Monday, July 8, 2013
THE PICTURE OF TOLERANCE & FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Trust liberals to feign tolerance and act intolerant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Trust liberals to feign tolerance and act intolerant.
Where I give you my slightly quirky opinion, and you can give me yours, as long as you're man or woman enough to be civil and control your language.
Trust liberals to feign tolerance and act intolerant.
Time (EST)
About Me
- Joe
- I was born in Miami, Florida, the son of an Air Force officer, traveled the world, was saved at age 17, and have served the Lord since. That's me on the left and my lovely wife, Bonnie...the pretty one...on the right.
There Are But A Few Rules To Follow
1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.
2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.
3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.
4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.
FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:
1. Respect for The Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. The Smallest Possible Government
4. Individual Responsibility
This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.
You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).
I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.
3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.
4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.
FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:
1. Respect for The Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. The Smallest Possible Government
4. Individual Responsibility
This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.
You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).
I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.
Some of My Favorite Bloggers
NATIONAL BLOGS & STUFF
- American Spectator
- American Thinker
- Big Government (Breitbart)
- Big Journalism
- Breitbart TV
- CNS News
- Cato Institute
- Contact Your Congressperson
- Contact your Senator
- Daily Caller
- Darwin's God
- Drudge Report
- Everything About Congress!
- Fox Nation
- Gateway Pundit
- Heritage Foundation
- Hot Air
- Insta Pundit
- Joe's Jottings (My Other Blog)
- Kingdom FM Christian Radio
- Mark Levin
- Michelle Malkin
- News Max
- NewsBusters
- On Racism & Republicans
- Politico
- Real Clear Politics
- Right Scoop, The
- Rush Limbaugh
- Sean Hannity
- WINK News Radio
- Wall Builders (A Web Site)
- Weekly Standard
- What's Happening in Congress
SPECIAL STUDIES
BHO-THE CONSUMATE AMATEUR
WHY I CALL HIM "PRESIDENT BO"
I call him "President" out of respect for the office. I call him "BO" (as in Body Odor) because his agenda stinks.
I also refer to him as our "Acting President."
I also refer to him as our "Acting President."
SPECIAL REPORT
The Obama Dictionary
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LEARN, READ THESE
FAIR USE
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Former Features to Visit or Revisit
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(269)
-
▼
July
(20)
- SOMETHING I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD READ
- SUNDAY RESPITE-I've Just Seen Jesus-Sandy Patti & ...
- HOW THE PRESIDENT PROMOTES PEACE
- JUDGE JEANINE ON ROLLING STONE'S COVER
- Bill Whittle on Zimmerman
- SUNDAY RESPITE-Jesus On the Mainline-Gaither Vocal...
- HOW TO RUN A CITY (INTO THE GROUND)
- JUST A FEW? HUNDREDS GO UNREPORTED.
- JUSTICE AND THE RELATIVITY OF LIBERALS
- FIRST RESPONDERS
- SUNDAY RESPITE-On My Knees-Jaci Velasquez
- A PARABLE FOR OUR COUNTRY
- THE DECLARATION AND THE CONSTITUTION Part 2
- LINCOLN'S SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS
- THE PICTURE OF TOLERANCE & FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
- SUNDAY RESPITE-Declare His Glory-Prestonwood Bapti...
- The Declaration and the Constitution
- CELEBRATING OUR INDEPENDENCE-Recommend Watching Fu...
- THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
- JUST SITTING AROUND
-
▼
July
(20)
IMPORTANT FEATURED ARTICLES FROM OTHERS
Visitors Since 02-04-10
21 comments:
At least they couldn't hit very hard.
You are so right - Joe. The way I see it is that they shouldn't have torn down the guy's sign and the guy shouldn't have taken off his shirt.
Yeah, Joe but look at it this way, when the fringe right was demonstrating at abortion clinics women risked abuse entering the building and needed escorts.
You finally had to be moved by statute.
Gay pride rallies I've seen on the Boston Commons have always been pretty relaxed events. If someone tried to preach that kind of hate he wouldn't have been noticed.
The so-called "fringe right" at abortion clinics who abuse women, etc, are not behaving as Christ would have them, which is why real Christians will not defend their actions.
On the other hand, what the street preachers here had was not "hate," rather it was truth. As has been said so many times, truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. And this is typical actions by those who support the homosexual cause - they continually demand tolerance but never give it.
Well, that probably could have been handled better by all involved.
That being said, if you're stupid enough to throw rocks at a hornets nest you really can't claim righteous indignation and persecution if you get stung a few times.
G.E.C. - "On the other hand, what the street preachers here had was not "hate," rather it was truth."
No, it's not truth. It's bigoted, superstitious, nonsense concocted by a bunch of illiterate bronze age goat herders being used by modern homophobic racists to justify their neanderthalic opinions.
You know what I love? I love it when Christians are confronted by all of the instances in the Old Testament where the definition of marriage was clearly NOT exclusively between "one man and one woman. It was one man and hundreds of women, it was one man and a wife and numerous concubines (a.k.a. whores), it mandated that a woman who was raped marry her rapist or that the brother of a widows deceased husband automatically becomes her new husband. The Old Testament condones and even lays out rules for how slaves are to be treated and the proper way to sell your daughter.
When confronted with barbaric practices condoned by their God, they say "Oh no! That was the OLD Testament! Jesus hit the reboot switch with a New Covenant! The Old Testament rules no longer apply!"
But when it is pointed out to them (repeatedly) that in the New Testament Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality, they hurry back to the Old Testament with circular logic nonsense!
Well, The Trinity!
Since the Old Testament Yahweh, the New Testament Jesus and the post-crucifixion Holy Ghost are all different manifestations of the same Divine Entity, Jesus said those things in Leviticus that we agree with but he didn't say those things we disagree with!
How any intelligent person can embrace such insane, twisted, warped perversion of logic and consistency is beyond belief.
Literally.
XO: Only you. Only you.
Picture of tolerance
Joe, I took this at this years gay pride rally on the Common.
Thought you,Glenn and L might enjoy it.
Ducky: WOW! That was beautiful! Such class! Such grace! Such meaning! It makes my heart do thing its never done before!
No wait. That's not my heart, it's my stomach!
????
Xavier Onassis said.."But when it is pointed out to them (repeatedly) that in the New Testament Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality, they hurry back to the Old Testament with circular logic nonsense!"
I had to educate Ducky a while back on this same thing.
Context, context, XO. Jesus came to the Jews first. The very people that where/are entrusted with God's laws. He didn't have to speak them about homosexuality. For they didn't need a lecture on homosexuality because they already knew the law.
Which laws? Those nasty Old Testament laws. You know, the ones that included what Jesus/God said about homosexuality.
Paul said it best.
Rom 1:22 They claimed to be wise. But they made fools of themselves.
Rom 1:23 They would rather have statues of gods than the glorious God who lives forever. Their statues of gods are made to look like people, birds, animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 So God let them go. He allowed them to do what their sinful hearts wanted to. He let them commit sexual sins. They polluted one another's bodies by what they did.
Rom 1:25 They chose a lie instead of God's truth. They worshiped and served created things. They didn't worship the Creator. But he must be praised forever. Amen.
Scotty, that's a big fundamentalist fail.
Now, let's look at XO's statement.
"But when it is pointed out to them (repeatedly) that in the New Testament Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality, they hurry back to the Old Testament with circular logic nonsense!"
And you respond with quotes from a guy who was pretty uncomfortable with his own sexuality, Paul.
Buy a vowel.
As usual, Ducky, you miss the point. Your comment is so asinine it isn't worth a rebuttal.
No, Ducky is correct. You failed to refute a single thing I said. Take another swing, batter?
Joe, what bothered you most about the photo (other than the boy being a little blurry, technical issue)?
Is it the presence of "difference" and the suggestion we learn to understand difference?
Scotty, I'll take the ad hominem as an admission of defeat.
Take a standing 8 and come on back with your best game.
You over estimate your abilities, Ducky. You need to go back and read what I said. I can only suggest you read it again, I can't help you with with your comprehension.
Scotty & Joe - If you are going to stick with your ridiculously circular logical argument about The Trinity to account for the theological dissonance between the Old and New Testaments then you need to admit that Jesus was the primary mover behind Genesis 38.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38&version=NIV
There are HUNDREDS of other examples where the New Testament Jesus and the Old Testament Yahweh are CLEARLY different Deities with no logical continuity between their theological and philosophical dealings with the beings that they/He/It created in their own image.
But let's start with Genesis 38.
Explain to us how this represents a consistently infallible Trinity.
In Genesis 38, Judah married Shua and they had 3 sons...Er, Onan and Shelah. Er married Tamar, but Er was wicked so God killed him (Genesis 38:7). No other details were given, God just killed him. Then, Judah told his 2nd son Onan to sleep with his sister-in-law Tamar and get her pregnant (Genesis 38:8). But Onan knew this was wrong so although he did sleep with her, he didn't impregnate her (Genesis 38:9). So God killed him (Genesis 38:10). Judah sent his daughter-in-law back to her father's house to wait until his youngest son Shelah was old enough to marry her, basically treating her like family property (Genesis 38:11). Later, Judah's wife Shua died and he headed into town for a little action (Genesis 38:12). His daughter-in-law Tamar got wind of this and disguised herself as a whore so as to seduce her father-in-law (Genesis 38:13). Judah fell for this trick and after haggling over the price, he slept with his daughter-in-law (who he thought was a whore) and got her pregnant (Genesis 38:15-19). It goes on. When Judah found out Tamar was a whore he ordered her burned to death until she proved she was pregnant with his child at which point he backed off, she gave birth to twins, the first of which (Zerah) had a red cord wrapped around his wrist by the midwife. But the other twin, Perez, fought his way out of the womb before Zerah. So, why did Jesus (as part of the Trinity) kill Er and Onan and what, exactly was the point?
X.O.
There is no “theological dissonance between the Old and New Testaments.” They both teach the same God, who is a triunity.
In their separate roles, however, they perform different functions, so not everything attributed to the Father can be attributed to the Son or vice versa. After all, God the Father didn’t die on the cross!
I can demonstrate the fact of the Trinity by simple logic, and have done so here:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/trinity-proven-by-logic.html
Genesis 38 takes place during a time when God was isolating out the nation of Israel as a people unto Himself (not fully realized until after the Exodus), while at the same time recognizing that their customs were not much different from those cultures around them. The subject of Gen 38 is levirate marriage (brother-in-law marriage), which was instituted so as to keep a tribal family’s name active with descendants.
Throughout both Old and New Testaments God brought immediate judgment upon people by execution when they were deemed to be exceedingly wicked or rebellious against God. 38:7 just says Er was wicked without further clarification, but whatever his wickedness was, it was beyond what the Lord would tolerate and he was killed. And that is, after all, God’s right, since He was setting an example with Israel as to how people should respond to God.
Scripture does NOT say that Onan knew it was wrong to take his brother’s wife. What it says is that because the child would be considered his brother’s and not his own, that he didn’t want to obey the law. Notice that God didn’t nail Onan the first time that he practiced birth control, because the passage says “whenever he lay” with her - in other words, every time he had sex with her he spilled his seed on the ground, knowing full well what he was doing was going against the law of levirate marriage, and therefore in direct rebellion against God. He was using Tamar for his pleasure, but did not want to give her a child. If he had given her a child to continue his brother’s heritage, then any other children would be his, but he was stubborn and self-centered and rebellious on a continual basis before God finally put an end to it.
Do you, with nor moral standard but your own beliefs and opinions, dare to sit in judgment against God?!
XO said...Scotty & Joe - If you are going to stick with your ridiculously circular logical argument about The Trinity to account for the theological dissonance between the Old and New Testaments then you need to admit that Jesus was the primary mover behind Genesis 38.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I was addressing your point about Jesus not uttering a single word about homosexuality. I explained to you, simply, that he didn't have to, and explained why.
G.E.C. - "Do you, with nor moral standard but your own beliefs and opinions, dare to sit in judgment against God?!"
Yeah. I really do.
Your God is a hot mess and he doesn't deserve to be followed or obeyed by anyone.
His arbitrary and capricious nature, his wrath and bloodlust, his completely incoherent and inconsistent teachings from Genesis through Revelations point to a "God" that is either a cobbled together myth created by men, for men, or a dangerously insane and unstable Deity.
So yes. I'm sitting in judgement against your god. And I find him to be not worthy of my respect or consideration.
And look! I'm still here! Unlike poor Er.
X.O.
Well, the God I worship - the God of the Bible - does not match any of the descriptions you have made up about him. Those descriptions come from atheist talking points and just demonstrate total ignorance of what you people read.
You will know God in the end.
Post a Comment