So your defense of your crap "points" is that your wife is a Biblical scholar and that the Bible is too complicated anyways?
Uh, yes it is. Jeez, my point isn't even controversial. Most of the Bible is a historical record of a people. You expect to find consistency of beliefs in there? Do you also suppose that there's no difference between Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Seventh Day Adventists? When it comes to a coherent religious philosophy, Christians have little to look through other than the Gospels, and those don't say word one about homosexuality (although Jesus had a prostitute in his flock, so methinks he was more tolerant than some want to admit), and he certainly doesn't come anywhere close to justifying war or capital punishment. It's hard to argue that "give him your coat as well" indicates anything other than pacifism. Look, I don't claim to be a scholar, but I've got access to one every day of my life. When your wife earns her PhD in Biblical studies (and has one of the foremost Dead Sea Scroll scholars as an advisor) and can read ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, Aramaic, and smatterings of one other language that I can't remember, as well as French and German for scholarship, get back to me.
Jesus had plenty of tolerance for those who repented; whether you were a prostitute, murderer or homosexual. And he did condemn sexual immorality which includes homosexuality and fornication. As far as capital punishment goes, God’s will on the subject is clearly set forth in Genesis 9:5-6 where He states to Noah: “And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” However the allowance of capital punishment is not just found in the Old Testament. The principle is reaffirmed in the New Testament as well. Romans 13:1-5; states that the governing authorities can and should use force to maintain peace and order. The Apostle Paul even states that the authorities “do not bear the sword in vain.” By the way, the sword was the Roman symbol for the death penalty. As well, Jesus acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment before Pilate (John 19:11), as did Paul before the Roman Governor Festus (Acts 25:11). Capital punishment was instituted by God when human civilization began, and it was never repealed by Jesus nor by His apostles. And I think you’ll find a strong endorsement of war in the New Testament when Jesus returns with his army to destroy the armies attacking Israel at Armageddon. When evil needs to be defeated, then war is necessary. Should no one have tried to stop Hitler? And as far as your declaration on having authoritative access to Biblical scholars (and therefore, no one can touch you), don’t think you’re the only one. Us little people also have sources. We just may not be sleeping with ours.
In the interest of bandwidth conservation, I'll just remember that you noted that we've had this argument before.
What I find amusing are Christians who question the salvation of those who believe that mankind is a fundamentally sinful by nature and required the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins, simply because of a political disagreement. Actually, no, I don't find that amusing at all. I find that incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. I thought that only God knows a man's heart, but apparently, you are the exception. You make a lot of assumptions about my political beliefs. In other words, that there brush you're using is awfully wide.
Don't forget about His economic policies. And FWIW, the earliest Christians were similarly... collectivist (Acts 2:42-47): Athiests are about the only people who can claim to fully support one political ideology over another with a clear conscience.
Now if I could just find one ideology that I can fully support, I'll be home free. At least until I die. Then I'll be watching the Jerry Lewis telethon in hell for eternity.
No, to the extent it sucks, it sucks because there's no value put on writing the truth. It's a forum where the "Crossfire" style wins out. One problem, IMO, is that there aren't enough conservatives there. The liberals do a reasonable job of policing their own. But the conservatives don't, in large part, I believe, because they're so few, they don't want to ever turn on one another. If a conservative poster there writes, for example, that Rove is innocent because he didn't name Plame, just said something about Wilson's wife, well, that's objectively untrue. (Yeah, he may be innocent, but not for that.) The statute plainly states "identify" an agent, not "name" an agent. Unless Wilson has more than one wife.... OK, it's written once, someone links to the statute, and shows that's not true. But then, it pops up again, and again, and again. That's pretty irritating. Because a GOOD discussion would focus on, say, identifying the 2nd leaker, or whether Plame had been in country for five years, etc. But no, we have to go back and revisit the same ground over and over again because someone else (or often the same person ) will bring up the same already-debunked point. And it's never a conservative who writes, no, we've been over that, Rove may be innocent, but he clearly IDENTIFIED her, so what he did meets that criterion at least. And, truth be told, there's the elephant in the room that keeps dropping massive turds. Before the war, I and many others predicted alot of the bad stuff that's happening, and we predicted there weren't gonna be any WMDs (or at least nothing dangerous) and while we were right, we haven't been vindicated. It's frustrating as hell. Liberals can't believe that being right in our predictions means so little and act pissy. Karl, here are a few tips to follow, and I'll bet you anything your problems there will drop dramatically. 1. Stop calling people names. 2. Stop telling everyone you're smarter than everyone else. 3. It's OK to occasionally start a thread that's merely you quoting someone else, but if you do it over and over again, without adding your thoughts, people get tired of that. Far, far too often, you don't post your thoughts, you post someone else's. 4. Stop the "drive by" posting, where you post something outrageous, then never respond to people's responses. It comes across that you don't want a debate, you want to broadcast a commercial. If I were moderator, I'd send you a PM saying, if you do these 4 things, I promise you, any problems that arise will almost always fall on someone else, not you. One thing you need to ask yourself, Karl...why do so many conservatives not have the problems there I have?
So, let's take a critical look at Dave's advice. 1. Stop calling peoples names Like...um...intellectual coward? Or that Karl is the uh...who was it??...oh, yeah, the insane murderer William Chester Minor of the Big Soccer? Or sneering that I am an "independent centrist?" Dave, give me an effin' break!! It's not about calling people names. It's about the fact that you and your ilk want those who disagree with you to behave the way YOU think they should...but your crew, well, the "rules" don't apply to them. For you and your crowd, it's just oh-so-selective. And did I say the word "hypocrisy?" Oh, just for the record, I don't care if folks call me names, for all but one instance. In every case, though, I don't run to the moderators and scream that someone should be banned because they call me names (though I do complain when someone likens me to an insane murderer; there are some bars that simply too low). 2. Stop telling people that your smarter than anyone else. Why not? What's wrong with that? It's either true or it isn't, right? And I SHOULDN'T think it if it IS true? The fact is that the great leftist crowd thinks that they are smarter, more nuanced, more sensitive than those who have differering political views. Well, this just in. They are not. In fact, they need to be TOLD they are not, because otherwise they will continue to labor under the delusion that they are. Meanwhile, I don't moan and groan and ask people to be banned if they say they're smarter than me. Go ahead, say it. I simply don't care that you think it because I know what's true. No, the fact is, when faced with somebody like me who doesn't suffer fools gladly, what you want is that person to be "Boltonized." 3. It's OK to occasionally start a thread that's merely you quoting someone else, but if you do it over and over again, without adding your thoughts, people get tired of that. Far, far too often, you don't post your thoughts, you post someone else's. Really? Who made you the BS politics forum Miss Manner? Sometimes I quote articles because I think they're interesting, and people, especially the great liberal horde over there, should see them. You can discuss them or not. You can keep the thread alive, or not. It's not about ME adding my thoughts, necessarily. I could care less, for example, that when Mel posts links to his collectivist claptrap articles, he may never make another comment (in fact, I am often thankful!). Again, all you liberals say you want free speech, but free speech is sometimes about NOT saying something, or letting someone else speak for themselves. 4. Stop the "drive by" posting, where you post something outrageous, then never respond to people's responses. It comes across that you don't want a debate, you want to broadcast a commercial. Oh, more of Superdave as Miss Manners. When does a post become "drive by" and when does it become....I dunno..."a debate?" So many of the liberal chorus have no idea what a real debate is. When I offered to debate ANYBODY on the board with real debate (where a proposition is framed as "Resolved______________), the only "taker" was Loney...and he was purely interested in communicating his sophomoric sarcastic take on things. I am sorry, these SD principles are not worth the bandwidth they've taken up. P.S. Did I meet the Super "Miss Manners" Dave standards of "contributing my own thoughts? Gee, I really really hope so.
And Karl didn't even bring up the fact that superdave likes to call people liars over their interpretation of some stupid poll.
Psssssssssst! Thanks Dave... my monitor is now covered in coffee spittle. Here's a tip for you: practice what you preach.
Karl, are you saying you're not going to give it a try? All's I'll say about that is this. It ain't too often that I level that charge and have to take it back. I like not beating around the bush, I like using the word that makes my position perfectly clear. It cuts through all the BS. And like I said, it ain't too often I have to take it back.
Alright, allow me to revise and extend my remarks. Don't ALWAYS call people names. As I understand it, Dante brought this up with Karl, the fact that he constantly calls people names without engaging their arguments. If you do the latter well, you can get away with the former, and nobody's gonna be upset. TWUB had a great rep (not in the green nipple sense, but in the general sense.) Now, VFish, stop being a doodoohead.
I am currently in negotiation with the moderators. I will "give a try" to what we agree to. Tell you what. You pick the over/under on how long it takes one of the ... ahem... "well-meaning liberals" on the board to 1. Call me a name 2. Fail to engage my arguments, having called me a name, as soon as I re-enter the board. I will report back to the BA forum on the results.
Kirsty Gallacher. I did a google image search for "soccer ball," intending to change my avatar to, you know, a soccer ball. But that pic was on the first page, and it had a certain, um, attraction for me.
So, in other words, you don't wanna take a shot at the over/under? Again, this is classic BS Politics forum lefty hypocrisy. I am suppossed to change MY behavior because, well, you know, it's KARL. He's such a meanie!! He's soooooo arrogant!!," sings the liberal chorus. Of course, we don't have to change our behavior!! Until we're absolutely sure that he's changed his!! Then we'll think about it! But of course, since as liberals, we're more enlightened and sensitive and nuanced, we have that privilege!! As I have said, I have been perfectly consistent. Your crowd, on the other hand, keeps shoveling truckloads full of hypocritical crap.
If, say, verybdog was whining like you are, I'd give him similar advice, and the same caveat. Karl, you're like a snarling crazy dog who is always biting people. OK, you can go get yourself fixed and calm down and be a good dog, but you're gonna have to prove you won't bite people first. You can't realistically expect that after you've been such a troublemaker (again, ask yourself why so many other conservatives post there without having your troubles--THAT'S why you should "change your behavior") for such a long time, people are gonna instantly give you the benefit of the doubt. That's nuts. And think about all your responses to me on this thread right here. Read them. Do they strike you as someone interested in debating politics in an informed, fair way? Or as the rantings of a snarling, crazy dog?
Pardon the interruption superdave but EVERY conservative seems to have problems "posting there" due to the prevalance of the liberal mindset and the deliberate antagonism fostered by the liberals toward ANY conservative opinion expressed... if you going to depict a situation at least depict it accurately!
Man, you just don't get it, do you? You lambast ME for being a snarling dog? And this requirement when you all ME an "intellectual coward?" When one of your fellow libs over there likens me to an insane murderer? When another calls me a fvckwad? When the great crowd over there throws around the word "liar" with no understanding at all of the distinction between what constitutes an act of commission versus what is a "mistake?" When the horde over there slings around the word "evil" with no apparent understanding of whom the word should REALLY apply to? Who sneer at people like George Bush as "dumb" and "stupid" and inarticulate? No, sir, I am a veritable puppy compared to the teeming mass of liberaldom over there. Again, once again, you are completely blind to the hypocrisy and double standards that exist over there. No, it's not about arguments and ideas for you: it's about the endless contempt you and your ilk have for those who disagree with you. It's for dismissing the American Spectator or the Weekly Standard or the National Review -- whose authors are 10 times smarther than you'll ever be -- just because they represent positions you disagree with. It's for your contempt for the American public in general. For the churchgoers. For those who don't act like you and think like you. Of course, those who disagree with you have to behave in the way YOU think they should, never mind their arguments. Never mind how WE lefties behave. No, sir, we'll just run to the moderators...."Mommy, mommy, mommy...Karl's being all mean and terrible to me!!" Because I want back into the Politics forum, I will transform myself into the paragon of circumspection. But here, where the only moderator is Bill, and where I can actually ENGAGE in free speech, my real feelings are out front. No camouflage. And just in case you get lulled into thinking, after I have been there for a while with my cloak of circumspection, that somehow I think differently and feel differently about the great unwashed lefty mass over there, just remember: I don't.
Summary of debate: Karl: You think you're so smart?!?! I have news for you--I'm ten times as smart as you and your unwashed, moonbat peers. Superdave: Give it up, Karl. You can't open your mouth without spilling insults, and you run from conflicts like a yellow-bellied coward. You're a liar, Karl. Karl: I'm the liar? I'M the liar?!?!? You wouldn't know an honest argument if it bit you on the fvcking ass!!! Superdave: And to think that you lambast me for lambasting you for being a snarling dog. Snarling dogs need to be put down, asshat. Karl: You throw around terms like "snarling dog" because your minds are too tiny and closed to process anything like a rational argument. Superdave [looks into Karl's eyes]: Are you as turned on as I am? Karl: Kiss me, you magnificent bastard!
And yet, the conservative moderator, Dante, has sent you to timeout, apparently twice. And I don't think I've ever even gotten a warning from him. Why might that be? PS...Bill's not a big believer in free speech. PPS...if it helps you feel less persecuted, I know of one liberal for sure who got at least one time out, Lastort. Seriously, ask Attacking Minded or Smiley or TheWakeUpBomb or Sachin or countless others if they've had trouble with Dante. At some point, you need to take a deep breath, and stop blaming others for problems you've brought onto yourself.
Superdave: Wait, let me put on Strangers Almanac. Oh yeah Karl. 5. Develop a sense of humor about yourself. I mean, I know I'm too serious, but you're waaaaay more serious than me.