You regurgitate the idiocy you have been TOLD to believe.

______

Good morning Deb. Let’s get this straight: Everyone who agrees with Deb thinks for themselves. Anyone who disagrees with Deb regurgitates the idiocy they are told to believe. Got it! Merry Christmas, bud! (I know you can spell diddly, but it was irresistible.) ;)

upright left Says:

You are an idiot. There is no such THING as an unborn baby RUBE. Its not a baby until its born. When you say he is only against science that claims to prove something it hasnt proven you only show that you dont know didly about science which is hardly a surprise since you dont know much about ANYTHING.

December 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
_______

Hey Deb, how in the world are you, bud? Of course it’s a baby. How many people do you know who refer to their fetus throughout their pregnancy? You know, “the fetus is kicking, look at the sono pic of my fetus, the dr says the fetus is boy, I can’t be around smoke because of the fetus, etc.

Not only do I know about science, I also know how to spell diddly! ;)

upright left Says:
Jesus loved the sinner, but said go and sin no more.

Actually, he loved the sinner in word and deed — your reference to him saying “go and sin no more” was a SINGLE INCIDENT, NOT a lesson. That was a comment to one person, after he aided them (not requiring any promises of anything before hand).

Jesus was also VERY clear that one is to love ALL of one’s enemies. Killing one’s enemies, regardless of their intentions toward you, is specifically AGAINST what Jesus taught as God’s Law. Your hateful attitudes towards your enemies makes you VERY unChristian (Christian = “Christ – like”).

Your tone is self-righteous (that is the opposite of righteous, and both are discussed in your bible: examine waht BOTH of those words means in a Christian sense. You will most likely find that YOU are one of MANY professed christians who are of the self-righteous kind. Woe be unto you).

December 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
______

I’m not aware that Warren required anything of the protestors either.

Neither Warren, nor I have have killed anyone. Warren loves gay people. He believes they are not living according to God’s word and that legitimizing gay marriage would lead others to choose to live that lifestyle if they aren’t aware.

I haven’t displayed hate toward anyone. You equate disagreeing with a behavior with hate. Do you hate everyone with whom you disagree? Perhaps that is why you incorrectly attribute that to me. I have no enemies. I hate no one.

I really appreciate you trying to tell me what’s in my Bible. I’m always happy to learn more about it. It’s a great book, dontcha think? Unfortunately, you are off base on the self righteousness comment. I’m well aware that all people have a sin nature. ;)

You are an idiot. There is no such THING as an unborn baby RUBE. Its not a baby until its born. When you say he is only against science that claims to prove something it hasnt proven you only show that you dont know didly about science which is hardly a surprise since you dont know much about ANYTHING.

What a small-minded approach to the philosophy presented by Jesus. That he gave out a donut makes him Jesus-like? Marie pointed out that Warren’s SOCIAL VIEWS are not very Jesus-like. I didn’t know that one of Jesus’ SOCIAL VIEWS was “donuts and water”. Sorry, your idiotic comment is not even applicable to the comment you are trying to rebut. Handing out donuts is in no way a social view (… actually it could be, but talk about a lunatic fringe type of social view: “Donuts for everyone!” Although, we don’t have anything more than Warren’s claim — how many donuts versus how many protesters, and did those donuts come with a healthy dose of reprimand for “being sinners”?

Warren’s social views are Anti-American.

Apparently, so are yours.

December 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
______

It’s interesting that you begin with a statement about a small minded approach and then focus on donuts. ;)

Warren could have served a steak dinner instead; would that have made you feel better? Was there any indication that the gay protestors were poor or in need? He gave them something as a gesture. He believes their lifestyle is sinful and he does a disservice if he doesn’t speak up for those who are inclined to follow the Bible in mkaing their decisions. For those not so inclined, he makes the case that male/female marriage has historically been the norm and society has a right to maintain that as long as the majority feels it is the thing to do.

Warren advocates the position that Californians approved. Californians are Americans. That makes him pro-American. If you are on the other side, does that make you anti-American? ;)

Actually, he loved the sinner in word and deed — your reference to him saying “go and sin no more” was a SINGLE INCIDENT, NOT a lesson. That was a comment to one person, after he aided them (not requiring any promises of anything before hand).

Jesus was also VERY clear that one is to love ALL of one’s enemies. Killing one’s enemies, regardless of their intentions toward you, is specifically AGAINST what Jesus taught as God’s Law. Your hateful attitudes towards your enemies makes you VERY unChristian (Christian = “Christ – like”).

Your tone is self-righteous (that is the opposite of righteous, and both are discussed in your bible: examine waht BOTH of those words means in a Christian sense. You will most likely find that YOU are one of MANY professed christians who are of the self-righteous kind. Woe be unto you).

What a small-minded approach to the philosophy presented by Jesus. That he gave out a donut makes him Jesus-like? Marie pointed out that Warren’s SOCIAL VIEWS are not very Jesus-like. I didn’t know that one of Jesus’ SOCIAL VIEWS was “donuts and water”. Sorry, your idiotic comment is not even applicable to the comment you are trying to rebut. Handing out donuts is in no way a social view (… actually it could be, but talk about a lunatic fringe type of social view: “Donuts for everyone!” Although, we don’t have anything more than Warren’s claim — how many donuts versus how many protesters, and did those donuts come with a healthy dose of reprimand for “being sinners”?

Warren’s social views are Anti-American.

Apparently, so are yours.

December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
_____

Of course they are. He served the protestors while maintaining his stand. Jesus loved the sinner, but said go and sin no more.

You wanted to cite Matthew 19. The discussion was not a lesson, but an answer to a trap question by the pharasies. Now, Jesus’ answer there was SPECIFICALLY in reference to divorce. He did mention man and wife (however, that is just the one bible i went to. Further research may indicate alternate translations), but then he immediately goes on, when his disciples state that marriage is obviously bad, then:

“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

What he says here is, as clearly as anything else in the bible, that every person must follow their own calling in these matters. He says that those who CAN marry as man and wife should do so, but those who cannot, either by matters of birth or of choice, then they should not nor should they feel compelled to do so. Each needs act to his or her own nature or desire. What he says is that it is a special “calling” to be a man and wife couple. He does NOT say that that is the ONLY union possible: simply that it is a special calling.

Your religion can’t even interpret it’s own text.

Sad, really.

Nor does it repudate the practice. Since it IS mentioned, and not given a rule for punishment, then it MUST be acceptable.

Well, I don’t know all that much about this fellow, and you MIGHT be right. However, the surface indications are that you are wrong: that he is a person who believes his religion tells him that those who are gay are evil AND that he ought to do something about it. Therefore, he actively tries to keep them from things (such as marriage) and seeks to change them, whether they want to or not.
Diminish their role in society to marginalize them. Then they can be forced to convert.

And he’s only anti-science if it claims to prove something that it doesn’t.

Nice try ;).

He is anti-science if it claims to prove something that HE DOESN’T ALREADY BELIEVE.

Fixed it for ‘ya.

But, really, your entire argument is based on the bible that YOU read. You would like to use you interpretation of your choice of bible as policy for the entire society. That is a specific religion directing society: precisely like the Talibon, precisely what Al Qeda wants to do. You throw your lot in with that precise type of people, and disregard the entire foundation of America and the Constitution. If ANY one religion sets social policy outside of the religious believers it is oppressive. However, perhaps bit bit and her fellow religiosos believe, like AQ &c., that their religious beliefs should be used to create laws that all others must follow.

What is more, on the gay marriage issue it is just incomprehensible. Explain, without reference to your choice of bible, how it would harm you or society if gays could be married and recieve all that married people receive. It cannot affect you or society in any way. You simply deny a group of people from participating in the legal structure of a secular contrivance that is used to determine property rights and inheritance (as well as affecting their taxes — and as a conservative/republican/neocon, bit bit and her ilk ought to CLEARLY be on board with that point).

Argue against gay marriage without the use of your choice of bible and without your personal interpretations of your choice of religion.

And — Warren claimed that ALL marriages, 5,000 years back, in EVERY culture have been 1 man + 1 woman. Posters have pointed out clearly that THAT broad statement is a flat out lie and falsehood, and that even according to any of the variety of bibles (and the Torah) there are many examples of polygamy: not that every single person mentioned in those texts were polygamous (what is this bi-polar function in your religious thinking that insists that things are always an extreme of one or the other? You conflate the points made about this to meaning that we say ALL biblical people were polygamists, or that if they all were NOT then YOU are substantiated, which is not true either. Your bibles do NOT CONDEMN the polyagamy there, so they must, by omission (in a book to teach you how to live, an omission of this regard IS a statement) accept the polygamy. They also, specifically, support slavery. And how about all of the punishments in there? Why don’t you all follow those RULES FROM YOUR GOD? You pick and choose — you decide what ‘rules’ and such you agree with, and you discount anything in there that you may not agree with. Sad, really. You can’t even be honest with your own religion.

Not only is Warren anti-gay, he is anti-choice and anti-science. Nice to know Obama will include those who long for the Dark Age.

December 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
_______

That’s not technically correct. Though he can be called anti-choice if that choice is to kill unborn babies, he’s not anti-gay, but anti-gay marriage. And he’s only anti-science if it claims to prove something that it doesn’t. ;)

“Beware of FALSE prophets, saying they are following JESUS example, when they are not.”

I am EXTEMELY disappointed in Obama, another STRAIGHT MALE Democrat who just doesn’t see to “get it”.

If he does not fix this by January 20 (i.e., cancel the Warren “prayer”), he will have a political fight in his hands that is NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.

And he though the No On 8 rallys brought out GLBT activists.

Obama pretty much deflated the excitement of his presidency with this OUTRAGEOUS action.

WOMEN should also be upset with this fat clown Warren who believes women do not have the right to chose.

If Warren is against the full equality of gay and lesbian citizens of this country, then he is a homophobe.

December 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
______

As you redefine the term. ;)

Let’s not forget this is Obama’s choice, much like the other Pro-Surveillance, Pro-Zionist/Likud, Pro-Wall Street, Pro-Genetically Modified Food, and many other Conservative Non-Progressive choices he is making.

I agree with you, I am stunned by the centrist appointments and decisions O. is making. This thing with Warren blows my mind, and since I am ambivalent on gay marriage this type of triangulation doesn’t do much for me.

But then I ask, is triangulation a bad thing? Obama seems to be reaching out to the Right…if his efforts make him more palatable to all Americans, is that bad? He keeps Gates at Defense, but then when he picks Daschle for H&S I say to myself, there is some balance there.

Again, this Warren thing really weirds me out, what an odd choice, but I am not an evangelical Christian. Right now, they are probably looking at O. going, wow, maybe he isn’t so bad.