SJ Bills backer Posted November 11, 2004 Author Posted November 11, 2004 Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks. 112245[/snapback] even better than Campy's link!!! http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=874
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 and this might have been the most all time none response to a post in TSW history. 112268[/snapback] I simply did what you requested...you meant for that search to make all of us laugh or were you being serious
OnTheRocks Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I simply did what you requested...you meant for that search to make all of us laugh or were you being serious 112272[/snapback] actually the intent was to encourage some folks to do a study of Dispensational Truth. not necesarrily the first link that comes up on a Google Search. which by the way i did not do so i am not sure what comes up. you have made it clear that you reject the Bible as truth. That is your decision. I don't see a need to attempt to pursuade you. You go your way and I will go mine. 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11: 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: Have at it.
ICE Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Well all I can say is Gods word IS literal. Twist it, mock it all you want. funny thing though about Gods word...IF you guys were right Christians have nothing to worry about when we die. IF we are right...
erynthered Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 actually the intent was to encourage some folks to do a study of Dispensational Truth. not necesarrily the first link that comes up on a Google Search. which by the way i did not do so i am not sure what comes up. you have made it clear that you reject the Bible as truth. That is your decision. I don't see a need to attempt to pursuade you. You go your way and I will go mine. 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11: 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: Have at it. 112282[/snapback] Nice post, BTW, you owe GG .02 cents for your Google reference.
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 actually the intent was to encourage some folks to do a study of Dispensational Truth. not necesarrily the first link that comes up on a Google Search. which by the way i did not do so i am not sure what comes up. you have made it clear that you reject the Bible as truth. That is your decision. I don't see a need to attempt to pursuade you. You go your way and I will go mine. 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11: 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: Have at it. 112282[/snapback] I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours
blzrul Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 "Deceivableness"? Now I know where Bush gets his vocabulary.
erynthered Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I'm a practicing Catholic...don't be so quick to judge...my relationship with God is mine....you get it... not yours 112309[/snapback] I guess you didnt learn sharing in third grade............
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Nice post, BTW, you owe GG .02 cents for your Google reference. 112298[/snapback] I owe GG..i actually did the search
erynthered Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 I owe GG..i actually did the search 112314[/snapback] You're right, I'm sorry. He did make mention though. You should get a discount. On second thought, Naaaaaa.
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 even better than Campy's link!!!http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=874 112269[/snapback] Classic......now that the election is over its fun to enjoy political humor.......this administration...So Icky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Arondale Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Have fun with this one, folks!One more not so subtle reminder NOT to take the Bible literally... Dear President Bush: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? (NB - I would vote YES here - I love the smell of charred animal flesh in the morning! Smells like... STEAK!) 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? (NB - what about homosexuals EATING shellfish - or heaven forbid - a sea cucumber!) 7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. 112088[/snapback] Still, there's some rather obvious dangers in a govt which ties policies too closely to moral values of particular religion of choice. I would hope that we in the US can avoid some of these errors.112088[/snapback] 1) So I guess we should consider the Constitution and the foundation of this country dangerous since they were tied closely "to moral values of particular religion of choice". I'm not going to debate whether this country was founded with 100% all Christian values, but you can't deny that the foundation of this country was based on or tied to morals of Christianity. 2) It is the most ridiculous argument when people try to pull things from the Bible, or any book for that matter, without any understanding of their context, their place in the entirety of the book, etc. You did not pull anything from the New Testament, which clearly indicates you have no understanding of the Bible. If you are going to quote scripture at least try to have an understanding of scripture in its entirety, not little passages here and there that you think prove your point. That would be like watching one half of a football game, or reading one half of a book and stating that you know everything else that happens in the rest of the game or book. To give a Bills' example, under that scenario, after the first half of the Houston playoff game you would have determined the Bills got demolished by Houston. Even the next day, with the newspaper reports and tv highlights right there for you to see, you would have stated that you watched them get killed in the first half so you know they actually lost. You wouldn't have watched the Super Bowl since you knew the Bills got killed after the first half of the Houston game. Even now, you would deny the Bills played in the Super Bowl that year and point to the first half of the Houston game as proof. I know it sounds like a stupid analogy, but that is exactly what you are doing with this post.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Why the f**ck should we care if two gay people want to be married? I have yet to hear a logical (ie: not ideological) answer to this question. 112231[/snapback] Because it's not right. That's the problem with you liberals. You have no standards of right and wrong. Everything's relative. Whatever makes ya feel good baby!!
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Because it's not right. That's the problem with you liberals. You have no standards of right and wrong. Everything's relative. Whatever makes ya feel good baby!! 112569[/snapback] To me anyway, it's less a question of "whatever makes you feel good," and more a question of extending the rights of two people who've entered into a committed relationship having the same priviledges as the rest of us. Personally, I think homosexuality is pretty gross and it contradicts my standards of what a marriage should be. But to deny those people the same rights that the rest of us enjoy is, IMO, nothing short of discriminatory. The only place in the Constitution where I saw discrimination was in reference to women and blacks, and those shortcomings have long since been rectified. Since homosexuals are recognized as a group, hence their inclusion as victims in hate-crimes, how can we justify dicriminating against them when it comes to the legal rights of matrimony?
ASCI Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 What an idiot! For Christians the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. Try as you may, you will never find any fault in the words of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe JC to be the Son of God or just and an enlighten philosopher if you model your life after him you will live a perfect life. I have tried and failed many times. Its not easy!
MichFan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks. Campy - the link you provided does not contain the word bible or scripture. Nice try, thanks for playing. VABledsoe - A quote does not a link make. Funny how you libs keep trying to pin your talking points on Bush. Before the election it was that he flip-flopped on civil unions, and I proved to the kool-aiders that Bush has consistently supported states rights to allow civil unions. Now you attempt to imply through jest that Bush selectively uses biblical references when it supports his policies yet flatly rejects them when they get in the way. Again, not true. He is a man of faith and prays to his Lord. Why hold this against him and claim that he governs from the Bible? Gay marriage and questions of when life begins are issues in main stream society, they are not purely religious issues. Bush has done an excellent job keeping these as social issues from a governmental perspective. Quit trying to produce something that isn't there for your own convenience. Just because evangelicals align with conservative social policies does not mean that conservative social policies originate from scripture. This morals thing is just eating you libs up -- first that morals are even important, second that you've got no clue what voters mean when they say morals. Here's a hint -- the talking heads on T.V. who claim to have spent time in flyover country to get in touch with middle America must have spent their time in the wrong places because they still don't have a clue. Start thinking for yourselves because they are no help. (Campy and VABledsoe -- you guys actually seem to be a little more thoughtful and moderate so this paragraph isn't so much targeted at you as it is the bleeding hearts).
MichFan Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Personally, I think homosexuality is pretty gross and it contradicts my standards of what a marriage should be. But to deny those people the same rights that the rest of us enjoy is, IMO, nothing short of discriminatory. The only place in the Constitution where I saw discrimination was in reference to women and blacks, and those shortcomings have long since been rectified. Since homosexuals are recognized as a group, hence their inclusion as victims in hate-crimes, how can we justify dicriminating against them when it comes to the legal rights of matrimony? Society should take one of two positions on marriage. Either it is a union between a man and a woman, or it is a union between anyone who freely enters it. In the latter position, that would allow for polygamy and intra-family marriage in addition to gay marriage. When African-Americans were extended equal rights under the Constitution, we didn't continue to separate Hispanics and Asians -- essentially all minorities have been provided the same freedoms. When women were granted the right to vote, we didn't tell transsexuals that they still didn't have any rights. So why should marriage be redefined to fit only one group of people? If you're going to open it up on the grounds of freedom, open it all the way as we have historically done in this country. I'm 100% against such a change, but it is the height of hypocracy for libs to say we should expand freedoms but limit them to one group.
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 Campy - the link you provided does not contain the word bible or scripture. Nice try, thanks for playing. VABledsoe - A quote does not a link make. Funny how you libs keep trying to pin your talking points on Bush. Before the election it was that he flip-flopped on civil unions, and I proved to the kool-aiders that Bush has consistently supported states rights to allow civil unions. Now you attempt to imply through jest that Bush selectively uses biblical references when it supports his policies yet flatly rejects them when they get in the way. Again, not true. He is a man of faith and prays to his Lord. Why hold this against him and claim that he governs from the Bible? Gay marriage and questions of when life begins are issues in main stream society, they are not purely religious issues. Bush has done an excellent job keeping these as social issues from a governmental perspective. Quit trying to produce something that isn't there for your own convenience. Just because evangelicals align with conservative social policies does not mean that conservative social policies originate from scripture. This morals thing is just eating you libs up -- first that morals are even important, second that you've got no clue what voters mean when they say morals. Here's a hint -- the talking heads on T.V. who claim to have spent time in flyover country to get in touch with middle America must have spent their time in the wrong places because they still don't have a clue. Start thinking for yourselves because they are no help. (Campy and VABledsoe -- you guys actually seem to be a little more thoughtful and moderate so this paragraph isn't so much targeted at you as it is the bleeding hearts). 112624[/snapback] When asked directly about gay marriage, he quoted scripture to avoid directly answering the question saying that he shouldn't try to "remove a speck from their eye when you have log in your own." It really doesn't get much more blatant than that, unless you're looking for him to say "God hates fags," and I'm fairly sure his handlers would prevent him from saying that, don't you? On what grounds, if not religious, do you think Bush opposes gay marriage? Ar you implying he's a bigot, or merely homophobic?
KRC Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 What an idiot! For Christians the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. Try as you may, you will never find any fault in the words of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe JC to be the Son of God or just and an enlighten philosopher if you model your life after him you will live a perfect life. I have tried and failed many times. Its not easy! 112607[/snapback] Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:… “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:1-2, 9) These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:5, 34) He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) So, if I interpret Jesus’ words correctly: He is not here for peace but wants others to be peaceful, we are to buy swords but not draw them. Do you see any contradictions? If we were to follow His words then we are to be peaceful, but His words specifically state that he is not here for peace.
Campy Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 but it is the height of hypocracy for libs to say we should expand freedoms but limit them to one group. 112639[/snapback] Exactly my point. While noone is asking for marriage to be more than a commitment between two people, we shouldn't impose limits on people of any one group, be they black, Hispanic, or gay.
Recommended Posts