published Sunday, June 30th, 2013

Equality

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

164
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

It’s not that the heterosexual is greater than the homosexual. It is that inter-gender marriage is healthier for individuals and for society. Marriage is almost universally embraced as a celebration of complementarity between the sexes. Only in the debauched west do we encourage the monotonous fascination with our own likenesses. World leaders are, at best, bemused by the Intern’s lectures about his superior morality on this issue. They are well aware of his newly emboldened desire to impose it on traditional cultures around the globe. The west has lost both its sanity and its soul. Generations of children here and elsewhere will continue to reap the whirlwind for this folly.

June 30, 2013 at 12:42 a.m.
jt512 said...

Yay! A mathy cartoon! I get it!

June 30, 2013 at 5:45 a.m.
tifosi said...

Before conservative gets into his pulpit, he might want to take a moment and read this:

"The godless commit less crime, have longer marriages and are more highly educated than almost any other group in America."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/29/al-westerfield-atheists-victims-of-hypocrisy-by/?partner=popular

June 30, 2013 at 7:31 a.m.
tifosi said...

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask is -- not that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness. We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them.

June 30, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
conservative said...

This man is obsessed with promoting the wickedness of homosexuality. Why?

Duty calls.

Notice that the wickedness of homosexuality begins in the mind ("degrading passions") before the "indecent acts" of homosexuality are committed.

Notice also that homosexuality is a choice, an "unnatural choice" in opposition to God's intentions.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:26-27

June 30, 2013 at 8:05 a.m.
tifosi said...

C'mon conservative. You missed my post just for you.

I guess it is too hard to deal with facts.

June 30, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.
alprova said...

An interesting article tifosi, but as one who is involved in research, part-time, I believe I can shed some light on a couple of points contained in that article.

I too have questioned the cognitive abilities of those who are considered to be Fundamental or Evangelical Christians, which are generally defined as those who take the Bible literally.

Intelligence, defined as abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving, can be limited to what people expose themselves to on a daily basis.

In other words, there are people who are highly intelligent, but their intelligence may be very limited due to their refusal to seek to widen the spectrum of their sources of information.

Thus, someone who is highly religious may limit their sources of information to the Bible and their church, and thusly, their thoughts, understandings, self-awareness, communications, reasoning, learning, and their emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving will be dominated by their religious knowledge.

When conducting polls, whenever the subject of religion is mentioned, only those who have absolutely no belief in God, will respond accordingly. Most people will identify with some religion, even if they are not actively practicing or attending a church regularly.

Since most people in this country identify, at least partially, with one of the approximately 313 established religions that exist in this nation, it is very hard to pin people down based on the results derived by polling. Why?

Because people with any religious exposure in their past, unless their minds are firmly made up to rejecting religion, will not respond to any question about their religious belief, even from a stranger on a phone, that they are not religious, and instead will identify with the religion that they were most likely last exposed to.

Fundamental Christianity is the predominant religious platform in this nation. The one surprise that raised my eyebrows in that article, was to separate the Baptists from the Fundamental Christians. Most Baptists are indeed Fundamental Christians.

That aside, the fact that 20% offered no response to the question, leaves a lot to doubt about the accuracy of the conclusions derived from the polling data.

If those 20% were indeed Godless, then the results of that polling would be quite pointless.

The one thing in that article I did agree with 100% is that it is total hypocrisy for religious people to claim that the godless are not and cannot be moral.

June 30, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
delmar said...

Not sure how someone can say the 'toon is about homosexuality but,,whatever.

June 30, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

There is none righteous, no, not one. Equal. There is none that understandeth. Equal. There is none that seeketh after God. Equal. Homosexuals are just as bad as any other fornicators. Fornicators are just as bad as any other thieves and covetors. Anyone left out yet?

tifosi, along with the rest of us you need forgiveness; whether you want it is another question, and whether you are seeking it where it can be found is another. It can be found in a chaste young man named Jesus of Narareth who died for the sins of His people, which cannot be topped for love, and rose up alive on the third day, which cannot be topped for power (ergs won't do that.) His message in one word is not "Everyone is good enough" or "everyone is equal," but "Repent!"

June 30, 2013 at 8:44 a.m.
tifosi said...

I just can't accept the hate in my life that comes from the church. There is something fundamentally wrong with you.

June 30, 2013 at 8:58 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "This man is obsessed with promoting the wickedness of homosexuality. Why? Duty calls."

Of course, that is your personal judgment, nothing more and nothing less. Nothing to see here folks!!

"Notice that the wickedness of homosexuality begins in the mind ("degrading passions") before the "indecent acts" of homosexuality are committed."

Thank you Shirley Phelps-Roper.

I must confess that I have a degrading passion for dark chocolate. I occasionally must get into my car, drive to the nearest convenience store and must purchase a Hershey Dark Chocolate Bar. I then return home, place it in the refrigerator so that it will be cool and crisp later, and then, when the time is right, I indulge my sinful craving.

conservative, I believe it is safe to say that you are degradingly passionate about being anti-homosexual. It's just about the only thing that you post about these days. That and your bashing of the poor.

And you call yourself a Christian, why?

"Notice also that homosexuality is a choice, an "unnatural choice" in opposition to God's intentions."

First of all, you are in no position to accurately know a thing about God's intentions.

Second, if you truly believe that being homosexual is a choice, will you please post the approximate date that you sat down with yourself and decided to be heterosexual, if in fact you are?

Myself, since thou protesteth WAY too much every single time the issue is raised, I am firmly convinced that you are a closet case of the worst kind.

June 30, 2013 at 9:07 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, you are regressing back to your old 10,000 words of BS. How long did it take to compose that ditty? And your last sentence in the 8:40 post is totally bogus.

June 30, 2013 at 9:08 a.m.
jesse said...

"True Believers" of whatever ilk must have a built in hate gene for anyone who has a diff. view!

Runs all thru religion,politics,life style and sexual orientation!

Bottom line is NONE of know who's right or why we are the way we are!That's the thing true believer's can't get a grip on!!

June 30, 2013 at 9:17 a.m.
fairmon said...

From a TFP article......The 1100-plus federal benefits afforded heterosexual couples are not available to same-sex couples. This is reason enough to legalize same-sex marriage.


People have a choice of embracing gays joining them in their discriminatory behavior toward singles or rise up and insist those 1100 favor showing items be abolished. I am confident, regardless of the opinion held for whatever reason the greed of those using the marriage "welfare loop holes" will not advocate equality.

Politicians and preachers have the mentality of the days when the man built a house, took a wife then hunted and farmed to feed the family while the wife maintained the house and provided care for the husband and kids. Is that still the American dream? Why do the politicians assume it is every Americans dream to buy a house and marry? Is that why singles that prefer the mobility of renting and travel are discriminated against so blatantly? Or, is it because there is a married majority , a major voting block therefore the majority is allowed to discriminate against a minority group that just got smaller with only straight singles remaining? Where in the constitution will it be found that the government will incentivize and promote marriage? The constitution and amendments go to great length to assure equal treatment. Legislatures don't hesitate to violate when they can gain favor and votes with disparate treatment.

The SCOTUS keeps rulings very narrow and addresses only the issue presented. I wonder how they would respond if the discrimination against singles were challenged?

June 30, 2013 at 9:47 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Bennett's favorite topic...

June 30, 2013 at 9:51 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Fairmon: The erosion continues. Anything from the past is bad. Let's go with anything goes. The left will celebrate.

June 30, 2013 at 9:51 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "It can be found in a chaste young man named Jesus of Narareth who died for the sins of His people..."

You probably are not aware that there exists documentation, outside of the edited, altered, and controversial Bible that you probably have at easy reach, that more than suggests that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

The entire Catholic religion and more directly, its Priestly code is based on the Biblical presumption that Jesus died after being chaste and pure.

Given that the Catholic Church is largely responsible for editing much of the Bible we read today, it's not hard to understand it is highly likely that much of the Bible is a complete work of fiction to support the beliefs that some people held long after Jesus walked on this Earth.

Many people today base their unquestioning beliefs on what is written in the Bible.

Are they right or are they wrong to do so, if the Bible we read today reflects the opinions of those who left this planet eons ago?

Belief will never in a million years prove to be a fact.

No one, and I do mean no one, can prove or disprove so much as one word that can be found in the Bible.

One of two absolute scenarios will become fact. When we die, we will either be propelled into an afterlife or we will cease to exist forever and that's it.

Not one of us alive today can conclusively prove to a soul on this Earth anything different.

If Jesus was not chaste and in fact was very mortal and very married, would it truly be the end of all religious belief?

Not as far as I am concerned. But then, I am not trapped into believing the Bible to be a collection of writings on which to base my religious beliefs upon 24/7/365.

June 30, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "...your last sentence in the 8:40 post is totally bogus."

If so, then I am sure that you will have no trouble explaining your reasoning behind your statement.

One does not have to believe in God to practice morality. How many instances of hypocrisy have been exposed over the years, committed by people who previously espoused morality publicly or privately, who additionally condemned immorality in others, when they were caught with their pants down, literally or metaphorically?

Do I need to post a list of recent examples?

Morality is often associated with those who are religious, but I dare offer that not so much as one religious person is totally moral their entire life, no matter how much they try to be.

Most people know the meaning of sin. Everyone sins. E V E R Y O N E !!!

No matter how closely they try to emulate the Lord, everyone sins.

No one has a lock on morality or is moral enough to be in any position to criticize anyone else for any lack of morality.

If there is one lesson that can be taken from the Bible, and believed, it is that, without question.

June 30, 2013 at 10:16 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, lest your sentence got lost in your epic post, this is what you said "..I did agree with 100% is that it is total hypocrisy for religious people to claim that the godless are not and cannot be moral." All "religious" people do not believe this and you know it. You're like a giant whisk, stirring things up. Seemingly, you bring all your frustrations to this forum. IMO

June 30, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

PlainTruth said... Fairmon: The erosion continues. Anything from the past is bad. Let's go with anything goes. The left will celebrate.

All things from the past are not bad. Those that are used to justify prejudice and discrimination are totally inappropriate.

June 30, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Fairmon: Agreed. But it doesn't stop there with the left. Change can be good or bad. Not good just for the sake of change.

June 30, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
degage said...

I'm surprised you liberals haven't condemned Alec Baldwin for his gay bashing on twitter and are so willing to destroy Paula Dean for something she said 30 years ago. I guess it must be because alec is a flaming liberal and that makes whatever he says is alright.

June 30, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

DEGAGE: exactly

June 30, 2013 at 10:55 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Pride Parade day in Chicago. Check the rooftops for Baldwin.

June 30, 2013 at 11:03 a.m.
tifosi said...

The liberals didn't destroy Dean. Her sponsors did. They are owned/run mostly by Conservatives. DOH!!!

http://smselect.net/walmart-pac-walton-family-political-contributions-favor-conservatives-report

June 30, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tofosi: Only after the msm blew it out of proportion.

June 30, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
tifosi said...

Any excuse no matter how valid only weakens the character.

June 30, 2013 at 11:45 a.m.
una61 said...

Seems to be an excessive amount of publicity for maybe 5% of the population.

June 30, 2013 at 12:16 p.m.
degage said...

Tifosi, We get it, The MSM went after Paula and since Alec is a liberal the MSM gives him a pass. Double standard.

June 30, 2013 at 12:19 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

tifosi says "Any excuse no matter how valid only weakens the character." Cute, lead foot. But wtf does it have to do with Deen?

June 30, 2013 at 1 p.m.
Maximus said...

The best revenge is living well! I'm really not into labeling people like most of Clay's wacky drones that seem to live their miserable life on the net. No, a great steak, a fine car, a glass of red and a nice cigar that's how I'm spending my weekend. Debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, very boring. Get a life outside of your virtual life people. Life is passing you by.

June 30, 2013 at 1:01 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

I believe it was in the 4th grade when I began learning my multiplication tables. At first 6x9 seemed hard but by repetition the light came on and I learned it. Afterwards it was so simple.

We learn by repetition so maybe the light will come on for you:

Notice that the wickedness of homosexuality begins in the mind ("degrading passions") before the "indecent acts" of homosexuality are committed.

Notice also that homosexuality is a choice, an "unnatural choice" in opposition to God's intentions.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. Romans 1:26-27

June 30, 2013 at 1:39 p.m.
tifosi said...

Maximus:

"No, a great steak, a fine car, a glass of red and a nice cigar that's how I'm spending my weekend."

Paid for by the socialist Germans.

June 30, 2013 at 1:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Plugs Biden says. “With virtually zero support from the Republicans, the president and I have moved the country from the worst recession since the Great Depression to 38 months of private-sector growth,” said Biden. The only thing Plugs has boosted is his ego and buffoonery

June 30, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Any excuse no matter how valid only weakens the character. (Thomas Spencer Monson)


Oh ... the irony of it all.

From Wiki:

Thomas Spencer Monson - 16th and current President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In June 2008, Monson and the other members of the First Presidency sent a letter to local congregations in California, urging them to support Proposition 8 by donating their time and resources, stating that, "Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

A varation of the quote:

“Any excuse for non-performance, no matter how valid, weakens character.” (Spencer Woolley Kimball)

Spencer Woolley Kimball - twelfth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

June 30, 2013 at 2:27 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Maximus: - "No, a great steak, a fine car, a glass of red and a nice cigar that's how I'm spending my weekend."

Paid for by the socialist Germans.


A true Capitalist has no guilt and should offer no apology for using his/her capital to reap personal profits from Socialists.

June 30, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

YOU wrote :

"Face the truth for once in your life. God is a murderer and a mass-murderer at that...IF THE BIBLE IS ACCURATE."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

June 30, 2013 at 3:35 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpo, lest your sentence got lost in your epic post, this is what you said "..I did agree with 100% is that it is total hypocrisy for religious people to claim that the godless are not and cannot be moral." All "religious" people do not believe this and you know it."

And if you will go back and read what I wrote, I did not claim that ALL religious people are hypocritical. However, since you brought it up, I will further my statement to include that anyone who criticizes or who condemns someone for being immoral, is very likely to consider themselves religious and therefore without fault.

"{You're like a giant whisk, stirring things up. Seemingly, you bring all your frustrations to this forum. IMO"

That Sir is nothing more than a classic case of psychological projection on your part. And just so you know, the only thing I am frustrated about are the current limitations that my physical health places upon me at the moment.

Other than that, I am hardly frustrated about a thing or by anyone.

June 30, 2013 at 3:44 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo: Projection, huh? You're sounding like your little friend, Easy. Actually, you sound confused.

June 30, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak , they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

YOU wrote:

"The books of the Bible were written by many men. Their testimonies are NOT GOD's word. They are their own. Once you begin to understand that, and learn the details of the lives of the many authors, grasping what is you are reading comes much easier."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

June 30, 2013 at 4:03 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "I'm surprised you liberals haven't condemned Alec Baldwin for his gay bashing on twitter and are so willing to destroy Paula Dean for something she said 30 years ago."

Whoa there cowboy. It is not liberals who are attempting to destroy Paula Deen. Fans of Paula Deen, I'm quite sure, are supporters of both political parties. Her fans, both current and those who may have decided to dump her, have had no affect on her future.

The corporate entities that have decided to dump her are very likely and vastly staffed at the top with right-wing supporters, who made their decisions to directly impinge Paula Deen's future because they, themselves, do not want to appear to support anyone viewed as being racist.

As evidence of that, who considered to be liberal in this forum, has openly sided against Paula Deen? You might want to go back and revisit that thread to see who it was that was openly critical and who wasn't.

"I guess it must be because alec is a flaming liberal and that makes whatever he says is alright."

Alec Baldwin's Tweets were not even close to gay bashing. The worst closest he came was to call George Stark a "toxic queen."

Every time you right-wingers attempt to criticize the left for not criticizing one of our own, it really comes off looking quite silly.

Everyone, when they are angry, will attempt to inflict some measure of pain at the target of their anger.

Who the heck is George Stark anyway? Is he an openly gay British reporter? I sure never heard of the man before this infamous Tweeting took place and I doubt you have either.

Please feel free to offer the proper criticism whenever a known liberal truly becomes guilty of gay bashing.

June 30, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.

The whole universe knows what the debauched, self-indulgent west does not know: that complementarity is healthy and life-giving. Institutionalizing the marriage of complementary genders is necessary for the survival of the species and for the thriving of children and of society.

“Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage” by Ryan T. Anderson (March 18, 2013)

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage

Centers for Disease Control Report on Sexually Transmitted Diseases http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

“The Same-Sex “Marriage” Proposal is Unjust Discrimination” by Patrick Lee

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4597/

“Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State” by Jennifer Roback Morse , April 3rd, 2012

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/

June 30, 2013 at 4:24 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2Peter 1:20-21

YOU wrote :

"Thus, the verse you offer up as proof that Jesus never committed sin or deceived anyone, is merely the author's opinion, and nothing more."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

June 30, 2013 at 4:34 p.m.

Alprova, like Easy, reads Dan Brown novels as history textbooks. Your recalcitrance against truth is resilient, if nothing else. I needed a good laugh.

June 30, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, if you can read Baldwin's complete tweets and still say they were not homophobic in nature, then you're dumber than I thought.

June 30, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

The liberals didn't destroy Dean. Her sponsors did. They are owned/run mostly by Conservatives. DOH!!!


Do those companies hire celebrity spokespersons or labels for the political philosophy they hold and represent or for the product they can move? When Dean, who it has been reported is a Democrat and most likely a liberal, “step in it”, and the media feasted on her, the companies rightfully determined her to be persona non grata.

June 30, 2013 at 4:53 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

I just can't accept the hate in my life that comes from the church. There is something fundamentally wrong with you.


Well, that certainly didn’t seem hateful ... Did it?

June 30, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al wrote: Alec Baldwin's Tweets were not even close to gay bashing. The worst closest he came was to call George Stark a "toxic queen."

You conveniently forgot to mention the second tweet from Baldwin directed at George Shaw.

"if put my foot up your f....ing ass, George Stark, but I'm sure you'd dig it too much."

I guess in your mind when a liberal makes this type of comment it is not gay bashing.

June 30, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Liberals are allowed to say and do whatever they want no matter how offensive and hypocrites in the media will always give them a pass. It's like how feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women weren't at all bothered by how President Clinton treated women. sometimes Alpy's desire to be a contrarian overwhelms his judgement

June 30, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Alprova, like Easy, reads Dan Brown novels as history textbooks. Your recalcitrance against truth is resilient, if nothing else. I needed a good laugh." - wwwtw

I cannot speak for Alprova or Easy and whether or not they read Dan Brown novels as history textbooks but it is a fact that Bible thumpers read the Bible as a history textbook, and that is not funny at all, it's pathetic. Your statement, however, certainly merits a good laugh.

June 30, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Ozzy87 said...

Una61, a great line from Star Trek : Insurrection : "How many people does it take for a decision to be wrong?" 6? 60? 6000? Taking the most ACCURATE and NEUTRAL numbers is that 5% to 10% of the population identifies themselves as LGBT. So that equals between 19.5 and 39 MILLION people. The Prop 8 decision was another punting the ball back to the states, instead of a handing down a decisive ruling.

June 30, 2013 at 5:47 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative, the Book of Romans, undeniably written by the Apostle Paul, was written in preparation of his first visit to Rome.

What he wrote was directed, at the time, to Jews first and to many Gentiles, who were all members of the Roman Church.

People like yourself, choose to apply everything written and compiled in the Bible to your lives, and you totally choose to condemn those living today with the Bible.

If you read the preceding scripture leading up to that which you cherry-picked to condemn homosexuality, you will read that it was Paul's opinion that graven images "made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles," were responsible for "exchang[ing] the truth about God for a lie, and [they] worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."

Then Paul goes on to offer his OPINION on homosexuality. That is HIS opinion. And like his opinion that graven images of reptiles caused people to turn away from God, which is bizarre enough in its own right, the Book of Romans is no more substantive than a sermon you may have heard in church this morning, because that is EXACTLY what the letter known as the Book of Romans is...a preparatory sermon.

June 30, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

YOU wrote :

"Did Jesus deceive or lie? One instance in the New Testament seems to offer that he did."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

June 30, 2013 at 6:04 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpo: Projection, huh? You're sounding like your little friend, Easy. Actually, you sound confused."

Jack, whether you care to admit it or not, every comment you offer into this forum is designed to elicit a response from someone.

You are most definitely a poop pot stirrer.

To accuse anyone of doing the same thing is most hypocritical and therefore a demonstration of psychological projection.

June 30, 2013 at 6:05 p.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "Alprova, like Easy, reads Dan Brown novels as history textbooks."

Who is Dan Brown?

"Your recalcitrance against truth is resilient, if nothing else. I needed a good laugh."

What truth is that?

June 30, 2013 at 6:07 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpo, if you can read Baldwin's complete tweets and still say they were not homophobic in nature, then you're dumber than I thought."

There was nothing remotely homophobic in any of those nine Tweets.

Nothing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelrusch/alec-baldwins-epic-twitter-meltdown

June 30, 2013 at 6:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Poop pot stirrer. I like it, Alpy. From one poop pot stirrer to another.

June 30, 2013 at 6:13 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "I guess in your mind when a liberal makes this type of comment it is not gay bashing."

Please...you guys trying desperately to play the "gay bashing card" are totally hilarious!!

June 30, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Nothing homophobic, alpo? That's astounding.

June 30, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
alprova said...

rickaroo wrote: "...it is a fact that Bible thumpers read the Bible as a history textbook, and that is not funny at all, it's pathetic."

History books are as accurate as those who had a hand in their creation. No one surely can deny that.

The problem is, that many people do not apply that same criteria when it comes to the Bible.

Even in light of the undeniable and quite provable fact that the the modern day Bible is a compilation of many works of literature, written originally by an alleged 40 authors in extinct dialects and languages, amassed over many, many eons, translated into 518 different modern languages, by an unimaginable number of people, there are those who unquestioningly consider the Bible above reproach and to be "God's word."

To hold such a belief takes a demonstrable amount of faith in your fellow human beings that 100% accuracy has been maintained, which is quite laughable, given that ten people cannot sit in a room and come to an agreement to a meaning of what they just read after reading just one sentence of scripture.

If only some of you had that an inkling of that kind of faith in your Governmental leaders.

June 30, 2013 at 6:32 p.m.
May said...

Sometimes I feel homophobes somehow feel threatened by a gay couple. The gay couple isn't doing anything except minding their own business and have absolutely no affect on said homophobes, and yet, they have to be subject to being dictated how to live their lives.

June 30, 2013 at 6:33 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al posted Please...you guys trying desperately to play the "gay bashing card" are totally hilarious!!

What is hilarious is seeing you embarrass yourself by making that comment when you can not defend what Alex Baldwin said.

June 30, 2013 at 6:36 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Alec Baldwin's Tweets were not even close to gay bashing. The worst closest he came was to call George Stark a "toxic queen."

Every time you right-wingers attempt to criticize the left for not criticizing one of our own, it really comes off looking quite silly.

Everyone, when they are angry, will attempt to inflict some measure of pain at the target of their anger.

Please feel free to offer the proper criticism whenever a known liberal truly becomes guilty of gay bashing.


(I don’t want to look “quite silly” so I’ll let a liberal gay man do the criticizing.)

Anderson Cooper - Why does Alec Baldwin get a pass when he uses gay slurs? If a conservative talked of beating up a "queen" they would be vilified.

(Here is the “gentleman” that you are defending in his own words:)

"I'm gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I'm gonna f^^^ … you … up."

"If [he means I'd] put my foot up your f^^^ing a^^, George Stark, but I'm sure you'd dig it too much."

"I want all of my followers and beyond to straighten out this f^^^ing little b^^^h."

June 30, 2013 at 6:41 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "What is hilarious is seeing you embarrass yourself by making that comment when you can not defend what Alex Baldwin said."

I have no intention of defending what Alec Baldwin wrote. What's to defend or to condemn? Why would you believe that anyone, regardless of their political leanings, should even care about what he wrote?

That was between him and the George Stark, whom Baldwin claimed wrote a falsehood about his wife. Not one word was directed to another soul.

You seem to believe that in a moment of anger, based on comments Baldwin wrote to one man, that he is guilty of bashing everyone who might be gay.

I can't help what you base that belief upon. I certainly am not embarrassed because you believe that I should be.

My reaction to those Tweets would be exactly the same, had they been written by someone who had been ultra-conservative.

You really need to learn what bashing an entire group of people consists of first and foremost, before you try to pick a fight.

June 30, 2013 at 7:01 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, you are waaaay on the wrong side on this one.

June 30, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
alprova said...

PT, some of you are making a mega-mountain out of an ant hill.

Be sure to carry lots of gear with you on your trek to ascend it.

A change of underwear should be enough.

June 30, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Another liberal gay man writing in the Guardian of all places:


Can you hear it? The stampede of Hollywood actors scrambling to condemn Alec Baldwin? The cacophony of icy tweets and acidic statements snarled by publicists like demented pantomime horses? That din of Tinseltown turning inwards when, in a rare fit of righteousness, of actually believing in something real and heartfelt and important, it stands up, en masse, to one of its own?

No? That'll be because there is no sound.

Baldwin, that tornado of toddler behaviour, still stands aloft, unscathed. This is after an incident of such violent, naked homophobia that it bears all the nuance of a brick lobbed through a gay bar.

What would the reaction be if it were racist epithets? Mel Gibson, of course, found Hollywood to be a distinctly chillier place after his antisemitic outburst in 2006, when he reportedly barked at the police officer arresting him for driving under the influence:

"F^^^ing Jews … the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

And this week, Paula Deen, America's fourth-highest earning celebrity chef (according to Forbes), lost contracts with the Food Network, Target, Home Depot, Smithfield Foods and Walmart after admitting that she had, "of course", used "the n-word", in a deposition for a lawsuit filed by her former manager.

Has Capital One, the credit card Baldwin advertises, dropped him? Has anyone said anything?

This week we might be witnessing the Defense of Marriage Act being lowered into the ground, but Baldwin's rant jumps out as a cold reminder that hatred towards gay people still whistles all around, as alive as ever. And that, clearly, Hollywood helps keep it there.

Its films have for a hundred years ignored us, parodied us and at best portrayed us as doomed and pitiful wretches. Finally, as we see today, Hollywood holds such hatred up using the oldest form of moral negligence: the refusal to attack it.

In one further tweet, our leading man wrote:

"How much of this s^^t are people supposed to take?"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

June 30, 2013 at 7:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

A Catholic priest beheaded by Barry's BFF's. the MB. From the MSM nothing but crickets. And so it goes.

June 30, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

And yet another gay man:

Andrew Sullivan: “Alec Baldwin Engaged In ‘Hate Speech,’ Called For Mob To ‘Physically Attack A Gay Man’”

You Are Worthless, Alec Baldwin

First off, lets fisk the ridiculous statement:

“My ill-advised attack on George Stark of the Daily Mail had absolutely nothing to do with issues of anyone’s sexual orientation.”

The tweet:

If put my foot up your f^^^ing a^^, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much … I’m gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f^^^…you…up.”

Nothing homophobic about that, whatsoever. Move along, Nothing to see here:

“My anger was directed at Mr. Stark for blatantly lying and disseminating libelous information about my wife and her conduct at our friend’s funeral service. As someone who fights against homophobia, I apologize.”

Well, if it had nothing to do with homophobia and a reporter’s sexual orientation, then why didn’t he threaten to punch the guy in the face than sodomize him with his foot? Then the get-out-of-being-a-violent-gay-basher card:

“I have worked, periodically, with numerous marriage equality organizations, especially over the past couple of years, to achieve the very rights that gay couples are earning by recent court decisions. I would not advocate violence against someone for being gay and I hope that my friends at GLAAD and the gay community understand that my attack on Mr. Stark in no way was the result of homophobia.

Many Thanks, Alec Baldwin.”

I’m sorry but you have to be deaf, dumb and blind to say that his attack on Stark was “in no way the result of homophobia”. It was one of the purest expressions of violent homophobia you can have. Then this:

“I would not advocate violence against someone being gay.” But you just f^^^ing did – in your own words. You called a mob out to beat the crap out of a “toxic little queen.” And the threat of violence makes it, as I said before, a potentially criminal statement, not a gaffe.

This isn’t an apology. It’s bulls^^t. And if you want to know why I regard GLAAD as so awful, just read their response. It begins:

GLAAD then responded:

“His words yesterday do not match his history of actively supporting LGBT equality. While Alec’s apology is a first step, this should not be the end of the dialogue. There are now other visible actions that he should take to fight anti-gay violence and GLAAD looks forward to working with him.”

So he’s now going to do the GLAAD Stations of the Cross and they will milk him for more and more money to account for his raw bigotry. They’d rather get his money than call him out for what he actually said.

The double standard is blindingly obvious. Conservatives would be crucified for saying something like this. A liberal is given an easy exit. I’m not for punishing people for speech; but I am against excusing the threat of homophobic rape against a specific individual because the bigot says he pro-gay.

June 30, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
alprova said...

Do you know why the main stream media has not reported on the alleged beheading of a Catholic Priest?

Because there seems to be a controversy as to whether the video in question is genuine and a question as to who carried out the act. The Syrian Government or al-Qaeda insurgents may well have done it to discredit the Syrian rebels.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/syrian-video-shows-catholic-priest-beheaded-militants-113759896.html

June 30, 2013 at 7:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Two updates;

Edward Snowden is now responsible for leaking information about the U.S. to a foreign government, alleging secret spying activities committed by his own nation.

Still think he is not a traitor?

And, Julian Assange is whining that Snowden is basically stuck where he is at the moment in at the Moscow Airport. I guess that plan is moot now.

"Sorry guy, but I guess I can't help you after all."

I wonder, is Edward Snowden STILL proud of what he has done, and did he plan on what now has essentially caused him to be a man with absolutely no country?

His Papa ain't gonna dig him out of this one.

I don't know which is worse; Being thrown in prison for a few years, or being stuck in an airport until the Russians decide to pick him up, milk him of anything he knows and then either kill him or deport him back to the U.S. to face the music.

Either way, he is screwed.

June 30, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al wrote: "Why would you believe that anyone, regardless of their political leanings, should even care about what he wrote?"

So if someone made a slur about Obama would you feel the same way? Is there a different set of rules if someone writes an anti gay slur compared to writing an anti black slur? You have attacked Max on this form because he does not agree with Obama's policies or because he has referred to Obama as Barry The Welfare Pimp and other names saying it is because Obama is black. Other people on this form have also disagreed with Obama's policies and you have played the race card. Yet you give Baldwin a pass when he makes anti gay slurs.

Al it sounds like you are anti-gay.

June 30, 2013 at 8:27 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak , they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

YOU wrote :

"And again, you fail to include the scripture I cited that proves that Jesus himself did not consider himself to be perfect and without sin."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

June 30, 2013 at 8:34 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "So if someone made a slur about Obama would you feel the same way?"

People offer slurs all the time about Obama. I find those as hilarious as this silliness about what Alec Baldwin wrote.

Do you know why? Because I remember a little saying; "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

"Is there a different set of rules if someone writes an anti gay slur compared to writing an anti black slur?"

Alec Baldwin was addressing one man, not every homosexual. There's no way around that simple fact.

"You have attacked Max on this form because he does not agree with Obama's policies or because he has referred to Obama as Barry The Welfare Pimp and other names saying it is because Obama is black."

I'm not going to address any issues that I have regarding Max with you.

"Other people on this form have also disagreed with Obama's policies and you have played the race card."

When those disagreements are based on lies, you bet that I'll whip out that race card and I usually hit a mark every time I play it.

"Yet you give Baldwin a pass when he makes anti gay slurs."

The more you write, the more I laugh at the absurdness of your protests. I recognize that Alec Baldwin was pissed off at the guy for making false accusations. And apparently, they were false, since not one Tweet from his wife at the time of the funeral has surfaced.

As I stated earlier, when people are pissed off, they will use whatever they can to inflict a little pain on their opponent. George Stark was the target...not every homosexual on the planet.

"Al it sounds like you are anti-gay."

I can not begin to change what it is that you create in your own mind about myself.

Think whatever you wish.

June 30, 2013 at 8:48 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al wrote Alec Baldwin was addressing one man, not every homosexual. There's no way around that simple fact."

So, as long as you are making anti gay slurs against just one gay man and not every homosexual then it is alright to make anti gay slurs.

Al wrote "I'm not going to address any issues that I have regarding Max with you."

Why because you can not defend what I posted about your double standards. You like Obama and agree with his policies so you defend him. Shaw on the other hand is just one gay man that you do not know so don't give a crap about him.

Not only do you continue to embarrass yourself. You have proven you are a hypocrite.

June 30, 2013 at 9:05 p.m.
delmar said...

"Snowden and Greenwald have not “aided the enemy” — unless the American people are the government’s enemy. What they have done is embarrass the Obama administration by exposing criminal activity." -Sheldon Richman

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/big-brother-is-the-story/

June 30, 2013 at 9:06 p.m.
rick1 said...

Obama has done more damage to our National Security then Snowden has.

June 30, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "So, as long as you are making anti gay slurs against just one gay man and not every homosexual then it is alright to make anti gay slurs."

Alec Baldwin didn't make any "anti-gay" slurs.

"Why because you can not defend what I posted about your double standards."

Nope, because any issues that I have with Max are not up for discussion with anyone else.

"You like Obama and agree with his policies so you defend him."

I defend the man more than I do the alleged "policies" that people claim he pushes.

"Shaw on the other hand is just one gay man that you do not know so don't give a crap about him."

The man's last name was Stark, and you're right, I don't know a thing about him, and neither do you, apparently, since you can't even get his last name correct.

So pray tell, what is YOUR interest in defending someone who may or may not be homosexual, against a couple of very weak homosexual references?

Am I to believe that you have suddenly jumped on the LBGT bandwagon, or is this argument academic?

"Not only do you continue to embarrass yourself. You have proven you are a hypocrite"

I'll leave it to you to back that charge up with some proof that I have ever, in this forum, called anyone down for using words like "queen" or for alleging that someone who is a homosexual would like a foot up their rear end.

June 30, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Obama has done more damage to our National Security then Snowden has."

I know it will be a waste of time to ask you to explain your statement, but please...will you explain your statement?

How EXACTLY has the President done more damage to our national security than Edward Snowden has?

June 30, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Can we agree that Baldwin has consistently proven himself to be an A-hole?

June 30, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al wrote "Alec Baldwin didn't make any "anti-gay" slurs."

Anderson Cooper who has admitted he is gay would disagree with you on that Al.

Here are some of the reasons I believe Obama is more of a threat to the National Security of our country than Snowden

How about the national security leaks from last year and the administration did not work very hard on finding out who was responsible when it looked very much like former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon was one of the people conducting the leaks along with:

Biden who was shooting his mouth off about the previously classified SEAL Team 6 that killed Osama bin Laden, and then in August 2011 it loses three members when a helicopter is shot down by insurgents.

Panetta giving out classified information about the SEAL unit for the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

Obama and his Arab Spring are responsible for Morsi his Muslim Brotherhood allies being in power. How does putting Morsi who and the Muslim Brotherhood make our National Security more secure?

Obama is supporting terrorists in Syria by providing them arms to over throw the government and Obama supported the terrorists who are currently running the State sponsored govt in Libya.

Not to mention Obama allowed Putin to walk all over him with Snowden in Russia and we are told how much of a threat Snowden is to our country but our government can not even get the paper work completed properly to extradite Snowden back from Hong Kong

Yeah, with people in the Obama Administration giving out National Security secrets and arming and supporting terrorists organizations that are now in power in Egypt and Libya and possibly Syria in the near future, and not being able to fill out paperwork properly to extradite Snowden who is a National Security threat to our country I would say Obama has done way more damage than Snowden.

June 30, 2013 at 10:46 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Can we agree that Baldwin has consistently proven himself to be an A-hole?"

He sure doesn't like those who invade his privacy, that's for sure.

June 30, 2013 at 10:55 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy: Like his daughter?

June 30, 2013 at 10:57 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Anderson Cooper who has admitted he is gay would disagree with you on that Al."

Hey, I like Anderson Cooper, but he is not the person to quote when attempting to end all debate on the issue of whether or not what Alec Baldwin wrote rises to the level as an anti-gay slur.

"How about the national security leaks from last year and the administration did not work very hard on finding out who was responsible when it looked very much like former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon was one of the people conducting the leaks along with:"

Where are you getting that information. Until this moment, I have never read of any accusation that Tom Donilon was ever suspected of leaking a doggone thing to the press.

"Biden who was shooting his mouth off about the previously classified SEAL Team 6 that killed Osama bin Laden, and then in August 2011 it loses three members when a helicopter is shot down by insurgents."

Sir, SEAL Team 6 is so "classified" that they have a Wikipedia page.

"Panetta giving out classified information about the SEAL unit for the movie Zero Dark Thirty."

What "classified" information was that?

"Obama and his Arab Spring are responsible for Morsi his Muslim Brotherhood allies being in power. How does putting Morsi who and the Muslim Brotherhood make our National Security more secure?"

Yeah...they knocked on my back door last week and I had to run them off.

"Obama is supporting terrorists in Syria by providing them arms to over throw the government and Obama supported the terrorists who are currently running the State sponsored govt in Libya."

I see...so you're buying into the theory that the terrorists are in charge of Libya and are now trying to seize control of Syria?

A month ago, you were claiming that the President had betrayed and embarrassed the Libyan President, Mohamed Magariaf, for controverting the claim that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance.

"Not to mention Obama allowed Putin to walk all over him with Snowden in Russia and we are told how much of a threat Snowden is to our country but our government can not even get the paper work completed properly to extradite Snowden back from Hong Kong>"

What exactly is the President to do? Bomb Russia? Send the FBI with guns in hand to the Moscow Airport to arrest Snowden?

As for when he was in Hong Kong, extradition is a very tricky process between us and them, which is why Snowden went there in the first place.

When it looked like extradition might be a reality, Snowden hopped a plane to Russia, and THEN the U.S. Government pulled the plug on him by canceling his passport.

It's a shame that you cannot see the genius in that. He's now stuck in Russia, in an airport, and sooner or later, his money will run out. He'll soon be begging to come home.

You're simply grasping at straws like everyone else who blames Obama for anything and everything.

Sheesh....

June 30, 2013 at 11:28 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpy: Like his daughter?"

When he did what he did to his daughter over the phone, I was highly critical of the man. There was nothing right about that at all.

I also thought that his being kicked off the plane, last month?, was totally his fault.

Clearly, the man has anger management issues, but this latest one is quite tame, compared to some of his episodes.

Celebrities often complain that the press dogs them to death and that they write untruths all the time. I'd hate that too.

Look at Justin Bieber. That boy can't catch a break lately.

June 30, 2013 at 11:31 p.m.
fairmon said...

It is hard to know when some celebrities are doing things to attract attention and when the attention is not wanted. In their world staying in the public eye and name recognition is worth a lot. I agree Baldwin is a first class-ass but he just became more known than he was without consequences.

Paula Deane made the mistake of being honest and admitting she used an offensive word in 1986 then failing to hire a good image repair firm before saying another word. Who finds it surprising that anyone, especially in the south, still used that word in 1986? It appears it gives great pleasure to the media to attack and bring down anyone successful.

July 1, 2013 at 12:04 a.m.
fairmon said...

A minute by minute special review of the Benghazi tragedy didn't prove much more than ineptness on the part of many in key slots. It didn't appear the president was involved in the decision making process until a good while after the tragedy when damage control was the main objective.

I like and often agree with John Stossel, a true libertarian. He had a segment with an example of what can go wrong with the patriot act where an innocent man was arrested and held for two weeks resulting in an apology from the FBI along with $2 million dollars which of course is a cost to taxpayers.

July 1, 2013 at 12:16 a.m.
fairmon said...

2 'toons back alprova said sarcastically...

Lower taxes is welfare? That's deep...really deep.


Alpo, paying a lower rate than the percent set for the income level is by any other name still welfare. It is cleverly hidden as deductions, credits, incentives etc. and not acknowledged as welfare. Anyone getting assistance from a government or other non family source in any form for personal living expenses is getting welfare. What label would you assign it? Those same people that want to keep their personal welfare "loop holes" rant and rave about corporations having "loop holes" and call it corporate welfare, is that hypocritical?. I am not saying welfare is not appropriate and in most cases necessary. But, why not in the interest of transparency account for and budget it as welfare? People need to know what every bleeding heart program is costing. Who said they were going to have the most transparent government ever? Earned income tax credits that result in a return greater than the amount paid in taxes is a good example. Those people may need and deserve welfare so send them a check and call it what it is. Why hide it in the tax code where no one will know what that welfare program is costing them.

July 1, 2013 at 12:31 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, I'm confused. John Stossel took a lot of heat for his ambivalence about NSA snooping.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stossel-admits-to-oreilly-hes-okay-with-nsa-snooping-privacy-already-blown-libertarians-calling-me-traitor/

What case are you referring to, that was tied to the Patriot Act?

July 1, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.
alprova said...

I was doing a good job of ignoring your post, because I thought I had made my positions quite clear in my previous responses, but you're not going to let it go, so...

Fairmon wrote: "Alpo, paying a lower rate than the percent set for the income level is by any other name still welfare."

Okay...next point?

"It is cleverly hidden as deductions, credits, incentives etc. and not acknowledged as welfare."

Uh huh...

"Anyone getting assistance from a government or other non family source in any form for personal living expenses is getting welfare."

Okay...

"What label would you assign it?"

Tax breaks under the current system of taxation.

"Those same people that want to keep their personal welfare "loop holes" rant and rave about corporations having "loop holes" and call it corporate welfare, is that hypocritical?."

It depends on how much money they earn and what percentage of their income they part with every April. If they are indeed exceeding what corporations are paying in either real dollars or in terms of percentage of income, then I'd say they have a valid complaint, wouldn't you?

"I am not saying welfare is not appropriate and in most cases necessary. But, why not in the interest of transparency account for and budget it as welfare?"

Because the vast majority of people who receive credits and increased deductions do not zero out and/or receive money. Most pay taxes just like you do.

"People need to know what every bleeding heart program is costing."

Do you really think it would matter or suddenly make everyone start to not claim those tax breaks?

"Who said they were going to have the most transparent government ever? Earned income tax credits that result in a return greater than the amount paid in taxes is a good example."

The famous quote is that 47% of all tax returns have a zero or negative tax liability. Did you know that we are nowhere near the record percentage? Tax returns filed from 1931-1936 were much higher in terms of those who owed no taxes. The peak year was 1934, at 56%.

Just as it did then, as our economy continues to improve, that percentage will go down.

"Those people may need and deserve welfare so send them a check and call it what it is."

Why tell me? I can't do a thing about it. Start a letter writing campaign to every Senator and Congressman in Washington. Who knows? You might succeed.

"Why hide it in the tax code where no one will know what that welfare program is costing them."

You're horribly obsessed with this, I cam see. By the way, I noticed that you failed to respond to my observation that you do have tax deductions available to you that are far and below that of a single filer.

No comment?

July 1, 2013 at 1:03 a.m.
Maximus said...

PR advice to Paula Deen: 1. Take six months to a year off. No media. Enjoy your family and your money. 2. After this break, visit the OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) and announce to Oprah you are starting a foundation to support at risk African Americans enabling them to attend culinary schools throughout the U.S. 3. Partner with a great African American chef and return to the Food Network. Show could be called: Grits and BBQ....America's Best! 4. Continue making millions just like Martha Stewart and Don Imus.
And Alprova, comparing the Apostle Paul's writings to just any other minister REALLY, REALLY shows that you are not only spiritually bankrupt but also an idiot! Your well publicized health struggles must be of the mental kind because you are a crazed liberal retard. Hopefully you will be visited by Obama's death panel soon. After that, if you don't repent and change your ways......burn baby burn.....as it is written, so sayeth the Lord. There is and has always been right and wrong. God does not play the "relative morality" game that you liberals love so much. Sorry.

July 1, 2013 at 1:07 a.m.
alprova said...

Maximus wrote: "And Alprova, comparing the Apostle Paul's writings to just any other minister REALLY, REALLY shows that you are not only spiritually bankrupt but also an idiot!"

Coming from you, oh master of the concept of bearing false witness, I'll take that as a compliment.

The last person on Earth that I would dare have a religious discussion with, is you.

"{Your well publicized health struggles must be of the mental kind because you are a crazed liberal retard."

They must not be all that well publicized, or you would be just a wee bit more clued in to what they are. My mind and mental stability are quite sound.

"Hopefully you will be visited by Obama's death panel soon."

Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil, nor any mythical death panel.

"After that, if you don't repent and change your ways......burn baby burn.....as it is written, so sayeth the Lord."

You're one of those I wrote about earlier today. You love use the Lord's name to condemn others, while completely ignoring your own faults that place you in danger of receiving God's wrath.

"There is and has always been right and wrong. God does not play the "relative morality" game that you liberals love so much. Sorry."

God doesn't cotton very much to those who hypocritically condemn others to hell and who claim to be morally superior to others, not to mention those who revel in. brag about, or in your case, lie about their Earthly treasures.

Having you call me down for any lacking of religion, is very much like being called down by David Duke. It don't fit, so I don't give a schlitz.

July 1, 2013 at 1:26 a.m.
Maximus said...

As for my earthly treasures and spirituality....it is well with my church, my soul, and my bank account and that is no lie my pitiful unhealthy idiot that spends way too much time on the liberal websites. May the Apostle Paul curse your soul all the days of your life and may a pox be brought upon you and the other mindless drones you have spawned. If I had to guess you are a 300 lb. ++ self afflicted diabetic with smoking induced COPD. Like a LOT of Obama supporters...a self appointed victim of society that has to look to big government to support them. It sounds as though your earthly days are getting short and soon you will go to the nothing in which you believe. As for me being morally superior to others, well, in order to exercise good judgement you have to make a decision don't you? I don't associate with anyone who would bad mouth, demean, or defame the Apostle Paul or the Holy Scriptures inspired by God.

July 1, 2013 at 2:10 a.m.
alprova said...

"May the Apostle Paul curse your soul all the days of your life and may a pox be brought upon you and the other mindless drones you have spawned."

I did not relate one sentence about the Apostle Paul that cannot be similarly found elsewhere, nor did I disrespect him at all.

The Book of Romans was indeed a sermon he prepared prior to his visit to the Roman Church in Rome. Look it up. It was not an epistle for those of us alive today.

It's amazing how ignorant people can be when it comes to understanding the Bible. The very thought of you pulling out a holy card and attempting to lay it on a table is ludicrous.

"If I had to guess you are a 300 lb. ++ self afflicted diabetic with smoking induced COPD."

You've made that charge before and I've shot it down. Anytime you want to find out who and what I am, just send me an email and we'll go from there. Unlike yourself, I have nothing at all to hide.

"Like a LOT of Obama supporters...a self appointed victim of society that has to look to big government to support them."

Again Sir, I get up five days a week and I have a business to run. I'll be happy to prove it to you anytime you feel froggy.

"It sounds as though your earthly days are getting short and soon you will go to the nothing in which you believe."

I'm not even close to death, yet. Sorry to disappoint you.

"As for me being morally superior to others, well, in order to exercise good judgement you have to make a decision don't you? I don't associate with anyone who would bad mouth, demean, or defame the Apostle Paul or the Holy Scriptures inspired by God."

You're the first self-righteous, self-proclaimed follower of Christ who would not jump at the chance to meet with and witness to someone as lost to the word of God as you believe me to be.

You and I know the real reason why you will not meet with me. It's because you are nothing at all you claim to be.

Don't you DARE hide behind God to perpetuate your damnable lies.

July 1, 2013 at 2:41 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

You're horribly obsessed with this, I cam see. By the way, I noticed that you failed to respond to my observation that you do have tax deductions available to you that are far and below that of a single filer.

No comment?

I did respond. I am aware of the options and qualify for neither head of hh or carrying her as a dependent, this year may change that. BTW I and others have written, called and talked in person to members of congress about the convoluted and unfair tax system. The response between agreement and support for the simple system and rambling political speak is about 50/50. Expecting anything positive to come from a rabbit chasing congress and administration is naïve.

July 1, 2013 at 6:15 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

"People need to know what every bleeding heart program is costing."

Do you really think it would matter or suddenly make everyone start to not claim those tax breaks?

The point is the "loop holes" or tax breaks would not exist. Those that qualify for the welfare would get it as welfare. IE. those buying a house that qualify for interest paid welfare would ask for and receive a "welfare check". This would apply to every current tax reduction "welfare loop hole". One well known congressman said he didn't like it because it would be too difficult for congress to manipulate the tax system.

July 1, 2013 at 6:24 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Thomas Sowell said "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." (Happy Birthday, T.S.)

July 1, 2013 at 7:22 a.m.
rdc919 said...

It's funny considering liberals like Bennett think they're superior.

July 1, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, I was single at one time too, but this tax differentiation issue and your calling it welfare is really making you look quite silly and as out there on a limb as Rand or Ron Paul are on some things.

I can appreciate your plight, but you're not going to find very much support for taxing families more, just because you believe it to be fair to do so.

But a house, marry your squeeze, and join the rest of us who do the same thing, or pop a vein.

I'm all for the Fair Tax, but you and I know that its passage in Congress is quite remote any time soon. It was proposed about 15 years ago.

July 1, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak , they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

Jesus said:

Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:46-47

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

YOU wrote :

"And again, you fail to include the scripture I cited that proves that Jesus himself did not consider himself to be perfect and without sin."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

July 1, 2013 at 8:08 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "And you claim that you are a Christian because?"

Because I am nothing like yourself.

Because I believe that religious belief should ALWAYS be a matter of free will, a personal choice, and those beliefs should be formed without interference by a soul.

Because I constantly seek the knowledge to understand the origins and intent of the Bible.

Because I keep everything written in the Bible in the context in which it is presented.

And because I do not use the Bible to bash people while basking in self-righteousness.

July 1, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak , they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5

I believe strongly in repetition. I am confident that you will eventually see your error:

YOU wrote :

"And again, you fail to include the scripture I cited that proves that Jesus himself did not consider himself to be perfect and without sin."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

July 1, 2013 at 8:28 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Trying to reason with ALPO is like banging your head against a vault door.

July 1, 2013 at 8:53 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matthew 12:36-37

Jesus said:

Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” John 8:46-47

YOU said:

"Was Jesus perfect and without sin? I seriously doubt it, for he was a living, breathing, human being. The New Testament makes that perfectly clear."

And you claim that you are a Christian because?

July 1, 2013 at 8:59 a.m.

The pro-gay revolution successfully co-opted terms like “rights” and “equality,” just as the Intern employed benign slogans such as “hope” and “change,” to foist its radical agenda on a gullible, semi-literate American public. For the past 20-30 years, the gay-rights revolution successfully chipped away at our national sanity through the sympathetic portrayal of homosexual figures in the mind-numbing popular media. Religious leaders have succumbed to the revolution, in some cases leading the way, by spinning Christian virtues such that their biblically illiterate congregations were lulled into support for a debased, life-destroying behavior and lifestyle. At last, the revolution has achieved a more permanent imposition of their immoral, self-destructive standards by co-opting a long-standing public institution – marriage – thus, signaling victory for the up-rooting of our civilization’s moral foundation. Civilization – your bounty was wonderful while it lasted. But alas, the sentries, after slumbering, have abandoned their posts at the clamor of irrational mobs, and the distinction between barbarism and refinement has finally been erased.

July 1, 2013 at 9 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

WWWTW^^^^ * five stars.

July 1, 2013 at 9:02 a.m.

Like most Americans, Alprova will accept Christianity on his own, and ONLY HIS OWN, terms, revealing the autonomous self-deification that the God represented in the Bible will not abide. Very perilous. And very tragic.

Hypocrisy in the western church? Rampant. Weak kneed? At moment, in the west, without question. Tied to the survival of our culture? Again, you’ve gotten things quite backward. Going away (worldwide) any time soon? You’re always good for a nice chuckle to start or end the day.

July 1, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Is it possible ALPO is a TFP plant? No one could be that obstinate.

July 1, 2013 at 9:57 a.m.

No man, a normal man, or anyone of a sane mind, will ever accept, or be ok with, a man taking sticking his penis in another man's anus. That's what it all comes down to. It's a huge battle waged by Hollywood, the media, and Democrats to make that act an acceptable and normal practice. It will never be ok.

July 1, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

You charge me with bashing you with the Bible.

Actually, God's word convicts you of your many sins and blasphemies. You are just bashed with the truth.

Now why is this? It is because the Bible, the word of God is authoritative. It is truth, it is infallible and it is very powerful.

The proof? Your reactions. You would not react as you do if I had just quoted any mere man.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.Hebrews 4:12-13NAS

You deny that the Bible is the word of God yet you are SOMETIMES greatly troubled by it's words and doctrine, as well you should be.

July 1, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
joneses said...

Changing old “blond jokes” to “uninformed voter” jokes…………..

An uninformed voter heard that baths in milk would make her beautiful. She left a note for her milkman Dave to leave 25 gallons of milk. When the milkman read the note, he felt there must be a mistake. Dave thought she probably meant 2.5 gallons. So he knocked on the door to clarify the point.

The uninformed voter came to the door and the milkman said, “I found your note asking me to leave 25 gallons of milk. Did you mean 2.5 gallons?”

The uninformed voter said, “No, I want 25 gallons. I’m going to fill my bathtub up with milk and take a milk bath so I can look young and beautiful again.”

David the milkman asked, “Do you want it pasteurized?”

The uninformed voter said, “No, just up to my tits. I can just splash it on my eyes.”

July 1, 2013 at 10:39 a.m.
Maximus said...

Ever notice that when Barry The Welfare Pimp is visiting a Muslim country he says nothing about the gays or gay rights. Smart man. You don't hear any American gays say anything about the plight of gays under Sharia law. Hmmmm?

July 1, 2013 at 12:30 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Obama Dissed: Putin Says Russia Will Never Hand Over Snowden To US…Obama is the Rodney Dangerfield of world leaders

July 1, 2013 at 12:52 p.m.
caddy said...

RE: Maximus, "Ever notice that when Barry The Welfare Pimp is visiting a Muslim country he says nothing about the gays or gay rights. Smart man. You don't hear any American gays say anything about the plight of gays under Sharia law. Hmmmm?"

Yes, I have noticed. Keep those posts coming. Good Stuff.

July 1, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
Maximus said...

Uh....hello.....you gays better think twice about getting married. We're you aware that your federal taxes are going to be much much higher as a married couple? You should do like most liberal socialist hetero couples do, live together and avoid higher taxes and the need for a pre-nup. I thought most liberals really did not believe in marriage because it has to do with God, the Bible and all the other moral rules the libs don't believe in. Does that not make the gay marriage legislation and debate merely a meaningless plank in Barry The Gay Welfare Pimp 's symbolism over substance agenda? Once again Obama fools another "special interest group" of mindless voters. Just like Obama care which will soon be awful, rationed, single payer, government care for all it is the deceitful nature of the Obama administration that will take the Democrats down sooner rather than later. Question.....I don't associate with gays but when I do interact with two married men how do you tell which one is the husband and which one is the wife? Does the wife wear an apron? Help me out hear? I'm trying to keep up with potential customers.

July 1, 2013 at 2:21 p.m.
caddy said...

Yep: Wife wears a mullet apron: Business in the front: Party in the Back !

July 1, 2013 at 2:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

I'm all for the Fair Tax, but you and I know that its passage in Congress is quite remote any time soon. It was proposed about 15 years ago.

We agree on the fair tax and I know nothing will change but I sure enjoy asking the political reps why the disparity and watching them dance around the issue. It is welfare regardless of how silly it may sound but the welfare will continue and those utilizing it will swear it is the moral and right thing to do. I rather pay the higher tax versus being co-dependent or trapped for financial reasons. I enjoy being alone when I want to be and never get lonely or bored. I only have to listen to complaints, should there be any, as long as it takes me to get her to her house and open the door for her. I don't have to ask anyone about any decision I make. If I want a new car or anything else I go get it. If I wake up one morning and want to take a trip I do. As I said marriage was for those days when the man hunted and farmed to feed the brood and the wife stayed home and took care of the house and kids. I can't understand why anyone with bat sense would want to get married? Those in lust or love could co-habit and enjoy it instead of getting married and complicating things just to feed at the public trough like the majority does.

July 1, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
tifosi said...

It is because of ass-holes like conservative that I do not go to church any more.

July 1, 2013 at 4:22 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Don't straddle the fence, Tif.

July 1, 2013 at 4:29 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

TFP should hure this Alprova character. He or she just sure beefs out the copy. -30-

July 1, 2013 at 4:43 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

He must be paid by the word.

July 1, 2013 at 4:48 p.m.
joneses said...

This is what is on European TV.

Click below to watch how embarrassing hussein obama really is to America.

http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs&;

No teleprompter, no brain!

July 1, 2013 at 5:12 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Another former Pentecostal evangelical minister sees the light of reason and science.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/god_is_a_delusion_i_was_a_pentacostal_preacher_until_i_lost_my_faith/

Meanwhile Conservative, Lohr, and the other "Jerking for Jesus" nutters sprout wood at the thought of lust, sin, and Biblical inspired rape, genocide, and bigotry as viewed through their floor-writhing, glossolalia, and accordion playing.

Tell me who you'd rather spend an afternoon with at a picnic — George Takei and Jodie Foster or Lohr, Conservative, Fred Phelps and Plain Truth Dennis?

Who offers intelligent conversation and who offers ignorance? Who would you rather babysit your kids? Who had you rather be neighbors with? Who is smarter?

It's not a matter of gay or straight; it's a matter of human decency.

July 1, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "Like most Americans, Alprova will accept Christianity on his own, and ONLY HIS OWN, terms, revealing the autonomous self-deification that the God represented in the Bible will not abide."

Sir, with all due respect, religion should be a personal choice and on one's individual terms. No one can accuse me of being one of a flock of sheep.

I have a standing challenge, which is that if anyone can disprove one sentence I write, they are free to show me the error of my ways. The funny thing is, to date, not one person has.

You might disagree with me, but you cannot prove me incorrect.

You see, I am a person who appreciates the brain God gave me to use to the best of my ability. I have studied the Bible from a literary perspective, read extensively about who wrote the individual books, and study the context of each and every chapter contained in the modern day Bible.

I don't offer my posts, whenever they touch on religion, to sway anyone to my way of thinking, but no one is going to convince me that I am wrong, without backing it up with anything created out of thin air.

"Very perilous. And very tragic."

Pardon me, but I KNOW that my soul is intact and headed on the right path.

"You’re always good for a nice chuckle to start or end the day."

So be it. Laugh until you're blue in the face. I happen to believe that God has a sense of humor himself.

July 1, 2013 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova, You charge me with bashing you with the Bible."

If the shoe fits...

"Actually, God's word convicts you of your many sins and blasphemies. You are just bashed with the truth."

Sir, you are in no position to judge me for my sins. You have never posted one of God's words to date.

"Now why is this? It is because the Bible, the word of God is authoritative. It is truth, it is infallible and it is very powerful."

God is quoted very seldom in the Bible. That which you quote is hearsay at best.

"The proof? Your reactions. You would not react as you do if I had just quoted any mere man."

Sir, I ignore about 90% of what you post.

"You deny that the Bible is the word of God yet you are SOMETIMES greatly troubled by it's words and doctrine, as well you should be."

I'm not even interested in learning why it is that you believe me to be troubled in the least by your postings. of scripture.

The Bible is a guidebook and a storybook. It is not the word of God and that's all there is to it.

You're not going to change my mind, and I know that I will not change yours.

July 1, 2013 at 7:01 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Obama Dissed: Putin Says Russia Will Never Hand Over Snowden To US…Obama is the Rodney Dangerfield of world leaders"

Mark my word here and now. Edward Snowden will come back on his own in due time.

July 1, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So DD: Do you consider me indecent?

July 1, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Thank you for coming out of the heathen closet.

Why did you lie about being a Christian for so long? Did you really believe that you were fooling anyone?

It is obvious that you are not just ignorant of the things of God and Christianity but that you are openly hostile to God and Christianity.

I was right all along.

July 1, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

In the future I will often paste your 7:01 comment as evidence of your false claim of being a Christian.

July 1, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

However, that does not mean that I will not paste some of your more egregious blasphemies so that there will be no doubt in the mind of anyone that you might try to deceive.

July 1, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova, Thank you for coming out of the heathen closet."

I have done no such thing. Since you brought up closets, am I to expect that you will be emerging from the gay closet soon?

"Why did you lie about being a Christian for so long?"

Look you moron, I don't lie. I also don't feel the need to proclaim my Christianity. I live it. You claim to.

"Did you really believe that you were fooling anyone?"

What you think is of no consequence to my life or anyone else's.

"It is obvious that you are not just ignorant of the things of God and Christianity but that you are openly hostile to God and Christianity."

Your brand of Christianity? You bet you ass.

"I was right all along."

Only in your convoluted mind.

"In the future I will often paste your 7:01 comment as evidence of your false claim of being a Christian."

Stalk much, you piece of crap? Yes you do.

"However, that does not mean that I will not paste some of your more egregious blasphemies so that there will be no doubt in the mind of anyone that you might try to deceive."

You don't pay attention to the comments of others, do you? You Sir, are the deceiver who believes the Bible to be the word of God.

The history of the Bible is out there for anyone who wants to discover it.

Read this until it sinks in: I don't give a &(#$^% what you believe. You tend to your own soul and I'll tend to mine.

July 1, 2013 at 8:19 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Feeling better now that you have given up the lie?

July 1, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova,

Ditto also you 8:19 hate rant.

July 1, 2013 at 8:43 p.m.
rick1 said...

conservative, thought you might find this article interesting on how Obama appeases Muslims while punishing Christians

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070113-662060-obama-appeases-muslims-while-punishing-christians.htm?p=full

July 1, 2013 at 8:58 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

PlainTruth said...

So DD: Do you consider me indecent?"

Actually, I don't consider you at all.

July 1, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Well, DD, you mention me frequently in your hate rants.

July 1, 2013 at 9:49 p.m.
fairmon said...

I have read all the religious post and conclude there is not a Christian among us but a bunch of egotistical hypocrites that read bible versus in bible school and now consider themselves bible scholars. I wonder if posting bible opinions and discussions here is really a Christian thing to do?

July 1, 2013 at 9:55 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon, you seem to be the "scholar" when it comes to determining what welfare is.

I wouldn't get too holier than thou, if I were you.

July 1, 2013 at 10:38 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Well, DD, you mention me frequently in your hate rants."

Everyone should be more like you. You hated on everyone at one time or another.

July 1, 2013 at 10:42 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "conservative, thought you might find this article interesting on how Obama appeases Muslims while punishing Christians"

Do you know what was missing from that article, with the exception of it being in the headline?

Where was any proof the Obama is directly responsible for any marginalization of anyone?

July 1, 2013 at 10:51 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative, I suggest you back off. You stalk post me one more time with anything not mention in a current thread, and I will get on the phone to make a formal request that you be banned for violation of the terms of service of this site.

Harassing other posters is a violation of the TOS. I'm pretty sure I can convince someone after they look at your posts over the last several days that you are indeed engaged in harassment. 25 posts in two days with content not currently being discussed.

The ONLY thing you have even come close to proving is the very reason why there are more than 313 differing religions right here in the United States.

I want nothing at all to do with your brand of "Christianity." The status of my soul is none of your concern.

Mind your own business.

July 1, 2013 at 11:05 p.m.
facyspacy said...

I normally puke in my mouth when I read Alpos posts on here. As much as I hate to say it, he is correct. The biggest problem with Christians is that they choose not accept the fact that people who wrote the bible, people who translated the bible, and people who teach the bible would have their own agenda when they wrote the scripture. Remember, written by men (humans) inspired by god. Now convince me that there hasnt been "men inspired by god" ever do any wrong! You can't change my mind that some of those men didn't influence some of the scripture based on their own opinions or needs. You can't tell me that out of all the languages translated that some of the messages are incorrectly exposed. And did miracles only happen in the bible? Hadn't seen a Red Sea parting in a while. Weird since the world is on hundreds of years old. Lol

July 1, 2013 at 11:11 p.m.

Aldisproven,

I, too, study the Bible from a literary perspective. Where exactly is the literary evidence for your claim of a married Jesus?

With regard to biases and presuppositions, you, Alprova, have a vested interest in a sinful Jesus and an erroneous Bible. If those presuppositions are false, you can no longer retain your status as your own Lord. You and others will latch onto anything that affirms that status. There is even a gaggle of queer theory nitwits who will not rest until they prove that Jesus was gay. You have an agenda, just as surely as the most zealous Christian. You want a God in your own image. You want to rely on your own (AND ONLY your own) righteousness. That is not atypical. It is a sin that every self-reflective and repentant sinner (including every true Christian) must admit and forsake. (We ALL are what’s wrong with the world.) This forum FEEDS the self-righteousness of almost every poster – religious or not. (The doctrine of deep and pervasive human sin may be the most empirically verifiable of all Christian teachings.) Only a sinless Jesus can atone for sin. Only a merciful God will give us the gift (His credited righteousness) that all of us (including conserv-pharisee) need and that none of us deserve. None of us is > or = the task.

P.S. You haven’t produced a shred of literary or historical evidence that Jesus was married. (Nor will you.)

July 1, 2013 at 11:26 p.m.
Maximus said...

Obama 2010-traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, voted for DOMA.

2012-election year Obama is for one man and another man in an apron having the right to get married, or one woman with a Harley married to another woman named Barbie. Obama decided to be gay in 2012 and who says its not a decision one makes! Obama, what a creepy ass liar!

A little humor for the summertime y'all! Obama.....I could have a son dat looked just likes Trevon.......da gangster....:)

July 1, 2013 at 11:34 p.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "Aldisproven, I, too, study the Bible from a literary perspective. Where exactly is the literary evidence for your claim of a married Jesus?"

You know that will not be found in the Bible and I never asserted that it would be. As it is, I am quite prepared to back up the claim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205235/Jesus-married-Proof-God-spoke-wife-Mary-Magdalene-ancient-papyrus.html

"With regard to biases and presuppositions, you, Alprova, have a vested interest in a sinful Jesus and an erroneous Bible."

The statement I made was that the Bible does indeed offer a handful of incidents, that more than suggest that Jesus was not perfect and without faults of his own, much proof that he was as mortal as you and I, and any assertion that the Bible is perfect, well...is simply laughable.

"If those presuppositions are false, you can no longer retain your status as your own Lord."

Whoa...when have I EVER held myself out to be anything other than a man with opinions and beliefs?

"You and others will latch onto anything that affirms that status."

Well Sir, from my vantage point, I consider you to be one who is completely brainwashed to the point that you do not question a thing you have been taught to believe.

"There is even a gaggle of queer theory nitwits who will not rest until they prove that Jesus was gay."

Well...that's certainly not something that I would ever assert or even consider.

"You have an agenda, just as surely as the most zealous Christian."

I don't have any agenda, other than possibly to find my way through the maze of the meaning of life and to best position myself to what possibly comes after I leave this life.

"You want a God in your own image."

Totally untrue.

"You want to rely on your own (AND ONLY your own) righteousness."

Again, untrue. I have NEVER held myself out to be any more righteous than anyone else. However, I will not stand still for anyone to believe that they are any more righteous than myself.

"It is a sin that every self-reflective and repentant sinner (including every true Christian) must admit and forsake."

And that I do every single day.

"Only a sinless Jesus can atone for sin. Only a merciful God will give us the gift (His credited righteousness) that all of us need and that none of us deserve. None of us is > or = the task."

I would never denounce or scoff at anything that you believe. You're free to do as you wish. My research has led me to believe that the Bible we currently read has been horribly edited by the Catholic Church, which I additionally do not believe was empowered to make those edits, thus, I do not and cannot consider the Bible to be the word of God.

July 2, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.

alprova said...

You know that will not be found in the Bible and I never asserted that it would be. As it is, I am quite prepared to back up the claim.

I didn’t say the evidence must be in the Bible in order to be valid. I was asking for ANY evidence, including extra-biblical evidence. Where is it? Who are the credible scholars who assert this? The novels of Dan Brown have popularized the idea, and those with a vested interest in undermining mainstream Christian teaching about Jesus have latched onto it, propagating it with the flimsiest of evidence (if any at all) that no credible scholar accepts. The scholar quoted in your linked article flatly rejects the idea that the information on the papyrus fragment is biographical of the actual, historical Jesus.

If the fragment is even authentic (and there are many top scholars who are highly skeptical), all that it proves is that someone in Egypt, writing a hundred years or so after Jesus’ crucifixion, may have “found succor” in the idea of a married Jesus – something that many, no doubt, still find appealing. Thus the quotation marks around the word “proof” in the article’s title. (Catholics are stretching things considerably to conclude that a celibate, single Jesus necessitates that status for clergy.)

Jesus was a popular teacher, much more so after his resurrection. Just as today, there were tabloids aplenty asserting all manner of idiotic speculations about him. The earliest reliable records, however, are in basic agreement about the essentials. You, along with other sheep of the sensational, are the ones who are credulous of everything you read that questions Christian orthodoxy.

July 2, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.

alprova said...

… the Bible does indeed offer a handful of incidents, that more than suggest that Jesus was not perfect and without faults of his own, much proof that he was as mortal as you and I, and any assertion that the Bible is perfect, well...is simply laughable.

Still waiting for your promised evidence.

Well Sir, from my vantage point, I consider you to be one who is completely brainwashed to the point that you do not question a thing you have been taught to believe.

I was not raised as a Christian. I embraced Christ upon the merits of the evidence and the vacuity of the alternatives. More importantly, He subverted my will to have ALL the answers and to call all the shots (to be my own Lord). In other words, He embraced me. There is hope for anyone who will deny themselves and submit to His life-giving, culture-enriching spiritual reign.

I don't have any agenda, other than possibly to find my way through the maze of the meaning of life and to best position myself to what possibly comes after I leave this life.

Kudos.

Again, untrue. I have NEVER held myself out to be any more righteous than anyone else. However, I will not stand still for anyone to believe that they are any more righteous than myself.

Implicit in condemning the behavior of most Christians is an assertion that you are more righteous than they are. No doubt, your assertion is true in some cases, but it probably wouldn’t be hard to find many professing Christians whose righteousness exceeds both yours and mine. Our estimations of our own righteousness are inflated; our ability to accurately assess it is quite fallen, thus our need to rely on the atonement and righteousness of Christ, not on our own. If God is holy, then simply trying our best or being ahead of the curve isn’t sufficient. If He’s not, then why bother with Him?

My research has led me to believe that the Bible we currently read has been horribly edited by the Catholic Church, which I additionally do not believe was empowered to make those edits, thus, I do not and cannot consider the Bible to be the word of God.

Still waiting for your evidence. There are no original documents and no perfect translations – only copies of varying reliability. The Bible is subject to the same critical standards as other ancient books, and, by comparison, it holds up pretty well. Expand your horizons beyond the dualism of fundamentalist ranters vs. mindless critics of the Bible and its message. Here’s a start:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/2012/09/26/scholars-begin-weigh-gospel-jesus-wife/kbSzjirhSUgZS1hSlHLn3I/story.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/about-2/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Inside-Story-of-the-Controversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html?c=y&page=7

July 2, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.