If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reading Is For Snobs)   Idiot congressman defends denying poor children school lunches by quoting non-existent scripture   (readingisforsnobs.blogspot.com) divider line 292
    More: Dumbass, congressman, widows and orphans, Meals on Wheels, school lunches, Methodist Church, scriptures, United Methodist  
•       •       •

6533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 9:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-17 12:25:57 PM  

AiryAnne: I did, but I think Bashir is trying to say that public policy should be shaped on religious doctrine because it fits Bashir's particular opinion on a matter.


Um, no. He was exposing a Republican's hypocrisy by citing passages that tend to support a policy the Republicans are opposing. You know, the uber-Christians-who-should-know-their-bible Republicans.

Had this been a straightforward discussion of the pros, cons and technicalities of the policy, I doubt Bashir would have brought up any holy book.
 
2012-05-17 12:28:32 PM  

The Name: This is why I don't attend my old megachurch anymore. It's nothing but a bunch of dumbass Republicans who take Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality dead seriously, but think New Testament exhortations to feed the poor are more of a suggestion.


I sort of miss my old church, despite that I'm atheist; it was literally a little white church in the wildwood. Built almost 200 years ago now.

I used to go visit the cemetery until I found out that they were removing headstones. My favorite was a dude named Michael whose stone stated, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
 
2012-05-17 12:30:31 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: The Name: This is why I don't attend my old megachurch anymore. It's nothing but a bunch of dumbass Republicans who take Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality dead seriously, but think New Testament exhortations to feed the poor are more of a suggestion.

I sort of miss my old church, despite that I'm atheist; it was literally a little white church in the wildwood. Built almost 200 years ago now.

I used to go visit the cemetery until I found out that they were removing headstones. My favorite was a dude named Michael whose stone stated, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."


What'd they do with the headstones?
 
2012-05-17 12:33:43 PM  

The Name: This is why I don't attend my old megachurch anymore. It's nothing but a bunch of dumbass Republicans who take Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality dead seriously, but think New Testament exhortations to feed the poor are more of a suggestion.


Because feeding the poor is something you should be doing at an individual level. Jesus makes demands of people, not groups or Governments because that is communism (which Jesus hates).

However, the part about hating gay people is something that has to be done at a Government level. I'm pretty sure Leviticus mentions something about making sure Ceasar has your back on this stuff guys.

People that are different than us must punished at a Government level, however, to help people collectively is a perversion of the Bible.
 
2012-05-17 12:34:02 PM  

deadcrickets: Derp derp derp. Putting words into the mouths of others to hide your own incompetence does not assist your case. Did Jesus or did Jesus not say anything DIRECTLY about people should help themselves? The obvious, non-'You're going to Hell for being a hypocrit and liar" answer is NO, He did not.


You're right, Jesus never said that people should help themselves. I said that earlier in the thread. I think you meant to argue with someone else.
 
2012-05-17 12:34:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No of course not. Why would you? Hypocrisy is unimportant as you have clearly stated, not matter what the political leanings of the politician are.


it's actually no revelation is what it is. It doesn't argue against ending lunch programs unless he had based his opposition to them on scripture. I know hypocrisy is your schtick. You think pointing it out, often erroneously, effectively counters an argument. It doesn't and you're a fool for thinking it does.
 
2012-05-17 12:36:20 PM  

palelizard: What'd they do with the headstones?


You must've seen The Amityville Horror.
 
2012-05-17 12:36:41 PM  

palelizard: Salt Lick Steady: The Name: This is why I don't attend my old megachurch anymore. It's nothing but a bunch of dumbass Republicans who take Levitical prohibitions of homosexuality dead seriously, but think New Testament exhortations to feed the poor are more of a suggestion.

I sort of miss my old church, despite that I'm atheist; it was literally a little white church in the wildwood. Built almost 200 years ago now.

I used to go visit the cemetery until I found out that they were removing headstones. My favorite was a dude named Michael whose stone stated, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

What'd they do with the headstones?


I don't have a clue. I used to go visit my dead buddy Mike on a regular basis, and one day his stone wasn't there. I was pretty pissed. I made a makeshift cross out of sticks and long grass and put it where his stone should've been, but it was removed within a week. Pastor never called me back.
 
2012-05-17 12:38:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: MindStalker: //Or do they really want child labor? That might be an explanation.

A major contender for the GOP Presidential nomination specifically suggested child labor as a solution, so yes.


A year ago I thought my contempt for Republican voters couldn't get any stronger. Now, having seen them flock to a man wanting to bring back child labor . . . well, if I were to come upon a registered Republican hanging from the edge of a cliff, I'm not sure if I would walk away or start stomping.

/no, I wouldn't help him
 
2012-05-17 12:41:38 PM  

mrshowrules: Because feeding the poor is something you should be doing at an individual level. Jesus makes demands of people, not groups or Governments because that is communism (which Jesus hates).


Heh, I know you're being snarky, but I cannot stand this objection to government food programs and the like. It presumes that Jesus wanted people to feed the poor so he could give them another jewel in their crown -not, you know, because he didn't want people to go hungry.
 
2012-05-17 12:46:01 PM  

snarfyboy: GentDirkly: Such an NT quote is easily found. Romans 1:26-27. Acts 15. Lots of praise and expounding of male-female marriage, while homosexuality is referred to as a sin belonging in a believer's past. So your co-workers are correct. The word you are looking for is maybe ignorant, but even that is too harsh. They know what it says, they just can't remember exactly which chapter and verse. Hypocritical, maybe, is a better word for you, since you expect them to hold to some vague code of behavior that neither of you understand.

Act 15 has nothing to do with homosexuality. It mentions "sexual immorality" rather vaguely, but you would have to prove that this includes homosexuality. There are many things that the writers of the OT and NT considered "sexually immoral" and homosexuality may not have been on their mind.

Romans is probably your best bet for arguing against homosexuality in the NT, but even that is being clearly tied to pagan rituals and worshiping false gods. Such events in Rome were often fertility rites that involved orgies where the people may or may not have been homosexual. This is more about their false idols and perceived culture than homosexuality as we think of it today.


My view on Acts 15 is that it has in view most of the sexual regulations in Leviticus. Remember, all of these books have Jews as main characters, and nearly all were written to Jews or for Jews.

Some of these Levitical laws, like sex during menstruation, the consequence is being "unclean," so this is both a sexual law and a purity law. Others, like rape, adultery, not being a virgin on your wedding night, and men having sex with men, are punishable by death, meaning they are both sexual laws and laws of state.

The purity laws and the state laws were mostly for the purpose of ensuring that Jesus would be born into a society with certain characteristics, that was very distinct from and often hostile to its neighbors.

However, the sexual laws and moral laws seem to have a much broader, more universal application. They were and are not only for the purpose of directing us to good living, but to point out our shortcomings and make us humble. So, while the punishment for adultery or male-male sex is no longer death, it is still very much a thing to be avoided in the view of the Bible as a whole. It is unfortunate that all the attention seems to be on homosexuality, because while sinful it is no worse than the other sexual sins mentioned.
 
2012-05-17 12:47:54 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: palelizard: What'd they do with the headstones?

You must've seen The Amityville Horror Poltergeist.



/horror movie nerd
 
2012-05-17 12:48:22 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: palelizard: What'd they do with the headstones?

You must've seen The Amityville Horror.


What kind of a house doesn't want to be lived in? I mean, that's the whole purpose of a house.
 
2012-05-17 12:51:21 PM  

Epoch_Zero: gimmegimme: So which is it, religious people? Was Jesus a great guy who wanted all children to have full bellies or was he a terrible guy who wanted them to starve?

Republicans believe in a Quantum Jesus, or "Quesus". He can exist in both all-loving and delusional narcissist states at once.

Although this can explain how he supposedly appears in two places at once, it lacks concrete cohesion with the standard model. Quesus is/not Lord!


That's both funny (and now stolen) AND smrt.

A twofer!
 
2012-05-17 12:57:20 PM  

The Name: mrshowrules: Because feeding the poor is something you should be doing at an individual level. Jesus makes demands of people, not groups or Governments because that is communism (which Jesus hates).

Heh, I know you're being snarky, but I cannot stand this objection to government food programs and the like. It presumes that Jesus wanted people to feed the poor so he could give them another jewel in their crown -not, you know, because he didn't want people to go hungry.


That's the funny part. Technically only non-Christians are capable of true morality because they can do good or bad without promise of reward or penalty.

Good for goodness sake (ours not yours).
 
2012-05-17 01:08:20 PM  

GentDirkly: deadcrickets: Derp derp derp. Putting words into the mouths of others to hide your own incompetence does not assist your case. Did Jesus or did Jesus not say anything DIRECTLY about people should help themselves? The obvious, non-'You're going to Hell for being a hypocrit and liar" answer is NO, He did not.

You're right, Jesus never said that people should help themselves. I said that earlier in the thread. I think you meant to argue with someone else.


You do realize I directly quoted you in my response above correct?
 
2012-05-17 01:08:22 PM  

GentDirkly:
So we don't know for sure that Luke wrote Acts... if we accept that, how do we know for sure that Jesus actually said the things attributed to him in Luke or any other Gospel? You seem to imply that you would respect my analysis if I used only the words of Jesus, not of Paul or o ...


I'm not a skeptic. I'm a Christian that has abandoned pretty much the entirety of the Bible except for the red letters in the Gospels. Paul can go fark himself.

Do you ever wonder why, after Jesus explicitly left his ministry in the hands of Peter, that it is Paul's epistles that were recorded into cannon? I do. Well, I did, anyway. I figure if you are a medieval government trying to assert authority over a people and claiming God as your reasoning, it would be useful to have the words of an authoritarian as your basis, rather than the guy who is going to be telling you to feed all these damn poor people?

So fark Paul. He was just as broken, sinful, and wrong as the rest of humanity. His words mean nothing. Jesus's words are the only meaningful words in all of scripture.
 
2012-05-17 01:35:15 PM  

Rent Party: GentDirkly:
So we don't know for sure that Luke wrote Acts... if we accept that, how do we know for sure that Jesus actually said the things attributed to him in Luke or any other Gospel? You seem to imply that you would respect my analysis if I used only the words of Jesus, not of Paul or o ...

I'm not a skeptic. I'm a Christian that has abandoned pretty much the entirety of the Bible except for the red letters in the Gospels. Paul can go fark himself.

Do you ever wonder why, after Jesus explicitly left his ministry in the hands of Peter, that it is Paul's epistles that were recorded into cannon? I do. Well, I did, anyway. I figure if you are a medieval government trying to assert authority over a people and claiming God as your reasoning, it would be useful to have the words of an authoritarian as your basis, rather than the guy who is going to be telling you to feed all these damn poor people?

So fark Paul. He was just as broken, sinful, and wrong as the rest of humanity. His words mean nothing. Jesus's words are the only meaningful words in all of scripture.


The the fact that any portion were actually "His" words is pretty much a leap of blind faith (purple monkey dishwasher).

One of the coolest things in the New Testament is "Let he who hath never sinned, cast the first stone". Which I love but according to some historical research was added arbitrarily to the gospels many hundreds of years later.
 
2012-05-17 01:42:26 PM  
stupid bait by Bashir. The passage he quotes says the Lord will do all those things, not tax payers. I thought meals on wheels was privately funded. and btw, why do we need food stamps AND free school lunch? 2 Thessalonians 3:10 does talk about those that are able to work and choose not to. personally I believe that if we didn't have to pay so much in taxes we would be more able to give charitably, which feels WAY more rewardable! taking care of these issues locally also is more effective.
 
2012-05-17 01:45:10 PM  

Sybarite: Polls have shown that more than 80% of Christians believe that concept is taught by the Bible. Link


Ironically, that line comes from a Greek myth about Heracles. As in the guy who killed his own wife and children and still somehow wound up a heroic figure.

/The story goes that a Greek dumbass got his cart stuck in the mud and started crying out to Heracles to help him. Heracles comes down and says "Heaven helps those who help themselves" and left him crying.
//And yes, that's totally in-character for Heracles, he was kind of a jackass.
 
2012-05-17 01:48:04 PM  

ericroane: personally I believe that if we didn't have to pay so much in taxes we would be more able to give charitably


history would suggest that isn't the case or we wouldn't have social services to begin with.
 
2012-05-17 01:48:33 PM  

Citrate1007: it's actually an extremely atheist saying


^bump
 
2012-05-17 02:01:01 PM  

skullkrusher: Lenny_da_Hog: palelizard: What'd they do with the headstones?

You must've seen The Amityville Horror Poltergeist.


/horror movie nerd


In the Amityville Horror book, it's a place where the Indians dumped crazy people (according to wiki).
 
2012-05-17 02:06:01 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.

But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.

no, because that doesn't refute their assertions. You argue with them based on the fact that we're a secular country and their faith based laws are not welcome here.


But it's so tempting when their "faith based laws" are actually directly contradicting their faith. You can't explain that.
 
2012-05-17 02:15:38 PM  

mrshowrules:
The the fact that any portion were actually "His" words is pretty much a leap of blind faith (purple monkey dishwasher).


That is absolutely, 100% correct. It is all Jesus demanded from us, and all we are capable of giving.

If you need concrete evidence, you have no faith at all.
 
2012-05-17 02:24:34 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this into an attack on Bashir, except that you're a tool.

"how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot"


Yeah, OK, whatever. The GOP spends years building up this image being bible-following moralists, and you attack an interviewer for spending 1 minute out of a 9-minute interview discussing the bible. Maybe you should worry more about the GOP "leaving scripture out of it" and spend less time complaining when others throw it back in their faces
 
2012-05-17 02:27:58 PM  

ericroane: stupid bait by Bashir. The passage he quotes says the Lord will do all those things, not tax payers. I thought meals on wheels was privately funded. and btw, why do we need food stamps AND free school lunch? 2 Thessalonians 3:10 does talk about those that are able to work and choose not to. personally I believe that if we didn't have to pay so much in taxes we would be more able to give charitably, which feels WAY more rewardable! taking care of these issues locally also is more effective.


I sort of agree but not entirely. I think that it is an excuse for not giving more to charity to say if our taxes were lower. You know that the largest portion of donations to non-profits is people giving to their churches. There are many good churches that do get work. But there are too many that walk in with a bible in hand. Not with food.... And I'm with you, I always thought Meals on Wheels was privately funded. That was interesting.
 
2012-05-17 02:35:03 PM  

skullkrusher: "So Bashir quoted scripture to make his case against the Repubicans' policy"

how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot


He was just pointing out that the guy was a hypocrite.
 
2012-05-17 02:41:24 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this into an attack on Bashir, except that you're a tool.

"how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot"

Yeah, OK, whatever. The GOP spends years building up this image being bible-following moralists, and you attack an interviewer for spending 1 minute out of a 9-minute interview discussing the bible. Maybe you should worry more about the GOP "leaving scripture out of it" and spend less time complaining when others throw it back in their faces


I learned if from watchin you, dad.
 
2012-05-17 02:45:15 PM  
You can always count on Joe Barton to stand up for corporations and the rich.

What non-multi-millionaire can vote for these guys without proving they are an absolute moron? What upside does the GOP offer?
 
2012-05-17 02:52:31 PM  

GentDirkly: My view on Acts 15 is that it has in view most of the sexual regulations in Leviticus. Remember, all of these books have Jews as main characters, and nearly all were written to Jews or for Jews.


That's your interpretation. But there is nothing to back that up in Acts. It's just an assumption. I take it then you believe it is also considered immoral to have sex with your wife outside of the proscribed times of the month then as well, correct?

GentDirkly: Some of these Levitical laws, like sex during menstruation, the consequence is being "unclean," so this is both a sexual law and a purity law. Others, like rape, adultery, not being a virgin on your wedding night, and men having sex with men, are punishable by death, meaning they are both sexual laws and laws of state.


Oh I see. You have conveniently decided now what is "sexually immoral" and is not. Do you realize that when the hebrews translated the the Hebrew "toevah" into Greek, the word they used for that "man laying with man" passage translates as "ritually unclean", and not "immoral"? So surely you must now understand why it shouldn't be part of the "sexually Immoral" in Acts either. You are starting to appear to be one of those people that think anything condemned in the bible that might be applied to yourself really means "Oh they didn't mean that" and what doesn't effect you is still applicable to everyone else.

Of course, I would argue that Leviticus probably isn't about homosexuality as we think about it today anyhow. There were lots of reasons men would participate in same-sex acts back then even when they weren't homosexuals.

For the record, I think that if Hebrews/early Christians were introduced to our modern society, they would be appalled by homosexuality as we think of it today. But then again, they would be appalled by a lot more than just that in our everyday lives. Homosexuality would probably be pretty far down on the list. You are trying to ascribe modern sensibilities on nomadic cultures that are 2000 - 4000 years old. They simply didn't think the way we do.
 
2012-05-17 02:59:13 PM  
snarfyboy: You are trying to ascribe modern sensibilities on nomadic cultures that are 2000 - 4000 years old. They simply didn't think the way we do.

And herein lies the problem with the People of the Book.
 
2012-05-17 03:39:00 PM  
i950.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-17 04:55:48 PM  

codergirl42: skullkrusher: "So Bashir quoted scripture to make his case against the Repubicans' policy"

how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot

He was just pointing out that the guy was a hypocrite.


he was successful. Bible thumping Christian Conservative Republican is a hypocrite. Thanks Kronkite.
 
2012-05-17 04:57:19 PM  

jcooli09: To be fair, quoting non-existant scripture in a debate isn't any more idiotic than quoting existing scripture.


If you're using it in a debate you better know what you're quoting. Otherwise you get clobbered by someone who does know, as you see here.
 
2012-05-17 04:59:35 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: I'm not sure why you're trying to turn this into an attack on Bashir, except that you're a tool.

"how about we leave scripture out of it? Ya know, being a secular country and whatnot"

Yeah, OK, whatever. The GOP spends years building up this image being bible-following moralists, and you attack an interviewer for spending 1 minute out of a 9-minute interview discussing the bible. Maybe you should worry more about the GOP "leaving scripture out of it" and spend less time complaining when others throw it back in their faces


I do worry about it. I do not want to live in a theocracy. Never supported any policies based on religious beliefs
 
2012-05-17 05:06:32 PM  

spiderpaz: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: We don't want people governing based on scripture. Ever.

But they do so you argue with them based on that reality.

no, because that doesn't refute their assertions. You argue with them based on the fact that we're a secular country and their faith based laws are not welcome here.

But it's so tempting when their "faith based laws" are actually directly contradicting their faith. You can't explain that.


tempting, sure. That's why it happens here all the time. Martin Bashir is supposed to be a respected journalist though and the congressman's stance on this issue was not based in religion.... as Bashir pointed out.
 
2012-05-17 06:05:27 PM  

jcooli09: To be fair, quoting non-existant scripture in a debate isn't any more idiotic than quoting existing scripture.


This.
 
2012-05-17 07:55:14 PM  
Another evil scumbag Republican for the Republican Retard Club

Republican Retard Club
 
2012-05-17 08:57:35 PM  
snarfyboy
I think in your eagerness to give me a lesson about translation history and cultural changes, you missed the part where one set of sexual actions was punished by death, and the other by temporary exclusion. The letter in Acts 15 was written to Gentiles who had spent a few years of their lives trying to follow Jewish laws. Leviticus is the only place to look for clarification about what is meant by "pornea". The only delineation within that set what is punishable by death and what is not. You can include the whole set in "pornea", or the subset where the death penalty applies. Or you can admit that you are ignoring the passage. By the way, I don't eat blood or meat sacrificed to idols, or strangled animals either.
 
2012-05-17 11:05:59 PM  

GentDirkly: I think in your eagerness to give me a lesson about translation history and cultural changes, you missed the part where one set of sexual actions was punished by death, and the other by temporary exclusion.


I didn't miss it. I deemed it irrelevant. It still translates as ritually unclean in the Greek. The same thing you claim makes sex during menstruation okay. You are putting your own points to divide things in the Bible the way you want to, and not as they are worded. In short, you are a pick-and-choose book worshiper.

GentDirkly: The only delineation within that set what is punishable by death and what is not.


No it isn't. Translation and context are the way to go. You're just picking a "delineation" that's convenient for you.

GentDirkly: By the way, I don't eat blood or meat sacrificed to idols, or strangled animals either.


Thant must be difficult, considering the stores are stocked with them. I envy your dedication.

Some other fun things that fit your delineation of immoral (death penalty applies):

Worshiping other gods.
Working on the Sabbeth (Saturday or Sunday - you can take your pick)
Not being a virgin on your wedding night.
Cursing your parents.

To name a few. I can assume you believe these to all be as immoral as homosexuality? That's some system of determination you have there.
 
2012-05-18 02:51:50 AM  
another idiot Christianist.
 
Displayed 42 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report