Obama Invites Gay Bishop to Give an Inaugural Prayer

posted by John Nichols on 01/12/2009 @ 3:50pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (171)

Subscribe Now

Apparently, it pays to complain to President-elect Barack Obama.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama clearly felt a bit burned by the outcry over his selection of Pastor Rick Warren, an evangelical preacher with a nasty track record when it comes to respecting the rights of lesbians and gays, to deliver the invocation at his inaugural.

So Obama has tapped the right Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the only openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, to deliver the invocation at the inaugural concert to be held at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday, January 18.

The New Hampshire bishop had this to say:

I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, "We are One," to be held at the Lincoln Memorial, Sunday, January 18, at 2:00 pm. It will be an enormous honor to offer prayers for the country and the new president, standing on the holy ground where the "I have a dream speech" was delivered by Dr. King, surrounded by the inspiring and reconciling words of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It is also an indication of the new president's commitment to being the President of ALL the people. I am humbled and overjoyed at this invitation, and it will be my great honor to be there representing the Episcopal Church, the people of New Hampshire, and all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Here's the word from National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Rea Carey:

President-elect Obama has made a stellar choice in selecting Bishop Gene Robinson to offer the prayer at the Lincoln Memorial to kick off the inaugural festivities. Bishop Robinson is an inspiration to millions worldwide because he lives out the ideals of courage, humility and truth speaking. This is certainly a good sign that our nation is indeed moving forward.

President-elect Obama's wise choice of Bishop Robinson, as well as that of Rev. (Joseph) Lowery (who will give the benediction at the presidential inauguration on Tuesday, January 20) and Rev. (Sharon) Watkins (the first woman ever asked to deliver the sermon at the post-inaugural National Prayer Service on Wednesday, January 21), continues to add to the historic nature of this inaugural celebration. For the first time in history, an out gay man will lead the nation in opening the transfer of power from one administration to another -- and every person watching in the U.S. and around the world will have seen it. That, alone, is change.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese says:

Bishop Robinson models what prayer should be--spiritual reflection put into action for justice. It is encouraging that the president-elect has chosen this spiritual hero for all Americans to lead the nation in prayer at the Lincoln Memorial inaugural concert.

True statements all. But the spiritual highlight on the Lincoln Memorial concert may come from another source.

The rumor -- as yet unconfirmed by the Obama transition team -- is that Bruce Springsteen will appear.

Comments (171)

And now, the screaming will start on the Right....

Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 4:00pm
I'm a little divided on this decision. It's not because I disagree with picking the Bishop; from what I've been able to see, he seems like a good choice. What bothers me more, though, is the defensiveness that seems to underlie the choice.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 4:05pm
Come on people...so what if the Bishop is gay and what difference does that make to him giving a prayer for heaven's sake? PE Obama wants to be inclusive of all people, he has made that clear so can you all please just settle down and move into the 21st Century, things are changing with this administration you better get used to it. Now, I will wait for those self righteous folks to come back on this!!!

Posted by Caj at 01/12/2009 @ 4:07pm
i bet his gonna try to kiss rick warren.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 4:34pm
And now, the screaming will start on the Right....---Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 4:00pm

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 4:06pm

See?

BTW, Larry, where is all this "Robinson is not obeying God" from Obama??!?!?

Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 4:52pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 4:06pm 

Obama has said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not follow from this that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, I don't see the inconsistency.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 5:09pm
Ugh; most of these increases are pretty bad. They're not unconstitutional...they're just ridiculously abusive.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 5:55pm
Springsteen sucks.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 6:26pm
For All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and if any disagree with God's clear word, good luck explaining to him your rationalizations when his will is clearly known!

Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 6:41pm

Thank you for making my point, you didn't waste anytime either!!!

Posted by Caj at 01/12/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 6:41pm

Ah, interesting. I wonder precisely what standard you're looking to. You have two:

1) Leviticus 2) Paul

Note that neither of these can be independently sufficient. Inclusion in Leviticus is not sufficient because many moral and categorical commandments in Leviticus are not understood as binding in the status quo (plus I'm pretty sure they only talk about homosexual acts betwen males). Paul isn't sufficient either because he isn't God. Plus, applying to both of those, neither actually has a coherent concept of homosexuality as an orientation rather than just a set of acts, and I think that's a fatal defect.

The only other possible argument you can give is that Jesus reaffirmed the Adam-Eve heterosexual marriage narrative. But note that NOWHERE does he even suggest that homosexuality is a sin. Liberty tried to make that claim, but never once did he provide adequate justification for it.

Since there's no basis for presuming that homosexuality is wrong from a harming-others standard or any other clear moral theory I know of, I think you'll have to do a lot of work to suggest that homosexuality is a sin.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 8:45pm
You do understand that people that express such a open hatred and intolerance of sexual inclinations. Are unable to deal with those inclinations within them selves due to formative influences in the early years of development. You reveal much about your self, the secret inner person. When you react so emotional to any given subject.

Matthew 7:3 "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

This is just an old, simple way of explaining Projection !!!

Now we should see a redoubled effort, of the person to further validate their position. This is a endless circle of denial, the person exists in. This it's self is a literal HELL, within.

I would not try and reason with these out bursts, the person must come to grips with them-self's in their own time and own way.

We all argue with our-selves openly. It is a living process and we all can take rest in this process.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/12/2009 @ 10:07pm
Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/12/2009 @ 10:07pm 

I don't think this is an adequate explanation, certainly not for ALL emotional reactions to things. Admittedly, this is sometimes the case; sometimes we react most strongly to things things which reflect aspects of ourselves we don't like. But clearly that's not always the case. When we hear about people being slaughtered, for example, what formative influences are we reacting to besides the principle that murdering people, especially en masse, is wrong?

If you think someone's position is morally mistaken, you don't automatically respond as though the person is in some sense ill. Casting aside for the moment the arrogance of assuming with that incredible degree of confidence that you must be right, it dehumanizes them by refusing to accept that the person probably believes what they believe due to exercise of their own rational agency. And certainly, clucking sympathetically at those who disagree with you about certain moral premises provides a convenient excuse for not even considering their own position.

Sorry for the rant; I really do agree with you in the sense that I just don't think condemnations of homosexuality make sense. However, I don't think we're justified in leaping to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with that has personality issues (certain well-known preachers to the contrary). Removing the log in one's own eye first cuts both ways (mixed metaphor?); it means both recognizing that other people MAY have non-rational reasons for what they believe, AND that we ourselves should be a bit more cautious and humble about assuming that we must be right and those we disagree with must be in some sense deluded.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 10:16pm
Now that was excellent !!! Thrawn

Really pure excellence. I concur and stand improved by that. Thank you.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/12/2009 @ 11:12pm
'Like I said, best of "luck" with the rationalizations! You will find no arguments contrary unless you venture outside scriptures!' cried "comanchenation."

Alas, we can but hope that "comanchenation" and his comrades so devote themselves to the Scriptures that they never more venture forth from them -- and leave the rest of us in peace.

By "us" I mean those of us who, unlike fundamentalists of every persuasion, understand that no text at all, including the Bible, can be read, interpreted, or understood from the inside. Every piece of writing is a historical document and as such is as dead as history -- until it is re-interpreted for a new time. The Bible is no different. Its printed words are dead -- until the Word once again is made flesh. But this transformation can happen only outside of its pages, in the hearts of active, thinking readers.

The fundamentalists condemn all Scripture and themselves to obsolescence by their refusal to learn history and to read properly. Rather than interpret the Bible as every conscientious reader should, they pretend that it is an immediate conduit to God's voice, a divine Ouija board. They seem to believe that the Bible itself will do their thinking for them if only they believe in it uncritically enough.

May God save us all from fundamentalism, which confines Biblical poetry and wisdom in a literalist prison and provides only bibliolatry, bibliomancy, and dangerous nonsense as substitutes.

Posted by JakobFabian at 01/12/2009 @ 11:26pm
we need some new bibles.

hey god, how come you ain't wrote no new bibles lately?

i think god* has writers block.

*don't take it personally, brother. it's us.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 11:57pm
A personal word about CAJ: I may be silent but I ALWAYS love reading his (?her) comments because they are always correct, and sane and wise. Good for you, Caj.I love the way you slay people without invective or vulgarity, merely facts. You are one mean debater.

Posted by mystic7 at 01/13/2009 @ 12:07am
Well, there you are. If you'd already suspected that Barak Obama was theologically challenged as a consequence of his choice of membership in Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ or his notion of the human embryo as "potential" life, his vision of Episcopalian embarrassment, "Bishop" Eugene Robinson, as a counterweight to Evangelical Rick Warren closes the deal. Though every bit one whose Christianity is corrupted by ideology, Warren is a veritable St. Thomas Aquinas when compared to Wright or Robinson. Their Christianity is utterly indistinguishable from ideology.

Posted by john lowell at 01/13/2009 @ 12:09am
"Apparently, it pays to complain to President-elect Barack Obama".

This is fantastic news not only because of Robinson, but it is testament to the efficacy of blogging, and how important they are to the voice of the people. And I bet Obama reads them, make no mistake. I have many friends who are older and more sceptical of the blogs, always claiming they print lies, and I always counter-claim, "You mean like the NYT lied about WMD or the Georgian war?" Blogs are the 21st century form of "rallies"; More voices are heard,more often even better than e-mail, pro- and con-, and unlike newspapers, are always up to the hour. Barrack, ya' hear?

Posted by mystic7 at 01/13/2009 @ 12:29am
Ric Warren's mush-mouthed trip can no way compare with the writings of St. Thomas. Warren is in it for the money,pure and simple-that's why he won't tell anyone exactly how much money he has spent fighting AIDs (likely none!), and works so hard at promoting himself; St Thomas was sincerely motivated by love of God as opposed to mammon. Reading his words can give even the most unreligeous person an insight into the mystery of faith. Whn I try to read Warren's book it just makes me wat to regurgitate his pop religiouspsychobabble into the garbage where it belongs. BTW Jacob Fabian, excellent post-I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by oldintel at 01/13/2009 @ 02:16am
To lvliberty1 - I have been visiting The Nation for several years, and up until today I have never posted a comment. Then I read your post calling gay people perverts. I have noticed you for a long time being the voice of conservatism on this site. I always disagree with you. I am as liberal as they come. However I have respected you because you seem lucid and well-meaning. Now I wonder if I am wrong in my assessment of your tone and mindset. Perhaps others will say that you are nothing but a HATE-FILLED individual. Being gay is not perverted. Who are you? Sarah Palin? You have offended me deeply. I suppose an apology for your post will never come. Love liberty, huh? What a hollow, hypocritical handle you picked for yourself...

Posted by iamthegator at 01/13/2009 @ 03:52am
Posted by john lowell at 01/13/2009 @ 12:09am

Notice when Obama is "conservative", looney attacks him for being a phoney...

when he's "liberal", looney attacks him for being too liberal...

You'd almost think there is another FACTOR involved.

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:31am
Obama has said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not follow from this that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, I don't see the inconsistency.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 5:09pm

Well, the Bible's pretty clear that all extra-marital sex is a sin. This includes adultery, but also pre-marital sex, masturbation, and, lust as Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 ("But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,")

LVL is just not being a fundamentalis. To me, a fundamentalist is a person who believes every word in the Bible is equally important as every other word. So coveting is no more or less of an abomination than murder to the fundamentalist.

Aparently, LVL believes some sins are worse than others. I suspect the same is true of every other person who has ever written here at The Nation. The only difference is the person's judgement regarding the "order" of the sins.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:56am
You'd almost think there is another FACTOR involved.

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 07:31am

Your thinly veiled charges of racism are beneath you. Anti-war liberals attacked him for walking back his commitments to surrender and lose in Iraq and other liberals attacked him for not making card check his number 1 priority. By your logic, the fact that different Liberals have differnt priorties means all Liberals hate Obama because he's Black. Certianly that is not the case.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 08:00am
'Sounds like you are in the "God is dead" crowd. Good luck with that kind of thinking, let me know how it works out for you!' remarked "commanchenation."

I am not a partisan of Nietzsche, who used this phrase, with its pathos that is so uncharacteristic of atheists. Most atheists before Nietzsche used to argue that since God does not exist, therefore it is not possible for him to die.

No, I belong to that queer sect known as the Christians, who, unless I am gravely mistaken, believe that it is on occasion necessary for God to die -- and then to rise up again from the dead. Our leader is one Jesus of Nazareth, who occasionally radically re-interpreted Scripture ("You have heard that it was said ... but I say unto you..."), even though his intention was not to repudiate it, but to fulfill it.

In light of all this, it would seem uncontroversial to suggest that we Christians are obligated to re-interpret Scripture for our own time -- in order to fulfill it.

Ah me, what do they teach them in those parochial schools these days?

Posted by JakobFabian at 01/13/2009 @ 08:04am
Among the poets of pathos, one much more congenial to me than Nietzsche was Novalis. This was the pen name of Friedrich von Hardenberg (1772-1800), who, with his buddies the German Romantics (including Hölderlin, Hegel, Schelling, and the Schlegels), used to write pithy little bits of poetic philosophy called "fragments."

One of these fragments, whose exact wording I have forgotten, was the proclamation that "the Bible is not finished." I find this an effective and useful antidote to bibliolatry and bibliomancy. "Frosty Zoom" seems to have echoed Novalis and company out of his own poetic wisdom. Cheers to you, "Frosty," and keep warm!

Another thing that the Novalis said is: "We are close to awakening when we dream that we are dreaming."

That is an especially good fragment, worth mulling over for a while, like a warm cup of good cider.

Posted by JakobFabian at 01/13/2009 @ 08:16am
You had NO point declared or made! Read your own words of which you apparently do not even know the definitiona thereof, but I at least provided it for you!

Posted by comanchenation at 01/12/2009 @ 7:05pm

My last point was about the self righteous coming back on me and you did with all your quotations about God...that's all!! That was my point!!!

Posted by Caj at 01/13/2009 @ 08:42am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:56am

I wonder how LVLIB is going to take you call him a "subjectivist" on the "word for word" truth of the Bible and morality.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 08:00am

john_lowell is a self-admitted "pro-lifer" and right-winger, yet tried to convince progressives here to vote for Nader and has constantly attacked Obama BOTH for being too liberal AND too conservative (note any of the Israel/Palestine threads). And note, in that time, that he offered up almost NO criticisms of Bush or Hillary and rarely McCain or Palin (except to compare Obama to them).

Now doesn't YOUR suspicion get raised, when ol Looney Lowell seems to be all over the map on his problems with Obama (from Left to Right)...but consistantly his problem is with...Obama???

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:49am
BTW, Darin....have you ever wondered...

what happened to FRANKGRITS?!?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:50am
we need some new bibles.

hey god, how come you ain't wrote no new bibles lately?

i think god* has writers block.

*don't take it personally, brother. it's us.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 11:57pm

You have one, written by ALGORE...

a movie version..InCONvient Truth...

He is the new pope and prophet, the media is the choir, the Hollywood wooden heads are the disciples, the Dem party loon the Saints and the left is the congregation(unionised, of course)...

and the collection plate will be filled by the US tax payer, for his own good of course, despite archeological, empirical and temp readings in the shade and deserts as norms, and all evidence that it doesn't exist as a result of my furnace or Bessie the milker...

BTW, in the coldest year in centurys and the lowest sunspot activity level since that last cooling period...

has anyone seen ALLGORE?

A great time to tell people that global warming is a prooven event as they freeze in their homes waiting for a carbon tax to raise the price of their heating fuels?

AL!!! HEY AL!!!

in the tradition of "Car 54 Where Are YOU'....? ( must be praying for summer)

Where are you?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 09:39am
Oh yeah..one more thing...

ALGORES religion is going to...

ready?...

SAVE THE WORLD......

hmmmm

Peace and carbon free greetings to all.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 09:57am
The man is gay - not a decision - but tough to live openly, I applaud him for his courage.

The man believes in this thing many people call "God" - for this he is clearly delusional, like many people.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 10:18am
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 09:39am

MAASCH, who did you vote for back in November?

What was HIS take on man-made global warming?

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 10:50am
I voted for Palin. McCain also in a member of the CHURCH of the SUN(get the pun? SON vs SUN!!! for global warming?? I thought I was clever this morning..:))

At any rate, I never agree with anyone I vote for 100%. And I think McCain is as wrong as, er, acid rain, ALGORE on global warming/cooling /whatever it is this time...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 10:54am
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 10:54am

Yeah, Darin tried that "I voted for Palin" line too....

as if you guys would have just stayed home and let the "Magic Negro socialist with radical associations" win, if Caribou Barbie "Ain't No Such Thing as Global Warming, Cuz God Wouldn't Allow It" was the "saving grace" for Maverick.

Problem is...you REALLY think Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal, even the Arctic Prom Queen will run on "No Such Thing" on GW in 2012??? Or do what McCain did, admit it was true and man-made, but that we need "market solutions" for it????

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 11:10am
what happened to FRANKGRITS?!?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:50am

Hey, I got too emotionally invested and found myself getting far too angry when I visited The Nation a few years ago and I took a year or so off. I helped me calm down.

I imagine Frank will return eventually.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:24am
Problem is...you REALLY think Romney, Pawlenty, Jindal, even the Arctic Prom Queen will run on "No Such Thing" on GW in 2012???

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 11:10am

I imagine after three more years of record cold and astrophysisists talking about sun spots and even Gore will hop on the imminent ice age bandwagon.

Go back and listen to Gore's message. "This is an exciting time to be alive because you have a unique opportunity to save mankind from extinctions." If you listen long enough you will get the idea that you'll save more souls than Jesus.

It doesn't really matter what you save humanity from (warming or cooling) just so long as you are a savior.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/12/2009 @ 11:12pm 

Thank you for the compliment; I really appreciate it. This is exactly the kind of dialogue that I like; a kind of mutual give-and-take between individuals who respect each other. Would that more of our political discourse could be like that...

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 07:56am 

I am glad that you, unlike, comanche felt that the best response to arguments was...more arguments rather than reasserting one's own position over again. I realize that a number of people may not be interested in this issue, but insofar as it is an important one facing the political sphere today, I think it's certainly worth confronting.

However, it seems like your conclusion still fails to follow from the premise you offer, because it requires an intermediate premise whose truth is far from obvious. If you're relying on that verse from Jesus, then the only premise you get is that looking at someone with lust is functionally equivalent to committing adultery. Why? Because the crucial barrier crossed is the LUST, and presumably the reason that's problematic is because it treats another human being as valuable primarily (or even exclusively) for the sexual pleasure that they can provide you.

That's why your argument doesn't quite seem to work. It requires an additional premise that all sex (or, more broadly, sexual activity) outside of a marriage relationship is characterized by lust. It seems to me that this premise is far from obvious; in fact, it seems obviously false. Unless you can provide something with unambiguous authority that either makes and justifies that link, I do not believe your argument here is sufficient.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 11:37am
This is just another example of people in a religion picking and choosing what to go by and what to ignore.The Christian right will quote Paul when it comes to the subject of homosexuality,but ignore what Paul said about how they should never have sex and ignore what Paul said about the reason for getting married.They have found ways to get around what Paul said about a woman's place and they ignore what Jesus said about not judging and condemning others.Being anti gay is just their latest fad cause,but they will forget about it just as they have forgotten about women's lib and abortion.Neither Falwell nor Hagee even mentioned abortion when it comes to the subject of God's judgment and blamed 9/11 and Katrina on gays.This,too,shall pass.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/13/2009 @ 12:12pm
"Sin, is anything that is deemed by G-d to be hurtful towards Him, to others, or to ourselves within our soul"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 11:48am

The bible says sin is lawlessness.

And were it not for the old law, we would not know what sin is.

Where did you get your definition? The Book of Opinions?

Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 12:32pm
"yes, liberals should be proud, this will be first time a openly declared and unrepentant pervert will be disgracing the office of the presidency and the nation itself by his inclusion in the ceremonies."

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

don't hold back, LL. tell us what you really feel and bother not to mince words!!!

LOL

well...gay bashing preacher man for one thing, gay "unrepentant pervert" for another...

sounds like democracy style compromise to me.

by the way, LL...what IS the biblical scripture for antifaggotry? is it in leviticus? i can never make it through that one...great for insomnia reading.

ecclesiasties, now...thats da bomb...

life is but a sigh...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 12:47pm
yes, liberals should be proud, this will be first time a openly declared and unrepentant pervert will be disgracing the office of the presidency and the nation itself by his inclusion in the ceremonies.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Really, Larry? You mean you've never been invited to such a thing? Because, Larry, they don't come any more perverted than you, you sanctimonious, pathetic, old pervert.

Posted by jmusolino at 01/13/2009 @ 12:53pm
ecclesiasties, now...thats da bomb...

life is but a sigh...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 12:47pm

"What a grevious task God has given to the sons of men to be excercised therewith."

Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 12:55pm
Larry, by the way, has suggested the use of nuclear weapons against populations who displease him, and has gloried in Bush's use of torture and the mass murder of 1.2 million Iraqi civilians. By his own definition, he is a pervert.

Posted by jmusolino at 01/13/2009 @ 12:56pm
LL - why do you type "G-d" instead of writing "God"?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/13/2009 @ 11:29am

Really? How much do you want to bet that the winner of the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 says not only that global warming is real, but that "man contributes to it"?

$1000?

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 12:58pm
LVLIB....why did you ignore Paul with your wife?

1 Corinthians 7:1---"It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 12:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."

3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?

4 Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

11 There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.

Wisdom Is Meaningless

-------------------------------

thee's some bible quotin'

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 1:06pm
Yes, inviting Rev. V. Gene Robinson to be involved in his Inauguration DOES show that PE Obama DOES listen to, and act on, valid criticism.

"lvliberty" - you display as strange ethic of liberty - right up there with Torquemada. "comanchenation" - just going by your screen name and comments, it appears you have abandoned the nature-loving spirituality of your Native American ancestors.

Collectively, these comments are a fuzzy MRI of the current state of the potency of jingoistic American doctrinal Christians in the mix of dialogue on the (non)separation of Church-State realms. As if Christianity were the only "true" religion, because a selective set of ancient texts was selectively modified by a bunch of self-empowering males at the Council of Nicea, and further fuzzed and re-tuned by King James's cronies - not enough space here, just see Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus," and visit http://www.jesuspolice.com/.

As if there weren't 100s of millions of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. who continue to try to live by their own ancient texts, and, some try to impose their views on others, not just by persuasion, but by shame, and even warfare (the Crusades, Inquisition, northern Ireland, Saudi kingdom, Middle East conflict). History makes crystal clear that the most dangerous autocracies have been theocracies. See Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy."

We need to save ourselves from the close-minded true believers, and embrace the right of individuals to seek their own thoughtful, compassionate, introspective spiritual path to engaging "the mysteries of our lives in relation to the universe," or to not engage in such seeking.

Posted by invoxicated at 01/13/2009 @ 1:18pm
"comanchenation" - just going by your screen name and comments, it appears you have abandoned the nature-loving spirituality of your Native American ancestors.

Posted by invoxicated at 01/13/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

he used to be called "rio bravo" and although i'm not positive, would hazard to guess is no more native american than anyone else...which is most anyone whose white or other ancestors arrived more than a couple of generations back. but i may be wrong...who knows?

he's a nice enough anti-intellectual rightwinger who enjoys lobbing politically retarded grenades here and running off - always to return...

but don't read too much into the "comanche" thing...probably more of a homage to john wayne movies or some nostalgized vision of the american west...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 1:30pm
do what McCain did, admit it was true and man-made, but that we need "market solutions" for it????

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 11:10am

No, I dont think so,since the truth is it aint man made effect, but natures cycles..the dots are not connected..but it does make for nice fund and tax raisers...after all, who doesn't want to save the planet? Please.

but I could be wrong regarding what the politicians wopuld say.

...but then again, they might agree to global warming/cooling/whatever it is that year and then do what the Dems do to the blacks and "Progressive loons" after each election...toss them over board after election victories..until next round as same groups complain about same issues...

They are politicians..and for you to not believe one side since they are only cons and crooks only to see your side as virtuous and honest is...

Shtoopid.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 1:43pm
So...then I should be writing..

A-GORE AL-ORE ALG-RE ALGO-E ALGOR-

OR

His Globalness?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 1:50pm
LL - that is Re-Goddamn-diculous

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 2:15pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/13/2009 @ 1:43pm

Wasn't my question, MAASCH.

It was "How much do you want to bet that the winner of the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 says not only that global warming is real, but that "man contributes to it"?"

I know you're a betting man (and a predictor)....how much you want to bet?

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 2:18pm
Larry, maybe you missed it...

"LVLIB....why did you ignore Paul's admonition, with your wife?

1 Corinthians 7:1---"It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 1:02pm

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 2:19pm
Mask - round and round you go

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 2:42pm
"LVLIB....why did you ignore Paul's admonition, with your wife?

1 Corinthians 7:1---"It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 2:19pm

Mask dear, you should know better:

1 Corintians 7:2 & 3

"Nevertheless, 'to avoid' fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 2:43pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 1:06pm

I think I'll go fishing tomorrow.

Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 11:37am "Thank you for the compliment; I really appreciate it. This is exactly the kind of dialogue that I like; a kind of mutual give-and-take between individuals who respect each other. Would that more of our political discourse could be like that..."

Same here, for taking the time to address my post. You took it to a closer point of refinement. I find that all these things play off each other. We all have polarized points we begin from. And being open to the impact of a response and letting in have it's effect, on you subjectively, will lead us to growth. Even the person coming from the concrete, position and holding that position in the face of all the responses presented. If they expose themselves to the communicate, the living processes of life will unfold it, if it is based on sound principles. And our sounding of the depth of it all is and unending pursuit pulling us onward endlessly.

I have spent my life in pursuit. Ingesting all religions, psychology, philosophies, the sciences. To find in present conclusion and I stress "present," there just our conceptual mind's attempting to fathom this elusive mystery of our awareness we exist and the framework we find our-self's in. I change moment by moment of my exposure to it all.

My post was meant to shock the person making the polarized statement, into personalizing it. In personalization of fixed positions, we can sometimes see, the injustice of a fruitless, expectation and pushing of it upon others.

But, ah, your response brought to light within me an injustice of that expectation and the framing of it.

CONTINUED BELOW

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 3:02pm
Above response continued

So there is movement of thought here. A becoming, a movement to what would stand to reason a ever close approaching of what I call the refinement. So my response of excellence, I do hope it did not issue out of ego, in recognition of ego but a pure omission, of a clarification and expansion of the issue. Which it ringed true within me to be.

Life is a rush, a pursuit of the never ending unfolding of the golden ratio of our framework, of mind and physical being. Is it not ??? Mandalas of ~ phi ~ UNFOLDING.

Through open discourse, even of our limited vehicles of language. we grapple and wrestle with this refinement.

Life is a bittersweet journey, of the grace of unmerited being !!! In present conclusion, I think. :)

Well, enough now of the merits of open discourse.... let the procession proceed.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 3:03pm
LL wrote: "I'm sorry you disrespect the Jewish people and their faith."

I'm sorry you disrespect homosexual people and their humanity.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 3:05pm
LVL, I said that others might say that you are a hate-filled person. I did not say you were. However, equating all gay people with perverts or child molesters is very hate-filled. I cannot believe that God would condemn me for being what he made me. I think you love the liberty you enjoy so very much, as you should. Why guard it so? Share it. I love my liberty to vote as I please. I love my liberty to purchase what I please or cross into another state without government papers saying it is ok. I love the liberty to go to the church of my choice. Or not. I love the liberty we both have that enables us to debate the Iraq war or taxes or the criminals we call Bush and Cheney (had to throw that in). I love the liberty we both have to get married. Oh, wait! Never mind... This is why I don't post. I get so worked up. The meaning gets lost in text. So I am going to make this my last post. But, LVL, please consider that your rationale on this topic is deeply offensive and hurtful. God bless..

Posted by iamthegator at 01/13/2009 @ 3:10pm
I have spent my life in pursuit. Ingesting all religions, psychology, philosophies, the sciences. To find in present conclusion and I stress "present," there just our conceptual mind's attempting to fathom this elusive mystery of our awareness we exist and the framework we find our-self's in. I change moment by moment of my exposure to it all.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 3:03pm

So you're a wanderer tossed to and fro like the open ocean. No beginning, no ending.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:12pm
Well, I lied. One more post. LVL, I reject that homosexuality is a perversion that somehow separates one from God. Yes, lying, thieving, and adultering are not moral acts. Homosexuality is not the same, my friend. Who are mortals to speak for God anyway? Your logic is fundamentally wrong. The term "pervert" carries with it a connotation which goes far beyond what it says in Webster. You know that. It is a hateful thing to say. And also untrue. Now I must stop posting. I learned that I obsess with blogging if I even get started so this is it for me, I promise! I once spent an entire night without sleep debating Gators vs. Noles. This issue could be far more damaging to my psyche. So, I leave you, LVL, to think. You can respond if you wish. And I will read. In closing, I am a good man, not a pervert. I am gay, not a pervert. You are straight, and I assume you are not a pervert. Even though to me, the idea of "vagina" is quite perverted and twisted.

Posted by iamthegator at 01/13/2009 @ 3:24pm
iamthegator - you'll get no closer to being treated as a equal by LL than for him to say, "i love the sinner, hate the sin" nonsense.

my father (he is catholic, unlike LL) and most men my parents age who practice a christian faith - can't deny their bigotry. it's part of what makes them them. they aren't horrible people, but don't for a second think LL will ever concede you deserve to be happy as a homosexual - because he won't - it will invalidate the religious architecture he sleeps under.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
ACook - you would clearly feel "tossed" about w/out religion - but many don't. The religion you choose to buy into is no different than any other religion - an attempt to explain the unexplainable (how the universe was created, by whom - if anybody - what occurs to humans when we die - if anything, etc.)

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 3:29pm
Urmygyro - you made me post again!!! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that Re-Goddamn-diculous comment. And thanks for making me feel better with your post just now too. You are 100% percent correct about that architecture. Screw it, I guess I am going to have to become a regular post person and spread the gospel according to Sissy.

Posted by iamthegator at 01/13/2009 @ 3:41pm
"LL - why do you type "G-d" instead of writing "God"?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 12:57pm

'out of respect for Jewish believers who hold that the name of G-d is too holy to fully write' (lvliberty1)

Howcome you have more respect for Jews than for atheists? And please don't quote holocaust entitlement because they just butchered babies in a Palestinian holocaust. The motto "never again" rings hollow when you say "Never again to us alone".

Posted by mystic7 at 01/13/2009 @ 3:44pm
Preach on brother! Don't let the LL's of the world take your voice - they're all too practiced at it and all too happy to do it in the service of "saving" you from a supposedly forgiving G-dare I write "O"-D.

I'm not gay, but sometimes I wish I could heed Kurt Vonnegut's advice. He was famous for writing in his books, if you really want to alienate your parents, but you don't have the guts to be gay, become an artist!

Of course, he was being tongue-in-cheek, he doesn't think anyone chooses to be gay any more than they chose their skin color or eye color or height, etc. (In that way, I must concede, people like LL must be treated with empathy, because bigotry is taught, and it's not his fault he was taught it - he could change, sure, he's an adult with free will (or maybe not, I'm not 100% sure!!!!) but it would likely be very difficult for him--of course, the irony that he wouldn't expect himself to change, but would expect you to - would fly over his head!)

LL types use a tradition of bigotry to validate their feelings of bigotry. It's not new.

Hopefully humans won't always be that way, but there will probably always be that element. Look at me - I was raised by someone who would agree with LL - but I don't (and for the record, my father and I have a good relationship - I don't want to paint him as a bad man, he's not - he's just bigoted in ways similar to LL, so I used him as an example).

Keep hope alive!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 3:52pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 3:29pm

It's unfortunate you feel that way. Not being grounded in anything is not good. A co-worker of mine in the ER got her first suicide and the new year is barely two weeks old. She said the young man was in his late twenties and a Grad student. He stuck a gun in his mouth.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:56pm
Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:49am

"Notice when Obama is "conservative", looney attacks him for being a phoney...

when he's "liberal", looney attacks him for being too liberal...

You'd almost think there is another FACTOR involved."

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:49am

"john_lowell is a self-admitted "pro-lifer" and right-winger, yet tried to convince progressives here to vote for Nader and has constantly attacked Obama BOTH for being too liberal AND too conservative (note any of the Israel/Palestine threads). And note, in that time, that he offered up almost NO criticisms of Bush or Hillary and rarely McCain or Palin (except to compare Obama to them).

"Now doesn't YOUR suspicion get raised, when ol Looney Lowell seems to be all over the map on his problems with Obama (from Left to Right)...but consistantly his problem is with...Obama???"

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 08:49am

Notice, that when discussion takes a turn that douche-nozzle can't pigeonhole into right/left ideological categories, he emerges from his crib to demand that the world conform to the infantile patterns that characterize what many frequently misidentify as his "thought". Douche-nozzle can only grasp concepts that spring from his over-exposure to television and inside-the-box, conventional wisdom. Be patient with him, douchey is not exactly Deans List material. And by all means, don't respond to the petulance. In time he'll go away.

Posted by john lowell at 01/13/2009 @ 4:01pm
Liberty:

You have made arguments for your position; I made arguments challenging it in various points throughout this thread:

Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 11:37am 

Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 8:45pm 

Because I believe that issues of this kind are best addressed through actual dialogue, and because I am honestly interested in the reasoning behind the position you defend, I would love to hear your response. And this isn't sarcastic; I'm genuinely interested in your theological perspective here.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/13/2009 @ 4:05pm
W--dy All-n

Posted by iamthegator at 01/13/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 2:43pm

And LVLIB...

but Paul's first admonition is that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Sure if you're just so horny you can't take it, you have to get married to get laid in an "okay" manner...but his FIRST choice is celibacy, is it not?

So doesn't that mean that celibacy is the BEST choice, according to Paul? So there are some "degrees", aren't there?

So my question to LVLIB (and you too ACOOK, although technically you are to remain silent in church...you do, don't you?) stands--

Why couldn't he go with Paul's BEST choice and keep it zipped?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by john lowell at 01/13/2009 @ 4:01pm

I'm sorry, looney, you're right. I DID forget to add in your BIZARRE anal/rectal fascination.

my bad.

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 4:34pm
So you're a wanderer tossed to and fro like the open ocean. No beginning, no ending.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

More like a person in a tiny little boat on it yes. Just enjoying it all now. Everything is just so interesting now. I guess I just got out of my own way. And I did not even get out of the way, something took me out of my way. I have nothing to do with me. I'm just learning. In a big class room where there is no pass nor fail. Not quoting books or anything, just something happened to me. At 54 I reached a critical mass within my self. Could not move for hours, I could but had no motivation too. In that space of time, I changed inside. I understood things without words. None of my life studies even come close to touching it.

Don't know if what you saying is directed at me, positive or negative. But it's OK

Everything is just OK. I guess that's what I understood, everything was just OK.

I find I'm nicer to people not perfect. Just nice because there's no reason not to be. But I listen and when some one says, something and it seems good and close to a more something I guess good and fair. Well I say, that sounds right thank you and do not get down on myself and move on. Everything's OK

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 4:38pm
It's unfortunate you feel that way. Not being grounded in anything is not good. A co-worker of mine in the ER got her first suicide and the new year is barely two weeks old. She said the young man was in his late twenties and a Grad student. He stuck a gun in his mouth. Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 3:56pm

Ridiculous that you believe that belief in God stops suicide. I can point you to mass suicides that were generate by a belief in God. I haven't believed in God or any religion since I was in highschool, you know what, I'm an incredibly happy and grounded human being. I don't need someone else to tell me how to be happy or to be a good person. I am capable of making decisions on my own.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/13/2009 @ 5:11pm
I am sad when people are hurt. I laugh at things I should not. I just notice things about myself now through the interaction with others. Myself is revealed to me. And I take notice of it in a way of how interesting. I bemoan such potential lost of our species. I marvel at our abilities of and marvel at the lack of application of it for what I would deem better maybe. Everything just seems to have a purpose I do not claim to understand. But just accept things the way they are. But I know it's all headed for something. Were just all in a process of becoming. Destination unknown. It's all just a rub of existence. Christians would probably call it the rest of god. And any number of other religions call it something else. It's all the same thing with just different faces of god or what ever name you wish to give it reference. Something is just unfolding, I guess. Just not worried about anything now. Life is just so interesting. people are the way their suppose to be for a reason and were all moving towards something I guess would be deemed better. Something experiencing it's self on infinite levels. And the something does not even know it's destination.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 5:25pm
Acook wrote: "It's unfortunate you feel that way. Not being grounded in anything is not good. A co-worker of mine in the ER got her first suicide and the new year is barely two weeks old. She said the young man was in his late twenties and a Grad student. He stuck a gun in his mouth."

I suppose this little story is suppose to "prove" that people who don't believe in a religion are more prone to suicide? How does your friend the ER worker know the young man's thoughts on religion? Did she know him?

Again - Acook - if religion works for you, fine. It seems to be a rather universally held belief by religious people, though, that people who don't believe in their religion are lost, or helpless, or don't feel life is worth living.

Not so.

I'm sure there are plenty of depressed Christians. (and I'm not even going to get into the killing in the name of, and by, religious people throughout the world, currently, and through history).

So many religious people feel they need to be saved - and they don't like the idea that other people can lead happy lives w/out that sinking, giving me a religous faith to hold onto or I'll drown feeling.

That's your issue, not ours.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 5:33pm
LL wrote: "Excuse me? What name is so holy to atheists that they don't write it out fully? I would do the same for a person of any faith if I was aware of a word that violated their religious beliefs (or lack thereof)."

here's a non-authoritarian, non invisible all knowing being in the sky request - how about treating homosexual people with the respect of not calling them "perverts."

You can pick and choose dictionary definitions - "pervert" is not a nice word to call someone - and a law (earth - real law, not made up God law you've chosen to follow) abiding citizen does not deserve to be branded an outcast because of a sexual proclivity that is innate.

How's that tough guy?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 5:40pm
You might think I'm not grounded, too. But I am more grounded and stable than anything I could conceive of. My behavior towards others and myself is changing so fast and it would be deemed in a positive by an outside viewer. Just have no motivation to be any other way now. Nothing I try and do, it just is and is changing of it's own.

But I do understand where every one in here is coming from. It's neither here nor there, just OK.

Life is staggering in all it's horror and beauty. And it experience is heart rending and filled with such fine moments of tenderness.

Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 01/13/2009 @ 5:40pm
iamthegator - love the w--dy -ll-n!

L-v- L-b-rty probably thinks he's going to H-E-Double Hockey sticks too though, for whatever reason!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn th

i wonder if the gay bishop is a "fisherman of men"...

lol - sorry - couldn't resist that one...

HAR HAR HAR!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 6:23pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 6:23pm

All these unfinished names....

A mother upset that everyone was mispronouncing her daughter's name, which was spelled Le-a. Most teachers and students pronounced it Leah, which greatly upset the mother who vented at the latest PTA meeting. When asked how to pronounce it correctly, the mom said "Ledasha, because the dash don't be silent."

(A white woman from a trailer park in oklahoma for our overly sensitive posters)

Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 6:54pm
So good would GedashDah

my new name for LL's god!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 7:06pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

wow. if i hadn't seen stuff like that with my own eyes i'd call it apocryphal...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 7:09pm
Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

its the one's that name their kids after alcoholic drinks that really makes me reconsider my distaste for eugenics...

as you commented - nothing racial at all here...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 7:17pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 7:17pm

Oh, I'm an equal opportunity offender of speech, since I'm from Oklahoma. Such as.....

At a world brewing convention, the CEOs of various brewing organizations retired to the bar at the end of each day's conference.

Bruce, CEO of Fosters, shouted to the Barman: "In 'Strylya, we make the best bladdy beer in the world, so pour me a bladdy Fosters, mate."

Bob, CEO of Budweiser, calls out next: "In the States, we brew the finest beers of the world, and I make the king of them all, gimme a Bud."

Hans steps up next: "In Germany ve invented das beer, ferdamt. Give me ein Becks, ya ist der real King of beers, danke."

Paddy, CEO of Guinness, steps forward: "Barman, would ya give me a diet coke with ice and lemon. Tanks."

All, including the bartender, stare at him in stupefied silence with mouths hanging open! Eventually Bruce squeaks out: "Are you not going to have a Guinness, Pat?"

Paddy simply replies: "Well, if you fookin' pansies ain't drinkin', then neither am I."

Posted by Benchrest at 01/13/2009 @ 7:52pm
an egineer joke

an engineer dies and goes to hell. after a while he starts tinkering around and in a few hundred years constructs a ventilation system.

satan notices the difference and summons the damned engineer.

"you do this?" he asks...

"uh...yessir", responds the engineer...

satan pauses, thinking...

"can you do any better?"

the engineer thinks, and responds, "well, with some souls of the damned and some time i could construct an entire hvac system."

satan gives him what he needs, and shortly the hvac is up and running. hell ain't so bad anymore as cool zephyrs whip up. demons stop torturing so gleefully and folks down there start not suffering so much...

well god sees this from up on high and acts quickly. he picks up the phone and calls old scratch...

"hey satan! look...there's been a big mixup with a certain engineer...looks like he should have come up here! sooo...just send him on up and no problem, ok?"

satan laughs derisively and flatly refuses, pointing out the fact that god made the rules and once the damned are in hell, they're his...

god gets pissed (a terrrible thing indeed) and finally gives ol scratch an ultimatum...

"look lucy...if you don't send that engineer up here by 3:00 pm, i'll take you to court and sue yer ass!"

satan explodes in triumphant laughter, "PSHHAAAW RIGHT!!!! where are YOU gonna find a good lawyer???!!!"

an engineer joke...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/13/2009 @ 8:49pm
LL - why do you type "G-d" instead of writing "God"? Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 12:57pm

out of respect for Jewish believers who hold that the name of G-d is too holy to fully write.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 1:46pm

i don't think god's so arrogant.

anyhoo, you used to write "God" here.

why not try Go- or -od sometimes?

why not use "nancy"?

i don't think god really cares.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 8:49pm
I would do the same for a person of any faith if I was aware of a word that violated their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 3:59pm

well, thank you!

as a follower of frostology, i am deeply offended by your continual call for murder, carnage, and destruction.

perhaps you could start with those.

oh, here's another one: "clusterbomb"

again,

thanks.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 8:52pm
but the soul is forever.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 8:45pm

excellent!

prove it.

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 8:54pm
Ridiculous that you believe that belief in God stops suicide. I can point you to mass suicides that were generate by a belief in God. I haven't believed in God or any religion since I was in highschool, you know what, I'm an incredibly happy and grounded human being. I don't need someone else to tell me how to be happy or to be a good person. I am capable of making decisions on my own.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/13/2009 @ 5:11pm

My dear C3, I never said God stops suicide. I said not being "grounded" in anything is not good.

Also, keep striving for happiness, because it's not until you're able to look back at your accomplishments is when you can truly enjoy it.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 8:58pm
but soul is forever.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 8:45pm

you got that right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fginS6uhw-8&fmt=18

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 8:59pm
that's it!

larry, i sentence you to 6 months of curtis mayfield.

that should cure you.

here's another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQqTxK7VhSk&fmt=18

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/13/2009 @ 9:04pm
Why couldn't he go with Paul's BEST choice and keep it zipped?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 01/13/2009 @ 4:32pm

First off, Paul considered himself a "slave" for Christ. For him, there was no greater sacrifice then serving him. Paul was a firm and passionate believer and wanted everyone to experience what he had experienced when he met Christ on the road to Damascus. And that was redemption and salvation.

Secondly, the reason why Paul said what he said was because he didn't want his brethren commiting the sin of fornication before God. Mind you, he struggled with his this. It wasn't easy trying to keep the flock pure and spotless. He agonized over those who were lost to sin.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 9:22pm
I suppose this little story is suppose to "prove" that people who don't believe in a religion are more prone to suicide? How does your friend the ER worker know the young man's thoughts on religion? Did she know him?

Again - Acook - if religion works for you, fine. It seems to be a rather universally held belief by religious people, though, that people who don't believe in their religion are lost, or helpless, or don't feel life is worth living.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/13/2009 @ 5:33pm

UR, I never said nor implied anything about "religion". I said one should be "grounded". My co-worker did not know this young man. The info she told me was told to her by his family. Therefore, she would not have any idea what his religioous beliefs were.

As for the first half of the second statement goes, only Catholics beleive that. For the rest of us Christians, we believe that our prodical children will one day return home.

Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 9:46pm
earthly or sensual happiness (that which your senses and your mind registers) pales compared to the happiness of your soul. One is temporary and will one day cease, but the soul is forever. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/13/2009 @ 8:45pm

I don't believe in the soul. Sooooo I'm still perfectly happy.

Also, keep striving for happiness, because it's not until you're able to look back at your accomplishments is when you can truly enjoy it. Posted by ACook at 01/13/2009 @ 8:58pm

I like how you people think YOU can tell ME about whether I am happy or not. A bit arrogant of you that you think you can tell me, a person you don't even know whether they are happy or not. I guess religion breeds arrogance? In thinking that you know other people better than they know themselves even when you have never met those people?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 08:55am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 12:09pm

"That wasn't my point. My point was that any happiness one achieves here during their life is worthless if it doesn't secure the eternal happiness of your soul."

Notice the first portion of my answer. Your point didn't go over my head. I answered it. I don't believe in a soul. So you telling me about it falls flat. And ACook's answer wasn't about my soul. She basically said I'm not old enough to be happy because I haven't accomplished enough.

"Also, keep striving for happiness, because it's not until you're able to look back at your accomplishments is when you can truly enjoy it."

See. Basically saying I don't have enough life experience to be happy. I addressed both your points. So nothing went over my head.

"Whether you agree that there is a G-d and He has standards, doesn't depend on you. We all know of the arrogance and often times ignorance of those who deny things as simple as gravity, or that men actually walked on the moon. That denial doesn't change the reality. And neither will your denial of G-d change the reality of eternal consequences."

I would contend that your acceptance of a false reality doesn't make your beliefs carry any more gravity. People have denied realities and been proven wrong. People have accepted false truths an been proven wrong. An aspect of your beliefs that you appear to have not accepted is that it is quite possible and likely that one day your beliefs will be looked back on like that of the Roman's and Greeks as no more than myths and legends. That people look back on and say "How could they believe that?"

I don't want to get into a theological discussion though. But yes, I addressed both your points. I was addressing more ACook's with the second one than yours.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 1:45pm
lvliberty-You could,very well, be wrong and still find that out after death.He could be wrong and still not suffer for eternity or suffer at all.You do not know.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/14/2009 @ 2:43pm
It IS the height of conceit to claim to KNOW exactly what happens when we die, isn't it.

Yet, that is what the majority of humans (expressed in their various religions)claim.

What's interesting is, despite the fact that all those folks "know" what happens when we die, there is no consensus on such.

Obviously therefore, by all logic, at least some of those who claim to know, cannot REALLY and TRULY "know"; by definition, some of those who "know" MUST be wrong (i.e., do NOT know).

That being the case, should we not take it with a grain of salt when someone (anyone) claims to KNOW?

Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:07pm
L-v- L-b-rty the preacher - claims to love it, but feels the need to make others feel guilty for exercising theirs.

What is this "soul" I hear people talk about? Seems made up, like God. A convenient way for people to pretend they are immortal.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:14pm
Acook wrote: "I never said nor implied anything about "religion". I said one should be "grounded". My co-worker did not know this young man. The info she told me was told to her by his family. Therefore, she would not have any idea what his religioous beliefs were."

You were responding, Acook, to someone else who said he experiments in many things. Your "grounded" statement clearly IMPLIES that one needs a religious faith in order to be grounded - to pick a team. Are you admitting that atheists are "grounded"?

Acook wrote: "we believe that our prodical children will one day return home."

That is an arrogant statement. That makes it sound like your religion has the truth - and anyone who doesn't agree with or adhere to your religion is simply lost - just like I said you were saying.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:20pm
LL wrote: "But I wasn't referring to my personal belief. I said that I was showing respect for Jews who hold that belief as I would if someone told me a Hindu name was too holy to write out fully.

But you haven't apologized for calling gay people "perverts"

It's ok to call human, law-abiding, adults degrading names though, right preacher man?

your desperate need for people to be able to point to an authority in order for you to show them simple courtesy is pathetic

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:23pm
LL wrote: "Whether you agree that there is a G-d and He has standards, doesn't depend on you. We all know of the arrogance and often times ignorance of those who deny things as simple as gravity, or that men actually walked on the moon. That denial doesn't change the reality. And neither will your denial of G-d change the reality of eternal consequences. So, I apologize if you mistakenly thought I was being arrogant. My point was directed at your future happiness, not your current state of mind."

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that LL's ironic statement "I apologize if you mistakenly thought I was being arrogant" after stating not only that a one, true God definitely exists, but that LL is part of the one faith that has the true path to God, and the souls of the people who don't believe in that faith will be doomed to an eternity of non-existence or hell if one doesn't believe in LL's faith-------putting that aside for a moment - LL is stating that the great mysteries of he universe - if there is a creator, what is infinity, do humans live on after death in the form of a "soul" or whatever other form, etc. - are as obvious as gravity - they are scientific proofs, and anyone who denies them is simply ignoring the truth.

ARROGANCE personified.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
LL wrote (to Cccomfo1): "Your argument is not sustainable. What can only be argued is that your "hope" that I having a false reality is proven out."

Nowhere did he state that he "hopes" you are wrong. Your "logical fallacy" LL, is that you think anyone who disagrees with you hopes you're wrong, because you think your religion has cornered THE reality, and anyone who doesn't share that faith is doomed.

LL then wrote: "Equally, I cannot portend that I am arguing from a point of fact, nor have I. I have openly stated that I base my statements on my belief as a follower of Christ."

Wrong, LL - you did aver that you were arguing from a point of fact. You claimed there are straightforward rules, like gravity, that you did not make up, you are simply following. Comparing the religious faith you've bought into as simple matter-of-fact truth that cannot be denied, like gravity, IS using the debate tactic of "arguing from a point of fact." You can simply admit you think your religion is correct, and as a human, you have no way of objectively knowing it is correct, but you've chosen to believe, and you'd get much more respect here than doing what it is you do, which leads me to...

LL wrote: "Frankly though, I would rather be wrong on my end then yours. If I'm wrong, I'll never know it. If you're wrong, you will know it and suffer for it eternally."

This is the most honest statement you'll ever see LL put down on these blogs about his "faith." Essentially, he's just hedging a bet. He thinks that there are two options - we die and lose consciousness of being, or we retain consciousness as a "soul" after we die. He thinks you have to be religious to live on as a soul, and that earthly life is basically just a test, ignoring that a God may not care about religious choices

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:46pm
LL wrote: "If CCC is right and we have no soul, there is no me to be aware of whether I was right or wrong."

How do you know a "soul" is what makes you you, or me me?

How do you know there's not some other vehicle?(since clearly you look at our bodies on earth as merely vehicles).

How do you know any of the things about the great mysteries of the human death and the universe that you claim to know?

You "know" because you've bought into one religion's statements about it, that's how.

And that's fine, no one's saying you are wrong to believe in a religion.

Where you go off the tracks is claiming your religion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:50pm
FDR - excellent post, and I'll be interested to see if LL responds to it (highly doubt he will).

As far as your last statement, "that being the case, should we not take it with a grain of salt when someone (anyone) claims to KNOW?"---the part that rubs me the wrong way is while we are alive, in the only form of consciousness we know exists for certain, LL types think they can use religious beliefs to be intolerant to other people, so that's why it's difficult to take it with a grain of salt, it's not as if he merely likes my favorite pro teams' rivals.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:52pm
LL wrote: "I agree, you are ignorance personified."

You're doing your "arrogant" thing again, LL--just because I admit I'm "ignorant" of the mysteries of the universe does not mean the religion you've bought into has those truths. You're just as ignorant of those truths as the rest of us - you simply THINK you're not.

LL wrote (to me): "I never said that the existence of the soul is a scientific proof or that anyone who denies that is ignoring the truth." LL wrote, earlier on the blog, (to Cccomf01): "Whether you agree that there is a G-d and He has standards, doesn't depend on you. We all know of the arrogance and often times ignorance of those who deny things as simple as gravity, or that men actually walked on the moon. That denial doesn't change the reality. And neither will your denial of G-d change the reality of eternal consequences."

You have contradicted yourself. You CLEARLY state God has standards that exist whether one believes them or not, and compare those that don't believe in God to the "arrogance and often times ignorance" of those who "deny things as simple as gravity..."

Don't pretend you are merely stating your opinion - I just proved you weren't being humble. You were stating God exists as fact, God has standards, and there will be eternal consequences for those who deny God. You do NOT present that as mere opinion - you present it as fact.

Believe in it if you want to, or must - again, that's fine - but don't pretend that how you presented it was merely passing along innocently enough your opinion. You clearly compared it to something scientifically factual - gravity.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 4:04pm
LL wrote: "you are guilty of the usual anti-Christian attack of trying to make the doctrines of the faith as if they originate with the Christian you are attacking."

I am not "attacking" Christianity. I am attacking the language in your posts. You happen to be Christian, and you come here a lot, so you make it fair game. I do not have to admit that the doctrines of the Christian faith are divine. That is the crux of the argument, If we all knew that God existed, and that the Christian faith was the one true faith, then there'd be no debate. You do not KNOW that - you BELIEVE it, there's a big difference, which you conflate often.

LL wrote: "When we repeat articles of our faith, bigots like yourself then try and link them solely to us apart from the faith itself."

I am not bigoted toward Christians or any religious people. Your 1st post on this thread called a homosexual man a "pervert." My point is attacking your posts is to defend the honor of a law-abiding human being that you disrespected. You are bigoted against gay people LL. It's plain as day. You use your religion as cover.

LL wrote: "An attack BTW that bigots like yourself never make against Hindus, Bahai, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Zoroastrians, to name a few."

If anyone from those religions made a homophobic post I'd take them to task for using their religion as cover for their bigotry too.

LL wrote: "your hate is focused on Christians because you hate Jesus and anyone associated with Him. I'm sorry for you and the hate that destroys you as a person."

I don't know Jesus, neither do you. But I've studied the Bible, and I think Jesus is a cool dude, much more accepting of people than you. I don't hate--much like the religious philosophy "hate the sin, love the sinner," I pity your bigotry.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 4:15pm
Vrmygyro,

You are right - if we were talking about intolerance of opinions concerning which sports team is best, then it wouldn't really matter. (Generally speaking, differences over such do not result in deaths.)

But once you KNOW God is on your side; once you KNOW God approves of YOUR actions, and hates everyone elses'; once you KNOW God sanctions what you do, then it becomes possible to rationalize literaly anything.

Osama Bin laden sleeps well at night because he KNOWS God approves of what he did - he KNOWS he was/is doing God's will. Bush has said similar things.

KNOWING "the truth" (particularly "God's truth") is an inherently dangerous thing if someone claims to KNOW God's will, I say, run from that person immediately. (Or perhaps, inform the police.)

Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:19pm
I was thinking (in alast post) of one Bush quote in particular (one of my all-time favorite Bush quotes):

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."

Of course, Osama Bin Laden believes the exact same thing.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:22pm
LL wrote: "I'm sorry for you and the hate that destroys you as a person."

I addressed this at the end of the last post, but ran out of sufficient room to finish...

I don't hate you (I don't even know you - I know you as a handle on a website where people post anonymously). I don't hate anyone, actually, I have hated people (in real life, not on a website), but I'm not even sure it was hate, just dislike - and it was never for a belief, it was for being rude, or doing something bad to me or people I love. Hate is too time consuming and exhausting. If I "hated" you (which, again, as an anonymous poster, it's impossible) I merely would ignore your posts.

I pity your bigotry toward homosexual people based on a religious text. I willing to bet, at heart, your a good person, but you have biases and prejudices and politics that I disagree with - and this is a forum for discussing those differences.

I assume you don't hate gay people, and I don't think your bigotry "destroys" you -- so perhaps you can see that I disagree with your opinion, and what I find hard to take, as a debate tactic - is someone who presents there arguments as fact, and then denies that they are doing such.

Also - I've seen your type of bigotry to gay people in real life. I have gay friends, and it upsets me when I see people like you using religion to "legitimize" your bigotry toward them - so it touches a nerve, because I know what they go through in what can be a very cruel world, especially from people who claim they are "loving" you while not liking who you are.

But, to make a long story longer - I am no where near a "destroyed" person - and the fact that a religious person would say that just goes to show, to me, how inhumane religion can be.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 4:25pm
In terms of "knowing God's will" (giving views claimed to be based on/sanctioned by "God's law," consider the following statement once made by the Reverend Jimmy Swaggert (remember him?):

"Not only is the homosexual worthy of death, but so are those who would support him."

Incredible, huh?

Yet, the "holy spirit" guided him to say such, presumably.

Therefore, he "knew" he was right.

Who are we to question it?

Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:27pm
Vrmygro,

LL can't hear you, and he never will.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:28pm
FDR43 - and to a less extreme, non life/death extent -- bigotry toward people with the cover of religion hurts people in every day life. LL's opening statement on this thread, calling a man who has faith in God and practices a religion (two things I don't) "perverted" just goes to show how low many religious people will sink.

Here we have a man who's devoted himself to God, practices a religion (ok, he's gay, so what? that's innate, or at the very least a strong genetic proclivity - another thing LL will surely argue, although, thankfully, he can't quote the Bible is such arguments) - and has been asked to partake in the festivities of a new President taking office....

and this is all LL has to say of him....

he's "perverted."

what class by LL, what class.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 4:38pm
FDR43 wrote: "LL can't hear you, and he never will."

haha! That's probably the part that makes he and I most similar, the tie that binds - we can be tenacious in trying to get blood from a stone!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 4:39pm
LL - I forgive you for being bigoted to homosexuals. Like Jesus, I'm a forgiver (I know you're religious - I'm not comparing myself to everything Jesus does and was in the eyes of religious people, but I do like the forgiveness part).

Jesus would not call a homosexual a "pervert." (Do I know this scientifically? - of course not - I'm stating an opinion based on Jesus, from what I can tell, being a humane individual).

Your analogy did compare your faith to fact. I'm glad you retracted it, otherwise you would certainly have looked more foolish than you already had.

And, like I said before, the way you keep describing it, with an, I-might-as-well-believe-in-Christianity, because-if-I-don't, and-it's-the-one-true-faith, I-don't-want-t0-suffer-the-wrath-of-the-an-eternity-in-hell, like-the-faith-I've-chosen-says-I-will-suffer-if-I-don't-believe-in-it. The logic is perfectly circular, something you won't admit. When a religious text states you have to believe in it, it's the only path to God, and if you don't you're doomed, it's internal logical is perfectly circular.

Like I said before, and you've expressed it this way yourself - your faith in a religion, especially since you're clearly concerned with the mystery of what will occur, if anything, after you die - is a simply what you think is a good gamble. You think the positives if it's correct outweigh the negatives if its wrong. Of course, it may not be that simple, but you've chosen to see it that way.

Why aren't you a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, etc? Surely those religions think they have the path to God. Why not Christianity?

I don't think any religion has the true path to God. Maybe they do have paths, maybe not. I don't know, no human does--what chafes me is bigotry in the name of.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 5:03pm
LL - quoting the Bible does not prove the Bible is correct. It merely proves someone has found it useful to quote the Bible.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 5:05pm
LL - another bad debate tactic. If you're going to say I've said something - make sure I've said it. I haven't discussed "Mark Foley, Sen Craig, or Ted Haggard" here or anywhere else. You seem to care so little about the facts, as long as it suits the point you want to make.

Here's a Biblical question for you (I know how much you love these) - please show me something in the Bible that's attributed to Jesus or something Jesus said - that would be in line with you as a pastor not allowing people to attend church.

thanks.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 5:10pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:00pm 

All right...so let's engage Romans 1. From your perspective, does Romans 1 also entail that in the status quo, those who "practice such things are deserving of death" along with those who "approve of those who practice them"? That meaning doesn't seem altered by its context either in the passage or in Paul's time.

Additionally, I think the rest is interesting. He also calls out people who are violent, covetous, proud, disobedient, etc., and ALL of those attributes are said to be individually worthy of death if I'm reading this right.

So...tying back to the earlier discussion which we never quite got into:

Should we read Paul to be saying that homosexuals and those who support them are worthy of death? If so:

1) Since I'm pretty sure you don't believe that (you've called them "perverts," something you still have yet to fully address, but never gone farther), isn't this a reason why Paul's claims do not command automatic acceptance?

2) Since I'm pretty sure you don't buy the necessary corollary of OTHER things being worthy of death as well (listed above; disobeying, being violent, etc.), doesn't THAT create a problem?

The bottom line is this: since your foundation in Levicitus is nonexistent, and this appears to erode your claim that Paul's statements against homosexuality (though only male) are sufficient, you're left only with the statements of Jesus. Since (as I argued to Darin) Jesus specifically attacks LUST and not particular expressions of sexuality per se, from what foundation can you derive your position?

Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 5:14pm
While we're on the subject, I also want to deal with the "truth" aspect of this discussion.

A lot of posters have gone after Christianity's allegedly arrogant claim to knowledge that its postulates are true. Some of these attacks focus on the premise that everyone who doesn't believe in Christianity is supposedly lost and goes to hell; I don't buy that position, and I don't think the Bible compels it, so I'll leave it alone. Instead, I just want to make two notes:

1) Any attack on Christianity's claim to knowledge of truth must attack ANY claim to knowledge about the ultimate meaning of life and the explanation of the cosmos (including "affirmative atheism," i.e. "I know there's no God"). The reason for this is that truth is necessarily exclusive in that a truth-claim by necessity excludes its opposite.

So the next question is...why is it fundamentally arrogant to claim knowledge about these things? The fact that people disagree with you doesn't make it arrogant; it means only that you should be open to discourse. The only possible alternative to a claim to reasonable knowledge seems to be perpetual agnosticism, and since many belief systems contend that what you believe about the universe impacts how you think about everyday life, I don't know why anyone's compelled to remain firmly agnostic.

2) I agree that claiming to know God's will definitely can be incredibly dangerous (see Crusades, etc.). But the problem isn't knowing God's will per se; it's assuming that broad commandments (such as loving one another, caring for the poor, etc.) can be translated directly into a particular decision about which there is no room for reasoned discussion. It's also when you yank a principle out of a dialogic tradition and make it the only important thing.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 5:22pm
Thrawn wrote: "The only possible alternative to a claim to reasonable knowledge seems to be perpetual agnosticism, and since many belief systems contend that what you believe about the universe impacts how you think about everyday life, I don't know why anyone's compelled to remain firmly agnostic."

You made my point for me beautifully with your own words. Agnostics do not have to be defined by what a religious believer believes (although this is certainly what religious believers want to believe).

re the Arrogance thing - LL was stating that mysteries of the universe that his religion deals with are as true as the scientific truth that gravity exists. That's when I started up with saying he was being arrogant. He retracted his analogy.

While religious text itself is not arrogant, many religious devotees use that text to arrogantly tell other people they need to also believe in that text or bad things will happen to them. That's arrogant.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 5:53pm
wickedness, maliciousness; murder, deceit, evil-mindedness; haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:00pm

THAT'S YOU!

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 6:04pm
LL wrote: "you and others (and rightfully so) call Mark Foley, Sen Craig, Ted Haggard, and others hypocrites..."

I retort: "another bad debate tactic. If you're going to say I've said something - make sure I've said it. I haven't discussed "Mark Foley, Sen Craig, or Ted Haggard" here or anywhere else. You seem to care so little about the facts, as long as it suits the point you want to make."

LL responds: "Again, you are mistaking my point. I wasn't saying that you said this in our current dialogue. I'm pointing that past blogs have had that discussion about those individuals and that they deserved to be attacked."

Me (now) - All we have are words on a blog, that's it, and you increasingly become arrogant with yours LL. I haven't "again" mistaken any point you've made. I made it very clear that I didn't discuss those people you mentioned on this, or any other thread. So how do you respond, "I wasn't saying that you said this in our current dialogue." I know this LL. I said that myself. Can you not see that, or was it just a convenient omission? Go to any "past blogs" where those people were discussed and show me where I discussed them? I didn't.

You originally wrote "you (meaning urymgyro) and others...call...."

No, I (urmygyro) did not discuss those people, on this or any other thread.

You want to debate fairly, debate fairly. Don't say I said something I didn't. You want to bring into the conversation that other people said something, so be it. But don't get caught saying something that is not true and then be unable to have the guts to admit you said something not true. That's you constant debate tactic - unwillingness to admit even the smallest of mistakes.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:11pm
I asked LL: "Here's a Biblical question for you (I know how much you love these) - please show me something in the Bible that's attributed to Jesus or something Jesus said - that would be in line with you as a pastor not allowing people to attend church."

LL posted two Biblical passages, which I'll copy-and-paste below, but respond to above:

LL - It is not self-evident to me how the below passages correlate to you as a preacher forbidding people from attending church. If anything, it appears so-called sinners need church more than ever if they are sinning.

I would like you to explain in your own words what those two passages mean, and why you believe they give you footing to deny people from attending church, because it's not clear to me where you made the connection.

In Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Revelation 2:20-23

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall knowthat I am He who searches the minds and heart

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:16pm
LL wrote: "perhaps you misunderstood..."

No LL, "perhaps" you didn't explain yourself clearly, even though your job is to read a text that is not written clearly and tell other people what it means - "perhaps" one would think you'd be able to express yourself clearly. Or, "perhaps" you explained yourself clearly, I explained myself clearly, and you no longer like the sound of it. Yeah - that's what I think is closest to the "truth."

LL wrote: "when I said "if I'm wrong"; I'm not engaged in what I think is a good "gamble"."

I've seen you write on this thread and other threads that you believe there's less of a risk in believing, because if you're wrong, then nothing bad will happen to you, because there won't be anything; then you warn that if you're right, you'll be rewarded, and the non-believers will be punished.

If you don't want it to sound like a gamble (I assume you believe using that word cheapens it) - then don't explain it in a way that makes it easy to conclude you looked at the alternatives and decided to go with the less risky. I know many sports gamblers - that's how they assess which teams to bet on.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:27pm
Your argument is a logical fallacy because you assume 1)your opinion is fact and 2)ergo, my beliefs are thus false. Your argument is not sustainable. What can only be argued is that your "hope" that I having a false reality is proven out. Equally, I cannot portend that I am arguing from a point of fact, nor have I. I have openly stated that I base my statements on my belief as a follower of Christ. Frankly though, I would rather be wrong on my end then yours. If I'm wrong, I'll never know it. If you're wrong, you will know it and suffer for it eternally. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 2:25pm

You post your belief as fact all the time. My belief is based on my experience your belief is based on yours. You post statements from the Bible as if they are fact all the time. You can contend you don't but I have many many people here who would contend otherwise.

"Frankly though, I would rather be wrong on my end then yours. If I'm wrong, I'll never know it. If you're wrong, you will know it and suffer for it eternally."

I have had this argument presented to me before as a reason to believe. It didn't float because last I checked you don't believe in Christ because of self gain. You are supposed to believe in Christ out of faith. While I am not saying you believe for this reason I have just had that presented to me before. That is why the whole fire and brimstone always sounded stupid to me, for lack of a better word. You are saying believe in Christ to save your own butt rather than believe in Christ because of the message he has to give. Always funny to me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:35pm
LL wrote: I've studied every major religion and some of the smaller ones too. Only Christianity was logically right when I not only examine the evidence for Jesus, but the consistency of the truth about Him, of Him, and by Him. No one could make that decision for me. It is purely by faith that I trust in what I have come to know."

"Purely by faith" being the operative words, LL, "purely by faith."

LL wrote (about Islam): "It is not a religion of mercy and love."

You're not going to get me to rank religions, which is what you did when you "studied" them - again, you make it easy to conclude that your decision making process was a gamble - go with the least risky bet).

Arguably Christianity is not a religion of mercy and love either. Look at the many passages you post (on this and MANY other threads). You seem to be much more a fan of the posts that talk about punishing people and badness, etc.

I would argue you have the free will to show mercy and love to sinners (that's what Jesus was famous for). But you will just turn it around and pick passages out of a book and claim those words forbid you from showing mercy and love to sinners.

I think your religion could be very loving and merciful - sadly, people like you (equally sinners as everyone else) choose to interpret words as giving you the right to not be merciful and loving to other people.

What about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Even I can recall those words from the Bible. Those words seem much more merciful and loving than the Biblical passages you adore copying-and-pasting.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:40pm
LL wrote: "Perhaps I'm having a bad day with my communication with you. It seems like I say tomato and you see apple."

That's one way to put it. Another is: you say "apple," I see that you say "apple," and then you say "no, no 'I said "tomato.'"

LL wrote: "Sorry, you have not understood my points. I accept the blame for poor communication."

I agree that you are not that best communicator (not entirely your fault, you let other people's words do most of your talking - hence the constant cut-and-paste biblical passages and cut-and-paste wikipedia articles, etc.)

But you are being arrogant again. I have perfectly understood your points. You don't like my responses to them. There is a big difference, another one you (maybe unconsciously) conflate.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
Another concept I always found funny was that followers of Christianity or other similar western religions believe that you must do good deeds in order to see Heaven. However I find that funny because in truth you are supposed to do good deeds for good deeds sake, not in order to go to heaven. I find religion a funny thing. So many people never actually get what they believe in because they never sufficiently stop to ask questions. Belief in God for salvations sake, according to my understanding of Christianity, is not sufficient enough to gain salvation.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:47pm
Cccomf01 wrote: "You are saying believe in Christ to save your own butt rather than believe in Christ because of the message he has to give. Always funny to me."

Couldn't agree more Cccomf01.

And LL has the nerve to look up biblical passages to defend his practice of forbidding people, as a preacher, from attending his services.

Where's the mercy and love in that?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:50pm
LL - still waiting for your own-word explanation of those biblical passages and why they are solid ground for you to deny people from going to service at your church.

thanks

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:53pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:47pm 

I actually agree completely with this, and in fact, it's far worse than you're suggesting. I would argue that if you take heaven and hell seriously AND think that your actions determine which way you go, doing good for goodness' sake is impossible. Given the enormity of the consequences involved, it's as clear a case of duress as you'll ever find.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 6:53pm 

If you have taken that position, I would love to see that as well. It seems intuitively odd that someone who actively sought out all kinds of people, and broke bread with the man who he knew would betray him to death would favor exclusion of ANYONE from his table. Where Paul differs from this (and, at times, he does) he is wrong.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:35pm 

Part of this I already addressed (and agreed with), but part of it seems to have a slight confusion. Since you haven't challenged the claim that a person can make reasonable claims to knowledge of the truth (including knowledge of ultimate truths), or the additional point that truth is of necessity exclusive (X and not-X cannot simultaneously be true), I'm not sure how you can claim that Liberty's confident affirmation of Christianity is arrogant.

I will say this, however. There are some parts of his Christianity with which I must strongly disagree. What urmygyro latches on to is I think the core of Christianity is supposed to represent, especially when you consider that Jesus (not Paul, and not whichever John wrote Revelation) is supposed to be the standard through which God's will and love are understood.

That said...I also eagerly await Liberty's answer to my questions regarding homosexuality (and sexuality generally).

Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 7:16pm
LL - are we going to get your in your-own-words explanation of those biblical passages and why they are solid ground for you to deny people from going to service at your church? Or are you going to ignore that request or pretend you didn't see it?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 7:22pm
As a brief corollary...I do agree that the claim "anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell" is deeply problematic. I'm not sure it's arrogance per se; it's no more arrogant intellectually than the claim to know these things with great confidence (which I don't see as fundamentally arrogant).

The real problem, I think, is the incoherence with the God who is described. That God would send to eternal damnation all of those who have never of Jesus, are intellectually unconvinced that he was who he said he was, or found their own faith more compelling than Christianity, strikes me as fundamentally irreconcilable with the notion of a loving God.

As for the textual side of this, I just want to say two brief things:

1) I don't see any automatically binding textual claim as contradicting this. Saying "no one comes to the Father except through me" is not saying "no one comes to the Father except through BELIEF in me."

2) It is said many times that many of those who go to heaven did not realize that they knew Jesus, even though they did all along.

If this is not the case, if Liberty's view really were the only reasonable way to understand the texts involved, I would find that extremely problematic. If he cannot reconcile the texts with a loving God, he has a very serious issue indeed.

One last note:

The coercion I'm talking about doesn't just come from an "act-centered" account. It comes equally from a "belief-centered" account. If you take heaven and hell seriously, and believe that you must believe in Christ in order to be saved, I have no idea how that belief can possibly be free.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 7:24pm
LL wrote: "I realize that the Catholic church and many who do not know the Bible falsely believe they can impress G-d to let them in heaven because their good deeds outweigh their bad ones."

I am a lapsed Catholic (inculcated like many children with religion by his parents - in other words, I didn't choose to become a Catholic when I left home - the very opposite, indeed).

However, I feel I must correct your absolutely false statement about Catholicism. You've claimed to have studied the religions of the world. You need to go back to religion school.

Catholicism is not merely a balance sheet of good and bad deeds, with Catholics needing just 1 more good deed than bad to get into heaven.

Catholics don't believe good deeds are enough to get anyone into heaven. Indeed, like believers of your faith, LL, they believe you can be a secular law abider who everyone on earth would call a good person, but if you don't believe in Jesus as your savior you're not going to heaven. And the flip side of that coin is Catholics believe someone who was a terrible sinner all his life can ask for God's forgiveness on his death bed and become a believer in Jesus and they will be saved.

Catholics, like you, believe one must believe in Jesus as his savior in order to get to heaven. That's the main belief, the most important.

Catholicism definitely preaches to do good deeds, especially for the less fortunate (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc)--but this nonsense about getting into heaven merely being a good vs. bad deed tally sheet is utter nonsense, LL couldn't be further from the truth.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 7:36pm
That said...I also eagerly await Liberty's answer to my questions regarding homosexuality (and sexuality generally). Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 7:16pm

I see your point about my confusion. I do admit that it me calling LVL arrogant for his belief is a stretch. I respect all people's beliefs, my problem is when people feel the need to preach to me and foist their beliefs on me. No matter what they may be. Liberal, conservative, vegan, anti-abortion etc. I consider arrogant to believe that you can tell anyone else what they should believe when it comes to something like religion or morality in general. While I do see your point I can't help but feel that LVL has presented an arrogant attitude in the way he upholds that his belief is the end all be all and all beliefs be sides his are pure hoo-ha(borrowed from another threat).

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:08pm
Thrawn wrote: "If you take heaven and hell seriously, and believe that you must believe in Christ in order to be saved, I have no idea how that belief can possibly be free."

Thrawn, the answer is simple, not that I agree with it - the free will was to make the choice to believe or not in the first place.

If you accept it as truth, and believe there is a God, and souls, and life after death that's either good or bad, and that you want to be in the good part--then yes, you're not free to do whatever you want to get to the good part (or avoid the bad part). There's a prescribed route you must follow, but it was your choice to follow that route or not.

Of course, this ignores that Christianity isn't the only religion that thinks it has the truth cornered, or that if we do live on after death as souls, maybe God doesn't care about religious beliefs as long as you were a decent human, or maybe good and bad is completely irrelevant, and everyone's going to live after life, and it's going to be in the good part!

No one knows what God, if God exists, wants. Religious people have decided to turn that thinking over to a religion. It makes them feel better. And some people go so far as to think they are religious scholars, and not only is their religious choice the one true choice to God, but they have the best interpretations of the texts that were not written by them!

Where have we heard this before recently?

Oh, right - Madoff!

It's a ponzi scheme!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 8:13pm
LL is arrogant in the way he preaches about the religion he believes in - there's no doubt about that, the record is plain for anyone to view.

Most interestingly to me - LL is not going to give us his own word explanation of the biblical text he copied-and-pasted. Would have been fun to see LL explain why he thinks Jesus thinks it's ok for him to shut people out of church.

But alas, LL is a coward. So be it.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 8:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:12pm

While I agree with you on all of the above, in my short experience much of what I have seen in the teachings of Christianity more specifically those of the fire and brimstone bunch is repent and accept Christ to save your own "afterlife". Which is a cycle that ends in you going to hell no matter what.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:23pm
I can agree with you...to some extent. I partially cede your point about free will, but I still think that the gamble Liberty talks about is almost inescapable if you accept the assumption that belief is the standard. Why in the world would someone risk infinite harm?

Moreover, imagine the missionary who believes that the only way to "save souls" is to tell the Gospel to everyone who has not heard. He can work all of his life, but at the end he still has to think "because I didn't work JUST a smidgen harder, I allowed someone to be damned (a harm of infinite duration if not magnitude).

I don't understand the ponzi scheme link; though religion has resembled one at times in the past (ex: indulgences), I don't see how that kind of broad description fits religion as a whole today.

Even by loose analogy, though, I don't follow your argument. Your position begins by asserting that no one knows the truth about God. But how can you assert that so confidently? Certainly, there are a lot of different claims going around, but it seems like the best answer, rather than throwing up your hands and saying "eh, nobody knows" is to examine them and see which of them can offer a compelling account either historically or philosophically. It is also worth noting that this applies to ALL fundamental frameworks, including atheistic ones.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 8:29pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 12:00pm

So then homosexuality is not a sin? In actuality you can be homosexual you are just not allowed to act on those impulses. You have said in effect that homosexuality is not a sin it's having sex outside of marriage that is the sin. So your calling all homosexuals perverts is you just vocalizing homophobia.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/15/2009 @ 12:04pm
lvliberty-I never said anything about what would happen if Ccc was correct.What I said was that you could be quite wrong and still find that out after death and,I said,that he could be wrong,but not suffer for being wrong.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2009 @ 12:26pm
lvliberty-No one knows anything about what any of the apostles said or did.We only have Paul's claim that the apostles of Jesus said that he had authority.The books of Peter were written by an educated Greek or Roman who used the same words and writing style that was used by Paul and his disciples and was not written by a Jewish fisherman named Peter.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2009 @ 12:38pm
Always have to keep the whiners happy, I guess

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2009 @ 1:28pm
LL - you are a coward for not explaining in your own words the two biblical passages you copied-and-pasted (the ones you refer to as giving you a legitimate leg to stand on in keeping people from going to church, as a pastor).

No one says, by the way, that you have "fear" of homosexuals, just your typical attempt to change steer the discussion away from territory you don't want to go to. You are bigoted toward homosexuals. It's a prejudice.

But mostly - you're a coward. A preacher uses biblical text to keep people out of a church - and won't explain how the biblical passage backs up his decision to keep people from attending service (because the passages do not say that, you're simply interpreting them that way).

Again - cowardly bigot, that's you LL.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 2:02pm
LL - you are quite dense. These are the two passages you copied-and-pasted as evidence that Jesus wants you as a preacher to keep people from going to church. EXPLAIN THEM IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

In Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Revelation 2:20-23

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall knowthat I am He who searches the minds and heart

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 3:15pm
lvliberty-We are not talking about a murderer or some such person here.What is being discussed is a sexual difference that is expressed between adults and it isn't up to you to point the sin finger at such things ,but it is up to you to concern yourself with what you are doing because when it come sex none can do much finger pointing particularly since Jesus made thought a sin.You have no idea if homosexuality is natural or not and are judging based on your lack of information.I know that you have no choice,but to adhere to strict dogma, because that is who you are, and that is unfortunate because you miss so much of the true meaning.

Posted by i'm nobody at 01/15/2009 @ 4:36pm
That is not entirely separate from what I last asked you.

You're tireless attempts to dodge and deflect, to pretend people are merely "misunderstanding" you, blah blah blah - makes your game old and tired.

Ah - so you and a fellow pastor from the Bahamas are in a long line of bigots. Not surprising.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 4:49pm
LL wrote (about Islam): "It is not a religion of mercy and love."

- This presumably is in contrast to Christianity.

Is this the same LL who was defending the proposition (because it says so in his holy book) that homosexuality is worthy of DEATH?

Is advocating the murder of homosexuals for no other reason than that they are homosexuals expressive of/consistent with a religion (Christianity) that is supposedly about mercy and love?

Doesn't sound like it to me!

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 5:43pm
What do you do when your holy book says something evil (kill innocent people), and common sense and reason and mercy and love and morality say you should do something else?

- You can believe in/advocate the evil things promulgated in the holy book. (Of course, this requires you to believe God is evil and immoral.)

- You can try to reinterpret the holy book (in a way that reconciles it with moral good).

- You can conclude that maybe the "holy book" isn't so holy necessarily after all.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 5:48pm
Personally, I reject choice 1 completely.

Choice 2 seems reasonable (and a necessity for those who believe in the religion, that seemingly advocates immorality and evil if interpreted literally).

Choice 3 is one I am considering more and more. If there IS a God, I would like to believe he is a good and just and moral and loving God. Since hatred and persecution of homosexuals is higly evil, immoral, and unjustifiable, I believe that is reason to consider the possibility that the Bible is not necessarily the "word of God."

I simply can't accept that God is evil and immoral. Therefore, passages that advocate evil and immorality (if truly that is the only way they can be interpreted) must NOT have come from God.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 5:54pm
LL:

We are apparently at the end of this discussion. I have given you humanist teaching of why an adult homosexual does not deserve to be called a "pervert" and don't believe there is much more that is significant to add. I've given you substantial reasoning, you just don't accept it and that is your right.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 5:55pm
LL wrote: "To thus endorse homosexuality as normal is deny what Jesus stood for and did."

WRONG.

Jesus far your superior when it comes to loving and accepting other humans.

But, you're only a cowardly, bigoted, prejudiced human...and he wasn't.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 5:57pm
LL is INTERPRETING the words to not be literal death. He doesn't know this for sure. He's making a guess.

This is the arrogance he exudes - he doesn't say it's his (and some other people's) interpretation - he says it's THE interpretation, the ONLY interpretation.

He's wrong, naturally, as he almost always is.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 6:22pm
Acook wrote: "we believe that our prodical children will one day return home."

That is an arrogant statement. That makes it sound like your religion has the truth - and anyone who doesn't agree with or adhere to your religion is simply lost - just like I said you were saying.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/14/2009 @ 3:20pm

UR, read my statement again. I said "our", not every. I was referring to children who were raised in the church, but decided to leave the path of God's teachings to live in a world amongst non-believers. If you've never believed, then you wouldn't know.

Posted by ACook at 01/15/2009 @ 7:51pm
Even IF "worthy of death" means a "spiritual" death as opposed to a physical one, I STILL think that is an immoral position.

Because I believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It follows therefore, that I think persecution of such (such as sending them to hell for no other reason than that they are (or "were") homosexual is immoral.

So once again, someone (you know who) is (in my view) suggesting that God is immoral.

I cannot accept this - God's position cannot be immoral. - Unless God is not all good, which is possible (some religions posit this).

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:00pm
I have the same problem with rationalizing sexism against women via religious proscription (which is also done by biblical and Koranic literalists).

Once again, since God presumably opposes immorality and injustice, he (God) presumably opposes sexist oppression and persecution of homosexuals.

So something has to give.

My conclusion is: the Bible (and the Koran, etc), are NOT truly the "word of God."

Rather, they were written by sexist, homophobic cretins who believed the earth was flat, and I don't care what their moral views (which are, not surprisingly, immoral by modern standards) are. These sexists and homophobes legitimixed their homophobic and sexist views, by trying to claim they were the "views of God."

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:07pm
Therefore, you see, if we object to sexism and homophobia, we are "opposing God."

Pretty clever, huh?

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:07pm
I propose the following hypothesis, for study by others: the more religious someone is, the more sexist and homophobic they are likely to be.

Think about it: sanctioning evils such as sexism and homophobia in direct religious proscription is a diabolically clever idea - you aren't ALLOWED to oppose such immoralities, because they are "God's views."

And those who justify such immorality can claim they are "doing God's will."

Diabolically clever.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:14pm
Acook wrote: "read my statement again. I said "our", not every. I was referring to children who were raised in the church, but decided to leave the path of God's teachings to live in a world amongst non-believers. If you've never believed, then you wouldn't know."

Do you agree with LL's views, essentially that his religion is the one true religion and anyone who believes in a different religion or doesn't adhere to a religious faith is a doomed soul?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 8:40pm
FDR43 wrote: "I propose the following hypothesis, for study by others: the more religious someone is, the more sexist and homophobic they are likely to be. Think about it: sanctioning evils such as sexism and homophobia in direct religious proscription is a diabolically clever idea - you aren't ALLOWED to oppose such immoralities, because they are "God's views." And those who justify such immorality can claim they are "doing God's will." Diabolically clever."

Couldn't agree more FDR43 - and I would only add that it was also clever that is was written with circular logic - it predicts the opposition by people like you and me, and LL types simply point to that and say b.s. like "it only makes us stronger, your doubt, etc. proves we're right."

A book that has A LOT of words, most written ambiguously - is bound to cover any situation that someone who wants to read it can find to serve their purposes.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 8:45pm
the same guy who claims to know what was happening in roman times will turn around and say evolution is nonsense.

you scalias of the bible crack me up. you are so certain in your interpretations you won't admit they are interpretations.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 9:14pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 12:00pm 

No worries. I want to hit two things before we get to Jesus. One really important overview, by the way: I think that your position, in order to hold water, has to defend that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. Otherwise, your whole framework of Jesus upholding it falls apart because there isn't anything to uphold there. You'll be left only with the claim that he referenced the Adam and Eve/"one flesh" narrative, which I'll get to next.

In previous discussion (scattered, so I don't blame you for missing them), I argued that Leviticus is extremely problematic as a basis for your framework, for two primary reasons:

1) It's not a sufficient standard generally. Even exempting those laws meant specifically for their times or for their civilization, there are still a number of commandments and things in Leviticus that neither of believes is binding. That means that when we look at Leviticus, we don't just accept its standards blindly. So referencing Leviticus isn't enough by itself. You have to make that fit into a coherent theological framework, and I don't think you've done that.

2) Even more crucially (and this applies to both Paul and Leviticus), the Biblical texts have NO concept of homosexuality. One, they only talk about homosexuality with MALES, a fact that is probably explicable by the supposed humiliation of a man "taking the place of a woman." Two, more fundamentally, they understand homosexuality only as acts. They don't have any coherent concept of a homosexual orientation. As such, the Bible is necessarily silent on that, and therefore doesn't appear to really deal with the issue at all. I'm not sure gay marriage would even be an IDEA for them.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2009 @ 10:32pm
larry,

can i kiss you?

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 10:39pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 12:00pm 

(continued)

So Leviticus (and to an extent Paul) is now gone, let's turn to Jesus. Quite simply...you have yet to show me any verse where he says marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Yes, his stories only REFER to that, but perhaps only because people at the time would have had no real concept of anything else. All the other analysis about the consequences of sin begs the question because it relies on the assumption that homosexuality is a sin to begin with.

Now, the authority of Paul. First, your argument proves too much. As I've already pointed out, there are things in Paul that neither of us accepts, like claims about the subordination of women (and I don't mean the reciprocal ones, I mean the ones about women being silent in church, which I believe are in Paul rather than in other letters) or claims about the absolute legitimacy with which we should regard all forms of government. Second, your point presupposes that Peter knew everything Paul was preaching; in fact, unless I'm mistaken, the two of them disagreed on some points (hence Paul being called back to Jerusalem). Third, the only vision of Jesus Paul experienced was on the road to Damascus, so there wasn't any further direct stuff from Jesus. Fourth, remember that Paul still didn't have any concept of homosexuality anyway. If you understand it as an orientation that may be a part of you from the very beginning of your life, it's a whole lot harder to condemn it than if you just see it as a conscious choice to initiate certain acts. It's also a lot easier in the former scenario to suggest that God made you that way. Though you might make an analogy of predisposition to crime...we know crime is bad, tell me why this is.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2009 @ 10:40pm
Do you agree with LL's views, essentially that his religion is the one true religion and anyone who believes in a different religion or doesn't adhere to a religious faith is a doomed soul?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 8:40pm

UR, I've not had an audience with the pastor to find out what his religous beliefs are. I can only tell you what my faith in the Lord has taught me.

Posted by ACook at 01/15/2009 @ 11:56pm
Posted by ACook at 01/15/2009 @ 11:56pm 

And does what you believe the Lord taught you match urmygyro's description of what he believes LL's views to be?

Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 8:45pm 

True; this is why contextual reading is a virtue, for both conservatives and liberals. This is also, by the way, why the "you believe in the Bible? Why don't you sacrifice things or believe in slavery?" argument should never ever be made.

Posted by FDR43 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:14pm 

An interesting, though I think very tragic argument. I think it comes about partly because too many religious people do act the way you describe. What you're really criticizing is dogma, or rather not dogma per se, but pervasive dogma. I think that one of the strongest points of Christianity is in fact that we should hesitate a great deal before judging others.

By the way, as a corollary, this is how we know that Paul isn't absolutely authoritative. It's not just that he appears to (though doesn't actually) include something in the category of sins that can't coherently be described as sinful (because he doesn't even understand what it is); it's that saying "people who freely commit X and Y types of sins will not inherit the kingdom of God." The contradiction between this and what Jesus said is pretty blatant; if sinlesness isn't a criteria to get into heaven, then sinning doesn't get you into hell. Hence, you can't classify those who are going to hell based on the sins they've committed. Hence, Paul is at least in one place simply wrong.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 01:29am
I'll deal with some of the specific arguments, but first I want to make a brief overview. In some of your analysis, you've been making my point for me. As you have aptly pointed out, at least w of regions in which omosexual behavior existed. But that's exactly it. The only concept they had of homosexuality was of certain kinds of BEHAVIOR. That's certainly the only concept we get from Levicitus. That's huge for two reasons. First, it means that you have a very difficult job because the Bible says absolutely nothing about the orientation, and since the orientation cannot be neatly separated from the acts which flow from it, that's a problem. Second, the notion of a homosexual orientation makes your job difficult because it's not simply a question of refraining from particular actions. It's a question, in many cases, of denying a fundamental aspect of one's being, no less fundamental than heterosexuality is to the overwhelming majority of the world's population.

So, in order to defend your position, you have to not only explain how the Bible condemns homosexuality despite having no understanding of what it actually is, AND explain the internal coherence of condemning even actions which are inextricably intertwined with the only way these individuals will experience the love to which the heterosexual community aspires. That's critical because our tradition is centered around a God in whose character love is perfectly exemplified. That seems a very difficult burden to meet, and I would be very impressed if you managed to do so.

It's important to note that this responds both to Paul and to Leviticus. Since neither of us regards either of these two sources as an absolute basis of moral law, you're on difficult ground.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 4:56pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/16/2009 @ 2:17pm 

The Gospels and other writings refer to only one case in which Paul encountered Jesus: the road to Damascus. He was taught by him in the sense of turning his life around, but nowhere is there any description of anything Jesus said. Since we can't think Jesus taught Paul everything there was to know, or everything that Paul said (since Paul clearly contradicts some things Jesus says), the fact that Jesus taught Paul things tells us nothing about homosexuality at all.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/16/2009 @ 2:38pm 

Now this is interesting; I had never thought of the quote in that context before. The fact that porneia is distinguished from adultery is certainly meaningful as well. The question that remains, then, is whether Jesus meant this term to be coextensive with the Old Testament law (and, indeed, the ENTIRE Old Testament law). I'll have to do a little more research on that, but until then I will make two further points:

1) The Old Testament law you reference talks only about MALE homosexuality. This doesn't fit into your narrative particularly well, and in fact seems to fit in better with a narrative claiming that a man taking the place of a woman was inconsistent with the woman's role.

2) If you're incorporating Leviticus 20, does that mean that Jesus also defends the punishments Levicitus 20 prescribes? That would seem very contrary to everything we read in the New Testament.

Certainly, this does not seem to meet the fairly high burden that any condemnation of homosexuality must. And certainly, even if you believe that what they are doing is wrong, I would not call a child of God a pervert. Jesus never would.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 5:37pm
One other thing, by the way: the verses in Levicitus, though lengthy and thorough, say absolutely nothing about sexual intercourse (or more broadly, sexuality) outside of the marriage context. Granted, the "one flesh" context might be understood this way, but here's what seems to make the most sense:

The notion of "one flesh" involves the ultimate and unique union of two people in a marriage relationship, suggesting that sexual intercourse itself is best reserved for marriage, the physical and emotional peak of human relationship. However, because physical contact must be understood as proportional to emotional connectedness, sexuality other than intercourse should be understood as a continuum as a relationship progresses. After all the reading I've done to try and get a coherent framework, and it's challenging because the Bible fails to really provide one, this is the best I have been able to come up with.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 12:24am