Story Comments
Posted by: raats6662 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user75 Replies
-
Neutral
airglide1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn't this backward? It should be "Who is on Jesus side". He isn't republican or democrat. As for the candidates, if these are the best, we aren't doing very well.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply
loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who gives a rat's a$$ about what side you're on if your side is corrupt, incompetent, greedy, likes kicking a$$, and thinks they're better than others?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charlson:
You realize, of course, that your insightful and descriptive language applies to BOTH the Republicrats and the Demacoms????
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess by the neg, I can assume that good ole Tess doesn't like me putting her Republican friends in the same category as those other guys......
LOL!!!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, Jesus wouldn't be a Republican. My one nitpick is that Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute :P That's just a myth from when the Catholic Church declared her one, then changed its mind.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"My one nitpick is that Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute :P That's just a myth from when the Catholic Church declared her one, then changed its mind. "
It's still debated among theologians.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Jesus would be surrounded by gays prostitutes and drug dealers?
Have you read Leviticus?"
Bang. There goes your credibility. Leviticus predates Christ. Christ was regularly in the presence of the marginalized including prostitutes (woman at the well). If you've read the Bible, in particular the NT with an eye towards historical context, you'd know this.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excepting the Fact that Jesus said he was not here to change the OT laws. That we were to still follow them.
(I have read the Bible. Cover to cover 3 times. Plan to do so again this fall. Even Books like Numbers that most people think drag on.)
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Gal 2:15-16, NIV
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Shadowolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Where in this can be read you can hate gays???)
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Old Testament is irrelevant, except that it provides historical perspective.
The New Testament is the word of God. Jesus preached tolerance.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
eddie1071 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mary was of the house of David, she was royalty. Not a theory, absolute fact. The thought that she would be a prostitute is mildly amusing considering her position in society.
She was demonized just because she was a woman, sort of reminds me of how our media has jumped on Obama boat, and are now throwing stones at Clinton.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party at the outset, and it was her poor choices for campaign leaders, underestimation of the potential and expertise of Obama and his campaign mangers, penchant for employing dirty tricks when realization and desperation set in, and her attitude of brushing it aside when she used her Bosnia trip to give validity to her level of experience, only to be caught in a lie.
She played into the hysteria over Rev, Wright's 30 second sound bites, but cried foul when Obama made a valid criticism of her health care plan. People became turned off and tuned out to her antics. At one point, I would not have been upset if she were to be the nominee; now, I would hurt me to my heart! She's not worthy.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wouldn't know, haven't heard it, and I would definitely check to verify it, so if you care to share it, also provide the proof.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7eBTFSv7nE&feat...
I believe that he meant to say 47 and that it was a slip of the tongue. However, seeing how the media (and myself) trashed Clinton for her Bosnia remarks, seeing as how ther media and the left have trashed McCains "100 years" remark, and remembering how Dan Quayle was all but crucified for spelling potato "potatoe" (even though it is a correct spelling) I figure that we should not give Barry a pass.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
then how did mary end up with a lower middle class carpenter?
and for hillary, being a woman is the least of her problems. her biggest problem is wreaking of ruthless ambition.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
raats6662
The problem is not what the Republican stand for but what the liberals say the Republicans stand for. Your post says it. You say hate but that is not reality but only your view of it.
Conservatives that are Christians will view homosexuality through the Bible. God calls the actions an abomination. We are to love the person but hate the sin. Therefore you twist it into just hate.
Again the view of people breaking the law and being in the US illegally is wrong. They should conform to the law and leave. Again you twist this into hatred for illegal and legal immigrants.
Your hatred of conservative and family values is the problem. No constructive exchange of ideas just vitriol.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since God created everything, that means he created good and evil, Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve. Everything means everything.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As well as predestination, which if you think about it kinda kills the whole free will thing.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as the end is predetermined what happens in the middle is inconsequential. If your going to hell your going to hell.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I seem to remember two thieves who on their last day were given forgiveness. But it back in your court. One can save themselves from damnation simply by repenting.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Again the view of people breaking the law and being in the US illegally is wrong. They should conform to the law and leave. Again you twist this into hatred for illegal and legal immigrants. "
Seeing as how there are a great deal of Catholic priests that don't see it this way, I think I'll tend to honor their view of what Christ would do over that of the Repugnant Con supporters who go out into the deserts of Texas with guns and beer.
"Your hatred of conservative and family values is the problem."
Hatred is not a family value. Neither is spewing hatred or discrimination against a group of people, especially the marginalized. Here is everything Jesus said against homosexuality: "."
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Conservatives that are Christians will view homosexuality through the Bible. God calls the actions an abomination. We are to love the person but hate the sin."
Leviticus, a set of Law Code as laid out by the Priestly writers, calls the actions an abomination. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
You will notice that the same people who use this to justify an anti-homosexual stance almost never follow any other portions of Leviticus (such as planting two seeds in one plot, wearing cloth of two kinds of 'threads', cutting their hair). It's hypocracy to rant and rave about one thing and completely ignore the rest.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If conservatives took the example of Christ as guide rather than the OT, Jewish Law Codes as guide they might find themselves to actually be Christians. Then again they'd have to give up their gospel of greed (also against the word and examples of Christ and early Christians) along with their gospels of hatred and warfare (again against the example and words of Christ and the early Christians).
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You say it's hypocracy to rant and rave about things such as homosexuality while ignoing such things as planting seeds and wearing two seperate materials, but I tell you that it is your ignorance of the Bible that makes you feel that way.
What is the punishment for homosexuality according to Leviticus?
What is the punishment for wearing two separate fabrics?
If you knew these answers, you would understand why your argument is an ignorant one.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It depends on if you're depending on Lev 18 or 20 for your death sentence and your reading of the text. If 20, then you have to apply the same to anyone who insults their father/mother (Leviticus 20:9:"If anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death, he has insulted his father and his mother -- his bloodguilt is upon him" JPS Pentateuch).
However according to Leviticus 20:13 there is no punishment for homosexuality. There is only punishment according to Leviticus for a single act of homosexuals, a particular form (if you look at the original Hebrew you will understand -- I can't post specifics without them being starred out) of a particular act of homosexuality.
Being homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts besides that specific one mentioned in Leviticus 20:13 is absolutely fine.
So to answer your first question: the punishment for homosexuality according to Leviticus is nonexistant.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just to point out some other interesting Leviticus facts:
Lev 18:19 requires the same penalty for men who have relations with their wives during their period as for men who have relations with men. Lev 18:20 requires the same penalty for men who have relations with their neighbour's wife.
Et Cetera.
When you ridiculous people start calling down the same penalties and rabid hatred for people who commit those same violations of the purity codes maybe you'll get someone to listen to your hate-filled words regarding homosexuality. Which thankfully isn't against the Bible's teachings. Nor Christ's.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is the fatal flaws in your argument. Leviticus 18 gives a list of the Lords commandments to the Jews and at the end of the list, gives the punishment for all of the crimes given in Leviticus 18.
The punishment: "For whosoever commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
This covers crimes such as lying with an adulterer, incest, sex during the 'period', taking the Lords name for profane reasons and lying with animals. It does not say the punishment is death as it does with homosexuality.
.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, you failed to answer my question so I will do so for you.
Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man were to lie with a man as he does a woman than they have both commited an abomination and they surely must be put to death. Combined with the fact that Leviticus also states that GOd said these punishments also apply to those who have commited the crimes in their soul, I would say you are again incorrect.
Furthermore, wearing two fabics does not carry a punishment. It just means that you are temporarily unclean.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 10) (recursion depth : 9) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Leviticus 20:13 says that if a man were to lie with a man as he does a woman than they have both commited an abomination and they surely must be put to death."
This is what it says in English. The Hebrew is much more clear as to what 'action' is specifically barred.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 11) (recursion depth : 10) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is a cop out as the same book says that these laws go for people who commit these acts in their souls.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 12) (recursion depth : 11) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Shadowolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rating: 0 ( 0/-0) | 2008-05-12 23:51:06 Shadowolf Send Message
(Matthew 22:...)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Where in this can be read you can hate gays???)
(Or,for that matter...anybody else???)
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
obiefrommuskogee1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For Christians, the new testament is what is relevant.
God's word is the new testament in the actions of Jesus-- The WORD (God's word) was made flesh. Jesus preached tolerance and acted with tolerance. That is the word of God.
The old hellfire and brimstone in the Old Testament is not relevant, except as historical curiosity. Why do you think Jesus came anyway? To refute what was in the Old Testament.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned11 Replies
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To fulfill, not enforce. It's not meant as a literal interpretation, anyhow. It was written in a high context society for a reason.
If you're going to enforce the OT and the "Law of the Prophets" to the letter then you need to enforce ALL of Leviticus and the other law codes as strongly. Last time I checked, nutjob literalist evangelicals weren't calling for people to stop wearing cloth of two weaves, or for store-owners to remove grass seed packages that contain two kinds of seeds.
Christ also transitioned purity laws from the purity of external purity codes to one of internal purity. (It is not what goes into one's mouth but what comes out...)
Falling back on Matthew 5:17 to justify your hatred and fear of homosexuals is pathetic. Christ always, without fail embraced the marginalized, rather than engaging in marginalization. Try following his example.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I must admit that I don't often follow your posts. But this one and the few just above this post cuts right to the point and certainly deserves more than a handful of positives.
Well articulated.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is my beef: Homosexuals are lopsidedly treated as abominations by Christians, whereas adulterers and fornicators are afforded more sympathy and consideration in general. That makes most of us hypocrites because sin is sin, and the offense of homosexuality is no greater or lesser than the other two. We love to make distinctions, though, and to treat people accordingly.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
Ciera-Marie1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
JoseMadre where in the bible does it say that The Law called for the execution of homosexuals? Where? Specifically where?
It also says in the Bible that a father can marry his daughter. So is Jesus going to fullfill that Law too?
Didn't he also say "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone?"
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"JoseMadre where in the bible does it say that The Law called for the execution of homosexuals? Where? Specifically where? "
Supposedly Leviticus 20:13. Of course in Lev 20:10 it calls for adulterers/esses to be put to death (and McCain technically would be considered an adulterer), but you won't hear that too often. Leviticus 20:9 calls for those that curse their mother/father to be put to death. You don't hear much about that either from the anti-homosexuals. Just Lev 20:13 for some reason.
Even so, if you look at the original Hebrew in 20:13 it specifically *ONLY* addresses a single, specific, physical act (you can look it up yourself) and does not address homosexuality as orientation or other homosexual acts outside that specific one.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
Ciera-Marie1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Dionys for replying to my comment and answering my question. I really appreciate it. :-)
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CM, Read Leviticus to find your answers.
(((Didn't he also say "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone?")))
Read the context of that quote. You will see that the pharisees tried to set up Jesus to see if he was weak when it came to Gods laws. Jesus was smart enough to see through their plan and pointed out that those who were callin for stoning the female adulterer were guilty for helping her commit her crime. Therefore, if she were to be stoned, so would the man she slept with as well as thepharisees who set the whole thing up.
He was most certainly not saying that since all people are sinners no one can be punished. He was just saying that if I helped you cheat on your husband, I cannot stone you for committing adultry.
I hope this helped.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17
Oh yeah. I forgot:
"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)
"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6)
See how 'prooftexting' can be so confusing (and often meaningless)? Have a nice day.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
Neutral
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then, raats, in the interest of fairness and balance, you would also need to abhor the ACTS of Gerry Studds (late Democrat Congressman who admittedly had a sexual relationship with an UNDERAGED male page) and Barney Frank (D-Mass., who allowed his boyfriend to "pimp out" his apartment for homosexual prostitution activity).
OR is it OK and not hypocritical to violate the law if you don't take a stand on the side of morality and high standards of behavior??????
NLOL!!!
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
loading ...
-
Neutral
vettenut1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HB:
Yes, I did read all he said.
I just thought it necessary to balance what he wrote, since all the details he gave were all about hypocrisy on only one side of the aisle.....
Or perhaps you didn't notice that?????
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 7) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
he stated one side of the fence in response to someone's other side, but also said he disliked both, you just pointed out more of your side.
Oh and that was bullsh it in the US/Finland game yesterday, USA got screwed on that call
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 8) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
loading ...
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a Christian, and I suscribe to the message that homosexuality is not acceptable in the sight of God. However, many republicans DO NOT love the person and hate the sin! They hate both, and make no bones about it: Example - the insinuation that NO was suffering judgment because of the gay community there. Fanatics who would kill a doctor in an abortion clinic because "he" had no regard for life (the pot calling the kettle black). Meanwhile, blind eyes and deaf ears are turned toward a cult like FLDS, which has, until now, been allowed to operate "openly in secret," without any threat of consequences. The silence of the religious conservatives on that issue gave overwhelming consent to organizations like that to live long and prosper. Same with the catholic church and its attitude toward child molesting and homosexual priests...silent approval and business as usual.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" However, many republicans DO NOT love the person and hate the sin! They hate both, and make no bones about it: Example - the insinuation that NO was suffering judgment because of the gay community there."
Many republicans? Is not your way of thinking a sin? Are you not judging an entire political party by the words/actions of a few nutcases?
For that matter, how do you know that they hate the person and the sin? It would appear that since they are praying for God to heal them instead of stoning them to death that they do not hate them. Would you not agree?
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you not know that "many" and "all" are two separate words with two separate meanings? Furthermore, it's not a judgment, it is a verifiable fact that a scroll through the crime logs of any town U.S.A. can back up.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many implies a large number. Yet you cannot prove any number s using many is being judgemental. Do you not think that many democrats feel the same way? Byrd is a life long democrat and was a klansman for how long? They did in fact hte the person.
Now, please address my last point. I am interested to hear your take.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
-
Neutral
supercynic1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Respectfully, you need to define what you mean by "the Bible." After all, it's 66 books written over a couple thousand years. Leviticus speaks against homosexuality, but other parts of Leviticus speak out against multi-clothed robes, so I hope you're not wearing a poly-cotton blend shirt right now. In the New Testament, Paul has been translated to speak against it, but he's also been translated to speak against a woman's right to be a leader in church and other principles that, if true, would make him a misogynist, which I don't think he was, given how he referred to Lydia and other women as leaders in their respective churches.
Jesus, who base my beliefs on, says nothing about homosexuality. I see nothing of familial value in categorically denouncing homosexuality. I'm a happily married heterosexual with 2 children -- the thought of gay marriage becoming legal has not once made me want to leave my wife, and I would love my daughters no less if they were gay.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you would restrict the behavior or rights of others who are not harming anyone because of your (or their) religious views, that is bigotry and thus hatred, Endo. You are free to practice your religion, not force it on others.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
-
Neutral
MacR1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
touche, touche...
But, Mary was not a prostitute. Seriously, man has always demonised women. And the church did not want a woman carrying on Jesus' word. While there are some stories that relate Mary on being Jesus' wife and what not... well the jury is still out on that one. But, to really believe that she was a prostitute is wrong. Mary did go on to teach Jesus' word, and, Peter had a problem with that. He was still a Jew at heart when it came to placement and Mary was not in the right place, in his eyes.
Everything else you said is correct.
(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)Reply loading ...
-
-
People Who Liked This Comment (24)
Ciera-Marie
tehranchik
cushi
Charlson
2sidestoeverything
Pupi
tchef
Lurch
gamahuche
Shadowolf
Beau7890
Goppy
Dionys
JohnQPublic
tkyrchncs
bruhaha
memestryker
bluetexasvalley
MdiarPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (4)
vidman04
tanglangSubmit a Story
Advertisement
Also Dropping This Article
No one has dropped this story.
AOL News Links
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your groups?
Categories
Also Submitted By
No one else has submitted this story.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.