Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's usually discussion of feminism on MRA blogs

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, the notion that routine genital mutilation of babies ought to be a crime is a bad joke. And in order to be free, the religious simply must cut off parts of babies' penises. Anything less would be tyranny. Un-Inksing-believable! Shall we bring back the castrati as well? Virgin sacrifice? Suttee? Divine rule of monarchs? As Nathan says, some must suffer to appease the religious.
If you want to alter your penis, I have no problem with that. It's yours, after all, and none of my business. All I'm asking if for other to leave alone the penises of babies. I don't think that's much to ask.

Not to interrupt your hysterical and frankly worrying straw-manning of the position on this--that it's the parents' business and that the benefit of the doubt in a society with freedom of religion should generally go to those who want to when possible avoid prosecuting aspects of religious practice as felonies instead of those whose preferred set of priorities for making policy on the subject makes the analogous provisions of the Volstead Act look like kum-ba-yah multiculturalism by comparison--that most sensible people hold, but do you genuinely consider circumcision a comparable violation to the other things that you're mentioning, or is it just that degree and scale have no meaning to you?

[RR1997]

So Hillary Clinton has been arrested?

Sorry, couldn't resist

[TDAS04]

An evil person, and this is coming from a guy who likes Dick Cheney of all people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kansas or Utah.  No matter how much Oklahoma hates Obama, it has historically been more Democratic, and it still has too many registered Democrats.

[Enderman]

Yes, although the coastal/inland split, with the usual exceptions, would be pronounced.

[tik 🪀✨]

You make way too many one sentence posts. Luckily I found your ..interesting.. maps.

What the Future Might Hold: Chapter I: Rubio and the New GOP 2016-2032

2016: New Way

Sen Marco Rubio R-FL/Fmr Gov Jon Huntsman R-UT 273 EVS
Gov Andrew Cuomo D-NY/Sen Amy Koblouchar D-MN 265 EVS

2020: One Step Forward...

Pres Marco Rubio R-FL/VP Jon Huntsman R-UT 303 EVS
Sen Brian Schweitzer D-MT/Gov Tulsi Gabbard D-HI 235 EVS

2024: ...Two Steps Back

Gov Gavin Newsom D-CA/Gov Kirsten Gillibrand D-NY ~330 EVS
Fmr Sen Ted Cruz R-TX/Gov Mike Lee R-UT ~210 EVS

2028: Time For Choosing

Sen George P Bush R-TX/Gov Kristi Noem R-SD ~275 EVS
Pres Gavin Newsom D-CA/Sen Alison Lundergan Grimes D-KY ~260 EVS

2032: Comeback

Fmr Pres Gavin Newsom D-CA/Sen Julian Castro D-TX ~320 EVS
Pres George P Bush R-TX/VP Kristi Noem R-SD ~220

[RR1997]

As far as Atlastian bigotry is concerned, the Mormon variety isn't one that blips my radar.

[SWE]

When you shot Harry Whittington during a bird hunt, were you pissed that he lived?

All living things make me angry.

[Mechaman]

What's your dad, Satan, like?

[windjammer]

Am I missing something? That post wasn't bigoted in the least. Mitt's presidential runs were/would be heavily supported by both Mormon donors and voters, and yes, he would depend on them for his base of support. Just like Obama depended on blacks for his base of support.

Now, Lief may have made other anti-Mormon posts that I'm unaware of, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that one.

Also, that's assuming making jokes about someone's religious beliefs is "bigotry". Last time I checked, nobody is actually trying to impose second class citizenship or other restrictions on Mormons for their beliefs, the worst they get is made fun of on the internet. Boo hoo. I have to agree with the posters talking about "religious privilege" here. Your beliefs are not immune from criticism or jokes just because they might hurt your feelings.

First, I should note that I am nowhere near Mormon.  In fact, I am a pretty agnostic person in general.

Second, it wasn't really the post itself more as the history of the person who posted it (though I should note that Lief using the word "morman" instead of "mormon" is very very telling of his subtle bigotry).  I have made more than a few critiques of religious groups (especially in some of my historical posts on what people consider to be "mainstream protestants") and do not hesitate go call outright racism where I see it.

I am not a fan of Mitt Romney.  I did not support him for president.  I voted for Barack Obama in 2012.  However, I should note that you have a pretty absurd definition of "bigotry" if you think that "bigotry" excludes speech.

Here, let me help you out with a definition of "bigotry":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You see, jokes about how many wives Joseph Smith had is not "bigotry".  Hell, even jokes about cycling 5,000 miles a year while wearing full on dress slacks and business shirts will make you God of Jupiter or whatever the hell insane weird thing that was in the Book of Mormon (supposedly) is not even bigotry.  It's not even bigotry to point out that as recently as the 1960s that the Mormon Church had a restriction on making black men leaders in the Church.

What is bigotry is the attitude that some on here take against Mormons as a whole as a bunch of crazy religious nutjobs who lack sanity..  Which is clearly what Lief and other people think.  I'll give you the strong benefit of a doubt here and say that from this post, and other interactions I've had with you so far on this forum, that you are not an anti-Mormon bigot.  Your observation that Mormons strongly supported Romney is not a bigoted observation.  It is no more bigoted than saying that Catholics strongly supported JFK or that blacks supported Obama.

Point is, there is a world's worth of difference from saying that "Mormons are generally strongly conservative on issues and strongly favor the Republican Party" or even "I disagree with a lot of Mormons on issues like abortion because I think that many are a little backwards on the matter" from blanket statements and assumptions that Lief has made Mitt Romney is likely a racist because the Mormon leadership supported a ban on black leadership fifty years ago.  We must clearly draw the line between opposition and outright stereotyping, which is what many here fail to do on a bunch of matters.

[TDAS04]

Why should I be banned???

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Gore easily.

[RR1997]

9/10.  Would.  

[LeBron]

Can you lend me some oil?

My oil!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Jennifer Garrison is so unpopular, then why the f**k did her colleagues in the ODP give her the huge responsibility of being House Majority Leader

How has Lou Gentile proven that he can win OH-06??

Well for one thing, Governor Strickland wanted to see Garrison move high up in Democratic leadership plus, the outgoing House Democratic leader was Joyce Beatty and as we know, the party has always strived to have female leaders within the party. Obviously, it proved a disaster since the bigot tried to stop the passage of EHEA at all costs by attempting to delay it so she could avoid controversy in her Secy. of State run. To her demise, the bill did pass the House in 2009. She couldn't be trusted to begin with after her horrible, smear campaign against the "too gay friendly" Hollister or once helping kill a bill that would have prohibited bullying in schools against LGBT kids because it created a "special class."

X and I pretty much already explained why Gentile is a far better candidate than Garrison. Gentile isn't a radical, self-serving homophobe whose been shunned by party voters for one. The last time Garrison ever got elected in the district was during the 2008 wave while Gentile was as recent as 2012; winning by 5 points in a district only 5 points less Republican than OH-6. Bare in mind, to, in 2010, Garrison could have ran for re-election, but chose not to. Gentile can practically guarantee help from Strickland if he runs, to - Gentile is a good friend of his and formerly worked on his campaigns for Governor. Then there's the fact that Garrison is a hilariously bad fundraiser since the ODP wants nothing to do with her and no Democrat in this state in their right mind would donate to her while Gentile is popular among moderates and liberals alike. He's received plenty of donations and while he is a gun touter, he has consistently voted against Kasich like on JobsOhio SB5, SB310 or the voting restrictions while we have Garrison who opposes something Republicans and Democrats alike support, a raise in the minimum wage. One is not like the other, Hifly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why do people think the NJ Democratic establishment wants Christie out of office?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

Did you read the rest of that post?

(There's a real answer to this question but I'd rather not give it to a troll. I wish TJ or DC Al Fine or somebody had been the one to ask this.)

I'll bite.

In preparation for this post, I watched a few video on homosexuality and Christianity with those annoying Upworthy headlines*.

The arguments for Scripture accepting homosexual sex can be summarized as:

1) The OT passages against homosexuality were part of the judicial law which expired at Christ's resurrection.
2) Paul is condemning lust in Romans 1, so loving, committed homosexual relationships are acceptable.
3) Paul's references to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are mistranslated.
4) The references to homosexuality in the Bible, especially in the NT are not canonical.

I accept #1, since it is quite compatible with orthodoxy. Since the judicial law has expired, the issue of homosexual acts is narrowed down to a question of whether it violates the seventh commandment.

This is where diverge from the pro-homosexual position. From what I've seen so far, arguments 2 and 3 tend to be a big exercise in hand waving, and declaring large swaths of Paul's letters non-canonical is heresy (and usually contains more hand waving)

With that in mind, how do you reconcile your position on homosexuality with orthodoxy? Do you have another argument, or do you use some of the one's I've listed. If it's the latter could you elaborate on the argument, since I'm sure you can make a better case than Upworthy

*Yes I know Upworthy is a terrible terrible place to gather arguments, but they're easy to digest and quick sources of info.

From a point of view in which certain parts of the Bible may be canonical but nevertheless incorrect (just not in a way that damages the hope for salvation of people who believe them), or a point of view of 'continuing revelation' or a Tradition of which Scripture is only a part, it's a lot easier to ignore, reread, or change these positions (which is I think part of why, adjusting for orthodoxy on other issues, Anglicans and even Catholics are a lot more willing to entertain these arguments than Presbyterians or Baptists), but that isn't a very Protestant understanding of the Bible and it's certainly not a very Reformed one, so I won't go into that for the time being.

I find the general sorts of arguments that you're summarizing in 2) and 3) mostly convincing, but I understand why they may not pass the smell test or may seem like handwaves. Honestly, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument the idea that Paul is in fact condemning homosexuality as such in Romans 1, but even if that is the case I find it most sensible to understand him to have been condemning it for reasons that no longer obtain, namely the sociological construction of same-sex relationships, especially between men, in the ancient Mediterranean world. For more on this idea and on how it might differ from just a special case of the 'Paul is just condemning lustiness' explanation/handwave, I'd recommend James V. Brownson's book Bible, Gender, Sexuality. It's written as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but it dissects the objections to the more common arguments in favor of that in what I thought was a pretty fair and sincere manner. It's also written from a Reformed perspective so you may actually get more out of its style of argumentation and the points that it considers worth addressing than I did, even though you'll probably come away still disagreeing with it.

As for the role of my own psychology in all this, even recognizing that the chance that this is one of the doctrinal points I'm wrong on (surely there are at least a couple!) exists, I never claimed to be a perfect person, and I believe in pastoral economium. I'm aware that this isn't enough to support recognition of such relationships, only tolerance--for recognition I'd submit that in a proper Christian sexual ethic recognition and tolerance have to be coinherent, and that accepting a certain kind of romantic or sexual relationship as tolerable implies that one needs to think of how it might be possible to recognize, since sex acts outside a marital context can't be viewed as entirely appropriate. 'One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.'

[H. Ross Peron]

Trolling aside, I think Chuck Todd should replace him, and Luke Russert should take over the "Daily Rundown."

[IceSpear]

FF simply because, he's the first Russian leader since Alexander II who can remotely be considered "good" (maybe Stolypin might count).

I regret this post.

[SWE]

Every Republican aside from Rand Paul.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MdN0NXgjsn8

[Lief 🗽]

Gregory is a republican hack; that's why the show is doing poorly. I would replace him with someone like Al Sharpton.

[Flake]

Why would people want to watch John McCain and the other right-wing guests bloviate about how we need to invade new countries every Sunday morning?

[Never]

Lakes are beautiful, they are (usually) still and you can swim, play sports, etc, and unlike the ocean, if you accidentally swallow the water you won't feel like death, and the parts of the ocean I've been to I've always stepped on a manta ray or a crab, so I feel that lakes are so much better.