Heretic Obama Grows a Pair of Marxist Jujubes

>> Tuesday, June 30, 2009

We-ell... he already had 'em; he just aired them for all to see. Pandering pervert!

I've been trying to find a way to articulate this thought, but Neal Boortz bested my best, so what I'll do is I'll play off his lead...

North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is "concerned" about the situation.

Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be ... and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup...

Why the sudden decisiveness? Where were these strong opinions on foreign matters when Iranian authorities were trampling protesters and cutting off media access to the outside world? Where was this decisiveness when Kim Jong Ill decided that he was going to launch missiles toward Hawaii on the Fourth of July? Why ... NOW ... is Obama suddenly speaking out loudly


and now I have to ask? Which coup? Or rather, to which party does BO refer? The president that sought to illegally change the constitution to allow him to run for another term? Or the military that prevented him?

Obama showed no concern for Iranians being slaughtered in the street because they dared "protest" the mullah's rigged election. Obama showed no concern for Kim Jong Il's repeated nuclear tests and threats. But he does find it concerning that a foreign leader is forcibly prevented from becoming a dictator.

Why the sudden decisiveness?
Because Barack Obama has empathy for marxists, dictators and cutthroats. He defends Muslims, equating the Palestinian's "struggle" to the Jewish holocaust, then demands Israel cease and desist all settlement expansion. He supports the rights of a people without a nation, over those WITH a nation. He supports terrorists, but not law abiding governments.

Where were these strong opinions on foreign matters when Iranian authorities were trampling protesters and cutting off media access to the outside world?
With the Iranian government. Because for the first decade of his life Barack Obama was raised as a Muslim, and his world view-- however much he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ --is not one that could call itself typically American. He has sympathy for Islam, and ITS tenets, but not those of the west, let alone Christianity. How can I say this? During his speech in Cairo, he lumped Jesus in with Moses and Mohammad, "peace be upon them." Claiming that, within the Muslim story of Isra, the three prayed... together no less. Really? Jesus prayed with Mohammad?

Just who is Obama? Is he Cristian or is he Muslim? He says he's Christian but his actions and his words belie that confession. No Christian can say that Jesus is dead-- "Peace be upon him." No Christian, except through complete ignorance could say that Jesus and Mohammad prayed together, because Mohammad is not in Heaven.

All that aside, Barack Obama clearly shows spiritual allegiance to a god other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Clearly. Obama sides with Ahmadinejad because Obama respects Islam more than he does freedom.

Where was this decisiveness when Kim Jong Il decided that he was going to launch missiles toward Hawaii on the Fourth of July?
He was refusing to "disinvite" Iranian dignitaries to Fourth of July celebrations at US Embassies across the globe-- perhaps moot at this point since Hillary disinvited them a few days ago, but it was Hillary that publicly revoked the invitations.

So where was Obama? Evolving his stances on any number of issues pure liberal philosophy couldn't politically address.

Why NOW is Obama suddenly speaking out loudly?
Because a Chavez wannabe dictator was prevented from taking over as 'king for life'. Because it's too much of a reminder of the limits to which freedom loving peoples will be pushed, and no further.

Read Boortz's whole post. Read for yourself the lengths to which the Honduran president went to circumvent the constitution, and then answer me this: Would American's have courage enough to do the same here should another Chavez wannabe try the same?

Oops! Wake up America!



..::Postscript::..

Dan Gilgoff, writing for US News & World Report, in his piece "Obama Mentions Jesus More Than Bush but Acknowledges the Godless More, Too" says Barack Obama is "more overtly Christian" than was Bush. Here's what one commenter had to say.

Obama certainly no "overtly christian"

He has done nothing since I've known of him that would lead me to believe he is a Christian at all. Saying Jesus does not make you a Christian. Being a Christian (seeing abortion as murder, seeing homosexuality as a sin and abomination, leaving a racist church before it's politically expedient, etc.) would be "overtly Christian". Saying "Jesus" when your actions bear no relationship whatsoever to Jesus' actions, means you're "overtly political".

And to that I can only say "Amen." On top of everything else, we have a heretic in the White House.


107 comments:

BenT - the unbeliever,  July 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM  

I was actually listening to NB as I was driving back when he was discussing this topic. I knew he'd keep my ire up enough so I wouldn't feel drowsy in the homestretch. He was so idiotic in this segment I repeatedly tried to call in. I mean how stupid do you have to be to realize that strong language about what happens in central america will not have as many side-effects as strong language about the middle east or asia?

Do none of you conservatives get it!!?

What do you want the man to do? Say something strong to Ahmadinejhad so you feel better? What could strong language accomplish?

NONE OF THE PROTESTORS IN IRAN WANT OBAMA TO SPEAK OUT!!!!!

How should we crack down on North Korea? LAUNCH A NUKE TO SHOW KIM-JOMG WHO HAS THE BIGGEST BALLS?

I wish you conservatives could stop treating foreign policy like high school.

The problem is that you keep saying we need to react more strongly, we need to speak out, but the logical next step is never there. IF we react strongly to provocations, IF we speak out harshly...

WHAT WILL THAT ACCOMPLISH BESIDES MAKING UNDERENDOWED PECKERHEADS FEELS GOOD???????

Bloviating Zeppelin July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM  

You HIT it -- his response is based upon his bent.

And what you, BenT, seem to fail to understand is that America SHOULD take stands and make opinions on the actions of other countries. And yes, in SOME cases it IS about who has the largest set of balls. Apparently you've not done much study of, say, Islam. I might refer you to David Pryce-Jones' book THE CLOSED CIRCLE. Come back after you've read that.

The arrogance, ignorance, naivete and refusal-to-face-reality of Leftists is brain-glazing. You still seem to think that all ANY situation requires is a nice table, some lattes all around, and kindly, quietly-spoken words in montones.

BZ

Al-Ozarka July 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM  

"NONE OF THE PROTESTORS IN IRAN WANT OBAMA TO SPEAK OUT!!!!!"

You're yelling it, BenT...but how could you POSSIBLY know?

We must all remember...BenT sides with the thugs and dictators, too!

Mark July 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM  

We don't only have a heretic in the White house, we have a traitor in the White house.

Obama is testing the waters with his strong support of a Marxist dictator wanna-be.

If the people have no objections to his statements, he knows his chances of doing the same increases.

Every time he makes some Marxist overture, he's testing the resolve of his political opponents, the real patriots, to see how loud they protest. When we stop speaking up against his Marxists policies, he will then know it's time for the purges to begin.

And, as long as Bent and those like him continue to follow him, like sheep directly into the slaughter house, his boldness will increase.

EL July 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM  

You know, we all thought Obama would be a dangerous president, else why bother with this blog at all. But in all honesty, NEVER did I think it would be this bad.

You are right Mark... Obama is a traitor. You're right too Al-Ozarka, for years now we've heard that all the people of Iran need is to know the US has their back, in terms of moral support, to resist and possibly overthrow the Iranian government. Yet now, when it's most convenient for the liberal dialog, we're told no one in Iran is asking for America to speak out against the evil regime that is the Iranian mullahs and Ahmadinejad. What liars these fools on the left are!

BZ-- Didn't have that one on my reading list, but it's there now. By the way? Anyone out there reading Beck's new book, "Common Sense"?

Back to you Mark. Interesting point-- using Honduras as a bellwether for Obama's own aspirations. That's certainly something to keep a watch on. The thing is the Honduran president didn't have any constitutional authority to do what he was doing, but he insisted on continuing anyway. What's truly interesting about this is the Honduran government defended its sovereignty AND its constitution. But media here in the US continue to call this a coup, even FOX News!

The Hondurans stood up to its leaders who broke the law, but Americans refuse to do the same. Obama had NO authority to take over the banks. NO authority to fire execs. NO authority to take over the auto industry. He has NO authority to do much of the things he's trying to do. But congress continues to let him shit on the constitution. Yes, you heard me right. The democrat-led house and senate adoringly allow Obama to shit on the very document they swore an oath to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. And anyone who supports Obama in the illegal usurpation of powers the constitution does not allow him, are themselves traitors. They do NOT love America. For if they did, they would rise up against this dangerous buffoon currently residing in the White House.

We lost this government near a hundred years ago. What we're seeing today is the slow creep of gangrene upon the life and extremities of America. The Income Tax? Unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve? Unconstitutional. Social Security? A Ponzi scheme, and unconstitutional.

But do the liberals and democrats care? Of course not. They relish in the unconstitutional, and they adore the traitors that seek to further rape our constitution. To me, this make them just as traitorous as the politicians that seek to further change America into something our founding fathers DID NOT proscribe within the tenets of our constitution. To liberals and democrats the constitution is equal in worth with toilet tissue. They wipe their asses with it day in and day out.

Marshall Art July 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM  

My wife just brought home "Common Sense" and I've begun reading it. Just started the second chapter and it's too early to give a good accounting. I certainly have seen nothing with which I could take issue thus far.

Regarding the Iran thing, it really doesn't matter what anyone in Iran thinks. Both sides might be equally worthless in the end. But for our president, a man some foolishly consider to be a brilliant man, a leader, someone who will get things done and make the nation and world a better place, for him to wait so long to render an opinion of such an explosive situation in such a potentially nuclear-ly explosive nation, it's simply wimpy. He'd have been better off not saying anything at all.

But as POTUS, a statement, far more quickly delivered, supporting free and honest elections, denouncing gov't oppression of free speech, none of this is meddling. It is what American presidents do. What is going on in Iran is not something unclear to anyone. Why wait to do the obvious? Why be so indecisive when finally speaking? When wrong is being perpetrated, speak out against it regardless of what comes as a result. Obama's a wuss and everyone in the world knows it.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM  

Beck, a High School degree his highest educational accomplishment; greatest ambition to be a top 40 DJ; converted Mormon.

Yeah, he's a good match for the company here.

Marshall Art July 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM  

Feodor, a bore of little brain, believes one is smart BECAUSE one has a degree. Therefor, opinions of those without a degree are worthless, and opinions of those WITH a degree, no matter how stupid or nonsensical, are filled with intelligence and brilliance. This is what he keeps telling himself because he went to college. OOH! He is so smart now!

It's so much easier to dismiss a person due to lack of credentials, rather than to address the legitimacy or worth of the opinion that person expresses.

It's also easier to do that than to have a worthy opinion of his own.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 4:27 PM  

Fartshall, knowing nothing with which to defend Beck because the only thing Farshall respects is the Helicopter society, thereby can't defend Mr. Beck.

So I will have to.

He's a recovering alcoholic and addict, fighting a legacy of multiple suicides in his immediate family -- which really haunts people terribly -- and he's packaged himself into a hugely successful entertainment personality. The courage and fortitude necessary to accomplish these things are worth admiring.

His objectivity and intellect?

Did I say he's packaged himself into a very successful entertainment career?

I said, I said, entertainment, sir!

And look at the feeble people entertained. Right here.

Thought and Reason, Fartshall, two of your abandoned orphans, despite being God-given.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 4:29 PM  

And God called him to be a Mormon and a radiohead for morons.

Mark July 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM  

Feodor, I fail to see what one thing has to do with the other.

You denigrate Glenn Beck without knowing anything about him other than what you have apparently read on Wikipedia, which is a Liberally biased web site in the first place. So far, you haven't demonstrated one tenth of the common sense Beck has.

So he doesn't have a college education, eh? That means he isn't smart? Hah!

Dang, you're a moron.

Albert Einstein was a high school dropout. According to your formula, Einstein was a moron.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM  

Einstein was educated in the German gymnasium system built for elite minds and equivalent to our college education. His father was an electrical engineer who built machines running on electrical current... all shortly after our civil war.

And Einstein was a natural genius in math and physics, which is what he restrained himself to deliberate upon.

In other words, he did not deign to pass judgements on politics from a chair in a studio.

Your examples themselves are ones twelve year olds, and I mean average twelve year olds, would raise up, Mark.

You're not even radio studio material.

Mark July 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM  

And yet, Feodor, I'm still smarter than you.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM  

Smarter like the eternal cockroach, Mark, yeah, you are.

Mark July 5, 2009 at 7:01 PM  

Whatever. I'm still smarter than you.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 8:10 PM  

I'll start thinking of you as Charly.

Mark July 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM  

Oh how impressive! Not! Another pop culture reference he doesn't think I'll get.

Call me Charly...I won't call you Algernon. You aren't as smart.

Feodor July 5, 2009 at 10:10 PM  

Of course I knew you would get it.

It's a sentimental science fiction story about a lab mouse: a natural for you.

Al-Ozarka July 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM  

"Beck, a High School degree his highest educational accomplishment; greatest ambition to be a top 40 DJ; converted Mormon." - FeoDORK!

Once again, Feodorky proves what a bigot he is.

Mark July 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM  

Yes, Feodor is a bigot, but not so much a bigot as a pretentious elitist.

And, more pretentious and elitist than any pretentious elitist I have ever encountered.

He thinks education and intelligence is synonymous. He thinks he is far above us.

He has a lot--and I mean a lot-- of growing up to do.

Feodor July 8, 2009 at 6:39 PM  

Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Monroe, John Marshall, John Jay, John Hancock...

Marshall Art July 8, 2009 at 7:33 PM  

Look, everyone. Feodor knows the names of several of our nation's founders. Isn't that special? I doubt he understands any of them, but at least he knows their names. He gets a gold star.

The irony is that Beck talks about people just like ol' Feo. Feo is enamored of "experts" and Beck speaks in his current book of how "progressives" like Feo and the idiots mostly on the left (but some on the right) believe that "experts" will solve all and if one isn't an "expert" (and for ol' Feo and a few others who no longer visit here, not a credentialed expert), then one isn't capable of knowing.

What's truly sad and scary is that in our current gov't, so many "experts" are as lacking in true understanding as is ol' Feo.

Feodor July 9, 2009 at 5:55 AM  

Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Monroe, John Marshall, John Jay, John Hancock...

... pretentious elites.


Beck: High School grad who believes in the golden tablets of Moroni.

I'll take my side of the ledger, you guys take yours.

Feodor July 9, 2009 at 5:56 AM  

Damn, I forgot Marshall's Helicopter Society biblical scholar. He goes on your side with Beck.

tugboatcapn July 12, 2009 at 12:36 AM  

Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, Monroe, John Marshall, John Jay, John Hancock...

Wait just a long eard minute...

Feodor, you don't get to claim all those people as supporters of your stupidity...

Any of those men would tell you to sit down and be quiet, sir.

You sure do think a lot of yourself...

tugboatcapn July 12, 2009 at 12:40 AM  

By the way...

Do you ever have occasion to fly on an aircraft of any kind?

If so, I would advise you to keep your identlty and itinerary a very closely guarded secret, as long as you view the people who design and maintain those craft as sub-human, knuckle-dragging peons who have no capacity for substantive thought...

Just a suggestion.

Feodor July 12, 2009 at 9:08 AM  

Tough luck, Tug; you set the terms: pretentious elitism.

Now you're stuck with a Mormon, Oliff, Hodges, and Marshall.

I can see why you would be uncomfortable.

tugboatcapn July 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM  

No, Feodor...

Not the least bit uncomfortable.

We have the Holy Bible as well...

Don't you wish you could say the same thing?

Feodor July 12, 2009 at 12:12 PM  

No, I don't want your Holy Bible. It's a dead letter in leather in your hands.

I want Jesus Christ. And, so happy to have the risen, reigning Son of God living and active in my community and in my life, I wish you did, too.

Tablets cannot take on the world. Which is why you should stay sealed up in Florida. You're not ready for primetime Christianity.

(Just keeping up the level of tone with you, Tug, while speaking the truth.)

tugboatcapn July 12, 2009 at 4:10 PM  

You need Jesus Christ.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't have Him now.

You denigrate us for following the Bible's teachings, but the "Christ" you portray both by your constantly beligerant tone, and by your misrepresentation of Salvation has no power to do anything for anyone.

Not ready for prime time Christianity?

Why would I want to be if it has no power to change lives, Feodor?

Feodor July 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM  

You don't know Jesus, Tug. That's why, before I pointed out your blindness, you thought you had it all with a book.

You forget the Christ carrying around all that leather.

You gain scripture and loose the Son of God.

tugboatcapn July 12, 2009 at 8:57 PM  

You don't have any idea what in the world you are talking about.

Your cheap immitation religion has no power, and your hateful, vulgar rehtoric spirit is devoid of Christian love.

Your most recent comments over at Marshall's place bear that out.

You can go now.

Marshall Art July 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM  

It really doesn't matter what a person's religion is when it comes to politics. To be sure, I'd prefer a good Christian in office rather than a non-Christian any day. But obviously, some non-Christians act in a very Christian manner and at times, even more so.

When it comes to politics, especially in this country, a good study of our founders and their philosophies and policies is really all that's required to have an intelligent opinion on how America today differs and if it's going in the right direction.

Beck can clearly see what so many already see and what so many more are beginning to see. He sees a great departure from our founders by our current president. No special training is reqired here.

So if Beck is a Mormon, so what? I hope some day he sees the light (just like I hope people like Feodor do), but at least he can see some of the light as indicated by his keen awareness of the obvious, his understanding of how it got this way, and his willingness to stick his neck out to make his case, a case with which many people totally agree.

So just as a helicopter guy can be knowledgable, even expert, on Christianity, a recovering alcoholic, radio talk show Mormon can be knowledgable on current events. So strange that this concept could be so foreign to serious thinkers.

Feodor July 13, 2009 at 7:05 PM  

Beck lambasts Senators for "softball questioning" of Sotomayor on the first day. In proving his point, he played video of Democratic Senators praising her.

But Beck did not know that no questions are asked on the first day. It is entirely reserved for opening statements.

Then he calls Lindsey Graham a "worm."

Yeah, Marshall, he's a sharp one alright. And such a student of the Founding Fathers!!!


What a joke. What an entertainer.

The late Roman Empire got their "facts" and knowledge from entertainment.

You're really on the right track, man.

Any kind of mind, serious or not, are better than none at all.

Marshall Art July 13, 2009 at 9:06 PM  

"Any kind of mind, serious or not, are better than none at all."

Yet we tolerate you nonetheless.

Leave it to you to assume that by defending a person we look upon that person as perfection. If you think anyone is beyond such nitpicking critiques, you're the troll we took you for. Don't waste our time.

tugboatcapn July 13, 2009 at 9:58 PM  

Hey, look! Feodor sobered up!

Then he calls Lindsey Graham a "worm."

Lindsey Graham is a worm. (And that borders on insulting worms everywhere.)

(So is McCain, by the way.)

The late Roman Empire got their "facts" and knowledge from entertainment.

As did the majority of voters in the last election cycle. Had most Americans known what they were getting, they would NEVER have voted Barack Obama into the White House, and there would be no debate about whether or not someone like Sonya Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

tugboatcapn July 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM  

But then again, look at the issues we are discussing lately...

Aren't they the very same issues that brought down the Roman Empire?

Feodor July 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM  

Sure. And all the people will soon follow a Nephite prophet.

tugboatcapn July 13, 2009 at 11:19 PM  

They are following one now, or what they think is one...

(Well, not ALL of the people...)

How many Messiahs do you believe are coming, Feodor?

tugboatcapn July 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM  

Besides, it's easier to agree with a Mormon on political issues than with someone who disregards the Bible's teachings about Sin on religious matters...

We DO have freedom of religion in this country after all...

Why, our very PRESIDENT was raised as a Muslim...

tugboatcapn July 13, 2009 at 11:27 PM  

I'm sure that you dismiss all of Obama's political opinions on the grounds that he doesn't agree 100% with your religious views... (Which I'm sure he doesn't.)

(Just to be consistant, and all...)

Feodor July 14, 2009 at 6:16 AM  

If Obama believed in the golden tablets of Mormon, written a thousand years ago, buried in a stone box on a hill in upstate New York by the last Nephite prophet, and dug up by Joseph Smith, I wouldn't have to agree or disagree with him. He wouldn't be President.

What theological differences between him and me are at the atomic level compared to the bomb Beck is swallowing, and you are uncharacteristically defending.

But it is very interesting, this new found and isolated value you suddenly pace -- and will just as suddenly take back -- on a kind of "live and let live" attitude.

Would that you were consistent with that, "and all."

tugboatcapn July 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM  

I am.

If Glenn Beck embarks on a campaign to insist that the Bible does not condemn false religions, and that now the Holy Spirit has told him that we are to accept Mormons within our Christian Churches without trying to convert them to Christianity, I'll oppose him on that.

Nothing inconsistant about that...

Now, if I were preaching brotherly love and kindness one minute and then yelling "Fuck you" the next...

THAT would be inconsistant.

Mark July 14, 2009 at 7:54 AM  

Tug, Feodor doesn't preach brotherly love and kindness.

He hates.

That's all he does.

Feodor July 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM  

See, the problem with your logic is that you consider yourself my brother.

Tain't so.

You guys are the heretical Judaizers, to whom Paul said...

"Fuck you."

Because you pervert the good news about Jesus Christ.

tugboatcapn July 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM  

WE pervert the good news of Jesus Christ, huh?


You mean by telling people that Jesus Christ delivers us from our Sin, and that we don't just have to learn to live with it?

By telling them that they don't have to re-write the Bible to fit the whim of public opinion?

By telling them that Mankind does not have to live in slavery to our own self-destructive and sinful urges and tendencies?

That we CAN be changed from the inside out, and that it IS possible to live a life of righteousness through Jesus Christ and to live our lives for His Glory?

You mean THAT good news?

Feodor July 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM  

No.

But you'll get there, don't worry.

tugboatcapn July 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM  

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Marshall Art July 14, 2009 at 10:09 PM  

Feodor showing he's no Christian once again. False priest. Low class. Not worthy of serious consideration. I'll ignore anything but serious comments of his from here on out, and likely not even those. I don't think he has the character for it. Let's all move on.

Feodor July 15, 2009 at 6:37 PM  

You guys are Judaizers because you tell the Christ how he has to deliver us from our sins, and you tell the Christ who he can deliver from sin.

We can indeed be changed... by Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. But as Chapter and Verse says, "the wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit"

Chapter and Verse never intended to give you guys the idea that you, in fact, do know where the wind comes from or where it is going, in other words, for you to ever think you know what the Spirit will or will not do.

That you present yourselves as deniers to the plain witness of faith and full Christian discipleship of gay Christians AS claiming their gay identity means that you are deniers of the Spirit moving as it wills.

That is the definition of a Judaizer as Paul fought them: they thought they knew exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous and whom it could not.

So, now, here, too: Marshall, Mark, Bubba, EL, Neil, Tug, Daffy.

A False Priest would be on your side. A timid Priest is not me. You guys are not the ones who need my love... almost the opposite, but not quite that. Paul still loved the church in Galatia.

Feodor July 15, 2009 at 6:45 PM  

Marshall's embarrassed by the Mormon connection.

Marshall Art July 15, 2009 at 7:21 PM  

"Marshall's embarrassed by the Mormon connection."

Oh, ya think so, do ya? How do ya figure that?

"That is the definition of a Judaizer as Paul fought them: they thought they knew exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous and whom it could not."

Is this the same Paul of 1 Cor 5? The guy who passed judgement on the man who had his father's wife? He says not to associate with sexually immoral people. You stand proudly next to them in a church, no less. We invite them to Christ's table as we were invited: repentant of our sins and humbling ourselves before Him. NOT continuing in our sins and strutting proudly because we're "Christian-like" in other ways.

You think it is the Spirit that blows through you, but if what you feel conflicts with Scripture, as it does regarding human sexuality, it's a pretty safe bet that it ain't the HOLY Spirit, as is likely something more damning. The Spirit won't contradict itself. It won't contradict God's Will as revealed in Scripture. (I doubt it contradicts any of the books you think belong in the canon, too.)

Marshall Art July 15, 2009 at 7:24 PM  

Oh, and BTW, when "we invite" people to Christ's table, it's not like we're bouncers at some pub. Anyone is welcome as far as Christ is concerned and we don't deny that. What we deny is the idea that their particular sin is now stricken from His own notions of sinful behavior, that which separates them from the love of God by their own choice.

Feodor July 15, 2009 at 8:08 PM  

I really think it is Christ who invites people to his table.

Again, you guys have the wrong end of the stick in trying to wrest control from God on God's grace and holiness. I'll we are saying is that God is making Himself clear on the full Christian ministry of gay and lesbian Christians... without distinction.

You keep trying to own what God owns, and then you lock part of it up.

False, false... even anti-Christian, Marshall in the unintended results of your controlling theology.

Marshall Art July 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM  

"I really think it is Christ who invites people to his table."

C'mon, dude. That's what I said when I clarified in this way:

"Anyone is welcome as far as Christ is concerned and we don't deny that."

Saying that "we invite" is simply a rebuttal to your charge that we deny them access to Christ. Of COURSE it is Christ who calls. It's just too bad we can't tell when He's saying, "WHOA! Where do you think YOU'RE going, sinner? Didn't I say you need to leave that baggage behind? Who said you can bring it in here with you as if I now don't care?"

At the same time, that very same Paul by whom you claim to be guided, tells us to cast out the unrepentent sinner. How do you reconcile that? Well, I KNOW how YOU reconcile it. You do it by proclaiming a sin to no longer be sinful, as if you are God yourself. Seems to me it's up to God to make THOSE decisions and He hasn't made that proclamation at all. Wishing and hoping do not make it so.

Feodor July 15, 2009 at 9:40 PM  

Marshall:

"It's just too bad we can't tell when He's saying, 'WHOA! Where do you think YOU'RE going, sinner? Didn't I say you need to leave that baggage behind? Who said you can bring it in here with you as if I now don't care?'

The Gospel of Mark:

'When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."'

Still on the wrong side of the Gospel, Marshall.

Mark July 16, 2009 at 8:07 AM  

Feodor says, "I'll we are saying is that God is making Himself clear on the full Christian ministry of gay and lesbian Christians... without distinction."

I'll say it again, Feodor. Prove it. Especially that part about God making Himself clear. Book, chapter and verse, please, or retract the lie.

EL July 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM  

I have to second Mark's demand for proof, chapter and verse. Exactly WHAT ministry does God/Jesus have for "Christian" Gays and Lesbians?

This proof must include clear and incontrovertible proof that one, homosexuality is not a sin [chapter& verse]; two, that "gay" men and women can continue in their "abomination" once the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in their hearts; and lastly, chapter & verse, where in ANY of Paul's writings are gays given any specific ministry other than that given to ALL Christians.

Feodor July 16, 2009 at 9:38 PM  

As I have said, ad nauseam, when you show me chapter and verse on why women are now allowed to hold leadership positions in the church, or why slavery is now to be outlawed and considered a crime against humanity everywhere, or why wine can be ignored for communion, or why divorced men or single men can now be presbyters, or why a Christian church worthy of the name can now choose not to share all of the individual goods equally between all members of the parish...

... or show me chapter and verse where we need not shun menstruating women for the duration, or shun those with boils, or shun pigs altogether...

... or give me the series of sequenced chapter and verse that first state monogamy is God's law, then polygamy is God's joyful gift to David, much less Abraham, Jacob and fifty others, and then reestablishes monogamy as divine law again and then make a convincing argument that, heaven forbid, "God" did not change his mind or his law...

If you can give chapter and verse that makes sense of all this, I will stand ready to say that nothing under God can ever change from the time of the NT until now.

Feodor July 16, 2009 at 9:43 PM  

You ask me for something that cannot be given.

But you do not realize that you live the Christian life under the same state of affairs: much of how you practice your Christian faith is not covered, and often contravened, by chapter and verse.

In short, if you demand chapter and verse, you destroy the contours of your own, unacknowledged life of faith.

Feodor July 16, 2009 at 10:02 PM  

BTW, Tug, I answered your late, sly note at Marshall's on the post titled, "Those Traitorous Bastards!!!"

Marshall Art July 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM  

"...why women are now allowed to hold leadership positions in the church..."

Jesus never said they couldn't. So, arguing from silence...

"...slavery is now to be outlawed and considered a crime against humanity everywhere..."

Why not? God never sanctioned it. He never instituted it. He tolerated it.

"...why wine can be ignored for communion..."

Communion is a ritual. What difference does it make? Are you saying the Last Supper was depicting Jesus instituting future church ritual? How do you support that?

"...why divorced men or single men can now be presbyters..."

Hey. Some churches ordain openly homosexual people. You think it's a surprise that divorced men would not be denied? And what's your deal with single guys?


"...why a Christian church worthy of the name can now choose not to share all of the individual goods equally between all members of the parish..."

Truly, this is a new one to me. I know that we're to tithe, but where does it say the priest or minister HAS to divvy up the loot? Are we not giving the money to God? Charity is what we give beyond our tithing. As I said, I've never heard this one, except by non-religious people using such as a slam on churches.

..."or show me chapter and verse where we need not shun menstruating women for the duration, or shun those with boils, or shun pigs altogether..."

These have been answered, both with verses and with explanations by better men of Scripture than you. It just bothers you for some strange reason that one of them has a day job. Must make you feel insecure that he can be so good at more than one thing, while you're not so good at much of anything.

"...... or give me the series of sequenced chapter and verse that first state monogamy is God's law..."

Been over this, false priest. Monogamy is His intention for the creation of two human sexes. Stated in Genesis and re-iterated by Jesus Christ.

"...then polygamy is God's joyful gift to David, much less Abraham, Jacob and fifty others..."

Again, already explained. Unfortunately you pretend not to get it in your false priestly way, because you need to make that argument to help you with your homosex enabling.

So your demands for these things is just cheap tactics on your part that fool no one. No one believes you have trouble with any of the above, but, as I said, you try to invent these "troublesome" parts of Scripture in order to further your support for homosexuality as a "non-sin".

The truth is that you are an unrepent preacher of false doctrine and thus a heretic. You'll have to do a lot better than to rehash arguments you've already lost. It's all a ruse because you KNOW you have no true "revelation" or Scriptural support for your pro-homosex position.

All that education. All those books. So sad.

Feodor July 17, 2009 at 7:13 AM  

Paul said they couldn't. Do you really know your Bible?

Paul actually had words of praise for slaves to do their duty. That's a lot more than toleration, which also begs the question: if your God "tolerates great sins," then it makes no common sense to fight any kind of sin, for the conclusion must be that, with your God who is so whimsical, we can just wait for God to do "whatever" in his own good time.
___________

'Jesus broke the bread and said, "take, eat, this is my body. And likewise the took the cup of wine and said, "take, eat, this is my blood. Whenever you do this, do it in remembrance of me.'

We have chapters and verses and you are choosing to ignore them.
____________

We have chapter and verse stating that only men with children can be presbyters.

Since you join me in ignoring them, why the hate for your gay brothers and sisters?
____________

Book of Acts, Marshall, the first Christians shared all that they had with each other.

Chapter and verse which you are choosing to ignore (although, granted, you don't know your Bible well enough to have known it was there).
____________

What was the whirlybird answer again? I don't think you really understand the answer since it doesn't appear here.

But you don't want it to appear here, because they fail to answer.

And Mark and ELs standard was not referencing some shallow "scholar" want-to-be; it was chapter and verse. And you don't have that either.
__________________

You can't make sense of Genesis, Leviticus, 2 Samuel, whatever chapter and verse of a gospel you may have in mind, and Galatians.

Again, the standard is chapter and verse and make sense. You don't have it.
____________

You've had too many beers and no scripture, Marshall. You're an empty gong, a clanging symbol.

And, again, for your last line:

"for you."

Mark July 17, 2009 at 7:31 AM  

Feodor Obfuscates: "And Mark and ELs standard was not referencing some shallow "scholar" want-to-be; it was chapter and verse."

Yes, Feodor, that was the question. Why can't you answer it? Why do you avoid it? Would it be because there is no answer that will support your claim?

Geeez. Talk about a "scholar" wanna-be.

Mark July 17, 2009 at 7:32 AM  

Stop avoiding the question. Stop obfuscating.

Answer the question or admit you're wrong.

Those are your choices.

Feodor July 17, 2009 at 7:35 AM  

Mark, you have your answer from me. Why the delay? Having trouble figuring out where to turn next?

Marshall tried to cover your butt, but as you see, he didn't come up with the chapters and verses for how you ignore Paul, and the Last Supper as instituted by Jesus himself.

You have any chapters and verses for reversing them according to your Christian practice?

Mark July 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM  

You're trying to change the subject. I won't fall for that.

Answer.

The.

Question.

You are a fraud.

Feodor July 17, 2009 at 4:39 PM  

You just answered it, Mark. You're a fraud.

You do all kinds of things in faith that are not backed up by chapter and verse and even opposed by chapter and verse.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"... women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Colossians 3:22

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."


If you do not live by these instances of chapter and verse, then your asking me for chapter and verse is a charade.

Admit that you are blind to how you escape chapter and verse while tying others down by demanding chapter and verse.

You know what the definition of such a person is?

A true fraud.

Marshall Art July 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM  

Feodor,

I didn't need any chapter or verse to rebut your examples. The premises alone are mostly inane understandings. For example:

First of all, I STILL haven't looked at Paul's position on women in the church. Thus, I STILL won't comment on it

Secondly, Paul spoke of how people were to behave with each other when he was speaking of slaves and masters. When you can provide a chapter or verse where God creates the institute of slavery, endorses it, mandates it, blesses it or in any way says He wants ANYONE to own other people, provide it and then we'll talk.

Next, by your own quote, Jesus said "everytime you do this..." Seems to me, He's not speaking of creating a ritual for Sunday service as much as telling the Apostles to think of Him every time they break bread and sip wine. One could even say that He was saying this ONLY for the Apostles to do. But to say that this stands as a mandate for Christians to perform on Sunday is a big stretch. Besides, He mentions "fruit of the vine". That would include grape juice as well as wine.

As for presbyters, their roles have changed considerably since Paul's time. But I wonder if that was a mandate or a recommendation? Perhaps you should have offered chapter and verse to make your case here, too. In other words, is this as Lev 18:22 as strong as "Thou shalt not..."? I don't think so. (Nice try)

"Book of Acts, Marshall, the first Christians shared all that they had with each other."

And that lasted how long? And as with the above, what was happening here, a mandate on the order of "Thou shalt not...", or Peter organizing one small group of people? Are there any stories of other Apostles doing this? Anything in the Epistles? Can we still share with the poor and needy without a communal society? Can you grasp weaker straws?

"What was the whirlybird answer again? I don't think you really understand the answer since it doesn't appear here."

I don't feel compelled to cut and paste or retype what you can so easily reference, if not understand. I more than understand the answer, I in fact understood the answer before my stumbling upon Olliff and Hodges. Again, nice try (not really). This answer doesn't require chapter and verse as the answer lies in the overarching theme of the whole Bible, something you roundly reject as too cumbersome to follow and learn and live. But Jesus does tell us that nothing from without can make us unclean, only that which comes from within. If that's not enough for your phoney sanctimony, too bad.

Your referring to Gen, Lev and 2 Sam always brings about a chuckle as you comically attempted to form an argument with your goofy interpretations. You need to find a new teacher and trash those books of yours. You miss the obvious and see what doesn't exist. Poor fool.

I could down a pint of John Daniels and still show you why you lack understanding.

All that education...

Feodor July 17, 2009 at 8:53 PM  

... steadfastly ignored by you, as is actual Scripture.

And for the same reason: they both indicate how stubbornly and un-reformedly off base you dedicate yourself to be. You not here to think; you're here to harangue, a lazy man's work.

Mark July 18, 2009 at 7:08 AM  

"You miss the obvious and see what doesn't exist"

No he doesn't. He knows the truth. he just wants to argue. He wants to be a stumbling block.

God will deal with him.

Feodor July 18, 2009 at 8:09 AM  

Mark really doesn't want chapter and verse now. He's seen how the edge cuts him instead.

Marshall Art July 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM  

"He's seen how the edge cuts him instead."

Hardly. He's seen the futility of debating with someone who claims to be educated but hasn't shown understanding, who claims to be a believer but believes on his own terms, and simply the futility of debating with someone like you. I'm not the only one who knows how he feels.

Feodor July 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM  

He asked for chapter and verse.

I showed him how chapter and verse arguments fail to describe any present Christian life.

(Because literal, clear sense interpretation of Scripture is full of internally blind contradictions.)

So neither Mark nor you respond to the chapter and verse issued you guys first raised.

Marshall Art July 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM  

"I showed him how chapter and verse arguments fail to describe any present Christian life."

But you showed no reason why they should represent present Christian life. Nor even IF they should. You just tried to put up something to confuse understanding in order to deflect criticism of your lack of it.

"(Because literal, clear sense interpretation of Scripture is full of internally blind contradictions.)"

Only to the internally blind who are lacking in clear sense.

tugboatcapn July 18, 2009 at 9:44 PM  

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"... women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

I might point out that one of the others who constantly argues the wrong side of every issue here is a member of a church that has had the same female pastor for decades.

Maybe you're on to something here, Feodor...

I'm glad you pointed out the sinfulness of ignoring God's word on the issue of women speaking in church.

We'll work on that.

Colossians 3:22

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Huhmn...

If I am ever a slave, I will try my best to follow this verse to the letter.

But since I am not a slave, don't know any slaves, don't own any slaves, don't know anyone who owns slaves, or has ever owned a slave, or has ever been a slave...

I don't really see what this verse has to do with the fact that you and your church have decided to admit people into your congregation who have not turned themselves fully over to God, and have put their own perverse desires and tendancies above Him.

You pollute God's Church with people who have not repented of their Sin.

We have asked you for Chapter and Verse where you are instructed to do that, and you have tap-danced, shucked and jived, changed the subject, insulted, derided, and obfuscated...

Everything but present a legitimate case.

So, again, if you have a passage from the Bible where God blesses a homosexual union, or situation, or activity in any context, please present it now.

Nothing about slavery, or communion, or women in church (unless you have a clearly defined example of God blessing lesbians in church), or slavery, or menstruating women, or shrimp, or shaving, or burying your bodily waste, or drinking anything, or eating anything, or anything else besides a CLEARLY DEFINED HOMOSEXUAL UNION BLESSED BY GOD will support your case.

No, wait...

IT ISN'T THERE, FEODOR.

You lose.

Feodor July 19, 2009 at 9:47 AM  

How dense are you?

You lost coming out of the box because you ask me to toe a line you cross all the time.

If I see you crossing the line on so many issues, why must I toe the line in this one?

In places where people talk about these things seriously, the language is: you have failed to provide a foundation for the basis of your question. If you don't adhere to the principles on which your question is constructed, your question is inherently corrupt.

This is my argument, not that there is chapter and verse that is pro-gay, but that there are chapters and verses that are anti-female leadership, anti-emancipation, pro wine, anti-menstruating women appearing in public, anti-boil bearers in public commerce, etc.

That all of your ignore some or all of these undercuts your demands for case law in this issue.

So, the issue from point of view is that you go about arguing from shifting sand. No wonder you don't see your weakness: it would bring the whole house down.

So, again, I ask, how dense are you?

Marshall Art July 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM  

Feodor,

Please have someone teach you what honest debate means. Not only have you not shown where we've crossed lines, you've yet to show where the lines exist.

You have not shown where God sanctions or mandates slavery. You have not shown where we must even have communion, much less drink only wine, in our worship services.

I HAVE shown why touching blood, boils, etc no longer makes us unclean. Matt 15:18-20.

You spend too much time defending the indefensible rather than seeking to know the Will of God and applying to life today.

Sure, changes have come in the church as the centuries have passed. But have any of us actually claimed to support or endorse these changes? If you can prove THAT, then you'd have a leg on which you could stand when refusing to support your homosex enabling. Instead, you've used this to guide the discussion away from your responsibility to explain why you've so definitely strayed from Scriptural teaching. And it's really tiresome.

Feodor July 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM  

I didn't say God mandated anything.

I said chapter and verse does mandate many things you no longer condone, follow, or just care about.

For the fifteenth time, you can't equate divinity with something written. It's blasphemous and just plain stupid.

As you demonstrate here.

Marshall Art July 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM  

"I didn't say God mandated anything."

That's obvious. You like to believe what you like to believe.

"I said chapter and verse does mandate many things you no longer condone, follow, or just care about."

And we say that chapter and verse tells us what God DID mandate. As to other things we condone, follow or care about, you have no idea, but assume what you like (there's a pattern here) for your own benefit.

"For the fifteenth time, you can't equate divinity with something written."

Oh, I think you've made that stupid mistake more than fifteen times. We DON'T equate divinity with something written. We claim that that which is written has as its source someone Divine. We claim there is no other revelation available that has the authority of that which is written. We claim that fools pretend to have received revelations which coincidentally mesh with their own desires and agendas. We claim this because what the fools believe is contrary to that only revelation upon which any of us can truly depend.

Feodor July 19, 2009 at 6:32 PM  

You can put words in my mouth all you want. You can delete my comments all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that you always run out of things to argue with -- none of which cohere together -- and are left holding your... you know.

I've given you multiple arguments OF scripture which you choose to ignore and are now running as fast from arguments on chapter and verse as you can.

Your contradictions are too clear when you engage on Colossians, Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and now Hebrews.

I'm running out of scripture that you will not deal with 'cause you're just running.

Tug's response is, "well, slavery doesn't much touch my life so I'm not too concerned about it."

Very nice picture of the false Christian you model so well.

I'm fine with applying Matthew 15 to the whole Christian community. It works for me.

What comes out of a person proves their faith and moral center, not what goes in. Sounds like a perfect test for the full faith of my gay brothers and sisters.

It's what I've been talking about all along: test the Spirit, if they live lives of discipleship, the Spirit is with them.

You just need to move from milk to meat now.

"Weve much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil...

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity... Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned."

Get rid of your thorns and thistles, Marshall.

Quickly.

tugboatcapn July 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM  

Yeah, Marshall.

Put down that silly old Bible and listen to Feodor!

Can't you see how much sense he's making?

Can't you see how effective he has been with his profanity and hateful, insulting, extra-Biblical beating-around-the-bush?

Put down your milk and have some of whatever Feodor is drinking!

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 7:27 AM  

What's the matter, Tug, Chapter and Verse not where you want to be right now?

Off to Disney World, hugh?

EL July 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM  

..::Part 1::..

I’ve been following the discussion. I didn’t have time to take a part, but I do have some time now to add my thoughts.

First, a false premise:

”That all of you ignore some or all of these [one-time held biblical precepts] undercuts your demands for case law in this issue.

Sorry, but no it doesn’t. Because the judge runs red lights and fails to give right-of-ways he undercuts his demand for case law on issues of traffic violations? That doesn’t make sense. It makes the judge a hypocrite, but it doesn’t take away from or undercut his duty to the law. And the law specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination. The fact that I occasionally eat a basket of shrimp doesn’t make it okay for other men to commit homosexual acts. Asking for chapter and verse on God’s permissibility of homosexuality is a fair question, whether or not I eat shrimp and pork. Because I do eat shrimp and pork [though not really] is not reason enough to say, “Pfft! I don’t have to answer that! Look at you! You eat shellfish and swine!”

The truth of the matter is, there is absolutely NO, no not ONE, verse of scripture that condones or allows homosexual behavior, be it in ANY relationship-- loving or else-wise. None. And to argue that such a question isn’t allowed to be asked by swine eaters is preposterous.

As for the consumption of shrimp and swine—and a host of other thou shalt not’s --these are still against the will of God. Paul did teach that many of these things were now lawful, but he also said they weren’t expedient…

”All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” 1 Corinthians 6:12-20

God’s perfect will is that you abstain from shellfish and swine [among other things, like fornication, adultery, homosexuality, beastiality], but should you consume them you reap what you sow… poor food choices to bad health and early demise.

God DOES mandate. He mandates that you [insert Ten Commandments] if you want to be Holy and acceptable in His sight, without the need of a savior [PRE Christ Jesus]. But having given us a savior, he MANDATES that we accept that gift if we wish to live forever with HIM.

EL July 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM  

..::Part 2::..

Feodor said something earlier on about the true Gospel… let me look…

Okay, first his definition:

”they thought they knew exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous and whom it could not.”

But actually, a Judaizer was one who, after Paul established a church and moved on to another city, moved in and said, “yes, you are saved by grace, through faith, but now you have to get circumcised, abstain from pork, etc., burden yourself with the implacable Law of Moses[God].” But this is salvation by works. Salvation is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ-- plus nothing, minus nothing. In the sense that a new believer had to add the Law to his worship it can be said that the Judaizer thought he know exactly whom the Gospel counted as righteous. But the truth of the matter is this: If you are genuinely saved, and the Spirit of God resides in you…….. you ARE righteous. Despite whatever sins you have, OR WILL commit. You are righteous, Sanctified, and Perfected over time into the image of His son Jesus. Not only that but if you are genuinely saved you are called by God to these things… called to righteousness, sanctification, and perfection. See Jude 1:1

Next:

“Still on the wrong side of the Gospel…”

So what is the Gospel? 1 Corinthians 15:1-4…

”Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…”

THAT is the Gospel. That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures. That He was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, also according to the scriptures. It’s not all that other stuff of feeding the poor and clothing the naked, etc. All THAT comes with living a genuine spirit-filled life as a follower and disciple of Christ, but it is not the Gospel.

So who is one the wrong side of the Gospel? The Gospel states both lovingly AND terribly that there is a solution to one’s sin-- including the very personal sin of homosexuality –and that solution is Jesus Christ; His death, burial and resurrection, all of which can also wash away the sin of a poor diet. Neglect the Gospel and there’ll be found no place for you at God’s table.

EL July 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM  

..::Part 3::..

Is slavery, because it was regarded and given rules of governance for by God, condoned by the scriptures? Paul did say to be content in whatever station one finds himself in, but does the Old Testament law specifically state that slavery is an acceptable station for any human being? Was Slavery ever a part of God’s plan for any man? No. Just as with divorce, because of the hardness of man’s heart, rules were given by God so that no slave was mistreated.

Slavery still exists today. But that doesn’t make it right. Slavery is illegal in America, and it is good. That no one here views slavery as good and biblical is not in any way a contravention of God’s will. God’s will is that we love Him above and before all else, with every fiber of our being, and our neighbors as ourselves. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves while holding him in bondage? As property? It cannot then be righteously suggested that because one views slavery as evil that he cannot then ask chapter and verse for God’s permission of homosexuality.

Women should not speak in Churches? Yes, Paul said it, but where does he get this? He also said, speaking of his own celibacy…

”For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

Does Paul get is proscription against vocal women from the scriptures? Or from tradition? If from the former then every woman on TBN, INSP, and in Black and White churches across America, and the world which allows women a public voice is breaking God’s law. But if his proscription is from tradition, well, traditions change.

This much is true. God does use women in service and ministry. He used Deborah. He used Esther. He used Anna the prophetess. Did God break His own law by using these three women?

Boils, Blood, Dead Bodies? All of these things are still unclean. The only thing different about the times of Leviticus and today is sanitation; soaps, disinfectants, etc. Some today still live as filthy [by choice] as those in Old Testament times [as a matter of course]. Germs and disease are always unclean. But the very fact that hygiene is greatly improved [for those who choose to employ its methods], and that every child knows about germs when every adult in Jesus’ time did not, only shows that we are different today only in terms of knowledge and the lengths to which our knowledge has driven us in terms of avoiding Uncleanness.

Shrimp and Lobster are unlawful because of what they are; scavengers feeding off refuse and effluvium. Swine as well. You are what you eat, it is truthfully said. Eat clean foods and your body remains clean. Eat unclean foods and you invite disease into your members. God wants us healthy and clean, to better serve Him, hence his dietary laws.

The fact that the church in Jerusalem held all things in common was not the model for the church age. And nowhere does Paul teach that Christians should live communally. Even the story of Ananias and Sapphira is misunderstood here. This man and wife were not killed by God because they desired to keep a portion of the money they received from the sale of property, but rather they died because they lied about how much they received, so as to appear to be giving everything, while holding back a hidden portion for themselves. In short, they lied to God. Were they saved? It would appear so, but they still lied, and God used their deaths as an example.

EL July 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM  

..::Part 4::..

But nowhere, and I mean NO WHERE does God condone homosexuality, in any form, be it in a loving relationship or a degrading one. Paul affirmed its status as “Abomination” in Romans chapter one. Unequivocally so.

Does a homosexual wish to serve God and follow Jesus? Let him abandon his wicked ways and rely on the blood of the Lamb of God for his salvation, and the strength to live a new life in Christ. Can a saved man fall back into his sin? Of course. Has he lost the gift of salvation? Of course not. But what characterizes a man or woman saved from their sin, from those who continue to live in it? A man or woman genuinely saved will not remain in their backslidden state for long. They will repent, having been convicted and chastened by the Spirit of God within him or her. They have ceased to be “Homosexual” despite any relapse. They turn from their sin and ask God’s forgiveness through the shed blood of Christ. Homosexuality is a sin every bit as much as fornication. And just as no fornicator can find justification for his or her sin in God’s eyes, neither can the homosexual. Homosexuals living in their sin without any guilt in the face of God? I have to wonder if they are saved at all. And I have to ask if the congregation has enabled them to live a lie. Not that God’s loves them, He does. But that God has saved them from and in spite of their sin, and has allowed them to remain what they were. Abominations; affronts to God. God changes people. If he has saved these homosexuals they should have abandoned their sin.

I think the reason you don’t want to get into a discussion of chapter and verse with regard to homosexuality is because you know you can’t prove your case. God only needs to say it once for it to be good or evil. I can count numerous verses that speak of the evilness of homosexuality and its just punishments, but you can’t point to a single verse where it is condoned.

So again, if you feel homosexuality is condoned by God, please give us chapter and verse. But please, let’s leave all of the rhetorical jujitsu and strawmen out of the discussion.

BenT - the unbeliever,  July 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM  

But the bible doesn't condemn slavery or war or plagiarism or many other things that we universally see as immoral.

And the only reason I can think why these things are not specifically condemned in the bible is because, the book was written by men. Not an uncompromising purely moral deity.

Think about it logically, 3,000 years ago which is the more widespread immorality? Homosexuality, war or slavery? Which one can you condemn and make all your parishioners feel just a bit superior and not piss-off the government or the wealthy merchants building your new temple? These are the concerns of men, not gods.

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 7:34 PM  

I have to say, EL, that, despite the abhorrent bile of your authored posts, I have always admired how you engage in biblical discussion with a rigor of thought and a clear possession of your own positions.

I think of you as tough old Jew from Willamsburg, believing in the power of the order of the law to shape a worthy life, even though for you it takes a secondary "good housekeeping" role under Christ.

I also want to say, as I respond to your essays, that I often argue from within your point of view of a literal reading of an inerrant writ. This move often goes above the heads of Marshall, Tug, Bubba, and certainly Mark. But I do so in order to show how such a strict reading, when followed through consistently and in passages that cause problems, reach contradictory ends that call out for the additional and sometimes contorted logic of such a reader in order to make it make sense and keep a literal reading intact.

My approach is, of course, altogether different, though no less based in scripture from the first and principally.
______________

Now as for Part 1:

When I said, "ignore," I did not mean in the sense of being a "small law" breaker, but in the sense that by practice, they reveal that they think the law has passed away. Additionally, I mean that they also ignore some directives found in Chapter and Verse in the NT for reasons, seemingly, of assumed benign historical change: juice instead of wine. I don't know how a literal reader of the plain sense of scripture cannot see Jesus' institution of Communion as just that, an institution, just like baptism, of what we are to do.

Now, if they behave as if some laws have passed away without the direct affirmation of "Chapter and Verse," and as if some "Chapter and Verse" directives can be conditioned by time and style, then they are approaching scripture just like lazy liberals and thus, to demand Chapter and Verse is hypocrisy from the start and cannot be respected.

As I have stipulated, there is not explicit verse lifting the lid on homosexuality. But it is not misdirection to say that there is no verse lifting the lid off slavery, extreme universal patriarchy of the age still seen in third world countries and some developing nations; no verse lifting the lid on divorced and/or childless men serving as elders, much less women as bishops; no verse disestablishing communion "as often as you gather"; no verse instituting monogamy, no verse disestablishing polygamy, and no third verse re-instituting monogamy again; no verse lifting the lid on being baptised for the already dead so that, by proxy, the dead will be grandfathered in according to Paul; no verse lifting the lid off caring for all widows and orphans.

Now, again, these are not "problems" for the whole sweep of historic, sacramental Christianity of which I am a part, since, by Christ who lives and reigns, we have been set free to be free (Galatians 5:1) and no longer "slaves to the law," but now, having Christ living in us, we can rise to make meatier judgments of mature Christians (Hebrews 5,6), thereby actually being co-participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1).

But this state of affairs is so pervasively destructive of any Christian trying to live by Chapter and Verse that one can hardly take seriously your sectioning out one or two verses laying out the Mosaic order for ancient Israel as somehow more central to God's wrath. You live in a biblical context far more brittle than an innocent sneaking into Long John Silvers.

Mark July 20, 2009 at 7:48 PM  

"This move often goes above the heads of Marshall, Tug, Bubba, and certainly Mark."

Behold, I show you a mystery: I am intellectually so far above your head, Feodor, you think I am below you.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your naivete.

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM  

You, however, want to keep all Mosaic laws, though under the salvific fact of Christ's death and resurrection. You quote Paul to the effect of claiming that the Gospel is only about salvation fact and then it's back to the discipline of law. It's as if, in the middle of one, long hot summer, we dipped ourselves in the pool for a few minutes, but then had to return to work under the hot sun. The cool pool of Christ is only a quick passing memory and foretaste of what lies ahead but nothing more of it is to be had in the here and now.

But within the quote of Paul that you give us from 1 Corinthians lies an unread phrase giving you away: "For I delivered unto you first of all..."

So, what was second? And third? What you quote is only what he says he delivered as the first things. Apparently the Gospel has more to give than you think. It's at least interesting to me that after Chapter 15, a part dissertation on the importance of the Resurrection (what was first delivered), and which ends with "therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord...", Paul starts right off with that work in Chapter 16:1, "Now concerning the collection for the saints..."

EL, you're partitioning of the Gospel from "all that other stuff of feeding the poor and clothing the naked, etc." is artificial here in 1 Corinthians 15 and 16. It comes from a reading that doesn't read closely enough and then stops short.

And your emphasis on "according to the scriptures" is curious and making something out of Paul that he does not intend. I'm not sure what all you read there, but I do know Paul wrote this:

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it..."

Nothing according to scripture there, EL.

In fact, as regards law and gospel, I'd suggest you give a good, long, and careful reading to Galatians.

I think you like Hagar too much.

5:1,2: For freedom, Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit to a yoke of slavery.
______________

On a separate note, and one that does not make any sense in your literalist, inerrant world, would that Paul knew more and could have applied that to the physical reality of slavery. Two thousand years of history would have been different.

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 8:01 PM  

No doubt about it, Mark, you are Themistocles reborn.

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM  

Part 3 seems to me to be just a string of stuff that does not cohere. That you toss away meaning for Levitical abhorrence of boils and menstruation, retain Levitical abhorrence of cloven hoofed and whatever it is about crustaceans is the kind of picking and choosing and back formation of reasons that demonstrates so amply how a literal reading takes on escape velocity when it comes to a comprehensively close reading.

No one gets sick from eating pork and lobster or mixing beef with chesse (why don't you mention this one?). Its the man-made chemicals one should be aware of in pork and seafood.

I could eat lobster every day except that now studies are beginning to prove that they do indeed feel pain. Lobster, for me, may go the way of veal since I first saw those ads in my college cafeteria about abusive methods of penning them up from all movement. Though some are telling me things have changed now.

Perhaps you'd be better off building your back formation thinking on the prohibition of eating crustaceans because they are more evolved than fish and have receptors for pain.

Your diet is your diet, not Christ's or Paul's.

"If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"? All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These indeed have the appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence. So if you have been raise with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God."

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM  

Part 4

I can't prove my case on homosexuality using only the explicit Biblical references to women having sex with women and men having sex with men. Those verses don't reference gay Christian men and women, just profligate and wanton sex-filled worshippers of gods who "command" them to do so.

So, perhaps, just as you suggest Paul's address to the churches in Corinth and Colossia regarding women are situation specific, so is his address to the churches in Romans, you think?

You have led me out of a literalist, inerrant reading to one that takes socio-culture context into view and makes adjustments to interpret scripture for our own time. Since, as you say, "traditions change," maybe juice is okay and a church is alright even though it does not celebrate the Eucharist every time it gathers as the church; maybe divorced or childless men can be good leaders; maybe women, too, are created in the image and likeness of God and so can server in ministry and full leadership; maybe menstruation and boils no longer matter because of hygiene; maybe Paul, if he had know, would have re-written his passages on slaves.

In fact, he kind of did in Galatians. "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female.... For freedom Christ has set us free."

Paul never knew a gay Christian. Just like he never knew a Chinese Catholic.

When he talked about pagans, he had their religious practices in mind, and the horrible kind of morals and ethics that precipitated from them.

You misread him and misapply him in your austere, Batenburgian way.

Marshall Art July 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM  

Naturally, I agree with Mark's sentiments. There is nothing you have said to us, Feodor, that is "over our heads". On the other hand, we must continually repeat ourselves as you continually misrepresent our positions. You charge us with things we've never said or done. Then, to avoid supporting your enabling of sinful behavior, you bring up issues without ever asking any of us on which side of those issue we stand. We're supposed to defend something to which YOU think we are party. Not happenin' here, false priest. Here's the bottom line: you support sinful behavior. We do not.

Frankly, I don't have time these days to waste on liars like yourelf. If it ever becomes possible that you can say something intelligent, not the superficial psuedo-intellectual crap you usually dish up, but something truly intelligent, I may respond. For now, you're a gnat.

Feodor July 20, 2009 at 8:55 PM  

You swallow a camel but choke on a gnat.

Now where have I heard that before?

EL July 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM  

For the record. I submitted 4 parts yesterday because this blog doesn't allow comments longer than 4600 characters.

I have more to say but no time to say it....

Later, then.

Marshall Art July 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM  

One wonders where you hear anything you publish in these blogs, Feo-boy. My gnat reference was describing at what level of annoyance you are.

But I must say, after forcing myself through your unnecessarily wordy comments, just where is it stated just what Paul had in mind when he wrote what he wrote, such as

"When he talked about pagans, he had their religious practices in mind..."

How do you know? Where does he state this? It sounds like speculation from someone with a homosex enabling agenda, but I don't see where in the text this can be inferred.

In addition, how do you know that "Paul never knew a gay Christian"? He was quite familiar with both Greece and Rome, was he not? The likelihood that he encountered homosexuals that parallel those of today is likely. That any of them became followers of Christ is not out of the realm of possibility, either. More than likely, however, I would guess that they repented of their sinful sexual practices. That's MY speculation and I'd wager it's closer to the truth than is yours.

"Those verses don't reference gay Christian men and women, just profligate and wanton sex-filled worshippers of gods who "command" them to do so."

Sez you. Again, where is this written? I find it typical that in support of the agenda, enablers can only think of ancient homosexuals as driven by pagan ritual, victims of oppressive behavior of others, or some other lustful sex-whore type of individual, and that those are the ONLY subjects of Biblical prohibitions. Very highly doubtful, particularly lacking any evidence of such assumptions. Very highly convenient as well.

Feodor July 21, 2009 at 7:23 PM  

Very highly doubtful that any kind of NT scholarship is being taught in your big rig driving class, Marshall.

That you don't know anything about the Greco-Roman world hardly needs to be said.

That we can read thousands of pages written by Roman and Greek commenters of the time, moralists who write much like Paul about such behavior, and from whom I draw my points, is too much to ask you to dig into.

After all, you've got the Mormon Glenn Beck to read.

Marshall Art July 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM  

In which of those thousands of pages that you claim to have read can we find Paul stating what was on his mind as he wrote the verses with which we have concerned ourselves here? I'll wait here while you produce the evidence to support your belief that "When he talked about pagans, he had their religious practices in mind..." I'm sure it won't take you too long.

One thing they DON'T teach in my truck driving school is to make up crap and try to pass it off as fact. It takes a liberal, progressive education to learn that.

Feodor July 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM  

1. Cuius de virtutibus dubito quemadmodum exponam, quod vereor, si res explicare incipiam, ne non vitam cius enarrare, sed historiam videar scribere; si tantummodo summas attigero, ne rudibus Graecarum litterarum minus dilucide appareat, quantus fuerit ille vir. Itaque utrique rei occurram, quantum potuero, et medebor cum satietati turn ignorantiae lectorum. Phoebidas Lacedaemonius, cum exercitum Olynthum duceret iterque per Thebas faceret, arcem oppidi, quae Cadmea nominator, occupavit impulsu paucorum Thebanorum, qui, adversariae factioni quo facilius resisterent, Laconum rebus studebant, idque suo privato, non publico fecit consilio. Quo facto eum Lacedaemonii ab exercitu removerunt pecuniaque multarunt, neque eo magis arcem Thebanis reddiderunt, quod susceptis inimicitiis satius ducebant eos obsideri quam liberari. Nam post Peloponnesium bellum Athenasque devictas cum Thebanis sibi rem esse existimabant et eos esse solos, qui adversus resistere auderent. Hac mente amicis suis summas potestates dederant alteriusque factionis principes partim interfecerant, alios in exilium eiecerant; in quibus Pelopidas hic, de quo scribere exorsi sumus, pulsus patria carebat.

2. Hi omnes fere Athenas se contulerant, non quo sequerentur otium, sed ut, quem ex proximo locum fors obtulisset, eo patriam recuperate niterentur. Itaque cum tempus est visum rei gerendae, communiter cum iis, qui Thebis idem sentiebant, diem delegerunt ad inimicos opprimendos civitatemque liberandam eum, quo maximi magistratus simul consuerant epulari. Magnae saepe res non ita magnis copiis sunt gestae; sed profecto numquam tam ab tenui initio tantae opes sunt profligatae. Nam duodecim adolescentuli coierunt ex his, qui exilio erant multati, cum omnino non essent amplius centum, qui tanto se offerrent periculo. Qua paucitate percussa est Lacedaemoniorum potentia. Hi enim non magis adversariorum factioni quam Spartanis eo tempore bellum intulerunt, qui principes erant totius Graeciae; quorum imperii maiestas, neque ita multo post, Leuctrica pugna ab hoc initio perculsa concidit. llli igitur duodecim,quorum dux erat Pelopidas, cum Athenis interdiu exissent, ut vesperascente caelo Thebas possent pervenire, cum canibus venaticis exierunt, retia ferentes, vestitu agresti, quo minore suspicione facerent iter. Qui cum tempore ipso, quo studuerant, pervenissent, domum Charonis deverterunt, a quo et tempus et dies erat datus.

3. Hoc loco libet interponere, etsi seiunctum ab re proposita est, nimia fiducia quantae calamitati soleat esse. Nam magistratuum Thebanorum statim ad aures pervenit exules in urbem venisse. Id illi vino epulisque dediti usque eo despexerunt, ut ne quaerere quidem de tanta re laborarint. Accessit etiam, quod magis aperiret eorum dementiam. Allata est enim epistola Athenis ab Archino uni ex his, Archiae, qui tum maximum magistrature Thebis obtinebat, in qua omnia de profectione eorum perscripta erant. Quae cum iam accubanti in convivio esset data, sicut erat signata, sub pulvinum subiciens, In crastinum, inquit, differo res severas. At illi omnes, cum iam nox processisset, vinolenti ab exulibus duce Pelopida sunt interfecti. Quibus rebus confectis vulgo ad arma libertatemque vocato non solum qui in urbe erant, sed etiam undique ex agris concurrerunt, praesidium Lacedaemoniorum ex arce pepulerunt, patriam obsidione liberarunt, auctores Cadmeae occupandae partim occiderunt, partim in exilium ciecerunt.

Feodor July 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM  

4. Hoc tam turbido tempore, sicut supra docuimus, Epaminondas, quoad cum civibus dimicatum est, domi quietus fuit. Itaque haec liberatarum Thebarum propria laus est Pelopidae; ceterae fere communes cum Epaminonda. Namque Leuctrica pugna imperatore Epaminonda hic fuit dux delectae manus, quae prima phalangem prostravit Laconum. Omnibus praeterea periculis affuit (sicut, Spartam cum oppugnavit, alterum tenuit cornu), quoque Messena celerius restitueretur, legatus in Persas est profectus. Denique haec fuit altera persona Thebis, sed tamen secunda ita, ut proxima esset Epaminondae.

5. Conflictatus autem est cum adversa fortuna. Nam et initio, sicut ostendimus, exul patria caruit, et cum Thessaliam in potestatem Thebanorum cuperet redigere legationisque iure satis tectum se arbitraretur, quod apud omnes gentes sanctum esse consuesset, a tyranno Alexandro Pheraeo simul cum Ismenia comprehensus in vincla coniectus est. Hunc Epaminondas recuperavit, bello persequens Alexandrum. Post id factum numquam animo placari potuit in eum, a quo erat violatus. Itaque persuasit Thebanis, ut subsidio Tbessaliae proficiscerentur tyrannosque eius expellerent. Cuius belli cum ei summa esset data eoque cum exercitu profectus esset, non dubitavit, simulac conspexit hostem, confligere. In quo proelio Alexandrum ut animadvertit, incensus ira equum in cum concitavit, proculque digressus a suis, coniectu telorum confossus concidit. Atque hoc secunda victoria accidit: nam iam inclinatae erant tyrannorum copiae. Quo facto omnes Thessaliae civitates interfectum Pelopidam coronis aureis et statuis aeneis liberosque eius multo agro donarunt.

Feodor July 21, 2009 at 9:51 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor July 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM  

iLis de rebus si quid geri volueris, cerijum hominem
ad eum mittas face , cum quo coUoquatur/ rez tot
hominum salute tam sibi necessariorum magno opere gavisus confestim cum epistola Artabazum ad Pausaniam mitt^t, in qua eum coUaudat et petit, ne cui rei parcat ad ea efiscienda. quae poUiceretur: si perfecerit, nulKus rei a se repulsam laturum. huius Pausanias voluntate cognita alacrior ad rem gerendam factus in suspicionem incidit Lacedaemoniorum. quo facto domum revocatus, accusatus capitis absolvitur, multatur tamen pecunia: quam ob causam ad classem remissus non est.

At ille post non multo sua sponte ad exercitumS
rediit et ibi non callida , sed dementi ratione cogitata patefecit: non enim raores patrios solum, sed etiam cultum vestitumque- mutavit. apparatu regio uteba tur, veste Medica; satellites Medi et ^gyptii seque bantur: epulabatur more Persarum luxuriosius, quam qui aderant perpeti possent : aditum petentibus non dabat, superbe espondebat, crudeliter imperabat. Spartam redire nolebat: Colonas, qui locus in agro Troade est, se contulerat: ibi consilia cum patriae
tum sibi inimica capiebat. id postquam Lacedaemonii rescierunt , legatos cum scytala adj eum miserunt, in qua more illorum erat scriptum: nisi domum rever- teretur, se capitis eum damnaturos. hoc nuntio commotus , sperans se etiam tum pecunia et potentia instans periculum posse depellere, domum rediit. huc ut venit , ab ephoris in vincula publica est coniectus: licet enim legibus eorum cuivis ephoro hoc facere.

Mark July 21, 2009 at 10:50 PM  

Feodor, you are so childish.

You can use as much Latin as you want, but if you are still wrong about what God says, it doesn't mean diddley squat.

We are not impressed.

Grow up.

Mark July 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM  

Feodor reminds me of the child who continues to show off to impress the girl next door, only to be ignored.

So you know Latin. (You probably don't. You probably used a translator program)

BFD!

Feodor August 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM  

Mark, it seems like I was asked to produce it by Marshall:

"I'll wait here while you produce the evidence to support your belief that "When he talked about pagans, he had their religious practices in mind..." I'm sure it won't take you too long."

I agree, giving him what he wants is not big fucking deal, since he does not ask for much.

But he did ask.

That have to say what you do is due to your being a child.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP