DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:36 pm (UTC)Of course there is a fundemental difference in our thinking. I believe sins are morally wrong. You don't believe that furries are morally wrong. I'm mostly just confused what we are debating right now.
I'll reiterate what I believe. I do not believe in gay marriage. I believe it is morally wrong to be gay. I believe it is more important for me to show the love and understanding that Jesus and God have (if you have no sin, cast the first stone). I believe I can love people and still dislike their sin. I believe that people are intolerant or non-believing of me when I say these things. I believe people think that because I believe God's word is 100% true it makes me closed minded. I believe people think that I am set in my ways. I have confidence and faith in God. I know that every day God challenges me to change my way of thinking because He knows that I am not perfect, but that I want to be perfect.
I understand that people believe there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. That marriage is between two people and two people only. I believe marriage is between two people and God. There's just a fundemental difference in what marriage is. I believe it was God's idea. Other people believe it was the government's idea.
However, it doesn't change what I believe.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:41 pm (UTC)Is it morally wrong to be black, hispanic, indian, chinese, japanese then? How can something that a person has no control over be morally wrong? GLBT people do not choose to be this way, they are born this way.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 09:09 pm (UTC)The two people cannot be the same sex because it creates a plethera of issues. The easiest answer is because God said so. This is easiest because you can just say you don't agree with that. The in-depth answer just goes further into making the argument more and more frustrating because of course you won't agree with my reasons. That's fine. I've never asked you to do that. I understand that you want me to think about what I'm saying. I know what I'm saying. I know the arguments. I've defended those arguments myself! Thank you for holding me accountable. However, I will side with what God has to say on the matter.
Then again, maybe you want to get into a philosophical discussion. I was just getting the feeling that you were frustrated by the sigh you made earlier. If you want to get into a philosophical discussion, I would be more than happy to do that. Just curious if we could do it after work, you know how queues are and we have had one for far too long here at work...as in one that spans days, weeks, and months.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 09:29 pm (UTC)I'm sorry but I cannot tolerate by statements like this. I can tell you that I did not choose to be bisexual. I can tell you that the people in my life that are gay, did not choose to be gay, this is the way we were born.
I cannot help it that I am just as attracted to women as I am to men. And yet because I am, I am wrong? I am morally reprehensible?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 09:52 pm (UTC)So please don't feel I am ignoring you. I will get back to you in about 6-8 when I am at home.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 10:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:58 am (UTC)This was written outside of LJ and transcribed in it so hence the italics.
First I would like to comment on your wording, "Is it morally wrong to be black, hispanic, indian, chinese, japanese then? How can something that a person has no control over be morally wrong? GLBT people do not choose to be this way, they are born this way.
You are comparing skin color to a life style. You can't compare, the two because skin color you know from birth and your parents. When you say you were born gay, how do you know? Was you sexually attracted to the nurse when you were an infant from birth? Of course not you were small and your sexual organs were not developed.
Now for this debate lets just say you were born gay. As the Bible states we are all born sinners. What does that mean exactly? It means that we will make choices that go against God's will. Now why do people want to make those choices that go against God's will? You may have been born with a certain urge towards the same sex. The question is , did God give you those desires or did sin give you those desires (aka Satan). Satan's battlefield is in the mind with thoughts. Does the urge to be attracted to the same sex come from God or your mind where you are being influenced by Satan.
I am not doubting that you can't control your thoughts about the same sex. And that at one point you may have even thought I don't want to be this way I want to be attracted to the opposite sex. I am guessing you may not have, but my point is that we have a choice to either act upon the sinful urges or pray and seek Gods mind on how to control them. Several Christians start out the way you have. They thought they were born this way because there is no other way to describe that strong desire for the same sex. But through God, obeying him you can be attracted to the opposite sex and live a normal life. To be honest you may always have these feelings and thoughts, but you can control how often they appear in your mind with God's help. Remember God doesn't want people to be born with diseases or other physical or mental defects, but sin leads to destruction and perversions that God did not want us to deal with.
So did God make you Gay or did Sin make you Gay at birth?
Here are some truths from the Bible:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. [NIV]
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. [NIV]
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [NIV]
1 Cor. 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [NIV]
It was never my intention to judge you. I was merely giving my beliefs and answering your questions. Having sex outside of marriage is also a sin so this applies to all sin not just one person in particular's sin.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 10:10 pm (UTC)First off, most of what you have quoted I find to be very offensive. I am just making you aware of this.
You are comparing skin color to a life style.
I can compare these things because they are things that are assigned by someone other than the individual. A black baby doesn't decide to be black. I didn't decide to be bisexual.
Does the urge to be attracted to the same sex (emphasis mine)
It is not an urge. It just is. Are you URGED to be attracted to men or are you just attracted? I have been attracted to women for as long as I can remember but I never really understood it. I never bothered exploring those feelings because I was also attracted to men and that was "safe" so why rock the boat? After a lot of "soul searching" so to speak, I came to realize that I was in fact attracted to both sexes. I am more attracted to men than women however I am attracted enough to women that I would in fact enter into a relationship with one and be intimate with her. It's not an urge, it just is. Just as you and everyone else in this world went through puberty, trying to figure out why you got butterflies in your stomach when you saw that cute boy from across the street or in math class or whatever and then you finally realized "OMG! Boys don't have cooties! They're cute and funny and I want to have a boyfriend!" gays and lesbians realized the same thing about themselves although about members of the same gender. Not all of them do it at the same time but not all straight people go out and are extremely experimental in high school and college. My point is, and I will say it again, it is not an urge. It is something that is realized and is very similar to anything that is "realized" as a part of growing up; realizing you do not share your parents beliefs in god or share their spirituality; realizing that you wish to belong to a certain political party; anything really, that is a deep-seated part of you because that's what this is - it's a part of someone. It's not WHO they are, it is just a part of them.
But through God, obeying him you can be attracted to the opposite sex and live a normal life.
I do live a normal life.
Remember God doesn't want people to be born with diseases or other physical or mental defects, but sin leads to destruction and perversions that God did not want us to deal with.
Does this mean that people have cancer because we, as a human race, are sinners? Is it wrong to have sex in any position other than missionary? And I have sinned to badly that I have been punished by having a mental disorder?
While it was never your intention to judge me, you did. And it hurts. And while I realize that you did not write the above, you obviously agree with it otherwise why quote it? So in the same post where you have said that you did not mean to judge me, you have in fact continued to judge me further.
There are many other things I could address however it is pointless because our thoughts on this matter will never converge. I am not going to defriend you because I like you and I think you're a nice person however I have to figure out how to be a friend to you.
If you wish to reply to this, by all means go ahead, but I will not be replying any longer.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 11:37 pm (UTC)Some questions:
1. If you convert people and there are people who you feel might fall away from Christ and you know they will go to hell if that happens, why not just kill them and know that you sent as many people to heaven as possible. Sure you yourself would go to hell, but if you took the lives of your entire family, you would be assured they would all be together in heaven. And if you wouldn't want to kill your family because you wanted to go to heaven, does that make you greedy?
2. Instead of sending Christ, why didn't God send an earthquake since he could no longer send a flood? Why didn't he send Jesus in the beginning or was it because nothing else was working so he thought Jesus might be a good idea? Why would the God of the old testament send a flood to kill every living being on earth with the exception of Noah, his family and a few thousand animals? Why would he murder that many people in the old testament and then in the new testament send Jesus to die to save all of the people? Why not just kill them all again? If God is kind, why didn't he send Jesus before killing millions of people not all of whom had abandoned him.
3. The English Bible is different from the Greek and Hebrew versions. In fact, Virgin is believed to have meant young woman, meaning Mary could have been impregnated by Joseph.
4. I am also curious to see Biblical quotes that say being Gay is sinful, wrong, etc.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 04:42 am (UTC)2. God didn't send Jesus to destroy everyone. God sent Jesus to save the world. As for why God sent Jesus when he did, it was a good time in the history of man. Jesus would be able to travel on roads which hadn't been built yet. There were more people that he could touch than in the beginning. And he could preach freely without being persecuted with the Romans keeping people from getting completely out of control. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. He just had some higher standards because he actually appeared before those people. He provided directly for them with miracles. In the Old Testament, God sent a flood to destroy the world because the world no longer believed in him. Only Noah and his family. God is not just kind he is love.
3. I found this definition of the Greek word for virgin: "Virgin" originated from the Greek and Latin word "Virgo," or maiden. It was used often in Greek mythology to classify several goddesses such as Artemis (also known as Diana) and Hestia. Virgin was a label of strength and independence -- it described the goddesses who were immune to the temptations of Dionysus, Greek god of seduction and wine. Artemis is the Greek virgin goddess of the moon and the hunt; she protects women in labor, small children and wild animals. Hestia is the Greek virgin goddess of the hearth. She never takes part in the struggle of men and gods. Virginity was once a term of power. "
Mary could have been impregnanted by anyone, but Jewish history says it was by God. God said it was God.
4. I hope these quotes help:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. [NIV]
Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. [NIV]
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [NIV]
1 Cor. 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [NIV]
no subject
Date: 2005-06-29 08:42 pm (UTC)So why can't those two people be of the same sex? Because it is morally wrong to be gay?
A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:22 am (UTC)If my sister were gay, and she never acted on her feelings and led a celebate life. She would have passed a test by God and not commited a sin. It is the actions that are sinful. We are all here on the world for a reason and have many tests to overcome, or choices as it were.
Example upcoming.
EVERYONE here has thought of killing someone at somepoint in time however deep or close or not is irrelevant. What I am trying to show is that the action of murder is the sin, you choose not to act, then you never commit the crime or the sin.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 04:27 pm (UTC)I know a lot of people that disagree with this line of thinking and one of them is a priest. I was having a discussion with my mom about this - the priest - and we were actually discussing adultry but I think the same thing applys - if you think about it then it is as good as doing it. (These are not my views, these are hers) In some respects I can see that.
HOWEVER, what you are saying is that someone who is a homosexual is not allowed to have an intimate relationship with someone that they love and care for out of fear of some god banishing them to hell? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. The god I believe in loves me for who I am and as long as I am living as best as I can and living a good life then nothing else matters.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 06:32 pm (UTC)However, you believe in god and I believe in God so it does seem to be a moot point.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 10:19 pm (UTC)How is this not a judgement?
And yes I do believe in god but I don't honestly believe that my god has the expectations that yours does. The god I believe in wants people to live good lives and be happy and free to be who they are. The god I believe in does not care if you are gay, straight, bi, whatever - none of these things are considered sins because if god made us then we are the way he made us.
My thoughts on the bible and using the bible to back up arguments on why being gay is wrong and sinful, you probably don't want to hear. But I will say this, I do not think the bible is something that you need to follow to the letter. It is a book of stories and is a wonderful guide to live your life. It is not possible for it to be any more than that simply because of the number of people who have had a hand in writing it, translating it and making it last as long as it has.
I am not saying that the things that are described in the bible as events did not happen - no one here can say that they did or didn't - I'm saying that it is a book with good advice and some good ideas how to live your life.
Out of curiousity, have you seen the movie Dogma? There are a couple of salient points to that movie that I think should be brought up again.
1) It doesn't matter what you have faith in, it's that you have faith
2) It is better to have an idea than a belief - you can change an idea but it's a lot harder to change a belief
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:25 pm (UTC)And he doesn't want to judge anyone and send them away. He wants them to be with him. So He sent His son to cleanse the world of sin. He doesn't force His will on people. We still have the choice.
Yeah, I believed that the bible was just a history book with good stories too. Then I realized that since there is creation, there is a creator. And who do I believe the creator to be? I believed the Creator to be God. So if God could create everything, then God has no trouble whatsoever making sure that His written word is accurate. Not only could he inspire men, but he could simply perform miracles and wonders to correct things that were incorrect. The Bible itself is a wonder and a miracle and is 100% true. But it must be read in order to understand it and follow it to the letter. Some things are outdated and Jesus tells us as much.
I own the movie Dogma.
1) It doesn't matter what you have faith in, it's that you have faith
2) It is better to have an idea than a belief - you can change an idea but it's a lot harder to change a belief
1) I can believe with all my heart that I can fly, I'll still make a nice puddle on the ground.
2) That actually makes no sense to me. I mean it's true, but does that mean that we shouldn't bother to believe in anything because it's too hard to change? How would we have faith as in #1?
I don't believe these because they simply aren't Biblical. You base your belief system on what? Mine is based on the Bible. It offends you and there's nothing I can do about it. I follow God's word.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:36 pm (UTC)And by saying "You banish yourself by rejecting Him and His Son." that is you judging me.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:15 am (UTC)I didn't mean you specifically. I meant people in general. If you want me to judge you, just believe that I judged you. I will say that I don't judge you and love you just the same, but if my word doesn't convince you then you can believe whatever you like.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 12:17 am (UTC)And even if you did mean people in general, it is still a judgement that you, by your own admission, are not one to make.
But I am tiring of this. I do not have the patience nor the desire to continue this debate as it will continue in circles as I mentioned in one of my previous comments.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
From:Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-06-30 11:40 pm (UTC)Also, the 10 commandments, which are generally considered the rules to live by, do not make mention of sexuality.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-04 12:28 pm (UTC)If you think it is ridiculous that god will banish someone who acts on their carnal desires then you need to look at yourself and ask if you are truely a christian. It is clearly stated in the old testament that he will.
If you wish to pass off the notion by merely playing caddy or self sanctimonious then more power to you, it doesn't change the what was written.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-04 04:09 pm (UTC)This conversation was between myself and