Discussion

• December 19, 2006

  8:49 AM

  JS writes:

  When will people, the law, law enforcement, the media, and the damn church get of of gow'd folks sex lives?????? I don't care about HIS sex life.......................

• December 19, 2006

  9:12 AM

  just sayin' writes:

  These people are just plain weird. For a lot of reasons. Who cares about their sex lives?

• December 19, 2006

  9:28 AM

  It's so true writes:

  It is not the Hypocrites that we hate, just the sin of Hypocricy.

• December 19, 2006

  9:35 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  If the bible thumpers want to be in everyone else's bedrooms, I think it is entirely appropriate that we get to be in theirs.

• December 19, 2006

  10:17 AM

  Jennifer James writes:

  It is the hypocricy of what these preachers are preaching,who cares what they do in their bedrooms,its calling the kettle black.

• December 19, 2006

  11:43 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  1 Peter 4:17
  For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

• December 19, 2006

  11:58 AM

  Joe writes:

  religion was created for the weak and therfore 95% of all associated with it are weak. They need religion to keep them on the straight and narrow and obviously for some that doesn't work. this is why religious zealoust judge everyone, they are weak and therefore assume everyone else is.....

• December 19, 2006

  12:12 PM

  Duofacia writes:

  Hogarius Hypocritius:

  When Joe Average commits a sin, you're all Bible verses regarding evil and punishment, but if a minister commits a sin, you're all about not being judgmental?????

• December 19, 2006

  12:23 PM

  Overland_Alum writes:

  The only thing more creepy than a perverted biblethumper is an athiest godhater who is preoccupied with the sex habits of said biblethumpers.
  ie ALL OF YOU

• December 19, 2006

  12:25 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hey overland, if you biblethumpers stay out of eveyrone else's bedrooms, we'll stay out of yours.

• December 19, 2006

  12:25 PM

  Harry the Heretic writes:

  If he wanted to piss God off, there are easier ways:

  http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

• December 19, 2006

  12:28 PM

  666 writes:

  I think that all of us "godhaters" can agree that there's a big difference between a quiet, humble, respectable Christian who keeps to themselves, and a pompous God Nazi who condemns people for doing something that they themselves make headlines doing a few days later.

• December 19, 2006

  12:44 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Quit thumping your bible, Overland! You'll go blind!!

• December 19, 2006

  1:02 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Hogarius Hypocritius:
  Posted by Duofacia on December 19, 2006 12:12 PM

  You misunderstood my point. Those ministers who have failed are correctly disciplined. I do not believe that they are hypocrits, but that is certainly possible. I believe that most of them simply succumb to temptation like many others. They should not be hated. But there is an appropriate warning that those who live likewise will likewise be judged by the Judge of all the earth.

• December 19, 2006

  1:14 PM

  Pontius Pilatium writes:

  Arrogance.

  Christianity, and Judaism before it, was ever a cultural religion. There were those of the faith, to whom the rules of the faith applied, and there were those not of the faith, to whom the rules of the faith did not apply. Not until the powermongers of the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a means of conquest did the concept of universal applicability of the rules begin to be implied. In the Old Testament, it is said that is for God to judge those outside the faith, not for the faithful. The faithful can only judge themselves. Yet, everywhere I look, I see fundamentalist Christians violating this writ. Has this become one of those old rules that power-hungry fundamentalists have conveniently written out of the newer bibles, or are they just hoping no one will notice?

• December 19, 2006

  3:04 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Yet, everywhere I look, I see fundamentalist Christians violating this writ.
  Posted by Pontius Pilatium on December 19, 2006 01:14 PM

  There is a difference between pronouncing a judgement upon a person, and proclaiming the truth of scripture without condemnation. Christians are called to be salt and light. Both are disinfectants which naturally retard spoilage.

• December 19, 2006

  3:27 PM

  Democritus Justicar writes:

  When the scriptural observation results in (a) legislation (b) litigation or (c) vigilantism, I'd say it has ventured into the realm of judgment. There's precious little sincerity in a mission statement such as 'Hey, I'm just making an ethical observation...loudly, publicly, and as slanderously as I can.' There's a big difference between 'My faith believes that this is wrong.' and 'You're an abomination and will burn forever in Hell. Me and my brethren will publicly denounce you every second of your miserable existence.'

  Many salts are toxic, and many lights can burn indiscriminately. Many disinfectants are simply poisons, and if used without restraint can kill all life in a given area of application. Furthermore, it is from the most luminescent of halides that the most noteworthy spoilage has come of late. Is the proclamation of scripture really making a positive difference, or is it just a silk screen behind which the most depraved of sins are indulged?

• December 19, 2006

  3:40 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  The only thing Christians retard is progress

• December 19, 2006

  3:59 PM

  Dr. Kildare writes:

  Hogar, too much salt causes high blood pressure, and too much light causes skin cancer

• December 19, 2006

  4:34 PM

  Kevin Jones writes:

  Why is it that people want to eliminate hypocrisy not by living up to standards, but by eliminating them? It is not weaker to try to live up to standards, and fail; rather, the broad and wide road to is to reject standards in a fit of adolescent outrage.

  True asceticism is greater than hypocrisy, but even that's preferable to libertine anomie.

• December 19, 2006

  4:40 PM

  jay writes:

  Those "standards" borne of a 2000 year old fairy tale hardly count Kevin.

• December 19, 2006

  4:52 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Whats the saying, "God save me from your followers."
  Being spiritual is great. Being a Christian sheep is not what Jesus taught.
  Organized religions are for the weak and foolish.
  Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
  6 "But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place: and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly .
  Pretty easy to understand unless you can't think for yourself, i.e republicans.
  There are some great articles on the web site www.commondreams.org today, which relate to this and religion. Try reading the articles by Joseph Galloway (top right), Sean Penn, Paul Campos and Bill Berowitz.
  They are very enlightening. I hope you give they a chance and learn something.

• December 19, 2006

  5:02 PM

  am 760 writes:

  PS, Bill Berkowitz's article is the best regarding this topic.
  Its in the left column titled, "Holy Warriors Set Sites on Iran."
  Pretty eye opening what a bunch of brainwashed Christians can do to screw up the whole world.
  You think that they what is what Jesus wanted?

• December 19, 2006

  5:07 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Who Would Jesus Torture?

  Who Would Jesus Bomb?

  Who Would Jesus Orphan?

• December 19, 2006

  5:09 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Calvin might have agreed with Kevin in that only Christian "standards" are acceptable as the "norm". Fortunately for a lot of us we are able to think for ourselves.

• December 19, 2006

  5:57 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  When the scriptural observation results in (a) legislation (b) litigation or (c) vigilantism, I'd say it has ventured into the realm of judgment. Posted by Democritus Justicar on December 19, 2006 03:27 PM

  In the context of our constitutional republic, all citizens have a right to pass laws which limit behavior. Do I think that is a good idea? When the behavior has a negative effect on others, then certainly. Limiting behavior should be kept to a minimum.

  The real problem is that so much legislation has financial impacts through tax law, entitlements and benefits which the government forces businesses to give.

  With regard to litigation, there is certainly too much litigation going on in this country, but some of it is done to circumvent the legislative process. Small groups accomplish in the court what they cannot accomplish in the legislature. There are abuses in many corners, and it is an indication of the failure of the courts to limit their actions to judging cases based on the law, and not telling the legislature what it must legislate.

  With regard to vigilantism, I certainly agree that vigilante justice is a very bad thing, and those who practice it should be tried and if found guilty, given appropriate punishment.

  There is certainly a large contingent of people who are caught up in a condemning view of religion. We are called to speak the truth in love. That is for the benefit of the hearer. If your neighbors house is on fire, you are going to be very bold in your attempt to warn him of the impending danger. That is a good thing. Describing sin in truthful terms is good, but it must be done with an earned hearing.

• December 19, 2006

  6:01 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "When the behavior has a negative effect on others, then certainly."

  What negative effect does gay marriage have on you Hogar?

• December 19, 2006

  6:11 PM

  phoenix writes:

  funny, where are the comments and insults about the Elizabeth H.S. teacher having sex with a 17 yr old student at a football game in Glenwood Springs?
  Her two children ages 4 & 8 were sleeping on the hotel beds while they had sex on the floor.
  If everybody is going to throw stones, better look in your own backyard first

• December 19, 2006

  6:25 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  That teacher didn't get up in front of hundreds of people each sunday and preach against fornication with minors.

  That is why. It is the hypocrisy that makes it delicious.

• December 19, 2006

  6:41 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Slow down Scarlett Letter.

  "forcing education"? What, like science? The horror!! The Religious Right opened themselves up for public ridicule when they entered the political arena and blasted their discriminatory message across the nation. If you don't like the attention, keep politics and discrimination out of the church. Until then, too fucking bad if your dirty laundry is brought to light.

• December 19, 2006

  6:41 PM

  phoenix writes:

  But she did get up front of hundreds of >children

• December 19, 2006

  6:43 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hey Burning Bird you do know that creationism is a myth right? Keep the fairy tales out of science class.

• December 19, 2006

  6:48 PM

  social hazard writes:

  My, My-- showing the "F" word only shows a lack of credibility and intelligence. But thank you for the amusement! Sure I can take the fire back in a bit--gotta eat.

• December 19, 2006

  7:07 PM

  phoenix writes:

  Better look in the mirror--if creation is a myth--so are you. Got anything better than insults and assumptions?

• December 19, 2006

  7:10 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Sure. Science. Fossils. Carbon Dating. What else have you got besides a book written by other men?

• December 19, 2006

  7:11 PM

  social hazard writes:

  can we get back on the subject?

• December 19, 2006

  7:25 PM

  phoenix writes:

  Burden of proof lies upon the accuser. But to prove it you had to have been there, witnessed it and be able to prove to the whole world that it is a lie. Everyone knows the apostles existed-so therefore to say they didn't exist and to prove it-then you might have a case. Trying to prove a "lie" while assuming it's a "lie" is a lie in itself. And by the way--Merry Christmas! Gotta go-- Later!

• December 20, 2006

  1:14 AM

  Old White Guy writes:

  It's all about the Benjamins! The only reason the church elders are doing these "personnel reviews conducted by the church's board of overseers" is that they're trying to cover their asses so they don't go broke because the flock has had enough of the lies and hypocrisy and they go find someone else's wing to climb under.

  The Elizabeth school teacher may be accused of hypocrisy but she wasn't asking for 10% of your pre-tax income to further her cause.

• December 20, 2006

  9:01 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  "When the behavior has a negative effect on others, then certainly."
  What negative effect does gay marriage have on you Hogar?
  Posted by on December 19, 2006 06:01 PM

  They want to take my tax money and create all the same benefits as hetero marriage. There is nothing "wrong" with that, but I am not voting to give people more of my money. I will vote to keep more of my money and give it to charities as I see fit. I don't trust the government to do everything that can and should be done. They serve a necessary prupose, but it has gone too far down the socialist road.

  So gays can live as they choose, but when they come asking for my money, the answer is a polite but firm no.

• December 20, 2006

  9:06 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  That is why. It is the hypocrisy that makes it delicious.
  Posted by on December 19, 2006 06:25 PM

  So the moral of your story is don't have any standards because you might not be able to live up to them, and would then be a hypocrit.

  There is a difference between having high ideal standards of behavior and failing to meet those standards, and not having those standards and saying you do. The first is moral failure, the second is true hypocrisy. The problem is that you really have to know a person well in order to make that distinction.

• December 20, 2006

  10:29 AM

  just sayin' writes:

  Hogar says...They want to take my tax money and create all the same benefits as hetero marriage..Does this mean that some of my tax money is being used to create benefits for hetero marriage? Maybe we should ban all marriages. I would like a better explanation

• December 20, 2006

  2:11 PM

  Truth writes:

  So gays can live as they choose, but when they come asking for my money, the answer is a polite but firm no.

  Posted by Hogar

  This is how I feel when you want to impose your Christian beliefs on me. The answer is a polite but firm no. You can choose to believe a book written by a bunch of people who thought that the Earth was flat. I don't make that choice and I don't appreciate people who try and impose their beliefs on me.

• December 20, 2006

  2:24 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Does this mean that some of my tax money is being used to create benefits for hetero marriage? Maybe we should ban all marriages. I would like a better explanation

  Posted by just sayin' on December 20, 2006 10:29 AM

  I think it would be a splendid idea for you to start a PAC for the very purpose. Then you could spend all your time and donate all your money to accomplish that. That's just exactly how our democracy works. The idea with the most votes gets implemented.

• December 20, 2006

  2:30 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  was that an explanation Hogar? How do marriages effect taxes?

• December 20, 2006

  2:41 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  was that an explanation Hogar? How do marriages effect taxes?

  Posted by on December 20, 2006 02:30 PM

  My wife will get to collect my pension when I die. That is a legal obligation placed upon my former employer by the voters. She will also collect half of my Social Security, even though she has hardly worked outside the home, and did not contribute to my payroll taxes. She is also entitled to half my property should either of us decide to divorce. There are hundreds of financial obligations placed on various people and institutions as a result of laws concerning marriage. There are special tax deductions which only apply to marrieds. It is not a matter of good or bad or who deserves it or not, it is just the law. It can be changed and in the case of gays, it can be denied. That is changing, but I will not be working to help change it.

• December 20, 2006

  7:35 PM

  Ben writes:

  I was raised a Christian and I haven't stepped foot in a Christian church in a quarter century but when I here all the disrespect given this religion by "enlightened" people, it makes me want to reconnect with Christianity, and hot white chicks in dresses.

• December 21, 2006

  1:24 PM

  just sayin' writes:

  Well Hogar you have convinced me. I support same sex marriage and I think it is just plain logical that everyone should have the same rights. I don't worry too much about it (I'm married with kids) because I think it is a generational thing. The laws will change and gays will be allowed to be married in a few more years. Not many people under 50 who have an issue with gays.

• December 21, 2006

  2:12 PM

  W writes:

  Well you see as long as they are big fund raisers and talk to the almighty like i do, its ok.

  Gays too. as long as they're named Cheney.