All I can say is Rosie O’Donnell’s mask is slipping. Rosie was so motivated by an article in the Gay City News written by contributing writer Brendan Keane, that on June 4, she cross-posted it on her own site. By posting the article, Rosie at least tacitly approved of its content, and thus Keane’s anti-military stance gives some insight into who Rosie really believes are the terrorists as well as what she thinks about the military she claimed to love while on “The View.” She didn’t condemn or correct any of the negative comments about the US armed forces, like this one, which indicate that she was indeed questioning the military’s morality (emphasis mine throughout):
O’Donnell’s pacifism is ridiculed when it questions the morality of the American military and of the decision-makers that send young people to kill and die in America’s name.
Thanks for finally admitting it, Rosie. I’m sure if she disagreed with any of this article, she would have said so, instead of proudly posting it on her website and thanking the person who pointed it out to her. As for the “decision-makers that send young people to kill and die in America’s name,” Rosie and Keane must really hate Franklin D. Roosevelt, the OG of evil fascist warmongers.
Keane then set up a list of what he considered “long ingrained” ideas that are “ridiculous” and untrue and opposite of how the world really is. These are not supposed to be true:
Terrorism is suicide-bombing in cities. Soldiering is risking one’s own life to drop bombs from the sky on cities. Terrorism is gunning civilians on purpose.
Soldiering is gunning civilians because the soldier is some scared kid that panicked. Terrorists started it. Soldiers finish what politicians started. Terrorists are trying to build a caliphate. Soldiers may go on offensive to defend the homeland even as they advance an empire of freedom.
Terrorists have evil ideas that would make the world a bad place. Soldiers defend true ideas that make the world better.
Soldiers represent the righteous sword of progressive American idealism. Terrorists are disruptive wasters, bent on backwardness
The four previous paragraphs are apparently true in Keane’s and one can only assume, Rosie’s Bizarro world, meaning terrorists DO NOT have evil ideas that would make the world a bad place and soldiers DO NOT defend true ideas that make the world better. Quick test Rosie and Keane. Which group would imprison and stone you both to death just for being gay—Islamic terrorists or “soldiers?” (I wonder if Keane--or Rosie-- realize that the term “soldier” does not include everyone in the military?)
Keane wrapped up by dipping into the “terrorist or freedom fighter” mantra and hit the “we’re all alike underneath the ski mask and machete” shibboleth (quotes mine) when he wrote:
By denying any equivalence between the bloody gruesomness (sic) of the two enterprises we can ignore the soldiers’ actions and harp on terrorist atrocities.
(…)
Rosie O’Donnell…may embarrass the liberal cognoscenti. That does not destroy her moral perspective. She is a mother thinking of Iraq’s mothers, and that is a perfectly valid intellectual principle. O’Donnell said, “I believe every human life is equal.” Does anyone in this country but an American idealist believe such a thing?
Sure, the life of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl is “equal” to the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s good to know that Keane and, by association, Rosie think the people who drill holes in hostages' heads, jail rape victims and kill gays and lesbians for their sexuality as well as women because they “dishonor” their families are worth about as much as Rosie herself. Remember, they’re equal now.
But she loves the troops and doesn’t minimize terrorism, right?
-
Contact Lynn with tips or complaints at: tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com
Comments Policy
Rosie needs the Lord. She hat
June 9, 2007 - 23:31 ET byRosie needs the Lord. She hates America for the same reason that most homosexuals hate America, America was founded on Christianity and there are a lot of Christians here still.
Notice she never says one bad thing about the Islamic world, and yet they put homosexuals to death.
Fact: Homosexuals hate Christianity more than they hate that which would kill their flesh. Why? Because they know that true Christianity is the truth and that truth says that they are going to hell, if they don't turn to Christ and call on Him in truth. And THAT is where Rosie's hate all stems from, she hates the truth.
Debra...
Whoa, Debra. So what makes y
June 10, 2007 - 00:43 ET by Sonny LykosWhoa, Debra. So what makes your comments any less extreme than Rosie’s
I hate what may gays and lesbians are trying to do to America, and that includes their agenda in grammar and high schools.
But you sure use a broad brush when saying they will all go to hell. Does that also go for other people that are born with physical deformities, and Yes, many gays and lesbians are born genetically predisposed to their own sex. And many are not genetically, but emotionally. I grew up with a buddy who was do dominated and feminized by his divorced Mother as a teenager (and younger), I just know he would become gay, and he did as an adult. As far as I’m concerned, what they do in their respective homes is their business. And I think their chances of going to hell or not is not within yours or my capacity to determine, unless of course, you have already had a discussion about this issue with God or Jesus.
I don’t know if Rosie hates the truth or not. I only know that she is just a sleaze - period, which has nothing to do with her sexual preferences. In fact, I pity her because IMO, she’s a very unhappy woman with little or no self-esteem, typical of most mouthy bullies.
Sonny, Homosexuality is a sin
June 10, 2007 - 02:28 ET bySonny,
Homosexuality is a sin. We are all born sinners. And we all have some sins that we struggle with more than other sins. Physical deformities are not sins.
As for sinners going to hell: All sinners who do not repent and call on Christ in truth, will go to hell. I did not say that 'all' homosexuals are going to go to hell. Those who repent and call on Christ in truth, will go to heaven. But then again, they will no longer be homosexual.
I am going off of what the word of God says about sinners and most specifically about homosexuals.
Debra...
sins
June 10, 2007 - 03:30 ET by Army BratStudies were conducted in Germany after WWII to try to understand why there were so many homosexual men of nearly the same age. Bombing was quite intense in this area. During the worst of the bombing, a measurable time period, stress levels for pregnant women were quite high. This resulted in high adrenalin levels, and during, I can't recall which trimester, this can result in the supression of testosterone, a hormone? or some such that produces a male brain instead of a female one. (Yes there are physical differences.) This led to the unusual number of homosexual men of nearly the same age. The same thing happens to rats when subjected to stress dring pregnancy. Yeah....gay rats. (No mention was made of Lesbianism) Having a female differentiated brain as a result of the mothers stress during pregnancy... Is this a sin? Religious clarity is a rare thing and is rarely black and white. Any religion. Happy Trails...
Ok there hold the phone...
June 10, 2007 - 04:13 ET by MindwerkzOk there hold the phone... Now just for a bit of clarity here, there is no such thing as a gay gene, there is no genetic component to homosexuality, it is not a gene trait in any sense of the word and not hereditary. What homosexuality is, has been, and is well documented as, is a hyper emotional state. It has virtualy nothing to do with hormones, though they can be a contributing factor. It is quite literaly, an emotional disorder, otherwise known as a personality trait disorder.
As far as the previlance of a male or female brain... the key diffrence is in the gray and white matter. Gray matter being the cells that produce thought, and the white matter can be thought of as a highway that moves the thought. Females have drasticaly more white matter where as males have much more gray matter, this is caused by many factors, one of which is hormones, but that is not the only factor. A lack of testosterone, of which the mother does not produce for the child mind you, would not change the childs gender and more importantly as these cells develop most dramaticaly after birth it would not even pre determine their thought patterns in one way or another. It is entirely possible, and well established that mother and child can have compleatly diffrent blood types. If the mother gave anything other than raw nutrients to the child through a well filtered placenta it could cause the child to go into shock and die. Not to mention that the vast majority of brain development occurs after birth and before the first 2 years during a period called transient exuberance. Only the most basic of brain development will have occured invitro. Also sex typing, diffrent from gender typing, occurs at puberty and marks the development of sexual interest. This is the time when boys and girls cese to be "yucky" to each other. Mind you puberty is well after birth.
Because of bias and an agenda alot has been said about the state and cause of homosexuality. Read a DSM 3 or prior, that was before homosexuality was removed from the psychological diagnostic manual for political reasons. It clearly states that not only is homosexuality an emotional/personality disorder caused by a hyper emotional state, but that it is fully treatable, and curable from a variaty of methods. There is plenty of documentation on operative and non operative cures for homosexuality going back as far as the 1920's.
Its one thing to debate the essence of sin, but quite another to be pulled into an agenda due to lack of knowledge. Dont let anyone ever tell you homosexuality is "normal" or "ok" or not "treatable" because they are simply lying.
Look over my post ther
June 12, 2007 - 06:48 ET by Army BratLook over my post there and if you can find the word gene in it I'll send you 50 dollars..........Happy Trails...
1) Why were not every single
June 10, 2007 - 15:51 ET byArmy Brat,
1) Why were not every single male born in that area, homosexual when they grew up?
2) What about lesbians?
3) Why are some identical twins different, one homosexual and one hetero?
And..... The Bible is very clear that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God. There is nothing unclear about it.
Debra..
Firstly...I'm not defendin
June 12, 2007 - 06:40 ET by Army BratFirstly...I'm not defending anyone or attacking anyone...I'm just posing a question. In answer to your questions...I would guess that not all became homosexual because not all of the women were in that same trimester where the adrenalin has its effect at the same time during the worst of the bombing. I think I stated that no mention was made of lesbians in the study...just men. And I'm not suggesting that all homosexuals are the result of this peculiar circumstance. Also I don't think I made any mention of genes nor was any mention made in the study...just the over-abundance of adrenalin. I'm not trying to say anything about homosexuality. I'm just wondering if, under these particular circumstances, where it is the result of an imbalance in the chemical balances that result in the female brain not being appropriate to the sex of the male body... Is that a sin? One could even call it a defect...from the adrenalin. Phew! Happy Trails....
Rectosexuality is TAUGHT. It
June 10, 2007 - 05:40 ET by josephsamuelsonRectosexuality is TAUGHT. It is LEARNED behavior. There has never been ONE baby in the history of the human race that came out of the womb trying to put his little wee-wee into another baby's bum.
But then now, of course, you will dedicate your life to finding that baby.
Screw it.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22-24
(22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
(23) Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
(24) Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Hosea 6:9
And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness.
Romans 1:18-32
(18) For the wrath of God [the consequences of unbelief] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
(19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(23) And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Screw it huh....Jeez
June 12, 2007 - 06:59 ET by Army BratScrew it huh....Jeez I had no idea this was such a sore subject that would elicit such venom..... Hell I'm not even defending homosexuality and I'm gettin' my ass chewed. I just asked a simple question. I didn't do the damn study, I just read it long ago. And I'm sure that if I cared to I could look in the Bible and find some quotes to refute what you quoted. Religions are like that. Any belief at all can be justified by any af the Holy books out there. (Although the Koran can't be beat for pure slavery and savagery.) I'm not concerned with the right or wrong of it. I'm not in control of what sexual preference someone has and have no desire to be. They can have all the butt sex they want as long as they don't try to stick it in me.What people choose is what they have to live with. That's their business not mine. Some of my friends came out of the closet, vanished from our circle of friends and the next time we heard about em' was when someone read their obit...died of AIDS. You play you pay... Happy Trails...
Sonny: We know that the homo
June 10, 2007 - 07:30 ET by Seabeach4348Sonny: We know that the homosexual activists have been pushing this "genetically predisposed" argument for some time now as a foil to justify their sexual preferences ..... and their agenda.
There is NO scientific evidence to date which indicates that genetics, in utero stress, hormone levels, etc, will produce a child who is destined to be homosexual any more than there is NO scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. Of course, if you speak with the choir of homosexual activists, they have scads of "proof" that homosexuality is genetically or hormonally predisposed except that none of their "proof" can stand up to scientific muster. If you have other sources which definitely prove otherwise, then please present it here so that we can enlighten ourselves.
Homosexuality is an abnormality. It is deviant behavior resulting from psychological and emotional factors, and a person chooses at some time his/her sexual preference. It is a choice, not a destiny. Again, the agenda-driven activists will resent this cold truth and spin it otherwise.
I don't believe that homosexuals should be demonized or persecuted. However, I also don't believe that they should be granted special rights, special treatment, or that our schools be forced to distribute, teach, or expose impressionable children to homosexual propaganda and indoctrination without parental consent. And that parental consent must include full disclosure of the material beforehand!
Quite simply, there is something radically wrong with little Johnny having two Mommies and little Sally having two Daddies!
We've already discussed the
June 10, 2007 - 07:55 ET by sarcasmoWe've already discussed the MZ twin studies, which seem to suggest some genetic predisposition may be involved in sexual preferences and that more study is needed to be sure, but let's ignore science for a second. Does anyone here really believe sarcasmo would NOT eagerly-choose to be a homosexual, if only I could? The problem is, I find all men repulsive. But especially considering how many people homosexuality upsets, I'd definitely make the choice if it were at all a possible choice for me. It's just not -- 0 temptation. Considering percentages of population and how much political power they have been able to exercise despite their relatively-small numbers, I think libertarians like me actually have a lot to learn from hyperpolitical homosexuals, even if a majority of them have the exact opposite agenda from mine when it comes to expanding government's power. Finally, let's assume irrefutable scientific evidence comes along tomorrow that it IS genetics. Would anyone admit he's wrong, anyway?
JMR
sarcasmo, your argument is
June 11, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Conservative Voicesarcasmo, your argument is a fallacy...just because the issue doesn't pertain to you specifically doesn't mean it isn't a choice.
Read Mindwerkz post, as he explains very well how to apply the scientific method to this issue.
The MZ twin studies have no
June 12, 2007 - 06:57 ET by sarcasmoThe MZ twin studies have nothing to do with me, I'm just another example of why it's not always a "choice" -- hell, I wish I somehow preferred old/fat/ugly chicks over young/slender/cute ones for the same reasons I've wished in the past to be gay -- it would make life much-easier. "You can't always get what you want." And any post purporting to apply scientific method should explain more about why to use an old DSM than "it's now political." It may be political, but accusations != proof, and for some reason at the science-conventions, the "homosexuality is a choice" side lost the arguments rather than winning them, like it or not. Want to change the DSM back? Win arguments instead of losing 'em.
JMR
sarc -- don't refer to your
June 11, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- don't refer to yourself in the third person. It's creepy.
I occasionally do it, just
June 12, 2007 - 06:58 ET by sarcasmoI occasionally do it, just to creep people out -- proves it's me.
JMR
Firstly...I'm not a homosex
June 12, 2007 - 07:05 ET by Army BratFirstly...I'm not a homosexual activist....just a guy who asked a question...a simple one. I said NOTHING about genetics. Adrenalin was the causitive factor in the study. Jeez.... I just wondered if homosexuality caused by these particular peculiar circumstances was still a sin. It's not like these guys made a choice. That's entirely different...and yes...creeps me out. The question remains. Happy Trails... ..
You can leave religion out
June 12, 2007 - 07:19 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou can leave religion out of it. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a mental illness. Well, it was until 1973 when homosexual activists flooded the APA and thus it's removal from DSM was the result of activism, not the result from any medical science that suggested it wasn't.
So you are saying that chri
June 10, 2007 - 11:08 ET by WiggyThis is intended as a response to DebraJMSmith's post at the top.
So you are saying that christianity is the answer? Puh-leaze. Where exactly are you getting your information that most homosexuals hate america because of christianity? That is absolutely proposeterous. You have NO clue if that is true. It may be true in your mind, but that does not mean it is true in reality. Before you go jumping to idiotic conclusions, you really should verify if ANY of it is true.
I love this country, am heterosexual and consider myself an Agnotheist. You can tell me that I will go to hell all you want, but if I don't believe in any god, then I also don't believe in a heaven and hell.
This country may have been founded on christianity, but the 1st amendment also gives me the right to be religious or not. I choose to not be religious. That does not mean I am a bad American. In fact, I served 20 years in the Navy. How much time in the military did you serve? Have you done ANYTHING meaningful for your country except to blather on about religion?
I cannot stand Rosie O'Fathead, but your post is just plain idiotic.
Hi Wiggy, umm.. calm down the
June 10, 2007 - 15:26 ET byHi Wiggy,
umm.. calm down there..... Jeepers....
I have my beliefs, you have yours. If you do not believe hell is real, then why all the anger in your post? Relax, just stand in the middle of a crowded room with your eyes closed, claiming no one else is there. I don't care. I have no problem with you living in a make-believe world, in a make-believe universe, in a make-believe galaxy, in a make-believe existence.
But in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess, that Jesus is Lord. And if you keep going the way you are going and die in the same condition, you can just apply that same "I can't see you" mentality in your final destination.
kay?
no prob...
Debra...
I just wonder one thing. Do you get this upset when people of other faith-beliefs claim that their way is right and that all others are going to hell or does your agnosticism only get turned on when Christianity is spoken of?
Oh and... How do you feel about that fake Santa dude questioning if you have been bad or good all year? I mean, you don't believe in him either, right? So, does that tick you off too?
____________________________________________________________
And for the record, I realize that there are many non-Christians who would die for America.
Wigg: Per DJSmith and Xian Nation Claims by her
June 10, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasWigg, as an Evangelical Christian...i.e. born again, saved...whatever theological synonym applies, I am responding to only part of your post and Smith's, specifically the fallacy that this country was founded on Christianity.
Smith is most ignorant of America's origins and subscribes to the cultic doctrines of some Charismanical/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist/King James Bible translation Onlyists (yes bizzare indeed) that teach America is a Christian country founded with the intent of furthering and safeguarding Christianity. She is also and obviously ignorant of the Bible's clear prohibition of a Theocracy during the church age.
I believe that is a noble effort to be respectful to the history of our culture when you agree with the idea that is a popular one but quite erroneous. Our nation is founded upon principles of freedom and not Christian doctrine. While it might be true some elements or illumination that come with the Christian faith influenced the founders and early defenders of our country, it was founded as a "Constitutional Republic with Democratic Representation" and not a Christian Nation. There is no such thing as a Christian Nation and the attempts to form one are again, a violation of Scripture.
The function of the institution of government is not to secure and further Christian doctrine, that is the function of the church during this age and in ages past God ordained different agents to further the communication of His gospel. And indeed at one point there was an ordained Theocracy, namely Israel, but that time has come and gone and we live in what the Bible calls the church age. Government is to protect and secure freedom and stability for its citizens.
As it might be said, "God insitituted the church for believers and instituted Government for all men".
An analogy or comparison might be marriage. Marriage is for Christians and non-Christians alike. God didn't institute marriage for only believers in him but for all of humanity as an institution for humanity's benefit, chiefly humanity's stability and order. There are great marriages both inside and outside of Christianity. Many non-believers are quite happy in their marriages because they function properly within the framework of the institution of marriage. Govenment works the same way. And Government was instituted by God for all men to secure stabilty and freedom.
P.S. The issue of homosexuality, its evils and whether all, any or just a few hate America and their spiritual condition I will gladly discuss with you if you wish but my post above and its not addressing that part of the comments is in no way meant to be "comment by silence" and should not be interpreted as anything but understood only as me no addressing that part of the issue (most of that is for Smith who no doubt will read this).
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Therapeutic View promotes relativism
June 9, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Parker1227A therapeutic view of the world denies right and wrong, or good and evil, and insists that all conflict is the result of "misunderstandings" between well-intended people. Thus, both parties involved in a fight are to be scorned. No right and wrong.
So the Sunni population in Iraq, which supported, tolerated, and benefited from a genocidal terror regime, and which now supports the "insurgency" to bring back that terror regime, are no different than freedom fighters (in the amoral thinking of the Left).
Peace at any cost is the peace of the dead.
This coward fat lesbian is
June 9, 2007 - 23:37 ET by Senior ChiefThis coward fat lesbian is irrelevant to any discussion. She run away from poor little Elisabeth...Now, who's "chicken scared kid that panicked?" Hmmm. Loser!
You're right, Senior Chief.
June 10, 2007 - 04:41 ET by motherbeltYou're right, Senior Chief. For months, Elisabeth let her anti-American rants go pretty much unanswered; if she did dispute Rosie, she did it mildlly. The first time she gets angry and fights back strongly, Rosie the O wimps out and asks for an early out on her contract. Waaaaaah---I don't wanna play any more!!!
One more time: Rosie says xxxthousand Iraqis are dead. We invaded their country. Who are the terrorists?
Does that sound like Rosie thinks American troops are terrorists? I vote yes.
Rosie told Liz 'not to fear t
June 10, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Mica the MagnificentRosie told Liz 'not to fear the terrorists, they're mothers and fathers, too.'
No question in my mind that she is clueless about the terrorists.
"Look, if it happened one time I could look the other way, but you never faced Mecca when you prayed. Take a look. Here you prayed facing Minneapolis; here you faced Easter Island; and here, may the prophet forgive you, you faced a Justin Timberlake concert!" ---- Gatekeeper at Islamofacist heaven disappointing another direction-impaired follower
I'm just wondering if some mu
June 10, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Senior ChiefI'm just wondering if some muslims ask fat-o-rosie to convert to islam, will she do it? And when she's in, wonder if she'll oblige to don suicide belts with bombs and detonate herself infront of any of US interests. Well she allow her "children" to be indoctrinated in islamic madrassas. Right now, she doesn't even know that lesbos and gays are being stoned to death, since it's an abomination to their religion.
Now, rosie-o-lesbo will you still defend them? Loser!
"It" came crawling
June 10, 2007 - 10:47 ET by BEGRUNT"It" came crawling out from under it's rock. Rosie O TubOcrap, needs to realize the best place for her is back under the rock, at least Moonbat Sheehan knew when to FINALLY get off the stage. I hope karma gets that fat dyke right between the eyes.
Rosie who? Wasn't she that
June 10, 2007 - 03:04 ET by jdhawkRosie who? Wasn't she that fat ugly loud-mouthed lesbian that used to be on that . . . What was the name of that TV show?
The Smell.
June 10, 2007 - 05:25 ET by josephsamuelsonThe Smell.
Rosie O'Donnell ... where do
June 10, 2007 - 05:49 ET by josephsamuelsonRosie O'Donnell ... where do I start?
Jude 1:7-13
(7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
(8) Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee."
(10) But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
(11) Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.
(12) These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
(13) Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
2 Peter 2:10-17
(10) But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise [righteous] government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
(11) Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
(12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
(13) And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
(14) Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
(15) Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
(16) But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet.
(17) These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest: to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.
Jude 1:14-19(14) And Enoch al
June 10, 2007 - 06:02 ET by josephsamuelsonJude 1:14-19
(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
(16) These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
(17) But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
(18) How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time [eschatos chronos - the lowest, or trying, time ... the hour of adversity], who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
(19) These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:1-9 and 13
(1) This know also, that in the last days [eschatos hemera - the lowest, or trying time ... the day, or hour, of adversity] perilous times [chalepos kairos - fierce occasions ... times to speak the truth with all boldness and clarity] shall come.
(2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
(3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
(4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
(5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
(6) For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
(7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge [epignosis - experiential and detailed knowledge] of the truth.
(8) Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
(9) But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
(13) But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Of course she is anti-military (we are gay exclusionists).
June 10, 2007 - 05:53 ET by USMC1776This woman is very sad. How can she act like she knows what a Soldier is? Nothing like having someone who would never, under any circumstances put their life on the line for anyone, judge those that will, and do. The number one killer of Muslims, are Muslims. We may get some civilians on accident, but the terrorists, Mahdi army (Shiites), AQI (Al’ Qaeda Iraq), and others, specifically target civilian locations for mass casualties. Anyone who thinks the Terrorists are freedom fighters are delusional. They do not fight for freedom of their people, they fight to control them, change them, and make them live in the ideals of their religion. Most of the people that think what they are doing is our fault would find anything close to it abhorrent. These people say “who are we to tell them how to live their life”. Then in our own county we make it illegal to smoke a cigarette on the beach, for fear of a millisecond exposure to a passerby. (I’m a non-smoker by the way)
People like Rosie speak of human rights and helping those less fortunate, then tell us to abandon the 90% of Iraqis who just want to live and let live, to the 10% that want to kill to make their political views the law of the land. In my life I have seen those who claim tolerance as their viewpoint actually be the most intolerant of them all (think like me or you’re a racist evil Nazi). Some people in this world cannot be reasoned with, they must die to preserve our way of life and prevent them from killing the innocent. Our country was not founded by complaints, wishes, and protests. It was founded by people fighting and killing for what they believed in. When the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine become a 2nd class citizen our country is doomed.
Hope is not a course of action.
DAMN RIGHT.Our soldiers are t
June 10, 2007 - 06:19 ET by josephsamuelsonDAMN RIGHT.
Our soldiers are the epitomy of John 15:13, the executors of Thessalonians 3:2, and the archetypes of Judges 3:28-30.
John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
2 Thessalonians 3:2
And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
Judges 3:28-30
(28) And he [Ehud] said unto them, "Follow after me: for the Lord hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand." And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered [allowed] not a man to pass over.
(29) And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty [spiritually filthy], and all men of valor [men of war ... i.e. terrorists]; AND THERE ESCAPED NOT A MAN.
(30) So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. AND THE LAND HAD REST FOURSCORE YEARS [80 years ... this is the only record in the Bible where Israel had rest from war for 80 years ... and it was achieved by finding and executing every last terrorist - every last murderer - in the land].
I forgot these verses, too ..
June 10, 2007 - 07:42 ET by josephsamuelsonI forgot these verses, too ...
1 Samuel 14:6
And Jonathan said to the young man that bore his armor, "Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the Lord will work for us: FOR THERE IS NO RESTRAINT TO THE LORD TO SAVE BY MANY OR FEW.
Leviticus 26:8
And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
Joshua 23:10
One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the Lord your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.
Hebrews 11:33-34
(33) Who through faith [pistis - BELIEVING] subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
(34) Quenched the violence of fire [dunamis pur - the power of evil] , escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens [allotrios - foreign hostiles ... i.e. TERRORISTS].
2 Chronicles 13:3, 17-20
(3) And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men. Jeroboam [the Antichrist] also set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valor [gibbor chayil - experienced men of war].
(17) And Abijah and his people [the tribe of Judah] slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel [of Jeroboam] five hundred thousand chosen men.
(18) Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers.
(19) And Abijah pursued after Jeroboam, and took cities from him, Bethel with the towns thereof, and Jeshanah with the towns thereof, and Ephrain with the towns thereof.
(20) Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the Lord struck him [He allowed the will and power of Satan to overtake him], and he died.
Well said!Rosie is not unlike
June 10, 2007 - 06:22 ET by GatorgradWell said USMC1776 !
Rosie is not unlike the idiot that has the Free Tibet bumper sticker right next to the Che Guevara bumper sticker and can't see the irony in that.
She and others like her want everyone to believe that they are for freedom of the opressed peoples of the world and for peace. Then in the next breath they embrace those who live for the opression and death of those who do not believe in the religion or ideology that they do.
Those people, like Rosie, are the ones that defended the bullies action all the while doing the bullies homework. These people also shout "You are no better than the bully!" when someone kicks the bullies ass.
The number one killer of Musl
June 10, 2007 - 07:15 ET by dahliatraversThe number one killer of Muslims, are Muslims.
True. But we're all equal ...
posted by dahliatravers:Tru
June 10, 2007 - 10:34 ET by USMC1776posted by dahliatravers:
True. But we're all equal ...
Only in the eyes of the law. That’s why lady justice wares a blind fold.
Naturally you can argue anything but utopia is not reality.
Hope is not a course of action.
Oh, come. Dictatorship or
June 10, 2007 - 11:53 ET by dahliatraversOh, come. Dictatorship or democracy. Capricious whim or codified law. Women as third class citizens or women as fully vested members of society. Supression of free speech or encouragement of it. Punishment: barbarism or segregation from society. Murder of the infidel or tolerance of the infidel. Murder of a different denomination of your own religion or tolerance of a different denomination.
All of these values must be equal. Rosie O'D said so.
(Sorry, USMC1776, couldn't resist. Thank you for your service to our country.)
re: recent posts by DebraJM
June 10, 2007 - 07:13 ET by motherbeltre: the very long posts in this thread:
While I understand that a thread can easily get off-topic, I have to wonder why the administrators allow extremely long postings (over 2000 words) which are simply a collection of quotes on a certain subject, which is not the subject of the thread. I seriously doubt those quotes were recently gathered, so I assume they have documents saved to copy and paste where they will....
That's not a discussion....don't things like that properly belong in the forum? And don't the site administrators have the ability to simply move them there?
I'm trying to do this politely here, so please don't jump down my throat.
MB, Good post. I am sure I am
June 10, 2007 - 07:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberMB, Good post. I am sure I am not the only NBer out there that agrees with you!
Well I sure as hell don't ...
June 10, 2007 - 23:13 ET by jonathanandersonWell I sure as hell don't ... KEEP POSTING 'EM, JOSEPH!
Nothing gets said when people post 5 rambling paragraphs of basically nothing ... but when you throw a Bible verse in there, woa-ho-ho, we've got to slam the door shut on that free speech.
Instead of COMPLAINING about the posts why don't you leadheads actually READ THEM ... you might learn something.
jonathan,If I may....I think
June 10, 2007 - 23:33 ET by Blondejonathan,
If I may....I think what the objection is all about is that while it's fine to post bible verses here, it's expected that you'll discuss a bit about the topic, and why you find that particular verse (or verses) to be relevant.
IMO, the objection is that just posting something (be it verses from the Bible or a link to an article) without commenting on it/them....is seen as being somehow intellectually lazy.
Make sense?
Concur Blonde:I for one reall
June 11, 2007 - 13:06 ET by BDConcur Blonde:
I for one really prefer to read what someone is thinking and what their logic train is rather than simple post a biblical verse such as...
BD 1:1 "And then they had lunch..."
Free speech includes posting
June 11, 2007 - 13:09 ET by TruthMongerFree speech includes posting quotes without elaboration...sorry...
I usually don't explain Bible verses when I do it...the Bible speaks on it's own...
It's better if I stay out of it...
Interesting
June 11, 2007 - 13:19 ET by PawpawNGod's Word or your word. It's a no brainer, as we ask GOD to explain it to us in a way we understand. So how do you?
very interesting indeed
June 11, 2007 - 13:22 ET by TruthMongerThat's just it - I know how I interpret it...I prefer to see how others do...
It's a no brainer...
How?
June 11, 2007 - 13:25 ET by PawpawNBut we don't seem to know how you do?
Shazzam! You got it!THe sam
June 11, 2007 - 13:30 ET by BDShazzam! You got it!
THe same bibilcal versus mean differing things to differing religions, so simply posting a verse by itself means little.
Agree-but will Truth M answer
June 11, 2007 - 13:32 ET by PawpawNI totally agree, but will TRUTH MONGER reply?
He did and he's waitin for a
June 11, 2007 - 13:36 ET by TruthMongerHe did and he's waitin for a response...he does this ALOT...
And that reply
June 11, 2007 - 13:38 ET by PawpawNAnd that reply was "You go first!" How juvenille. Was not it you that brought up the point?
About quoting Bible verses? N
June 11, 2007 - 13:40 ET by TruthMongerAbout quoting Bible verses? No it was not me...
And I again do I get to post the way I like - or can you send me your rule sheet please:)?
Standing by...
I don't think a Bible verse m
June 11, 2007 - 13:33 ET by TruthMongerI don't think a Bible verse means "very little" myself...
Maybe I'd like to hear your take before I elaborate - can I please have your permission...?
Okay:Here is how it works in
June 11, 2007 - 13:41 ET by BDOkay:
Here is how it works in my estimation.
Essentially the bible springs forth from the old testiment which in essence is the Jewish Torah. Yet, interpretation between Jews and Chritians of the Old testiment (Torah) is not unified and therefor interpretation of its meaning is not assured. THerefore if I as a Christian and someone else as a Jew were to discuss the OT, we would likely not derive the same meaning.
Likewise in the Christian world, interpretation of the New Testiment simply between diverse groups such as Catholics and Southern Baptists is not unified. A good example would be the notion of the very controviersial concepts of the "end times." Reading the same document, Catholics have one interpretation and Baptists have another, not to say Methodists, Episcopals, Anabaptists, Presbytyrians, and even Mormons.
Simply posting the verse does not do enough to clarify the thoughts of those posting.
BD, here's how it works on my
June 11, 2007 - 13:45 ET by TruthMongerBD, here's how it works on my end...
The Bible is God's word...when I elaborate I can screw it up significantly...I do it sometimes...usually not...
See if you can stand the verses on their own - it's not going to kill you I promise...
Out of context
June 11, 2007 - 13:48 ET by PawpawNBut a verse taken out of context can be badly interpreted, don't you think. That's how Libs do their religion.
that's why i try to keep my m
June 11, 2007 - 13:50 ET by TruthMongerthat's why i try to keep my mouth shut bro:)
So the interpretation in the
June 11, 2007 - 14:56 ET by BDSo the interpretation in the bible (OT) that by itself prohibits consuming pork prohibits your consumption of it?
By the way, which version of the bible is it that is to be followed? If we look at the bible historically, PLENTY OF INTERPRETATION has already been used.
For instance, The one that still contains the books left out in the 1200's (Apocrypha etc)? Or the one that leaves out Revelations?
THe one that considers the story of Jonah to be a parable, or the one that takes it literally?
Agreed. Rarely do I find Bib
June 11, 2007 - 13:46 ET by Conservative VoiceAgreed. Rarely do I find Bible versus here on NB to be a good form of debate. Because even though the Bible maybe black and white, how to interpret the Bible has produced how many different religions?
And what is the point? If you are preaching to the choir, then the versus are already understood and doesn't need to be repeated...they already agree with you. If someone doesn't even believe in the Bible ( I do ) then the versus come across as Blah Blah Blah, and you didn't connect with anybody other than those who agree with you. In order to connect you have to first come to a basic understanding and then build from there.
If you don't want to post Bib
June 11, 2007 - 13:52 ET by TruthMongerIf you don't want to post Bible verses then please feel free...
I do and I will...
It's a real bitch I know...very sorry...
TM, not saying you can't...
June 11, 2007 - 14:01 ET by Conservative VoiceTM, not saying you can't...I love the Bible, try to read the Bible every day. However, as a form of argument or as a way to convince people who do not think as you do to think a certain way, the Bible is not the best way to do so.
Said a different way...I respect my preacher's interpretation of a particular scripture, and I agreed with the scriptures posted on this thread...I believe homosexuality to be a great sin ( but no more great then adultry ) but I'm already convinced. Someone like Wigly it just came across as Blah Blah Blah ( and he interpretated the posts as hateful, but that is because of his own bias reading filters ) or someone like saracasmo...lesson one in English is know your audience and write accordingly if you want to be effective.
CV I haven't quoted any scrip
June 11, 2007 - 14:17 ET by TruthMongerCV I haven't quoted any scripture on this thread in case you hadn't noticed - and I don't do it very much. Sometimes I do. It's usually a response to some liberal quoting the Bible first. In my response I often post the verses on their own. It works very well for me...
I study my audiences quite well thanks - it's a very good idea...
Their are several conservatives here who don't like verses posted - even with explanation. I'm big on free speech - having suffered much on that score greatly as a conservative Christian in contemporary PC America...
I know you haven't TM, bu
June 11, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Conservative VoiceI know you haven't TM, but you were arguing the case for those who have in this thread, and in this thread I found it to be excessive.
TM, I can't recall anytime where I was offended by your remarks or thought you were overboard with scripture posting...even though I was addressing you, I was speaking in general to those who beat people over the head with Bible verses as a way of argument.
( and for clarification, I'm not offended by scripture verses...I usually ignore the posts that are over 200 words long with nothing significant other than cut and paste of verses...because even though I believe in the Bible, and probably agree with the poster...it comes across to me as blah blah blah...and if that is the case for me, how can we expect people like Mr Wiggly to read them and say..."ah I get it now" )
CV I'm not big on on the way
June 11, 2007 - 14:53 ET by TruthMongerCV I'm not big on on the way it's being used this thread, either - but I still can't bring myself to say "shut up" to them just because I wouldn't do it that way myself. That's how it seems to me. I'm kinda shocked to hear certain people on this site pushing as hard as they do against Bible quotes they way they do...sounds like the ACLU...which is pretty damn bad...
I did not say posting a bibli
June 11, 2007 - 13:29 ET by BDI did not say posting a biblical verse was not allowable with out elaboration, simply that I preferred to know what YOU think about it.
If I were to post a hypothetical biblical verse from the fictional book of "BD's letters to the Equalizers" that went as such. (Apologies to M Python for the concept).
"And woe be unto anyone who does not count to three prior to hurling the Holy Hand Grenade of Antiock onto thine enemies. And then they had lunch." BD 1:1
And then I do not tell you what I thought of it, then I wound not be doing all I could do to further my argument.
BD are you equating your vers
June 11, 2007 - 13:35 ET by TruthMongerBD are you equating your verses to the Bible's in strength and power of influence? The Bible runs on the Holy Spirit ya know...what do your verses use...red bull or something?
Simply used mine as an exampl
June 11, 2007 - 13:43 ET by BDSimply used mine as an example. Did not wish to inflame the issue by using holy scripture. (Some people get exciteable about that) and no Red bull, drinking decaf right now waiting for a meeting to start.