Trump-Loving Pastor Blames California Wildfires on the ‘Sin of Homosexuality’

Via:  johnrussell  •  3 months ago  •  488 comments

Trump-Loving Pastor Blames California Wildfires on the ‘Sin of Homosexuality’

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Pro-Trump pastor Kevin Swanson blamed California’s wildfires on the state’s LGBTQ rights.

Swanson, a pastor at Colorado’s Reformation Church and the host of the “Generations With Kevin Swanson” radio show, blamed the fires that have already killed nine people on California for “legitimizing the sin of homosexuality.”

“The first gay pride march occurred in San Francisco in 1970, and then San Francisco legitimized homosexuality in 1972,” Swanson said. “In 2005, California state legislators became the first in the nation to pass a same-sex marriage law … In 2008, the California Supreme Court then struck down Prop 22 in regard to marriage cases, and Prop 8 also was struck down later on that year, I believe.”

“So God is burning down California in 2017 and 2018 after about 25 years of leading the pack to legitimize the sin of homosexuality in that state,” he said.

Swanson, a staunch Trump supporter, argued during that 2016 campaign that Hillary Clinton would turn children gay if she won.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 months ago

“So God is burning down California in 2017 and 2018 after about 25 years of leading the pack to legitimize the sin of homosexuality in that state,” he said.

Why did He wait 25 years? 

 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago
Why did He wait 25 years? 

Perhaps He thought California legitimizing homosexuality was just going to be a fad?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago
Why did He wait 25 years? 

And why has he apparently blessed us with a GDP double that of Russia? He must really hate us.

 
 
Jack_TX
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago
Why did He wait 25 years? 

25 years is but a moment in God's time.  Which is why he has yet to smite Kevin Swanson.

But it's coming.....

 
 
Phoenyx13
1.3.1  Phoenyx13  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3    3 months ago
25 years is but a moment in God's time.  Which is why he has yet to smite Kevin Swanson.

seriously ? Face Palm you do realize that if your God waits too many "moments" then Kevin will just die of old age or some disease, right ? i guess Nature will have to do it.

But it's coming.....

well obviously at some point Kevin Swanson will die - that's part of nature, we don't live forever on this planet Face Palm

 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Phoenyx13 @1.3.1    2 months ago
well obviously at some point Kevin Swanson will die - that's part of nature, we don't live forever on this planet 

Why would you assume...in a conversation about spiritual matters....that anything would be limited to this life?

Sometimes God intervenes here on Earth.  Sometimes He waits.

But Kevin Swanson will stand before God one day, as will we all.  God is going to look at him and say something along the lines of "you had ONE job....just the ONE.... love.... L...O...V...E.." 

And the smiting will commence.

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.2    2 months ago

That was funny, Jack

 
 
Gordy327
1.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.2    2 months ago
Why would you assume...in a conversation about spiritual matters....that anything would be limited to this life?

Because there is no evidence to anything other than this life. And not one religion or other spiritual sources have ever demonstrated otherwise.

Sometimes God intervenes here on Earth.  Sometimes He waits.

That's nice. Prove it!

But Kevin Swanson will stand before God one day, as will we all. 

See previous statement.

God is going to look at him and say something along the lines of "you had ONE job....just the ONE.... love.... L...O...V...E.."  And the smiting will commence.

Smiting is the opposite of love. If god can't be loving himself, then god is a hypocrite.

 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.4    2 months ago
Because there is no evidence to anything other than this life. And not one religion or other spiritual sources have ever demonstrated otherwise.

I do not expect you to believe.  Or understand.  But I do expect that from Mr. Swanson.

That's nice. Prove it!

No.  Have faith.     Or don't.  

 
 
Gordy327
1.3.6  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.5    2 months ago
I do not expect you to believe.  Or understand. 

Why would I "believe' something for which there is no evidence? That's like believing in Santa Clause or the Easter bunny. That's fine for kids, but adults are supposed to be grown up and abandon fairy tales.

But I do expect that from Mr. Swanson.

Along with the rhetoric.

No. Have faith. Or don't.

I don't! I prefer facts and evidence over wishful thinking.

 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.6    2 months ago
Why would I "believe' something for which there is no evidence?

I believe I've already said I do not expect you to.

I don't! I prefer facts and evidence over wishful thinking.

That is certainly your prerogative.  

 
 
Gordy327
1.3.8  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.7    2 months ago
I believe I've already said I do not expect you to.

And I said why would I  (or anyone) believe something without evidence?

That is certainly your prerogative. 

Why would anyone not want actual evidence or facts for something? 

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

Took that long to lite the match

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 months ago

If God intended the massive wildfires to be a sign of His feelings about homosexuality, why burn a lot of trees and houses?  Did they belong to homosexuals?  Were any homosexuals consumed by the fires?  If God were truly omniscient and omnipotent He (She?) would not have missed the mark. 

 
 
nightwalker
1.6  nightwalker  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Pat Robertson claimed that Haiti got clobbered by a hurricane because they made a deal with the devil 200 years ago to throw the slave owners out.

All natural disasters are god's punishment according to some people.

And if you send in enough money, they'll ask god not to do it to you although god might have other plans and fix you anyway.

 
 
epistte
2  epistte    3 months ago

This self-loathing dirtbag is so deep in the closet that he has a big screen and a master bathroom in it.  I'm surprised that someone hasn't found a Grindr account with his name on it. 

I have the very worst gaydar ( I didn't know that Melissa Etheridge, Ellen or George Michael were queer) but even I know that this guy is gay.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @2    3 months ago
This self-loathing dirtbag is so deep in the closet that he

is finding last years X-mas presents (Family Guy reference). Laugh

 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    3 months ago

I had to Google that because I have never watched Family Guy or even The Simpsons.

I've also never watched a single episode of Star Trek. 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago

I cant believe I'm hearing that. stunned

Not even 1 episode of either of them? My friend, you are culturally depriving yourself. 

 
 
lennylynx
2.1.3  lennylynx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    3 months ago

I'm more shocked about not seeing any Simpsons...

 
 
epistte
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    3 months ago
I cant believe I'm hearing that.  Not even 1 episode of either of them? My friend, you are culturally depriving yourself. 

Nope. Somehow they just don't appeal to me.  I was forced to watch the first episode of Star Wars by my sister when she was babysitting us.  

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    3 months ago

You had to be "forced?" I can't even fathom that. I'm one of those sci-fi geeks who would wait in line for days just to see the first showing of SW. Not that I ever did that, but I understand it. winking

 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    3 months ago

I saw all of the first three Star Wars in the theater. Of course that was many years ago. I recently watched the latest two Star Wars (Force Awakens and The Last Jedi) at home,  and it just wasnt quite the same. Hard to put the finger on it, but I think it boils down to you prefer to identify with the things you see and do when you're young, and that applies to movies too. 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    3 months ago
 I recently watched the latest two Star Wars (Force Awakens and The Last Jedi) at home,  and it just wasnt quite the same.

What do you mean? Those movies were just like New Hope and Empire, only with different characters (mostly). The similarities between them is too obvious. If Episode IX has a battle in a forest with a bunch of teddy bears, I'm done with SW! Lol

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
2.1.8  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    3 months ago

Not a Doug Stanhope fan, I'm guessin.

 
 
epistte
2.1.9  epistte  replied to  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III @2.1.8    3 months ago

I had to google him because I've never heard the name before. 

What is his schtick?

 
 
Skrekk
2.1.10  Skrekk  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    3 months ago
I've also never watched a single episode of Star Trek.

I've never heard anyone say that before.    Star Trek was very influential during my formative years.

 
 
epistte
2.1.11  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.10    3 months ago
I've never heard anyone say that before.    Star Trek was very influential during my formative years.

I've never claimed to be typical.  The only sci-fi movie that I have ever enjoyed is the first Aliens with Sigourney Weaver.

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
2.1.12  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  epistte @2.1.9    3 months ago

His claim for the night is that he is a general leading troops off to war - you won't all be there at the end of the show. He offends equally.

 
 
calbab
2.1.13  calbab  replied to  epistte @2.1.11    3 months ago

Break! This poses a most interesting experiment.   A virgin spirit and set of eyes available to view one of the most impactful set of SCI-FI storytelling in television history!

It can be properly argued that STAR Trek in all its forms and diverse sets of cast-members clasped hands and strode down the aisle of every conscious mind which actively followed the series. First shocker was the representation of all racial groups on each "ship's bridge." The debonair captain suitable for holding life together in every situation (Captain Kirk).  The newly-minted exploration and experience of logic (Spock). The powerful excesses of emotions (Dr. McCoy). A strong black woman presence fearless and in control of herself (Uhura). Tthe detailed-oriented black Commander (Benjamin Sisko). Last, and certainly not least a highly credible woman captain (Captain Janeway). The franchise plotted a course for the future "out there," while secretly pointing its finger back on humanity to come up to its standards.

Epistte, the shows have aged now. The "tech" shows maybe 'dated' who knows and concepts may have loss all their pizazz and punch-value now. One can only wonder what a "fresh" set of eyes could do with watching the series from beginning to end.

My favorite star trek series: Star Trek: The Next GenerationI was in the military service and Captain Picard reminded me so much of the stature and precision of a Ship's Captain.  My most memorable episode in all the franchises:

The Next Generation: "Q Who?"

My most memorable line: "Resistance is futile." 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.10    3 months ago

Star Trek was the same for me. I also enjoyed Buck Rogers in the 25th century. Battlestar Galactica too. Heck, anything sci-fi was good with me.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.13    3 months ago

Have you heard, Capt Picard will be in a new Trek Series? 

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.15    3 months ago

That might be enough to get me to pay for CBS All Access.  Picard was the best Trek captain (covering my head to protect from fruit thrown by Kirk fans).

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @2.1.11    3 months ago

Trek is more than just scifi.  It was Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future that was more inclusive and more just.  Some of the best episodes of Trek weren't focused on the science or the battle action.  They were focused on moral dilemmas.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.7    3 months ago
If Episode IX has a battle in a forest with a bunch of teddy bears, I'm done with SW! Lol

laughing dude

But I'm looking forward to more teddy bears!

 
 
calbab
2.1.19  calbab  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.15    3 months ago

No! Can the "old man" get it up for one more series? Oh wowey! Stellar days!! I love Star Trek series.  Personal aside: two-things pissed me off.

  1. Seth MacFarlane's irreverent take on the series. NOTE: I did not watch a single espisode of Marfarlane's concept. I find a great deal of his television work: "Interesting, but inelegant."
  2. The CBS pay experience of Star Trek. (I have too much pay television now with a cable contract and Netflix.) Sigh.
  3. Above, I wrote my favorite Star Trek line of all time was: "Resistance is futile." Well, it was late and my mind simply could not get the words I love the most. It is from the Borg also:

"Irrelevant. You will be assimilated." —The Borg.

I have use this "expression" in one form or another in many discussions over the course of my life. It sticks with me. Especially, the word, "irrelevant" and the 'take no exceptions' meaning it delivers!

NOTE:

John Russell, I know I am off-topic. So, if you allow this to stay. Thank you.  Returning to topic now.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    3 months ago

I don't get the appeal of FG.  The lead character has a ball sack for a chin and his kid has a head that looks like a football.

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.21  Freefaller  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.16    3 months ago
Picard was the best Trek captain

Gotta disagree Sandy and I know I'm gonna get grief for this but my fave was Janeway.

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.22  Freefaller  replied to  calbab @2.1.19    3 months ago
The CBS pay experience of Star Trek

Snicker, it was free up here in Canada

 
 
Tessylo
2.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  epistte @2.1.11    3 months ago
'The only sci-fi movie that I have ever enjoyed is the first Aliens with Sigourney Weaver.'

Ooh, that was my all time favorite, absolutely, all time favorite sci-fi movie.

I'm an Aliens fan but I don't care for all of the movies in the franchise.  III and Alien Resurrection were a little too dark for me.    

If you like spoofs, it's not necessarily a spoof, but I loved Sigourney Weaver in Paul.  Classic, but you'd have to see most of the Aliens movies to get most of the references.

Even in Galaxy Quest with Sigourney Weaver, there was some classic references to her Alien movies.  

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.24  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.21    3 months ago

I could not get past Mulgrew's (Janeway) voice.  It was like fingernails down a chalkboard.  Picard was my favorite.  He was cultured, educated, and passionate about life.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.16    3 months ago
Picard was the best Trek captain

You got that right!

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  calbab @2.1.19    3 months ago

"Resistance is futile"

My son used that on me when I was debating adopting another kitten. He was 9 at the time

 
 
321steve
2.1.27  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.26    3 months ago
"Resistance is futile" My son used that on me when I was debating adopting another kitten. He was 9 at the time

LOL... and is he still waiting on his kitty ?

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.28  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @2.1.27    3 months ago

LOL!

No....I was the one who couldn't resist and ended up adopting the little Russian Blue. She's still with me after 14 years

 
 
epistte
2.1.29  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.17    3 months ago
Trek is more than just scifi.  It was Gene Roddenberry's vision of a future that was more inclusive and more just.  Some of the best episodes of Trek weren't focused on the science or the battle action.  They were focused on moral dilemmas.

I took a science fiction literature class for one of my HS senior year English credits and liked it.

 
 
321steve
2.1.30  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.28    3 months ago
No....I was the one who couldn't resist

LOL So resistance was futile eh ?   lol

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @2.1.30    3 months ago

Absolutely. :)

 
 
321steve
2.1.32  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.31    3 months ago
Absolutely

Do you choose your battles more wisely now ?

LOL 

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.21    3 months ago

Janeway is a close second for me.  

 
 
arkpdx
2.1.34  arkpdx  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.21    3 months ago

You are both wrong. The one and only top,  "A" number one captain of the Star Ship Enterprise is and always will be JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK!   Period  .

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.35  Freefaller  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.24    3 months ago
He was cultured, educated, and passionate about life.

Lol I can't argue all of that and will add he has a great speaking voice, in fact I just listened to him narrating a documentary on mountain gorilla's last night, simply put amazing voice.  But because Voyager was more action packed I thought Janeway the better battle captain (for lack of a better term) and her voice while obviously not as good wasn't (imo) fingernail bad.

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.36  Freefaller  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.34    3 months ago

Maybe so but I couldn't get past his bad acting and the terrible graphics

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.16    3 months ago
That might be enough to get me to pay for CBS All Access.

Not me! Free network Trek is a right as an American citizen! Or at least, it should be! winking

  Picard was the best Trek captain (covering my head to protect from fruit thrown by Kirk fans).

You are not wrong. 

 
 
arkpdx
2.1.38  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.37    3 months ago

Picked was/is/will be a big weinie 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.19    3 months ago
No! Can the "old man" get it up for one more series?

Apparently so. Have to give Mr. Stewart credit, he's still going strong. his voice work in American Dad is also quite good.

Oh wowey! Stellar days!! I love Star Trek series. 

As do I.

Personal aside: two-things pissed me off. Seth MacFarlane's irreverent take on the series. NOTE: I did not watch a single espisode of Marfarlane's concept. I find a great deal of his television work: "Interesting, but inelegant."

Are you referring to his series "the Orville?" If so, I highly suggest you watch it. It actually pays a clear homage to Trek and has "social" based stories, dilemmas, and commentary, much like the original Trek and spinoff series did. "irreverent" humor is thrown in, in small amounts at a time. But it does not overpower or diminish the overall story. I highly recommend it.

The CBS pay experience of Star Trek. (I have too much pay television now with a cable contract and Netflix.) Sigh.

I hate that too.

Above, I wrote my favorite Star Trek line of all time was: "Resistance is futile." Well, it was late and my mind simply could not get the words I love the most. It is from the Borg also:

It is a classic line and is forever identified with TNG. Let's not forget the greatest cliffhanger line of the series: "Mr. Worf, Fire!"

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.40  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.20    3 months ago
I don't get the appeal of FG. 

Slapstick, irreverent humor, which appeals to the lowest common denominator. In other words, people like me. Laugh

The lead character has a ball sack for a chin and his kid has a head that looks like a football.

They actually joked about that on certain episodes. in one, Peter realizes his chin is his balls and he states: "How did these get there," before taking them off and stuffing them down his pants. In another, Peter actually throws Stewie like a football. LOL

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.38    3 months ago
Picked was/is/will be a big weinie 

PuqloD targh! Batlh DaHutlh'a'!

The one and only top, "A" number one captain of the Star Ship Enterprise is and always will be JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK! Period .

Nah, Capt. Pike! winking

I would have liked to see more about Capt. Robert April, the 1st Capt. of the Enterprise.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.18    3 months ago
But I'm looking forward to more teddy bears!

Ok, but only if they're something like this: 

 
 
calbab
2.1.43  calbab  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.39    3 months ago

The Orville? Yes, that one! Hmmm. I will have to consider it on your recommendation along. The only part of it I have seen was its opening scene Episode 1, somebody arrived home and an alien creature or something was interrupted having sex with its mate. I admit, the graphics I glimpsed were 'sharp.' I deferred—didn't want to like it. I so dislike McFarlane's (irrelevance) work. But, I will give it another "go see" on the 'strength' of your statement.


I may as well "piggyback" the "life-changing" Star Trek experience of my own: This spoke volumes to me. (Sorry, the top of peoples heads are partially cut off. Can't find a better version and I have been looking since last evening!)

Episste, this one is for you, if you care to give it a try. There is a lot you may not relate to and a lot you may. If you can not do the whole thing start at 9:00 minutes in and enjoy!

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4zrkry
Star Trek, Next Generation, Q Who?

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.44  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.43    3 months ago

The beginning of Orville ep. 1 sees Ed Mercer catch his wife cheating on him. But it's not as straightforward as it seems. It's a theme that both characters address as season 1 progresses in various episodes, but also helps their growth as characters. Without giving spoilers, it plays on their feelings towards each other along with themes of love and forgiveness. 

Other episodes focus on current issues, such as transgender and social media issues, to name a few. In that way, the show focuses heavily on social issues and moral dilemmas rather than space battles and such, much like the original Star Trek did. 

Your Q Who clip wouldn't play for me. Might be a media player issue. But I remember the episode. It's definitely one of the better episodes and not just for introducing the Borg. But then, any episode with Q is bound to be good. Perhaps  we'll see Picard and Q interact again in the new Trek series. Their chemistry made Q episodes so memorable. Remember "Tapestry?"

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  calbab @2.1.43    3 months ago

Here's something we can all look forward to:

"An incredible 24 years after "The Next Generation" (TNG) finished its television run, star Patrick Stewart announced he will reprise his role as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in a new CBS series." 8/4/2018

https://www.space.com/41389-star-trek-picard-returns-cbs-series.html

 
 
calbab
2.1.46  calbab  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.45    3 months ago

Make It So! Oh Goodness! CBS "All Access" is going to squeeze mo' money out of me?! It will be a dilemma for me (I have too much television "access" now, in my opinion.) HA!

 
 
calbab
2.1.47  calbab  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.44    3 months ago

Oops! That last should have read, I so dislike McFarlane's (irreverent) work. Sorry.


The link is on Dailymotion. The episode title to check for: Star Trek Next Generation: Q Who?  Try this one: (it is a link 'back') https://www.dailymotion.com/search/q%20who%3F

Psst! I certainly do remember Tapestry. Here is the link: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6n6gc9

I am a trekkie at heart. I saw them all and can talk fluently about them all day-night long. Which is why CBS is stressing me out already!

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.39    3 months ago
It is a classic line and is forever identified with TNG. Let's not forget the greatest cliffhanger line of the series: "Mr. Worf, Fire!"

Some more faves of mine:

A Starfleet officer's first duty is to the truth.

There are four lights!

 
 
charger 383
2.1.49  charger 383  replied to  epistte @2.1.11    3 months ago
I've never claimed to be typical

That's what I like, even when I disagree with you

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.50  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.47    3 months ago

I'm a die hard trekkie too. I wonder if other TNG characters will appear in the Picard series? Maybe they'll all forget about ST: Nemesis?

Your new link worked, thanks. I always thought Sonia Gomez was cute too, albeit a little excitabe and/or clumsy. Too bad they didn't develop her character a little more.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.51  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.48    3 months ago

How about, "let's see what's out there," from the pilot episode.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.52  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.38    3 months ago

Why, because he would rather read the classics than fight or get laid which was Kirk's MO.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.53  Gordy327  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.52    3 months ago

Remember when Picard punched out that Ferengi on Risa? While not Picard's usual tactic, it was an awesome moment.

 
 
TᵢG
2.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.53    3 months ago
Picard punched out that Ferengi on Risa?

Might as well use the awesome multimedia at our fingertips.  Winking 2

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.54    3 months ago

Thanks for that. Nothing like seeing a smug Ferengi get his comupence. Unless it's Quark. Then you can't help but root for the guy.

 
 
calbab
2.1.56  calbab  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.50    3 months ago

They might appear. But, I read today that the story-line is going to pick up after the 'period' involving The Next Generation. That said, the writers are still writing. You could start an article: I would come! (Smile.)

I love mostly all Sci-fi. Hint: Did you watch "Childhood's End The mini-series? Whoa! You should do and article - we (all) can talk!

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.51    2 months ago

That's a good one, too.

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.54    2 months ago

Sigh.

Jean-Luc Picard, with a little Indiana Jones thrown in.

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.59  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.35    2 months ago
But because Voyager was more action packed I thought Janeway the better battle captain (for lack of a better term)

I always thought that she had the harder job.  Picard stayed mostly in charted space, dealing mostly with societies the Federation had encountered before.  The Delta Quadrant was just a huge mass of unknowns, punctuated by the Borg.  She navigated that with a crew that was half made up of former terrorists (or freedom fighters, if you like) unaccustomed to Starfleet protocols.

And she hardly ever lost her temper with Neelix.

Ok, she might be better than Picard just on that basis alone.

 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.36    2 months ago
Maybe so but I couldn't get past his bad acting and the terrible graphics

I can forgive the special effects, because that's the best they could do at the time.

But I can't forgive the acting.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.61  Trout Giggles  replied to  321steve @2.1.32    2 months ago

Oh, yes. I'm much older and wiser, Obewan

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.62  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.41    2 months ago
I would have liked to see more about Capt. Robert April, the 1st Capt. of the Enterprise.

I thought the first Captain was Jonathan Archer?

Wasn't there a line in the first Star Trek movie about Scotty and Admiral Archer's prized beagle and something to do with the transporter?

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.63  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.42    2 months ago

It's the Bear Show!

Name that movie!

 
 
321steve
2.1.64  321steve  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.61    2 months ago
Oh, yes. I'm much older and wiser, Obewan

LOL.. Yeah that tends to happen. The great thing about age is resistance becomes easier but the love of our pets never fades. The older I got, the more pets I acquired and the more resistant to others demands I became.  

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.65  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.62    2 months ago
I thought the first Captain was Jonathan Archer?

He was the Capt. of the Enterprise NX-01. Robert April was the 1st Capt. of the Enterprise NCC-1701.

Wasn't there a line in the first Star Trek movie about Scotty and Admiral Archer's prized beagle and something to do with the transporter?

Yeah, Scotty "lost" Adm. Archer's beagle in a transporter mishap. But that was in the Kelvin timeline, not in the Prime universe timeline.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.66  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.56    2 months ago
They might appear.

That would be cool. 

But, I read today that the story-line is going to pick up after the 'period' involving The Next Generation.

I wonder if that "period" will have any resemblance to the "future" Picard experienced in the series finale episode of TNG?

That said, the writers are still writing. You could start an article: I would come! (Smile.)

What can I write about? Perhaps how the series should play out?

I love mostly all Sci-fi.

As do I.

Hint: Did you watch "Childhood's End The mini-series? Whoa! You should do and article - we (all) can talk!

I haven't seen that. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.67  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.65    2 months ago
Robert April was the 1st Capt. of the Enterprise NCC-1701.

details...details

Kelvin timeline

ah...thanks

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.68  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.59    2 months ago
The Delta Quadrant was just a huge mass of unknowns, punctuated by the Borg.  She navigated that with a crew that was half made up of former terrorists (or freedom fighters, if you like) unaccustomed to Starfleet protocols.

In a lot of ways, she is similar to Capt. Archer in that regard when he and his crew were exploring the Alpha Quadrant. But then, it can be argued that other captains had to do the same, as they were generally exploring unknown space. What really separates Janeway in that regard is the distance to the Delta Quadrant: she had no Starfleet backup or support in the unknown. At least the other captains were "closer to home."

And she hardly ever lost her temper with Neelix.

That's because Neelix always brought her coffee. "Listen to me very closely because I'm only going to say this once. Coffee. Black." -Janeway to Neelix, "Bride of Chaotica"

But I can't forgive the acting.

Oh come on. That was part of the charm. Wink

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.69  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.67    2 months ago
details...details

When it comes to Trek, I'm a stickler for details. Lol

ah...thanks

No problem. Timeline changes are a way to reboot or change things up. But they do become annoying.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.70  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.68    2 months ago

You have to admire the way Shatner could chew the scenery

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.71  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.70    2 months ago
You have to admire the way Shatner could chew the scenery

Yep. Here's a classic scene.

 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.72  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.71    2 months ago

I loved that episode!

 
 
Skrekk
2.1.73  Skrekk  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.60    2 months ago
But I can't forgive the acting.

The acting is what I find most endearing, especially Shatner's brilliant and most earnest oeuvre.

 
 
calbab
2.1.74  calbab  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.66    2 months ago
What can I write about?

Sci-fi, Star Trek, Childhood's End, and much more. . . . I'll come! (Psst. I feel like a 'thief' hijackin' this article and stuff.)

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.75  Gordy327  replied to  calbab @2.1.74    2 months ago
Sci-fi, Star Trek, Childhood's End, and much more. . . . I'll come!

I have written a couple sci-fi articles a long time ago. Here's my best sci-fi capt. article and my best sci-fi series article. I suppose I can write more about Trek. Perhaps a Star Trek captain battle royale: ranking the top 10 Star Trek captains. I'll need several categories to base rankings though. Any thoughts anyone? 

(Psst. I feel like a 'thief' hijackin' this article and stuff.)

No worries, it's all good.

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.76  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.73    2 months ago
especially Shatner's brilliant and most earnest oeuvre.

The best razziest acting there ever was. Kirk was like the Adam West Batman of Star Trek. Laugh

Anyone who remembers the 1960's Batman will know what I mean.

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.77  Freefaller  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.59    2 months ago
And she hardly ever lost her temper with Neelix.

Lol I'd have spaced Neelix after his first episode and happily completed the rest of the journey on emergency rations. 

 
 
Gordy327
2.1.78  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.77    2 months ago
I'd have spaced Neelix after his first episode and happily completed the rest of the journey on emergency rations. 

Wow, that's harsh. Lol

 
 
Studiusbagus
2.1.79  Studiusbagus  replied to  Freefaller @2.1.21    2 months ago
but my fave was Janeway

Have you seen her in "Orange is the new black" ?

 She plays a Russian prisoner.

 
 
Freefaller
2.1.80  Freefaller  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.1.79    2 months ago
Have you seen her in "Orange is the new black" ?

No, I caught a bit of a couple episodes but it didn't grab my attention so I stopped trying.

 
 
dave-2693993
2.1.81  dave-2693993  replied to  Studiusbagus @2.1.79    2 months ago
She plays a Russian prisoner.

Side note:

Speaking of Russian prisoners, fairly good chance a woman could be Ukraine's next President.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.82  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.34    2 months ago

I like the new Cpt Picard (Chris Pine).

 
 
devangelical
3  devangelical    3 months ago

Thumper fucktard is confused. God has just weighed in on the proposed state of Jefferson by torching it.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @3    3 months ago

This Jefferson thing is silly IMO.  But I know we have some members in Northern California that might be in harm's way due to the fires.  My thoughts are with them and I hope they are and will remain safe during this really bad time.

 
 
Skrekk
3.1.1  Skrekk  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1    2 months ago
This Jefferson thing is silly IMO.  But I know we have some members in Northern California that might be in harm's way due to the fires. 

They'll be just fine if they bought private fire insurance and display the proper fire mark to show that they're all paid up.    Otherwise they're just leeches relying on big gubermint socialism, a philosophy which just isn't compatible with the freedums of the State of Jefferson.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/fire-mark-collectible-insurance-crest

 
 
MrFrost
3.2  MrFrost  replied to  devangelical @3    3 months ago
God has just weighed in on the proposed state of Jefferson by torching it.

Oh boy, HA will not be happy.. Or did he have to evacuate? 

 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @3.2    2 months ago

I may not like the guy but I hope he's all right and his property

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    2 months ago

I'm with you.  We all have people here we may not like, but I would hope that when push comes down to shove, that we would help them or at least hope they are safe and out of harm's way.

 
 
Freefaller
4  Freefaller    3 months ago

And yet another religious leader demonstrates he at best has only a tenuous grip on reality

 
 
Gordy327
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @4    3 months ago

Even then, tenuous might be giving him too much credit.

 
 
Freefaller
4.1.1  Freefaller  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    3 months ago

Lol possibly

 
 
Phoenyx13
5  Phoenyx13    3 months ago
Swanson, a staunch Trump supporter, argued during that 2016 campaign that Hillary Clinton would turn children gay if she won.

for some reason, i don't find this very shocking considering the religious leader in the article - I do think it's pathetic that some people still "think" this way, given the vast amount of information available on the internet nowadays.

 
 
Gordy327
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @5    3 months ago

Pathetic is an understatement. But then, religious delusion will do that. 

 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    3 months ago

Swanson.  A pastor?  A pastor of what?

Not really much to say.  Except these christian taliban are.....becoming as worrisome as they are wearisome.

Should we prepare---or just let gawd sort em' out?

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @6    3 months ago

A pastor of what?

Frozen TV Dinners?

 
 
MrFrost
6.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1    2 months ago
A pastor of what? Frozen TV Dinners?

giphy3.gif

 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    3 months ago

Yet another religious leader that is so not Christ like it scary. I am sure my fellow posters can fact check me here, but homosexuality wasn't even mentioned in the bible until...1940? Was that a rule handed down by God, or was it just some hater that decided it needed to be in here? The bible is SUPPOSED to be the word of God, so why does man keep changing it to accommodate their hatred? 

I have always found it curious that people like this unpolished turd have a "God" that happens to hate all the same people they do. How convenient. [eye roll]

 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @7    3 months ago
homosexuality wasn't even mentioned in the bible until...1940?

You mean....not even King James I insisted on it?

 
 
MrFrost
7.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    3 months ago
King James

Apparently not.. LOL 

 
 
MrFrost
8  MrFrost    3 months ago

I am sure the fire couldn't ave possibly been caused by a spark from a flat tire....no, I am sure it just had to be gay people that caused the fire... My god these people are idiots. 

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @8    3 months ago

The fires weren't caused by God.  They were arson, with one who has been arrested even sending a previous email that "It will all burn."  How convenient that his cabin was the only one out of dozens that did not burn down.  I am betting that a lot of angry people, once this is over, will find his cabin and give him what  he gave so many others.

 
 
MrFrost
8.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1    3 months ago

Thanks for the update. I had heard that it was a spark from a flat tire? Maybe we are talking about two different fires...but then, there are so damn many...hard to keep track. 

 
 
pat wilson
8.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1    3 months ago

That is the Holy Jim fire in southern California. The ones up north are the Carr fire (Redding) and the Mendocino county fire. It's hard to keep track, Cali's burning everywhere.

 
 
calbab
8.1.3  calbab  replied to  pat wilson @8.1.2    3 months ago

Yeah. And, the "good Pastor," should be praying for a "Low" weather system pattern powerful enough to move the "High" weather system pattern out. Instead of calling on scapegoats and "boogie bears.'

Pray for California's good, I say. And, California will pray for you back!

See the source image

 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  calbab @8.1.3    2 months ago

My grandmother prayed for rain during a drought. The rain came and her pastor asked her to stop praying

 
 
TᵢG
9  TᵢG    3 months ago

One can only hope that most religious people find the views of this 'man of God' to be reprehensible.    

But I can see why some struggle with this.   On one hand God has gone down on record that homosexual acts (at least for ancient Hebrews - males only) demand the engaging men be put to death.   He softened up a bit by the NT and downgraded it to a sin without immediate execution but still God is not on board with the gay agenda.   So religious people have decent justification to think that promoting equality for those who routinely engage in homosexual acts might raise the ire of the most supreme possible entity.   And since God is loaded with power (and knows how to use it - like wiping out the entire planet with a flood) it is easy to imagine God igniting a horrendous blaze to make a point.

But then again, God is the creator of everything and thus God has and continues to create homosexuals.   Would it be logical to hold that omnipotent (as some see Him) God is unable to stop creating people who are sexually attracted to those of their own gender?   It would seem God wants a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual.   After all, if God wanted only heterosexual orientation He certainly has the power to make this so.

This thought process naturally leads to why God allows bad things to happen and the immediate answer of 'God gave us all free will'.  Ahah!   So God gives some people just enough of a biochemical attraction so that they can choose to be homosexual so that He can turn around and punish them for it.   Well that makes sense in a twisted sense.   It contradicts the God of Love notion though.   But, hold on, what about children dying of cancer and similar diseases?   They did not make bad choices - they had these diseases at birth.   Free will has nothing to do with it.   God created these children knowing (omniscient) that they would suffer and die before they were old enough to start school.   

Yes, religious explanations of reality have quite a few challenges.   One would hope that people would see through the nonsense - especially when illuminated by bigots like the subject pastor.    Is it a matter of time or will we (collectively) continue to kid ourselves indefinitely?

 
 
Enoch
9.1  Enoch  replied to  TᵢG @9    3 months ago

Dear Friend TIG: For ancient as for modern (like me) Jewish People LGBTQ fellow citizens are not the problem for us as is mis-attributed by those who read our Scripture in translation, without Jewish commentary. 

There is a clear distinction between Chet (sin) and To-eyvah (abomination).

By the bye, abomination isn't the negative for the Biblical mind that is it for contemporary society.

Sin is defined as any action which estranges one from G-d. 

Being part of the LGBTQ community is not a sin.

It is considered an abomination.

All that means is that it is not a behavior or set of conducts which one associates with how general society acts.

That not only doens't make it a sin.

It can also be a virtue.

Consider the case of a society where ethnic cleaning is the law of the land. 

Civil disobedience, even to the risk of loss of life is a virtue. This is true even if not what one normally assumes would be the course of action to take.

The sin here isn't how people love one another in long term sustainable relations, assuming proper precautions are taken for societal health LGBTQ, Hetero and all other options).

It is no more than not what one general expects (Scriptural abomination).

A word here about the death penalty.

In the original language, it is a literary device.

The use of the death penalty, if levied by the Sanhedrin (Biblical Supreme Court), if applied more than once every 70 years was construed as too strict a court.

Cities of Refuge were set up to allow those who qualified for the death penalty in non literary device, actual mass murder for example cases were sent to a city where they could not hurt innocent civilians.

They were still given a second chance to live in a better fashion, without harming the innocent, yet not losing their life. 

The claim that there is any change to the eternal, immutable, perfect and self fulfilling laws of the G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob; Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah; any softening of anything simply doesn't stand up  to analysis. This is the case however much those prone to warping Jewish doctrine for their own purposes want it to do so.   

The sin here in the claims by this person is the marginalizing of anyone because they are different, although they hurt no one and they are consenting adults.

Making of anyone a second class citizen separates one from the G-d who created them, as us.

As regards California and other western states wildfires, they were there prior to the burning of fossil fuels.

The widespread use of fossil fuels, and other human behaviors that impact the environment (none of them regard how and who people love) has demonstrably made the problem worse.

If ones's point is that some blowhard is misusing religion to push their own prejudices for fun and profit, it is recommended that be addressed. 

Attributing to Judaism, its Scripture and its followers things we do not believe based on misquoting, text quoting out of context, and other forms of cheap shots which do not stand up to analysis by those who took the time and trouble to read and understand them, while living them in their original languages with primary text untranslated commentaries for clarification and generational relevance only accomplishes at least, but not limited to the following things.

It undercuts the credibility of those trying to counter a claim using statements which are not correct. What does that do to further their case.

Pushing false statements based on ignorance is different how from what they argue against? It is best to take a high road. To abstain from making statements that are demonstrably false and/or materially misleading on matters they do not know, understand and are not qualified to discuss.

All the more so when they are off point in what they choose to criticize in  specific discussion. It only makes enemies of out potential and actual friends. Cheap shots from lack of knowledge off point are expense. They cost Tour de Force and moral high ground.

Remain on point, stick to what they do know and it will strengthen not undercut a valid point. 

For the Christian part of this, best ask our good friend Calbab. He knows whereof he speaks.

I am always available for private review and comment through site private notes.

Peace, Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.

 
 
Gordy327
9.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Enoch @9.1    3 months ago

Enoch, as always, you bring an optimistically rational perspective towards an issue. Well said.

 
 
TᵢG
9.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Enoch @9.1    3 months ago
By the bye, abomination isn't the negative for the Biblical mind that is it for contemporary society.

Certainly, language evolves - especially over thousands of years.   Yet when one has a single verse such as this (using King James):

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The meaning of the word abomination is established in part by the fact that the abomination was 'committed' and that the penalty is death.   This translation is replete in the various versions of the Bible so it is certainly not unfair to interpret this as God demanding the death penalty for two men engaging in homosexual relations.    Later on you offer this commentary on the death penalty:

A word here about the death penalty.  In the original language, it is a literary device.  The use of the death penalty, if levied by the Sanhedrin (Biblical Supreme Court), if applied more than once every 70 years was construed as too strict a court.  Cities of Refuge were set up to allow those who qualified for the death penalty in non literary device, actual mass murder for example cases were sent to a city where they could not hurt innocent civilians.  They were still given a second chance to live in a better fashion, without harming the innocent, yet not losing their life.

In short, you are saying that the biblical translations are all wrong - that they should not have use harsh language such as "surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".   They should not use death and blood because God was not actually calling for their death but rather simply saying that the act was outside of societal norms and, arguably, God might be approving of the practice - possibly as virtuous.   Now I am going back to this from earlier in your post:

By the bye, abomination isn't the negative for the Biblical mind that is it for contemporary society.  Sin is defined as any action which estranges one from G-d.  Being part of the LGBTQ community is not a sin. It is considered an abomination.  All that means is that it is not a behavior or set of conducts which one associates with how general society acts.  That not only doens't make it a sin.  It can also be a virtue.

Taken together, hopefully I am not misrepresenting what you wrote, your words net down to this (to me):

  • When God labels something an abomination, He is simply saying that it goes against societal norms (but that might be a good thing per God).
  • When God calls for the death penalty, He is not really calling for their actual death but rather some kind of societal reformation (your comment was vague on this so I am guessing here).

I think you have just offered an excellent example for why people should not pay attention to the words of ancient men.    There has been thousands of years of 'analysis' whereby other human beings could discover different ways to interpret the original words to produce very different meaning.   One can take any verse from the Bible (OT or NT) and there is a very good chance that the plain reading will be deemed wrong and the true meaning will be offered as the conclusion of a particular school of biblical scholarship.    And one has quite a few schools of scholarship from which to choose.

In this example (Leviticus 20:13) 'put to death' does not really mean 'put to death' and 'abomination' does not even really mean something bad, not even a sin.   If one cannot even take a phrase such as 'put to death' to mean what the words state then it might be best to not read the Bible at all because (as one can plainly see in the world today) those words are interpreted pretty much to suit the individual.

In short, you believe that God does not consider homosexual relations to be a bad thing.    Too bad your message is not well known.


As a followup, here is a listing of what would seem to be bad things per God from Leviticus 20.   Note what I have highlighted in blue:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

...

27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

My point is this.   We see plenty of infractions (bad deeds) in this list.   Thus (in addition to how this list is described in the text) it is reasonable to take this as a list of bad things per God.   Thus it is reasonable to interpret the apparent punishments as the penalty for the infraction.    As we go through the list we find plenty of 'put to death' with references to blood (as in spilled blood).   In all these cases, per your comment, this really does not mean the death penalty and, by inference, something that falls quite short of the death penalty (not even considered a sin).   

So how does this reconcile with passage 14 where the penalty is 'burnt with fire'?   If that means burning at the stake that would certainly make sense given the context of 'put to death' in this chapter.   Based on your interpretation of 'put to death' one would expect that 'burnt with fire' is like imposing a 3rd degree burn on a finger (maybe a brand?) rather than actually being burned at the stake.    But then we move to 27 where we see both 'put to death' and the specific method of execution 'stone them with stones' in the same sentence.    It 'put to death' does not really mean the death penalty then stoning cannot really be stoning.   It would have to be something like hitting them on the head with a rock to raise a bruise.   


To net this down:  does the punishment 'burnt with fire' not mean death by fire (e.g. burning at the stake)?   Does 'stone them with stones' not mean death by stoning?   What is the determined meaning of these phrases in this context?

 
 
Enoch
9.1.3  Enoch  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.1    3 months ago

Dear Friend Gordy: Many thanks for your kind and insightful perspective.

It, like you and what you do here is much appreciated.

Those who get the best of religious, spiritual and/or humanitarian approaches use any and all tools available for make life more humane, fair, just and compassionate. 

We have common cause, all of us.

Enlightened self interest.

I will not live to see it.

I hope the generations to come will see people put energy into getting along, respecting differences, being intellectually honest, communicating positive and unifying ideas for the greater good.

Hope is the shortcut to a better future when followed as a portal.

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.    

 
 
Skrekk
9.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  Enoch @9.1    3 months ago
Being part of the LGBTQ community is not a sin.

It is considered an abomination.

All that means is that it is not a behavior or set of conducts which one associates with how general society acts.

My understanding of that part of the Mosaic Code is that it's actually part of the "priestly codes" and not even applicable to the general society.

 
 
TᵢG
9.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.4    3 months ago
My understanding of that part of the Mosaic Code is that it's actually part of the "priestly codes" and not even applicable to the general society.

From what I have read, the Holiness code (part of what is generally considered to be the Priestly Source) is considered applicable to the general society.   Leviticus 20 is part of the Holiness code.  

However it is not clear what it even means.   The punishments depicted in Leviticus 20 such as 'put to death' may mean something entirely different than what a plain reading would suggest.   

 
 
Enoch
9.1.6  Enoch  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.4    3 months ago

Dear Friend Skrekk: A glimpse into the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch by the Ari (Code Book of Jewish Law by the Ashkenazic Rabbi Yitzhaki) shows there are some who hold this view.

For the most part, all 613 Torah Mitzvoth (Divine Commandments) and the Fence around the Law (Torah Sheh Beh Al Peh - Oral Tradition) are binding where possible on the Jewish People. 

The main focus is on attainment of peace, harmony, justice, mercy, and the greater good of all humanity.

Each grouping in their own way(s).

One key to understanding all this is the famous quote from Pirke Avoth (Sayings of the Fathers). 

"The righteous of all nations will have a share in the world to come".

Note it doesn't restrict this to only or all Jewish People.   

It also doesn't limit this to only people of any particular religion or spirituality.

It says what is says, not what it does not.

Being righteous no matter who you are, what you do or do not believe is good enough for the Holy One, Blessed Be.

As our good friend Calbab pointed out here, members of most any and all intimacy orientations can be and are virtuous, caring, ethical and productive people. 

For me and the mainstream of mine, what is good enough for the Almighty works for us too.

Gladly!

A good non-Jewish source to grasp this is Plato's Allegory of the Cave in his Republic.

The forms are eternal.

The content with which they are instantiated are temporal.

Divine Laws never vary.

Our ability to comprehend them, and apply them relevantly to our own time evolves.

Think of when the snow first melts in springtime.

Garden plants have tight hard buds. 

Give them time, sunlight, heat, rain, and soil nutrients. 

They will come to blossom in all their radiant beauty.

As they open up, we see the potential within them actualized and disclosed.

Entelechy, from the Alpha to the Omega, so to speak of human history is this growing season.

In middle eastern to western religious thought, historical and chronological theology and philosophy there is a purpose to the process.

An end game.

We get the ball down the field, closer to the goal line yard by yard when we bring forth the flowering of the human situation. 

For those willing to work with us, each in their own way and for their own reasons we hasten what is being into what it can and is becoming.

Some major sources to understand the Pirke Avoth quotation are:

1. The Maharal's introduction to the Mishna on this quote.

2. Netzach Yisrael. Sefer ha Kuzari (Yehudah Ha Levi).

3. Rabbi Jacob Pirke Avoth 4:17.

4. Talmud Bavli. Meshechet Brachot 17(a) and 57(b).

5. Talmud Yerushalmi. Mesechet Kiddushin 4:12.

6. Moses Chaim Luzzato. The Path of the Upright

7. Shneur Zalman of Liady. Likkutey Torah.

Who ever says it, from where ever it comes makes no difference to me.

If it brings out the best in us, makes us more rather than less able to get on and live together in peace, harmony and prosperity I am for it.

The world improves one good thought and deed at a time.

Great point dear friend.

We are grateful for your raising it.

Complex ideas are never best conveyed in snarky sound bites.

A little humanity goes a long way.

Here is to the high road and the long way.

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.    

 
 
calbab
9.1.7  calbab  replied to  Enoch @9.1    3 months ago

Brother Enoch! There is so much in your comment that is revealing that it acts as a cup of 'shock and awe.' Let me explain: Several years ago, I read a book, "God and the Astronomers" 2nd Edition, Robert Jastrow—author. I will quote from it briefly. (Hoping not to offend any copyright.)

Professor Steven T. Katz, Department of Religion, Cornell University

Judaism, God and the Astronomers

(Excerpt)

Judaism is more an orthopraxis, or religion emphasizing correct behavior, both inner and outer, than an orthodoxy, or religion emphasizing correct beliefs. Doctrines and beliefs are indeed integral to Judaism, e.g., belief in a strict monotheism, or belief in the divinely revealed origin of the Torah, but their role in Jewish religious thought, although central, is limited.

As a consequence, Judaism permits considerable freedom in the realm of ideas. Thus, for example, allowing for what Genesis tells us, Judaism is open to many interpretations and differences of opinion on just what Genesis means. Indeed, it is probably true to say that there is no one correct Jewish answer to such questions as the "how" of Creation.

Page 126. God and The Astronomers. 1992

I bring this material up, because at the time of my reading it I could not "process" it as a Christian. How could Jewish leadership not understand Genesis and plum its depths in the same manner and 'holistic' takeaways as Christians who seek literal meanings determined with our Bible, commentaries, and concordances? Since I read this book, you sir, are the third Jewish person and friend to point out there is indeed something Judaism has to say about its ancient texts that Christianity does not! Jewish commentaries.

It seems I will have to do further study in the Jewish commentary vein to understand all which you are relating to us about this above. (Smile.) My intention is to start right away!

 
 
calbab
9.1.8  calbab  replied to  calbab @9.1.7    2 months ago

Addendum:

What Is the Talmud?

How and why was the Oral Torah written?

Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds

The sages of the Talmudic period, known as amora’im, continued to study, expound, clarify and elucidate the Mishnah, as well as developing their own new insights based upon the rules of extrapolation.

 
 
Enoch
9.1.9  Enoch  replied to  calbab @9.1.8    2 months ago

Dear Brother Calbab: As we both pointed out in our joint article on this site, "Scriptural Orchard", Scripture, like all complex and subtle anthologies is not a technical manual meant always to be interpreted literally all the time. That is a simplistic cartoon like straw person method. 

It us used by those with an animus to devotional literature based on agendas designed to knock down the star man.

Of course that achieves nothing more than disqualify from serious consideration those who might otherwise make points worthy of consideration.

Talmud is from the Hebrew and Aramaic verb stem (Shoresh) Lelamed.  "Studies" or "Commentaries". There is the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud Sets of commentaries.

They have at least but not limited to several layers of sub commentaries.

To whit, The primary commentary text. The Tosafot, Britah, and Rashi Script levels of studies. 

Where there is complexity and subtlety with such topics as how best to live life most wisely, morally, humanely, fully, compassionately and positively we should expect that sound bites and slogans will not due. 

Neither will those who don't know these texts, their commentaries and bodies of literature generated over thousands of years in misleading though well intentioned translations who think they achieve anything with snarky fragmented comments that are off point. 

It is on thing not to know. Quite another not to even suspect. Famously, it is better to remain silent and be thought the fool than open the mouth with ignorance and guile to confirm it.  

For all the good what yous and mine do, have done and will do over the course of time there were, are and will be those who do their best to try to eradicate us and ours. 

Let them try.

We endure, thrive and build.

We will also always be there when those of them who come to us in times of crisis.

That too is part of what we do and for which we stand.

The oral tradition (Torah Sheh Beh Al Pei) is a fence around the law in the case of me and mine.

It is there to exposit, illuminate, increase understanding of and protect from predators those who seek to kill off what we base our lives on and remove us from the world.

In the case of me and mine, whether by the sin of evangelism or the sin of the sword making the world Juden Rein (Jewish Free) is hardly new. It did not pop up Sui Generis  (Yesh Mee Ayin) {something out of nothing} at the Wandsee conference with the national socialists such as Himmler, Borhmann, Eichmann, et al. For as long as there have been Jewish People following Jewish Religion there have been those attempting to eradicate us in one or more ways. 

They come and go.

We remain.

We, as you are here for many purposes.

In each of our heritages, as in so many others that are based on religion, spirituality and or the humanities the core principles are eternal. How we understand and apply them is temporal. 

We are actually what we are being and becoming what we potentially can be.

Living breathing evolving organisms of wisdom, morality, virtue, caring and faith. 

We are here to serve the Holy One, Blessed Be through being of service to one and all in need of and open to it. We opine that we best serve our Source by being of service to all like us. 

"And miles to go before we sleep".

Each in our own time, circumstance and ways.

We do the best we can with what we have.

That is all open to us my brother.

That we do, never less than that of which we are capable.

Here is to the win-win on this level of reality while we can so do. 

Peace and Abundant Blessings To One and All.  

Enoch.   

 
 
calbab
9.1.10  calbab  replied to  Enoch @9.1.9    2 months ago

Thank you! I am excited about a personal new area of study. To be clear, I have never studied Jewish commentaries-certainly this will be interesting and insightful. Our collaborative article will be a resource for me to fall back on as well. I have some questions about the translated Old Testament (in my English language bible), but I will hold them in reserve for now: Let some growth and development in this new area take hold.

Your comments are always insightful and always blessing. Thank you! Thank you.

 
 
Enoch
9.1.11  Enoch  replied to  calbab @9.1.10    2 months ago

Dear Brother Calbab: We have, are and always shall be here for one another.

It is when people get along because of, not in spite of being true to themselves that puts a smile on the Divine Countenance.

It is my honor to call you brother and friend.

Enoch.

 
 
TᵢG
9.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Enoch @9.1.9    2 months ago
Scripture, like all complex and subtle anthologies is not a technical manual meant always to be interpreted literally all the time. That is a simplistic cartoon like straw person method. 

You make a good point Enoch, as usual, but the best approach is probably to not knock down those who read the words of the Bible using a plain meaning - without spin of any kind - taking the Bible at its word and of course within a proper context.  Those who take scripture and use it for bad purposes (e.g. a bigot who uses Leviticus 20:13 to preach 'God hates fags' or equivalent) certainly should be dealt with.   But it is easy enough to separate the hate mongers from the rest.   In my opinion the Bible should be critically analyzed and the human assumptions and interpretations challenged.   That is partly how we learn.

The Bible certainly does offer areas that are metaphorical.   In many cases this is obvious.   But when we come to sections which are depicted as divine rules it is reasonable (is it not?) for someone to read the words as written (preferably in original language) and take meaning from them without a complex system of interpretation.   After all, does it make sense that the most supreme possible entity would communicate rules for His creatures that at times mean the opposite of what the plain reading would suggest?   Logic would suggest that if the Bible was intended to communicate to people that it would not engage in complex systems of interpretations for individual verses.

I am certainly aware that this line of questioning is uncomfortable, but this would seem to be an important issue.   Deeming plain reading (in context of course) of the words of the Bible - such as those in Leviticus - as a simplistic and cartoon-like method of interpretation is an indictment of the Bible itself.   The first expectation would be that the most supreme entity would not seek to mislead or confuse but rather clearly communicate - especially when dealing with specific, common matters such as sexual activity and consequences of same.

 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @9    3 months ago
One can only hope that most religious people find the views of this 'man of God' to be reprehensible.

I think even most Christians consider Swanson to be an object of ridicule.  Even the more fundamentalist Christians I know either think he's a bit overzealous in his persecution of LGBT people at best, or blasphemous at worst - many of them consider it blasphemous to speak for God.

 
 
Skrekk
9.2.1  Skrekk  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2    3 months ago
Even the more fundamentalist Christians I know either think he's a bit overzealous in his persecution of LGBT people at best, or blasphemous at worst - many of them consider it blasphemous to speak for God.

One has to then wonder why so many GOP presidential candidates campaign at his conferences.

 
 
sandy-2021492
9.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Skrekk @9.2.1    3 months ago

I think they know that those folks are their base.  Not a majority of their base, but a portion they don't want to lose.

 
 
MrFrost
9.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2.2    3 months ago
Not a majority of their base, but a portion they don't want to lose.

Exactly. I am convinced that donny picked pence as VP just for his evangelical base. I don't think without pence they would have supported a guy with such low/non-existent morals as donny. 

 
 
calbab
9.2.4  calbab  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.3    3 months ago

That is a fact. Vice-President Pence was factually chosen to cover the office in the event Trump could not carry the office through to conclusion. Trump said so in one of his interviews on Pence, maybe even the VP announcement press conference. (I remember hearing it.)

 
 
bbl-1
9.2.5  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.3    3 months ago

I will politely disagree.  Your assumption is that 'the base' truly possesses ( high-existent ) morals. 

 
 
Thrawn 31
9.2.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.2    2 months ago

That has always seemed odd to me, how eager religious leaders in general are to speak for their deities. I mean, let's assume these fires are caused by a deity, are you seriously telling me that massive wildfires indiscriminately killing people, destroying thousands of acres of valuable forest, and causing millions upon millions of $ in damages, is the best way for that deity to communicate its thoughts on homosexuality (or any other issue for that matter)? I mean, come on, are you fucking kidding me? You honestly have to be the dumbest person on the face of the Earth to buy that. 

 
 
Thrawn 31
9.2.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  bbl-1 @9.2.5    2 months ago

Their support of Trump is a clear indicator that his base is completely amoral. They want theirs, and who gives a fuck how they get it or who they hurt to get it. 

 
 
calbab
10  calbab    3 months ago

This pastor's religion is a shambles, because he teaches God as a superstition; a being who dwells in tragedies. Well, the world is full of tragedies of varied types. What are we to say? God is every bad thing that occurs? What would be the point?

California is having wildfires because of climatic changes brought on by natural confluences (elements) for which "flame" is its proper outcome.

I certainly wish this pastor would shut his "fiery" mouth: He can certainly  make a bad situation magnifiably worse. Notice this man did not state (in the audio-clip) God gave his a "prophetic" utterance to deliver to the people about—what to do so as to end the "smite." Of course, this pastor does not have anything to share with the public, or churches, about why people are randomly killing each other in mass shootings.

For such a discussion would require this Christian-Right adherent to speak out against his stridently Republican-held view on guns. Sarcastically-speaking, we all should know that God loves this nation's second amendment, and looks forward to its free exercise. Must'nt make religious proclamations about the tragedies that is gun-violence in preschooler settings and youth classes, even when they are being shot down in their seats. These suspect religious leaders can not see God being mad enough to stir a 'blaze' over that!

 Ignorance is rampant in some churches.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  calbab @10    3 months ago
Ignorance is rampant in some churches.

The root cause IMO is the propensity for the human mind to believe things simply because another human being (ostensibly speaking for the grandest possible entity) says so.

 
 
calbab
10.1.1  calbab  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    3 months ago

Alot of the time, sadly, this is so. I mean, there are so many specious arguments and 'incomplete' statements being uttered that the mind 'wobbles' in its efforts to not be overwhelmed. One could even be forgiven for thinking about simpler times when mankind's capability to speak to the masses was relatively narrow!

Anyhoo, I went looking for 'greater context' from Mrs. Kevin Swanson as I did not wish to sell him 'short' and eureka, I found it:

August 3, 2018

LGBT Celebrations Everywhere -

Radio link: The bloc of time for this area of interest: 14:20 - 29:00.

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/7/2/4/724b8c76237fa9ea/gr20180803.mp3?c_id=22476519&cs_id=22476519&expiration=1533766072&hwt=d57ebcc3b2164bebd2e3692e3ae3150b

My notes:

  1. Mr. Swanson is making a scapegoat (for expediency sake) out of homosexuality. Straight up.
  2. California fires can not be condensed down to a lack of spirituality, anymore than devastating 'bouts' of tornadoes can be spiritually-related to, well- the 'Bible-belt.'
  3. Whatever happened to men and women simply being stoic about nature? The British call it, displaying "a stiff-upper lip." Biblically it is stated as, 'the whole world groans together. . . .' (Romans 8:22). It really is irresponsible to attempt making a scapegoat out of vulnerable groups of people.
 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.1    3 months ago

I don’t subscribe to stating emphatically that this is God’s judgment.  That said this nation is deserving of God’s wrath for abandoning our historic Christian values and instead embracing immorality 

Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts

John Adams

October 11, 1798

"we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "

From George Washington's Farewell Address 1796

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/50/Washingtons_Farewell_Address_1796_1.html

 
 
calbab
10.1.3  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago

Brother, I am sorry. Where are homosexuals breaking laws simply by their activities? "A moral and religious people."  —John Adams.
And yet, we know that not all people are religious among the citizenry. Still, even being beset upon by this majority and now in their social acceptance, homosexuals as a class readily keep the peace. Of course, there are many "practices" that homosexuals will want to unlearn which were acceptable to outcasts-it most certainly can take generations to empty out the pail of wholesale decadence and rebellion! And homosexuals should be provided all the space they need to reorient towards acceptability in normal U.S. society. 

That means pastors and leaders will need to look elsewhere with their fastidious eye and biting commentary.

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." —George Washington. And we can now "greenlight" that people can exist daily with a sense of right and wrong that forms high quality community through nature laws.We can applaud them for it and celebrate that we can live in our homes in peace with one another.

Just take the overview. Are homosexuals individually or collectively obeying stated laws? If so, the group is following constitutional norms.

 
 
MUVA
10.1.4  MUVA  replied to  calbab @10.1.3    3 months ago

Couldn't agree more my sister is gay and her partner is one of the finest people I know.

 
 
calbab
10.1.5  calbab  replied to  MUVA @10.1.4    3 months ago

Thank you for sharing such a positive statement on behalf of another good and decent person!

 
 
Enoch
10.1.6  Enoch  replied to  MUVA @10.1.4    3 months ago

Dear Friend Muva: Proud of you.

E.

 
 
Enoch
10.1.7  Enoch  replied to  calbab @10.1.5    3 months ago

Dear Brother Calbab: Proud of you.

E.

 
 
epistte
10.1.8  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago
John Adams

October 11, 1798

"we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "

John Adams was a Unitarian.

As he aged, Adams retained his piety while embracing skepticism. By the end of his life, noted biographer James Grant, Adams "had rejected the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the infallibility of Scripture, as did many a Boston Unitarian. But he believed in God and in God's governance of the world. He prayed, attended Congregational meeting on Sunday (morning and afternoon), discussed theological questions with fluence and earnestness, and read the Bible." Grant wrote: "It was lost on neither Abigail nor John that war and Christianity made awkward bedfellows. Rarely did John write the words 'Christ' or 'Christian.' More often, he referred to 'Providence,' a divine power not specifically identified with the theology of the New Testament.

George Washington was not a Christian,

Most historians have cast George Washington in the Deist mold and suggested that Washington's faith was more for public consumption than private edification. Paul F. Boller, Jr., wrote: "Washington was a typical eighteenth-century deist – his writings are sprinkled with such catch phrases as 'Grand Architect,' 'Director of Human Events,' 'Author of the Universe,' and 'Invisible Hand' – and he had the characteristic unconcern of the deist for the forms and creeds of institutional religion. He had, moreover, the upper-class deist's strong aversion for sectarian quarrels that threatened to upset the 'peace of Society.' No doubt Washington's deist indifference was an important factor in producing the broad-minded tolerance in matters of religion that he displayed throughout his life."91 Historian Joseph Ellis wrote: "Never a deeply religious man, at least in the traditional Christian sense of the term, Washington thought of God as a distant, impersonal force, the presumed well-spring for what he called destiny or providence.
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @10.1.4    3 months ago

applause Respect.

 
 
calbab
10.1.10  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago
I don’t subscribe to stating emphatically that this is God’s judgment.

My brother,  I was not going to head off in this direction because I do not want to give people the wrong impression about us. But, Mr. Swanson is really keen to start a 'firestorm' of his own with his rhetoric. Here goes.

Lessons learned:

  1. Crazed behavior.
  2. Ritualistic mayhem.
  3. Religious ecstasies.
  4. Convulsive, "jerky" movements.
  5. Blood.
  6. Fright.

We, religious believers, must never give a hint of association with these types of expression again. This is a clear example of a faux religion which got it all wrong. We must be wise to never suggest God can be appeased by mass displays of human IGNORANCE! Mr. Swanson is a frightened and confused man to make homosexuality the cause of these California fires. If he is not a frightened man, then Swanson is a con artist 'calculating' how to exploit a vulnerable group of people to fill his church coffers, or he is a dangerous zealot intent on loosing one group against another. In any of these situations, God is not in this.

Who, loving God, should 'glorify' in any of this being done to another perfectly fit human body?

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  calbab @10.1.10    3 months ago
If he is not a frightened man, then Swanson is a con artist 'calculating' how to exploit a vulnerable group of people to fill his church coffers

In my opinion, the above is what is going one.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  calbab @10.1.10    3 months ago

That is one of my favorite movies due to the research it took.  Trivia - The lead actor answered an open casting call and hoped to get a small part.  They took one look at him and gave him the lead.

 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.13  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1.12    3 months ago

Oh Apocalypto. Great movie.  It takes you into another "world"  without ever leaving planet earth.  Not too many movies like it, at all.  Mel Gibson. 

 
 
calbab
10.1.14  calbab  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1.12    3 months ago

What a great bit of trivia! I did not know that. Apocalypto stirred the 'pot' deeply down to the metal. Mel Gibson does land in the hot waters of political controversies. But oh boy, if we're being honest, his productions serve up memorable works! NOTE: I will have to look up the lead actor by name and see what he is doing with himself nowadays!

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  calbab @10.1.14    3 months ago

His name is Rudy Youngblood and is of Comanche, Cree, and Yaqui ancestry. 

 
 
calbab
10.1.16  calbab  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1.15    3 months ago

I found him! Thanks for sharing! STELLAR!

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago
 That said this nation is deserving of God’s wrath for abandoning our historic Christian values and instead embracing immorality 

Wow, such hateful rhetoric. BTW, what "Christian values" are mentioned in the Constitution? 

 
 
Phoenyx13
10.1.18  Phoenyx13  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago
That said this nation is deserving of God’s wrath for abandoning our historic Christian values and instead embracing immorality

well this would suggest you actually hate America since only things that are "wrong" or "hated" deserve the "wrath", correct ?

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago
instead embracing immorality 

Whoa... How can you possibly say something like that then say you support trump, who clearly has no morals at all with regards to marriage? That's some, "off the deep end hypocrisy", Larry. 

 
 
bbl-1
10.1.20  bbl-1  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.2    3 months ago

Unless the 'christian values' you speak of are abandoned by the new christians.

The deceit of Lucifer is real.  Beware of his lure and promise.  His Shadow is long--His deceit is longer.

 
 
Kavika
10.1.21  Kavika   replied to  calbab @10.1.16    2 months ago

Great movie. Rudy Youngblood as Jaguar Paw was outstanding. 

I also liked Morris Birdyellowhead as Flint Sky. He is Cree and Nakoda. 

All the actors in it were outstanding. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.22  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.3    2 months ago

They are breaking God’s moral standards, just as much of the nation has departed from God and His Holiness

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.23  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.19    2 months ago

I support Trump’s policies as president. It has nothing to do with his past behavior as a private citizen 

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.22    2 months ago

Some of us don't need a god for moral standards thankuverymuch. I don't need the fear of everlasting hellfire to keep me from committing murder or stealing for a living

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.22    2 months ago
They are breaking God’s moral standards

How can you know the moral standards of the grandest possible entity?   

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.24    2 months ago

And that allows some of us to avoid the hypocrisy of condemning everyone who doesn't believe in our favorite god, while also voting for a man who flouts almost every single supposed commandment of that supposed god.

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.25    2 months ago

Because the Good Pastor knows the mind of God. That kind of shit would make my former parish priest turn beet red

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.28  livefreeordie  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.24    2 months ago

deleted

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.29  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.25    2 months ago

deleted

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.30  Trout Giggles  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.28    2 months ago

Don't you ever EVER fucking tell me what I have an understanding of!

And stop YOUR GODDAMN FUCKING PREACHING AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If that gets me a CoC violation, so be it, but I am fucking and sick and tired of your mouth!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.31  livefreeordie  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.30    2 months ago

You made a serious misstatement of what Christian belief is and I corrected your misstatement, rather than to let it stand as supposed fact.

the fact that my doing so upsets you is your problem, not mine

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.29    2 months ago
Because all who are born again have the mind of Christ

Christ called out hypocrisy every time he saw it.

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.31    2 months ago

I happen to have my own beliefs as when I was taught in the Catholic Church. So take your proselytizing nonsense and....

You're the one with the problem, buddy. I'm not the one constantly arguing about God with everyone, including people of my own faith!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.34  livefreeordie  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.32    2 months ago

I agree but you are attacking the word of God

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.35  livefreeordie  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.33    2 months ago

Nothing I have stated is proselytizing.  It appears you also lack knowledge about terms. I made no attempt to change your religion. 

If the word of God offends you that is your problem

pros·e·lyt·ize
ˈpräs(ə)ləˌtīz/
verb
  1. convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.34    2 months ago

How so?

By similarly calling out hypocrisy when I see it?

I can see how that would make some folks uncomfortable.

 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.37  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.35    2 months ago
Nothing I have stated is proselytizing.  It appears you also lack knowledge about terms. I made no attempt to change your religion. 

If you are not trying to get people to accept the "word of God", why are you doing it? To impress yourself? 

Imagine if someone here was a big proponent of self-hypnosis as a personal improvement tool, and they often posted comments about how self-hypnosis was the way to a better life. I dont think it would take too long before you thought all that was out of place. 

 
 
calbab
10.1.38  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.22    2 months ago

We, believers, voluntarily and individually place ourselves of interpretation and doing of God's law. We, believers, heard the message and took up the life of faith as we comprehend it. You are wrong to look outside the Church for Christian concepts. As the New Testament states:

I Corinthians 2:14 (Complete Jewish Bible) 14 Now the natural man does not receive the things from the Spirit of God — to him they are nonsense! Moreover, he is unable to grasp them, because they are evaluated through the Spirit.

That is for the spiritual man. The natural person has his and her own spirit of this world and human wisdom from which they draw on. The Constitution is written for the natural man, thus it is not a spiritual document. And while I am on this point: No where do I discern that our founding fathers operated as "prophets" hoping to have their writings interpreted as sacred texts.

You can not hold secular men and women to a "contract" you and I, believers, signed on to. You must let those outside the spiritual body have the time and space to discover (or not find) God. For surely, as we are often taught, "God can not fail."

I say to you with great trust: Everyone God plans to save - will be saved." —God will not have it any other way. Have faith in God, LFOD.

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.39  Trout Giggles  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.35    2 months ago

IMPASSE

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.29    2 months ago
Because all who are born again have the mind of Christ

I disagree.  Only I have been empowered with a channel to the grandest possible being and she wants me to inform you to stop misrepresenting her views.    

She says that she has provided a reality for us all to discover her meaning.   She wants us to use our minds and our senses to learn (through objective analysis) how our natural environment operates and to stop trying to control people by making up appealing or scary contradictory and often silly 'truths' and making her appear incompetent, irrational and emotional.

 
 
calbab
10.1.41  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.23    2 months ago

One of Trump's policies as president is to stand before the citizenry every day and LIE! And for expediency sake you overlook the daily lying policy of President Trump, because you want to use the office and the man. It is okay to use him (because he is using you also, in my opinion).  At the least, speak up for the truth and disavow the lies. Not dodging what is right in front of you.

"Don't strain at trapping citizens in your politics and swallow a leader who is lying everyday to our faces!"

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.40    2 months ago

I'm glad to hear you've been listening. :)

 
 
calbab
10.1.43  calbab  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.40    2 months ago

Okay. Now this is rich. TiG! My brother! Are you among the prophets now? Careful how you answer that.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  calbab @10.1.43    2 months ago

That stuff dripping from my comment is sarcasm.  Winking 2

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.34    2 months ago
I agree but you are attacking the word of God

Ancient men with pens are not God.

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.1.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.42    2 months ago
I'm glad to hear you've been listening.

Wait, you're God?

I'm cool with that.

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.47  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.46    2 months ago

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. LOL!

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.42    2 months ago
I'm glad to hear you've been listening.

I have.  The meaning of life is to catch that big, elusive, grinning trout.

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.49  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.48    2 months ago

Giggle

Imagine God as a Large, Giggling Trout.

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.50  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.22    2 months ago
They are breaking God’s moral standards,

What 'standards" would those be? Going by the bible, god is quite immoral!

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.50    2 months ago

Why do you say that Gordy?

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

The Bible puts forth good rules like this one which defines the conditions under which it is okay to beat your slave to death.   See, without this rule the masters could beat their slaves to death without a problem.   With this rule they have to hold back to ensure the slave survives at least a day or two before dying from his / her beatings.   That is good moral stuff, right?

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.52  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.51    2 months ago
That is good moral stuff, right?

Of course. What was I thinking? Silly me. Lol

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.52    2 months ago

Although apparently the Bible lost something in translation from ancient Hebrew and Aramaic since we have recently had a discussion in which the following passage ...

Leviticus 20:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

... does not really mean what a plain reading would suggest.   An 'abomination' simply means going against typical social practices - not even a sin.   And 'put to death' does not really mean the death sentence.   So I am told.  

Assuming this is true, I think it would be great if everyone just put their Bibles on their bookshelves and started to reason through the mysteries of life without adopting as divine truth the writings of ancient men in ancient times.   Clearly these writings can be argued to mean anything so there is no trusting the words.


In fact, I might follow the late George Carlin's lead.  George claimed he prayed to Joe Pesci because Joe struck him as a guy who gets things done.   For us here on NT, we could use Trout Giggles instead of Joe Pesci.  I am confident TG would condemn slavery rather than make rules to soften its rough edges.   And I doubt TG would mince words - if she holds that homosexuality is a natural albeit infrequent occurrence I suspect she would just say that rather than express language that seems the exact opposite.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.54  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.38    2 months ago

Noting that our country has departed from God is not “holding them to following God”.   God will judge them as well as those who call themselves Christians while following the world instead. But ALL who call themselves Christians are commanded by Jesus to call the world to repent.

for those that say they are Christian, as a minister called by God,  I carry authority in the body of Christ to rebuke those that are sinning

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
2 Timothy 4:1-2

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.55  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.49    2 months ago
Imagine God as a Large, Giggling Trout.

Damn you, I got a visual... Not good.. LOL

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.56  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.54    2 months ago

God told me that I am his new messiah here on earth... No? Prove he didn't. 

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
arkpdx
10.1.57  arkpdx  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.56    2 months ago
Prove he didn't. 

Deleted

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.58  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.54    2 months ago
... for those that say they are Christian, as a minister called by God,  I carry authority in the body of Christ to rebuke those that are sinning

Anybody can become a minister.  Ministers are nothing special.   In fact there are many so-labeled 'men of God' like Kevin Swanson who would do the world a great service to cease and desist.

 
 
epistte
10.1.59  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.58    2 months ago

comment deleted because of good taste. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.60  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.56    2 months ago

There is only one Messiah, not multiple and that Messiah has come. Certainly you can make a claim like the multitudes of false messiahs, but it will only lead you to hell

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.61  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.58    2 months ago

I don’t seek your approval. Only God’s approval matters

 
 
calbab
10.1.62  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.54    2 months ago

This may surprise and interest you. I encourage you to preach and carry on in the word of God to all who accept it as the Gospel, including me—even in your interpretation of the Word when what you share with others is of conviction; of faith. Why? Because we have accepted this confession and obligate ourselves to "do it." We, believers, have spiritual means and necessary will to 'study and show ourselves approved,' and foremost to 'reason' from the scriptures with one another.

  1. You and I can share our convictions and confession unashamedly with the surrounding world. We can not constrict or consign others to accept our belief system through use of the legislation process to invalidate secularist points of view. The people will defend; revolt: Well, they should!

Our worldly brothers and sisters make no such confession like you, me, and others; neither does the U.S. Constitution make a confession of fidelity to God.

As to your caution (for me), a dig, or an implication that I am a CINO (Christian In Name Only), you can do your best over these digital distances to prove that my manner of living is not true to the faith and I know you will fail. For I live this faith everyday and every night, brother Pastor. (Smile.) This is why I stand in the 'marketplace' to offer something of my opinion and worldview to others, even as I interact with their views.

The command to "Go ye into all the world making disciples. . . ." is a spiritual command to go in love. And in love, seeing your goodly example of Christlike peace with all mankind, others may inquire of you about this good news you speak. Ultimately, God will receive the glory for your service. Again, God can not fail! Thus, God will not leave any soul out that God reckons worthy of saving. (Smile.)

Rest in this, "Let God."

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.63  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.45    2 months ago
Ancient men with pens are not God.

The real gods were ancient men with penises.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.64  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.54    2 months ago
for those that say they are Christian, as a minister called by God,  I carry authority in the body of Christ to rebuke those that are sinning

You must be fun at parties.

.

you are attacking the word of God

Your imaginary friend must have a very fragile ego, much like Trump.

 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1.65  Vic Eldred  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.63    2 months ago

I appreciate the praise, but I'm not a God, just fortunate.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.61    2 months ago

I suspect Keith Swanson would respond similarly.   He probably claims to be in lockstep with God ... maybe even claims to chat with God regularly.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.67  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  calbab @10.1.62    2 months ago
We can not demand constrict or consign others to accept our belief system through use of the legislation process to invalidate secularist points of view

Well said.

"The command to "Go ye into all the world making disciples. . . ." is a spiritual command to go in love."

I believe this, along with other scriptures, was in no way meant the way many have interpreted it. Many see this as a command to proselytize, to constantly be nagging your non-Christian neighbors and friends trying to push them towards the faith. I disagree based on several other scriptures.

"Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity." 1 Timothy 4:12

"Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." Hebrews 13:7

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions." Romans 14:1

I believe that scripture meant to go and set good examples, and others would naturally gravitate to the faith just by witnessing a faithful believers joy. Once they're interested and ask about your faith, then you can share it. It did not mean to go bang on their doors, harass, ridicule or discriminate against those who do not share your faith or those you've labeled "sinners" in an attempt to make them uncomfortable enough to give in to the prevailing faith of a community/country. I am no longer a Christian, but I taught for many years and this point always bothered me as many who read the "go therefore , and make disciples" seemed to take that as a challenge to hog tie and convert as many non-believers as they could instead of focusing on their own faith.

 
 
Enoch
10.1.68  Enoch  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @10.1.12    2 months ago

Dear Friend Paula Bartholomew: Kind of like when I walked past a set filming Phantom of the Opera.

They caught my bad side profile and offered me the lead.

I told them I was under contract to Weight Watcher's as a "heavy" at the time.

Currently, I am appearing in a TV commercial.

"Nationwide isn't on my side".   

Enoch, Dealing with an Insurance Company Who Tells Me I Am in Good Hands.

When I filed a Claim All I Got Was One Finger!

 
 
calbab
10.1.69  calbab  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.67    2 months ago

I agree. Emphatically. Yet, even now, I can turn on Christian talk radio and hear leaders, with powerful ministries, "guilt-tripping" their lay-membership into getting out there to compel people into the Church! The sense of urgency put forward is staggering. What is the emergency? God is in charge of the time! If we believe this, we should ACT like it. Be a good example, first, of our own Christ-centered living.

Sharing, discussing, and exampling the love of God are positively the "one" thing; using force and 'boxing people in' are negatively the "two".(Smile.)

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.60    2 months ago
Certainly you can make a claim like the multitudes of false messiahs, but it will only lead you to hell

The majority of the planet then is going to Hell because the majority does not hold Jesus as the Messiah.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.71  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.62    2 months ago

I was making a general comment, not one towards you specifically 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.72  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.70    2 months ago

That is sadly  true

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.73  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.69    2 months ago

I’ve been a Christian for 56 years and a minister for 35 years and I’ve never heard myself or any other minister speak of compelling anyone into church 

there is one passage of scripture Luke 14:23 where Jesus says in the King James Version to compel people to come into His house

that Greek Word anagkazo is more accurately translated as persuade in its context.

no one can be compelled to be a Christian. It can only come from a willing heart that desires that relationship 

 
 
calbab
10.1.74  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.71    2 months ago

Brother Pastor, I genuinely appreciate that. (Smile.)

 
 
calbab
10.1.75  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.73    2 months ago

Brother Pastor, then what overall "agenda" is the Christian-Right pushing in the halls of Congress? The Christian-Right, by forcefully pushing groups out of normal society; it causes those groups of people (once again) to be societal outcasts. Outcasts is a negative status. What is the positive the Christian-Right is hoping for? That, the outcast will surrender and become as they are! It's rather straightforward when you consider it.

As for the membership "drives" and sense of urgency that many pastors display in their messaging (for example: "the time is short," "Nobody is reaching the lost," "Christians need to get out into the mission fields," et cetera); it happens in many of our church ministries. I have even heard church leaders admonish their laypeople to not be "cowards," or "too lazy" to perform their "duty" to go out and share the Gospel. As if, their day to day life is not an example.

 
 
Ender
10.1.76  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.70    2 months ago

Hell is going to be awfully crowded.

Bring a chair.

 
 
epistte
10.1.77  epistte  replied to  Ender @10.1.76    2 months ago

Hell is going to be awfully crowded.

Bring a chair.

I'd bring a solar-powered fan, sunscreen and a cooler of water.

Did anyone else ever wonder why is there a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.78  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.76    2 months ago
Hell is going to be awfully crowded. Bring a chair.

E.A  No Need No one Living will be there, in Genesis 3:15 -  19  right from the Start, their status is made Known!!

Genesis 3 New International Version (NIV)

The Fall

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.79  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.75    2 months ago

I would not attempt to speak for the Christian Right as a blanket statement.  However I can speak for the view of many conservative Christians I speak with who share my views.

we want smaller Federal Government

we want lower taxes and reduced regulations which are the antithesis of liberty

we want the government to stay out of marriage including the outrageous move by the courts and government to redefine marriage

we want government to not be hostile to religious freedom

we want a court that reflects the Constitution not the mood of justices or global fads

those are the major issues

Sharing the gospel is not an option for believers.  It is an imperative command from Jesus

 
 
epistte
10.1.80  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.61    2 months ago
I don’t seek your approval. Only God’s approval matters

The Bible was written and has been rewritten by man many times over, so that book is not the word of your God.

How can you possibly know what god's approval is when he has never spoken?  There are hundreds upon thousands of various ministers, so which one is telling the truth? If God had even been proved to have spoken then atheists like me would not exist, but instead, our numbers are growing.

 
 
Ender
10.1.81  Ender  replied to  epistte @10.1.77    2 months ago
stairway to Heaven

Haaha.  Make em work for it.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.82  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.73    2 months ago
I’ve been a Christian for 56 years and a minister for 35 years and I’ve never heard myself or any other minister speak of compelling anyone into church 

Compel: verb - bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.

"Certainly you can make a claim like the multitudes of false messiahs, but it will only lead you to hell"

Anyone using the fear of "hell" as a threat for non-believers is attempting to "compel" others to follow their faith. So let's not pretend that you and just about every other minister haven't used it as a weapon to beat non-believers over the head with to force others to do what they claim God wants them to. The threat of eternal torment, if you believe it, is quite compelling. I have doubted the existence of such a place for decades, long before I quit the faith, as it made no sense for a God of love to torture, twist and torment one of its creations for eternity simply because of their few bad actions during the comparatively short few years they we're on earth.

“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep;but I am going there to wake him up.” 12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead" John 11:11-14

That doesn't sound like even Jesus believed in some place eternal torment. Also, the Hebrew word "sheol" that was translated into "hell" in most English translations literally meant "the family tomb", not some place of torment. I believe "hell" was just another in a long line of pagan beliefs adopted long after the carpenter named Jesus died. Christmas, the cross, Easter, Hell, all of them common ancient Roman or Greek celebrations or beliefs that were adopted and adapted by Roman Emperor Constantine and the council of Nicea 300 years after Christ supposedly lived.

 
 
calbab
10.1.83  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.79    2 months ago

I am glad you wrote this, actually. It refocuses the discussion it its own way. I will respond later (leaving now).

 
 
Ender
10.1.84  Ender  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.78    2 months ago

No Hell at all then? I'd say I'm rather disappointed.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.85  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.84    2 months ago
No Hell at all then? I'd say I'm rather disappointed.

E.A Yes and Millions of Demons as well, they all hoped to have " Life Eternal " note who was that one that said " YOU Will Positively NOT Die "????

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.86  livefreeordie  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.78    2 months ago

Jesus who is Jehovah God appearing in the flesh, the Prophet Daniel, and the Apostles taught on the future reality of hell

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”Matthew 10:20

“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire” Mark 9:47

“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[fn] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matthew 5:22

“Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! “ Matthew 13:40-43

“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:11-15

Jesus and the prophets clearly taught that the soul is eternal.

“‘That’s when Michael, the great angel-prince, champion of your people, will step in. It will be a time of trouble, the worst trouble the world has ever seen. But your people will be saved from the trouble, every last one found written in the Book. Many who have been long dead and buried will wake up, some to eternal life, others to eternal shame” Daniel 12:1-2

Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Matthew 25:45-46

 
 
Ender
10.1.87  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.79    2 months ago
we want the government to stay out of marriage including the outrageous move by the courts and government to redefine marriage

If government is out of marriage, then do Christians define marriage? So you want government out of it so Christians can decide who marries?

Sharing the gospel is not an option for believers.  It is an imperative command from Jesus

As far as I know, Jesus never preached from the Old Testament.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.88  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.87    2 months ago
So you want government out of it so Christians can decide who marries?

E.A Nature, yes even the god of Evolution defines " Marriage " care to tell me what you think that word means?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.89  Eagle Averro  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.86    2 months ago
Jesus who is Jehovah God appearing in the flesh,

E.A   Do NOT take Scriptures OUT of context!

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.86    2 months ago

Chances are excellent that the eternal punishment in the Bible was invented by ancient men seeking to control others of the time.   This is what religions do - they provide the greatest comfort (e.g. mitigate the fear of death) and impose the greatest punishments (e.g. eternal torture).   They offer (to those who blindly accept as true what another human claims to be the divine word of the grandest possible entity) the absolute best possible scenario if you follow them (and give them money) and the absolute worst possible scenario if you do not.

It is a brilliant strategy that continues to work even today with all the information at our fingertips.    A real shame IMO.

So I would say that you need not worry about the majority of the planet being doomed to eternal torture by a 'loving' God.   

 
 
Ender
10.1.91  Ender  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.88    2 months ago

Yes, to me it sounds like some want it defined their own way.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.92  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.80    2 months ago

God came to earth in the form of a man Jesus and affirmed OT teachings plus brought the hope of salvation through His death and resurrection 

the Bible manuscripts have 99.5% agreement and NONE of the differences affect any doctrines

https://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.93  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.91    2 months ago
Yes, to me it sounds like some want it defined their own way.

E.A  I Asked you what YOU thought it means, care to tell us?

Now as to what NATURE means it is " self evident " as to evolution see " Apoptosis " for anything that tries anything Different!

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.94  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.91    2 months ago
defined their own way.

E.A   Here is a simple example::

nut%2Bvs%2Bbolt.jpg

Can one Marry Two NUTS?

 OR Two Bolts, and why NOT?

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.95  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.92    2 months ago
God came to earth in the form of a man Jesus and affirmed OT teachings

So the angry jealous God demanding his servants kill those of other nations including women and children and condoned slavery was the very same turn the other cheek, gentle, compassionate teacher of the gospels? I find that very hard to believe. I've read the bible cover to cover many times in my life and I get a very clear picture of two very disparate individuals when discussing the Christ described in the gospels compared to the ancient God Yahweh of the OT.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.96  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.86    2 months ago

Fear mongering.   Do as I say or else.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.97  livefreeordie  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.89    2 months ago

I’m not. That is foundational to Christianity. It is only the cults that depart from Biblical truth

In John 8, when questioned about His identity, Jesus affirmed that He is the same YHWH that appeared to Abraham.  The I AM statements have the identical ego eimi in the Greek as found in the Septuigant Greek of the Old Testament in Exodus 3 and elsewhere 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”  John 1:1-3

“23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[n]going through the midst of them, and so passed by.  John 8:23,24 56-59

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist”. Colossians 1:15-17 

John 17:5  Now, Father, give me back the glory that I had with you before the world was created.

Isaiah 42:8.  

I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

John 14, Thomas asks Jesus to show them the Father (God)

7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?“

 
 
Ender
10.1.98  Ender  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.94    2 months ago

Picture needs to be a little bigger next time. Just to make sure.

Actually marriage has little meaning to me. Couples can and have stayed together a lifetime and never needed it. The only thing it is good for is legality. Basically gives one decisions over another. Might as well adopt them.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.94    2 months ago

Magnetism, glue, welds?    There are more ways to join things than nut and bolt.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.97    2 months ago

Words written by ancient men with pens.   Replete with error.   Interpreted in many contradictory ways.   No evidence supporting any of the claims.   

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.101  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.94    2 months ago
Can one Marry Two NUTS?

Who ever said you have to use nuts and bolts the way they were intended?

http://dirtriders.info/nuts-bolts-motorcycle-art-appealing-aspect/

If some nuts are happy spending their time together, why is it your business?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.102  Eagle Averro  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.97    2 months ago
I’m not. That is foundational to Christianity. It is only the cults that depart from Biblical truth

E.A  Then I dare say some one need to be more silent, and spend more time in reading and meditating the Word of God. 

 Here is a Start  " Let US "

Jesus Looked towards the heaven and said Father 

 Do not touch me.....  My God and Your God My Father and Your Father ….

" First BORN of ALL Creation "

 AS I said earlier do NOT Take scriptures OUT of context ,,,

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.103  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.60    2 months ago
There is only one Messiah, not multiple and that Messiah has come.

Well, God saw fit to not mention gays in the bible, and added them later, in the 40's, so there is proof that God can change her mind. Personally, I get the updates from God's twitter feed. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.104  Eagle Averro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.101    2 months ago
Who ever said you have to use nuts and bolts the way they were intended?

E.A                                          laughing dudeDigging a whole    

Or use Language and WORDS the way they were intended!! right?

 So tell us what does the WORD mean?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.105  Eagle Averro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.101    2 months ago
If some nuts are happy spending their time together, why is it your business?

E.A   because as YOU said " have to use nuts and bolts the way they were intended? " and ANY one that know engineering KNOWS that not following Directions leads to " extinction!! " See what happed with aircraft THAT sods  failed to do so!

SO tell me 1 - 4 % Cause and Spread 74 - 99 % of pathogens that says what?

Should I be concerned?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.106  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @10.1.87    2 months ago

1. I don’t want anyone determining anyone’s marriage, beginning with the government

tHe gospel is the good news of Jesus and the hope of salvation through Him.  The gospel is not the OT

But Jesus certainly did teach from and about the Law and the Prophets.

2  Jesus explained the Scriptures, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures," (NASB, Luke 24:27).

Jesus referred to the entire Canon by mentioning all the prophets from Abel (from Genesis, the first book, and first martyr) to Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr) (Matt. 23:35)

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and  these are they which testify of Me.”  John 5:39 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.107  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.103    2 months ago

Total nonsense.  You can repeat that lie all you want but it won’t make it true

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.108  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.98    2 months ago
Actually marriage has little meaning to me

E.A well DONE avoidance asking questions but NOT wanting an answer,,,  that reminds me of " Pearls before Swine " any one know the meaning to that one?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.109  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.95    2 months ago

I give free Bible study lessons that would help you understand

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.110  livefreeordie  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.102    2 months ago

Are you a Jehovah Witness?  They are pretty much the only cult offshoot of Christianity that denies Jesus is Jehovah as He Himself stated

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/Jesus-in-the-Old-Testament.cfm

http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/Jesus_is_the_YHWH,_the_%22I_am%22_of_the_Old_and_New_Testaments

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.111  Eagle Averro  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.110    2 months ago
Are you a Jehovah Witness

E.A  Have YOU are YOU using the Devine NAME, if so, that makes you what?

 
 
epistte
10.1.112  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.92    2 months ago
God came to earth in the form of a man Jesus and affirmed OT teachings plus brought the hope of salvation through His death and resurrection 

There is no evidence to support the existence of Jesus of the Bible. 

the Bible manuscripts have 99.5% agreement and NONE of the differences affect any doctrines

The Bible is a work of religious faith and is not factual.

 
 
Ender
10.1.113  Ender  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.108    2 months ago

I say marriage has little relevance for me.

You think it is a divine contract exclusively between one man and one woman.

I would hardly say that was avoidance.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.114  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.113    2 months ago
I say marriage has little relevance for me.

You think it is a divine contract exclusively between one man and one woman.

I would hardly say that was avoidance

E.A Avoidance Indeed not only you asked questions, did not take note of the answers provided, but NOW  you are " putting words " in another person mouth,  Typical, right?

So I take a different tact..

 Tell me Evolution, how does " Marriage " work in that?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.115  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.113    2 months ago
I say marriage has little relevance for me.

E.A  If it was not for " Marriage " you would no be here, so rephrase that!!

 
 
Ender
10.1.116  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.106    2 months ago
He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures

He still did not follow scripture from old. Also, being Jewish, would they have not followed the Torah? 

Anyway, he did not follow the old teachings, thus a new religion.

 
 
Ender
10.1.117  Ender  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.114    2 months ago
Tell me Evolution, how does " Marriage " work in that?

It doesn't.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.118  Eagle Averro  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.110    2 months ago
Are you a Jehovah Witness?  They are pretty much the only cult offshoot of Christianity that denies Jesus is Jehovah as He Himself stated

E.A  You Have avoided answering the Question and yet now toss Stones "

Tell me what was meant by " You Should not ALL become teachers my Brothers "?

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.119  Eagle Averro  replied to  Ender @10.1.117    2 months ago
It doesn't.

E.A Thank YOU::

 That Screams  about comprehension in language, so that also screams about comprehension in ALL other things!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.120  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.112    2 months ago

We’ve had this dialogue before. That is just your denial of the facts

but don’t worry, you will know the truth the moment you die

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.121  livefreeordie  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.108    2 months ago

Yes it means wasting the preciousness of God’s word on those hostile to Christ

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.122  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @10.1.116    2 months ago

He came to announce He was fulfilling and completed the OT and making it thus obsolete 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.123  livefreeordie  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.102    2 months ago

Your statements do reflect the arguments of JWs

tell me who you say Jesus is. Do you agree with Watchtower teaching that Jesus is Michael the Arch Angel and that He returned invisibly to earth in 1914?

 
 
epistte
10.1.124  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.120    2 months ago
We’ve had this dialogue before. That is just your denial of the facts

If there was any empirical proof of the Bible then atheists would not exist, but religious belief requires faith, that is the opposite of fact. 

but don’t worry, you will know the truth the moment you die

You threatening me with Hell for my lack of faith is the equilivent of a 4 year old telling me that Santa won't bring me any gifts. 

Stay classy.

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.125  Eagle Averro  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.123    2 months ago
Your statements do reflect the arguments of JWs tell me who you say Jesus is

E.A  If the " Word of God " if the " Holy Spirit " if the Ministry of the Son " can not......

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.126  Gordy327  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.114    2 months ago
Tell me Evolution, how does " Marriage " work in that?

It doesn't. marriage is a social construct.

If it was not for " Marriage " you would no be here, so rephrase that!!

If it was not for sexual intercourse, you would not be here. Marriage is irrelevant to that. How's that?

Nature, yes even the god of Evolution defines " Marriage " care to tell me what you think that word means?

Since when is evolution defined as a 'god?" It's defined as a scientific theory.

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.127  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.120    2 months ago
That is just your denial of the facts

you have yet to provide any facts. belief does not equal fact.

but don’t worry, you will know the truth the moment you die

Empty threats form your cosmic boogeyman is neither convincing or persuasive.

Yes it means wasting the preciousness of God’s word on those hostile to Christ

Prove there's a god!

He came to announce He was fulfilling and completed the OT and making it thus obsolete

So why do certain religions still follow it then? Or can we disregard the 10 Commandments? What about the fables of Adam & Eve or Noah? those are all OT.

Total nonsense. You can repeat that lie all you want but it won’t make it true

That applies to all your posts too!

God came to earth in the form of a man Jesus and affirmed OT teachings plus brought the hope of salvation through His death and resurrection

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.128  Skrekk  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.114    2 months ago
Tell me Evolution, how does " Marriage " work in that?

Marriage, driver's licences and mortgages all have the exact same relation to evolution.......none whatsoever.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.129  Skrekk  replied to  epistte @10.1.124    2 months ago
You threatening me with Hell for my lack of faith is the equilivent of a 4 year old telling me that Santa won't bring me any gifts.

My imaginary friend is going to beat you up!

 
 
calbab
10.1.130  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.79    2 months ago

I know what you want, my brother. Thank you for sharing all the same, it can only help clarify any lingering confusion. (Smile.)

  1. You have not answered my question about "The Liberty Amendment." Why?
  2. You and yours want all these things (plus); and are you prepared to give others their constitutional freedoms to life, liberty, and property? To live under different constitutional norms?
 
 
Skrekk
10.1.131  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.79    2 months ago
we want the government to stay out of marriage including the outrageous move by the courts and government to redefine marriage

Still upset that mixed-race couples can marry, eh?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.132  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.130    2 months ago

If you mean Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment, I support it

The eleven amendments proposed by Levin:[

  1. Impose Congressional term limits
  2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
  3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
  4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
  5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
  6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
  7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
  8. Limit eminent domain powers
  9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
  10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
  11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

I haven’t stated any opposition to any being denied Constitutional “norms” whatever that means. I have never supported denying anyone Constitutional rights nor do I know of any conservative Christians that support that denial

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.133  livefreeordie  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.131    2 months ago

Nope, I don’t believe any mixed race couples should be denied marriage, nor have I ever held that belief. It would be contrary to the Bible

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.134  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.133    2 months ago
Nope, I don’t believe any mixed race couples should be denied marriage, nor have I ever held that belief.

Oh.....so it's just certain other minorities which you think should be denied the same legal rights as all other citizens?

.

It would be contrary to the Bible

I'm not sure what the bible has to do with a secular legal contract like marriage, but it should be noted that Southern Baptists and other sects used the bible to justify their racist views including their ban on religious weddings for mixed-race couples.    And just like you they wanted the state to deny marriage to the minorities they hated.    In fact they still share your anti-gay views and want same-sex couples to be denied the right to marry, despite that being incredibly bigoted and blatantly unconstitutional.

 
 
calbab
10.1.135  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.132    2 months ago
I have never supported denying anyone Constitutional rights

Is same-sex marriage constitutional? If not, why not?

For the record, the Liberty Amendment sounds good in theory, it can never work in modern society in service of a fifty-state union. What you are asking for is for conservative states more or less to have local rule and near total control of governance, 'walling' themselves off in effect from certain other states and attitudes, while benefiting from being part of the whole.

Why should you and yours be permitted to do any such thing? You may not wish to be in this "union," this "body," but it is what it is. Why not try to make it work optimally for everybody?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.136  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.135    2 months ago

There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to have any involvement orsay in marriage

secondly there is by definition no such thing as same sex marriage

What is MARRIAGE?

Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div.  Black’s Law Dictionary

Can two people of the same sex enter, opposite sex, or any other combination) into a civil union agreement, YES
but marriage was established by God and will always be the union of a man and a woman
 
 
epistte
10.1.137  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.136    2 months ago
There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to have any involvement orsay in marriage

This is revisionist nonsense. Marriage by law is a secular civil contract between two adults for the purpose of inheritance. The state must be involved because marriage in the US has many secular rights. There is no necessary requirement for a religious service because if there were then people who are not religious would be denied those secular rights because we are not religious. 

secondly there is by definition no such thing as same sex marriage

That is your unsupported religious opinion. You are desperately trying to rewrite history because conservatives lost the LGBTIQ legal battle in the courtroom.

How has the Obergfell decision negatively impacted your church or any other church that opposes LGBT equality in any way?  Do you ever get tired of watching your outrageous claims crash and burn, just like Wile E. Coyote?

 
 
epistte
10.1.138  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.129    2 months ago
My imaginary friend is going to beat you up!

Apparently, their imaginary friend isn't as omnipotent as the Bible claims because they are always having to farm that hit out to sinful humans or the occasional errant lightning bolt. 

 
 
calbab
10.1.139  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.136    2 months ago

Nope. You have exposed your long-game strategy to anyone who follows for any length. The Liberty Amendment is designed to split the country into sovereign states and fracture this union. Funny, you write about marriage as being for life, and yet you so dislike many groups of the people you and yours are constitutionally wedded for life to.

Marriage is a social and religious construct. It has many societal purposes as stated by the Courts. Next question:

Do you support Trump's pick for the Supreme Court: Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Why or why not?

 
 
epistte
10.1.140  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.30    2 months ago
Don't you ever EVER fucking tell me what I have an understanding of!

And stop YOUR GODDAMN FUCKING PREACHING AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If that gets me a CoC violation, so be it, but I am fucking and sick and tired of your mouth!

This epic reply deserves more than just voting it up. 

 
 
epistte
10.1.141  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.133    2 months ago
Nope, I don’t believe any mixed race couples should be denied marriage, nor have I ever held that belief. It would be contrary to the Bible

Those racists cherry-picked from the Bible the same way that you do in your opposition to LGBT marriage. 30 years from now they will look at you in the same way that you look at people who oppose interracial marriage. 

Some people insist that the Bible meant for the races to remain pure, therefore prohibiting any kind of interracial marriage. Usually two biblical texts are drawn upon to support that view. One is the fact that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. As you recall, Shem received a patriarchal blessing, and an enlargement of that was given to Japheth. Ham, because he looked upon his father’s nakedness, was cursed. “Cursed be Canaan” was the malediction that Noah pronounced on Ham and his descendants. Some have neatly contrived from the three sons of Noah, three survivors of the flood, that this is the historic basis for the three basic generic types of human beings: the Caucasian, the Negroid, and the Mongoloid. They claim that this is the biblical justification for there being a curse put on the black race, and white people should have no intermarriage with them. This was cited, for example, in the early documents of Mormonism, which was a great embarrassment to them when it was made public a few years ago. Others go back to Creation, where we read that God created everything “after its kind.” People say that this is the divine order of things in creation, that God made things according to their kind, and his intent was that they should stay according to their kind.

 
 
Ender
10.1.142  Ender  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.126    2 months ago
marriage is a social construct.

No offence yet I would disagree. It is a legal construct.

That is why I liken it to adoption. It is legally giving someone else control.

 
 
Ender
10.1.143  Ender  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.136    2 months ago
marriage was established by God and will always be the union of a man and a woman

You just said that you do not care who marries, then you say this.

So I guess you do...

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.144  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.136    2 months ago
There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to have any involvement orsay in marriage

If that were true then mixed-race and same-sex couples would still be denied the right to marry in the confederate states and the bible-babble belt.

.

secondly there is by definition no such thing as same sex marriage

That's obviously a false statement but it's good to see that you're still trying to deny civil rights to your fellow Americans and still trying to use the state to enforce the sharia laws of your peculiar superstition.    It's also good to see that you've utterly lost.

 
 
epistte
10.1.145  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.144    2 months ago
That's obviously a false statement but it's good to see that you're still trying to deny civil rights to your fellow Americans and still trying to use the state to enforce the sharia laws of your peculiar superstition.    It's also good to see that you've utterly lost.

 And yet LFOD consistently calls others authoritarians and statists.  He defends the non-existent rights of corporations while he opposes equal rights for others.

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.146  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @10.1.142    2 months ago
No offence yet I would disagree. It is a legal construct.

It's fair to say it's both. But you are correct too.

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.147  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.136    2 months ago
There is NO Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to have any involvement orsay in marriage secondly there is by definition no such thing as same sex marriage

You are factually and legally wrong on both counts! That has been explained to you before. Why do you continue to lie about that?

Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div. Black’s Law Dictionary

Here is the legal definition of marriage, which has also been explained to you before: The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Note how "one man and one woman" is not specified.

Can two people of the same sex enter, opposite sex, or any other combination) into a civil union agreement, YES

Marriage itself is a civil union agreement between two consenting adults.

but marriage was established by God and will always be the union of a man and a woman

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.148  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.135    2 months ago

Because those of us who believe in the Constitution will continue the fight to restore our Republic to its rightful position 

We are not some communist collective. We are a federal republic of sovereign states. It's about respecting and following the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." – Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, Independent Journal, January 26, 1788"

Hamilton state Sovereignty 

"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32

In Mack/Printz vs USA (Bill Clinton administration) 1997 Justice Scalia wrote for the majority opinion.

“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty” Gregory v Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tuflin v Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison).

Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Article I, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

This separation of the two spheres is one of the “Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that eachwill be controlled by itself. The Federalist No. 51, at 323”

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.149  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.137    2 months ago

Nonsense. There simply is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be involved in marriage

verbal contracts between individuals are binding

third, anecdotally millions upon millions like both my sets of grandparents never had a marriage license because there was none for them to obtain.  We did just fine without them.  Marriages, births and deaths were recorded in family Bibles and that was considered all the legal evidence you needed.

this is about state control over private matters

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.150  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.141    2 months ago

Racists cannot find any Biblical basis to support their racism. It simply isn’t there

i know theMormon belief, but Mormonism is a cult that even liberal Christian churches do not recognize as Christian

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.151  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.139    2 months ago

I support Kavanaugh because he is a Constitutionalist in his approach 

The late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said it best when he declared, “The Constitution is not a living organism… it’s a legal document.” Liberal professors and students will often bash conservatives when they stand up for an orginalist interpretation of the United States Constitution in the classroom. Here are four key responses you can use next time a liberal tells you the Constitution is a living document and needs to be constantly changed.

  1. Use their language to disprove their argument and tell them “Yes, the Constitution is a living document, but not in the way that you think!” It’s very much alive in that it will always be relevant no matter what the cultural or political climate may be.  The Constitution will never be dead. It will always be an integral part of what makes America the greatest nation on earth.
  2. The Constitution is not a dynamic document. It was not meant to be interpreted in a way to achieve a desired policy-based outcome. The authors did not intend for it to be changed every time there was a swing in popular opinion. The legislative branch of government is filled with officials directly elected by the people serves that purpose.
  3. The genius of the United States Constitution is that it was constructed to withstand the test of time. There are ways to add amendments, but the process is extremely difficult for the reason that it was not intended for it to be easily changed.
  4. The Constitution withholds power from the government and gives it to the people. Altering it to give the government more power will be an ultimately irreversible act that can be detrimental to individual liberty.

Constitutional principles, like conservative principles, are timeless. It is the responsibility of conservatives to fight for the preservation of such principles despite the ever-changing political, cultural, and moral climate.  The truths found in the Constitution were self-evident in 1789, and still remain so 227 years later.

http://www.yaf.org/news/9793-2/

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.152  livefreeordie  replied to  Ender @10.1.143    2 months ago

I do not care what  man and woman marry

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.153  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.145    2 months ago

Patiently wrong since I call for the end of all government involvement in marriage and divorce. That is the opposite of authoritarian 

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.154  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.153    2 months ago
I call for the end of all government involvement in marriage and divorce

So you do not want the married couple to have legal rights based on marriage?   Getting married in a religious ceremony does not in itself provide the means for a spouse to inherit from the other spouse, or to make decisions regarding medical treatment, etc.   The only way to have these legal rights is to have something that is made legal by the state (government).

Think this through.

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.155  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.107    2 months ago
Total nonsense.  You can repeat that lie all you want but it won’t make it true

But it is true. If God hates gays so much, why does she continue to make people gay? Weird, huh? 

 
 
calbab
10.1.156  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.148    2 months ago

You do realize that this country had a civil war in which southern states went all out to display their sovereign right to expression under the Constitution, that is, the states "sovereignly" voted to secede from the union with other states. It did not work. Hundreds of thousands died. Laws were modified, reinforced, and new laws made to carry the Union forward since that tragic historical set of years. And, here you and yours are in the present, pretending like it never happened. Quoting to us "original intent." It went tragically wrong, LFOD. You and yours shall not be allowed to forget that one all-important streak in our history.

 
 
calbab
10.1.157  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.151    2 months ago
Constitutional principles, like conservative principles, are timeless.

Unclasp you and yours from constitutional principles. Your political party is paling around with a presidential leader who is a bold-faced liar every working day of his administration. "Timeless" conservatism my foot! Conservatives are pushing away from the 'table' you and yours have set up! Machiavellianism is dripping from you and yours' support of President Trump. Moreover Trump, personally and professionally, is more duplicitous than the Christian-Right, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell, combined!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.158  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.154    2 months ago

For more than half our nation’s history couples did not need permission from the state to be legally married

it’s a false argument because it presupposes the state has control over a private matter between individuals. No matter how you twist it, that’s authoritarianism

 
 
calbab
10.1.159  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.151    2 months ago

You and yours can use whatever rhetoric you and yours can find, you and yours can use and original intent constitution argument in an "empty-headed" fashion to metaphorically bash segments of the citizenry on their heads, and it will not give you the peace or satisfaction at home y'all expect from it. Stand on stubbornness all you and yours wish; you and yours will lose this battle. Why? Because hundreds of million lives depend on you and yours not winning!

What y'all intend for evil; what you and yours plan to have no redeemable value for these "others," shall be fought against with all our might!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.160  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.156    2 months ago

My family fought and some died fighting for the North.

the civil war argument is a canard on the issue of state sovereignty.  The Constitution has not changed regarding the status as a Republic of states. We are not a national government like France or Germany

those of us who stand for this Constitutional Republic will never give up the fight against the collectivists

if it takes another civil war, so be it. I’d rather die fighting for liberty, than live as a slave of the state

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.161  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.157    2 months ago

I’ve stated here repeatedly, I’m not a Republican nor do I vote for Republicans. I left the Republican Party in 1970 because they are too socialist

i don’t consider Ryan and McConnell to be conservatives. They occasionally support conservative bills and McConnell supports conservative justices so he can stay in power

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.162  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.158    2 months ago
For more than half our nation’s history couples did not need permission from the state to be legally married

You do not understand then how law works in civil society.   Without a legal marriage the state cannot provide legal protections such as what I mentioned.   Without a legal marriage your wife does not have rights of inheritance.   You view that as permission instead of a valuable service.   Why?

it’s a false argument because it presupposes the state has control over a private matter between individuals. No matter how you twist it, that’s authoritarianism

You can get married without the legal rights.   Knock yourself out.   But if you want the state enforced legal rights of marriage you must be legally married.   It is sad that you cannot distinguish between state services and authoritarianism.

 
 
calbab
10.1.163  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.160    2 months ago
those of us who stand for this Constitutional Republic will never give up the fight against the collectivists - if it takes another civil war, so be it. I’d rather die fighting for liberty, than live as a slave of the state

At the end of the day, I knew you would go there and you and yours fulfilled it. Let's all hope it does not come to that, shall we?

On a personal note: I have understood the nuance meaning you have been trading back and forth in our sharings. So just go for it! Spill it all out. There is a high probability you and yours can not say anything about your intent that I, we, do not understand already. It can be cathartic!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.164  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.162    2 months ago

And you ignore that for more than half our nation’s history, no family need a state license to have the legal standing affirmed.

there is no basis for the state to require a license to have a marriage enjoy legal status other than the state seeking to control the people

 
 
calbab
10.1.165  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.161    2 months ago

Yes. (Dryly.) You and yours are quick to state what y'all are not. Thou protests fall on deaf ears.  I am getting a visual of a saltwater crocodile right now.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.166  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.163    2 months ago

I “go there” because my views on liberty and the Constitution are deeply held for 60 years. The older I get the more I detest Statism and how it enslaves people to government

Jesus came to set at liberty those who are oppressed, not to see us jump back into slavery and oppression

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.167  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.165    2 months ago

Wrong. Small (l) libertarianism is growing.

it is the nature of man to want to control their own life, not be controlled by others

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.168  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.165    2 months ago

Duplicte comment deleted

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.169  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.164    2 months ago

Legal = state.   Without the state there is no legal.   So you can make a handshake agreement for anything but if you want any services from the state pursuant to the agreement you must make said agreement legal.   This is so basic.  Face Palm

 
 
calbab
10.1.170  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.166    2 months ago

Enough! Jesus' "revolution" was wholly spiritual in nature. Yours is wholly political. Distinguish the differences!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.171  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.169    2 months ago

That’s nonsense and you know it which is why you ignore history.  I’ll keep repeating, for more than half our nation’s history, you did not need permission from the state to be legally married.

recoding the names, date of marriage (and sometimes location) in the family Bible was considered legal proof

“A reply from the New York State Archives stated "Birth, death and marriage records prior to 1880, with few exceptions, were not compiled by either state or local governments. You may wish to contact the appropriate local church." It wasn't until 1911 that South Carolina had official marriage records.”

https://sites.google.com/site/jeffbockman/gatj/marriage

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.173  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.170    2 months ago

You keep attempting to make this about a religious effort.  While it is important to know that Jesus desires all men to be free, my focus on this argument has been primarily secular

You appear to not be able to distinguish the difference among my comments.

further to state that the message of Jesus is only spiritual and does not apply to our physical lives is at best ignorant for someone who says they follow Christ as Lord and savior

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.174  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.171    2 months ago
That’s nonsense and you know it which is why you ignore history.  I’ll keep repeating, for more than half our nation’s history, you did not need permission from the state to be legally married.

The fact that you keep repeating something that I have not contested (people getting married without legal licenses) only shows that you are not reading and thus not learning.

Further, you do not understand what 'legal' means.   Legal is a function of a state (government).   Without same there is no 'legal'.

Two people can choose to be married, be accepted as such by their community, family etc. without being legally married.   You and others can label it legal marriage if you wish, but you are technically wrong.   Legal marriage is a function of the state - it provides societal rights implemented by the state.   Again, this is basic, basic stuff.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.175  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.159    2 months ago

Really?  Fighting for liberty Is now evil?  I can only conclude then that you believe being a slave is good

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.176  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.174    2 months ago

Again you are wrong. People in this country had legal marriages for the majority of our nation’s history with the state requiring you get their approval first

For hundreds of years our legal definitions have treated verbal agreements as legally binding  contracts

”Is A Verbal Agreement Legally Binding?

Written by J. Hirby and Fact Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff  

Verbal agreements and oral contracts are generally valid and legally binding as long as they are reasonable, equitable, conscionable and made in good faith. Although most people associate contracts with legal documents printed on paper for the purpose of getting them signed and stamped by notaries, the fact is that only a few types of contracts are required by statute to be written.”

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/

 
 
calbab
10.1.177  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.173    2 months ago

Irrelevant. Feign not-knowing all you want. I see you and yours straightforward now.

 
 
calbab
10.1.178  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.175    2 months ago

Let's not waste time in idle chatter. Do you have any other constructive information you wish to share?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.179  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.165    2 months ago

So in addition to not respecting those who disagree with your collectivism,you now want to force individuals to belong to either the Democrat or Republican parties.

why would I have crocodile tears whe I detest both political parties?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.180  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.177    2 months ago

delete Your statement is without any meaning

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.181  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.178    2 months ago

I have shared quite a bit that is constructive to any who care about the differences between liberty and slavery

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "

Samuel Adams November 1772

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.182  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.174    2 months ago

Meister v Moore has never been reversed and ruled that a marriage performed by either a Justice of the Peace or a Minister constituted a legal marriage

U.S. Supreme Court

Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877)

Meister v. Moore

96 U.S. 76

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/96/76/

 
 
calbab
10.1.183  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.180    2 months ago

That you should have to ask if I am on drugs, points out the alienation between our spiritual and political worldviews. I am not on drugs. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.184  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.174    2 months ago

Inquiring minds want to know how the left says marriage is a right, but you have to have the paid for permission of the state to exercise this supposed right?

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.185  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.183    2 months ago

Then please explain your statement in 10.177 which makes absolutely no sense

and I didn’t think you were on drugs. It was hyperbole to emphasize a point

 
 
epistte
10.1.186  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.175    2 months ago
Really?  Fighting for liberty Is now evil?  I can only conclude then that you believe being a slave is good

You are emotionally arguing that anyone who is not married by a minister cannot be married, and are also attacking the civil rights of LGBT people and the secular rights of married couples, all the while claiming that this is a fight for personal liberty.   Your entire illogical argument is a desperate attempt to deny LGBT people their rights while trying to legislate your religious beliefs, over the constitutional rights of other people and the separation of church and state.

You have yet to explain how secular civil marriage is a threat to anyone's liberty.  You need to accept that churches do not own the right to use the word marriage. What religions do is the sacrament of holy matrimony, which is separate from marriage.  Removed

 
 
epistte
10.1.187  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.184    2 months ago
nquiring minds want to know how the left says marriage is a right, but you have to have the paid for permission of the state to exercise this supposed right?

Conservatives have no problem with forcing people to buy a photo ID every 4 years to vote, so why are you hung up on the $75 fee for a marriage license?  Don't try to be intellectually dishonest because LGBT people don't have a problem with this small fee, but you still seek to invoke your religious beliefs and deny them the same secular marriage rights as heterosexuals.

 
 
calbab
10.1.188  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.181    2 months ago

Relic! Relic! Relic!

Samuel Adams, to his credit, did not own slaves. Applause! Now temper the applause with this fact: The founding fathers were both "all-in" and ambiguous on owning people as chattel. You can quote the founders, you can do so, and while you are at it make clear our founders did nothing significant to end private ownership of people nor did they fix any social issues regarding those classified as "others."

History will surely insert itself to clear up distortion, overlooking, overreach, and exaggeration.

 
 
calbab
10.1.189  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.185    2 months ago

Repetitive. My brother, I am moving forward. . . .

 
 
calbab
10.1.190  calbab  replied to  calbab @10.1.188    2 months ago

ADDENDUM. At the end of the day, the founding fathers were inept at removing human chattel from their contemporaries' control. To be plain, libertarians advocate 'loudly' for a similar ineptness in today's society. You and yours assent to twisting your, our, Savior into a libertarian monster who would look the other way, while blood-washed faithful brothers and sisters are mangled and consumed by the politics of self-interested and selfish brutes!

You and yours should be ashamed to cast Jesus in the role of an "absent father-brother-friend" who would not lift a finger to end oppression foisted on otherwise peacefully existing men, women, boys and girls.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.191  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.176    2 months ago

Amazingly you still miss the fundamental concept about law.   What is legal is a function of law and comes from the state.   You cannot simply declare something legal.   If you do not do what is required for your marriage to be legally recognized by the state (government) you will not benefit from the legal protections and services.

Fundamental concept.

You can get married in a church and consider your marriage valid per God, but that does NOT make it legal (unless the state accepts marriage in church as satisfying its filing requirements).

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.192  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.164    2 months ago
And you ignore that for more than half our nation’s history, no family need a state license to have the legal standing affirmed.

You're referring to an era when coverture laws were in force and mixed-race couples were lynched.   In other words the "good old days" for conservatives.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.193  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.191    2 months ago
You can get married in a church and consider your marriage valid per God, but that does NOT make it legal (unless the state accepts marriage in church as satisfying its filing requirements).

A better way to put it is that you can have a religious wedding but unless you file a license with the state it's not a marriage.    That's how the polygamous Kody Brown has only one marriage but 4 "wives", because he's only actually been married once but has had 4 religious weddings.

That's the problem with Larry......he's confused marriage with the nutty and peculiar rituals of his superstitious sect.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.194  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.173    2 months ago
my focus on this argument has been primarily secular

LOL.

 
 
epistte
10.1.195  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.193    2 months ago
A better way to put it is that you can have a religious wedding but unless you file a license with the state it's not a marriage.    That's how the polygamous Kody Brown has only one marriage but 4 "wives", because he's only actually been married once but has had 4 religious weddings. That's the problem with Larry......he's confused marriage with the nutty and peculiar rituals of his superstitious sect.

LGBT couples were taking part in religious commitment ceremonies long before Obergfell but they are not recognized by the state as being legally valid.  To be legally married the marriage must be filed with the secular government.

I wonder how much LFoD charges for officiating at a church matrimony sacrament? 

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.196  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.193    2 months ago

Feel free to explain this most basic principle of law to livefreeordie.   Maybe you can get through to him.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.197  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.105    2 months ago
because as YOU said " have to use nuts and bolts the way they were intended? " and ANY one that know engineering KNOWS that not following Directions leads to " extinction!!

You can use your "nuts" whatever way you wish, and everyone else is free to use their nuts any way they wish. You can use them as spacers or even as a fishing line weight, they do not have to be threaded on a bolt if they would rather not.

And as for extinction, are you serious? The human race isn't in any way endangered by bolts marrying bolts and nuts scissoring other nuts. If our extinction comes it will not be because some people are born gay or practice certain types of sexual intercourse so you can just quit your silly protestations against what other people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. You worry about you, and the rest of us will mind our own business as well.

 
 
epistte
10.1.198  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.105    2 months ago
E.A   because as YOU said " have to use nuts and bolts the way they were intended? " and ANY one that know engineering KNOWS that not following Directions leads to " extinction!! "

1.) LGBT people haven't been having kids since forever. 

2.) There is no proof that AIDS was caused by LGBT people.

3.) The fact that LGBT people can now marry will not cause more people to become LGB or T who were previously heterosexual or CIS. The LGBT population has been stable at less than 5% for a very lotng time and it isn't going to change now.

4.) A large portion of heterosexual couples also take part in anal sex so do you plan to criminalize that sexual activity? 

5.) Many LGBT people want to have childrenn but as of yet their are not able to do so, but that may change because of advancements in medical science. 

6.) If humans become extinct it will because of overpopulation and the crashing of the enviroment because of our activities. It certainly will not be because of gay people getting married and having sex.

7.) Married gay people are obviously less promiscious because they are in a committed relationship, and they don't have abortions, unlike us heterosexuals.

See what happed with aircraft THAT sods  failed to do so!

Don't keep me in supense. WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE SODS?

BTW, VIRUSES!

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.199  Eagle Averro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.197    2 months ago
And as for extinction, are you serious?

E.A If extinction is not what you see, could that be for the same reason you can not see  how important proper use of bolts and Nuts is?

 Tell me, how is Male fertility rate going?

 What is the CDC saying about Female fertility rate and how Abortions are adding to it?

What did the CDC say about that AD, that donated sperm for thousands of  Foetuses, how " Vibrant " were they, and what " Future " fo they add to " humanity "?

           The human race isn't in any way endangered by bolts marrying bolts and nuts scissoring other nuts

 E.A And Your Evidence to that IS?
 
 
lennylynx
10.1.200  lennylynx  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.199    2 months ago

Nobody say bolts and nuts, nobody.  Everyone says nuts and bolts, there's even a snack named nuts and bolts!

 
 
MrFrost
10.1.201  MrFrost  replied to  epistte @10.1.187    2 months ago
Conservatives have no problem with forcing people to buy a photo ID every 4 years to vote, so why are you hung up on the $75 fee for a marriage license?  Don't try to be intellectually dishonest because LGBT people don't have a problem with this small fee, but you still seek to invoke your religious beliefs and deny them the same secular marriage rights as heterosexuals.

I don't think Larry has ever figured out the difference between legal marriage and holy matrimony. 

 
 
epistte
10.1.202  epistte  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.201    2 months ago
I don't think Larry has ever figured out the difference between legal marriage and holy matrimony. 

That should not be a difficult concept to understand.

 
 
Tessylo
10.1.203  Tessylo  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.199    2 months ago

Abortion does not decrease fertility, it does not cause genetic defects, it does not cause any of the nonsense that you spout.   

 
 
Eagle Averro
10.1.204  Eagle Averro  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.203    2 months ago
Abortion does not decrease fertility, it does not cause genetic defects, it does not cause any of the nonsense that you spout.

E.A  Tell that to the CDC, make sure to supply you Medical Documentation!!!

 
 
epistte
10.1.205  epistte  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.204    2 months ago

Where is your proof for your claims because medical science says that it does not.

Could an abortion increase the risk of problems in a subsequent pregnancy?

Answer From Yvonne Butler Tobah, M.D.

Generally, elective abortion isn't thought to cause fertility issues or complications in future pregnancies. However, some studies suggest a possible link between pregnancy termination and an increased risk of premature birth and low birth weight.

Risks may depend on the type of abortion performed:

  • Medical abortion. Medication is taken in early pregnancy to abort the fetus. Medical abortions do not appear to increase the risk of future pregnancy complications.
  • Surgical abortion. A surgical procedure removes the fetus from the uterus through the vagina. It's typically done using suction and a sharp, spoon-shaped tool (curet). Rarely, this can cause scarring of the uterine wall (Asherman syndrome), which may make it difficult to get pregnant. Women who have multiple surgical abortion procedures may also have more risk of trauma to the cervix.
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.1.206  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Enoch @10.1.68    2 months ago

laughing dude

 
 
Tessylo
10.1.207  Tessylo  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.204    2 months ago

Nonsense, as usual.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.208  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.153    2 months ago
Patiently wrong since I call for the end of all government involvement in marriage and divorce. That is the opposite of authoritarian 

Yet you voted for Prop h8 in order to deny gay couples the civil rights you enjoy.   You did not vote to "get government out of the marriage biz" at all, you voted instead for government to discriminate against certain couples based on their relative gender, much like it used to discriminate based on the relative race of a couple.

So clearly you are both an authoritarian and a theocrat.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.209  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.196    2 months ago
Feel free to explain this most basic principle of law to livefreeordie.

Many have tried, none have succeeded.

 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.1.210  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Eagle Averro @10.1.199    2 months ago
And Your Evidence to that IS?

In 1950 the global population was 2.5 billion. Since then we have steadily seen more and more LGTBQ come out. We now have 7.44 billion people on the planet. Neither abortion or homosexuality seem to have any effect on the expanding global population. I think that's fairly concrete evidence.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.211  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.1.210    2 months ago
Neither abortion or homosexuality seem to have any effect on the expanding global population.

And the anti-gay bigots never explain who they want to force gay folks to mate with......much less why they think forced matings are a good idea.

 
 
epistte
10.1.212  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.129    2 months ago
My imaginary friend is going to beat you up!

LFoD's knows that his already weak argument has failed when his fallback response is my "skydaddy is going to roast you in hell for not obeying me". 

 
 
epistte
10.1.213  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.106    2 months ago
I don’t want anyone determining anyone’s marriage, beginning with the government

The only time I see the government trying to deny people marriage is when religious conservatives invoke their social majority at the ballot box to deny equal marriage rights to people who they view as inferior. Atheists, LGBT people, people of other religions and interracial couples have never tried to deny Christians the right to marry the adult of their choice.  It's always been the other way around, so stop accusing others of what conservatives attempt to do.

 
 
epistte
10.1.214  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.211    2 months ago
And the anti-gay bigots never explain who they want to force gay folks to mate with......much less why they think forced matings are a good idea.

They want LGBT people to go back in the closet, just like they are. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.215  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.186    2 months ago

You have misstated my position

I have stated that government should not be licensing a private matter

9 states and the District of Columbia still authorize common law marriage as legal and the rest of the states and the federal government recognize those marriages as legal

And that since many argue marriage is a right, it is illogical and contrary to law to require permission to exercise a right

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.216  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.202    2 months ago

Nonsense. Holy matrimony is a term created by the Church of Rome and is not Biblical. I have never used that term in over 30 years of performing wedding ceremonies

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.217  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.190    2 months ago

Don’t resort to lying about the views of others when making an argument.  It is beneath you

 
 
charger 383
10.1.218  charger 383  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.215    2 months ago
9 states and the District of Columbia still authorize common law marriage as legal and the rest of the states and the federal government recognize those marriages as legal

That is good to know

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.219  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.186    2 months ago

Furthermore, I don’t believe Christian marriages require a minister so why would I require it of nonChristians

the Bible doesn’t require any blessing or ceremony by a minister

all that’s required for a Christian marriage to be sanctioned by God is for the man and woman to enter into a covenant between themselves and God to love each other fully as if to Christ, to seek the good of each other, honor each other, and together lead a life as one, pleasing to God.

too many Christians today worship the state instead of God

 
 
epistte
10.1.220  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.215    2 months ago
I have stated that government should not be licensing a private matter 9 states and the District of Columbia still authorize common law marriage as legal and the rest of the states and the federal government recognize those marriages as legal

Dont be obtuse because common law marriage is different than secular civil marriage.  A couple must be living together a for a certain length of time before it can be a common law marriage, unlike a marriage license from the courthouse that is effective immediately.

As long as their are constitutional rights involved in marriage then the state must be involved to register who is entitled to those rights and who is not.

How has LGBT marriage equality negatively affected you or anyone else?  I have asked you this question many times and yet you refuse to answer so I am assuming that it hasn't in any reasonable way. You just don't like the idea that LGBT people have civil rights that you do not support, so you are grasping at straws for a reason to nullify it, even if you have to threaten the rights of many other people to accomplish your biased goals.  

 
 
epistte
10.1.221  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.219    2 months ago
Furthermore, I don’t believe Christian marriages require a minister so why would I require it of nonChristians the Bible doesn’t require any blessing or ceremony by a minister

If it is a Christian marriage there must be an authorized officiant, which is a minster/deacon of some sort to sign the marriage license. The couple cannot simply sign the marriage license and be married. 

Nobody worships the state, so drop the hyperbole.  You want everyone to worship your god, which doesn't exist and would be a theocracy. 

 

 
 
calbab
10.1.222  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.217    2 months ago

Enough pretense! You should review this bit of news:(Please 'ignore the CNN messenger.')

What say you about this happening in the country, LFoD? I covet your perspective, sir!

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.223  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.222    2 months ago

It’s a straw man argument.  These people number less than 10,000 in this country and are nothing but miscreant thugs seeking attention.

i don’t condone their beliefs and I’ve never met a Conservative Christian who agrees with them.

this is typical of leftists who attempt to link people like this with the many millions of conservative Christians who support the president’s policies.

argue the substance, not aberrations who don’t reflect Any real segment of our population 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.224  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.221    2 months ago

Where do you get your information?  There is not a single verse in the B8ble requiring a couple to have an officiant to be married. You are speaking of the traditions of men, not God

furthermore you ignore my point that 9 states and the District of Columbia recognize common law marriages as legal marriages without any marriage license or officiant. The Federal Government also recognizes thos as legal marriages

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.225  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.220    2 months ago

I have never said that homosexuals claiming a right marriage harms me personally and it’s not relevant to the discussion

the debarte is over the authority to license and thus give permission for what you say is a right AND whether the state has any right or authority to redefine a religious term.

yes marriage is a religious term and institution created by God in the garden of eden.  Governments have no authority to redefine religious terms or institutions 

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.226  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.225    2 months ago
the debarte is over the authority to license and thus give permission for what you say is a right AND whether the state has any right or authority to redefine a religious term.

Or at least that's part of the debate you erroneously think you're having.    The reality is that while marriage is a right protected by due process and by equal protection, it's actually a right which burdens non-signatory third parties like employers, creditors and insurers.....and the state is thus inherently involved to enforce the property and kinship rights of marriage.     Of course a state is free not to license any marriages but none have chosen to do that.

If however marriage WERE a religious institution then it would be wholly inappropriate for the state to be enforcing the rituals of a superstitious sect.    It would be like having the cops control who can get baptized or attend confirmation.    But thankfully legal marriage isn't a religious institution at all, it's just a secular legal contract.

.

yes marriage is a religious term and institution created by God in the garden of eden.  

You've confused marriage with a religious wedding.    If "marriage" were merely a religious term rather than a secular institution then people like me who aren't superstitious couldn't marry (just like we can't be baptized or take communion because atheists don't belong to loony cults which engage in such primitive magical rituals).     But the reality is that legal marriage has no superstitious elements at all - it's just a secular legal contract about property rights and kinship rights.    So you're the one who is erroneously confusing terms.     You're also the one who has repeatedly tried to use the secular state to enforce the sharia laws of your loony sect.

.

Governments have no authority to redefine religious terms or institutions 

Correct.   Neither the state or the federal government control the nutty rituals of your superstitious sect.     Legal marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with your nutty rituals.     That's why when you want a divorce you go to a secular judge rather than a superstitious pastor.    It's also why your loony sect is free to deny religious weddings, baptisms or any other ritual to any person or group of people they hate......blacks, gays, mixed-race couples, non-members, etc.     What you superstitious folks do in your loony sects has no impact on secular government.    Likewise the fact that gays are free to marry in your state (and to have religious weddings in the more enlightened sects) is something which has no impact whatsoever on the bigoted and regressive anti-LGBT sect which you belong to.    Your sect is perfectly free to deny religious weddings to gays.    The only thing that's happened since the passage of marriage equality is that people are now more likely to point a finger at you and laugh at your foolish superstitions.

 
 
epistte
10.1.227  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.160    2 months ago
Thye civil war argument is a canard on the issue of state sovereignty.  The Constitution has not changed regarding the status as a Republic of states. We are not a national government like France or Germany

Your ideas are a parody of a thinking man because what you are arguing for is the previous Articles of Confederation, that was replaced by the US Constitution in 1788. The AoC created a weak federal government and stronger more independent states, but it proved unworkable to govern the country so it was scrapped and replaced by the US Constitution that creates a much stronger federal government with weaker states. The power of the federal government is superior to the power of the states and blatantly stated in the Supremacy Clause (Art. 6, Sec 2)

those of us who stand for this Constitutional Republic will never give up the fight against the collectivists

We are an interdependantsocietyy or we wouldn't need a Constitution so we must act in what is in the best interest of that society to solve problems. If that makes us collectivists then accept it or leave and live off the grid in the mountains somewhere. The fact that you claim to be a member of the Constitution party and yet you want to weaken the US Constitution is amusingly ironic.  The US will never be 50 seperate states and independant with a weak central power in the concept of the European Union.

if it takes another civil war, so be it. I’d rather die fighting for liberty, than live as a slave of the state

Nobody is a slave of the state. The state exists to work for the people to accomplish the goals, to protect our rights from abuse by both the state and other citizens/ religious groups, and solve the problems of a very interdependent and integrated society. 

 
 
epistte
10.1.228  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.225    2 months ago
the debarte is over the authority to license and thus give permission for what you say is a right AND whether the state has any right or authority to redefine a religious term. yes marriage is a religious term and institution created by God in the garden of eden.  Governments have no authority to redefine religious terms or institutions 

Marriage is not in any way a religious concept. The Christian church were not involved in marriage until 500CE.  The secular Code of Hammurabi, that predates the Abrahamic religions, is proof that marriage is not a religious idea.

 You cannot deny non-religious people or people who are not a member of your particular sect the right that are included in marriage because of your puritanical religious beliefs.  Your ideas are why we have the strict separation of church and state that separates religious ideas such as that of matrimony with secular ideas of marriage. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.229  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.227    2 months ago

ill Respond to your last point first

Liberty is about the sovereignty of the individual whereas Statism (socialism or collectivism) is about the "good" of the state.  They cannot exist together.  Furthermore, as shown in the following excerpted article, statism is a belief system and thus is a religion.  Hegel said the State is “god” on earth.

The defining characteristic of statism is the violation of individual self-ownership. The defining characteristic of slavery is the violation of individual self-ownership. Therefore, Statism = Slavery.

“All States Violate Liberty

April 18, 2018

by Paul LaScola

Libertarian Christian Institute

Consider the proposition that a condition of individual liberty exists if all individuals are in full control of their own property: one’s life, intellectual conceptions, physical possessions, and rights. Freedom means universal liberty, and liberty means responsible, equitable behavior (not barbarism). Any person or organization which claims wrongful ownership of and confiscates another person’s property (an involuntary taking) is anti-freedom.

If you realize that a state exerts its will by force (fine, imprisonment, or death) and violently controls the person or property of any peaceful individual, and yet you still embrace it, you are (to some degree) a statist. Anyone who holds the state in esteem, or who voluntarily serves or supports it in violating the rights of others, or who engages the state for personal or organizational advantage, is an accomplice in the state’s violation of freedom (or, if conscripted to serve involuntarily, is a victim of state coercion).

To conclude that the only viable device to protect one’s property is a massive, coercive state — which will inevitably coerce all citizens in order to ‘protect’ them from the relatively few private extortionists — is nothing more than a belief among other beliefs. As an hypothesis, it has been disproven by innumerable, empirical historical experiments which demonstrate what happens when consolidated power rests with the state. Centuries of test cases (if you will) prove the untenability of any state to produce real, lasting peace.

‘Belief’ is a term of religion; it describes the acceptance of a tenet which cannot be proven by observation or experiment. To embrace Statism as a solution for the preservation of property (without proof of viability and validity) is a belief which exposes Statism as a religion.”

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.230  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.228    2 months ago

Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden many thousands of years before human government.  Government NEVER created either the term or the institution of marriage

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.231  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.228    2 months ago

You cannot deny non-religious people or people who are not a member of your particular sect the right that are included in marriage because of your puritanical religious beliefs.  Your ideas are why we have the strict separation of church and state that separates religious ideas such as that of matrimony with secular ideas of marriage. 

Even though I’ve corrected you, you continue to misrepresent my position

i don’t advocate any requirement that ANYONE Christian or not Christian be married by a minister. 

I have never mentioned much less indicated support for Puritan beliefs

i have repeatedly said that matrimony is no a Bible term for either Jews or Christians. It is an unbiblical term created by the cult of the Church of Rome

I’ll repeat.  It is a private matter between two consenting individuals (and for Jews  and Christians additionally between the two people and God.

and as I’ve stated, this is currently the only legal requirement in 9 states and the District of Columbia for a legal marriage (plus age of consent)

 
 
Gordy327
10.1.232  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.230    2 months ago
Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden many thousands of years before human government.  

You have yet to prove that with anything of substance.

 
 
epistte
10.1.233  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.230    2 months ago
Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden many thousands of years before human government.  Government NEVER created either the term or the institution of marriage

The concept of the garden of Eden is an allegory that Christians borrowed from the previous Sumerians.  There was not a literal garden of Eden.

https://werdsmith.com/genesology/KIk8clRRD
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/origins-human-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065
 
 
calbab
10.1.234  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.223    2 months ago
i don’t condone their beliefs and I’ve never met a Conservative Christian who agrees with them.

Well, this is not FAKE NEWS. It's a twisted worldview; the people and the point of view surely exist today. You may have heard what they say about,'windy days and empty cans. . . .'

Saturday evening I was watching, "Breaking Hate" on MSNBC(Please 'ignore the MSNBC messenger.'), and a pro-White (aka: "Alt-Right") separatist in a tweet was bandying the word, "Communist" around and you at least once called me a, "Communist." So forgive me for checking for correlation.

Point Blank:  Do you believe the Jewish holocaust happened?

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.235  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.229    2 months ago
Statism (socialism or collectivism)

Adding the parenthetical items destroys your point.

statism is a belief system and thus is a religion

Face Palm    Where do you get this stuff?

If you realize that a state exerts its will by force (fine, imprisonment, or death) and violently controls the person or property of any peaceful individual, and yet you still embrace it, you are (to some degree) a statist.

Existence of a state which implements the rule of law for civil society is not the same thing as 'Statism'.    Here is an example for you to ponder.   Imagine someone deliberately burns down your place of worship.   If the arsonist is captured would you want the state to try (and if guilty) convict and punish the arsonist?   Also, if your insurance company denies your claim would you seek civil retribution by engaging in a lawsuit and -if you prevail- would you accept the power of the state to enforce payment to you?

The state will exert force in both of these situations.   Got a problem with that?

 
 
calbab
10.1.236  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.223    2 months ago
who attempt to link people like this with the many millions of conservative Christians who support the president’s policies.

This President's policies arguably do NOT focus on God's test for true greatness:

  • Submission
  • Responsibility
  • Giving
  • Serving others
  • Self-control
  • Cooperation

Credit: Bill Gothard, Character Sketches

 
 
epistte
10.1.237  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.230    2 months ago
Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden many thousands of years before human government.

Jesus could not have possibly created marriage in the garden of Eden, because according to Christian belief he didn't exist for more than 1500 years after the myth. The fact that The Abrahamic religions borrowed that idea from the Sumerians is lost on you.

Do you think that you can just make this stuff up and nobody will notice?

Marriage has never been solely a religious concept, despite your beliefs.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.238  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.233    2 months ago

Refuting the Anti Jewish, Anti Christian allegation that the Jews stole the creation story from the Summarians

Summaries of the debunking by a long list of scholars

http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.239  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.234    2 months ago

Again I’m beginning to question whether you are being serious 

i don’t deny a few people like this exist, but why do you attach importance to a tiny group of miscreants who have nothing to do with me or any other conservative evangelical Christian?

of course the holocaust happened. It’s offensive that you even ask the question.

  I’m a major supporter of Israel. I have been honored by orthodox Jewish synagogues as a friend of Israel and designated as a righteous gentile after David’s heart.

i was offered a commissioned officers position with the IDF many years ago

i had several dear friends who were holocaust survivors 

i have many friends in Israel

 
 
Freefaller
10.1.240  Freefaller  replied to  epistte @10.1.237    2 months ago
Jesus could not have possibly created marriage in the garden of Eden, because according to Christian belief he didn't exist for more than 1500 years after the myth.

Lol epistte that's not gonna work, I'm pretty sure I've read that the sect LFOD follows believes Jesus to be God not a son created later.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.241  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.235    2 months ago

Your examples have nothing to do with Statism, you must not have ever studied political science. There is a vast difference between government protecting property and harm from others and statism

“Statism is the belief that the civil government (or man via civil government) is the ultimate authority in the earth and as such is the source of law, morality, and righteousness (that which is right and wrong).  Statism has manifested itself in different ways throughout history, and can be expressed through democratic and non-democratic governments alike.

A statist government treats its political sovereignty as a platform for moral sovereignty. In other words, as ultimate sovereign, the state is therefore not subject to God, the Bible, natural law, or any other religion or ethical system. A statist government need not be accountable to its own citizens.“

https://www.conservapedia.com/Statism

“Robert Higgs, a noted economic historian, set about to answer a longstanding and vital question: why has the State grown so ominously in power in the United States during the 20th century? Why did we begin as a quasi-laissez-faire country in the 19th century and end up in our current mess? What were the processes of change?

The orthodox answer, the answer given by statist apologists, is all too simple: the world grew more complex, the increasing need for statism was perceived by intellectuals, statesmen, and farsighted businessmen; hence government expanded in response to those needs. Of course, no one who is not a naïve apologist for the status quo will fall for such pap.”

https://mises.org/library/rise-statism

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.242  livefreeordie  replied to  Freefaller @10.1.240    2 months ago

It is foundational to Christianity that Jesus is the same YHWH (Jehohovah) who created all things and appeared to Moses in the burning bush

http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/Jesus_is_the_YHWH,_the_%22I_am%22_of_the_Old_and_New_Testaments

 
 
epistte
10.1.243  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.229    2 months ago
Liberty is about the sovereignty of the individual whereas Statism (socialism or collectivism) is about the "good" of the state.  They cannot exist together.  Furthermore, as shown in the following excerpted article, statism is a belief system and thus is a religion.  Hegel said the State is “god” on earth.

This libertarian essay is an example of laughable logic, but I cannot allow this claim about Hegel believing that God is the state to pass without correcting it. Hegel is far from the easiest philosopher to understand but that is no reason to butcher his ideas in this way.

Hegel’s philosophy is difficult to access because of his intricate manner of writing, and because of various misleading rumors that have become attached to his name. Karl Marx claimed that Hegel was an important influence on Marx’s own thinking, and since Marx was an atheist, many believers have wanted nothing to do with his supposed teacher, Hegel. On the other hand, S øren Kierkegaard made fun of Hegel for supposedly reducing faith to an arid and impenetrable rational ‘system’. So Hegel’s philosophical theology has been caught between the battle-lines of atheists who reject it or try to soft-pedal it and believers to whom its terminology is foreign and off-putting. As a result, there have been few commentators who’ve had enough sympathy for it to lay it out in a way that makes it seem attractive.

However, I think Hegel’s time should be now. Large numbers of people both within traditional religions and outside them are looking for non-dogmatic ways of thinking about transcendent reality. Writers like Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels speak to a large audience that’s less interested in tradition or dogma, as such, than in religious experience and religious thought. A readable account of Hegel will speak to this audience through the sheer illuminating power of his ideas.

What are these ideas? Hegel begins with a radical critique of conventional ways of thinking about God. God is commonly described as a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and so forth. Hegel says this is already a mistake. If God is to be truly infinite, truly unlimited, then God cannot be ‘a being’, because ‘a being’, that is, one being (however powerful) among others, is already limited by its relations to the others. It’s limited by not being X, not being Y, and so forth. But then it’s clearly not unlimited, not infinite! To think of God as ‘a being’ is to render God finite.

But if God isn’t ‘a being’, what is God? Here Hegel makes two main points. The first is that there’s a sense in which finite things like you and me fail to be as real as we could be, because what we are depends to a large extent on our relations to other finite things. If there were something that depended only on itself to make it what it is, then that something would evidently be more fully itself than we are, and more fully real, as itself. This is why it’s important for God to be infinite: because this makes God more himself (herself, itself) and more fully real, as himself (herself, itself), than anything else is.

Hegel’s second main point is that this something that’s more fully real than we are isn’t just a hypothetical possibility, because we ourselves have the experience of being more fully real, as ourselves, at some times than we are at other times. We have this experience when we step back from our current desires and projects and ask ourselves, what would make the most sense, what would be best overall, in these circumstances? When we ask a question like this, we make ourselves less dependent on whatever it was that caused us to feel the desire or to have the project. We experience instead the possibility of being self-determining, through our thinking about what would be best. But something that can conceive of being self-determining in this way, seems already to be more ‘itself’, more real as itself, than something that’s simply a product of its circumstances.

Putting these two points together, Hegel arrives at a substitute for the conventional conception of God that he criticized. If there is a higher degree of reality that goes with being self-determining (and thus real as oneself), and if we ourselves do in fact achieve greater self-determination at some times than we achieve at other times, then it seems that we’re familiar in our own experience with some of the higher degree of reality that we associate with God. Perhaps we aren’t often aware of the highest degree of this reality, or the sum of all of this reality, which would be God himself (herself, etc.). But we are aware of some of it – as the way in which we ourselves seem to be more fully present, more fully real, when instead of just letting ourselves be driven by whatever desires we currently feel, we ask ourselves what would be best overall. We’re more fully real, in such a case, because we ourselves are playing a more active role, through thought, than we play when we simply let ourselves be driven by our current desires.

What is God, then? God is the fullest reality, achieved through the self-determination of everything that’s capable of any kind or degree of self-determination. Thus God emerges out of beings of limited reality, including ourselves.

Note that I haven’t said that God is ourselves, or that God is the world, or (as Spinoza said) that God is Nature. Instead, I’ve said that God is the fullest reality, arising out of ourselves, the world, and nature. This doesn’t reduce God to us, the world, or nature, because the God that we’re talking about is more fully real than they are. There is a process of increasing reality at work here, rather than some underlying ‘stuff’ that’s simply the paradigm of what’s ‘real’.

Though Hegel’s conception doesn’t reduce God to us or to the world, it does avoid the mistake that Hegel identified in conventional conceptions of God as a separate being. By locating God in a process, of sorts, that includes us, the world, and nature, Hegel’s conception avoids identifying God as something that isn’t us or the world or nature, and thus it avoids limiting God in the way that conventional conceptions do.
 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.244  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.237    2 months ago

Wrong. Jesus is YHWH (Jehovah God) who created all things. Any appearance of God to mankind was Jesus, YHWH before His incarnation in Flesh

http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/Jesus_is_the_YHWH,_the_%22I_am%22_of_the_Old_and_New_Testaments

 
 
epistte
10.1.245  epistte  replied to  Freefaller @10.1.240    2 months ago
Lol epistte that's not gonna work, I'm pretty sure I've read that the sect LFOD follows believes Jesus to be God not a son created later.

He can believe that 3+3= 3.1415926535 but that does not mean that it is true.

Belief=/= fact.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.246  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.243    2 months ago

I never said Hegel was referring to God as Christians or Jews would define God.

Hegel was stating that the state had the effect of being as “god” on earth from the sense of authority including civil and moral.

i don’t know how old you are but I would imagine I was reading Hegel and Marx before you were born

 
 
calbab
10.1.247  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.239    2 months ago

Thank you for answering the question straightforward. No offense intended. (Smile.)

I am searchingly reaching out to get an understanding of a man in the 'shadows' to me—that is you.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.248  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.236    2 months ago

Why straw man arguments?  I answered you previously why conservative evangelicals like myself support Trump’s policies and you come back with character traits instead of the context of policy

You can have seemingly good character traits and terrible policies like Obama. I’m more interested in real policies that reflect our Constitution and individualism 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.249  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.247    2 months ago

I’m not a shadows person. I’m open and transparent with everyone 

 
 
epistte
10.1.250  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.246    2 months ago
Hegel was stating that the state had the effect of being as “god” on earth from the sense of authority including civil and moral.

That is not what Hegel said about god. Reread what he wrote because you are interjecting your own beliefs into his writings.

 
 
calbab
10.1.251  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.248    2 months ago
I’m more interested in real policies that reflect our Constitution and individualism 

What an oddity: A religious leader who does not care to take the measure of a president who lies multiple times daily. Who is unmoved by lapses in presidential character by President Trump. Who bypasses God's test for true greatness. Shocking.

Let me be clear, I am interested in the politics of power per se, "exaggerated" freedom, superfluous gain, impulse gratification, praise of mankind, self-dealing, self-gratification, "stealth" leadership, and lastly cut-throat competition. This is what you and yours have in President Donald Trump. You and yours can not argue this is what God wants in leadership. No how-no way!

Still, you can give it a try. LFoD, please proceed. . . .

 
 
epistte
10.1.252  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.244    2 months ago
Wrong. Jesus is YHWH (Jehovah God) who created all things. Any appearance of God to mankind was Jesus, YHWH before His incarnation in Flesh

What sect of Protestant Christianity are you a member of?

 
 
calbab
10.1.253  calbab  replied to  calbab @10.1.251    2 months ago

REVISED: Let me be clear, I am NOT interested in the politics of power per se, . . . .

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.254  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.251    2 months ago

We would all prefer perfect moral leaders. But I would rather have a very flawed person with great policies for America than a highly moral person with destructive policies.

BTW, I don’t consider Obama moral because of his antiChristian ideological views

we who support Trump would thoroughly disagree with your characterization of his policies.

He has these great accomplishments so far for all Americans who love our Republic 

appointing Constitutionalist justices to the Courts

greatly improved laws and regulations for Veterans care

cutting income taxes which are communist

reducing regulations which strangle business in America and reduce our global competitiveness and stifle even greater small business job creation

most active president in modern US history to  protect Judeo-Christian liberties

stands against abortion

greatest presidential defender of Israel

understands and stands up to the threat of Islam to all of civilization

best presidential defender of our borders

dramatically increased oil and gas exports which not only is good for America, but weakens Russia

i can go on

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.255  livefreeordie  replied to  epistte @10.1.252    2 months ago

That is foundational to nearly all of Christendom. I’m not aware of any Protestant denomination that denies what Jesus claimed and The Apostles attested, that Jesus is YHWH (Jehovah)

the Roman Catholic Church also defends this position 

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/jesus-christ-is-not-god.html

i am a traditional Evangelical and Pentecostal (member of National Association of Evangelicals)

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.256  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.241    2 months ago
Your examples have nothing to do with Statism, you must not have ever studied political science. There is a vast difference between government protecting property and harm from others and statism

You read the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote.   The examples I gave you were NOT statism.   That was the point.  I was illustrating that a state using force is not ipso facto statism.  I gave you examples of a state using force that most everyone understands to be normal functioning of a civil society based upon the rule of law.

And the context was crystal clear since I quoted you to show the context of my reply:

livefreeordie @10.1.229  - If you realize that a state exerts its will by force (fine, imprisonment, or death) and violently controls the person or property of any peaceful individual, and yet you still embrace it, you are (to some degree) a statist.

See?   My point is that you, livefreeordie, are one of those people who realize that a state sometimes exerts its will by force and that you embrace it.   You want the state to deal with the arsonist who burned down your place of worship.   You want the state to enforce legal contracts and force the insurance company to pay the claim on the burned establishment.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.257  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.230    2 months ago
Jesus created marriage in the Garden of Eden many thousands of years before human government.

Actually marriage existed long before your Bronze-age mythology.    But it should be noted that not only does your mythology make no claim whatsoever about a "marriage" between the Adam and Eve characters, but the real underlying claim in your mythology is that Eve was a transgender clone of Adam.....otherwise your sky fairy would have made Eve from dust rather than using a chunk of Adam.

Also note that such an operation would be strictly illegal in the US since it would violate medical ethics to clone a person, especially without their informed consent.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.258  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.256    2 months ago

Here’s the difference. That state should only exist to protect persons and property from external and internal harms.

statism goes beyond that and says its is all authority on rights, liberties, and morality. It then enforces it’s authority on this fundamentals of life through forced collectivism and the threat of force if you don’t agree with the state

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.259  Skrekk  replied to  calbab @10.1.236    2 months ago
Credit: Bill Gothard, Character Sketches

FYI, Gothard might not be the best person to cite on any subject given the numerous accusations of sexual assault against women and children.   His sect is also what enabled the sexual assault of the Duggar girls by their brother Josh.

 
 
calbab
10.1.260  calbab  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.259    2 months ago

Thank you for sharing.  You may know more about the man than me. He is only a 'day old' with me. I can take a step back on him. Incidentally, and I just wish to throw this out: This is not a case of guilt by association in your comment? Please advise.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.261  Skrekk  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.175    2 months ago
Fighting for liberty Is now evil?

An ironic comment coming from an opponent of liberty.

 
 
Skrekk
10.1.262  Skrekk  replied to  calbab @10.1.260    2 months ago
This is not a case of guilt by association in your comment?

No, not at all.   To give the Duggars as favorable an interpretation as possible, the ATI cult they're involved with helped blind them to the fact that their son was diddling his sisters.

Also note that the numerous accusations of sexual assault are why the IBLP board removed Gothard from its ministry.    At least 34 women have accused Gothard of sexual molestation and sexual harassment.   Most were minors when the events occurred.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2016/Institute-in-Basic-Life-Principles-Hinsdale/

 
 
calbab
10.1.263  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.254    2 months ago
I don’t consider Obama moral because of his antiChristian ideological views

We have 'irreconcilable differences' on our former president, LFoD. I am unable to get around the notion a president who lies multiple times a day in service to the citizenry is the "new normal."

And you, well, you seem "giddy" with a character-flawed leader like Trump who says anything he wishes to get by; just as long as he makes you feel 'complete' in your own conceptual way. By now, I would surely have thought you had learned the lesson of holding a venomous snake close to your bosom. Oh well. President Obama, by comparison, was then and is now life-giving!

 
 
calbab
10.1.264  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.254    2 months ago

Moreover, I will never, ever, stand with you in any expression of government which leaves people out. So lines are drawn. . . . My brother. That 'land' you are seeking is long gone.  You have no idea how gone apparently. You might see it again in your lifetime, but it will not be long for this world! It has passed away. People will not allow you and yours  to rob them of life, liberty, and prosperity. Not anymore. No matter how hard you and yours 'cement' it during the Trump-Pence years to come.

 
 
calbab
10.1.265  calbab  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.262    2 months ago

I did not know this. Not sure that it renders the concept invalid. But I will certainly investigate it farther. Thank you, Shrekk. 

NOTE: The Book: Character Sketches, From The Pages of Scripture Illustrated In The World Of Nature Volume II, Rand McNally and Company 1978 is roughly forty years old. I do not know if that "modulates" anything about the author in your mind. But its what I got on it. 

I am opening your site reference and looking for insight: Peace!

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.266  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.258    2 months ago
That state should only exist to protect persons and property from external and internal harms.

I agree with that.   Although there are states that do engage in harmful practices.   These states should NOT do that, I agree, but if they do they do not cease being states.  The former USSR was a brutal state, but a state nonetheless.   But this was not the point.  So let's now turn to your next statement:

statism goes beyond that and says its is all authority on rights, liberties, and morality. It then enforces it’s authority on this fundamentals of life through forced collectivism and the threat of force if you don’t agree with the state

Statism is a political system in which the state basically runs the lives of individuals.  There are of course various degrees of this, but you do have the part in blue correct.


So now we look again at your original confused comment:

livefreeordie @10.1.229  - If you realize that a state exerts its will by force (fine, imprisonment, or death) and violently controls the person or property of any peaceful individual, and yet you still embrace it, you are (to some degree) a statist.

Note that you focus on the state exerting force as the distinction between statism and non-statism.   That is flat out wrong.   I demonstrated that to you in my earlier comment - in civil society a state necessarily uses force - enforcement.   So, let's be clear, statism is not defined as the state using force.   Rather it is a system in which the state controls most everything:

Oxford on Statism:  A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.267  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.263    2 months ago

I have never expressed happinessmuch less giddiness about Trump’s character.

what matters most with our political leaders is what they do on behalf of the nation

ive outlinedthe achievements under Trump that conservative Christians like myself applaud. They are all consistent with both biblical principles and our framers ideals for liberty.

you oppose them because they run polar opposite of the forced collectivism you embrace

obama whom you admire is a life long communist revolutionary who despises the teachings and values of Christ. 

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.268  livefreeordie  replied to  calbab @10.1.264    2 months ago

Fortunately I’m able to mostly avoid the Marxist utopia you long for.

i detest cities and stay as far from them as possible.  Wherever possible I avoid our government and live as self sustaining as possible

your immoral government controlled nation is completely opposite of any Christian value. It’s a cancer that is only growing worse.   I’m glad I won’t be around 20 years from now when it’s much worse and things like pedophelia will be normalized and no one will have any right to what they earn.

but I weep for my grandchildren who will have to live in a world like that if the Lord tarries

 
 
livefreeordie
10.1.269  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.266    2 months ago

Oxford agrees with my statements.

we have a government controlled (crony capitalism) economy which is Marxist fascism. We have a statethat dictates morality from the state instead of faith based as was our nation’s history 

 
 
calbab
10.1.270  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.267    2 months ago

AGAIN: We have 'irreconcilable differences' on our former president, LFoD. I am unable to get around the notion a president who lies multiple times a day in service to the citizenry is the "new normal."

And in my spritual experience, Jesus would consider President Trump quite unique among hypocrites! On the other-hand, you are entitled to your own opinion.

 
 
TᵢG
10.1.271  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.269    2 months ago

Thread continued @20.   

This thread is too big and is greatly slowing down the article. 

We should continue in the new thread @20 so that this old thread can be closed down and the article will load much faster.

 
 
calbab
10.1.272  calbab  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.268    2 months ago
I weep for my grandchildren who will have to live in a world like that if the Lord tarries

You should stay away from people if you are anti-social. "Mixing" in heavily concentrated civilization and communities with people who are diverse and choosing peace with all 'men' can cause you great distress. Perhaps, you are in a small town now, or on the 'edge' of wilderness? Good for you! And, you can 'chat' on the computer too! My. My.

The Lord will take care of God's 'property.' As we all often say: "God can not fail." No?

After all is said and done, LFoD, you may discover that the only life you to live, to give, in service is your own. So, check yourself to see if you are living up to this measure as a peace-keeper with all mankind (Romans 12:18) —and not just with "indulgent" folks with whom you agree. No one is asking you to change your confession; simply let others enjoy this country in their own ways. God 'found' you, yes? Surely, God WILL find all others in like manner.

 
 
calbab
10.1.273  calbab  replied to  Skrekk @10.1.259    2 months ago

I see your point after looking through your link below. Thank you. I will not use his info any more. (Smile.)

 
 
Freefaller
10.1.274  Freefaller  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.242    2 months ago
It is foundational to Christianity that Jesus is the same YHWH (Jehohovah) who created all things and appeared to Moses in the burning bush

Sorry you've confused me with someone who wants to discuss your fictional beliefs with you, nothing could be further from the truth.  You're more than welcome to be a brainwashed sheep and continue posting your silliness as I find somewhat cute and amusing on occasion (sorta like a toddlers ramblings about their imaginary friend, though they generally grow out of this phase)

 
 
epistte
10.1.276  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.271    2 months ago

Is there a link to the new thread?

 
 
epistte
10.1.277  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @10.1.269