« Wake Up, America | Main

Comments

L.D.S. Laura

Phoencian in a time of Romans, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. I don't mind debating the issues but you are not making any sense.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Laura: "Phoenician in a time of Romans, I haven't a clue what you are talking about."

I'll try and make it simple.

i, You condemn gays using rules found in Leviticus.
ii, You ignore (I assume) those rules in Leviticus
which apply to you.
iii, Assuming you ignore those laws, you are therefore a hypocrite. That is not an insult, simply a matter of fact.

So there are a couple of questions for you to consider:

i, Do you keep to all the Levitical laws yourself?
ii, Do you think the Levitical law against homosexuality should apply to others?

L.D.S. Laura

Henry, you might want to check your facts. I live in California and I have 2 Walmarts within 10 miles of my home. I don't know what you are talking about when you say we voted not to have Walmarts in our state. They are everywhere! And you seem to be rambling. As I said before, people make choices. They can move to areas that are not as expensive to live but many chose not to and so they have to work 2 or 3 jobs. That is their choice. I have lived in poverty and I pulled myself out. It can be done. I'm living proof. Believe me, if I can do it almost anyone can. Except those who are truly disabled. Again, I'm sick of people looking at themselves as victims. You don't like your life, look at the choices you've made. Make some new ones. That may require moving. It may require going back to school. It might require training yourself for a new job, something I did by the way. I got an entry level job and taught myself the skills I needed to move up in the company. Then I left that company, got a better job and worked my way up to an insurance adjuster. Since I made some poor choices early in my life, I did not have a college degree. Most insurance adjusters must have one but since I did such a good job and impressed my bosses by training myself, they waived the college degree requirement and gave me the job. People MUST look at their choices and reevaluate. Stop looking at yourself as a victim and start counting your blessings. If you don't like your life look at ways to change it. Stop whining about it and do something.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

This is being done in your names.

http://www.empirenotes.org/fallujahreality.html

Yeah, I bet your Founding Fathers are reaaaaal proud of you now...

L.D.S. Laura

Phoenician in a time of Romans, I keep the laws of the bible as my religion teaches. Or at least I try. Sometimes I make mistakes, but that's why Jesus suffered, so that we could repent. I don't look at myself as a hypocrite, just someone living what my religion teaches and doing the best I can to be the best person I can be. I still don't see anything about interracial marriage, which is what set this whole thing off. Show me where it says anything about interracial marriage. The scriptures you are refering to only talk about the cleanliness of a woman after giving birth. This has nothing to do with interracial marriage. Try again.

L.D.S. Laura

Phoenician in a time of Romans, about that web site you posted. An obviously left wing agenda. I listen to the troops who have been serving and are still serving in Iraq. They tell a much different story. I would tend to believe the troops over a left wing web liberal college teacher.

Henry Schlatman

Laura,
You might want to read this about Wal-mart http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3044wal-mart.html

On illegals costing this country money all anyone has to do is watch Lou Dobbs on CNN. As far as the youth not wanting to work, who's fault is that? Could it be that parents of today have pampered them? Stop giving them money and force them to work. I started working at 6 years old for my money. So if you parents don't want to teach them to earn a dollar at a young age that is your responsiblilty, don't make me foot the bill because you wanted to pamper your kids with designer name jeans at age one.

It is not the fact that Americans will not take this jobs, it is however that most of them have enough education to get a better job. Remove the nearly 13 million illegals from the work force and the businesses would be forced to pay the higher wages to the same level as a manufacturing job. Not to include it is illegal for an American Business to hire anyone who is in this country illegally. Or do you believe that it is ok to break the law to make a dollar?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Laura: "Phoenician in a time of Romans, I keep the laws of the bible as my religion teaches."

So your religion teaches Leviticus 18:22 but ignores Leviticus 18:19?

How... convenient...

Why is that, do you think? In your opinion, why does your religion pick and choose? Why do your leaders tell you that THIS is unholy but ignore THAT which is also unholy?

Laura: "I still don't see anything about interracial marriage, which is what set this whole thing off. Show me where it says anything about interracial marriage."

Exodus 34:10-16.

Laura: " I listen to the troops who have been serving and are still serving in Iraq. They tell a much different story. I would tend to believe the troops over a left wing web liberal college teacher."

Ah, the equivilant of sticking your fingers in your ears. Pity the left wing liberal college teachers were right about, oh, Vietnam, isn't it?

Try these:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20140/

Denver Jones, a specialist in the National Guard whose spine was shattered in a truck accident in Iraq, describes seeing a soldier drive over an Iraqi child who had walked into the roadway. “But the Army told us,” Jones says sadly, “if someone got in front of the truck, to run over them.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6556.htm

What he was about to say required deliberation.
"We shot a man with his hands up," he said, "We even shot women and children."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00105.htm

“We could see the body parts flying up into the air after the bombs hit. It was terrible and we could not do a damn thing but watch it happen and scream into the radio at the dumb sh.t pilot that was dropping the bombs. After the strike was over we went to see if there were any survivors and all we found was bits and pieces of little kids and here and there an arm or leg you could still identify.”

And if you want perhaps the best informed writer on what's really happening in Iraq, you should be checking this guy out regularly:

http://www.juancole.com

wasted potential

Phoenician - I see you are attempting to use the scriptures to show inconsistincies in the Bible and Christian teaching. However, are you sure that Christianity condones sexual relations during the menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19)? Also, did you notice that this act is not referred to as an abomination as homosexual relations is in Leviticus 18:22?

As to Exodus 34:10-16, this passage does not speak to interracial marriage on a broad basis. The Israelites were commanded to stay pure to their tribes for marriage in order to keep them from learning and practicing the heathen religions of these other peoples. The New Testament teaches the same principle when Paul said we are not to be unequally yoked to non-believers in marriage. There is no mention to race.

As to a Christian view of homosexuality, we can use the law found in the Old Testament as a guide, but Jesus freed us from the law (read Galatians, if you are interested). If all had to keep the law for salvation, none of us would be found righteous because no one keeps the full law (read Romans 3:10-18). It is through grace found in Jesus Christ we are declared righteous, not because we are so good, but because Jesus lived the sinless life and paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. We gain His righteousness, not a righteosness of our own (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Now we are not free to sin as a result, but are called to a life of sanctification after we are saved (read Romans 6). However, for a reaffirmation in the New Testament on the Christian view of homosexuality, I would refer you to Romans 1:20-32, where this type of behavior is described as being practiced by those who have rejected God for other gods and are now given over to their lusts. However, verses 30 and 31 outline several other acts of unrighteousness which are seen as wicked too, but these acts do not name a specific penalty being paid by the doers as the homosexuals were in verse 27.

Romans 2 then goes on to say that we are all hypocrites when we judge other people because we too are found condemned under the law. However, God's law is not nullified by grace, but is fulfilled by it.

Now, I am sure that you are not seriously interested in a theological debate on this issue, but if you wish to speak further about this, I am glad to have the debate.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

And yet another story Laura will no doubt ignore:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=9&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq_prisoner_abuse_2

"Maj. Clarke Paulus is accused of ordering a subordinate to drag Nagem Hatab, 52, by the neck from a holding cell at a Marine detention facility in Iraq (news - web sites) on June 6, 2003. Hatab died shortly afterward; a military forensics examiner found he broke a bone in his neck and suffocated."

Damn those lying leftist liberal military forensics examiners and their anti-American biases...

Wow, 18 whole months for torturing someone to death.

Your Founding Fathers must be so proud of you.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Another terrorist bites the dust:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041107/481/bag10211070833

WP: "However, are you sure that Christianity condones sexual relations during the menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19)?"

I see Christians citing Leviticus to condemn homsexuality. They must either consider all of Leviticus applicable to Christianity or be hypocrites. And I've never seen any Christian advocate the uncleanliness laws from Leviticus.

WP: "Also, did you notice that this act is not referred to as an abomination as homosexual relations is in Leviticus 18:22?"

Right up there with Deut. 7: 25-26, Deut. 18:10-12, and Proverbs 17:15 right?

Yet I notice that astrologers, people who collect pagan art and right-wing pundits are all able to marry. Several times over in the case of Rush Limbough.

WP: "As to a Christian view of homosexuality, we can use the law found in the Old Testament as a guide, but Jesus freed us from the law (read Galatians, if you are interested)."

Very good. And what exactly did Jesus (note, not Paul, who never actually MET Jesus) have to say about homosexuality?

Phoenician in a time of Romans

WP: "As to Exodus 34:10-16, this passage does not speak to interracial marriage on a broad basis."

The point is, of course, that it can and has been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws as Biblicly based. Just as you are quoting the Bible to justify imposing your own Christian sect's definition of marriage on everyone in America.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

Here's a fascinating story:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1107-02.htm

But note that it was originally distributed via Agence France Presse, meaning that it will have been picked up and read by many parts of the Muslim world.

And unlike Americans, they won't have forgotten the historical parallels:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2001/oct05.html

Congratulations for providing more recruits for Osama bin Laden.

wasted potential

Phoenician - I can find many people over the course of 2000 years who have misquoted and misrepresented the scriptures to further their own agenda or ends. One only has to look at the catholic church of the dark ages or the protestant KKK to discover this. I could also do so for every religion in the world based on their sacred books all through history. I could even look at Darwinists, socialists and communists and find several instances of people who perverted the original ideas of those movements for evil.

The teaching of Exodus 34 was not for separation of the races, but for Israel to keep pure from other religions by not marrying outside their tribe.

There are somethings in the Bible, as well as other religions, that are immutable. We are not to murder each other, not to commit adultery, not steal from each other and so on. Homosexuality is also on that list. Now it is completely fair for a free thinking person to reject Christianity and any other religion they deem to be false, or to say all are false. That is the beauty of our country and of most of modern western civlization.

As to the gay marriage issue, it will surprise you that many non-religious people voted to ban this as well. Once something is put on the ballot, it leaves the realm of religion and becomes a matter of public opinion and policy. In our republican form of government, voters are not offered the chance to weigh in directly on specific issues often. In the case of the 11 states that had it on the ballot this year, each ban passed overwhelmingly.

You are wasting your time to try and change the beliefs of Christianity or any other religion. The principles which we follow and practice are based on, we believe, direct revelation from the Creator on how to live. Therefore, it is a losing argument. In the realm of public policy, we are all free to express our views and concerns to each other in order to persuade others to hold our position. Currently, America does not hold that gay marriage should be allowed in this country. The largest contributing factor is religion, as religion teaches that marriage was given to us by the Creator as a sacred institution, but others just don't like the idea.

Now for the purposes of life insurance, health insurance, taxes, etc ... I think that the civil union idea is a reasonable alternative which could win in the public arena. The purists on the right would argue with me that this would be a slippery slope to full marriage, and maybe they are right. However, I am confident enough in my own beliefs that I am not afraid of any policy debate eroding my religion. However, when asked to vote on the issue, I will vote with my conscience, which is firmly rooted in the cause of Christ and the teachings of the Bible.

wasted potential

Phoenician - I am curious, as a Frenchman (or woman, I am not sure), do you think it was right for the United States to liberate your country not once but twice? There were several more reports of atrocities committed by the Allied troops in both wars than you are citing in your articles and many more civilians and soldiers died.

wasted potential

Phoenician - also I would like to ask you a question. After observing the attitudes of the secularists in our country and in Western Europe towards George W Bush and America, I have come to the conclusion that secularists view the Evangelical Christian and social conservatives to be a greater threat to their way of life than they do the Islamic terrorist. Do you agree with that statement?

wasted potential

Phoenician: "Very good. And what exactly did Jesus (note, not Paul, who never MET Jesus) have to say about homosexuality?"


First of all, Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, the account can be found in Acts 9. His apostleship was accepted by the first church and most importantly by Peter and James, the heads of the church in Jerusalem. The Christian faith holds Paul in high regard as the apostle to us Gentiles, taking Christianity from a Jewish sect to a worldwide church.

Secondly, Jesus was asked about divorce and made the following statement:

Matthew 19:4-6 "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and declared, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined."

Jesus was quoting from Genesis 2:24 where the institution of marriage was given by the Creator to be between a man and a woman.

You are correct to point out the abominations in the other passages spoken. Proverbs 17:15 condemns not only those who practice wickedness, but who also call it just. Dueteronomy 7:25,26 condemns those who worship false gods or graven images and Dueteronomy 18 condemns child sacrifice and those who practice witchcraft. Each on of these are condemned in their own way, but none of them have to do with the family or sexuality, so I believe this is illogical reasoning on your part. For example, a heterosexual copule who practices witchcraft is correct in their view of sexuality according to the scriptures, but are still condemned by their practice of witchcraft.

Once again, I will say that we are all condemned in the eyes of God unless we live our whole lives in compliance with the entire law. None of us is capable of that due to our sin nature. It is only by the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus we can be declared righteous. Not because we cleaned ourselves up - that is impossible. But because we put our faith in His work on the cross and in His resurrection from the God. God imputes His righteousness to us. Those of us who have believed are no better than anyone else - we are just beggars, who found bread - the Bread of Life.

Sorry for the late response, overlooked it earlier.

wasted potential

Instead of resurrection from the God, I should have said resurrection from the dead. I am obviously getting too tired for this.

wasted potential

Hey Rocket Punch! Since this board is 75% consumed with theological arguments (most if weak on both sides I must admit), do you want to go ahead and start the discussion we wanted to have after the election? I would love to find out how coming from a strong Catholic background you now hold views opposing that church at least in some areas.

I do not want a yelling match, but a discussion of ideas. Let me know if you wish to converse!

Henry Schlatman

wasted potential,
You stated "If all had to keep the law for salvation, none of us would be found righteous because no one keeps the full law (read Romans 3:10-18). It is through grace found in Jesus Christ we are declared righteous, not because we are so good, but because Jesus lived the sinless life and paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. We gain His righteousness, not a righteosness of our own (Ephesians 2:8,9)."

This is strange view to quote this for Jesus said that only through me can you get to heaven, thus Luke stated that it was more important to walk the walk just not talk it. Therefore, since Jesus seeked only Understanding of other people and warned people about judging others actions how does your logic carry through.

Now I am aware of some churches that broke away from the Puritains of Our Country using that rational. In fact although the persons name eludes me right now, some man was put to death over having that view on religion. Are you to say that it is ok today to have that opinion?

initiate debate

Couple of things- Wasted potential, I'm intrigued as to why you bring up the US efforts in France in the two world wars. The argument could be made that if it wasn't for French assistance the US could still be under British control. The French also provided one of the most significant symbols in the US. While I agree the US effort in world wars was significant, I think it was not the crucial or deciding factor, especially in the defeat of Nazism.

And regardless of what it says in the Bible (not to detract from the obvious importance of the book to many here), what is wrong with people choosing to marry whoever they want when it has no bearing on you or your situation? Forget the precedents and the constitutional arguments- I would like to think that Christianity is a tolerant religion, and that it can adapt to the modern era. What effect does it have on your life whether someone is a pagan, Muslim, atheist, Hindu or Buddhist when what they do has no bearing on your beliefs? Can you not apply the same tolerance to abortion and gay rights?

L.D.S. Laura

This has become truly pathetic. I am not here to defend my religious beliefs but or to be attacked for what I believe. I came here to have a serious, thought provking discussion on politics. But this has deteriorated to people attacking and name calling and rewriting history. I think I'll go find a site where people can have a rational discussion about politics without name calling and accusations and hysteria. Oh and by the way, you might want to look at faith with out works is dead!

initiate debate

"rewriting history"

Where?

What hysteria? People from different sides of the argument are claiming that the Bible says different things, surely this is a 'thought-provoking discussion?

"you might want to look at faith with out works is dead"

Pardon?

L.D.S. Laura

Rewriting history: The argument could be made that if it wasn't for French assistance the US could still be under British control. The French also provided one of the most significant symbols in the US. While I agree the US effort in world wars was significant, I think it was not the crucial or deciding factor, especially in the defeat of Nazism.

Hysterical rantings: Really? And did you pay attention to Leviticus 12:1-8 when you did so, OR DO YOU ONLY INSIST OTHER PEOPLE ABIDE BY LEVITICUS?

I resent you, madam, for your ignorance and bigotry. A hundred years ago you would have been shunned or lynched for those mixed-race children, JUST AS GAYS TODAY ARE SHUNNED OR KILLED FOR WHO THEY LOVE.

You are the worst kind of fool - someone who has profited by the growth of tolerance in a secular society, yet insists that they need not support that secular society to tolerate others.

Faith with out works is dead: You stated "If all had to keep the law for salvation, none of us would be found righteous because no one keeps the full law (read Romans 3:10-18). It is through grace found in Jesus Christ we are declared righteous, not because we are so good, but because Jesus lived the sinless life and paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. We gain His righteousness, not a righteosness of our own (Ephesians 2:8,9)."

This is strange view to quote this for Jesus said that only through me can you get to heaven, thus Luke stated that it was more important to walk the walk just not talk it. Therefore, since Jesus seeked only Understanding of other people and warned people about judging others actions how does your logic carry through.

This has turned into a fight about religion instead of a discusion about politics. People are calling each other names instead of having a rational discussion. If this was just about different points of view I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when people start demanding to know intimate details of my sexual life (And did you keep those commandments, Laura? I mean, you seem hell-bent on inflicting Leviticus on gays - do you keep it yourself?posted by: Phoencian in a time of Romans)and then calling me names I draw the line. Bush didn't win just because of moral issues or even just because of gay marriage issues. The exit polls (which we now know to be highly inaccurate) say that one in five voted on moral issues. What about the other 4? If these are even accurate. I have been taught that the Spirit can't dwell where there is contention. If someone is truly interested in why someone believes what they believe, then you can have a wonderful discussion. But if all they want to do is argue about religion, the Spirit can't dwell there. I don't want to argue about religion, I want to discuss political ideas and why people believe what they believe. So, good-by.

Phoenician in a time of Romans

WP: "Phoenician - I can find many people over the course of 2000 years who have misquoted and misrepresented the scriptures to further their own agenda or ends. One only has to look at the catholic church of the dark ages or the protestant KKK to discover this."

Very good - and many of us believe that imposing exclusions on marriage administered under secular law based on your religious definitions is one of these.

To put it more bluntly, there are Christian sects who celebrate and perform marriages for gay couples. Why should the State, which is supposed to favour no religion, accept your definition of marriage but not theirs?

WP: "There are somethings in the Bible, as well as other religions, that are immutable. We are not to murder each other, not to commit adultery, not steal from each other and so on. Homosexuality is also on that list."

So sorry, but I don't believe the persecution of homosexuality belongs in that immutable list, no more than the need to follow holy wars against the unbeliever or the enslavement of one race by another.

The comments to this entry are closed.