that entire continent sucks!

Imagine my child-like glee and giddy anticipation at the thought of being "set straight" by Eric The (SelfImportant) Hun.

[}:D]

garand("Straight"AsTheyCome)man
[:D]

Damn..You guys are getting all worked up...Haven't seen this much hostility since I poked fun at NASCAR fans..Didn't mom ever tell you it was impolite to discuss politics and religion????

Actually, my mom taught me my love of debating both politics and religion simultaneously.

My mom - she's a tough one. Eric's just lucky I haven't turned my mom loose on him. THAT would be pitiful.

[:D]

I post one itsy bitsy teensy tiny thing I see on CNN, go to sleep, and hot damn has it ever exploded into an actual real thread. Hot Damn

I still think that part of the world sucks

[grenade]

If we all took the old testament literally, there would be a lot of blind, toothless people around!!!! The new testament teaches forgiveness and salvation.

PS Did the sperm donor also get stoned????!!!!

Death by stoning for infidelity in Nigeria...

Strange that noone has mentioned the U.S.S. Liberty yet.[:D]

I say this cautiously, as I do believe in literal interpretation of all parts meant to be interpreted literally. (And I really don't want to take the thread down that path.)

But if we took the new testament literally, there'd be a lot of blind, toothless (gluttony), tongueless, eunuchs around.

   This is not exactly on the same topic,but in the bible if man lies with man kind it is an abomination and he shall surely be put to death,sometimes literaly sewn into the carcase of an ass  or beast.


Why is there no verse or law about woman lying with another woman?   Is there or is it that I just can't find it?  

 Grandman you and Eric could surely get me an answer right?

 Bob  (the allways needy)   [8D]

Can't recall ever seeing a pos ton woman and woman, of course, all the churches I frequent tend to just lump all homosexual activity as bad from the man and man bits......

especially the Catholic church, Kettle and Pot there

[pyro]

Only if you assume that there are not Jews living in Israel.  Are there Jews living in Israel?  The last time I checked, there certainly were.  So, effectively you're saying that Jews lose their claim to the land if they let people of other religions live among them?  Considering that the people of the nation of Israel were spread to the winds after it fell, there would be no way for a nation of Israel to exist until it was reformed in 1948.  So explain to me again how nationality has anything to do with it.



Yes, all that lovely uninhabitable desert they were given! [rolleyes]  So you're saying rouge groups of non-Jews hijacked the Jewish religion to ultimately be gifted desert and other uninhabitable areas by the UN in 1948 after the British carved up and gifted the other areas in exchange for access to oil?

If so, I think you need more tinfoil, as that's up there with alien abductions and UFO sightings.  And it completely ignores the fact that Jews were a major population group in that area at least through the times of the Ottoman Empire where they seemed to have no problems living side by side with arabs.



No, that's what you took from it.  Jews live in Israel.  Christians live in Israel because Jews let them.  Arabs live in Israel because Jews let them.  When Israel was reformed in 1948 by the UN charter, it was as a Jewish state.  The fact that the Jews have been nice enough to let other people live there, including Arabs and Christians who consider many sites controlled by Israelis to be key to their religous beliefs, seems to show just how nice they are.

So, Garandman, please show where the point is.  I'm frankly shocked a man of your intellect didn't get the point of Eric's allusion to The Stranger, but then again you do seem to enjoy being a victim when it suits you.  Just because someone mentions a movie with a Nazi in a thread you're participating in doesn't mean they are referring to you, and you and I both know that if ETH thought you were a Nazi he'd say it clearly.  Regardless, it is funny to see you use the victim card, but it's dirty pool if you're going to use it to ignore the facts of his argument.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

I've always taken the particular portions of scripture you're referencing to be about measured justice.  Namely, if someone pokes out your eye, then the appropriate penalty is to do the same to him.

[B]Exodus 21:23-25
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:19-20 -- Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.[/b]

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

In Islamic countries a woman has to have 4 male Islamic whitness's to testify that she was raped, or she is considered an adultress, and stoned to death!

[B]Leviticus 18:22-23
22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.[/b]

[B]Leviticus 20:13-16
13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
14. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[/b]

So no.  Technically, two women does not seem to be forbidden by Leviticus.  That doesn't mean it's not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Eric made his intent CLEAR with the "only a stuck dog barks" comment. As if an innocent man loudly proclaiming his innocence is PROOF of guilt.

Several other posters ALSO saw the intent of using the Nazi smear against me.

Eric is a lawyer, which means a wordsmith by trade. He's capable of saying things without actually saying them. Its called innuendo, and he's REALLY good at it. Or at least he SHOULD be smart enuf to know that if you are having a vigorous discusion with someone, and OUT OF THE BLUE make a Nazi reference, its pretty clear what that Nazi reference is intended to mean.

So, please enlighten me, WHAT ELSE did the "Stranger" refernce mean, other than "garandman is a Nazi."?????


As far as me being a victim, let's try this on for size -

I go into a public forum and deceitfully spread the notion that God Bless Texas is a child molestor. And I do it with Eric's skill and cunning.

Whatta you gonna do, victim????????

I'd likely ignore it, but I'm answering for the sake of this academic excercise.  Furthermore, please feel free to craft that accusation with Eric's "skill and cunning."  I'm waiting with baited breath, and am very interested in how you'd do it.  The only stipulation is that you have to be as subtle as Eric supposedly was.  You'd not only have to get an example from a movie that would be relevant to the discussion, but you'd also have to include the insinuation that I'm somehow a child molestor.  Let's just say I doubt you can do it just as much as I doubt Eric's intention was to libel you.



No, it's not.  That's from Leviticus.  Leviticus isn't in the Torah.



thedave is correct.  Leviticus is the part in question, and that is what we Christians consider Old Testment.



Not quite GM.  The Torah is not the Old Testament.  You're thinking of the Pentateuch; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy from the Christian Old Testament.  BTW, I agree with you about the government being ill equipped to force righteous living upon people and therefore Christian principles have no place in the law.  Christianity is about the choice to follow Christ.





[B]Ok, here's where we see it first.  ETH makes a reference to some people who use the term Jew in a derogatory way.  He didn't say you did.  There's no smiley indicating some hidden meaning.  And here's where we get off track with the whole argument, which you later even concede is pointless, about being a Jew equating to your nationality.[/b]



And from there it blossomed into this.  Then it followed the formula all the other interactions between you two have.  Points were made, points were ignored, and points were refuted.  Then Eric mentions a scene from a movie about a Nazi hunter that shows his point, and someone says "I'm being called a Nazi!"  No, Orson Welles in the movie was the Nazi.  You were the one who made the leap, and I can honestly see how it could happen if you're more interested in being a victim and not about the point of the exchange in the movie.

I know you're not a Nazi.  You know I'm not a child molestor.  But to claim Eric could reference that movie so deftly to not only prove a point but to also insult you gives more credit to Eric than I think he deserves.  He's a smart guy, but that's just pure genius.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Post from garandman -

Nonsense, if you felt the least bit guilty over a statement such as [b]'Jewish in nationality'[/b], that started this issue, then you should simply have corrected yourself and moved on.

What I did was to simply show you that others who thought that being Jewish trumped every other consideration of nationality were just as wrong.

And the best way to show you this was to quote from a scene from a well-known Orson Welles movie.

The fact that this subject of 'who is a Jew' so often comes up in connection with the closely related subject of Nazism, is neither your fault nor mine.

It would be like discussing 'Indians' without mentioning 'Cowboys', or vice versa.

Some folks see what they wish to see. Some folks don't.

The fact that you take this point so hard should cause you to review what you have said and thought. But it doesn't. Obviously.

Nope. I just take what folks say and see if they really mean it. To do that sometimes means taking what they say to its logical conclusion. [b]If[/b] the end result is not particularly pleasant, the fault is not mine, nor possibly even theirs.

But if the logic works, then the ball is in that person's court, so to speak, to explain what they mean.

The reference was not to Nazism, but to what folks who think that being a Jew means [u]not[/u] being anything else.

If you can cite any other historical group, movement, political party, etc., other than Nazis, that thought this way, or continue to think this way, I will be happy to use it in the future.

You are not a Nazi, [b]garandman[/b], I know that. I have never said that you were a Nazi, either. If I thought you were, trust me, I would never stop saying it.

Nor am I an 'Israeli Firster' or a 'Jew Crew' in any sense of your term.

But I understand the allusion that those terms attempt to convey, and I am unashamed of my support for the State of Israel, or the Jews [u]wherever[/u] they may be found.

And I can surely understand how some would think that my first allegiance might be to Israel and the Jews. They would be wrong, but I cannot say that they are without [u]any[/u] foundation, at all.

I can't speak for [b]GodBlessTexas[/b], but what I would do is examine your language. If you say that 'it is a fact' that someone is a child molester, and they are not, you will be sued, successfully, for slander.

If you state that 'it is my opinion' that someone is a child molester, it will not matter whether they are, or not, you will be free to continue to state your opinion.

At least that is my present apprehension of the laws of slander and libel, but as I don't practice in that area, who knows what might have developed in the caselaw.

Eric The(Simple)Hun[>]:)]

Anything yet, garandman?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Loony: I'm not a specialist in Luther, but from what I understand he sort of believed in the immaculate conception and sort of didn't. I have seen a quote in which he clearly states that St. Anne (Mary's mother) did not conceive Mary in sinlessness, but I have also seen the quote you mentioned above. I have also seen quotes in which he chides the Roman church for venerating Mary above Christ. He clearly states that she should be honored highly, but not above Christ, and I know he doesn't believe she is a co-mediator.  

I may be mistaken, but I believe that Luther held to modified version of this later in his life. There are many changes his theology undergoes throughout the years and I think (although I could be wrong), that he later holds that Mary was conceived a sinner, but upon the conception of Christ, the Spirit wiped her clean of all stain and she remained a perpetual virgin (something not entirely unusual for Protestants to believe at that time). By also rejecting St Anne (the one to whom he prayed to save him when the lightening struck) he made a big move in his theology away from traditional concepts of the immaculate conception. Although, that is about the best I can say for him on that. Its not something many protestant writers tend to discuss (after all, Luther is a hero).