Florida Congressman sends dirty email to teens

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I thought values of being pro-social programs and helping out the less fortunate vs. Tax cuts, was a more Christian value? - Yes, that is a bit of a generalization, but true for the most part.

Actually Charity is a value found in scriptures. It is a responsibility of every Christian both individually and to a lesser extent as a church. The problem with government social programs is it robs those who work and are often wroth with government waste. The government is there for rule of law and for war. It doesn't function well when it ventures into other areas. Regarding tax cuts do you realize how hard it is for a family to make ends meet. When the norm used to be for mothers to stay home at least when the children were young; now it often takes the two incomes to break even. The greatest single drain on a family is taxes.

Or maybe you are talking about democrats being more pro-gay marriage? Or did you forget that part in the bible where it talks about tolerance?

Really, where?

You talk about pro-life and pro-choice, but what exactly have the republicans done apart from pay a bit of lip service to the movement? They've done nothing for the most part. They give you false hope for change if anything.

Then why are the Democrats so scared of the presidents nominations for federal judges? I guess a false hope of change beats an almost certain change for the worse. Not many Christian fundamentalists see the Republican party as God's party. They just recognize the hostility within the Democrat's party to wards them and their values.

I wouldn't mind you talking more about the values which the republicans support - and how the democrats greet you with open hostility.

Bush has spoken against same sex marriage. He speaks openly about an active faith and prayer life. He refused funding for embryonic stem cell research. I haven't checked but, I wouldn't be surprised if every state referendum defining a marriage as between a man and a woman was put on the ballot by Republicans. I honestly doubt a Democrat could be successfully nominated by his party today who didn't support abortion. Am I off base there? We hear Bush ridiculed for his Christian values by Democrats all the time. I'm suprised you even asked the question.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Interesting Cheese, Reading that definition being as a miscarriage only results in a fine, it would appear that fetus's are being regarded as less than human via Mosaic law? But rather if any harm comes to the mother, that is punishable.

I haven't read the passages, but maybe CB, you could point me in the direction of the scripture you are talking about?

Ex 21:22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.22And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Cheese either paraphrased or used a translation that isn't literal. In the last
50 years several english translations have been produced that yield to the ideology of the group that sponsors the translation. There is even a gender neutral translation for feminist minded folks. In them God ceases to be a he.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He speaks openly about an active faith and prayer life.

You complain that the Democrats are only Christian on Sunday morning, but you believe this deceitful, suspicious, unforgiving and even violent man is a Christian because he says he prays a lot? Are you really that gullible?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You complain that the Democrats are only Christian on Sunday morning, but you believe this deceitful, suspicious, unforgiving and even violent man is a Christian because he says he prays a lot? Are you really that gullible?

Interesting post. In fact, Al Gore is likely a far more sincere Christian than Bush. Jimmy Carter has them both beat.

Bush just prays a little louder than most. Christ had some interesting things to say about people who pray out loud, too.

Calgaryborn: there are plenty of things in the Old Testament. There are also plenty of things in Mosaic law. Why does a church, an imperfect human organization, get to pick and choose those parts that it would prefer to use, because they're in keeping with their current ideology? That seems hypocritical to me.

My understanding is that Christianity is about love, not hatred, in any case. It would be more consistent to listen to the core lessons of the Bible, and use them to inform your life. If you believe that the core lesson of the Bible is "gay people are going to hell," then you need to read it again. More carefully. The core lessons are love, forgiveness and redemption, not hatred and punishment.

Saying "I hate sodomy" and not "I hate sodomites" is just silly semantics anyway. Let me ask you this: what if two men like to live together and engage in acts other than sodomy? What if they just like to smooch? Or if they just cuddle and share affection and romantic love? Is God OK with that?

My guess is you'll say no--which means it's not the act that's the problem, it's the actors. And those actors are generally not hurting anybody.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Interesting post. In fact, Al Gore is likely a far more sincere Christian than Bush. Jimmy Carter has them both beat.

Al Gore is into New Age and Jimmy Carter is hardly a fundamentalist.

Bush just prays a little louder than most. Christ had some interesting things to say about people who pray out loud, too.

Maybe, but I do like his nominations for federal judges and his position on other issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

Calgaryborn: there are plenty of things in the Old Testament. There are also plenty of things in Mosaic law. Why does a church, an imperfect human organization, get to pick and choose those parts that it would prefer to use, because they're in keeping with their current ideology? That seems hypocritical to me.

A church shouldn't just pick and choose what they follow. We are not under the Mosaic law because the Bible says we are not. But the fact remains God authored that scripture and it does reveal His opinion on a variety of subjects. For the record; If I had the power I wouldn't outlaw sodomy. I see no reason to pick on that particular sin. I'm also in favour of allowing sodomites to enter into legal contracts akin to marriage if they seek such protection. The reason why I don't agree with society allowing them to marry is because that would afford them the same benefits that government has given the heterosexual marriage. Next the polygamists will ask for the same perks and eventually the special provisions afforded the heterosexual marriage will no long give them an advantage. The whole reason society gave tax breaks and surviver pensions and the such to married couples is because they produce the next generation and pass along the traditions and morality of that said society.

My understanding is that Christianity is about love, not hatred, in any case. It would be more consistent to listen to the core lessons of the Bible, and use them to inform your life. If you believe that the core lesson of the Bible is "gay people are going to hell," then you need to read it again. More carefully. The core lessons are love, forgiveness and redemption, not hatred and punishment.

You just got through accusing Fundamentalist of picking and choosing and then you recommend I pick and choose. Can you see the contradiction. Do you suppose that the first century Christians went about with this core message and yet got hunted down, attacked, and killed in the first centuries. Read Acts 7 and tell me what the first Christian martyr was killed for. Was he guilty of not choosing the right core beliefs?

Saying "I hate sodomy" and not "I hate sodomites" is just silly semantics anyway. Let me ask you this: what if two men like to live together and engage in acts other than sodomy? What if they just like to smooch? Or if they just cuddle and share affection and romantic love? Is God OK with that?

My guess is you'll say no--which means it's not the act that's the problem, it's the actors. And those actors are generally not hurting anybody.

Actually it was a sin for a man to lay with another man as one would lay with a women in the old testament. The New Testament even goes as far as suggesting that it is a sin for a man to act effeminate. Read Rom 1:26-32 and tell me God is ok with same sex unions of any kind.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Al Gore is into New Age and Jimmy Carter is hardly a fundamentalist.

Al Gore is a practicing Baptist. Who said anything about Jimmy Carter being a fundamentalist?

I don't even believe in this stuff and I know I'd qualify as a better Christian than George Bush.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You just got through accusing Fundamentalist of picking and choosing and then you recommend I pick and choose. Can you see the contradiction. Do you suppose that the first century Christians went about with this core message and yet got hunted down, attacked, and killed in the first centuries. Read Acts 7 and tell me what the first Christian martyr was killed for. Was he guilty of not choosing the right core beliefs?

I'm not (or not intending to) accuse anyone of anything. Frankly, I don't know enough about Fundamentalist doctrine to do so. What I am suggesting is that the Bible is a big book, with a lot of stuff--and that in order to create a modern code of conduct, addressing issues that were unimaginable to the human beings who wrote this stuff down, and to the other human beings who translated it from one human language to another human language--to do that involves some picking and choosing. The most famous passage that condemns homosexuality is from Leviticus--but Leviticus contains all sorts of things that given our modern society are inapplicable.

What I'm suggesting is that we treat it like a parable--a mode of teaching that as you know Christ was very fond of--rather than treating it like a book of laws, which is (and don't take this the wrong way) the way the pharisees read scripture. Christ had a different take--he had core moral lessons that he wanted to teach about how people should treat one another. It sounds like part of the problem is that I want to treat it (the Bible, but the Gospel in particular) as a source of moral and ethical (i.e. personal) truth, as opposed to a set of practical principles and codes of conduct.

FYI--Al Gore is a born-again Christian. As you know, Jimmy Carter is a baptist, and widely considered a good one by those who don't think God loves economic conservatives more than liberals. I didn't say either was a fundamentalist--just that in my judgement, they're more sincere Christians than Bush, who strikes me as a hypocrite. I don't believe in Hell, as you might guess--but if there is a Hell, Bush will get his in the end, I guess.

Good discussion, btw! Although we disagree on most of this, and probably always will, I've learned a little about your position from reading your posts, which is a valuable thing.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fotze

What is a sodomite? Is this someone who deals with the anal cavity? Does it have to be the same sex? Are doctors sodomites since they sodomize their patients? Does one have to gain pleasure from the sodomizing process to be a sodomite? If a doctor is getting a fat paycheck that supports a very nice lifelstyle and his duties include probing, is that sodomy?

What is you are with your wife and something happens to go south purely by accident, does God allow for a 'buffer depth' you can go?

Don't worry, you're safe.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ex 21:22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.22And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Cheese either paraphrased or used a translation that isn't literal. In the last
50 years several english translations have been produced that yield to the ideology of the group that sponsors the translation. There is even a gender neutral translation for feminist minded folks. In them God ceases to be a he.

All Christians use translations of the bible...your quote means no more than this....

If two men fight and cause a woman to miscarry, but do not hurt her, then the one who hurt her shall pay her husband an amount determined by the judges. Only if the woman dies is the punishment to be death. Apparently, then, with respect to abortion, God is pro-choice since he considers a woman's life to be more important that that of the fetus.

Heres more stuff from your Bible on abortion..

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I don't know why anyone *****foots around this CalgaryBornAgain guy? He is everything that he reportedly hates. He's judgmental, he makes garbage up, he massages the scriptures to fit his position, and he openly hates those that do not believe what he believes. He's everything that a good Evangenlical Christian is all about! All you have to do is read the garbage he posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Al Gore is into New Age and Jimmy Carter is hardly a fundamentalist.

As pointed out, Gore is a practicing Baptist, as is Carter. No one claimed they were fundamentalists. That is a good thing. Fundamentalists are a bunch of wackos who would have us living in the dark and reading only the bible. Hmmmm, sounds very much like those Islamists that are supposed to be a threat to our way of life!

Maybe, but I do like his nominations for federal judges and his position on other issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

Of course you like them, they openly support your stance and worry nothing for the law of the people. What I find interesting is that both men have become Conservatives of opportunity, much like Bush became a Christian of opportunity. I don't like people who make political or religious choices (values) based on how they can improve their lot in life.

A church shouldn't just pick and choose what they follow.

Yet the Christian faiths do just that. That's what makes each of the Christian church's different, bonehead, is that the leadership pick and chose exactly what parts of the bible were worth of following.

But the fact remains God authored that scripture and it does reveal His opinion on a variety of subjects.

That is incorrect. Man authored the scriptures. The scriptures were authored by dozens of individuals and translated from multiple languages. They are the interpretation of events and parables by man. God had nothing to do with it. There is more than enough proof of that from theologians from multiple religions.

For the record; If I had the power I wouldn't outlaw sodomy. I see no reason to pick on that particular sin. I'm also in favour of allowing sodomites to enter into legal contracts akin to marriage if they seek such protection.

Yeah, I figured you liked it in the kiester.

The reason why I don't agree with society allowing them to marry is because that would afford them the same benefits that government has given the heterosexual marriage. Next the polygamists will ask for the same perks and eventually the special provisions afforded the heterosexual marriage will no long give them an advantage. The whole reason society gave tax breaks and surviver pensions and the such to married couples is because they produce the next generation and pass along the traditions and morality of that said society.

Dude, stick to murdering the scriptures with you goofy interpretations because your interpretations of what is legal and righteous in that regard are weak. Human Rights are not about the "same perks and eventually the special provisions" afforded to anyone. They are a base set of rules that apply to EVERYONE regardless of their sex, race, religious or sexual orientation. Societal morality is also not something that one particular demographic gets to choose, it is a culminations of all points of view and deemed what is the median values acceptable to the majority. Those morals are always shifting to meet the needs of the society and the times in which we live. Morals are not an antique sideboard that can be passed down from generation to generation. Morals change as each generation adapts to the ever changing world. If part of that change in morals is to allow homsexuals and polygamists to have the same rights as the rest of us, oh well, thems the breaks. IMO that's a good thing as it shows that we are FINALLY all becoming the same and not classified by some garbage that we choose to listen to/ignore on Sundays.

You just got through accusing Fundamentalist of picking and choosing and then you recommend I pick and choose. Can you see the contradiction. Do you suppose that the first century Christians went about with this core message and yet got hunted down, attacked, and killed in the first centuries. Read Acts 7 and tell me what the first Christian martyr was killed for. Was he guilty of not choosing the right core beliefs?

This always kills me. You religious nutbars love to bring out all of these historical instances that support your position, but if you are really that big into this **** why are you wearing manufactured clothing, why are you living in industrial heated/cooled homes, why do you drive around in cars, why do you use the internet and all the modern conviences we have available to us? If you're so hung up on what happened in 7 AD why aren't you wearing a sheet and riding an ass to work (this has nothing to do with sodomy, no matter how much you wish it was)? You say you don't pick and choose, but your actions speak much louder than your words.

Actually it was a sin for a man to lay with another man as one would lay with a women in the old testament. The New Testament even goes as far as suggesting that it is a sin for a man to act effeminate. Read Rom 1:26-32 and tell me God is ok with same sex unions of any kind.

God created man in his own image. It says so in the bible. So if God did that, I think that proves that homosexuals are also a creation of God. If God loves all of his children, then he loves homosexuals too. If homosexuality is a sin, then that's okay too, because God is all forgiving. Frankly, all of your bluster about sin and hate and crap is all a pile of garbage. According to Evangelical Christians, you can sin all you want, your whole life if you so desire, but if you accept Jesus into your heart before you die you WILL go to heaven. I guess that explains why all them death row fellas convert before they are barbequed! CalgaryBornAgain, embrace your version of "heaven", where all the rapists, murders and true sodomites are welcome. Those Christians of opportunity will be seated at the same table as you for eternity. Enjoy!

[Flash Walken]

I can't imagine this is going to go over well...but I don't really disagree.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The government is there for rule of law and for war. It doesn't function well when it ventures into other areas.

With the exception of, at least in your opinion it would seem, introducing personal religious beliefs into government.

[Bobblehead]

And now rumours of an impending purge...

Immediately after the Mark Foley scandal broke, some anti-Republican gay-rights activists composed a memo containing the names of closeted gay Republican Congressional staffers and sent it to leading Christian-right advocacy groups.

Based on The List's contents, Wildmon is convinced that a secretive gay "clique" boring within the Republican-controlled Congress is responsible for covering up Foley's sexual predation toward teenage male House pages. Moreover, Wildmon calls on the Republican Party leadership to promptly purge the "subversive" gay staffers.

link

[CaramonLS]

Sounds like a perfectly rational, legal and reasonable response.