Awesome. When Moore was on the Bill Maher show the same thing happened. The extreme right wing conservative was on and started attacking the film so Moore asked him if he had seen it, and he of course said no. As an aside, the Bill Maher show is hilarious.
i liked how he told the guy to buy a ticket to Catwoman and then sneak into his movie. Must be the first time a director advocated not paying to see his movie. Yeah Moore is all about the money.
Blackfish well done. IROC IT What da heck is true Christianity? This is the same stupid arguement Osama Bin Laden still preaches to his followers about the fallacy of TRUE ISLAM. That is bordering on extreemism - be it Christianity or Islam. I am a born again Christian and I don't hold the same views with you. There is nothing like TRUE Christianity. You are either doing His word and witnessing for him everyday or you are not. You are on your own with your extreemist views. I will not partake in further dividing this world on stupid religious grounds.
When I had dinner with Moore in Austin a few years ago he told me his total income from Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine. I figured he was a millionaire, I was dead wrong. Don't get me wrong, he was living comfortably, getting along just fine, but by no stretch of the imagination the incredibly wealthy man people think he is. When we went outside and I saw a limo waiting for him I said skeptically, "What the hell is this, Mike?" He then explained that the UT board of regents that had brought him to Austin to give a speech were putting him up in a nice hotel and treating him like he was royalty. Seemed reasonable. By now he's surely very wealthy, as he was in a better position to negotiate contracts for DWMC and F-911 than he was with his earlier work when he was still unknown. But still, you have realize, for ANY idealouge it's never about money. No matter what political stripe. And I think Moore HAS donated many of his profits from his works to worthy causes like you have detailed. But of course this practice should only be enforced upon Moore, correct? Not the rich chickenhawks who cheerleaded this war for "liberation"? They're out to change people's minds, to get their message heard, and often times they end up paying the piper so that they can even scratch the surface.
Why do you think they had securities guarding Moore the whole time? Have you ever heard of people gettting beat up for the differences in their belief? I am sure there are reasonable Rep. , but with people like you in that room, as a Democrat, I would not feel safe going in there. It does not matter if harm may actually come to me, if I feel threatened, if I am scared for my life, and I say so, what right do you have to tell me to shut up?
(Thanks for the props from other posters re. my posting more. I'm a lurker...I dive in when the urge strikes and type my fingers off...but I'll see if I can't do a little more. It can become an addiction, you know) First off, I would like to state for the record, IROC, that I haven't stated what my religious association *is*, so to assume I am not a Christian based on my my postings (or a 'not-good-enough Christian' ) is purely your projection. Second, in the interest of the debate itself, could you respond at least in part to some of the points raised? Thirdly, I never said there was anything wrong with being Christian. Fourthly, a question, if your interpretation of Scripture is contextual, (ie, it was written for a particular time and place and people) how do you personally decide what to follow? Are you in favor of death as punishment for blasphemy? And what about my divorce question? All sins being equal, is that more of a threat to the institution of marriage than a small amount of homosexuals decing to marry? But on to your faith itself. You talk about your personal relationship with God. Have you ever seen your God? How did you find out about your god? It seems to me that you found out about your god through word of mouth and writing. Then you had spiritual experiences that confirmed in your mind that what you had been told was right. You came to understand that those feeling and thoughts that came to your mind were actually the voice of that god that you had been taught. What perhaps you hadn't pondered is that other people have those same experiences and come to radically different conlcusions than you do. So how many Gods are there out there, and how many messages. I know Tibetan monks ponder and pray quite a bit, but they don't come to the same conclusions as you do about atonement and sin. I guess they are tuning into the wrong channel. They were instructed wrong. Truth is you validate what was taught you through your spiritual experiences. You learn something from mom, dad, or spiritual leader, then you prayed, had a religious experience(see spiritual experiences, which have no attached message, they just are natural occurrences of the human psyche under specific circumstances) you took that spiritual experience as a validation of your beliefs because those beliefs give you meaning and signficance in life, and so you built yourself a testimony of the truth of what was taught to you. Your testimony is an after the fact realization. You applied a non related religious experience to what was transmitted to you word of mouth, and automatically confirmed in your mind that what you were taught was true. Why? because those feelings came as you pondered the immense love of Christ and his sacrifice. You certainly weren't thinking of the love of the crew that was "saving Private Ryan" you were thining of Jesus Christ. So those feeling must have come from him... Sorry to burst your bubble, but people have those experiences with Buddha, with ancestors, and even with Crocodile gods. That Christianity groups up a series of very effective mental constructs that work together to produce a very effective and convincing spiritual experience, there is no doubt. But it still is nothing more than a superimposing of mental concepts on to very natural and easily reproducible mental phenomena. SO after that lengthy preaching, may I just get to my point. In the new Testament it is inferred that homosexuality is a sin. This is your belief. So what you are saying is that your theology says that these things are wrong, and therefore those who don't believe as you do are: 1) in sin 2) in darkness 3) not as in touch with God as you are 4) not saved 5) morally inferior Most religious people don't think how much that props up their ego. They never think that way. To the contrary, they pray for those fallen and would have them grow out of sin and come into the light. They hardly ever think that they may be the ones in the darkness. So it is a carefully orchestrated form of self validation, that barely conflicts with the very principles of the religion. Humility is taught in Christian circles and everything about Christian superiority is orchestrated in a way to not conflict with that sense of humility, but it is not so. Christian theology automatically creates a super ego and an elite of saved. The difference is not in the effect on homosexuals in the political arena. The difference is in how you feel about your loathing of their lifestyle. With this approach you are able to compartmentalize their marginalization more effectively to reduce the conflict with those principles that say you should love all. In one breath you are able to say that you love them, but that they are not saved and morally inferior because they are sinning. Its very effective. There is a reason why Christianity has proven to be such an effective cult. If you sin, then that means that you are not saved. If you are saved, then its not because of obedience, its because of Christ choosing to give his grace INDEPENDENT OF YOUR OBEDIENCE EITHER PRIOR TO ACCEPTING HIM OR AFTER. In fact by your admission, you still sin. So, why is it that Christ can't give that grace to a homosexual? Why is your sin of getting angry in traffic less significant than homosexuality? Why are your sins as a believer smaller than homosexuality? I ask that question a lot so I can foresee the answer... its not...every sin is the same because they all get us away from God. Well if that is the case then its not through obedience that we are saved but through Christ's choosing us for grace(a purely Calvinistic idea), which means that all sins are the same and all are covered if Christ chooses you. So if a homosexual is saved, and continues to be a homosexual it is no different than an angry person being saved and continuing to be an angry person. WHY THEN ARE HOMOSEXUALS TARGETED IN THE POLITICAL ARENA BY FUNDAMENTALISTS? Because they loathe homosexuals. Its obvious from the theology that sin cannot block one from salvation once Christ has saved them. Its obvious that the power to save is in Christ and not in obedience, but that doesn't change anything does it... Rarely are there religious people who think out their own religion. WHy? because they don't want to see the conflicts. They accept religion usually because they need to. Now I look at Orrin Hatch(Sen. Utah Repub. of course) and hear his say that he supports the amendment not to discriminate against gays, but to save marriage... what a lie!! What A LIE!! He despises homosexuality, like all active Mormons. Like all active fundamentalists... Very few Christian groups are tolerant of homosexuals. Those that are are those who take their theology all the way and say that NO SIN can block Christ from saving... So morals become irrelevant and all that counts is one's personal connection with Christ through spiritual experience. That is not a popular form of religion because it does not bolster ego as well. It does not allow for the separations into righteous and not that so makes people feel good about themselves with the least amount of effort. It is much harder to have a sense of worth independent of comparisons with others. People want to compare themselves with others to measure their worth, whether they realize it or not. They don't want to feel cheated... If I obey god then I can't be the same as the one that doesn't... Of course, most people don't think that consciously... but that is the direct consequence of the theology... And of course, it would really make your life harder to actually accept a very strong scientific theory that in fact homosexuality is hardwired in one's genes. That would make God a very cruel person now wouldn't it... What you don't realize is that GOd is CRUEL JUST AS MUCH NOW. God makes man uncapable of not sinning. Proof? All men sin, no escape. God condemns man for the way he made man. God gives son to save man. God saves only those who believe in son. No man can believe in son unless son chooses them and gives them grace. So god creates man, condemns man, and then chooses just some to believe... not because of their works, but because he decides so. The rest can burn in hell, just the way he created them. GREAT GOD!! Keep him! Impossible? Nothing is impossible with God. Translation, my God could change a vile sinner if he wants, even if that sin is really hard to eliminate. If he chooses not to, I still will be ok because I am not one of those sinners. In closing, you have never seen your God, but you have seen homosexuals. You will support your belief in this God because it GIVES YOU MEANING AND VALUE... even at the expense of other human beings... Egad. Blackfish
Amen to that. I'm not Christian. My love is. I'm learning, and learning from many good Christians in my opinion...and I understand this part, so Amen to that.
So then I was right. You're not a believer. Tell me. Did you accept my challenge? Oh wait. I know... you've already read it and find no other use for it because it did not change your life. If that's the case, the same logic could be appplied for second grade math. Why use it past 2nd grade? Why read the Bible if I already read it? I read it, so there. So what? I knew your indifference to whether or not I may be offended by a remark made about actual events against Christians was an indicator of your own personal hostility towards it. That's fine. It's your choice. Furthermore you've got a skewed concept of what "fundi's" think. I do not accept Calvinist theory. And furthermore, I do know for a fact that once you're saved YOU CAN turn away from God and no longer be saved. Sorry, but there's no debating with scripture that tells us to "work out our own soul's salvation in fear and trembling" or to "die daily" to self. Furthermore, by admitted faults, and sins, I am not bragging in it... or justifying it, or "ranking it" against homosexuality... btw-getting angry in traffic is a problem I actually have, and not the only one. As I've said, understanding that you are not attacking me systematically, but my beliefs, is another thing I struggle with. We (some of us "fundi's") take it to be personal because it does become our nature to be as scripture suggests "not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." So if I offend, I must ask forgiveness... and I sincerely do in this case, blackfish. My belief is this. That all have sinned and come short of God's glory, but that the gift of God is eternal life through His Son, Jesus. I also know that if we mess up and go back to a sinful lifestyle, no matter what category WE (not God) put it in, we still have hope. If we find our selves back in the rut of sin, and we ask forgiveness, He is faithful and just to forgive us of all unrighteousness (all sin). So then, by God's grace are we (who ever will ask) saved, because of our intitial faith (trust, belief) in Jesus. Not because of works... initially. But YES we should become obedient to His Word. To whom much is given, much is required. Also scripture tells us that if we know something is right (as in revealed to us, through scripture, after we've believed) and we don't do it, it is sin. But the failure on our part is to see living according to God's Word as a life choice, that allows abundance in life, as opposed to rules or regulations. We've got to realize that if God was gracious enoug to save us in the first place, we'll not be utterly cast down and discarded if we blunder and sin... so long as we acknowledge our need to make it right. The term is "repent." "Repentance" is making a 180 from the thing we should not be in... and going, striving, living in pursuit of the goals that God's Word record for our life. Turning from sin, toward God should be that 180 degree turn. It is not easy, due to our humanity, therefore we NEED God's grace to help us. When Paul prayed that the Lord would remove his stumbling block (sin or struggle) from his life, the Lord's reply was "my grace is all you need." Now this sounds difficult to grasp, or even like a carrot being dangled to a rabbit that can't jump high enough, but it is in fact very reassuring when understood. God's grace, once again, was something extended to us by God and God alone. So then, it is by Grace that we are saved, because we had Faith. The "Faith" part was the part where we came in. That term "faith" is when we made the choice to accept the Grace extended. No I haven't seen God, blackfish. But I would ask, have you seen the wind? I can see the effects that the wind has... and much the same with God. While it is very possible to discredit anything you want to by reading or writing opinions and theory... the changes in my personal life since I accepted Jesus in my life can not be discredited. I did not give up alcohol on my own. And it is not a will power issue either, for if that was the case I most likely would not have a weight issue to struggle with. I did not change my language habits because I got "churchy" either. It changed due to a change of heart... since then I have found that the Bible teaches that from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks... only a change of heart can make this happen. Do I let out an occasional curse word? Honestly? No... unless "crap" is a curse word, and to some, I'm sure it could be just as offensive. It's been 10+ years since the real change in my life. Although a struggle can still arise... That is the human side, the "flesh" and it's need to be under subjection to God. My point it still that I was personally offended by Moore's choice of words. Is that being over-sensitive? Maybe. But maybe not. What if society has just grown calloused? What if society is just insensitive to that because, "hey... those are only Christians." The phrase that Jesus used "turn the other cheek" actually indicates conflict, rather than passive fleeing from it. His point however, was to keep truning the other cheek... as in take a stand, and stand your ground without returning violence for violence. And on that note... I understand I have great flaws. For one... Jesus would have taken it without saying a word, just as he did while being beaten and mocked. I have a loooooong way to go in that regard. This why I'll freely admit that I am in no way perfect, or complete. Yet what bothers me is that some "Christians" must not read the word of God... not only the "new" but all of it. The issue at hand in that regard is this... my (I guess ONLY my) defintion of TRUE Christianity is someone endeavoring - striving toward - being like Christ, taking a realization that they have to remain teachable about the Scripture even if it chastises them. By NO means is this saying that "I have arrived at perfect one-ness with God." No. On the contrary, even though I know some of you think that's what I'm doing. Hey, if Paul says he has to forget what is behind him and press toward the mark of the high calling in Christ, then who am I to think I've arrived? Paul was talking about forgetting his achievements. By no stretch of anyone's imagination am I taking some stance of "I am better than you." FB and I will just have to agree to disagree, on this point. I am at fault for not obeying the admonishing of Titus by not "avoid[ing] foolish controversy." and I'll ask you to forgive me on that. And I don't know Fegwu, but I'm glad you openly claim Christ as well. Again, sorry if you don't get what I meant, and perhaps I am not communicating my point, but I am not preaching hatred. Sorry as well to you, Fegwu. And most of all to blackfish1, or anyone that I seem to have offended by letting my humanity show in my "SHUT UP" remark (directed, although in error) to Moore. I am sorry to offend. This, as is clear, in no way helps the cause of Christianity. I was over sensitive. I do however wish to say this. Why must you tear down Christianity after making this statement? I feel the issue I had was made clear, although uninvited. And in turn, calling me out, blasting my beliefs (however erroneously) and mocking why I would be offended is the same thing you jumped me about in the first place... uninvited. Again I make no claims, so don't read it into my posts, of being perfect, or the only one with the truth. I do believe others in the world would see my point... it was distasteful commentary coming from Moore, in that setting. I am not trying to divide the planet along religious lines, just asking for the same consideration and tolerance of my view that you ask of me. The golden rule if you will. If anyone desires to remain homosexual after learning my view that says that God is not pleased with it, that is their choice. Not mine. And one who chooses it should realize that if I do not, I may - in my humanity - make the preference just as known as they do. This is not hatred. It is a preference. The golden rule reciprocated would be that a homosexual should respect that a heterosexual does not want to be treated with hatred because he/she dislikes homosexuality. It does go both ways (no pun intended.) It is a great deal like the reverse racism issue... and before you go there people... NO I am not a racist. Homosexuals are not a race. And races are not colors of skin. There is one race, and it is human. All colors, all creeds, all sexual preferences. I am well aware of this fact. Don't think I don't know that homosexuality has "always" existed. By simple logic, if I believe in the Bible, and I do, anyone should realize that I already know that homosexuality has been here at least since it was first mentioned in scripture. But the fact that I choose to believe what scripture says about it during those first mentions of it, is as much a choice as anyone's choice to be or not be homosexual. I choose to believe the Bible on it. That is all. For me that is the final say. By simple logic again, If I choose to believe God has the final say, then that is where it stays... right where He "supposedly" dealt with it. I choose that. Does that make me as shallow about people that choose the lifestyle as is claimed? No. I don't hate people. I have relatives that are homosexual, and that were... but changed. I have people in my church that have been, and some that are. I don't see any difference though in all people's need for Jesus. I respect what you say, blackfish, about sin not being a bigger sin over another. Sin is sin. Whether murder, rape, lies, adultery... you name them, they are in one category to God... the sin category. I just find in my study, not just taking what I was told, but in my personal review of scripture, in context, in setting, that homosexuality is a sin. So I must, if I am to live what I believe, stand by that, and when asked or see the need, say as much. I think it only right, and responsible, to point out an oncoming train to a person standing on the train track. And if need be, I'll try my hardest to push them off the track, at the risk of personal injury or even death. That's my choice. If the Bible says it, I believe it. Sorry if that seems shallow, but I find it very deep.
<b>Originally posted by blackfish1 The President wants to rebuild Iraq by giving no-bid contracts to his vice president's company, that also supports his candidacy and interests, money that will be paid by Americans with no debt incurred by Iraqis, BUT AT THE SAME TIME the President wants to do this while giving a tax break to Halliburton and millionaires in this country. So effectively the President wants to put the costs of all this more on the middle class.</b> How many companies have the capability to do what needed to be done in Iraq-- paying particular attention to the scale of the work? Better that a French or German company do it? <b>Not only do poor and middle class Americans go to war as soldiers, ...</b> This sounds hauntingly like anti-draft rhetoric. BTW, the draft went by the wayside in 1973 or so. Why do people who voluntarily joined the military need anyone to save them from their choice? <b>(Is that very Christian to refuse a woman the right to limit the size of her family, but also to refuse her assistance if she has more children than she can handle because no other options were available? And please, don't talk to me about abstinance. That's about as effective a means of preventing birth among the poorly-educated as waving a magic wand. And don't talk to me about adoption, either: Millions upon millions of unwanted American children go unclaimed by both adoption AND the foster care system. It is not the great saving grace that Republicans would have us believe it is.)</b> "Limiting the size of her family" just has to be the ultimate euphemism for murder. You criticize Bush for sending troops, some who will die, in a pre-emptive defense of America yet you facilitate a woman who will kill her own chld before it makes its way into the world. What is her higher purpose besides keeping her life affordable and manageable? Is that really worth someone dying for? <b>ONE THING TO NOTE, Hebrews did not believe abortion was murder. There is no indication of murder in the scriptures related to abortion. Hebrews, and Christians it seems, believed that an individual became such at the moment of birth as the "breath of life" entered the lungs. Those that argue to the contrary are just lying.</b> I refuse to be held back by the Hebrews lack of scientific progress and general ignorance due to their acute lack of microscopy. <b>Conservative pastors such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would have us believe that morality is all about where you stand on abortion, how you treat homosexuals. I think that is simply wrong. As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God's side is the group that's feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat — not killing others, etc.</b> Something we agree about! Just had to toss that in there. <b>In this sense Democrats are more similar to Christ, they do not impose their religious convictions on others. You can be against abortion, but at the same time against government choosing for individuals... Jesus was for changing individuals independent of the course of government.</b> How do you see the Republicans imposing religious convictions on others? Weren't the Judeo-Christian stains on our government long before there were even Republicans? The pro-Life movement is not about government choosing for individuals, it's about not allowing individuals to choose for individuals-- as in a mother-to-be condemning her child to death. <b>Blind loyalty to a cause is no loyalty at all--I find it immoral.</b> My hunch is that the objections of vets to the anti-war rhetoric is that their character has been assasinated. Kerry and his ilk painted them as marauding psychopaths (I'm sure there were some of those) rather than as humans thrust into a hellish situation who would do what they had to do to survive. How do you have sympathy for an enemy who would booby-trap a child?Can you say with certainty that you would have reacted any differently than so many of the vets did? <b>... the thing I like about Kerry is that he doesn't put on the cloak of religion so cynically in order to appeal to the great unwashed.</b> Don't you not put on the cloak of religion precisely to appeal to the unwashed? <b>But if you want to split hairs, I'd say that Democrats are closer to doing God's work than Republicans, inasmuch as they actually give a damn about what happens to the poor.</b> How do you know how much anyone cares for the poor? How do you distinguish how much someone cares for the poor... unless you know that they are employed by virtue of their caring for the poor? The Democrat-inspired War on Poverty is our greatest battlefield loss. <b>The only instance in the Bible where Jesus acted in violence was where he saw the money changers in the temple, and He threw the tables over in anger. So it sounds like Jesus was also a prototypical activist against corporate greed. </b> May we see those incorporation papers? I'll also need a Hebrew translator. <b>Consider Ken Lay: Thousands upon thousands of his employees were literally stripped of everything they owned, while Ken Lay and all his Enron high-up cronies gained hundreds of millions of dollars at the employees' expense. George Bush used Ken Lay's private jet to campaign in 2000. And Ken Lay has slept in the Lincoln Bedroom. Does that make any Republican proud to be an American?</b> Are you naming President Bush as a conspirator? Are you saying that Bush knew what was going on at Enron before anybody else? Nobody in the public knew what was going on. This is just a brazen attempt at guilt by association. No wonder your work here is so lauded. <b>They also associate themselves with Christian morals obfuscating the issue of power and attracting voters through religion. They buy people without money by using religion.</b> The anti-religious use humanism. So what? Is the next step to outlaw religion?
Wow--I don't check this thread for a few days and there's so much to respond to. I knew this could become an addiction. First, IROC--I want to make sure that something is understood. I debate in a very agressive manner and can be rude sometimes. I know this. My challenges are going to be in your face (or whomever I'm debating with), and quarter given only when my own arguments have been sufficiently torn down. It is not personal. I assure you. I could have a 5 hour yelling debate with you and then go out for a beer with no problem. Short of you telling me you wanted to lynch a particular race or go club baby seals for fun, I'm not out to get you personally. I respect your right to your opinions but I will challenge them. I have no problem with receiving the same. In regards to your challenge to me to pray and then read the Bible, no--I have not yet taken up your challenge on that. If, however, as you said, you don't feel you have the only version of the truth, then how can you think that my mimicing your path to "truth" would work? I could well tell you to do the HokiePokie if that supposedly worked for me. Perhaps I will try your way sometime, but at this very moment I have a thread to respond to. I have problems with religion in general, and with some religious people, but I have no hatred for the religious in general. There is a difference between allowing one to believe what their heart tells them, and allowing the person to spread their ideas unchallenged. Ideas have impact when shared. Would you advocate that one not challenge the ideas of another? I still believe you are confusing the challenging of Christian ideas with the challenging of Christians. I know its pretty hard to distinguish the two because in reality you really can't... Christianity is partially spreading the word. That is part of the "faith in practice". But that is just the way it has to be. No need to apologize for it being shallow--I'm surprised you find it deep, though. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 1 Tim 3:16 People have used this one with me before, and I don't see why people think it is possible to answer the question, "How do you know what the bible says is true?" with "Because the bible says so." Would that answer satisfy questions you might have about the veracity of anyone else's statements? Here are a few examples: "How do you know the President is telling the truth?" "Because he said so." "How do you know this newspaper article is credible?" "Because the journalist said so." "How do you know OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife?" "Because he said so." You also never answered my questions about whether we should use the death penalty for blasphemers, as instructed by the Bible. How do you persoanlly decide what to pick and choose, since by your own admission the Bible is non-contradictory? Then you are choosing to deny reality. All behavioral trends can be changed through a sort of conditioning, but those changes are short term when the behavior being changed is hardwired. Homosexuality, evidence suggests very strongly, is hardwired and cannot be changed but through behavioral modifications. People do not choose their sexual orientation. You either are emotionally attracted to one, the other, or both, and therapy can make you supress those emotions by substituting them with other images, but like a candle in the dark, the light finds its way to the surface sooner or later. Its just like Christians fighting off their egocenteredness. It fails constantly because as soon as you get distracted, the hard wired tendencies of the human being created to survive emerge and recognize no morals beyond those which have been imposed by millions of years of evolution. Let me ask you this: Can a homosexual be "saved" and still be a homosexual? From what i read of your post man is involved in his own salvation. If man must actively ask God, than salvation starts from man, and his actions and not from God. If God is the one that causes man to ask actively, then what I said previously is still valid because God is the one pulling the strings and causing salvation for some and not for others. Now, if your answer to my question above is No, then if you believe man is involved in getting saved through actively seeking God, then how do you know that a homosexual cannot actively seek God and find him? Who decided that? It seems that you and all other Christians sin, so why does your sin rank on the less evil side of the spectrum, and a homosexual's is enough to exclude from salvation? Answer, because somebody said so. That somebody just happens to not like homosexuals. (I'm not assuming you have this belief--but many Christians do. What is your perspective?) Now on to other matters: In one word: bribery. France and Germany have no benefit to help President Bush. He is giving all reconstruction projects to Halliburton and to his base. Why would other countries go clean up the US mess with no visible benefit to present to constituents? Constituents view involvement in Iraq as risky. The muslim population in their countries is significant, and they don't want to get involved. There has to be significant monetary gain to face those risks... something George Bush is not willing to share. If he takes money away from his base why would they support him? John Kerry has supported the idea of major Arab involvement. Why is that not happening? Because the Neo-cons have a plan, not shared with the world, about US control in the region through US military installations, etc... The US has no intention of allowing democracy to push them out of Iraq. Do you think the Democratic elections in Iraq will have on the ballot groups that will kick the USA out of Iraq? It will not. Meanwhile, Hurray for Halliburton! Its great that Halliburton can subcontract work to others at a tenth of the price while keeping 100% of the appropriations from the government!! So taxpayers can pay Halliburton 1 million dollars for a job that Halliburton will then subcontract for 100K and then it can pocket the surplus. Quite a subsidy to Halliburton! I wonder how that works for middle class America? Because they are being in put in harms way for lies and deceptions. At least in WWII they were fighting for a noble cause. This was a fabricated war and hundreds of soldiers, who went voluntarily, yes, but were lied to as to the reasons, are now dead. But you'll be held back by other archaic Hebrew laws regarding homosexuality, creationsim, etc.? (You haven't actually stated your opinions on these matters--but please do clarify if you hold other opinions non-Biblically based.) Ummm...the proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage? How about battling for the Ten Commandments in the courthouses? Or battling for school prayer? Or the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Give me a break. I didn't say i have sympathy for them. I have compasison for both sides, the victims and the perpetrators regardless of nationality. But Kerry coming back and saying the *enemy* was committing atrocities would hardly have been courageous and newsworthy, would it? US soldiers, who were of course put forward as the good guys--fighting the good fight--committed unspeakable atrocities against teh Vietnamese. Not all of them, to be sure. But more than we probably care to admit. I have never been at war, so I don't know how I would react, but I can honestly say that my being at war would not excuse my actions in this regard, anymore than the soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq have much of a defense, in my mind. There is a thing called decency, and even in times of war one should not lose it. I'm not running for office and therefore not tryng to appeal to anybody. Policy. It's one thing to say one cares for the poor and wants to help. I don't believe Republicans are heartless. But back it up with policy. You can't tell me you care and then vote for legislation or candidates that accomplishes or does the opposite. Nice sound bite. what does that mean? Back that up. No. Dubya isn't quite clever enough to be a conspirator. the numbers are too big. I'll admit the argument on my part was vague. Both candidates are hugely wealthy, but I believe Bush caters more than anyone to the wealthy and corporate greed. It isn't Bush proposing a tax increase for the wealthy, after all. However, having said that, I think public policy requires specialists who understand the difference between subjective and objective. Politicians need to understand that a young man growing up in the ghetto will not have the same opportunities as a young boy growing up in a middle class Mormon family. The culture of progress, the goal driven mentality, the aspiring for personal empowerment and for aesthetic identity is irrelevant when you can't put the damn food on the table, when you live with rats, when most of the ladies in your building raise their kids as single mothers because hubby is MIA or in jail. Children grow influenced by that. The conservatives in this country take THE EXCEPTION of the child who pulls himself out of that situation and make it the rule AS IF ALL CHILDREN HAD THE SAME UNIQUE AND FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAME TOGETHER FOR THAT LUCKY CHILD. They say: "well if she could do it, every one could... screw the welfare state... I am not paying taxes to support the lazy bastards." That is the biggest lie of politics and it stems from the subjective mental construct that people are complete agents, that we CHOOSE our circumstances entirely. The politician can live that way, but cannot make policy that way. She must take reality as is, not as the mind projects it. This is where science and politics should meet, a rare occasion nowadays with Presidents who can barely spell their ****ing names. In any case, it is my experience that the democratic, or left platform is significantly more attractive to those who develop their social beliefs around legit science... of course there are those who use science to justify their "survival of the fit" mentality and lean more toward totalitarian mind sets. Where the elite is "my base." How far are we really from all that... what does your gut tell you? Not at all. But those who use religion as a rallying point and then act in direct opposite the tenets of said religion is hypocrisy, and should be called on it. Humanism isn't anti religion, either. Religion is often anti-humanist, though. Egad. Blackfish
"God loved the world and sent His Son...." That was first. "Whoever believes in Him will not perish..." That is second, in response to God's Grace (man's choice). "But rather, have life everlasting." And that is eternal. btw- I still have never said that a homosexual cannot be saved. Just as I've never said an alcoholic cannot be saved. But if the alcoholic, as in my case, is rid of the addiction after accepting Christ without going through any programs, and is sober 10+ years, is he/she an alcoholic? I just have seen some amazing transformation in lives, including my own, that indicate that anyone living in opposition to the Bible can be changed... I understand that the world's system may still call it alcoholism, or reformed alcoholic... but I am a new creature. I am different. The modern tendancy is to water down the Word of God, make following Christ a marketable, personal genie type experience...That is true hypocrisy. I'm saying that I found results in Jesus. I could have been in any category, and still He gave me a chance. I believe no matter who you are, or what you do... you can be saved, if you ask.
C'mon IROC--i asked oodles of of questions in my post and you barely touched on any of them. What about the literalness of the Bible? And can homosexual still be a homosexual and be saved? (Ie. continue to be a practicing homosexual) Also, since the evidence is hugely strong that homosexuality is not a choice but a born trait, and given that God is in control...why would God make some people born into a sinful lifestyle out of their control? This isn't like alcoholism, which is known to be hereditary and is a medical condition. This is sexual preference. Why would God do this? I'm glad your belief in Christ has helped you so much. I would propose that it was you who did it and not Christ, since I can count numerous people who ask Christ for help and hear no answer. You did it. That impresses me a lot more. B
I could not do it myself. Christ did it, as in "Through Christ, I can do all things." -Phil. 4:13 So yes. I did it, with the help of my Lord. Look, I know you will not be changed by anything I say. This is precisely why I challenged you to read it the way I said to read it, after a sincere prayer. If you choose not to do anything but dodge my clear response, that ANYONE can be changed through Christ... well I am sorry. No, I don't believe that any sinful lifestyle, at all, can be continued in knowingly (knowing that it is sin according to the Bible) once you are a believer. I believe ANYONE can be changed. I believe that "Through Christ," a homosexual can be changed to a heterosexual. But it still boils down to the individuals choice to at least try. God's Grace is beyond my comprehension... I can not fathom that while I was yet in sin, He had still done the work of Calvary on my behalf, so that IF I chose to believe it (a very daring thing) I would find salvation. Making Him Lord of my life is the further, on going choice. Sorry if you disagree. But that is what I believe. I tried.
Answer the damn questions!! This isn't about changing you or me--you're dodging the question. The Bible is infallible to you and is non-contradictory. Should we then condemn blasphemers to death? Should women stay silent in church? Bladeblad de frickin bla. Oh yeah--and that one too. Fine. you believe someone can turn homosexual. fascinating idea. But answer my question. In terms of Christ/God answering prayers. Also fascinating. Pray tell why some prayers go unanswered and others are. B
<b>blackfish1: "Ummm...the proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage? How about battling for the Ten Commandments in the courthouses? Or battling for school prayer? Or the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Give me a break."</b> How is the phe proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage inspired by imposed religion? Most of the arguments against it seem to be linked to some notion of Natural Order or Tradition or Economy. Of course there are the Pat Robertsons, etc. And just to screw your prejudice up a little: I am a Republican. I am a Christian. I am for gay marriage. I don't think that churches should be compelled to perform them, but I think that citizens who want to be married and churches who want to marry those citizens should do so and enjoy the financial and legal benefits of committed loving relationships. Ten Commandments and other religious symbolism long-existed and pre-dated Republicanism. They are fighting to keep it. How is that an imposition? Same with school prayer. That used to be a natural part of our public education. Indeed it is still a natural part of our congressional sessions. Those settings pre-dated Republicans. Who was imposing it at that time? Give me a break indeed....
Context. The Holy Spirit determines who blasphemes, not me. In Acts, Annanias & Saphirra (sp?) were dropped dead by the Holy Spirit for lying to Him... not my call. And who I am to judge that? I'll not try and do that job. And in this setting about women remaining silent, the context is that in the culture, men and women sat on opposite sides, actually men in front and women in back... then if women had a question (and in that culture were only allowed to ask their husbands) it would create a disruption of the meeting for them to shout over a crowd to ask a question, Thankfully this is not a cultural issue now. I do know that there are still some who take this to mean that women cannot minister. To this I would point out the ministry of Mary to her Son, the ministry of Lydia to and with Paul, or of Cleo. There are several things taken out of context that, unfortunately, mislead believers and those not claiming to believe all the time. Other arguements over dietary and clothing rules spring to mind. But context, what it meant then and there, then application in modern terms is the key. I believe the points about dress are more to the issue of modesty than actual garments for example.... I believe some may be more pre-disposed to homosexuality, and that some may also willingly choose it. But EITHER case can be changed by God. As to unanswered prayers. God is not our personal genie. So then, some answers may very well be "no" or "not in that way." I don't see where we have the right to place an order for things that are not in God's Word or out of His Will and see Him jump through hoops. I wouldn't want a god that was on the leash of human whimsy. That would be no God, but trickery. Not every prayer is answered with a "yes" or a "definitely" or in the way that we would expect. That would counter the very nature of God's sovereignty. Again, I will not question God on this, as it is fully His domain, not mine. I fear God enough, with a healthy respect, to not try and second guess Him or His decisions. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom... Sometimes an answer of "no" is a far better service to us. This is evident in earthly parent to children relationships as well. If a toddler wants to pet an african tree frog that is poisionous because it's pretty, should they? No. Not everything we want, or at the time think we may even need, is best for us. God in His sovereignty knows this well before we do. This goes hand in hand with the "memo" - the Bible - already being given to us. It would save us a lot of grief and misguided prayer time, and a feeling of unanswered-ness (<---not a word ) or the alone feeling if we'd first understand how to pray in accordance with His Word. Although some feel that Christians see Him as such, God is not the "big sugar daddy in the sky" some make Him out to be. Just as with the child and parent, sometimes correction and disciple come with what we view as "silence." We are after all allowed to go through some trials in life to learn perserverance and character. Even Garth Brooks had a secular song that kind of got this point, "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers." He was sort of right... they are not unanswered though. The answers are just sometimes "no."
