What is your point? That homosexuality is ok? The Bible is not too complicated to understand that homosexuality is bad. And are you actually saying that "Give unto Caesar..." means that low taxes are "Un-Christian?" And back to the topic...Karl what do you really expect from the politics forum? There is a special brand of idiot over there, just look at how many people recently named Bill Clinton as one of their top 5 presidents.
And you have to ask? Then why are you here? Oh that's right, he DOESN'T believe in it. Never mind. Again, once again, you just don't get it. I don't care if people call me names (though, again, likening me to an insane murderer IS over the line). But in every case, I would never run to the moderators and scream that you, or anybody else, should be banned. I am consistent. Perfectly consistent. You guys are perfectly INconsistent. You complain about my behavior, but engage in the same behavior. And did I say hypocritical? Again, once again, you just don't get it. It's not about "not getting in trouble." It's about the exercise of free speech.
My goal has been two-fold. First, to expose the arguments and positions they have for the idiocy and stupidity they represent. Second, to show them that the amount contempt they have for the American public can be returned to them multiple-fold by someone like me in ways they could never imagine or understand until faced with it. In order to get back in, I am going to have to shelve goal #2. And that's OK, because they know how I feel.
[pet peeve]The gvt. isn't muzzling you, the owners of the site are. There's no free speech issue here.[/pet peeve]
The irony herein is pretty much what gets you into trouble, Karl. Well, that and the drive-by postings, and the ratio of quotes from elsewhere to Karlthoughts. PS...we looooove the American people. Without them, where would we get the tax money to give to welfare queens?
That's a charge of plagiarism... can you prove it? Others in BigSoccer do this routinely and are never questioned!
The Bible is also unambiguous about how eating shellfish is bad. If you're going to use the Bible (especially the OT) as a guide to morals, you're going to run into the same problem over and over again: it's completely ridiculous to consider some of the listed "sins" sinful. Digression: I dug out the wife's Dictionary of Biblical Terms and stuff last night to look this up. Of course, there are plenty of crimes for which ancient Hebrew law proscribes the death penalty. The editors point out that these "laws" predate the Greek ideal of the community as victim in crime. To simplify it, there were not many means for government recourse if you were wronged by another person. Hence, eye for an eye makes more sense--there were not many jails or authorities you could turn to as a nomad. But I'm simplifying it quite a bit, and I'm no historian, so I should be careful what I claim is there. One interesting thing I found, though: there were punishments listed for a person who causes harm to a fetus/induces miscarriage: a fine! So, there you have it. (I can't recall whether this is from the Bible or from other ancient Hebrew texts.) Back to the point at hand: this is the most amusing thread I've read in a while.
It's not often I get to do this, so how could I pass it up? This thread is beyond ridiculous? When did become okay for anyone (Christian or otherwise) to comment on someone else's actions and/or opinions? Everyone's a hypocrite. http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a494/a494_a_28.jpg?SSImageQuality=Full Karl: You're missing one huge point. It's B-I-G-S-O-C-C-E-R.com, not a forum for highly intelligent debate. Ever get the feeling you are wasting your time?
I wasn't talking about the OT. I was talking about your comments on homosexuality and taxes. You said the Bible "only mentions homosexuality a few times" as if that then means homosexuality is ok. It is perfectly clear that homosexuality is a sin, and to try to say otherwise is simply dishonest. You also used the verse "Give to Caesar..." to say that the Bible advocates high taxes, which of course is nowhere near what Jesus was talking about.
Look, the Bible says that eating shellfish and wearing makeup are sins. So what if they're only mentioned a couple of times. Does that mean that they're not sins? When I point out that homosexuality is only mentioned a couple of times, I do so to emphasize that this means it wasn't a huge concern in the historical church. Compare this with Biblical prohibitions on pride or idolatry. Since I'm an athiest, I'm probably going to hell. See you there, you milk-and-meat mixer. I was just being smarmy there. (I think FeverNova knows this.)
It's not that it advocate high taxes, it's that it doesn't advocate low taxes. More specifically, it's Jesus saying that it's a worldly issue, not a spiritual one.
By the way, other posts in this thread are making me wish that both superdave and Karl K were to one day wake up and magically forget that BigSoccer ever existed.
Actually, I do not see it as a tax issue per se, but rather as a statement that Christians need to live also in this world, and have secular responsibilities to the civil authority. Hence, pay your taxes, but worship God. Also, as an adherent of a minority religion here in the US, one which once inspired a political party to be formed in opposition to it, I also read this statement as something calling for separation of church and state (though not in the same way an ACLU lawyer might say church and state need to be separated).
I just want all of you wrong-believes to know that I still love you. Even though you will be sentenced to multuple lives and deaths until you free your souls from the bonds of karma. See you in Nirvana. Sachin
I'm thinking it means that we should not cheat on our taxes and should obey the law. Pay what is owed to the government under the law. Wanting to lower taxes (legally) is not a sin.
Ac 10:9 ...Peter went up on the roof to pray. Ac 10:10 He became hungry. He wanted something to eat. While the meal was being prepared, Peter had a vision. Ac 10:11 He saw heaven open up. There he saw something that looked like a large sheet. It was being let down to earth by its four corners. Ac 10:12 It had all kinds of four-footed animals in it. It also had reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Ac 10:13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” Ac 10:14 “No, Lord! I will not!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything that is not pure and ‘clean.’” Ac 10:15 The voice spoke to him a second time. “Do not say anything is not pure that God has made ‘clean,’” it said. Nope, not a sin. Thats what I thought, but wasn't sure. I know, thats what I was getting at. I can agree with you on superdave, but if Karl were gone, who would pick up the banner to defend the offensive capabilities of Chris Armas?
I agree. As for cheating, in the Catachisim of the Catholic Church, cheating on your taxes is considered a sin.
So, just for kicks, I go through 165 posts on the Roberts nomination thread over on the Politics forum. Just to check in and see how the much more civil, non-name calling, non-“I am not smarter than” liberal lefty crowd is doing… just to see if, you know, they demonstrate the kind of argument-focused, properly humble yet civil behavior that Dave thinks I fail to do. So let’s see how that’s going, shall we? On Bush nominating Roberts: Oh, calling Bush names is bad enough, here’s a nice little bomb from one poster to another: Not as big as yours, honey. And then, from the same argument-focused non-name calling poster, we have an implied sweeping generalization from a small knowledge base—love that liberal logic!! She’s been to all the junior league meetings, right Davey old boy? And in the Department of Wishful Thinking… Yep. You bet. Bound to happen. Boy, can these libs not only be wrong on the ideas, but the facts, too? Why, yes they can!! Ah, no, he was right. YOU’RE wrong. Harvard College is the undergraduate program at Harvard. Harvard University encompasses the entire educational institution. Dubya is misunderestimated again. I am shocked. More name calling…this time about Roberts Oh, it’s bi-partisan name calling too. No one escapes the civil discourse of SD's great liberal crowd. Lieberman gets it here. You think this poster is going to move to Toronto? Let’s help him pack his bags. Hmmm…and then there's in-depth sense of history from Dave's liberal pals Diverse? Where does it say anything about diversity? Does the EEOC have jurisdiction? He’s not the only president who’s tried…let’s see..oh, yeah, that’s right, the Democratic saint FDR tried his damndest to “un-diverse” the Supreme Court… And finally, for this round, on replying to whether unborn babies should have their “voices heard” we have this little nicety. Of course, we know this kind of vulgarity is perfectly OK among Dave’s great crowd of argument-focused, civil, non-drive by posters…but Karl…thinking he’s smarter than THESE guys? UNACCEPTABLE!! So, Dave, it’s so heartening to see your fellow lefty horde practicing with such ferocity the principles that you are just SO keen to have ME follow. Heartening.
You bet it is. Then again, if I tried to quote every example available on the threads in the Politics Forum, I'd bring down the BS servers. So, in one sense it is "cherry picking"...but in another sense, consider it a "representative sample." Remember this is just ONE thread...and I didn't even get to the end of the thread!! If I took any random thread of 50+ posts, I'd find very much the same sort of stuff. Look, the fact is indisputable: Dave wants ME to behave in certain ways, but his fellow libs...well, they can do EXACTLY what he thinks I shouldn't do. And what happens to them? Nada. Me, though, I get banned. If I get back in, and call somebody a "ass" or a "sack of pus" I'd be out on my ear in a nanosecond. Why did I get banned? Well, it's simple. I am arrogant. I don't suffer fools gladly. I can argue rings around anybody in there. I have a deep contempt for them and their intellectual capabilities. And I find their hypocrisy absolutely infuriating. Other than that, they're the greatest.
I am so pissed I didn't know about this thread until now... Karl, there is a simple reason why you get ko-ed by the mods and other people (for example, me) do not: You are a whiny little bitch. Folks don't like whiny little bitches who act like they are the William Chester Minor of BS. (And, by the way, what a dense, frigging moron you are. The analogy was never one to a murderer, but to the demented person who contributed so many words to the original OED. But its a stupid analogy. WCM might have been the most learned man on the planet; you only pretend to be - or think you are. Obviously, this little diatribe has gone completely over your head.) So, just to pound this into your thick skull: You get bounced because you are a whiny bitch. I don't get bounced because I am not a whiny bitch. Welcome back to the BS politics forum. Post away with your stupid, vapid points. Just stop being such a bitch about it.