Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’
Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is still refusing to support Senate health care reform legislation, with his main objection being that the bill doesn’t restrict women’s rights enough by severely limiting access to abortions. Today on Fox News, host Steve Doocy and analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. lauded Nelson for his “moral” stance. But they then went even further, arguing that Nelson is obstructing progress because he “understands the true meaning of Christmas” — unlike all the immoral people who want to make sure that Americans have access to quality, affordable health care as soon as possible:
DOOCY: Democrat senator from Nebraska Ben Nelson, the holdout on health care reform right now on the Democrat side. The sticking point? Abortion, which could push lawmakers up right until Christmas. But could it be because he understands the true meaning of Christmas? [...]
JOHNSON: So what you have is an interesting, almost Christmas pageant. On one hand, we have this political or secular rush for the Democratic Party: “We must get this done by Christmas,” and if you don’t it done, you’re going to be there on Christmas Eve, you’re going to be there on the day after Christmas, and you’re going to get this done.
But on the other hand, I was thinking, perhaps there is a greater moral or ethical imperative from Sen. Ben Nelson, conservative Democrat from Nebraska, who has a lot of experience in the insurance industry and was a very successful governor in that state. He’s saying, implicitly, the true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies. You don’t destroy children. And that the federal government should not be part and parcel of that in terms of funding it.
Watch it:
Democrats wanted to pass health care before Christmas; Republicans like DeMint are the ones trying to delay the process to the holiday. DeMint told The Hill that it was his “responsibility” to “stretch this out,” stressing that “he would force [Senate Majority Leader] Reid to go late into Christmas Eve to pass healthcare legislation.”
Conservatives have been trying to co-opt Christmas to essentially claim that progressives supporting the Senate health care legislation are waging a War on Christmas. This week at the Code Red Rally on Capitol Hill, Tea Party protesters said they were making a Christmas “sacrifice” by coming and petitioning senators to kill the bill, and right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham compared Reid to the Grinch.
Transcript:
DOOCY: Democrat senator from Nebraska Ben Nelson, the holdout on health care reform right now on the Democrat side. The sticking point? Abortion, which could push lawmakers up right until Christmas. But could it be because he understands the true meaning of Christmas? Peter Johnson, Jr. joins us now with prescriptions for truth.
What he is arguing for is he wants no federal money used for abortion, and there is currently in one of those bills language that would provide that.
JOHNSON: Right, and what he’s looking for is language similar to what’s called the Stupak amendment on the House side. So what you have is an interesting, almost Christmas pageant. On one hand, we have this political or secular rush for the Democratic Party: “We must get this done by Christmas,” and if you don’t it done, you’re going to be there on Christmas Eve, you’re going to be there on the day after Christmas, and you’re going to get this done.
But on the other hand, I was thinking, perhaps there is a greater moral or ethical imperative from Sen. Ben Nelson, conservative Democrat from Nebraska, who has a lot of experience in the insurance industry and was a very successful governor in that state. He’s saying, implicitly, the true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies. You don’t destroy children. And that the federal government should not be part and parcel of that in terms of funding it.
And that there is a rush — and that’s acknowledged by everyone for whatever reason — people in the Democratic Party don’t want this bill to go forward in 2010. There’s this dividing line called “Christmas” for some reason that says, “Okay, if it’s in 2009 and the Senate passes it, we’re not going to have the consequences of a bill that no one likes in 2010.”
And so Sen. Nelson, in my view, is taking a principled opinion, in some sense, based on his own moral code and belief, and saying, “No, let’s slow this down a little bit, this is not where I’m at.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I support healthcare reform because I understand the true meaning of Festivus.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:33 amLet’s start with the airing of grievances.
Just go ahead and pass it by Christmas.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:33 amWe can always take it back the day after for a refund.
All right. I’m getting seriously pissed. The true meaning of Christmes is goodwill toward man. These SOBs wouldn’t know the true meaning of Christmas if it bit them in the ass.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:34 amYet another shining reason of why it’s imperative to maintain separation of church and state.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:34 amPlease Jesus, stifle my gag reflex so I don’t hurl listening to this crap.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:36 amWell we need moveon.org to raise money against him like they did with joe. hell they also need to do one for the other 4 or five asshats as well.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:37 amDOOCY: “Democrat senator…”
Sorry Douchie, you lost me at “Democrat”. It’s pronounced “Democratic” prick!
December 18th, 2009 at 11:38 amA Patriot Acting says:
DOOCY: “Democrat senator…”
Sorry Douchie, you lost me at “Democrat”. It’s pronounced “Democratic” prick!
Well myself i was lost at Doouchie
December 18th, 2009 at 11:40 amHe’s saying, implicitly, the true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies. You don’t destroy children. And that the federal government should not be part and parcel of that in terms of funding it.
So now it’s the “implicit” game? Let’s all play! I think Nelson was implicitly telling us he’s in the insurance industry’s pocket!
December 18th, 2009 at 11:40 amOK, I’m confused. If there’s no public option, and no expansion of Medicare, why is abortion even an issue? Is Senator Nelson expecting that the bill should prevent private companies from offering coverage for abortions? And why should private companies be prevented from offering coverage for a legal procedure?
It was my understanding that this was a health care bill, not an abortion bill?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:41 amPatriot@7, I hate when they say ‘Democrat’ like it’s a bad word. Chris Matthews admonished a Repug Stragetist a couple of years ago for doing the same thing.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:42 am“The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC” (from Wikipedia)
The traditional date for the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt was 1447 BCE (Wikipedia)
This suggests that the ancient Hebrew would have been well aware of abortions. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of abortion in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:42 amDoesn’t Christmas celebrate the birth of Santa?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:43 amJoseph was a self-employed carpenter. If the second coming occured today, Mary would be uninsured and would likely receive no pre-natal care. With the state of the building industry now, it would not be surprising if she still had to give birth in a barn. I’ll also bet the innkeeper would be a conservative.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:43 amThe True Meaning Of Christmas:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:45 am“Screw the sick, the poor! Just give me my g***amn HDTV on sale at Walmart! So I can over indulge in meaningless football games, Busch Light tall boys, and microwave pizza!”
I’m going to put it out there again for our trolls and the conservanazis: Abortion is the woman’s choice! It is not a choice anyone else gets to make, period.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:45 amPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
his suggests that the ancient Hebrew would have been well aware of abortions. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of abortion in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible.
There you go using logic and the bible on them. they will just rewrite it.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:47 amOh, gawd! I’m going to fcking PUKE!!
Yeah, letting people DIE because they don’t have access to even the most basic healthcare is the TRUE meaning of Christmas!
Merry Fcking Christmas, America – now hurry up and DIE so Ben Nelson and the rest of his fat cat Senatorial collegues can go home for the holiday!!
December 18th, 2009 at 11:47 amChuck Norris wrote an article that if Mary had the Insurance like the Congress is trying to pass, she would have been forced to have an abortion. Yeah, Norris has gone certifiably insane.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 amHe’s saying, implicitly, the true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies.
And none of the almost 1,000 people who die every day due to lack of health care are babies. So, Christmas means to save the babies, we kill…I don’t celebrate Xmas but I sure as hell don’t want to go to Dooshy’s.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 amRemind me never to live in Nebraska.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 amYou know what’s absolutely fabulous about PLC’s post at #12?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:49 amIt’s from someone who is a believer, but who can actually think on his own.
Proud to call you a Christian, my brother!
Correct me if i am wrong.
But was not Mary a virgin? If so then Joesph was not her husband
December 18th, 2009 at 11:50 amif he was then the marriage would not have been commiserated?
Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’
– - He’s a Jehovah’s Witness and believes God will heal all illness without any medical intervention? Oh.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:50 amTo believe Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin is an act of faith. To believe that a couple stayed married for that long and still never got it on is just gullibility.
(with apologies to Kevin Smith and Chris Rock)
December 18th, 2009 at 11:52 amSo, I guess the fact thousands of Americans will DIE because of lack of Health Care doesn’t matter to these people? Or that people can’t afford life saving prescriptions? Or that families are homeless and can’t afford to but a home, let alone insurance? And these guys dare to call them Christians.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:55 amBadmoodman says:
Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’
– – He’s a Jehovah’s Witness and believes God will heal all illness without any medical intervention? Oh.
Wow, that’s interesting. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:55 amDoes this mean the “Peace on Earth, Good will towards Man” has been retired officially? KIA or just MIA in the war?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:55 amPilotshark says:
“But was not Mary a virgin?”
This whole notion of virgin birth was copped from the early Greeks, if not earlier peoples, where the gods were always going around impregnating humans.
It is all fabrication.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:55 amChristmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Jesus gave free health care to everyone. Why are teabagging hicks so f**king stupid?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:57 amWhat about all the children and babies in Iraq & Afghanistan that these hypocrites had no problems killing in the name of America?
Jesus never said anything about the US being any more holy or perfect than any other country.
What does Sen. Nelson have to say about that?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:57 amWTF??????? These people just don’t know when to quit, do they? Apart from the fact that some people have been pushing for a vote on the so-called health care reform bill before Christmas, in what way are these two things remotely related to each other???
“The true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies. You don’t destroy children. And that the federal government should not be part and parcel of that in terms of funding it.” Oh, I see…so forcing people to choose between potentially paying through the nose for health care insurance, potentially going bankrupt in order to pay for medical care on their own, or potentially dying prematurely as a result of putting off medical treatment (not to mention paying a hefty fine to the government for being uninsured) is also part of the true meaning of Christmas, I take it?
Ummmmm, unless your name is Ebenezer Scrooge or unless you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a capitalist…NO. It is not.
Good grief…where do they find these people?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:59 amThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Dem#31, These SOBs barely mention Iraq anymore, in fact ALL MSM seemed to have forgotten Iraq exists. They would rather let the war they championed fall from the Headlines.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pmBut was not Mary a virgin? If so then Joesph was not her husband if he was then the marriage would not have been commiserated?
– - Ummm, consummated. Unless you mean they just didn’t talk to each other.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pmIf Johnson’s religious beliefs are correct, then someday he’s going to stand in front of Jesus to answer for what he did on Earth. At that point, Jesus is going to say, “you used me as an excuse for what?!?”
December 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pmThis is just weird. I can’t even comment articulately on how weird the right is getting.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pmMy point to these folks is always the same: you don’t want to do one thing for the babies who are all ready here, not even give them health care! You care much more about the unborn than all of those children living right here in the US who go hungry! Don’t you think this is hyporcritical?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pmFor Republicans, saying stupid things is just a way of getting attention.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm(Nelson being an honorary Republican.)
December 18th, 2009 at 12:05 pmImagine if the teabagging scum only realized that Christmas is a socialist holiday…you know, giving away items to other people that didn’t work for said items. Ooops.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pmDid Ben Nelson sponsor a bill in Congress to prohibit and criminalize abortion and I missed it? Anyone else do so? No? Well, then, it is a legal medical procedure and if a person uses their own money to buy an insurance policy that includes an abortion as a covered medical procedure, then Mr. Nelson has no business involving himself in the process. This is more grandstanding and appealing to a certain base, without stepping up and actually doing something to decrease the number of abortions, which even pro-choice people can get behind as a goal.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pmCouldn’t they just strike out Item 2: Kill babies and Item 3: Kill Children? Maybe they could just rephrase it: Lay to rest children and babies. It took so much protesting and fighting just to get the child killing clause in there, they shouldn’t just drop it.
It’s so asinine.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pmYeah, let’s not sully the true meaning of Christmas by passing something that will give healthcare to all Americans—that would just be too SOCIALISTIC!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 12:06 pmChristmas is all about hypothetical abortions.
Just like Easter is all about plywood.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pmJust another ugly war the Right has started, ‘defending’ themselves from imaginary attacks to justify gathering more money. Merry Christmas from the freak show at Faux.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pmThe only “person” responsible for killing children and babies over the last 8 years has been herr dubyah and his asinine “wars”.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:09 pmP.D. says:
“Chuck Norris wrote an article that if Mary had the Insurance like the Congress is trying to pass, she would have been forced to have an abortion.”
This coming from someone whose whole claim to fame has been portraying a killer.
To weird.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pmThe Book of Mormon portrays Jesus as somewhat naive, for failing to charge top $ for those healings and miracles.
Seriously – He could’ve banked some MAJOR sheckels, and for whatever weird socialistic reason, decided not to. w/up w/that!? Didn’t he understand it was just going to make more of the Levantine people lazy? All they did once they heard about the miracles was lay around going blind and getting leprosy, utterly dependent on Big Savior.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pmmissmolly says: It was my understanding that this was a health care bill, not an abortion bill?
It just shows the lowness of conservatives–they know there is no bigger hot button with the low information voters than abortion, so they falsely represent the healthcare bill as a big, honkin’ sop to all us liberal abortion fanatics, because you know, if we had our way, there would be a free abortion clinic on every street corner! (snark)
December 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pmAnd the White House and MSM are blaming Howard Dean if the Bill fails? What a crock! The blame goes to the Blue Dogs. ALL of them. If they let this fail, they will never be forgiven by the Progressives and Democrats who elected them.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pmSo did I miss the point? The meaning is we don’t destroy babies, we just wait until they or older and deny health care?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pmFVNY says:
December 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm“No, what you described is charity.”
Charity is a socialistic instrument.
so, when are your IRS penalty payments due?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pmLike rape isn’t about sex, Nelson’s stance isn’t about babies. It’s about power.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pmfvny,
read us that part about “blessed are the greedheads” again…
i love story time.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pmNot quite. It’s also a way of proving themselves more conservative than the next guy.
As near as I can tell, it’s because it proves that they’re not educational “elitists”.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pmaccording to Nelson, as interpreted and confirmed by Doocy and Fox:
“If you are all good little boys and girls, and don’t get abortions, then Santa Claus will bring you a primary care physician, and cover your deductible and copay.”
December 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pmNebraska Sen. Ben Nelson: The true definition of a DINO.
Guess that is what you get when your state has a unicameral state government and your second largest city on game day is Memorial Stadium.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pmThey’re putting a non-existent thing over real living, breathing beings. It continues to amaze me how ‘pro-life’ is somehow against health care and real people are less important than a possibility.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmNo, it’s not. Attempt to use facts and reality when you respond, you anti-American scum.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAaronk, just why is it that people who claim the first communist as their savior ignore him?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmFVNY, please provide your definition of “socialism” as you seem to be using an egocentric one.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmSome one from Nebraska might have more insight into Nelson’s politics. Maybe Nelson is using the abortion issue as leverage for concessions.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pmThere would be less abortions if we had single payer and every pregnant woman knew she’d get prenatal care and her child would be treated if he had any problems.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pmOff Topic but LOL! Sarah Palin cut short her Hawaian vacation because of the ‘Scandal’ that erupted when she blacked out McCain’s name on her cap. She CLAIMS she wanted to be incognito. But her T-Shirt? It had on the front, ‘If you don’t love America’ and on the back, ‘Then why don’t you get the hell out.’ Hmm. Not the kind of thing you would wear when trying to AVIOD interest.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pmMy apolgies @ 63 to those who do listen and there are many of you. I was wondering about the more fundy types who don’t.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:26 pmSorry, FVNY, I missed it:
FVNY says:
Socialism is when government confiscates one person’s “gift” to redistribute it to someone else!
I was correct, though. You are using an egocentric definition and should be “socialism” in quotes as you did “gift”.
According to your definition, anything provided through governmental taxation is “socialism”. Using your definition, I could easily say that Republicans in Congress are a result of “socialism”.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pmBen Nelson & Joe Liebermann should spend the holidays in a room, just talking to each other.
It would solve a lot of problems on the health care debate, because they would literally bore each other to death.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pmFVNY, any government that levies taxes (in other words, any government) engages in “socialism” as you simplistically and pejoratively describe it.
“Socialism” is another way of describing how communities use the resources of the group to care for the weaker members.
For some reason, tighty-righties like you find this concept abhorrent when it’s the government (which is an extension of the people in democratic societies) taking on this role. When individuals do it, that’s fine, even though it’s way less efficient.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pmAaronk and his ilk don’t understand socialism and are terrified of it because the root of it is social, as in society, a gathering of people with common interests.
I doubt even their mothers wants to talk to them.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pmHoodathunk says:
My apolgies @ 63 to those who do listen and there are many of you. I was wondering about the more fundy types who don’t.
For me no apologies need. I think i knew what you were saying.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pmI think it helps to keep in mind when trying to talk to tighty-righties that, when they use the term “socialism” it carries for them an entirely different and far more menacing import than it does for those of us in the reality-based community.
You see, since they cower in fear at the word “socialism” just like Rudolph and his friends cowered in fear of the Bumble Snow Monster, they expect that it will serve as some sort of logic-trump card when they turn it over.
We can patiently try to explain that it’s really not scary and in many ways is far more Christian than their “I’ve got mine; fu(k you” attitude, but it probably won’t work. Their brains tend to lock up when seized with fear, as we’ve seen from our troll friends here.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:37 pmDear Santa,
Please give Nelson a coronary for Christmas so he’ll understand the true meaning of healthcare.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pmFVNY says:
I have no problem discussing Christ at any time… I just find that those who would use the stories of Christ to pursue and reinforce their own POLITICAL agenda are:
A) silly
and
B) not reading the stories very closely… Christ is pretty clear about his staying out of earthly politics in those stories, isn’t he?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pmFVNY says:
Funny how you secular “progressives” have no problem discussing Christ when He fits into your agenda.
So can you show me were Christ Does not fit into our agenda?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:40 pmCharity is not socialism!
Nor is what you believe religious. Or didn’t you read the part about rendering unto Caesar? Face it, you are pretty much a Pharisee, closely guarding your hoard (pitiful as it is). If you truly had faith, why would it matter how things were shared? The very act of sharing would be enough to satisfy the spiritual aspect.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pmfvny,
why was Jesus trying to make everyone dependent on Big Savior, instead of telling them that by using their bootstraps they could amass a fortune equal to or greater than that of the Pharoah, and ascend to the Kingdom of His Dad’s Awesome Vacation House?
i mean, that was his real message, wasn’t it?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:41 pmaaronk, your explanation of why Jesus wasn’t a socialist makes no sense when examined from a strictly linguistic and/or logical point of view.
And your lazy assumption that “progressives” (your italics, BTW) don’t talk about Jesus except when it fits our agenda not only displays your ignorance of what progressives are interested in and want to achieve (no surprise there) but it also unwittingly reveals through psychological projection that subconsciously, you are aware of the cynical appropriation of Jesus by conservatives to suit their own ends.
You seem to say so little when you comment, aaronk, but the subtext speaks volumes.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pmPerhaps Nelson takes the “meaning of Christmas” from Herod’s attempt to politicize childbirth.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmFVNY says:
Anything that does not reinforce your agenda/opinion/preconceptions seems to be (ie bull sh it) don’t it, aaronk?
Like how you don’t want to discuss the actual causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmThis suggests that the ancient Hebrew would have been well aware of abortions. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of abortion in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible. — PatrioticLiberalChristian
**********************************************************
It depends on whether the ancient Hebrews regarded a fetus as a person, doesn’t it? And if you know your Bible, I think you have to admit that there are several passages in the Psalms which could be interpreted as an indication that they did. In any case, regardless of what the ancient Hebrews may or may not have thought, the fact nevertheless remains that the anti-abortion contingency in this country views abortion as falling under the sixth of the Ten Commandments — “thou shalt not kill” (or “thou shalt not murder”, depending upon interpretation). The fact that God supposedly saw fit to make this law flexible enough to permit the massacre of other tribes by the Israelites (viz. the Amalekites) as well as the administration of capital punishment for various crimes never strikes them as being in the least bit contradictory or paradoxical — as far as they’re concerned, God commanded it so it must have been right and that’s all they need to know. For that matter, nor do they view their overwhelming support for Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) as being remotely wrong or contradictory with the dictates of the religion to which they claim to subscribe, despite the fact that our pre-emptive aggression has resulted in the deaths of many innocent who must also have been created by God — partly because they believe that God Is On Our Side (an all-too-conveniently self-gratifying assumption which should make any rational person think twice) and also because they’re quite willing to cherry-pick verses from the Old Testament while carefully avoiding others in order to justify whatever position they care to take. If anything, these people could stand to be reminded that deception is believed to be one of the Devil’s greatest talents…the ability to mislead people into thinking that they’re doing the right thing when they’re not, or making them think that what they’re doing really isn’t that bad when it is.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmRender unto Caesar!
Exactly.
What did you imagine that to mean?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pmThe selective awareness is just astounding, aaronk. You recognize that Jesus commanded us to “render unto Ceasar what is Caesar’s” yet you take that not as an acknowledgment that taxes are among one’s duties to pay — that is anathema to you — but you do take it as license to intermingle religion and politics.
In some ways you are a really outstanding troll, aaronk. Incredibly unpleasant and, yes, stupid, but you really are a troll’s troll in many ways.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pmSo… how things are shared shouldn’t matter.
But they shouldn’t be shared through government action.
So which is it aaronk? Does it matter, or doesn’t it?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI agree that how things are shared shouldn’t matter. etc.
I see, so as long as your ideas and ego can dictate how things are done, then it is good. Because you know what the plan is.
Just like your buddy did when he realized he was about to be hung out to dry and said, “Dad, are you freaking nuts? That’s gonna hurt!”
December 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pmFVNY says, I reply:
Funny how you secular “progressives” have no problem discussing Christ when He fits into your agenda.
“Secular progressive” does not mean “atheist” or “hostile to religion”. It means the government of ALL the people should be religion-neutral, thus respecting the right of all to their own personal beliefs. I, for one, “discuss Christ” when I see those trying to force there private religious beliefs into public policy, particularly when those religious dogmas are not universally accepted by Christians.
But the truth is that Christ was not a socialist/communist.
Technically, you are correct.
His message was about people sharing material possessions to be more spiritual and thus become closer to God.
Not entirely. Christ also was very concerned about the physical needs of people and how those with power and wealth could oppress others. Remember, it was a Hebrew secular law that outer parts of fields were to be left unharvested so that the poor could freely take foodstuffs.
Charity is not socialism
December 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pmTrue. However, “socialism” is a form of charity. That’s what you are missing.
FVNY says:I agree that how things are shared shouldn’t matter. Therefore, we should allow people to give to charity as they please, and not use the government to force people to hand over their wealth to be redistributed as the government sees fit.
So just how much charity do you give? and who do you give it to? for what purpose?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pmFolks, if ever you need a reference on how to rationalize the Word of God to align with your own limited perspective, and to exclude stuff you’d rather not acknowledge, here is a sterling example.
Living the Word must be so much easier when all of the potentially difficult principles are easily wiped away, eh, aaronk?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pmFVNY says:
Funny how you secular “progressives” have no problem discussing Christ when He fits into your agenda.
We don’t spend all day screaming Christianity down the throats of others, although there are plenty of quiet Christian progressives. Y’all talk a whole lot about Jesus, but when it comes right down to it, you are the enemy of everything He espoused. Many of us may not believe in His divinity or even His existence, but the fact remains that His agenda and ours are far more sympatico across the board.
Matthew 21:28-31:
I think we all can tell which one of these is modern conservatism, and which one is the progressive movement.
.
FVNY says:
But the truth is that Christ was not a socialist/communist. His message was about people sharing material possessions to be more spiritual and thus become closer to God. But that is not the same as a government forcing people to do so. Charity is not socialism!
Interesting point here. Wingnuts claim to want the government to be taken over by Christian values, except for the ones that were actually promoted by Christ himself. So let’s outlaw homosexuality and put the 10 commandments in courtrooms, but don’t heal the sick or help the poor.
Had Christ succeeded in literally becoming king over Israel before dying, I’m sure he would have put his values in place as government policy.
.
FVNY says:
Render unto Caesar!
Literally, “quit whining about taxes!” He was answering an explicitly political question, one which seems to still be at issue today.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pmHis concern was the transformation of the people spiritually.
He sorta imagined a separation of the church (or spiritual matters) and the state (or earthly matters) then?
Oh, cool. Got it. Not sure how that helps your case…
December 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm@ 71. ralph the wonder llama says: FVNY, any government that levies taxes (in other words, any government) engages in “socialism” as you simplistically and pejoratively describe it. “Socialism” is another way of describing how communities use the resources of the group to care for the weaker members. For some reason, tighty-righties like you find this concept abhorrent when it’s the government (which is an extension of the people in democratic societies) taking on this role. When individuals do it, that’s fine, even though it’s way less efficient. December 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Ralph, they’d rather have people’s lives mangled by corporate interests and have them fall through the cracks than admit that government does have it’s uses in the common defense and the common good. They’d like to abolish government, even though we have some tasty examples of what happens when government is too far broken-down or nonexistent. Somalia is an excellent example of what happens without government; Iraq in the first few years after the invasion, during the sectarian civil war is another, and the ruin of what had been Yugoslavia is yet another.
There are a few other failed states or nearly failed states that can be pointed out as examples of the failure of civil society to backfill where government doesn’t exist. Without some form of government, some unifying structure, there is no civil society.
After listening to arseholes who were government contract employees bray and whine for years about ‘welfare queens’ and other con/neocon bugaboos, I came to the conclusion that the real reason for all their shitspew was simple greed and avarice. They were afraid that someone else was going to get more for doing less.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pmAgain, I quote Anne Lamott;
You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
And all the same things, I might add.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pmBluestocking says:
It depends on whether the ancient Hebrews regarded a fetus as a person, doesn’t it?
I doubt you will find anything in the Bible about abortion since it was not mentioned. However, the common law recognized two crimes, murder and abortion which was a lesser offense. The common law test was whether the fetus was viable. If it could not live outside the womb then it was considered abortion. The reason for that distinction was because the common law did not recognize the fetus as a person. This legal view has persisted for centuries. The religious community acquiesced to this view. It was only after birth control in the 60’s that personhood became an issue. The Griswold case established sexual privacy in the US which triggered the pope’s papal bull on contraception. The church’s view about personhood is a relatively new development. Since the religious community acquiesced to the legal definition of personhood which existed for centuries, it is indicative of how the religious community agreed to the definition.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pmanother aaronkie donk thread?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pmI assume you interpret that passage to mean that taxes and government are good things! LOL!
No.
None of us are attempting to use the bible to reinforce any of our politcal arguments, only noting that your attempt to do so is SILLY for a whole host of reasons, one of them being that the bible seems to specifically contradict your political arguments several times.
See the difference?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pmFVNY says:
That statement was not meant to be an approval of taxes or of government authority over one’s life.
Then obviously, you’ve never read the actual passage.
Matthew 22:17-21
Bold added for you’re an idiot.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:03 pmMy point to these folks is always the same: you don’t want to do one thing for the babies who are all ready here, not even give them health care! You care much more about the unborn than all of those children living right here in the US who go hungry! Don’t you think this is hypocritical? — LarkOhio
***********************************************************
I more or less used this same argument on another site regarding a recent public appearance by Rush Limbaugh in which he took the position that health care should be viewed as a luxury commodity (such as real estate) rather than as a necessity (such as shelter), something that only people with discretionary income deserve to have. It’s actually a very bizarre attitude for someone who’s supposedly opposed to abortion…because not only would such a system condemn a goodly percentage of our children to inadequate medical care through no fault or choice of their own (apart from the misfortune of being born to parents who can’t afford anything better), it also condemns many of the unborn whom he claims to be so concerned for since good prenatal care or the lack thereof can have a significant impact on that child’s life both in utero and throughout the rest of its life. As I said at the time, this position implies that the worth of a human life even while in utero is largely dependent upon one’s net worth or that of one’s family — an argument which completely contradicts and undermines the typical anti-abortion argument that all human life deserves to be protected because it has inherent value.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pmAnd to teach the people to accept God as the ultimate authority.
Then you are a slow learner because you didn’t get the hint that even if government is a necessary evil (your words) one should listen to the ‘authority’ that clearly states over and over in slightly different words…as you do unto the least of my creations, so you do unto me.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:07 pmbut the USA is a secular republic, founded (as conservatives delight in reminding us) on Judeo-Christian beliefs…
but only the vengeful beliefs?
wouldn’t a government that collected taxes and distributed them amongst the neediest be doing His Dad’s awesome work??
(this church/state conundrum is too deep and twisty a path for puppies to tread. they will only end up barking too much, and peeing in all the wrong places)
December 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pmaaonk, I’d venture to guess that none of us has illusions about ever reaching you through that haze of self-affirming rationalization with which you surround yourself.
Your denial is strong and your powers of self-assessment seem very very weak. Still, we can make our arguments as well as we can, and hope that any open-minded lurker can grasp the concepts. Maybe even someday when your defenses are down and you are all alone so you don’t have to humiliate yourself by admitting your failings to anyone but your God, something of what we’ve said here will emerge into your consciousness.
Not counting on it, though.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pmP.D. says:
All right. I’m getting seriously pissed. The true meaning of Christmes is goodwill toward man. These SOBs wouldn’t know the true meaning of Christmas if it bit them in the ass.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The true “Joy to the World” of Christmas is that there had to be Christmas for there to be Easter – celebration of Christ’s resurrection.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm@ 105. El Bruce …
I’ve thought for some time that Jesus was laying a bit of inspired snark on the people trying to trap him.
As a Judean, living under Roman occupation, and an observant Jew, there is no reason to think that Jesus felt that much of anything ‘belonged’ to the Romans. There are certainly indications that a respectable number of his countrymen were not happily disposed toward the Romans. But, when confronted with the fact that the occupying power is a taxing power, what ya gonna do? Pulling up some coin of the realm, with Ceasar’s portrait there-on, and telling the weasels to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars is a pretty good flip-off, one which cannot be argued with.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pmFVNY says:
I assume you interpret that passage to mean that taxes and government are good things! LOL!
Assume away. Personally, I interpret the passage to mean that spiritual positions do not abrogate your civic obligations. Or it was just a clever way to shut his detractors up for a minute.
.
pags2 says:
I doubt you will find anything in the Bible about abortion since it was not mentioned. However, the common law recognized two crimes, murder and abortion which was a lesser offense.
What is this “the common law” you refer to? Is there anything you can cite for these claims? Anything at all?
The law of the Hebrews was the Torah, period. It was supplemented by Talmud much later on, that being a record of past Pharisaic rulings. The Talmud’s view on abortion is somewhat more complicated than your explanation, and doesn’t involve viability. Trust me, if there was another authoritative source of Hebrew law, modern Jews would be studying it and living it today.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm112 – but you’d trust the Catholic Church more?
whatever – just don’t send your kids over there unattended…
or are you just saying that unless you’re presented with a perfect solution that improves you position, you’re not going to accept anything? like when a kid refuses to eat dinner because the peas were touching the potatos?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pmIt’s important for FVNY/aaronk to dehumanize those he hates, as it’s much easier to commit acts of terrorist gun violence against the dehumanized.
Normal people don’t have the urge to murder their fellow countrymen, aaronk. Maybe you should study your bible this holiday season? Look for passages on kindness and nonviolence. See if there’s anything you can learn.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pmEspecially when people like this get our hard earned money.
Old Dirty Bastard picks up his welfare check in a limousine
December 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pmtorm – you oughtta know you’re going to get nowhere fast with that line of bull.
you do know that, don’t you?
then why?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pmYet you trust that corrupt and sinful humans are omnipotent and benevolent enough to do “God’s” work (again, italics yours).
But the government that springs from those people is neither.
Very curious how you reach your beliefs, aaronk, internal inconsistencies and all.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pmMatthew 21:28-31:
I think we all can tell which one of these is modern conservatism, and which one is the progressive movement.
Neither son was a conservative or a liberal ( Liberal Democrat aka a progressive), and to say that one can call either son a liberal or a conservative is certainly to use 21st eyes on 1st century literature and an abuse of this scripture. This story is about the father, not about the sons.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pmActually, it was YOU using the bible to try and justify state controlled “charity”.
Nah, it wasn’t.
But here’s what you miss… even if JESUS said SPECIFICALLY ‘SOCIALISM and MARXISM don’t exist yet, but when they do, they will really be a terrible way of doing things and I’m against them!’
It still wouldn’t matter to our discussion of politics.
I just find it interesting that you would think that the bible agrees with your position since it clearly does not, but it doesn’t matter to the current political discussion.
Get it?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pmLeave it to Fox to take something so unbelievably evil and proclaim it is “the spirit of Christmas”.
Desperation, thy name is Fox News.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pmI don’t think that would do any good, trollspotter. aaronk doesn’t seem to have the academic skills to actually study a text as complex as the Bible.
He tends to read in it what he wants to read.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pmFVNY says:
Actually, it was YOU using the bible to try and justify state controlled “charity”.
Is this were you try to bend this around again?
Thinking you are the one who try to use the charity thing.
Also for me I do not want god in my government has no place there.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pmChristmas is a socialist holiday. HA HA HA. Hopefully teabagging hicks/Anti-Americans will start boycotting X-mas.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pmif you trust that the government is omnipotent and benevolent
This is the problem with accepting ideas of ultimate authority. Representative government is supposed to be a consensual group tasked with implementing plans an ideas, voted on by the people. The problem comes in when there is a group who have the idea that they must submit to an ultimate authority and therefore have to seen any other sort of authority as competing.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pmSTORM says:
Old Dirty Bastard picks up his welfare check in a limousine
December 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
So all welfare recipients must do the same? You are such a fcuking dooshbag.
You’ll be happy to know that Old Dirty Bastard aka Big Baby Jesus is dead as a doornail, so he got his just desserts, right?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pmis certainly to use 21st eyes on 1st century literature and an abuse of this scripture.
Yet it is ok to try and apply 1st century literature in a 21st century context?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pmbit pokes his head in on a non-gay thread!
This is a milestone!
Unfortunately, bit’s explication of the parable seems far too limited (”This story is about the father, not about the sons”) to be of any use to anyone other than a wingnut seeking to rationalize his selfishness.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:23 pmpeople who give to charities are conditionally benevolent,
but how are they omnipotent?
or does His Dad handle the escrow, so that charity funds (as opposed to taxes) are properly distributed?
i think this needs more explaning, aarroonnkk.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pmApparently, to f uckwits like Doocy, Nelson and bitbutt, all health care is abortion, or leads to abortion.
These are exactly the people who will stand in the way of education and programs that will lead to FEWER abortions.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pmbitblt says:
Neither son was a conservative or a liberal ( Liberal Democrat aka a progressive), and to say that one can call either son a liberal or a conservative is certainly to use 21st eyes on 1st century literature and an abuse of this scripture.
Christian: “Don’t apply the bible to the modern world!” WTF? I thought the entire essence of Christianity was that Jesus’ life and words had some relevance on the human condition today. Or is that only when it’s convenient to your political position?
The interpretation is quite simple: you don’t judge someone by what they say, but by what they do. If someone says that they’re going to do God’s will, but don’t, then they don’t deserve God’s favor. If someone complains that they won’t do God’s will, but they do, then they do deserve God’s favor.
But then again, you already knew that.
“Christian conservatives” like to talk about God a lot, but their political positions are explicitly those of pure moral evil. They believe in selfishness, concentration of wealth, and they oppose any measures by which humanity could work to help one another.
Progressives may deny Jesus’ divinity, his existence, and even God’s existence, but the simple fact of the matter is, we promote moral good. We do God’s work. We may complain about the evils of religion all day and night, but we’re still out there working that vineyard, while you sit back and insult us for it.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pmAm I imagining things or did bitblt refer to the Bible as literature?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pmbitblt says:
I think we all can tell which one of these is modern conservatism, and which one is the progressive movement.
Considering blue states contribute more money and go out and tend to and spend for the care of the “vineyard/humanity” you are correct it is clear. To those that are not blind like yourself buttblight. I guess blindness is a natural result of conservatives having their heads up their own @sses to avoid reality though.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pmElBruce, what you refer to seems to be secular humanism. Sort of people are capable of understanding societal benefits without mythology.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm134 – testify!
amen, brother bruce. blessings unto ye.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmAre you trying to suggest these types of incidents are very very rare?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmI think we can, bit. But I doubt if you would agree with most of us here on which is which.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm112 – FVNY – yeah, we should leave all that to the corporations, right? We can trust them to take very good care of us!!!
You are an idiot.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pmWhy? Are YOU trying to suggest that they are common?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pmtorm is very pragmatic,
in that he knows all rules must be constructed around the exceptions.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:35 pmSTORM says:
Are you trying to suggest these types of incidents are very very rare?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Are you trying to suggest they aren’t, shitstain?
Srsly, you buy into anything a rightwing politician says, don’t you? Poppy Bush and his “welfare queens” lull you to sleep in your DNA encrusted sheets every night.
Pathetic.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pmAre you trying to suggest these types of incidents are very very rare?
Well, since ODB is dead I’d say they were very rare… (but in the immortal words of another MC) then I ‘thought, nah, forget it… yo homes, to Bel Air!’
December 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pmfor that reason, he’s very much in favor dismantling Wall St., and the corporate culture, because of the many many cases of fraud and abuse coming out of them.
right torm?
tear down wall st.?
there’s one i’d actually join you on.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pmSorry all, I couldn’t resist a little Fresh Prince this morning… my aside should not detract from the fact that STORM is unquestionable idiot and racist.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pmbillions in white-collar fraud < thousands in another kind, right torm?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pmSTORM says:
Are you trying to suggest these types of incidents are very very rare?
You have “proof” they aren’t?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pmYou almost have to feel sorry for someone who believes that doing good just so you can maybe get a cookie in heaven. They are so interested in showing off for their ultimate authority that they miss the appreciation of the ones they might actually be doing something good for.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pmwhy i’ll bet thousands of old people lost their pensions over the ODB incident,
whereas none did when enron or aig imploded.
am i right again, torm??
December 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pmZooey says:
Srsly, you buy into anything a rightwing politician says, don’t you? Poppy Bush and his “welfare queens” lull you to sleep in your DNA encrusted sheets every night.
Ronnie Raygun used that smear to rile up racist white bigots in the south to vote republican. Looks like the same old retards that fell for it then are still falling. Right Storm?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmFraud and Abuse in Federal Programs
Student Loans The GAO currently estimates that taxpayers lose more than $1 billion a year to fraud and abuse in student aid programs.
Food Stamps improper payment rate is still about 6 percent, costing taxpayers about $1.7 billion annually.
Child Care programs. The federal child care, foster care, and Head Start programs pay out about $900 million in improper and fraudulent benefits annually.
Unemployment Insurance. Almost $4 billion of annual UI benefits are improper or fraudulent.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:44 pmSupplemental Security Income. This program pays out $4.6 billion in improper and fraudulent benefits annually.
Children’s Health Insurance Program. About 15 percent, or more than $800 million annually, of CHIP benefits are improper or fraudulent.
If we’d just held onto the CASH we lost in Iraq in one shipment we’d be able to cover ALL those losses, Stormy…
Whaddya know?
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
December 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pmOh look. A VDT just systematically voted down each and every progressive post.
How cowardly, yet predictable.
And I just know it wouldn’t be our pal STORM, who would NEVER do such a thing, right STORMy boy?
Hey STORM, can I ask you an easy question?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmProgressives may deny Jesus’ divinity, his existence, and even God’s existence, but the simple fact of the matter is, we promote moral good. We do God’s work. We may complain about the evils of religion all day and night, but we’re still out there working that vineyard, while you sit back and insult us for it.
If you were actually out there “…working that vineyard…” you’d know that Christ said that you can’t do the second greatest commandment without doing the greatest.
Matthew 22
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4563978
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers. You don’t believe yourself but you try to use the words of Christ against those who do believe.
If you did believe you wouldn’t be encouraging and promoting immorality and the corruption that results from immorality.
Those who claim to love humanity but don’t love God will be stealing the freedom of the people they claim to care about.
The scripture above is Christ review of the Law of Moses. bit can see no other interpretation that the following:
December 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmIf you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not commit adultery.
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
These christo-fascist asswipes do NOT want abortion to be repealed. That way they can continue to get their base all lathered up and to continue to go to the polls.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pmbitblt says:
The true “Joy to the World” of Christmas is that there had to be Christmas for there to be Easter – celebration of Christ’s resurrection.
LOL! Both holidays existed long before HeyZeus was ever born. Christmas was called Saturnalia and didn’t become Christmas until much later. Christmas is not a “Christian” Holiday and is mentioned no where in that little book of fairy tales you misinterpret daily. In fact Christmas was banned in much of the “Christian” world until about a century or so ago because it was still practiced through drunken partying just like Saturnalia!
As for Easter (named for the goddess Ester), that is the pagan ritual of spring and fertility. It’s why there are eggs, bunnies and baby animals all in it. I explain this to you every year buttblight and every year you forget it. Are you really that retarded or are you just incapable of learning any “facts” that contradict your superstitions and idiotic lies you constantly spew? Poor dum bass little buttblight. In the closet. Lonely. Bitter and a complete dum bass. How pathetic is that for a “Christmas” story! LOL!
December 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pmbitblt says:
You know exactly ZERO about anyone’s faith on this board.
Matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
And you never will be able to know the faith of any of us.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pmGet over it.
It has NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION.
Thank you.
Most certainly. shoot.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pmbut the USA is a secular republic, founded (as conservatives delight in reminding us) on Judeo-Christian beliefs…
but only the vengeful beliefs?
wouldn’t a government that collected taxes and distributed them amongst the neediest be doing His Dad’s awesome work??
(this church/state conundrum is too deep and twisty a path for puppies to tread. they will only end up barking too much, and peeing in all the wrong places) — TomBaker
*****************************************************
That’s probably because a goodly number of the people who originally settled here belonged to religious denominations of the fire-and-brimstone variety such as the Baptists and Puritans who generally viewed God as being authoritarian and harshly judgmental — a “spare-the-rod-and-spoil-the-child” type of parent rather than a nurturing, affectionate parent. If memory serves, many of these denominations were (and still are) heavily grounded in the idea that mankind is inherently evil and therefore far more inclined to commit sin than to do the right thing — which means that considerable effort has to be maintained at all times in order to prevent them from succumbing to sin, and that anything which could potentially encourage them to sin needs to be prohibited. This is one of the reasons why the most extreme examples of this view tend to advocate a largely anhedonic or ascetic lifestyle in which some of even many of the most essential pleasures of life — sex, dancing, drinking alcohol, etc. — are prohibited, even if prominent Biblical figures engaged in them. This is one of the reasons why I often say that even if human beings did not invent God, they most definitely invented organized religion (often as a means for justifying their own personal prejudices) — like so much of what we have created, it has the power to be used for evil just as easily as it does to be used for good.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pmI usually choose to ignore idjit, because it’s posts are always attacking progressives and liberals (which oddly enough, seems a very anti-Christian thing to do), but I do take issue with this:
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers.
WRONG!
I am a believer, and in know was ElBruce mocking me!
December 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pmPseudo(c)hristians, yes.
know = no
December 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pmwhatever
STORM, is our president a Christian?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pmbitblt says:
If you were actually out there “…working that vineyard…” you’d know that Christ said that you can’t do the second greatest commandment without doing the greatest.
If you actually read anything other than newsletters from inbred uneducated Evangelical hacks you’d know that no “Christian” manuscripts that we currently have date before 100AD with most much later. You’d also know of the thousands of copies of those manuscripts gathered by the Vatican that no two are identical. You’d also know that the Roman Emperor oversaw what manuscripts were accepted and which were discarded in the formation of the book you believe is divine. You’d also know that neither of the 4 gospels had a title nor were they actually attributed to the person they are named for except by Romans looking to give legitimacy to the manuscripts they chose.
Based on those “facts” it is not possible to determine what HeyZeus did or did not say.
bitblt says:
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers. You don’t believe yourself but you try to use the words of Christ against those who do believe.
What a bunch of crap. You are wielding the book as a weapon of your ideological extremism which is the very heart of heresy and blaspheming.
bitblt says:
If you did believe you wouldn’t be encouraging and promoting immorality and the corruption that results from immorality.
I don’t see you out there calling for divorce to be illegal even though “your” evangelical church has the highest divorce rate of any religious group. You are an immoral phuck that justifies bigotry and hate by hiding behind the words of others that you distort. You are an evil phucking zealot lunatic!
bitblt says:
Those who claim to love humanity but don’t love God will be stealing the freedom of the people they claim to care about.
Those that claim to love god but don’t love humanity are usually serial killers and lunatics.
bitblt says:
The scripture above is Christ review of the Law of Moses. bit can see no other interpretation that the following:
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not commit adultery.
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
Buttblight you can’t see at all, so be a good little phucking closet case and stfu you inbred lunatic?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pmElBruce says:
pags2 says:
I doubt you will find anything in the Bible about abortion since it was not mentioned. However, the common law recognized two crimes, murder and abortion which was a lesser offense.
What is this “the common law” you refer to? Is there anything you can cite for these claims? Anything at all?
The common law is a body of law unwritten law developed since the Magna Carta. It not codified in writing unlike the Napoleonic codes. England, Australia and the US are the largest countries that use common law. The common law has roots in the Roman legal system and the French legal system to a lesser extent. It governs torts, contracts and criminal law to the extent it has not been superseded by statutes. You can find the common law in British and American legal books. The US Constitution adopts the common law as of the date of the Constitution. Many states, except Louisiana, adopted common law.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pmtorm would be totally rich,
if only those poor, brown, and smart people
would STAY OFF HIS LAWN!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pmHe says he is.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pmpags2 says:
I doubt you will find anything in the Bible about abortion since it was not mentioned.
Actually it is mentioned and only once. In that mention it says if a 3rd party kills the fetus it is considered “property” damage but if he the 3rd party also kills or harms the mother it would be considered a murder and an assault. The bible is clear that a fetus is not a human being – but that doesn’t stop immoral lunatics like buttblight from justifying murdering “real” human beings that are alive and conscious despite that clear definition in “their” morality book. Just goes to show you immoral people will ignore any and all teaching to justify their morality if that’s what they wish to do.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pmSTORM says:
DRxJ says:
STORM, is our president a Christian?
He says he is.
So you refuse to answer the question? P*ssy.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmSTORM
December 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIs former President Bush a Christian?
DRxJ says:
STORM
Is former President Bush a Christian?
He says he is.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pmbitblt says:
The scripture above is Christ review of the Law of Moses. bit can see no other interpretation that the following:
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not commit adultery.
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
HeyZeus never spoke of sexual practices – not once. You speaking for your “god” again you heretical d**chebag?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pmactually, torm has taught us a powerful lesson, of which i am 100% sure no on here had ever paused to consider before…
oftentimes, rules get broken.
i mean seriously – WOW. what an eye-opener. here i was, my whole 43 years on earth, and i have never once had it occur to me that the rules i was so busy following were being flouted all over the place by others.
i’m giving myself over to vengeful, retributive, punitive convservatism, effective immediately.
(because conservatives never do that rule-breaking stuff)
thanks, torm, and…
season’s greetings!
December 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pmThanks STORM.
At least we know this.
You believe that both Bush and Obama are Christians, therefore you don’t fall for the Muslim accusation crap for the latter.
Now, is our current president a citizen of the United States of America?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:01 pmtombaker says:
(because conservatives never do that rule-breaking stuff)
Nah, they just fulfill the needs of conservatives to “follow rules” by making their immorality and debauchery “legal”. Like when Adolph made it legal to gas millions of Jews. Nothing wrong there because the “rules” said it was “ok” to do it! ;)
December 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmDRxJ says:
Thanks STORM.
At least we know this.
You believe that both Bush and Obama are Christians, therefore you don’t fall for the Muslim accusation crap for the latter.
Now, is our current president a citizen of the United States of America?
I believe he is.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmbitblt says:
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
You are a really sad sack of shit, bitbutt. You seriously can’t do the right thing by your partner in life without “God” holding a stick over you? “Be good bitbutt, or you’ll burn in hell for eternity! Naughty, naughty!!”
I stay true to my partner because I LOVE MY PARTNER. And guess what? It’s not difficult at all.
I feel sorry for you.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmZooey this coincides with findings researchers have done on the “motivations” of conservatives. Because they have evil thoughts and believe they are “normal”, they assume everyone is like them. And because they don’t trust themselves and their own behavior without “rules” and “threats of eternal punishment” to remind them to not do evil things they believe everyone else is like them. The one thing you can count on about a “moral” Conservative is they are immoral to the core and just use that “bible” as a club to beat others out of their own fears and frustrations. Poor pathetic buttblight’s pathology is so blindingly clear to everyone but “it”…
December 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pmIf you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
You do realize that many believe (even among Christians) that the closest us humans really ever get to GOD is through sexual release with a partner?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pmThat it’s an actual gift?
(oh hell, look whom I’m trying to explain this to)
just the bleepn facts says:
December 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Frankly, I’m glad they have their little rules. I imagine more of them would be cutting loose, and mowing down families in shopping malls otherwise.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pmSTORM,
Do you see what I’m trying to do here?
Get you to actually answer questions directed towards you, instead of just disappearing when confronted.
Good job, and I thank you.
Now, let’s continue it, shall we?
Should members of the same sex, who are in a committed, life long relationship, be able to unify their bond in marriage, and thus have the same “benefits” as heterosexual couples?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pmjust the bleepn facts says:
pags2 says:
I doubt you will find anything in the Bible about abortion since it was not mentioned.
Actually it is mentioned and only once. In that mention it says if a 3rd party kills the fetus it is considered “property” damage but if he the 3rd party also kills or harms the mother it would be considered a murder and an assault. The bible is clear that a fetus is not a human being –
That would explain religious acquiescence to the common law. I would reiterate, that personhood is a relatively new concept in the religious community. The only religious basis for the contention that a fetus is a person at the moment of conception is the papal bull on contraception in the 60’s.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pmwe have a new group of pretend progressive trolls on the single payer thread.
They are smarter than the flamers but still trolls.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pmpags2, I absolutely agree. In fact you can find mention of women taking “bitter waters” in Numbers to induce an abortion intentionally. This wasn’t condemned or seen as murder or sin as the “modern” zealots claim.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pmFred, don’t be so sure. I personally know a lot of progressives that want single payer and have called their congressman to tell them not to vote for the current POS bill giveway to the health care industry. Don’t be so quick to assume or judge that they aren’t really progressives.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pmThe propagandist, uh I mean, analyst, Peter Johnson exploited Thanksgiving so why not Christmas?
Peter Johnson Jr. exploits Thanksgiving to fearmonger about health care reform
December 18th, 2009 at 2:29 pmDRxJ says:
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
You do realize that many believe (even among Christians) that the closest us humans really ever get to GOD is through sexual release with a partner?
That it’s an actual gift?
(oh hell, look whom I’m trying to explain this to)
December 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
…closest us humans really ever get to GOD is through sexual release with a partner?
That it’s an actual gift?
Yes. This is not a new idea to bit. Believe this is what is suggested by Christ in Matthew 19 where He mentions the Creator intending that a man and a woman will be “one flesh” in marriage. This “one flesh” intent is in an answer to a question about marriage, and about ending marriage by divorce. Christ says that ending marriage by divorce was not the Creator’s intent.
This power, pleasure, and privilege to procreate – a married man and a woman joining their bodies together to create new life; i.e., participating in Creation – assumes huge prominence in the human experience. bit supposes this is the reason that man-woman relationship is always under attack. People seem to be attacked in the the area of their lives that is both their greatest power and their greatest vulnerability.
But just as all nature suffers the consequences of sin, sexual relationships suffer the consequences of sin, especially the illicit, irresponsible ones.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:30 pmHoodathunk says:
ElBruce, what you refer to seems to be secular humanism. Sort of people are capable of understanding societal benefits without mythology.
I’m just referring to basic human decency. The point is, whether you get there by Christianity, Buddhism, Jedism, secular humanism or what-have-you is irrelevant.
.
bitblt says:
If you were actually out there “…working that vineyard…” you’d know that Christ said that you can’t do the second greatest commandment without doing the greatest.
Of course you can do the second without the first. The parable I cited is quite clear on that.
Doing the first without the second is exactly the kind of attitude that Jesus repeatedly railed against.
.
bitblt says:
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers. You don’t believe yourself but you try to use the words of Christ against those who do believe.
It’s perfectly rational to point out that according to your own religion, your political positions support the purported goals of the devil: man’s continuing inhumanity to man. Either change your political position, admit what you are, or remain a hypocrite. Those are your only three options.
As an aside, I highly recommend that you read up on the ethical position of modern Satanism. It’s perfectly in line with economic conservatism/libertarianism in all respects.
.
bitblt says:
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not commit adultery.
If you really love God and your fellow human beings, you will not engage in detrimental – to you and your partner – sexual practices.
Absolutely. Cheating on a partnership commitment and rape are awful things to do. We don’t disagree there.
In that regard though, I wonder if you’re a member of a denomination that recognizes second marriages…?
.
backup says:
I question if there is a definitive moral good. Or more specifically, one true means to an end of moral good.
The actions that result in moral good are subjective.
Obviously I’m not claiming there is “one true means” to that end, but I think moral good is quite easy to define in basic terms:
People should help each other.
This basic message has always been recognized as “good” throughout history, regardless of who said it or for what reason. Similarly, opposition to that message has always been recognized as “evil.” Young children understand this, and no amount of adult theological debate for any religion changes that underlying proposition.
I’m only advocating that we properly assign these simple moral labels to the public sphere of debate today. Progressivism is good because it promotes this basic concept as a matter of policy. Conservatism is evil because it opposes it.
.
pags2 says:
The common law is a body of law unwritten law developed since the Magna Carta.
OK. You kind of threw me for a loop chucking that into what was largely a theological discussion.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pmThanks idjit.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pmYou’ve just revealed where you are coming from.
Sex, even among married couples, is all about creation.
Dear lawd things must be quite boring around the idjit household.
No offense, but after “creating” 3 children, and adopting one, I’m more inclined to enjoy the pleasurable aspect of sex with my wife instead of worrying about another pregnancy.
Whoops, did I just reveal that I’ve had a vasectomy?
uh oh, another sin among the idjits!
bitblt says:
bit supposes this is the reason that man-woman relationship is always under attack.
I don’t think anybody’s ever going to convince people that heterosex is something that shouldn’t be done, LOL. You might as well claim there’s a war against food.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmbittyboy, a very wise man once said that the only sin in this world is hurting someone else needlessly. The rest is just made up nonsense.
If you want to think eating certain things, wearing certain clothes, doing certain deeds are sins, have at it. It is your world you diminish.
As a favor though, you could keep it to yourself. Everyone else is bored with the nonsense.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmBut just as all nature suffers the consequences of sin, sexual relationships suffer the consequences of sin, especially the illicit, irresponsible ones.
Haven’t suffered any consequences from having bu*t-sex with my girlfriend.
None.
But keep plugging away Bitster, someday you might have an epiphany, and realize you’ve been played for a sap, in the oldest con-game in history.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pmAnyone want to bet that littlebit was told if he shagged himself as a kid he would go blind?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pmbitblt says:
The true “Joy to the World” of Christmas is that there had to be Christmas for there to be Easter – celebration of Christ’s resurrection.
LOL! Both holidays existed long before HeyZeus was ever born. Christmas was called Saturnalia and didn’t become Christmas until much later. Christmas is not a “Christian” Holiday and is mentioned no where in that little book of fairy tales you misinterpret daily. In fact Christmas was banned in much of the “Christian” world until about a century or so ago because it was still practiced through drunken partying just like Saturnalia!
Neither the Christmas Holiday or the Easter Holiday is mentioned in the New Testament; however, but both the celebration of the birth and of the resurrection of Christ are recorded in the New Testament.
Also, the synchronicity of holidays is not discussed in the NT.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pmNeither the Christmas Holiday or the Easter Holiday is mentioned in the New Testament; however, but both the celebration of the birth and of the resurrection of Christ are recorded in the New Testament.
Also, the synchronicity of holidays is not discussed in the NT.
Since it’s all superstition, anyway, who cares?
December 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pmBitty, the only difference between you and a cannibal is the bone through the nose.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pmbitblt says:
Neither the Christmas Holiday or the Easter Holiday is mentioned in the New Testament; however, but both the celebration of the birth and of the resurrection of Christ are recorded in the New Testament.
Also, the synchronicity of holidays is not discussed in the NT.
Yes, well, that’s because they were imposed by the Church many hundreds of years later, blt. The same Church that unilaterally decided which Gospels would be included in “the Bible” and which didn’t fit the agenda.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pmIn my opinion, the people who are using the Bible as a basis for all sorts of things have forgotten that JC came to make a new covenant with the Jews and Gentiles. This covenant was to replace the covenant God made with Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. This new covenant was to redeem people from their sins. JC stated that the most important commandments were to love your neighbor and God. This implies that all the old laws were replaced.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pmbitblt says:
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers. You don’t believe yourself but you try to use the words of Christ against those who do believe.
It’s perfectly rational to point out that according to your own religion, your political positions support the purported goals of the devil: man’s continuing inhumanity to man. Either change your political position, admit what you are, or remain a hypocrite. Those are your only three options.
As an aside, I highly recommend that you read up on the ethical position of modern Satanism. It’s perfectly in line with economic conservatism/libertarianism in all respects.
Neither bit’s political nor religious views promote immorality or corruption.
Government corrupts us all, and US welfare programs promote corruption. Otherwise, we the people would not be electing immoral leaders. Sexual immorality among the people promotes immorality. Immorality breeds immorality; corruption breeds corruption, and the results are a nation less worth preserving.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:07 pmThe very fact that bit thinks that “man-woman relationship is always under attack” is cause enough to disregard what bit has to say on the subject. It will always be difficult to extract sense from the words of one whose perception is so askew.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pmbitblt says:
Neither the Christmas Holiday or the Easter Holiday is mentioned in the New Testament
bitblt does not recognize any other ancient documentation but the Bible. If it ain’t in there then it didn’t happen, apparently.
.
bitblt says:
Your mocking posts are simply a more sophisticated attack on believers. You don’t believe yourself but you try to use the words of Christ against those who do believe.
Way to go and insult the millions of Christians who disagree with your politics… including Christ Himself.
.
bitblt says:
Neither bit’s political nor religious views promote immorality or corruption.
Of course they do. You cast the first stone. You support letting the poor go needy and letting the sick die. That’s immoral. And everything you stand for is quite literally a “corruption” of Christ’s message, in that you oppose His position while claiming to do so in His name. I think there’s a commandment about that…
.
bitblt says:
Government corrupts us all, and US welfare programs promote corruption.
bitblt places St. Reagan in a position above that of Christ.
.
bitblt says:
Sexual immorality among the people promotes immorality. Immorality breeds immorality; corruption breeds corruption, and the results are a nation less worth preserving.
This just in, bitblt hates America.
I’ve heard this notion a lot, and it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. It’s a completely distinct religion, one which only exists in the modern age, and is in no way supported by Christian or any other extant theology that has strong historical roots.
Also, you probably eat pork, shellfish, and cheeseburgers, so you’re as much in violation of Leviticus as any homosexual. I hope you’re not wearing a cotton/poly blend, sinner! Or else we’re all going to die!
Christianity in particular opposes the notion that entire nations are judged as “worthy” or “unworthy” by God. Each of us has (or doesn’t have) a personal relationship with God, and mine is none of your business, nor yours mine.
Whatever you are, it ain’t “Christian.” Perhaps we should call it “bitbltism.”
December 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pmLife on this earthly plane corrupts us all. We are none of us without sin. Yet the God that bit claims to worship loves us anyway.
US welfare programs (and welfare program) is open to corruption. As is any private charity effort.
The difference between bit and ralph (well, one of the many differences) is that ralph is willing to accept the risk of corruption in order to deliver aid to the least fortunate among us.
bit is willing to let the threat of corruption kill otherwise useful expressions of community compassion and care.
Of course, bit doesn’t see government as an extension of his community, so bit will always be at odds with what he considers an enemy.ralph finds that very sad.
Imagine if the God that bit claims to worship shrugged His divine shoulders and said, “Life on earth promotes corruption. The results are a world less worth preserving. I will follow the example of bit and just stop trying.”
December 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmThat’s no breaking story; it’s a long-understood belief of bit’s.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pmbitblt says:
Government corrupts us all, and US welfare programs promote corruption. Otherwise, we the people would not be electing immoral leaders. Sexual immorality among the people promotes immorality. Immorality breeds immorality; corruption breeds corruption, and the results are a nation less worth preserving.
Your logic makes as much sense as Glen Beck who spews nonsense. You are trying to draw a line between point A religion and point B government. But in order for you to get to point B you have to zigzag.
Government does not corrupt. Money and power corrupt. That is the religious lesson. Your statements about morality have no logic. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAnyone else think it’s a bit pathetic for members of Congress to act like it’s a big deal to work overtime? Welcome to the world of work a-holes.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pmwiley says:
Anyone else think it’s a bit pathetic for members of Congress to act like it’s a big deal to work overtime? Welcome to the world of work a-holes.
If I were Reid I would keep them in session even Christmas day and on through to New Years. I bet it would work wonders for the Republicans and their procedural obstructions.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pmpags2 says:
I bet it would work wonders for the Republicans and their procedural obstructions.
Yeah, they’d all go home anyways and we could get all kinds of stuff passed.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:48 pmElBruce says @209
Works for me.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm.
My Christmas wish for FOXPRAVDA,
… They spend the day reading the obituaries of Americans who have died on Christmas eve and day due to a lack of insurance.
.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:13 pmAll the Fox Friends nonsense just makes me think that Americans are getting stupider all the time.
I think the greatest threat to America is ignorance and lack of education. That’s hurting our ability to compete globally.
19 Arabs with box cutters couldn’t bring America down, but stupidity and ignorance can.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pmHoodathunk – loved your post at 193.
xoxo,
~A
December 18th, 2009 at 11:15 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
——————————————————————————–
“The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC” (from Wikipedia)
The traditional date for the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt was 1447 BCE (Wikipedia)
This suggests that the ancient Hebrew would have been well aware of abortions. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of abortion in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible.
A tip of the hat to you, PLC. I’ve heard of christians who are pro choice, believing that it is the woman’s choice even though they personally are opposed to it. But I’ve never known one to suggest that they believe it isn’t a “sin.”
December 19th, 2009 at 1:09 amI still think you believe in a fairy tale, but you truly are a liberal christian. This world would be a much more pleasant place if more christians were like you.
It’s imperative that the separation between my wallet and your greedy little ‘rat claws be maintained.
Kill your children on your own dime.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am