manner that I have prescribed.****
You may then eat them in your settlements in any manner you desire.
Which is very clearly talking about RESTRICTIONS IN THE SLAUGHTER,
not in the EATING!!!!!
>
> "In any case, the disciple/apostles made lots of mistakes
> up to the very days of Jesus' death, so it's stretching
> matters beyond what I'm willing to stretch to imagine
> that they suddenly became infallible interpreters
> afterwards."
>
> As I said, the disciples of Jesus were called to be apostles when they were
> quite young. They made lots of mistakes, like we all do.
And they continued to do so.
> Spirituality is
> something that you grow in. Apostleship began as discipleship and matured
> with time.
It started with gross imperfection, and developed into lesser
imperfection. It didn't develop into being as infallible
as the Pope supposedly is.
...
> > ...Jesus' earthly existance consisted of living
> > under the Law, and dying under the Law, to free men from the guilt
> > associated with the Law.
>
> "This makes no sense."
>
> Actually it does, if you think about it. Jesus lived side by side the Law as
> a system. He was a system,
???
> and the Law was a system. What he lived was a
> picture of what men had been living under the Law. It was a human experience
> of mortality, a living under harsh circumstances, and then death.
>
> But Jesus was a distinct system from the Law, and offered a distinct
> spirituality that operated apart from this natural law we call "mortality."
We don't call the natural law "mortality".
> By following Jesus, and accepting his spirituality, we operate under the
> principles of his life, as it works out in our mortal existence. When Jesus'
> spirituality touches the mortal existence of a Christian disciple, he is
> regenerated spirituality, and begins to demonstrate Christ's own character
> traits.
As Hagee does?????????????????????? Fooey.
...
>
> "Jesus said the Law wouldn't pass away until heaven
> and earth had passed away."
>
> On the contrary, he said the temple system would be destroyed, which is what
> the Law was!
No. He said the Law
****************************wouldn't****************************
be destroyed. You keep leaving out the NOT in that
passage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>...
>
> Let me just say this, for purposes of clarification. Jesus wasn't just
> saying that the statutes under the Law would remain forever. Rather, he was
> saying that forgiveness for breaking every law under the Law would become
> permanent, in the introduction of a system that acknowledges that no more
> forgiveness is necessary.
We've been through this. You had agreed that you
*********do**********
still need to be forgiven for breaches of laws. That the forgiveness
from Jesus was a first forgiveness and everyone had to have the
second forgiveness anyway.
Don't turn back on the things you've already agreed to.
...
> Jesus said that not one "jot or tittle" would be abridged until all was
> "fulfilled." What Jesus meant was that every single law would be forgiven,
> so that unless this forgiveness is pursued sinners would find no way into
> the kingdom of heaven. But this kind of comprehensive forgiveness was the
> only way the Law could be fulfilled, along with its promise of Israeli
> salvation.
It still meant that every single Law was still in force and had to be
obeyed.
...
>
> "Moses had gotten it directly from God; the apostles hadn't."
>
> The apostles got it from Jesus, and Jesus was the Son of God, ie God in the
> flesh.
??? Huh????
We've been discussing this for years and most of the people
in this newsgroup have agreed that the term "son of God"
does not mean "God in the flesh".
>
> "No, it's just choosing a *partner* of the same sex, not
> an "order". You're making up all this order nonsense
> and doing it in a way for your conclusion to come out
> right, namely that homosexuals are creating a new
> order, whereas singles are just choosing for themselves."
>
> Genesis 1 is quite explicit about the "order" I'm describing. The order
> given there is male-female, and it is the only sexual order allowed, since
> that is the same order by which the world is to be filled with people.
Genesis is quite explicit about reproduction being a commandment
too, but you say it only applies statistically and not 100% of the
people have to do it.
>
> "I could equally well reverse it, saying that singles are
> overturning the order that says everyone has sex,
> and most of them have male-female sex, by
> creating an order of their own..."
>
> You cannot do that because there is no order for universal participation in
> reproduction by sexual means alone. You could just as well participate in
> God's plan by encouraging others to marry and have children. However, if
> sexuality is engaged in at all, it is specified as male-female--nothing
> more.
Nothing in the Bible says that.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"You were trying to explain how it is that Christians
eat shrimp even though the Bible says that they're
abominations. You said it's because they
are a "designed typology". I assumed that by "they" you
meant the shrimp, not the Christians (it's often
hard to understand what you mean)."
Nothing I said here was hard to understand. Shrimp, like scavengers in
general, typify uncleanness, because they eat dead, bacteria-infected
creatures. Vultures were prohibited in Israel's diet, as were eagles,
seagulls, etc.
"If homosexual sex violates God's "natural order",
then so does eating shrimp, typology or not."
Sexuality of deviant types had universal condemnation, outside of the Law
and within the Law. Sexuality with your own children is deviant--not just a
*symbol*of uncleanness. It violates matters of trust within the family. On
the other hand, dietary laws are purely symbolic, having an appearance of
uncleanness, but not being inherently a matter of uncleanness. None of this
is too difficult to understand.
> Jesus himself said he was making a new covenant.
"No he didn't; he said he didn't come to annul the law."
Lu 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is
poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
> No, that is both the text and the context.
> Acts 10:27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons
> gathered;
> 28 and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew
> to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown
> me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
"Peter was wrong."
Peter claimed to have a vision, showing that the Law is no longer
applicable. Not only were the dietary laws no longer applicable, but the
former prohibition of fellowship between Jew and Gentile was no longer in
place, as long as the relationship was based on spiritual union in Christ.
> The Law condemns male-male relations.
"No, only anal sex, and only between Jews."
No, this sexual morality existed from the beginning of creation, and
specified male-female relations *only.*
"The account of creation doesn't talk about limiting what kinds of sex
can be had. And in fact, the natural world has lots of different
kinds of sex."
The natural world is perverted--has rebelled against the natural order that
God originally initiated. But the creation account does in fact specify
male-female relations only. It does not require that everyone have sex to
contribute to filling the world. Rather, it makes clear that filling the
earth with people is the goal, and that only male-female sex can be involved
in the process. Others who are single can still contribute to the process
apart from sexuality by encouraging and teaching others to participate in
the goal using proper sexuality. But *any other form of sexuality* is
prohibited, because it violates the exclusive male-female order that is
specified in Genesis 1.
"I was talking about people like Hagee, who is indeed a most ungodly
person
who is absolutely the last person on earth to be pontificating
about other people's sexual behavior, given that he explicitly
violated Jesus' commandment not to divorce and remarry,
and is unrepentantly living with his mistress to this day."
There is no prohibition on divorce by Jesus. What Jesus prohibited was an
adulterous divorce by people united in a religiously-sanctioned and
properly-operating marriage. He was in particular talking about marriage
between two Jews, referring to a legitimate, spiritual marriage. He was
*not* talking about mixed marriages, such as Jew-Gentile marriages, or
Christian-nonChristian marriages.
When a Christian is married to another Christian, who turns away from proper
Christian principles and becomes, ultimately, a "backslider," then divorce
may be entirely legitimate. Jesus did not expect a man or a woman to raise
children in an unspiritual environment. But when one party in the marriage
is drawn away from a good marriage by lust, he forbade it, in order to
preserve the marriage and the individuals spiritually-intact. It was a means
to keep Christians in their faith, spiritual and righteous. To let them
depart from their marital and family responsibility would indeed be a breach
of trust, and would not be tolerated by Jesus. On the other hand, you cannot
be held responsible for a partner who decides to do just that, to walk away
from the faith, or to bring into the family unhealthy, unholy practises. In
such a matter, a Christian is obligated to pursue divorce, to rid evil
influences from the family.
> God said it is true that homosexuality (of any kind) is a sin. And the
> proof
> comes when we observe the fruit of gay relationships, which is often
> characterized by multiple affairs, multiple breakups, and of course, the
> AIDs epidemic.
"Not "of course" at all.
The fruit of heterosexual relationships is shown in the same way,
and before penicillin, was characterized by the syphilis epidemic."
NonChristian heterosexuality has bad fruit, just as homosexuality has bad
fruit. But true, observant Christianity has spiritual fruit, displaying
peace, patience, and lasting love.
> *Everybody* is born a heterosexual. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle
> that a heterosexual chooses to be. The lie is the assumption that people
> are
> *born* to be either homosexual or heterosexual.
"Why is that a lie? You're just making stuff up again!"
It is a lie because our physical makeup suggests male-female relations is
our design. And our psychological makeup conforms with this reality when our
mind is renewed in God's spirit. When we choose to depart from a good
conscience, our conscience becomes corrupted, and we begin to reason apart
from divine revelation. Then virtually anything can be justified. And all
spiritual truth is lost.
> Ceremonial law is no longer in play under a *new* covenant. Only human
> morality remains.
"Once again, every time you feel like ignoring a command of the
written Bible, you call it "ceremonial" instead of "moral".
Only when you want to condemn others, you call it moral."
No, sexual taboos preexisted the Law of Moses, and reflect a universal
morality. Observance of purfication rituals are *symbolic* ceremonies--not
matters of universal morality.
"The fact is, that the difference between homosexuals and
heterosexuals is not at all a matter of simple biology.
We do know that homosexuality is prevalent in nature
in other species ..."
We are not, however, speaking of any species other than "man." And man is
unique in his relationship with his Maker. We are born in His image, and are
to observe a natural morality that conforms with His direct revelation. We
are not insects or beasts. We are unique in God's creation, being born in
the likeness of God Himself.
The rest of creation reflects all kinds of realities that God may have
wanted to display in the sight of men. Beasts and insects may have been
intended to reflect both good and evil, inasmuch as God anticipated the
possibility of both. For example, creatures kill and destroy one another.
Though this is not evil in and of itself, and would be evil for men to do to
one another, it does show us the order of nature after sin has entered into
man's world.
> Paul did not reference *violent* homosexual behavior. He referenced
> homosexual behavior in itself, which he referred to as "unnatural
> relationships."
"I don't see the word Sodom there."
That was the insinuation. In fact its insinuation was so obvious that Paul
didn't feel he had to explain it.
> I'm not pretending in the least. That's what the passage says!...
> Deut 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat flesh within any of your
> towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your
> God
> which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the
> gazelle and as of the hart. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall
> pour it out upon the earth like water."
"How about quoting the text of the ACTUAL PASSAGE
WE WERE DISCUSSING??????????????
... 12:21:
Since the place chosen by God your Lord to be dedicated to His name is
far,
you need ****only slaughter your cattle and small animals that God
will have given you in the manner that I have prescribed.****
You may then eat them in your settlements in any manner you desire."
That is the very passage I'm discussing!! Those verses are all part of the
same set of laws, all part of the same explanation.
> Spirituality is
> something that you grow in. Apostleship began as discipleship and matured
> with time.
"It started with gross imperfection, and developed into lesser
imperfection. It didn't develop into being as infallible
as the Pope supposedly is."
It didn't start with *gross* imperfection. They were human mistakes,
mistakes that we all make. The idea was to follow Jesus' example and Jesus'
word. That was the mission, and that was what the apostles in general
followed. In the process of growing, there were failures--but no, not gross
failures. They were examples of capitulation to weakness--not overt acts of
rebellion. The gospel is based on mercy and compassion--not on justifying
wickedness and rebellion. We are all weak, and need lots of mercy, lots of
kindness. But we don't need to have our wayward ways justified and
rationalized away. The apostles did not do this!
> Actually it does, if you think about it. Jesus lived side by side the Law
> as
> a system. He was a system,
"???"
Jesus was a "system" in the following sense. He was a life that could be
conveyed and transmitted to us, by spiritual means. Jesus represents a way
of life for us, a spirituality that we can live everyday throughout our
lives.
The Law, by contrast, was a way of life lived under certain laws, under a
specified covenant. It also included a legitimate spirituality. But Jesus'
spirituality could outlive the system of the Law, which was a covenant that
could be broken. And it was.
> But Jesus was a distinct system from the Law, and offered a distinct
> spirituality that operated apart from this natural law we call
> "mortality."
"We don't call the natural law "mortality"."
Christians do...
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free
from the law of sin and death.
What this means is that when we choose to live by Jesus' specified
spirituality, we actually participate in the spiritual life of Jesus
himself. We obtain his virtues and his attributes in the sense that we can
now achieve immortality, the right to be raised from the dead. We put on the
positive characteristics of Christ, such as love and kindness, even though
we continue to be flawed, mortal humans. We still suffer illness, and will
die. But the spirituality we now exemplify and live under guarantees us the
right to be raised from the dead, and to eventually put on an immortality in
the future.
> On the contrary, he said the temple system would be destroyed, which is
> what
> the Law was!
"No. He said the Law
****************************wouldn't****************************
be destroyed. You keep leaving out the NOT in that
passage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I have explained that passage. You are obviously wrong about that passage
because Jesus *plainly said* the temple would be destroyed, and temple
observance *was the Law!* That reality was realized at the very death of
Jesus, because the veil was ripped at that point, and in essence
delegitimized the Law for any further use. But the actual destruction of the
temple took place, as we know, later in the very generation of Jesus'
followers.
> Let me just say this, for purposes of clarification. Jesus wasn't just
> saying that the statutes under the Law would remain forever. Rather, he
> was
> saying that forgiveness for breaking every law under the Law would become
> permanent, in the introduction of a system that acknowledges that no more
> forgiveness is necessary.
"We've been through this. You had agreed that you
*********do**********
still need to be forgiven for breaches of laws. That the forgiveness
from Jesus was a first forgiveness and everyone had to have the
second forgiveness anyway."
No, *I* don't need forgiveness for violating the Law, because *I* was never
under the Law. Nor were you. It was ancient Israel who had to be forgiven
for violating and breaking the Law! But Jesus meant this forgiveness to be
an act of universal forgiveness for the sins of mankind as well. As he died
under a system of Law to forgive those under the Law he also died under the
law of natural mortality to forgive those who were naturally sinful and
mortal. He sought to grant his spirituality to us so that as he rose from
the dead so also our spirituality would conclude with our own resurrection
to immortality.
Jesus meant that every jot and tittle of the Law, every statute of the Law,
would be fulfilled. Every matter of righteousness would have to be concluded
in a perfect spirituality exemplified by *him,* so that all forgiveness
could be forgiven on the basis of our choice to live by this spirituality.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "You were trying to explain how it is that Christians
> eat shrimp even though the Bible says that they're
> abominations. You said it's because they
> are a "designed typology". I assumed that by "they" you
> meant the shrimp, not the Christians (it's often
> hard to understand what you mean)."
>
> Nothing I said here was hard to understand. Shrimp, like scavengers in
> general, typify uncleanness, because they eat dead, bacteria-infected
> creatures. Vultures were prohibited in Israel's diet, as were eagles,
> seagulls, etc.
They didn't just typify uncleanness; they actually *were* unclean.
>
> "If homosexual sex violates God's "natural order",
> then so does eating shrimp, typology or not."
>
> Sexuality of deviant types had universal condemnation, outside of the Law
> and within the Law. Sexuality with your own children is deviant--not just a
> *symbol*of uncleanness. It violates matters of trust within the family.
We were talking about homosexuality. Why
did you substitute sex with your own children?
We were never debating incest. We were
debating homosexuality. Why isn't homosexuality
just as much a "designed typology" as shrimp?
> On
> the other hand, dietary laws are purely symbolic, having an appearance of
> uncleanness, but not being inherently a matter of uncleanness. None of this
> is too difficult to understand.
When you're not sure you are convincing, you add
"this is obvious" or "this is not too hard to understand".
The fact of the matter is that either case can
be described as either "actually" or "symbolically"
unclean depending on what prejudice you have.
>
> > Jesus himself said he was making a new covenant.
>
> "No he didn't; he said he didn't come to annul the law."
>
> Lu 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is
> poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
The cup was obviously a designed typology.
It was not an actual covenant, and to be consistent
with what he said before, he is for sure not abrogating
the original covenant in any case.
...
> "Peter was wrong."
>
> Peter claimed to have a vision, showing that the Law is no longer
> applicable.
Lots of people have visions; they're not all true.
...
>
> > The Law condemns male-male relations.
>
> "No, only anal sex, and only between Jews."
>
> No, this sexual morality existed from the beginning of creation, and
> specified male-female relations *only.*
That's not what the words say, no.
The Leviticus command talks only about anal sex,
and the stuff in Genesis doesn't talk about what
kinds of sex are allowed or not.
In fact, if the story of Adam and Eve being
the only humans on earth is literally true (which it isn't),
there would logically *have* to be some examples
of incestuous sex from the beginning. (How
did Cain "take a wife"?)
>
> "The account of creation doesn't talk about limiting what kinds of sex
> can be had. And in fact, the natural world has lots of different
> kinds of sex."
>
> The natural world is perverted--has rebelled against the natural order that
> God originally initiated. But the creation account does in fact specify
> male-female relations only.
Where?
> It does not require that everyone have sex to
> contribute to filling the world.
Where?
> Rather, it makes clear that filling the
> earth with people is the goal, and that only male-female sex can be involved
> in the process.
Where?
...
>
> "I was talking about people like Hagee, who is indeed a most ungodly
> person
> who is absolutely the last person on earth to be pontificating
> about other people's sexual behavior, given that he explicitly
> violated Jesus' commandment not to divorce and remarry,
> and is unrepentantly living with his mistress to this day."
>
> There is no prohibition on divorce by Jesus.
You know better than this. The prohibition is on remarriage after
divorce.
Mark 10:11
"And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery.'"
Lukas 16:18
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery".
(Matthew has an exception if the divorce is for unchastity;
that is the *only* exception, and only Matthew has it.)
> What Jesus prohibited was an
> adulterous divorce by people united in a religiously-sanctioned and
> properly-operating marriage. He was in particular talking about marriage
> between two Jews, referring to a legitimate, spiritual marriage. He was
> *not* talking about mixed marriages, such as Jew-Gentile marriages, or
> Christian-nonChristian marriages.
His words speak for themselves. Hagee was married.
He divorced his wife. Not because of her unchastity,
since he admitted in court that he was the one at fault.
Nevertheless, he went through a "marriage ceremony"
with his mistress. According to any of the 3 Jesus
passages, that relationship is adulterous. He has
not given up the mistress, with whom he still lives.
The guy is nailed.
>
> When a Christian is married to another Christian, who turns away from proper
> Christian principles and becomes, ultimately, a "backslider," then divorce
> may be entirely legitimate.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not if the person remarries!!!!
No, no no no no.
The words explicitly say if you divorce and marry another,
that's adultery. Except for unchastity. "Turning away
from proper Christian principles" doesn't cut it.
And we have the court records. Hagee is nailed.
There's no way that his marriage is legal. None.
He's an unrepentant adulterer. According to Christianity,
the first forgiveness won't help him, and he is
consigned to the lake of fire, which is the second death.
So you're going to have some unrepentant, hell-bound
(according to Christianity)
adulterer preaching to us about what's wrong with
homosexuals????????????????????????????
> Jesus did not expect a man or a woman to raise
> children in an unspiritual environment.
Yes he did.
...
>
> "Not "of course" at all.
> The fruit of heterosexual relationships is shown in the same way,
> and before penicillin, was characterized by the syphilis epidemic."
>
> NonChristian heterosexuality has bad fruit, just as homosexuality has bad
> fruit. But true, observant Christianity has spiritual fruit, displaying
> peace, patience, and lasting love.
Come on. All these syphilitics were non-Christians?? Ha!
...
>
> "Why is that a lie? You're just making stuff up again!"
>
> It is a lie because our physical makeup suggests male-female relations is
> our design.
Our physical makeup is very little different from the
physical makeup of bonobos.
> And our psychological makeup conforms with this reality when our
> mind is renewed in God's spirit.
Whatever.
...
> > Ceremonial law is no longer in play under a *new* covenant. Only human
> > morality remains.
>
> "Once again, every time you feel like ignoring a command of the
> written Bible, you call it "ceremonial" instead of "moral".
> Only when you want to condemn others, you call it moral."
>
> No, sexual taboos preexisted the Law of Moses, and reflect a universal
> morality. Observance of purfication rituals are *symbolic* ceremonies--not
> matters of universal morality.
Now you call the prohibition of sex during menses as "purification
rituals".
...
>
> > Paul did not reference *violent* homosexual behavior. He referenced
> > homosexual behavior in itself, which he referred to as "unnatural
> > relationships."
>
> "I don't see the word Sodom there."
>
> That was the insinuation. In fact its insinuation was so obvious that Paul
> didn't feel he had to explain it.
No. I think that Ezekiel was talking about Republicans, and the
only reason that the word doesn't appear there is that Ezekiel
thought it was so obviously about Republicans that he didn't
feel he had to explain it.
What I don't understand is how any Christian in this decade
can continue to be a Republican.
I think it just represents a continuation of the original
rebellion against God.
>
> > I'm not pretending in the least. That's what the passage says!...
> > Deut 12:15 "However, you may slaughter and eat flesh within any of your
> > towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your
> > God
> > which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the
> > gazelle and as of the hart. 16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall
> > pour it out upon the earth like water."
>
> "How about quoting the text of the ACTUAL PASSAGE
> WE WERE DISCUSSING??????????????
> ... 12:21:
> Since the place chosen by God your Lord to be dedicated to His name is
> far,
> you need ****only slaughter your cattle and small animals that God
> will have given you in the manner that I have prescribed.****
> You may then eat them in your settlements in any manner you desire."
>
> That is the very passage I'm discussing!!
No it isn't. You said "that's what the passage says",
and then quoted 15 and 16, as if we weren't
talking about 21, which explicitly says
**only** slaughter your animals
***in the manner that I have prescribed.***
...
>
> "It started with gross imperfection, and developed into lesser
> imperfection. It didn't develop into being as infallible
> as the Pope supposedly is."
>
> It didn't start with *gross* imperfection. They were human mistakes,
and the apostles continued to make these human mistakes all their
lives.
...
>
> "???"
>
> Jesus was a "system" in the following sense. He was a life that could be
> conveyed and transmitted to us, by spiritual means. Jesus represents a way
> of life for us, a spirituality that we can live everyday throughout our
> lives.
>
> The Law, by contrast, was a way of life lived under certain laws, under a
> specified covenant. It also included a legitimate spirituality. But Jesus'
> spirituality could outlive the system of the Law, which was a covenant that
> could be broken. And it was.
Except Jesus said it never would pass.
...
>
> Christians do...
> Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free
> from the law of sin and death.
That's Paulinism; not Christianity.
Where did Jesus say anything like this?
...
>
> > On the contrary, he said the temple system would be destroyed, which is
> > what
> > the Law was!
>
> "No. He said the Law
> ****************************wouldn't****************************
> be destroyed. You keep leaving out the NOT in that
> passage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
> I have explained that passage. You are obviously wrong about that passage
> because Jesus *plainly said* the temple would be destroyed, and temple
> observance *was the Law!*
No. The Law was that thing that was written on the scrolls.
...
>
> "We've been through this. You had agreed that you
> *********do**********
> still need to be forgiven for breaches of laws. That the forgiveness
> from Jesus was a first forgiveness and everyone had to have the
> second forgiveness anyway."
>
> No, *I* don't need forgiveness for violating the Law, because *I* was never
> under the Law.
You claim that you were under every moral law inside the Law.
So if you violate any of these laws, you need the second forgiveness.
...
>
> Jesus meant that every jot and tittle of the Law, every statute of the Law,
> would be fulfilled.
And that you are required to fulfill it too!
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 5, 8:32 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I don't think liberals are above that. I hear personal attacks against
> > palin on a daily basis by liberal announcers and some posters here
>
> Uh, she made up stuff about "death panels"
Didn't 'make it up'; she pointed out the natural repurcussions of a
system whereby the government must make health care decisions.
She is 100% right. A GOVERNMENT panel--somewhere--will have to decide,
in some cases, whether to approve costly, etraordinary health care
measures.
Example: heart-lung transplant. SOMEWHERE, SOMEONE is going to have to
approve or disapprove of placing that person on a list. If the
government runs the plan, then OBVIOUSLY a government
body/panel/bureaucrat, etc., MUST make the choice!
She is right!
and "palling around with
> terrorists" and lots more.
She was right--Ayers WAS a damn terorist! Anyone who has been in the
Weather Undeground was a terrorist!
Of course, YOU might see them as Freedom Fighters!
If I hung out with former SS men--or if I had been a MEMBER of the
SS--you bet the liberals (like you) would point that out if Bush spent
time in my house, and announced his candidacy in my living room!
So she is right again
Hope she comes to my town
>
> ...
> >
> > > It's not true that aids is God's punishment, but it is true
> > > that John Hagee thinks that.
> >
> > Glad you can speak for God, but I will not confirm or deny his view
> > since he may or may not be right
>
> God is in fact right, but why would He punish mostly
> heterosexuals in Africa for alleged sins of homosexuals?
Different issue. If they did not have sex outside of marriage, that
problem would be virtually nonexistant. very few people get tainted
blood transfusions
> ...
>
> >
> > > No. And definitely not "extreme as you can get".
> >
> > > People don't die from gay marriages.
> >
> > They'll sure go to hell for it! (I know--you deny that)
>
> Actually they don't go to hell for it
Bible says they do. End of subject
, and it's outrageous
> that you think that it is worse than torturing and killing
> people.
different issue. murders go to hell. I'm not sure how you separate
murder from acceptable acts of war
>
> ...
> >
> > > > arguably there is, because the evil spirit would leave when david
> > > > played.
> >
> > > What verses are you talking about?
> > ...
> > 23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul,
> > that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was
> > refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
>
> Well I wouldn't exactly call that an exorcism, and especially
> not in view of the fact that in the later chapters, the evil spirit
> went out of its way to come when David *was* playing.
still, it worked most of the time
Don't think I'm a good reference point to illustrate conservative
'hate'. I'm autistic, and so negative emotions are the only ones I
usually feel. Most conservatives are not trapped in such a condition, so
you'd do better to point to conservative hate by using conservatives
with a normal range of emotions
In fact, I'm not even as conservative as you think. My lutheran friend
last thursday called me a Marxist. That's how conservative HE is by
comparison to a good, balanced moderate like me.
You're so far to the Left that a moderate like me seems like a facist to
you, when a REAL conservative thinks I'm a Marxist, I'm so liberal.
What do you think?
>
> ...
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > Well, according to some web sites, AI has this to say:
> >
> > > > �There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained
> > > > torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,� �
> > > > Amnesty International.
> >
> > > >http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/terrorism-theirs-and-ours/
> >
> > > Huh??? You think that's an AI website?????????????????????????
> >
> > no--it cites that from AI, Other sites do too
> >
>
> I wouldn't trust that website no matter what it said.
>
> I'm astounded that you would be reading much less relying on that
> website!
So search for other web sites that have the same quote if that one
bothers you. Stoip harping on ONE SITE. There are others, as i said.
And don't disqualify them if they are conservative sites. That don;t
make them liars
Still think Ziva David agrees 100% w/me on Mossad torture
>
> ...
>
> > > The point was you have to retract your claim that I didn't
> > > attack LBJ for getting us into war by lies, since I demonstrated
> > > equally fervently against both LBJ's and Bush's
> > > wars, and made no secret of
> > > my history as an anti-war protestor in my usenet posts.
> >
> > No. I said I have yet to hear you demonize him as a liar as you do bush.
> > Since I mentioned this, you now are. Prior, i don't remember hearing you
> > bring up HIS lies; just bush's and the republicans
> >
>
> That's because there was no internet during the Vietnam war, and
> there was one during Bush's dark times. So I'd obviously
> be talking more about current events and my reactions to them
> than to my past. But the fact is that while I generally admired
> LBJ, I attacked him mercilessly about Vietnam and was
> delighted when he announced he wasn't running again,
> and I was eager to have anyone but Humphrey running
> for President in 1968. So there it is.
Great--but I STILL don't hear you demonizing him for being a LIAR. I
hear you demonizing him for viet nam overall. There is a difference
I liked Humphrey, by the way
>
> --
> Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Nothing I said here was hard to understand. Shrimp, like scavengers in
> general, typify uncleanness, because they eat dead, bacteria-infected
> creatures. Vultures were prohibited in Israel's diet, as were eagles,
> seagulls, etc.
"They didn't just typify uncleanness; they actually *were* unclean."
You miss the point. All foods are actually unclean before they are washed,
or cooked.
> Sexuality of deviant types had universal condemnation, outside of the Law
> and within the Law. Sexuality with your own children is deviant--not just
> a
> *symbol*of uncleanness. It violates matters of trust within the family.
"We were talking about homosexuality. Why
did you substitute sex with your own children?
We were never debating incest. We were
debating homosexuality. Why isn't homosexuality
just as much a "designed typology" as shrimp?"
As I said, certain forms of immortality, such as homosexuality and incest
appear as "unclean" by natural design. It isn't always obvious by
appearances, but often, it appears obvious in effect. Incest is just a very
obvious form of evil that may not appear to some to be "naturally" evil, but
actually works out as such in practise. Homosexuality is no different, but
actually appears to be unnatural physically.
Eating foods are not matters of intrinsic evil. They only become evil when
other conditions are coupled to it, such as a divine command prohibiting it,
or offending others who may be vegetarians, for example. But homosexuality
and incest is intrinsically evil. It does not merely become evil because it
might offend someone. It intrinsically offends both the individuals taking
part and the society where it takes place. It damages the family and the
natural order that God specified for family relationships.
I mention incest because that is a little more difficult in some respects.
In some ways it seems more evil than homosexuality. In other ways, it seems
a little arbitrary, when you consider how it was that Adam and Eve's
children had to marry one another in order to jump start the human race. But
from the time of earth's initial population, incest has received what some
perceive as universal condemnation. It has in all times been frowned upon by
many. The same with homosexuality.
> Lu 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is
> poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
"The cup was obviously a designed typology.
It was not an actual covenant, and to be consistent
with what he said before, he is for sure not abrogating
the original covenant in any case."
Yes, Jesus introduced "the Lord's Supper" as a designed typology. But it
typified the reality of his new covenant, which began at his death.
> No, this sexual morality existed from the beginning of creation, and
> specified male-female relations *only.*
"That's not what the words say, no."
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth and subdue it..."
"The Leviticus command talks only about anal sex,
and the stuff in Genesis doesn't talk about what
kinds of sex are allowed or not."
You have to be blind. Genesis specifies a male-female creation, which when
coupled with the command to multiply indicates male-female sex. Then in
Genesis 2 the female is made specifically for the male. The Law goes on to
describe the sin in terms of uncovering people inappropriately, which is a
euphemism for illicit sexual activity, whether anal sex or not. Israel was
to avoid intimate relations with the wrong kinds of partners--it had nothing
to do with the kind of sex.
> There is no prohibition on divorce by Jesus.
"You know better than this. The prohibition is on remarriage after
divorce.
Mark 10:11
"And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery.'" "
Jesus prohibited divorce in the context of legitimate Jewish marriages. He
did not dispute, for example, that Nehemiah was wrong to encourage Jewish
men to leave their Gentile wives.
Jesus never disputed that divorce was legitimate in the matter of Jews (or
Christians) who have partners that apostacize from their faith, or begin to
live immoral, ungodly lives. What he prohibited was departure from a *holy*
marriage, one that was sanctioned by God.
> The fruit of heterosexual relationships is shown in the same way,
> and before penicillin, was characterized by the syphilis epidemic."
> NonChristian heterosexuality has bad fruit, just as homosexuality has bad
> fruit. But true, observant Christianity has spiritual fruit, displaying
> peace, patience, and lasting love.
"Come on. All these syphilitics were non-Christians?? Ha!"
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that Christians do not fall into
immorality. Obviously they do. What I'm doing is describing all sin as
"nonChristian behavior." Christians can behave like nonChristians,
obviously. They can fall from their faith, if they want to.
"Now you call the prohibition of sex during menses as "purification
rituals"."
Yes. For example...
Lev 15: 24 And if any man lies with her, and her impurity is on him, he
shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be
unclean.
Do you really think a man is physically unclean for seven days--no more or
no less? These things were symbolic of uncleanness, because they represented
the dangers of spiritual corruption. They were embellished by ceremonies
involving washing and sacrificing animals. They were clearly ceremonial and
symbolic.
The remaining arguments are repetitious.
randy
Rob Strom
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Dec 5, 8:32 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > I don't think liberals are above that. I hear personal attacks against
> > > palin on a daily basis by liberal announcers and some posters here
>
> > Uh, she made up stuff about "death panels"
>
> Didn't 'make it up'; she pointed out the natural repurcussions of a
> system whereby the government must make health care decisions.
>
> She is 100% right. A GOVERNMENT panel--somewhere--will have to decide,
> in some cases, whether to approve costly, etraordinary health care
> measures.
*Any* system of insurance decides which things are covered and
which aren't. Palin was suggesting that the government insurance
would include *new* kinds of decisions that didn't exist in non-
government
insurance.
She was basing it on the "end of life counseling" aspects of the bill,
trying to morph that into a special government panel that would
tell people that they ought to euthanize Grandma, hoping that
the image would frighten people away from the bill. Whereas actually,
Grandma was in no more danger from the public option than
from the status quo, and actually lots more grandmas would
actually get covered, because of other regulations.
In short, she was telling lies and putting stumbling blocks in
front of the blind, hoping that people would *misinterpret*
her remarks that reflect what EVERY insurance plan
(however run) would have, into thinking that these were
particular dangers of the PROPOSED bill.
...
>
> and "palling around with
>
> > terrorists" and lots more.
>
> She was right--Ayers WAS a damn terorist! Anyone who has been in the
> Weather Undeground was a terrorist!
Ayers was not a pal of Obama, and was a terrorist many years ago.
So it was really "Obama had an acquaintance -- not significantly more
than the acquaintance John McCain had -- with a man who
had once been a terrorist in the 1960s." Fooey.
>
> Of course, YOU might see them as Freedom Fighters!
>
> If I hung out with former SS men--or if I had been a MEMBER of the
> SS--you bet the liberals (like you) would point that out if Bush spent
> time in my house, and announced his candidacy in my living room!
Uh, a greater argument could be made that all Republicans
pal around with adulterers and criminals.
...
>
> > God is in fact right, but why would He punish mostly
> > heterosexuals in Africa for alleged sins of homosexuals?
>
> Different issue. If they did not have sex outside of marriage, that
> problem would be virtually nonexistant. very few people get tainted
> blood transfusions
Then it's not a punishment for homosexuals, since women
are getting this disease from heterosexual sex!
Many of these women are innocent victims -- people who
were completely faithful, but whose
husbands had sometime in their past lives extramarital sex. Right?
So do you think a just God is (a) punishing these women,
and (b) punishing them for *the sins of homosexuality*?????
Why?
...
>
> > Actually they don't go to hell for it
>
> Bible says they do. End of subject
>
You like to say "period" or "end of discussion" or "end of subject"
when you can't prove something but want to state it anyway.
...
>
> > Well I wouldn't exactly call that an exorcism, and especially
> > not in view of the fact that in the later chapters, the evil spirit
> > went out of its way to come when David *was* playing.
>
> still, it worked most of the time
No. There's one passage about spirits going away when David played,
and two others about spirits coming in when David played.
I wouldn't call something with that lousy a track record an
"exorcism".
And neither did the Bible.
Maybe it was the figs and the maalox.
...
>
> > You were *expressing* the hate of conservatives.
>
> Don't think I'm a good reference point to illustrate conservative
> 'hate'. I'm autistic, and so negative emotions are the only ones I
> usually feel.
But you like Palin! Maybe that's a negative emotion
too, since she's so hateful a person?
...
>
> In fact, I'm not even as conservative as you think. My lutheran friend
> last thursday called me a Marxist. That's how conservative HE is by
> comparison to a good, balanced moderate like me.
I haven't seen the balance.
>
> You're so far to the Left that a moderate like me seems like a facist to
> you, when a REAL conservative thinks I'm a Marxist, I'm so liberal.
If I'm so far to the left, then what would a Social Democrat be???
>...
> > I'm astounded that you would be reading much less relying on that
> > website!
>
> So search for other web sites that have the same quote if that one
> bothers you. Stoip harping on ONE SITE. There are others, as i said.
So quote the AI already! I actually looked on AI's search engine.
I shouldn't have to spend MY time researching the validity
of YOUR unsupported-by-a-quote accusation.
>
> And don't disqualify them if they are conservative sites. That don;t
> make them liars
If they say that "AI believes this", then regardless of what kind of
site it is, it had better be backed up by something with the
imprimatur
of AI that actually says it.
>
> Still think Ziva David agrees 100% w/me on Mossad torture
Who is Ziva David? Does she work for AI and can you post
a quote of hers substantiating this?
...
>
> > That's because there was no internet during the Vietnam war, and
> > there was one during Bush's dark times. So I'd obviously
> > be talking more about current events and my reactions to them
> > than to my past. But the fact is that while I generally admired
> > LBJ, I attacked him mercilessly about Vietnam and was
> > delighted when he announced he wasn't running again,
> > and I was eager to have anyone but Humphrey running
> > for President in 1968. So there it is.
>
> Great--but I STILL don't hear you demonizing him for being a LIAR.
I said he lied us into war; I'm not sure what subtle distinction
you're making between saying he lied and that he's a LIAR.
> I
> hear you demonizing him for viet nam overall. There is a difference
>
> I liked Humphrey, by the way
I originally liked Humphrey, but as you know in 1968 he switched
over to being a "stay the course" supporter of LBJ's war policy.
When LBJ dropped out of the race, Humphrey was in effect
a stand-in for him at the convention.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
systematically on Palestinian political suspects and its use was
effectively legal, an internationally unprecedented state of affairs.
The past five years has witnessed a constant struggle between, on the
one side, victims, human rights lawyers and local and international
human rights organizations searching for the means to effectively
challenge the system of legalized torture and, on the other, the Israeli
Government, seeking to defend and entrench the present system, together
with a compliant Israeli Supreme Court and a largely supportive Israeli
public.
Other methods of torture, such as beating, pressure on genitals and
exposure to heat and cold, have been denied by the Israeli authorities
but are frequently reported by detainees. Detainees also report having
suffered severe restrictions on the time allowed for eating or going to
the toilet.
At the same time lawyers started to bring petitions to the Supreme Court
to grant injunctions prohibiting the GSS to use "pressure" against
individual detainees. However, the success of such injunctions has been
limited. In cases where the court grants such injunctions and the GSS
returns to court and challenges them, the Supreme Court has consistently
found in its favour. For instance, on 24 December 1995 the Supreme Court
granted an injunction preventing the interrogators from using physical
force on 'Abd al-Halim Belbaysi. Despite this, the GSS continued to
subject him to torture and ill-treatment, including shackling his legs
to a chair and his hands behind his back, blindfolding him, depriving
him of sleep for three days and violently shaking him. He confessed to
placing bombs. 'Abd al-Halim Belbaysi's lawyer, Andr� Rosenthal, then,
as a test case, protested only against the use of violent shaking, which
had caused the death of 'Abd al-Samad Harizat, and asked that it should
be forbidden. On 11 January 1996 the request was refused and the Supreme
Court rescinded its injunction preventing physical force.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=6C4CAAAEC6F9EFBC8025690000693271
Satisfied?
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 7, 7:39 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 5, 8:32 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Rob Strom wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > > > I don't think liberals are above that. I hear personal attacks against
> > > > palin on a daily basis by liberal announcers and some posters here
> >
> > > Uh, she made up stuff about "death panels"
> >
> > Didn't 'make it up'; she pointed out the natural repurcussions of a
> > system whereby the government must make health care decisions.
> >
> > She is 100% right. A GOVERNMENT panel--somewhere--will have to decide,
> > in some cases, whether to approve costly, etraordinary health care
> > measures.
>
> *Any* system of insurance decides which things are covered and
> which aren't. Palin was suggesting that the government insurance
> would include *new* kinds of decisions that didn't exist in non-
> government
> insurance.
You are now changing the subject. Your original claim that she was that
she "she made up stuff about "death panels"
Well...she was right and you're now seemingly admitting that, but trying
to dismiss it.
She was still right.
And we now have an example of what would probably happen under Obamacare
with the recent flap over his panel telling women not to get mammograms
under a certain age unless they have a high risk background.
His system would undoubtedly rely on the guidlines of his own health
panels, so under Obamacare, if we had it rght now, the government
funding for mammograms under preventative medicine would almost
certainly be curtailed based on his own panel's standards.
That's what you have to look forward to
Palin is right
>
> She was basing it on the "end of life counseling" aspects of the bill,
> trying to morph that into a special government panel that would
> tell people that they ought to euthanize Grandma, hoping that
> the image would frighten people away from the bill. Whereas actually,
> Grandma was in no more danger from the public option than
> from the status quo, and actually lots more grandmas would
> actually get covered, because of other regulations.
Irrelevant. Then the argument is not whether palin is lying about a
panel you now admit would exist, but whether private or goivernemnt
would make a better decision.
Again, you admit she was right, but are trying to dismiss it, which is
another issue.
Again, she is right
And I tell you right now, since elderly people vote more conservative
than liberal, Obamacare will show preferential care for the younger, who
tend to vote liberal.
Better to let the elderly die under the claim theyt've lived out nost of
their ives, and limited resources should be disbursed more toward the
young
It's in the democrats' own self-interest to do so, and since the movers
and shakers in the party have no real morality, being prostitute
politicians, I predict you'll see that
>
> In short, she was telling lies and putting stumbling blocks in
> front of the blind, hoping that people would *misinterpret*
> her remarks that reflect what EVERY insurance plan
> (however run) would have, into thinking that these were
> particular dangers of the PROPOSED bill.
she is still right; you're only trying to dismiss her accurate
speculation
>
> ...
> >
> > and "palling around with
> >
> > > terrorists" and lots more.
> >
> > She was right--Ayers WAS a damn terorist! Anyone who has been in the
> > Weather Undeground was a terrorist!
>
> Ayers was not a pal of Obama, and was a terrorist many years ago.
> So it was really "Obama had an acquaintance -- not significantly more
> than the acquaintance John McCain had -- with a man who
> had once been a terrorist in the 1960s." Fooey.
OK, fine. If Palin had been an acquaintance of a former SS officer, you
bet the liberal media would jump on that
>
> >
> > Of course, YOU might see them as Freedom Fighters!
> >
> > If I hung out with former SS men--or if I had been a MEMBER of the
> > SS--you bet the liberals (like you) would point that out if Bush spent
> > time in my house, and announced his candidacy in my living room!
>
> Uh, a greater argument could be made that all Republicans
> pal around with adulterers and criminals.
Funny, i was wthinking all democrats ARE adulterers and criminals
>
> ...
> >
> > > God is in fact right, but why would He punish mostly
> > > heterosexuals in Africa for alleged sins of homosexuals?
> >
> > Different issue. If they did not have sex outside of marriage, that
> > problem would be virtually nonexistant. very few people get tainted
> > blood transfusions
>
> Then it's not a punishment for homosexuals, since women
> are getting this disease from heterosexual sex!
>
> Many of these women are innocent victims -- people who
> were completely faithful, but whose
> husbands had sometime in their past lives extramarital sex. Right?
> So do you think a just God is (a) punishing these women,
> and (b) punishing them for *the sins of homosexuality*?????
>
> Why?
Cuz we live in a cursed creation because of Adam. And, contrary to what
you seem to think, God DOES judge nations and people for sin
>
> ...
> >
> > > Actually they don't go to hell for it
> >
> > Bible says they do. End of subject
> >
>
> You like to say "period" or "end of discussion" or "end of subject"
> when you can't prove something but want to state it anyway.
The NT makes it clear. Your contrary opinion can only be wrong
> ...
> >
> > > Well I wouldn't exactly call that an exorcism, and especially
> > > not in view of the fact that in the later chapters, the evil spirit
> > > went out of its way to come when David *was* playing.
> >
> > still, it worked most of the time
>
> No. There's one passage about spirits going away when David played,
> and two others about spirits coming in when David played.
>
> I wouldn't call something with that lousy a track record an
> "exorcism".
> And neither did the Bible.
>
> Maybe it was the figs and the maalox.
>
> ...
> >
> > > You were *expressing* the hate of conservatives.
> >
> > Don't think I'm a good reference point to illustrate conservative
> > 'hate'. I'm autistic, and so negative emotions are the only ones I
> > usually feel.
>
> But you like Palin! Maybe that's a negative emotion
> too, since she's so hateful a person?
I think she's a wonderful, but ditzy, person
>
> ...
> >
> > In fact, I'm not even as conservative as you think. My lutheran friend
> > last thursday called me a Marxist. That's how conservative HE is by
> > comparison to a good, balanced moderate like me.
>
> I haven't seen the balance.
cuz you're to the Left
>
> >
> > You're so far to the Left that a moderate like me seems like a facist to
> > you, when a REAL conservative thinks I'm a Marxist, I'm so liberal.
>
> If I'm so far to the left, then what would a Social Democrat be???
Don't know what difference there is between you and a SD
>
> >...
> > > I'm astounded that you would be reading much less relying on that
> > > website!
> >
> > So search for other web sites that have the same quote if that one
> > bothers you. Stoip harping on ONE SITE. There are others, as i said.
>
> So quote the AI already! I actually looked on AI's search engine.
> I shouldn't have to spend MY time researching the validity
> of YOUR unsupported-by-a-quote accusation.
>
> >
> > And don't disqualify them if they are conservative sites. That don;t
> > make them liars
>
> If they say that "AI believes this", then regardless of what kind of
> site it is, it had better be backed up by something with the
> imprimatur
> of AI that actually says it.
>
> >
> > Still think Ziva David agrees 100% w/me on Mossad torture
>
> Who is Ziva David? Does she work for AI and can you post
> a quote of hers substantiating this?
Damn, dude! Don't you watch ANY good TV?????
She's the Mossad agent assigned to NCIS.
You'd like her, I think. I love her.
Abby is the hit of the show, however.
Oh--and Jack Bauer is back next month :)
>
> ...
> >
> > > That's because there was no internet during the Vietnam war, and
> > > there was one during Bush's dark times. So I'd obviously
> > > be talking more about current events and my reactions to them
> > > than to my past. But the fact is that while I generally admired
> > > LBJ, I attacked him mercilessly about Vietnam and was
> > > delighted when he announced he wasn't running again,
> > > and I was eager to have anyone but Humphrey running
> > > for President in 1968. So there it is.
> >
> > Great--but I STILL don't hear you demonizing him for being a LIAR.
>
> I said he lied us into war;
TY
I'm not sure what subtle distinction
> you're making between saying he lied and that he's a LIAR.
>
> > I
> > hear you demonizing him for viet nam overall. There is a difference
> >
> > I liked Humphrey, by the way
>
> I originally liked Humphrey, but as you know in 1968 he switched
> over to being a "stay the course" supporter of LBJ's war policy.
> When LBJ dropped out of the race, Humphrey was in effect
> a stand-in for him at the convention.
I think the bigger problem is that he won no primaries, but was simply
annointed to the candidacy by the movers and shakers
I was a Kennedy man, myself, but after he died, Humphrey was my guy
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
>
> > *Any* system of insurance decides which things are covered and
> > which aren't. Palin was suggesting that the government insurance
> > would include *new* kinds of decisions that didn't exist in non-
> > government
> > insurance.
>
> You are now changing the subject. Your original claim that she was that
> she "she made up stuff about "death panels"
She said the legislation would CREATE death panels.
Whereas the truth is that by your definition, we have death panels
now, (since every insurance that exists has death panels), and
the Obama plan REDUCES the number of times the
death panel decides to kill you.
The legislation doesn't CREATE death panels.
...
> And we now have an example of what would probably happen under Obamacare
> with the recent flap over his panel telling women not to get mammograms
> under a certain age unless they have a high risk background.
>
> His system would undoubtedly rely on the guidlines of his own health
> panels, so under Obamacare, if we had it rght now, the government
> funding for mammograms under preventative medicine would almost
> certainly be curtailed based on his own panel's standards.
>
> That's what you have to look forward to
>
> Palin is right
Palin is wrong. Under Obama's plan, MORE people will
get covered for mammograms, therefore there will
be fewer people DYING.
> .
> Irrelevant. Then the argument is not whether palin is lying about a
> panel you now admit would exist, but whether private or goivernemnt
> would make a better decision.
There are no such things as death panels. That is
her crazy word for "people being denied coverage",
and the new plan obviously REDUCES the number
of people denied coverage.
She's scaring people by hoping that people
will misunderstand "death panels" to mean
something that exists only under the new law
that they don't have today.
That's like if we decide to call prisons "concentration camps" and
saying
Republicans will institute concentration camps, when the truth
is that we already have "concentration camps", that's
just a scary word for prisons that we hope people will
misunderstand to mean Nazi style camps. Then we say
that we didn't lie because we never said Nazi style,
we just mean that a group of prisoners are concentrated
together in a building, and Republicans will in fact do that
to people convicted of crimes.
It's putting a stumbling block in front of the blind.
There's no such thing as a death panel -- it's just the
same thing we already have, namely sometimes
the insurance company won't pay for our condition,
and in fact that will happen LESS under the
reformed health care than under the present one.
She is LYING because she hopes people will
misunderstand her statement to mean more
people will die, because of the way she
says "create death panels" to mean continue
things we already have except do it less.
...
>
> And I tell you right now, since elderly people vote more conservative
> than liberal, Obamacare will show preferential care for the younger, who
> tend to vote liberal.
Stop using charged words like Obamacare. You sound
like a sodomite when you do that.
...
> It's in the democrats' own self-interest to do so, and since the movers
> and shakers in the party have no real morality, being prostitute
> politicians, I predict you'll see that
This is Christian health care, and the fact that you
don't support Christian helath care proves that you're
a sodomite.
>
>
> > In short, she was telling lies and putting stumbling blocks in
> > front of the blind, hoping that people would *misinterpret*
> > her remarks that reflect what EVERY insurance plan
> > (however run) would have, into thinking that these were
> > particular dangers of the PROPOSED bill.
>
> she is still right; you're only trying to dismiss her accurate
> speculation
She isn't right. She's wording things in the hope
that people will misunderstand her to mean
that more people will die because there
are NEW death panels that weren't there before
when she just means that some people will
die because people always die and
some people will be denied insurance
(but much less than before).
...
> > Ayers was not a pal of Obama, and was a terrorist many years ago.
> > So it was really "Obama had an acquaintance -- not significantly more
> > than the acquaintance John McCain had -- with a man who
> > had once been a terrorist in the 1960s." Fooey.
>
> OK, fine. If Palin had been an acquaintance of a former SS officer, you
> bet the liberal media would jump on that
Actually we didn't do that kind of thing. Bush was a grandson
of a Nazi sympathizer, not just an acquaintance, and that wasn't made
an issue by
the mainstream media. In fact he was an army deserter,
and the media was afraid to touch that issue and
scolded Dan Rather for trying.
...
> > Uh, a greater argument could be made that all Republicans
> > pal around with adulterers and criminals.
>
> Funny, i was wthinking all democrats ARE adulterers and criminals
You'd be wrong, but it is true that Republicans pal around with
adulterers and criminals. Especially all the senators,
and all the guys from the C street gang.
...
>
> > Many of these women are innocent victims -- people who
> > were completely faithful, but whose
> > husbands had sometime in their past lives extramarital sex. Right?
> > So do you think a just God is (a) punishing these women,
> > and (b) punishing them for *the sins of homosexuality*?????
>
> > Why?
>
> Cuz we live in a cursed creation because of Adam. And, contrary to what
> you seem to think, God DOES judge nations and people for sin
Was your answer to (a) and (b) "yes"?????
So you believe that God deliberately punishes innocent people for
the sins of the guilty?
What if there were 10 innocent?
...
>
> > You like to say "period" or "end of discussion" or "end of subject"
> > when you can't prove something but want to state it anyway.
>
> The NT makes it clear. Your contrary opinion can only be wrong
No, because I understand the NT better than you do.
...
>
> > But you like Palin! Maybe that's a negative emotion
> > too, since she's so hateful a person?
>
> I think she's a wonderful, but ditzy, person
I thought you only had negative emotions?
...
>
> > > You're so far to the Left that a moderate like me seems like a facist to
> > > you, when a REAL conservative thinks I'm a Marxist, I'm so liberal.
>
> > If I'm so far to the left, then what would a Social Democrat be???
>
> Don't know what difference there is between you and a SD
I'm closer to people like Feingold and Dean.
...
>
> > Who is Ziva David? Does she work for AI and can you post
> > a quote of hers substantiating this?
>
> Damn, dude! Don't you watch ANY good TV?????
>
> She's the Mossad agent assigned to NCIS.
I don't know what NCIS is; sorry.
>
> You'd like her, I think. I love her.
>
> Abby is the hit of the show, however.
>
> Oh--and Jack Bauer is back next month :)
Don't tell me these are all characters on "42"?!?!?!
Yuck. No, I don't watch right-wing porn.
...
>
> > I originally liked Humphrey, but as you know in 1968 he switched
> > over to being a "stay the course" supporter of LBJ's war policy.
> > When LBJ dropped out of the race, Humphrey was in effect
> > a stand-in for him at the convention.
>
> I think the bigger problem is that he won no primaries, but was simply
> annointed to the candidacy by the movers and shakers
The problem is that the majority of Democrats had repudiated
Johnson's war policy; they were angry that movers and
shakers in smoke-filled rooms were supporting Humphrey
in favor of a continuation of this rejected policy. The anger
was because the will of the people was being overridden.
It is from this that new practices of having most delegates
chosen by primaries originated.
>
> I was a Kennedy man, myself, but after he died, Humphrey was my guy
>
Humphrey was a fine man before he became VP to LBJ
and got stuck supporting an immoral war policy, and
then got stuck standing in for LBJ as a Presidential
candidate.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
...
>
> http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=6C4CAAAEC6F9EFBC8025...
>
> Satisfied?
That's much better than what you've given me so far, thanks.
Of course it's over 10 years old and doesn't mention Mossad.
I actually found a better link to an AI assessment of torture in
Israel:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/040/2008/en/6384adfc-93bb-11dd-8293-ff015cefb49a/mde150402008en.pdf
It's more recent, and includes court decisions limiting torture
(something
which US never allowed to happen). Also, it still is
all about Shavak and not Mossad.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 8, 8:27 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > > *Any* system of insurance decides which things are covered and
> > > which aren't. Palin was suggesting that the government insurance
> > > would include *new* kinds of decisions that didn't exist in non-
> > > government
> > > insurance.
> >
> > You are now changing the subject. Your original claim that she was that
> > she "she made up stuff about "death panels"
>
> She said the legislation would CREATE death panels.
>
> Whereas the truth is that by your definition, we have death panels
> now, (since every insurance that exists has death panels), and
> the Obama plan REDUCES the number of times the
> death panel decides to kill you.
>
> The legislation doesn't CREATE death panels.
It does, because HIS panels do not currently exist. Others, not related
to him at all, do.
And I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than the
current system.
Palin is still right
>
> ...
> > And we now have an example of what would probably happen under Obamacare
> > with the recent flap over his panel telling women not to get mammograms
> > under a certain age unless they have a high risk background.
> >
> > His system would undoubtedly rely on the guidlines of his own health
> > panels, so under Obamacare, if we had it rght now, the government
> > funding for mammograms under preventative medicine would almost
> > certainly be curtailed based on his own panel's standards.
> >
> > That's what you have to look forward to
> >
> > Palin is right
>
> Palin is wrong. Under Obama's plan, MORE people will
> get covered for mammograms, therefore there will
> be fewer people DYING.
Cite facts and figures that, with Obamacare, less women, though denied
funding of mammograms under age 40, would die of breast cancer compared
to now.
I'm waiting
>
> > .
> > Irrelevant. Then the argument is not whether palin is lying about a
> > panel you now admit would exist, but whether private or goivernemnt
> > would make a better decision.
>
> There are no such things as death panels. That is
> her crazy word for "people being denied coverage",
> and the new plan obviously REDUCES the number
> of people denied coverage.
irrelavant
>
> She's scaring people by hoping that people
> will misunderstand "death panels" to mean
> something that exists only under the new law
> that they don't have today.
irrelavant
She's still right--even if 100% of the population get coivered, there
WILL BE government 'death panels' of a sort
She is still right.
No matter how you try to deflect her point, she is still right, and you
will not get me to say she's wrong.
> That's like if we decide to call prisons "concentration camps" and
> saying
> Republicans will institute concentration camps, when the truth
> is that we already have "concentration camps", that's
> just a scary word for prisons that we hope people will
> misunderstand to mean Nazi style camps. Then we say
> that we didn't lie because we never said Nazi style,
> we just mean that a group of prisoners are concentrated
> together in a building, and Republicans will in fact do that
> to people convicted of crimes.
That sounds like typical political distortion i see on both sides.
And for the record, I know liberals (in the last week) who have told me
Christians SHOULD be sent to camps to learn tolerance.
So the ones I hear wanting to set up concentration camps are liberals
>
> It's putting a stumbling block in front of the blind.
>
> There's no such thing as a death panel -- it's just the
> same thing we already have, namely sometimes
> the insurance company won't pay for our condition,
> and in fact that will happen LESS under the
> reformed health care than under the present one.
> She is LYING because she hopes people will
> misunderstand her statement to mean more
> people will die, because of the way she
> says "create death panels" to mean continue
> things we already have except do it less.
>
repeat: I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than
the current system of insuerer death panels.
They're both death panels.
> ...
> >
> > And I tell you right now, since elderly people vote more conservative
> > than liberal, Obamacare will show preferential care for the younger, who
> > tend to vote liberal.
>
> Stop using charged words like Obamacare. You sound
> like a sodomite when you do that.
Between us, he (and you) are the ones who appoprove of gay sex
>
> ...
>
> > It's in the democrats' own self-interest to do so, and since the movers
> > and shakers in the party have no real morality, being prostitute
> > politicians, I predict you'll see that
>
> This is Christian health care, and the fact that you
> don't support Christian helath care proves that you're
> a sodomite.
This from the man who thinks gay sex is fine so long as it's not anal
>
> >
> >
> > > In short, she was telling lies and putting stumbling blocks in
> > > front of the blind, hoping that people would *misinterpret*
> > > her remarks that reflect what EVERY insurance plan
> > > (however run) would have, into thinking that these were
> > > particular dangers of the PROPOSED bill.
> >
> > she is still right; you're only trying to dismiss her accurate
> > speculation
>
> She isn't right. She's wording things in the hope
> that people will misunderstand her to mean
> that more people will die because there
> are NEW death panels that weren't there before
> when she just means that some people will
> die because people always die and
> some people will be denied insurance
> (but much less than before).
I'm not convinced less people will die under Obabmacare
I am convinced it will help bankrupt the country and throw us into
hyperinflation
>
> ...
> > > Ayers was not a pal of Obama, and was a terrorist many years ago.
> > > So it was really "Obama had an acquaintance -- not significantly more
> > > than the acquaintance John McCain had -- with a man who
> > > had once been a terrorist in the 1960s." Fooey.
> >
> > OK, fine. If Palin had been an acquaintance of a former SS officer, you
> > bet the liberal media would jump on that
>
> Actually we didn't do that kind of thing.
Can't believe you said that with a straight face!
Bush was a grandson
> of a Nazi sympathizer, not just an acquaintance, and that wasn't made
> an issue by
> the mainstream media. In fact he was an army deserter,
You just committed LH. He WAS NOT an "army desterter"--and your guy
Biden got FIVE deferments during the viet nam era! At least Bush was in
the NG!
> and the media was afraid to touch that issue and
> scolded Dan Rather for trying.
He was scolded for eagerly using unverified claims from a bad source
later shown to be false
>
> ...
> > > Uh, a greater argument could be made that all Republicans
> > > pal around with adulterers and criminals.
> >
> > Funny, i was wthinking all democrats ARE adulterers and criminals
>
> You'd be wrong, but it is true that Republicans pal around with
> adulterers and criminals. Especially all the senators,
> and all the guys from the C street gang.
Blago, Charlie Rangle, William Jefferson, Kwami Kilpatrick, John Murtha,
Bill Richardson, ACORN, and the list goes on and on.
By the way, here is a great jewish blog for you:
http://roguejew.wordpress.com/
> ...
> >
> > > Many of these women are innocent victims -- people who
> > > were completely faithful, but whose
> > > husbands had sometime in their past lives extramarital sex. Right?
> > > So do you think a just God is (a) punishing these women,
> > > and (b) punishing them for *the sins of homosexuality*?????
> >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Cuz we live in a cursed creation because of Adam. And, contrary to what
> > you seem to think, God DOES judge nations and people for sin
>
> Was your answer to (a) and (b) "yes"?????
Answer: Don't know. Don't know.
>
> So you believe that God deliberately punishes innocent people for
> the sins of the guilty?
>
> What if there were 10 innocent?
I hate to tell you, but the "innocent" often get punished with the
wicked when God sends punishment to a nation.
Earthquakes, and such, don't discriminate all that often
Oh, and by the way--there is NONE righteoues, NO NOT ONE
>
> ...
> >
> > > You like to say "period" or "end of discussion" or "end of subject"
> > > when you can't prove something but want to state it anyway.
Paul makes it clear that sexual sin seems to be 'worse' or some how
'especially bad' than all other sorts of sin.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but
he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.
So any compromise on that issue by you suggesting it's ok to have gay
sex if it isn't anal, or it's ok to be lesiabian, is saying that it's ok
to participate in sin that God deems especially harmful.
period. end of discussion. end of story.
> >
> > The NT makes it clear. Your contrary opinion can only be wrong
>
> No, because I understand the NT better than you do.
nay
>
> ...
> >
> > > But you like Palin! Maybe that's a negative emotion
> > > too, since she's so hateful a person?
> >
> > I think she's a wonderful, but ditzy, person
>
> I thought you only had negative emotions?
That is my intellectual conclusion about her. No emotion behind it.
>
> ...
> >
> > > > You're so far to the Left that a moderate like me seems like a facist to
> > > > you, when a REAL conservative thinks I'm a Marxist, I'm so liberal.
> >
> > > If I'm so far to the left, then what would a Social Democrat be???
> >
> > Don't know what difference there is between you and a SD
>
> I'm closer to people like Feingold and Dean.
Still don't see much difference.
>
> ...
> >
> > > Who is Ziva David? Does she work for AI and can you post
> > > a quote of hers substantiating this?
> >
> > Damn, dude! Don't you watch ANY good TV?????
> >
> > She's the Mossad agent assigned to NCIS.
>
> I don't know what NCIS is; sorry.
Most popular show on TV. Like naval CSI. Sheesh...
>
> >
> > You'd like her, I think. I love her.
> >
> > Abby is the hit of the show, however.
> >
> > Oh--and Jack Bauer is back next month :)
>
> Don't tell me these are all characters on "42"?!?!?!
No, nothing to do with FOX--CBS. Try watching tuesday night @ 8 pm, or
ask your daughter about it
>
> Yuck. No, I don't watch right-wing porn.
But bet you'll watch Keith Olberman, Lonnie Deutsch and Rachel MAddow
>
> ...
> >
> > > I originally liked Humphrey, but as you know in 1968 he switched
> > > over to being a "stay the course" supporter of LBJ's war policy.
> > > When LBJ dropped out of the race, Humphrey was in effect
> > > a stand-in for him at the convention.
> >
> > I think the bigger problem is that he won no primaries, but was simply
> > annointed to the candidacy by the movers and shakers
>
> The problem is that the majority of Democrats had repudiated
> Johnson's war policy; they were angry that movers and
> shakers in smoke-filled rooms were supporting Humphrey
> in favor of a continuation of this rejected policy. The anger
> was because the will of the people was being overridden.
> It is from this that new practices of having most delegates
> chosen by primaries originated.
So some good came out of it
>
> >
> > I was a Kennedy man, myself, but after he died, Humphrey was my guy
> >
>
> Humphrey was a fine man before he became VP to LBJ
> and got stuck supporting an immoral war policy, and
> then got stuck standing in for LBJ as a Presidential
> candidate.
Think he was ethical overall, tho
Rob Strom
>
> It does, because HIS panels do not currently exist. Others, not related
> to him at all, do.
That is disingenuous.
The normal English meaning of the term "X creates Y"
is that Y previously did not exist at all, and now because
of something accomplished by X, there is now Y.
That's the meaning that Republicans hope their
listeners take from their message "the Democratic
bill creates death panels".
It's as if I said that Bush's tax reforms instituted
estate taxes (they actually
existed before Bush and he reduced them, Clinton's
estate taxes disappearing and other estate
taxes, not related to Clinton occurring in their place).
I'd be hoping that people not knowing that
there already existed such things would
be afraid that they'd start paying new estate taxes under Bush.
>
> And I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than the
> current system.
Of course you'd be.
>
> Palin is still right
Not in ordinary English, no.
...
>
> > Palin is wrong. Under Obama's plan, MORE people will
> > get covered for mammograms, therefore there will
> > be fewer people DYING.
>
> Cite facts and figures that, with Obamacare, less women, though denied
> funding of mammograms under age 40, would die of breast cancer compared
> to now.
>
> I'm waiting
There is technically no such thing as Obamacare.
And nobody said that funding for mammograms under 40 would be denied.
However, more women who would have previously been
unable to get health insurance at all because of pre-existing
conditions, would now get health insurance (the new
law does require this), and be able to use
this insurance to pay for mammograms. Even
if it were true (and there's no evidence of this) that
they'd be only covered every other year (exactly
as my 3-month dental hygiene appointment
is today covered only for every other time), they'd
be better off than previously when they were getting
zero payments for mammograms. Duh.
...
>
> > There are no such things as death panels. That is
> > her crazy word for "people being denied coverage",
> > and the new plan obviously REDUCES the number
> > of people denied coverage.
>
> irrelavant
It is very relevant, because she's making it sound
like they're denying Grandma health coverage,
when she knows perfectly well that more grandmas
will have health coverage.
>
>
>
> > She's scaring people by hoping that people
> > will misunderstand "death panels" to mean
> > something that exists only under the new law
> > that they don't have today.
>
> irrelavant
It's very relevant, because hoping that someone
misunderstands something so that they'll
do what she wants (tell their representative
to vote no) because of the misunderstanding
is in fact the mortal sin of putting a stumbling
block before the blind.
That is a direct violation of the direct words
of the LORD God, King of the Universe,
and the words of the King of the Universe
are never irrelevant.
...
>
> No matter how you try to deflect her point, she is still right, and you
> will not get me to say she's wrong.
That's because you're stubbornly ignoring the ordinary meaning of
words.
...
>
> That sounds like typical political distortion i see on both sides.
>
> And for the record, I know liberals (in the last week) who have told me
> Christians SHOULD be sent to camps to learn tolerance.
Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
...
>
> repeat: I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than
> the current system of insuerer death panels.
More people will die from Bushcare.
...
Gotta go, will address the rest later.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 10, 8:00 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > > The legislation doesn't CREATE death panels.
> >
> > It does, because HIS panels do not currently exist. Others, not related
> > to him at all, do.
>
> That is disingenuous.
It may be, but it's precisely the same type of misleading BS that ALL
politicians use to deceive people into voting their way.
Your apparent claim that democrats are too pure to resort to such
tactics is laughable.
When clinton or bush does a line item veto to cut a proposed increase in
spending on some program, then take that denied amount and claim it is a
"cut in spending" or a "tax cut", that's the same sort of
disingenuousness. And your party is not immune. Don't make yourself
look bad by pretending democrats never do the same sort of stuff
>
> The normal English meaning of the term "X creates Y"
> is that Y previously did not exist at all, and now because
> of something accomplished by X, there is now Y.
>
> That's the meaning that Republicans hope their
> listeners take from their message "the Democratic
> bill creates death panels".
>
> It's as if I said that Bush's tax reforms instituted
> estate taxes (they actually
> existed before Bush and he reduced them, Clinton's
> estate taxes disappearing and other estate
> taxes, not related to Clinton occurring in their place).
>
> I'd be hoping that people not knowing that
> there already existed such things would
> be afraid that they'd start paying new estate taxes under Bush.
Pigs like barney frank and janet reno, who were instrumental in getting
standards for home loan qualification lowered, and/or instituting racial
quotas on how many minorities were to get Mae/Mac loans, caused the
housing crisis. It started with THEM. Yet I hear your democrat buddines
blaiming BUSH for it.
Don't go on about how democrats don't do the same lies, distortions, and
finger-pointing as republicans. they do. period.
>
> >
> > And I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than the
> > current system.
>
> Of course you'd be.
>
> >
> > Palin is still right
>
> Not in ordinary English, no.
>
> ...
> >
> > > Palin is wrong. Under Obama's plan, MORE people will
> > > get covered for mammograms, therefore there will
> > > be fewer people DYING.
> >
> > Cite facts and figures that, with Obamacare, less women, though denied
> > funding of mammograms under age 40, would die of breast cancer compared
> > to now.
> >
> > I'm waiting
>
> There is technically no such thing as Obamacare.
>
> And nobody said that funding for mammograms under 40 would be denied.
His panel said most women should not have them under 40, and you
admitted his system would go by his panel's recommendations
>
> However, more women who would have previously been
> unable to get health insurance at all because of pre-existing
> conditions, would now get health insurance (the new
> law does require this), and be able to use
> this insurance to pay for mammograms. Even
> if it were true (and there's no evidence of this) that
> they'd be only covered every other year (exactly
> as my 3-month dental hygiene appointment
> is today covered only for every other time), they'd
> be better off than previously when they were getting
> zero payments for mammograms. Duh.
>
> ...
> >
> > > There are no such things as death panels. That is
> > > her crazy word for "people being denied coverage",
> > > and the new plan obviously REDUCES the number
> > > of people denied coverage.
> >
> > irrelavant
>
> It is very relevant, because she's making it sound
> like they're denying Grandma health coverage,
> when she knows perfectly well that more grandmas
> will have health coverage.
It is still not relevant. sorry. There WILL be government 'end of life'
or 'aggressive care' panels set up, and a rose by any other name...
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > She's scaring people by hoping that people
> > > will misunderstand "death panels" to mean
> > > something that exists only under the new law
> > > that they don't have today.
> >
> > irrelavant
>
> It's very relevant, because hoping that someone
> misunderstands something so that they'll
> do what she wants (tell their representative
> to vote no) because of the misunderstanding
> is in fact the mortal sin of putting a stumbling
> block before the blind.
Then you fellow democrat liars are on their way to hell with her--and
you, for calling bush a desserter when no court has found him guilty of
that.
You should find a rabbi to absolve you of your mortal sin
>
> That is a direct violation of the direct words
> of the LORD God, King of the Universe,
> and the words of the King of the Universe
> are never irrelevant.
Then you should repent and admit both you and your fellow democrats are
also liars and distorters
> ...
> >
> > No matter how you try to deflect her point, she is still right, and you
> > will not get me to say she's wrong.
>
> That's because you're stubbornly ignoring the ordinary meaning of
> words.
And you're stubbornly claiming democrats are pure as the driven snow
when they are equally liars
>
> ...
> >
> > That sounds like typical political distortion i see on both sides.
> >
> > And for the record, I know liberals (in the last week) who have told me
> > Christians SHOULD be sent to camps to learn tolerance.
>
> Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
> known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
In public, they would never say something like that any more than, in
public, a republican would denigrate minorities for something. But
behind closed doors, or person-on-person, they damn sure would, just as
my liberal friend just said that to me one-on-one, when he would not go
out of his way to say it in a public forum
But he believes it, just the same, because he is a liberal
So your question is disingenuous
> ...
> >
> > repeat: I'm not certain I'd be better off under Obama death panels than
> > the current system of insuerer death panels.
>
> More people will die from Bushcare.
Maybe that's good, depending on who dies. But liberal politicians get
better health care at my expense than I do so they'll probably do ok,
unfortunately
I support Palincare (whatever that would be), though Vincecare would be
best of all because he would do it in such a way that it doesn't create
a massive bureaucracy
Rob Strom
> Rob Stromwrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 8:00 am,vincegarcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >Rob Stromwrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > > The legislation doesn't CREATE death panels.
>
> > > It does, because HIS panels do not currently exist. Others, not related
> > > to him at all, do.
>
> > That is disingenuous.
>
> It may be, but it's precisely the same type of misleading BS that ALL
> politicians use to deceive people into voting their way.
Now you have moved from saying Palin wasn't misleading to
saying it's ok for her to be misleading because everyone else is.
Sorry, but when one appeals to an audience of idiots
with no memory and no desire to check facts, and one
has no moral scruples, the lies are much more outrageous.
> ...
> When clinton or bush does a line item veto to cut a proposed increase in
> spending on some program,
huh? there is no constitutional provision for such a thing.
...
>
> Pigs like barney frank and janet reno,
They weren't pigs and they weren't instrumental.
The people instrumental in lowering standards
were the folks, led by Phil Gramm who got
the Glass Steagall act repealed, leading
to a system whereby mortgage-backed securities
and credit default swaps could be traded
in an unregulated way regardless of whether
there was a real asset backing them up.
Barney Frank especially is at the forefront
of attacking all these measures that encourage
risk taking by rewarding the risk-takers
when the risk pays off and leaving the risk-takers
with no losses when it doesn't. That's
pretty much all he talks about these days!
You can blame Clinton if you like for
not vetoing the repeal of Glass Steagall,
but there were enough conservative
Dems joining the Repubs at the time
to have overridden the veto had he made one,
and Clinton was of course at the end of
his administration and weakened by
the sex scandals anyway.
It's a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation
for someone who likes Palin to
call an articulate individual
and champion of the middle class
a "pig".
I'm less fond of Janet Reno (e.g. Waco),
but I don't think she contributed in
any significant way, certainly not
relative to Gramm, to the housing crisis.
...
>
> > There is technically no such thing as Obamacare.
>
> > And nobody said that funding for mammograms under 40 would be denied.
>
> His panel said most women should not have them under 40, and you
> admitted his system would go by his panel's recommendations
When did I admit that?
...
> > > irrelavant
>
> > It's very relevant, because hoping that someone
> > misunderstands something so that they'll
> > do what she wants (tell their representative
> > to vote no) because of the misunderstanding
> > is in fact the mortal sin of putting a stumbling
> > block before the blind.
>
> Then you fellow democrat liars are on their way to hell with her--and
> you, for calling bush a desserter when no court has found him guilty of
> that.
There is considerable evidence that he didn't show up for
his national guard duty.
The attacks on Bush are admittedly not proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, but that's a far cry from their being lies.
...
>
> > That's because you're stubbornly ignoring the ordinary meaning of
> > words.
>
> And you're stubbornly claiming democrats are pure as the driven snow
> when they are equally liars
I don't know about equally, but I've never claimed democrats
are pure as the driven snow. Certainly not in the 60s.
...
> > Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
> > known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
>
> In public, they would never say something like that any more than, in
> public, a republican would denigrate minorities for something.
But prominent Republicans do publically say outrageous things
about Democrats. Just recently Cheney suggested that
Obama was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and
a former aid went on TV and publically defended the comment.
...
>
> > More people will die from Bushcare.
>
> Maybe that's good, depending on who dies.
Oh.
I forgot, you're not a Christian.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
>
> I am convinced it will help bankrupt the country and throw us into
> hyperinflation
Huh? All the analyses show it will *reduce* costs.
I don't see how reducing costs will
drive us into bankruptcy and hyperinflation.
...
>
> > and the media was afraid to touch that issue and
> > scolded Dan Rather for trying.
>
> He was scolded for eagerly using unverified claims from a bad source
> later shown to be false
No. He was scolded for presenting a copy of a source
document and giving the impression that the copy
was an original. The secretary who wrote the
document confirmed that she typed the words
in it, even though the document Rather showed
was not the document that she typed.
It was never later shown to be false.
Everybody got so caught up in the issue of whether
it was an original that they were able to divert the
discussion away from whether what it said was
true or not.
...
>
> > You'd be wrong, but it is true that Republicans pal around with
> > adulterers and criminals. Especially all the senators,
> > and all the guys from the C street gang.
>
> Blago, Charlie Rangle, William Jefferson, Kwami Kilpatrick, John Murtha,
> Bill Richardson, ACORN, and the list goes on and on.
Uh, Blago's a crook, Rangel's shady, Jefferson's a crook,
don't know enough about Kilpatrick, Murtha was
implicated in Abscam but never took bribes and
anyhow although he's a Dem he's a conservative
more like you than me, Bill Richardson was
under investigation but later cleared, dunno
what you have against ACORN other than
right-wing conspiracy theories.
I never said Dems were all pure. And
I never said most Reps were crooks,
just that their policies and in recent
times their tactics are horrid.
They complain about ACORN, but then
they go around giving away virtual
money to get people to unknowingly
get letters sent online opposing HCR.
Shame on them. Not to mention
all those tactics of scrubbing people
off voting rolls for having the same
names as criminals. Fooey.
...
>
> > > Cuz we live in a cursed creation because of Adam. And, contrary to what
> > > you seem to think, God DOES judge nations and people for sin
>
> > Was your answer to (a) and (b) "yes"?????
>
> Answer: Don't know. Don't know.
>
I don't think God punishes the innocent that way.
>
>
> > So you believe that God deliberately punishes innocent people for
> > the sins of the guilty?
>
> > What if there were 10 innocent?
>
> I hate to tell you, but the "innocent" often get punished with the
> wicked when God sends punishment to a nation.
>
> Earthquakes, and such, don't discriminate all that often
EARTHQUAKES are God's punishment for sin???????????
>
> Oh, and by the way--there is NONE righteoues, NO NOT ONE
Hard to reconcile with the beginning of Job -- see my discussion w/
Zev.
Psalmists like to *exaggerate* for rhetorical effect -- you
do that to an enormous degree, so why are you surprised?
...
>
> Paul makes it clear that sexual sin seems to be 'worse' or some how
> 'especially bad' than all other sorts of sin.
I don't care about Paul.
And even he doesn't come out directly against gay marriage.
...
> > > > But you like Palin! Maybe that's a negative emotion
> > > > too, since she's so hateful a person?
>
> > > I think she's a wonderful, but ditzy, person
>
> > I thought you only had negative emotions?
>
> That is my intellectual conclusion about her. No emotion behind it.
>
"Wonderful" has no emotion?
...
>
> > I don't know what NCIS is; sorry.
>
> Most popular show on TV. Like naval CSI. Sheesh...
Don't really watch much TV. My daughter
did get me interested in "Monk"; you
might like it since the lead detective
has obsessive-compulsive and
autistic-savant traits.
Never heard of NCIS; don't think I can
extrapolate real-world conclusions from
what you think the opinions of fictional
characters might be.
The Doctor probably would have agreed
with *me*; don't think we can go far
with arguments like this, though.
...
>
>
>
> > Yuck. No, I don't watch right-wing porn.
>
> But bet you'll watch Keith Olberman, Lonnie Deutsch and Rachel MAddow
I watch KO and RM from time to time; don't know LD.
...
>
> > The problem is that the majority of Democrats had repudiated
> > Johnson's war policy; they were angry that movers and
> > shakers in smoke-filled rooms were supporting Humphrey
> > in favor of a continuation of this rejected policy. The anger
> > was because the will of the people was being overridden.
> > It is from this that new practices of having most delegates
> > chosen by primaries originated.
>
> So some good came out of it
>
That's like saying some good came out of the Holocaust
because we got all these smart refugee scientists here.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 11, 7:05 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Stromwrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 8:00 am,vincegarcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >Rob Stromwrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > The legislation doesn't CREATE death panels.
> >
> > > > It does, because HIS panels do not currently exist. Others, not related
> > > > to him at all, do.
> >
> > > That is disingenuous.
> >
> > It may be, but it's precisely the same type of misleading BS that ALL
> > politicians use to deceive people into voting their way.
>
> Now you have moved from saying Palin wasn't misleading to
> saying it's ok for her to be misleading because everyone else is.
Stop playing that game! You were saying she was "lying"; I showed she
wasn't. Then YOU moved to 'she's being mislaeading,' and I made the
point your side also does.
>
> Sorry, but when one appeals to an audience of idiots
> with no memory and no desire to check facts, and one
> has no moral scruples, the lies are much more outrageous.
write your democrats about that then
>
> > ...
> > When clinton or bush does a line item veto to cut a proposed increase in
> > spending on some program,
>
> huh? there is no constitutional provision for such a thing.
huh??? Clinton signed it into law in 1996!
>
> ...
> >
> > Pigs like barney frank and janet reno,
>
> They weren't pigs and they weren't instrumental.
They ARE pigs. They all top my list.
>
> The people instrumental in lowering standards
> were the folks, led by Phil Gramm who got
> the Glass Steagall act repealed,
You mean the repeal voted for by PELOSI???? 75% of the Democrats and 95%
of the Republicans also voted for it
leading
> to a system whereby mortgage-backed securities
> and credit default swaps could be traded
> in an unregulated way regardless of whether
> there was a real asset backing them up.
You mean the repeal that was signed into law by conservative BILL
CLINTON???
>
> Barney Frank especially is at the forefront
> of attacking all these measures that encourage
> risk taking by rewarding the risk-takers
> when the risk pays off and leaving the risk-takers
> with no losses when it doesn't. That's
> pretty much all he talks about these days!
Is this the same barney frank who was also calling conservatives
'racist' on Cspan during debate on this issue when they pointed out
lowering credit standards would be bad?
>
> You can blame Clinton if you like for
> not vetoing the repeal of Glass Steagall,
> but there were enough conservative
> Dems
like conservative nancy pelosi????
joining the Repubs at the time
> to have overridden the veto had he made one,
> and Clinton was of course at the end of
> his administration and weakened by
> the sex scandals anyway.
>
> It's a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation
> for someone who likes Palin to
> call an articulate individual
> and champion of the middle class
> a "pig".
He is. And pelosi. And Reid. And Scuzzafava.
Anyone who advocates liberal notions that contradict the Bible, or
anyone who belives in a so-called 'separation of church and state', or
anyone who denies this was and is a 'Christian nation'--is a pig in my
view, and fit to be treated like one.
You should be glad my religion affects my politics, because you really
wouldn't like them if they were not tempered by it.
And you think i'm a Storm Trooper as it is! hah!
>
> I'm less fond of Janet Reno (e.g. Waco),
> but I don't think she contributed in
> any significant way, certainly not
> relative to Gramm, to the housing crisis.
Janet Reno threatened legal action against lenders whose racial
statistics raised her suspicions, forcing them to lower standards to
make a high enough 'quota' to avoid targetibg by the AG's office
>
> ...
> >
> > > There is technically no such thing as Obamacare.
> >
> > > And nobody said that funding for mammograms under 40 would be denied.
> >
> > His panel said most women should not have them under 40, and you
> > admitted his system would go by his panel's recommendations
>
> When did I admit that?
a few days ago, you said the system would certainly go by the
recommendations of his own panels
>
> ...
> > > > irrelavant
> >
> > > It's very relevant, because hoping that someone
> > > misunderstands something so that they'll
> > > do what she wants (tell their representative
> > > to vote no) because of the misunderstanding
> > > is in fact the mortal sin of putting a stumbling
> > > block before the blind.
> >
> > Then you fellow democrat liars are on their way to hell with her--and
> > you, for calling bush a desserter when no court has found him guilty of
> > that.
>
> There is considerable evidence that he didn't show up for
> his national guard duty.
You aren't a judge and jury. You have no right to declare the man guilty
of a felony. You have committed LH
>
> The attacks on Bush are admittedly not proven beyond a
> reasonable doubt, but that's a far cry from their being lies.
You have committed LH
>
> ...
> >
> > > That's because you're stubbornly ignoring the ordinary meaning of
> > > words.
> >
> > And you're stubbornly claiming democrats are pure as the driven snow
> > when they are equally liars
>
> I don't know about equally, but I've never claimed democrats
> are pure as the driven snow. Certainly not in the 60s.
nor in the 2000s
>
> ...
> > > Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
> > > known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
> >
> > In public, they would never say something like that any more than, in
> > public, a republican would denigrate minorities for something.
>
> But prominent Republicans do publically say outrageous things
> about Democrats.
And vice versa
Just recently Cheney suggested that
> Obama was giving aid and comfort to the enemy and
> a former aid went on TV and publically defended the comment.
so? I heard liberals all the time say that by Bush sending troops into
iraq and afghanistan, he was doing exactly what al qaeda wanted
>
> ...
> >
> > > More people will die from Bushcare.
> >
> > Maybe that's good, depending on who dies.
>
> Oh.
>
> I forgot, you're not a Christian.
I help the poor, so by your definition i have to be
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > Now you have moved from saying Palin wasn't misleading to
> > saying it's ok for her to be misleading because everyone else is.
>
> Stop playing that game! You were saying she was "lying"; I showed she
> wasn't.
It IS lying. If I say come on November 11th to vote, when it's
really November 4th, I'm LYING. Saying that I'm telling the
truth because I was using base 3 doesn't excuse me.
It's very obvious you were hoping that your listener was
using base 10.
...
> > huh? there is no constitutional provision for such a thing.
>
> huh??? Clinton signed it into law in 1996!
>
And the USSC declared it unconstitutional shortly thereafter.
...
> > > Pigs like barney frank and janet reno,
>
> > They weren't pigs and they weren't instrumental.
>
> They ARE pigs. They all top my list.
>
>
>
> > The people instrumental in lowering standards
> > were the folks, led by Phil Gramm who got
> > the Glass Steagall act repealed,
>
> You mean the repeal voted for by PELOSI???? 75% of the Democrats and 95%
> of the Republicans also voted for it
Yes. That one.
>
> leading
>
> > to a system whereby mortgage-backed securities
> > and credit default swaps could be traded
> > in an unregulated way regardless of whether
> > there was a real asset backing them up.
>
> You mean the repeal that was signed into law by conservative BILL
> CLINTON???
Yes, that one. Clinton (and for that matter Obama) are centrists.
Did you think they were Muslim radicals or something?
...
>
>
> > You can blame Clinton if you like for
> > not vetoing the repeal of Glass Steagall,
> > but there were enough conservative
> > Dems
>
> like conservative nancy pelosi????
Yes.
...
>
> > It's a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation
> > for someone who likes Palin to
> > call an articulate individual
> > and champion of the middle class
> > a "pig".
>
> He is. And pelosi. And Reid. And Scuzzafava.
And 95% of the Republicans, as you admit above???
>
> Anyone who advocates liberal notions that contradict the Bible, or
> anyone who belives in a so-called 'separation of church and state', or
> anyone who denies this was and is a 'Christian nation'--is a pig in my
> view, and fit to be treated like one.
Oh. Oink.
>
> You should be glad my religion affects my politics, because you really
> wouldn't like them if they were not tempered by it.
>
> And you think i'm a Storm Trooper as it is! hah!
You are, and you're lucky it's not a Christian state NOW,
because you'd be burned at the stake.
...
>
> Janet Reno threatened legal action against lenders whose racial
> statistics raised her suspicions, forcing them to lower standards to
> make a high enough 'quota' to avoid targetibg by the AG's office
That's bogus Republican propaganda. Paul Krugman refuted
this just recently, pointing out that at most 1/25 of subprime
loans were in this category, and Janet Reno hasn't been
AG for years, and nobody forced anybody to create a credit
default swap bubble where the value of the CDSs far
exceeded the value of the risks being insured for.
So don't blame Democrats and lowering the rates to
minorities, blame greedy bankers who are the true PIGS,
and the Republicans who continued to enable them
long after their piggishness was manifest.
...
>
> > When did I admit that?
>
> a few days ago, you said the system would certainly go by the
> recommendations of his own panels
perhaps a quote would be nice -- I always quote you your exact words.
...
>
> > There is considerable evidence that he didn't show up for
> > his national guard duty.
>
> You aren't a judge and jury. You have no right to declare the man guilty
> of a felony. You have committed LH
I have told you many times, it's an issue of political debate about
his suitability to be president.
...
>
> > ...
> > > > Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
> > > > known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
>
> > > In public, they would never say something like that any more than, in
> > > public, a republican would denigrate minorities for something.
>
> > But prominent Republicans do publically say outrageous things
> > about Democrats.
>
> And vice versa
Example?
...
>
> so? I heard liberals all the time say that by Bush sending troops into
> iraq and afghanistan, he was doing exactly what al qaeda wanted
Name one of the liberals (with respect to Afghanistan in particular).
By diverting from Afghanistan to Iraq, he WAS indirectly helping
al Qaida -- not attacking al Qaida, and destabilizing a region where
they could move in.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Dec 14, 8:15 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> ...
> > > Now you have moved from saying Palin wasn't misleading to
> > > saying it's ok for her to be misleading because everyone else is.
> >
> > Stop playing that game! You were saying she was "lying"; I showed she
> > wasn't.
>
> It IS lying. If I say come on November 11th to vote, when it's
> really November 4th, I'm LYING. Saying that I'm telling the
> truth because I was using base 3 doesn't excuse me.
>
> It's very obvious you were hoping that your listener was
> using base 10.
I thought the "lie" from your view was that "it doesn't change anything"
>
> ...
>
> > > huh? there is no constitutional provision for such a thing.
> >
> > huh??? Clinton signed it into law in 1996!
> >
>
> And the USSC declared it unconstitutional shortly thereafter.
So presidents no longer have that power? Didn't know
>
> ...
> > > > Pigs like barney frank and janet reno,
> >
> > > They weren't pigs and they weren't instrumental.
> >
> > They ARE pigs. They all top my list.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The people instrumental in lowering standards
> > > were the folks, led by Phil Gramm who got
> > > the Glass Steagall act repealed,
> >
> > You mean the repeal voted for by PELOSI???? 75% of the Democrats and 95%
> > of the Republicans also voted for it
>
> Yes. That one.
>
> >
> > leading
> >
> > > to a system whereby mortgage-backed securities
> > > and credit default swaps could be traded
> > > in an unregulated way regardless of whether
> > > there was a real asset backing them up.
> >
> > You mean the repeal that was signed into law by conservative BILL
> > CLINTON???
>
> Yes, that one. Clinton (and for that matter Obama) are centrists.
> Did you think they were Muslim radicals or something?
If you think clinton/obama are centrist, I think it shows how left you
are
> ...
> >
> >
> > > You can blame Clinton if you like for
> > > not vetoing the repeal of Glass Steagall,
> > > but there were enough conservative
> > > Dems
> >
> > like conservative nancy pelosi????
>
> Yes.
There ya go--that's how far left you are.
>
> ...
> >
> > > It's a bit of a pot-kettle-black situation
> > > for someone who likes Palin to
> > > call an articulate individual
> > > and champion of the middle class
> > > a "pig".
> >
> > He is. And pelosi. And Reid. And Scuzzafava.
>
> And 95% of the Republicans, as you admit above???
Now you're getting it--both sides are scum. There are exceptions, but
both parties are bad. Just in different ways.
lieberman stands tall, however, and there are a few repubs who haven't
soiled their robes
Can't think of any good democrats, tho perhaps I could with enough time.
used to like Sam Nunn
>
> >
> > Anyone who advocates liberal notions that contradict the Bible, or
> > anyone who belives in a so-called 'separation of church and state', or
> > anyone who denies this was and is a 'Christian nation'--is a pig in my
> > view, and fit to be treated like one.
>
> Oh. Oink.
Figured you'd OINK that
>
> >
> > You should be glad my religion affects my politics, because you really
> > wouldn't like them if they were not tempered by it.
> >
> > And you think i'm a Storm Trooper as it is! hah!
>
> You are,
This from the man who wanted to protect their right to march in Skokie,
to the guy who wanted to machine gun them...
Well, I am proud to be a Storm Trooper of the sort founded by the
Fuhrer, John Gill, who established the Strom Troopers as the guardians
of freedom, justice, and equality for all Ekosians, and our Zeon
friends.
Hail the Fuhrer!
and you're lucky it's not a Christian state NOW,
> because you'd be burned at the stake.
> ...
>
> >
> > Janet Reno threatened legal action against lenders whose racial
> > statistics raised her suspicions, forcing them to lower standards to
> > make a high enough 'quota' to avoid targetibg by the AG's office
>
> That's bogus Republican propaganda. Paul Krugman refuted
> this just recently, pointing out that at most 1/25 of subprime
> loans were in this category, and Janet Reno hasn't been
> AG for years, and nobody forced anybody to create a credit
> default swap bubble where the value of the CDSs far
> exceeded the value of the risks being insured for.
No, it's true. In fact, Obama is now--this week--doing the exact same
thing: threatening the banks for not loaning enough. The very thing that
got them into trouble, and your president wants them to repeat the
process.
Only a democrat could be so stupid...
>
> So don't blame Democrats and lowering the rates to
> minorities, blame greedy bankers who are the true PIGS,
they are
> and the Republicans who continued to enable them
> long after their piggishness was manifest.
They do
stand all of them up against the wall
>
> ...
> >
> > > When did I admit that?
> >
> > a few days ago, you said the system would certainly go by the
> > recommendations of his own panels
>
> perhaps a quote would be nice -- I always quote you your exact words.
I guess you did not say this. Sry. So your position must be that his
system will NOT go by his own panels' recommendations?
>
> ...
> >
> > > There is considerable evidence that he didn't show up for
> > > his national guard duty.
> >
> > You aren't a judge and jury. You have no right to declare the man guilty
> > of a felony. You have committed LH
>
> I have told you many times, it's an issue of political debate about
> his suitability to be president.
Then stop defending scuzzafava. Her stand on gay issues, or her
prejudice for/against gays, IS a part of her suitability for office
>
> ...
> >
> > > ...
> > > > > Name a prominent mainstream liberal (someone as well
> > > > > known as Palin or even Grassley) that has said so.
> >
> > > > In public, they would never say something like that any more than, in
> > > > public, a republican would denigrate minorities for something.
> >
> > > But prominent Republicans do publically say outrageous things
> > > about Democrats.
> >
> > And vice versa
>
> Example?
Pointless to give any because you will agree with them, and say it's not
outrageous if it's "true"
I know how you think
>
> ...
> >
> > so? I heard liberals all the time say that by Bush sending troops into
> > iraq and afghanistan, he was doing exactly what al qaeda wanted
>
> Name one of the liberals (with respect to Afghanistan in particular).
one i know personally, and i have in the past heard others on various
talk shows (most regarding iraq). Didn't think enough of it to get their
names
>
> By diverting from Afghanistan to Iraq, he WAS indirectly helping
> al Qaida -- not attacking al Qaida, and destabilizing a region where
> they could move in.
we shouldn't be in either place.
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > really November 4th, I'm LYING. Saying that I'm telling the
> > truth because I was using base 3 doesn't excuse me.
>
> > It's very obvious you were hoping that your listener was
> > using base 10.
>
> I thought the "lie" from your view was that "it doesn't change anything"
The lie is that you know most people will interpret
the phrase "November 11" to mean the eleventh
day of the month and not the fourth. The fact that
you can later say that there's another way of
interpreting it so that it means the fourth and
doesn't mean you were "right" and "not lying".
Same with Palin's lie. She knows that most
people will interpret "the bill will set up
death panels" to mean "more denials
of coverage than there are now",
and the fact that there's a bizarre
meaning of "set up death panels"
so that it means "some of the
existing denials of coverage
but with a different owner" doesn't
make her statement right or not a lie.
...
>
> > And the USSC declared it unconstitutional shortly thereafter.
>
> So presidents no longer have that power? Didn't know
They never had that power. That's what unconstitutional
means. It means that the provision of line item
vetos was struck down. Annulled.
...
>
> Now you're getting it--both sides are scum. There are exceptions, but
> both parties are bad. Just in different ways.
>
> lieberman stands tall, however, and there are a few repubs who haven't
> soiled their robes
UGH!!
<pauses to vomit>
<leaves room for a LONG time>
<comes back>
<oops, have to vomit again>
DON'T EVER MENTION THE NAME OF THAT DISGUSTING MAN
IN MY PRESENCE!!
I have been on the phone with his office once a week for months,
each time about a new set of disgusting lies he's telling on
television. He's jerking Democrats around, and he should
have been kicked out of the caucus. It's worse than
if he were never there, because he gives the public
the illusion that the Democrats are weak, not being
able to pass stuff even with 60 votes, when they
don't have the 60 votes.
In America, there is a comic strip called Peanuts where
Charlie Brown keeps coming to kick the football,
(this is American football, not soccer)
and this girl Lucy keeps snatching it away,
and Charlie Brown keeps coming back in
the hope that next time Lucy will let him kick.
That is what this disgusting Lieberman does.
First he tells us the public option is problematic
because OTHER Senators don't like it;
then it turns out that he's the only Dem
who doesn't like it, and he doesn't like
it so much that he will not only vote against
it, but deny the cloture vote that will allow
it to come to the vote. Then he says
perhaps instead of public option we can
have an alternative, so they spend a week
doing Medicare expansion, a bill
that Lieberman CAMPAIGNED ON when
he was a Presidential candidate and
supported as recently as 3 months ago
when he was complaining about how
bad the public option was. Then
they ask him and he says he has to
wait and see what the cost is. Then
it turns out that his advisors tell him
that the budget office is likely going
to say that this will lower the debt, so
today he comes out ahead of their
announcement and says he's going
to oppose it anyway. The guy's
just a disgusting tease whose only
goal is to embarrass Democrats and
the President. And he does it hoping
that we forgot the things he's said
just a few weeks ago.
NEVER SPEAK OF HIM AGAIN.
Er zoll geh'n in d'rerd.
I told his office that if he ever came to Ridgefield,
I will PERSONALLY lead a protest against him.
...
>
> This from the man who wanted to protect their right to march in Skokie,
> to the guy who wanted to machine gun them...
Yup.
I'm a patriotic American who loves American values, and
you hate them.
...
>
> No, it's true. In fact, Obama is now--this week--doing the exact same
> thing: threatening the banks for not loaning enough. The very thing that
> got them into trouble, and your president wants them to repeat the
> process.
That is NOT the very thing that got them into trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama is not saying why not create more inflated
credit default swaps and pass them around and create
a bubble over them. No.
...
>
> > perhaps a quote would be nice -- I always quote you your exact words.
>
> I guess you did not say this. Sry. So your position must be that his
> system will NOT go by his own panels' recommendations?
They are saying that probably younger women shouldn't have them.
There are good statistical reasons for it. It's based on Bayes'
theorem ... oh what the heck, you're not even going to know
what I'm talking about.
...
>
> > I have told you many times, it's an issue of political debate about
> > his suitability to be president.
>
> Then stop defending scuzzafava. Her stand on gay issues, or her
> prejudice for/against gays, IS a part of her suitability for office
And doesn't give you the right to say (lesbian?) scozzafava.
And I wasn't defending Scozzafava anyway; I was supporting her
Democratic
opponent.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
Thank you--i understand your position
> ...
>
> >
> > > And the USSC declared it unconstitutional shortly thereafter.
> >
> > So presidents no longer have that power? Didn't know
>
> They never had that power.
Clinton used it to line out some budget items before it was apparently
axed. And ALL presidents say they want this power.
Down, boy. Take a Xanex.
> Er zoll geh'n in d'rerd.
Sieg heil!
>
> I told his office that if he ever came to Ridgefield,
> I will PERSONALLY lead a protest against him.
I don't get this attitude that somehow he is obligated to back the damn
democrats. If he is obligated to back the democratic support, then i
guess heterosexual(?) Olympia Snow is bound to oppose the plan with her
fellow republicans, right?
Even I used to be for universal health care before I grasped the cost,
and the implications.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > This from the man who wanted to protect their right to march in Skokie,
> > to the guy who wanted to machine gun them...
>
> Yup.
>
> I'm a patriotic American who loves American values, and
> you hate them.
Except your values are modern, liberal ones, whereas mine are original
and traditional.
Washington would have fired on the Nazis, not protected their rights
>
> ...
>
> >
> > No, it's true. In fact, Obama is now--this week--doing the exact same
> > thing: threatening the banks for not loaning enough. The very thing that
> > got them into trouble, and your president wants them to repeat the
> > process.
>
> That is NOT the very thing that got them into trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes it is! They were harangued into loaning more money, so they dropped
standards to do that, and too many people who had no business getting
loans, got them.
>
> Obama is not saying why not create more inflated
> credit default swaps and pass them around and create
> a bubble over them. No.
Yes. By his actions and haranguing
> ...
> >
> > > perhaps a quote would be nice -- I always quote you your exact words.
> >
> > I guess you did not say this. Sry. So your position must be that his
> > system will NOT go by his own panels' recommendations?
>
> They are saying that probably younger women shouldn't have them.
>
> There are good statistical reasons for it. It's based on Bayes'
> theorem ... oh what the heck, you're not even going to know
> what I'm talking about.
>
> ...
> >
> > > I have told you many times, it's an issue of political debate about
> > > his suitability to be president.
> >
> > Then stop defending scuzzafava. Her stand on gay issues, or her
> > prejudice for/against gays, IS a part of her suitability for office
>
> And doesn't give you the right to say (lesbian?) scozzafava.
yes
Rob Strom
>
> > > So presidents no longer have that power? Didn't know
>
> > They never had that power.
>
> Clinton used it to line out some budget items before it was apparently
> axed. And ALL presidents say they want this power.
Many did want that power, and Clinton actually tried to get himself
that power, but the minute it passed and he tried to use it,
somebody sued and first the Federal
Court and then the USSC said it was unconstitutional
(properly so, since the constitution spells out the rules
for when a bill becomes a law and what the president's
veto power is, and Congress can't just say no we're going
to do it differently now). Actually one of the parties
to the lawsuit was your buddy Rudy Giuliani!
...
>
> > NEVER SPEAK OF HIM AGAIN.
>
> Down, boy. Take a Xanex.
<looks up what that means>
Uh, no. Habit-forming, and has potential
side effects of turning people into Republicans.
Might explain something about current
Republicans, though.
...
>
> > I told his office that if he ever came to Ridgefield,
> > I will PERSONALLY lead a protest against him.
>
> I don't get this attitude that somehow he is obligated to back the damn
> democrats.
You don't?
He caucuses with the Democrats. Got a committee
chairmanship with the Democrats (despite
having run as an Independent and actually
campaigned for McCain and Coleman).
While it happens that a person votes against his
party as a matter of conscience from time to time,
it is UNPRECEDENTED that they
FILIBUSTER against their party, not
even letting the matter come up for a vote.
(Normally they vote with
their party to let the matter come to
a vote and then vote no on the real vote.)
Of course in the past the
(incestuous?) (babykiller?) Lieberman
made strong arguments against
there being a filibuster at all in
the Senate, which even then
referred to people filibustering
the opposition party on major
issues. (As Democrats occasionally
threatened to do against Republican
supreme court nominations.)
The idea that someone would
use it *against his own party*
to block a vote is brand new
territory, and effectively means
that nothing can pass at all
without 60 votes. Not even
a 3/5 majority, but 60 actual
votes (that is, even if 30
Republicans were absent and
the vote was 59 to 11,
that would still block a bill!)
The fact that he was using it
to block an amendment to
replace something he didn't
like with something he used
to like in the past just underscores
that he was doing it not
for conscientious reasons but
to hurt Democrats and kick
sand in their faces, either
to weaken the president or to
take personal revenge on the
folks who primaried him out
of the democratic nomination
for Senate.
Disgusting.
Petty.
Vindictive.
Self-centered.
Lying.
Constituent-ignoring.
Flip-flopping.
Unprincipled.
Tool of the Insurance Industry.
The guy is an Amalekite.
May his memory be erased
(in the Jewish sense of this
phrase, which actually means,
**never forget** how he was so
bad that his memory should
be erased!)
> If he is obligated to back the democratic support, then i
> guess heterosexual(?) Olympia Snow is bound to oppose the plan with her
> fellow republicans, right?
The sin is not voting against party on the vote, but
filibustering against your own party -- that is,
parliamentary maneuvering to prevent even a vote.
Olympia Snowe never did that, and in fact
I know of nobody until today's conservative
Democratic traitors who even threatened to
do that.
As it is, they made filibustering too easy, because
it used to be that if you filibustered, you had to
actually show up all day and all night and read
from the phone book to prolong debate.
Now you just hold up a virtual chit that says
you *would* have read from the phone book.
>
> Even I used to be for universal health care before I grasped the cost,
> and the implications.
The implications are that it *saves* money
and prevents people from *dying*. But of
course sodomites love to see people suffer,
especially if the suffering ones are a little
different from them. Of course, somebody
who dies from your neglect might be
an angel from God, and then fire and
brimstone will rain down to consume
your cities. Poor South Carolina.
...
> > That is NOT the very thing that got them into trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> yes it is! They were harangued into loaning more money, so they dropped
> standards to do that, and too many people who had no business getting
> loans, got them.
No. That accounted for a very small percentage of bad loans,
and bad loans accounted for a negligible percentage of
the collapse, which was because of ***derivative trading***,
in *credit default swaps*, as I've told you multiple times.
This is why Jesus came to preach: to tell people like you
to stop talking about the specks in your neighbors' eyes,
and to concentrate on the ******LOGS****** in your own!
>
> > Obama is not saying why not create more inflated
> > credit default swaps and pass them around and create
> > a bubble over them. No.
>
> Yes. By his actions and haranguing
Please quote one single speech by Obama supporting
further derivatives trading, and
credit default swaps. You're just making stuff up.
I want the exact words.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
ha ha. very fuinny.
Actually, it's the DEMOCRATS who are champions of using illegal drugs,
though some don't inhale
> ...
>
> >
> > > I told his office that if he ever came to Ridgefield,
> > > I will PERSONALLY lead a protest against him.
> >
> > I don't get this attitude that somehow he is obligated to back the damn
> > democrats.
>
> You don't?
>
> He caucuses with the Democrats. Got a committee
> chairmanship with the Democrats (despite
> having run as an Independent and actually
> campaigned for McCain and Coleman).
Don't sound much different from (baby killer?) Olympia Snowe, a Judas if
I've ever seen one.
>
> While it happens that a person votes against his
> party as a matter of conscience from time to time,
> it is UNPRECEDENTED that they
> FILIBUSTER against their party, not
> even letting the matter come up for a vote.
Dude--he's not technically a democrat.
> (Normally they vote with
> their party to let the matter come to
> a vote and then vote no on the real vote.)
>
> Of course in the past the
> (incestuous?) (babykiller?) Lieberman
> made strong arguments against
> there being a filibuster at all in
> the Senate, which even then
> referred to people filibustering
> the opposition party on major
> issues. (As Democrats occasionally
> threatened to do against Republican
> supreme court nominations.)
> The idea that someone would
> use it *against his own party*
Hey--if a repub. like Olympia Snowe goes against EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN
in passing along this catastrophy, or if (prostitute?) (Bordello
madame?) Mary Landrieu sells her soul for a bribe, you seem not to
denounce THAT
WHAT?????
Your buddy (former Nazi Gauleiter?) HOWARD DEAN just denounced and
called Obamacare "an insurer's dream"!
This is the guy you constantly praised, and say you patterned your
politics after.
Is he a tool of the evil republicans and Big Business?
I am gaining respect for him. May support him for president.
Heil Dean!
(Knew I'd bring this up about him, didn't you?)
>
> The guy is an Amalekite.
> May his memory be erased
> (in the Jewish sense of this
> phrase, which actually means,
> **never forget** how he was so
> bad that his memory should
> be erased!)
What a sad comment on a great jewish leader I'd vote for over palin in a
heartbeat
>
> > If he is obligated to back the democratic support, then i
> > guess heterosexual(?) Olympia Snow is bound to oppose the plan with her
> > fellow republicans, right?
>
> The sin is not voting against party on the vote, but
> filibustering against your own party -- that is,
> parliamentary maneuvering to prevent even a vote.
>
> Olympia Snowe never did that, and in fact
> I know of nobody until today's conservative
> Democratic traitors who even threatened to
> do that.
>
> As it is, they made filibustering too easy, because
> it used to be that if you filibustered, you had to
> actually show up all day and all night and read
> from the phone book to prolong debate.
> Now you just hold up a virtual chit that says
> you *would* have read from the phone book.
Good point. I agree.
And, of course, let's recall that (pro-salvery?) democrats invented the
fillibuster
>
> >
> > Even I used to be for universal health care before I grasped the cost,
> > and the implications.
>
> The implications are that it *saves* money
> and prevents people from *dying*. But of
> course sodomites love to see people suffer,
> especially if the suffering ones are a little
> different from them.
Howard Dean.
Of course, somebody
> who dies from your neglect might be
> an angel from God, and then fire and
> brimstone will rain down to consume
> your cities. Poor South Carolina.
Howard Dean.
>
> ...
> > > That is NOT the very thing that got them into trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > yes it is! They were harangued into loaning more money, so they dropped
> > standards to do that, and too many people who had no business getting
> > loans, got them.
>
> No. That accounted for a very small percentage of bad loans,
> and bad loans accounted for a negligible percentage of
> the collapse, which was because of ***derivative trading***,
> in *credit default swaps*, as I've told you multiple times.
>
> This is why Jesus came to preach: to tell people like you
> to stop talking about the specks in your neighbors' eyes,
> and to concentrate on the ******LOGS****** in your own!
>
> >
> > > Obama is not saying why not create more inflated
> > > credit default swaps and pass them around and create
> > > a bubble over them. No.
> >
> > Yes. By his actions and haranguing
>
> Please quote one single speech by Obama supporting
> further derivatives trading, and
> credit default swaps. You're just making stuff up.
> I want the exact words.
He hasn't mentioned derivatives trading; he hAS harangued the banks to
spit the money out
>
> --
> Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> > chairmanship with the Democrats (despite
> > having run as an Independent and actually
> > campaigned for McCain and Coleman).
>
> Don't sound much different from (baby killer?) Olympia Snowe, a Judas if
> I've ever seen one.
Please give me an example of where Olympia Snowe filibustered
against her own party's platform.
>
>
>
> > While it happens that a person votes against his
> > party as a matter of conscience from time to time,
> > it is UNPRECEDENTED that they
> > FILIBUSTER against their party, not
> > even letting the matter come up for a vote.
>
> Dude--he's not technically a democrat.
He's in the Democratic caucus and is chairman of
a committee that actually does congressional oversight.
He got that chairmanship despite having
campaigned for (baby-killer?) McCain and
(kitten-torturer?) Norm Coleman, by promising
to be a loyal democrat on procedural votes.
Fellow Democratic conservative (carnival huckster?) Evan
Bayh vouched for him on public television, saying
we could trust that he wouldn't misbehave again,
because if he ever did, we could
rapidly rescind his position (which, as befits
Bayh's possible former position, was untrue).
...
>
> Hey--if a repub. like Olympia Snowe goes against EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN
> in passing along this catastrophy, or if (prostitute?) (Bordello
> madame?) Mary Landrieu sells her soul for a bribe, you seem not to
> denounce THAT
AFAIK, Snowe and all the other Sodomites are voting
against cloture in a bloc. I don't recall having
supported (Democrat?) Landrieu on these pages, or
opining that she had a soul to sell.
...
>
> Your buddy (former Nazi Gauleiter?) HOWARD DEAN just denounced and
> called Obamacare "an insurer's dream"!
Wow, can you ever get through a post without including one massive
distortion???
Howard Dean was a great SUPPORTER of Obama's health care
reform plan, and of the House Bill, and a tepid supporter of the
Senate Bill, as originally released by the committee.
What Dr. Dean objected to was not "Obamacare", but the
(defecated-upon?) corpse of a bill that was left behind
************after*********** Lieberman rejected two
compromises and insisted on
the Senate taking first the public option, and then
the medicare buy-in-for-55-and-older out. Far from
criticising "Obamacare" (and you will not hear even
one use of that word in his speech and you are
***critically*** impacting the health of your soul in
the afterlife by implying he did), he indicated that
the weakened bill was unsuitable because it
***failed*** to meet the Presidents requirements.
>
> This is the guy you constantly praised, and say you patterned your
> politics after.
He should have been nominated and elected in 2004.
I agree with him that this bill is horrible. I disagree
with him only on *tactics*: he thinks the bill should
fail and be restarted under reconciliation rules (where
filibusters are disallowed). I disagree because
it's too risky -- if it fails you get nothing and a horrible
blow to Democrats politically, and a big laugh
for the Sodomite party at seeing liberal Democrats
contribute to their own party's demise.
What I prefer to do
is to pass the bad bill (which still has a few crumbs
of useful features buried among the
Lieberman-extruded cat-excrement),
and THEN try to change the parameters of the bill
in a second bill that goes through reconciliation process.
That way, if it succeeds we're golden, and if it fails,
Democrats can at least announce that thanks to
our glorious President we have achieved
the first significant reform in decades, and that if the bill
has shortcomings it's only because of the evilly united
sodomite opposition (who opposed
even things they previously supported,
like McCain's medicare expansion, just to spite Dems)
plus one vindictive old
democrat-who-isn't-really-a-democrat,
and that this should be an incentive for people
who don't like these shortcomings to defeat
sodomites and elect *better* Democrats
in the next election.
>
> Is he a tool of the evil republicans and Big Business?
>
> I am gaining respect for him. May support him for president.
I'd be happy for you to do so, if I could only trust you.
...
> > The guy is an Amalekite.
> > May his memory be erased
> > (in the Jewish sense of this
> > phrase, which actually means,
> > **never forget** how he was so
> > bad that his memory should
> > be erased!)
>
> What a sad comment on a great jewish leader I'd vote for over palin in a
> heartbeat
Not sure what office you'd be referring to where
Lieberman would run against Palin?
...
>
> Good point. I agree.
>
> And, of course, let's recall that (pro-salvery?) democrats invented the
> fillibuster
I recall vividly. I'd even drop the "?".
I also recall that after LBJ pushed civil rights
legislation, these (pro-slavery!) worms have
migrated to the Republican party, where they
have had a welcoming home ever since.
(Yes, I know about the exception,
oldest Democrat in the Senate,
former Klansman and filibusterer-against-civil-rights
Robert Byrd, who at least has thankfully
repudiated his earlier positions. It just
highlights the fact that Lieberman's
filibuster, which in my last post I inaccurately called
"unprecedented" is actually second in
the tradition of a then Ku-Klux-Klansman.)
...
>
> > The implications are that it *saves* money
> > and prevents people from *dying*. But of
> > course sodomites love to see people suffer,
> > especially if the suffering ones are a little
> > different from them.
>
> Howard Dean.
You don't deserve to shine Howard Dean's boots.
Dean is against this bill **because**
it has been destroyed by sodomites, not
because he supported their position
or opposed the original bill.
...
> > > > Obama is not saying why not create more inflated
> > > > credit default swaps and pass them around and create
> > > > a bubble over them. No.
>
> > > Yes. By his actions and haranguing
>
> > Please quote one single speech by Obama supporting
> > further derivatives trading, and
> > credit default swaps. You're just making stuff up.
> > I want the exact words.
>
> He hasn't mentioned derivatives trading; he hAS harangued the banks to
> spit the money out
That is not what you were asked to defend. I said no he didn't
urge banks to do the earlier actions of creating
inflated credit default swaps. You said,
and it's still up there: "Yes. By his actions and haranguing."
I want to see actions and haranguing of banks
around CDSs, or else retract/clarify what you meant.
Of course we want banks to *loosen credit*. Loosening
credit wasn't the problem; spiralling-out-of-control derivatives
were. If you think Obama supports the measures leading
to the previous problem, you must show how he supports
these derivatives.
--
Rob Strom