| Author |
Message |
    
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:34 am: | 
|
Bee said Ok, although I was not aware it was the single most used proof-text. I guess you would have another view on Psalm 22v.16 who's hands & feet were pierced also.
Yaakov answered LOL, but of course. That is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The Christian version is “pierced”, the Jewish version is “like a lion”.
Tanakh The New JPS Translation 17 Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.
Bee, it is interesting to note that verse 16[17] is not quoted in the New Testament even though other verses from Psalm 22 are cited in the Gospels. This means that verse 16[17] was not the primary verse on which the New Testament authors focused. As to the allegation that the King James translators intentionally changed the meaning of the Hebrew text, their translation ("they pierced my hands and feet") actually reflects an ancient Jewish interptetation along with some important variations in the medieval Masoretic manuscripts. In other words, it's as much of a Jewish issue as a Christian one! In any case, there really is no problem. With either rendering, the imagery is one of extreme bodily violence done to the sufferer's hands and feet, corresponding to the realities of crucifixion.
The Septugint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as "they pierced my hands and feet", followed by the Syriac Peshitta two or three centuries later. The oldest Hebrew copy of Psalms we possess (from the dead sea scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka'aru (not ka'ari, "like a lion"), a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts-recognized as the authoritive texts in traditional Jewish thought- where instead of ka'ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the text says either ka'aru or karu. (Hebrew scholars believe this comes from a root meaning "to dig out" or "to bore through")
I could explain more but am tired of writing this so only if someone wants other texts and proofs will I continue it.
There is no mistranslation, no Christian interpolation, no Christian contrivance but an extremely honest and valid attempt to accurately translate the Hebrew text based on ancient Jewish manuscripts and translations.
Yaakov said to Bee "Bee, once you put it into context and look at the patterns, it becomes much clearer. Since the early Christians were trying to distance themselves from Judaism, they reversed many concepts from the Tanakh"
Why don't you accuse the Tanakh translators of doing that like the way they obscure circumcision in the newer translations?
The reason many scholars, intellectuals, educated Jews, and thinking people of all faiths have put their faith in Yeshua the Mesiah is because the truth about Yeshua can withstand every kind of scholastic or emotional attack. The new testament authors showed great understanding and sensitivity in their use of the Tanakh. As for honesty and integrity of later translators, I have no question that Christian translators display a Christian bias, while Jewish translators display a Jewish bias. It is easy to document this practice on numerous occasions, and is not dishonesty or lack of integrity. It has to do with human beings trying to grapple honestly with textual and translation difficulties. If manuscripts evidence for a certain reading is equally divided between two possible variants, and one reading is in harmony with "Christian" interpretation and the other reading is in harmony with "Jewish" interpretation, it is quite natural for the decision of the translator to reflect their particular religious |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:39 am: |
|
Renouned Rabbis who did not believe he was the Messiah believed that the book of Daniel's prophecies placed the coming of Messiah at the time that Yeshua lived before the destruction of the temple.
To say "Jesus does not fulfill any prophecies from the Tanakh and does not do any actions that the messiah is supposed to do" is rediculous, if that is what you meant.
The argument is that Yahshua clearly fulfills too many prophecies to be a coincidence.
An example is, the chances of someone being named John Smith would be one in 1,000 (made up numbers) because there are many John Smiths. To be John Smith from Florida would be one in five hundred thousand (of all people in the USA) To be John Smith from Oceanville Florida who was born on october 5th 1910 and died November 6th 1987 at #15 Main Street at 5 pm would be one in three hundred million (a made up number for all the people in the united states because it could have only been one person).
You and I fulfill some prophecies from the Tanakh concerning Messiah but others eliminate us and some are open to interpretation. Of the ones not open to interpretation Yeshua fulfills so many I could not write the number of the mathamatical odds because it is so great. You can examine the research in "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. The one in Daniel is just one of many named in that book. There are others that are not named in his research.
According to the law things are cleansed and atonement is made with blood.
Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the alter; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation."
Leviticus 5:9 He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the alter, and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the alter; it is a sin offering. 10 And the second he shall prepare as a burnt offering, according to regulation. Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the sin of which he is guilty, and he shall be forgiven."
If people atone for their own sin, why, according to the Tanakh, do they shed the blood of an animal (which is innocent of sin) and also go to a priest and it is the priest who makes expiation for his sin? Does atone mean something different than expiation?
The Hebrew word for expiation means to cover, cancel, forgive... |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:41 am: |
|
"Biblically: Jesus doesn't fulfill any prophecies from the Tanakh and doesn't do any actions the Messiah is supposed to do."
Since it would take me too long to research everything myself I will quote from Michael Brown as my response to your above statement.
"4.33. Jesus fulfilled none of the provable Messianic prophecies!
By "provable" Messianic prophecies, I assume you mean prophecies that refer to the Messiah bringing about an end to war and ushering in a universal golden age, or the Messiah regathering the exiles of Israel and rebuilding the Temple. But these are not the only provable Messianic prophecies, and there are some very important, provable prophecies of worldwide significance that Jesus-and only Jesus-has fulfilled, giving us every reason to exoect that when he returns to earth, he will fulfill the rest.
I will divide my answer into four parts: (1) provable prophecies fulfilled by Yeshua that no one else can ever fulfill, (2) provable prophecies fulfilled by Yeshua of a worldwide, indisputable nature, (3) provable prophecies that continue to be fulfilled, and (4) provable prophecies yet to be fulfilled. |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:42 am: |
|
1. Provable prophecies fulfilled by Yeshua that no one else can ever fulfill.
The Tanakh gives clear indications that the Messiah had to come before the Second Temple was destroyed, since the prophets predicted that the Lord himself would visit that Temple, and that its glory would be greater than the glory of the First Temple (Solomon's Temple), and that final atonement would be made before the Second Temple's destruction. (For an extensive discussion, see vol. 1, 2.1-2.2.) But that Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., meaning either that the Messiah came right on schedule, almost two thousand years ago, setting in motion the plan of redemption and deliverance for Israel and the nations, or that there will never be a Messiah, since he failed to come at the appointed, prophecied time. I choose to believe the former.
Was there any Jewish figure other than Yeshua who fulfilled these time-dated prophecies? If it was not Yeshua, who then? And is there no significance to the Talmudic statement that "all the appointed times [lit., "ends," meaning the appointed times for the Messiah's coming] have passed and the matter is dependent only on repentance and good deeds" (b. Sanhedrin 97b)?
In a sence, these are the most important of all the so-called provable prophecies, since they prove the trustworthiness of the ones who prophesied them as much as thet prove the trustworthiness of the ones who fulfilled them. In other words, how do we know that the end time predictions of the prophets will really come to pass if their past, dated, already provable prophecies did not come to pass? Conversly, if their initial, now-past prophecies came to pass, we can be confident that their still-future prophecies will come to pass as well. Thus, we can say with assurance that since Yeshua has fulfilled the past prophecies, he will fulfill the future prophecies as well. |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:43 am: |
|
2. Provable prophecies fulfilled by Yeshua of a worldwide, indisputable nature.
Messianic Jews point to many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (see above, 4.32), but anti-missionaries respond by saying, "These cannot be proven." For example, we point out that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem, as Micah prophesied (see above 4.4). Anti-missionaries respond by saying either "prove it!" or "The Messiah could still be born in Bethlehem." We point out that his sufferings paralleled in detail those of the righteous sufferer of Psalm 22(see above 4.24). Anti-missionaries respond by saying either "Prove it!" or Anyone could suffer those very things, and that does not make him the Messiah." But the problem arises for the anti-missionaries when we look at those prophecies pointing to the Messiah's worldwide influence, especially among the Gentile nations.
According to Genesis 49:10, the obedience of the peoples will be his; according to Isiah 42:4, the islands will wait for his teaching; according to Isiah 49:6, he would be a light to the nations, bringing salvation to the ends of the earth; according to Isiah 52:15, kings will shut their mouths before him in worshipful adoratrion (see above, 4.1, especially for Genesis 49:10). Yeshua has fulfilled much of this and continues to fulfill this in dramatic fassion. More than one billion people-people of the nations, Gentiles, formerly without God and without hope- have come to worship and adore the God of Israel because of Yeshua's death and resurrection. This certainly proves something!
Name for me one other human being (let alone one other Jew) who has come anywhere near fulfilling these verses. There is none. Therefore, we have confidence that we will see the totality of what is promised in these and related verses (namely, worldwide peace, the destruction of the unrepentant wicked, and the worldwide rule of God), through the one who came when the prophets declared he would come and did what the prophets said he would do. |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:46 am: |
|
Just consider how utterly absurd it would have seemed if as you stood at the foot of the cross as Yeshua suffered a torturous, ignominious, shameful death, someone told you, "Two thousand years from now, this man will be the world's most famous Jew and world history will be divided into the years before his birth and the years after his birth. Hundreds of millions of people from all world religions will forsake their idols and their dead traditions and will instead become followers of the God of Israel through him." Yet this is literal truth, without a hint of exageration. We dare not downplay the significance of this. And remember that it was in Psalm 22 that the worldwide impact of the Messiah's death and resurrection were foreshadowed, the Scriptures plainly declaring that as a result of his deliverence from death, the Gentiles would turn to the one true God (see above, 4.24). This is very provable, and it has unfolded in the most supernatural ways immaginable (see vol. 1, 2.2), also pointing to the reality of his resurrection, a tremendously important topic that deserves seperate discussion (see vol. 4, 5.15).
It is also important to remember that some of the same verses that prophesied the Messiah's acceptance by the Gentiles also prophesied his (temporary) rejection by his own Jewish people (see, e.g., Isa. 49:1-7; Isa. 52:13-53:12; note also the principle of Ezek. 3:1-7). Of course, someone could easily object to this and say, "The Jewish people have rejected many false Messiahs. Jesus' rejection by his own people can hardly be used as a proof of his true Messiahship." And there would certainly be truth to this objection. The simple fact that Jesus was rejected by the majority of our people and then embraced by (primarily) the Gentiles does not prove that he was the Messiah. However, someone has to fulfill those prophecies. There must be one Jew who would be rejected by his people, who would suffer and die and rise from the dead, whose name would be revfered by the Gentiles in every nation, who would turn multitudes back to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and who would then be received by his own brothers after the flesh.
Yeshua is that Jew, and it is no coincidence that today there are more Jews following him than at any time since the first century, perhaps numbering as high as two hundred thousand. When you add to all this the fact that he was born at the right time, in the right place, with the right lineage (see vol. 4, 5.10-5.12), there can be no question at all that he is our promised Messiah.
3. Provable prophecies that continue to be fulfilled.
The prophetic Scriptures also indicated that the Messiah would perform miraculous deeds of healing and deliverance-opening blind eyes, making cripples whole, setting prisoners free from the bondage of sin-thus demonstrating that he was the anointed of the Lord, God's agent of mercy and restoration (see Isa. 35:1-7;49:5-6;61:1-3). The New Testament gives abundant testimony to these very miracles taking place throughout the ministry of Yeshua. Naturally you could challenge this testimony and ask, "Who says these stories are true?" and I would grant you the validity of that challenge. Many ancient texts contain all kinds of accounts of extravagant miracles and death defying miracle workers. This is actually the core of many mythological writings. How do we know that the New Testament writings are different? |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:48 am: |
|
My answer might supprise you, but stay with me for a moment and I believe I will make perfect sence. The New Testament records not only that Jesus himself performed these miracles but that his followers also performed these supernatural acts. This served as a proof of the resurrection of the Messiah, which was also an event of extrodinary importance that was prophesied hundreds of years prior to his death. The book of Acts records the when a man lame from birth was healed through Peter and John in the name of Yeshua, Peter explained to the crowds:
Men of Israel, why does this suprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.
The Messiah not only died; he rose from the dead, sending the Holy Spirit down to his followers and thus empowering them to do the same thing he did while on the earth. If he was not truely the Messiah but rather an imposter, and if he did not perform miraculuos deeds by the power of the Spirit but rather by psychical or demonic power, his counterfeit miracles would have died with him. The New Testament records the exact opposite, demonstrsting that he was indeed alive and well, continuing to heal and deliver through his earthly representitives.
"But," you say, "that still proves nothing. Why should I believe the account that you just gave about the lame man? It's still taken from your New Testament."
Once again, you raise a good point. How do we know for sure that the witness of the New Testament is true? It is simply because Yeshua our Messiah is alive and not dead, |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:49 am: |
|
appointed by God his Father to be the Lord of all (Acts 2:36; 10:36)-which means that he is still performing miracles of healing and deliverance for those who call on his name.
I am not claiming that those who follow Messiah are exempt from hardship and pain, that they are never sick, that they do not die in accidents and natural disassters, that they can simply snap their fingers and receive a miracle, that they are never frustrated by the mystery of unanswered prayer. Not at all. Nor am I saying this:c(1) The biblical prophets declared that certain miracles would characterize the ministry of the Messiah on the earth; (2) Yeshua performed those very miracles; and (3) he is still performing them today. For many of my fellow Jewish followers of Jesus, it was not an eloquent argument that persuaded them that he was truely the Messiah, nor was it a study of the Messianic prophecies (although many Jews do, in fact, come to know him through these very texts). Rather, it was the fact that in Jesus, they encountered the reality of the one true God. They experienced God for themselves, either in deep conviction of personal sin and guilt, followed by liberating and transforming forgiveness, or in an undeniably supernatural path that led straight to the Lord, or through a miraculuos healing or deliverance when they called on Yeshua's name. In many cases it was only after experiencing "new birth" and being persuaded beyond a doubt that Jesus was our Messiah and King that these men and woman began to engage in serious discussion with rabbis or anti-missionaries, going back to the Scriptures and discovering to their delight that Jesus is the one spoken of by Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.
Lest you downplay the importance of personal experience, the Torah emphasises the importance of each generation having its own encounter with God (see Deut. 5:1-4; 11:1-7), and the psalmist took it as a sign of devine judgement when there were no signs and wonders among the people (Ps. 74:1-9). And what is true for the nation as a whole was true for individuals: God did not want his people to have a merely theoretical knowledge of him, simply knowing about him. He wanted them to know him. This, in fact, is one of the clearly expressed goals of the new covenant, prophesied by Jeremiah, as it is written, "They will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Jer. 31:34b). Note also the related Prophecy of Ezekiel: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (Ezek. 36:26-27) |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:50 am: |
|
Do you know him? Have all your sins and wicked deeds been forgiven? Has the old heart of stone been replaced by a heart of flesh? Does God's Spirit really live in you? If you say "But that is reserved for the Messianic age!" I reply, "But the Messianic age has already begun!" This too is provable-and of great importance, since in the end everything comes down to your relationship with God and the condition of your own soul. These weighty issues are ultimately personal matters between you and him. You will stand alone before God when you give account for your life, and only you can decide how you will respond to his Word today, while you are alive and breathing.
The prophet Joel declared that God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh, a promise that began its journey to fulfillment in Acts 2:1-21, fifty days after the resurrection of the Messiah on the biblical Feast of the Weeks (Shavuot, or Pentecost). Joel then declared, "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Joel 2:32a[3:5a]), a text quoted several times in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua (e.g. Rom. 10:13). This too is provable prophecy!
So, if you recognize your need for forgiveness and mercy; if you understand that God is holy and you are not; if you understand that he desires to deliver you from every bondage and addiction-physical, emotional, and spiritual-and remake you in his image; if you are ready to surrender your life and will to his service, becoming part of his family; you are considering whether Jesus is really the Messiah, the anointed of the Lord, then call out to God in his name, asking him to save you from your uncleanness and guilt, putting yourself completely in his hands. He will answer you from heaven! |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.94.99
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:51 am: |
|
4. Provable prophecies yet to be fulfilled.
What then of the Messianic prophecies that remain to be fulfilled, such as Isiah 2:1-5 and Isiah 11:1-9, which predict universal peace? The answer is obvious: The one who already fulfilled every provable prophecy that had to be fulfilled up until this time is the one who will fulfill the rest. Certainly, this is the only reasonable, logical, and scripturally consistent answer. It is no mystery, then, who this Messiah will be that will come with the clouds of heaven. He will be the one who was despised and rejected by his own people, the one who became a light to the nations, and the one who will return and establish his Father's kingdom in Jerusalem." From "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" Volume Three by Michael L. Brown chapter 4.33. Pages 158-164 |
plow_deep
Intermediate Member
Username: plow_deep
Post Number: 268
Registered: 5-2006
Posted From: 216.78.52.65
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 6:15 am: |
|
Doug,
Much thanks for taking the time to post this information. I'm very grateful for it.
Peace |
overseas
Advanced Member
Username: overseas
Post Number: 617
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 164.143.244.34
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 6:45 am: |
|
Doug said: How do we know for sure that the witness of the New Testament is true? It is simply because Yeshua our Messiah is alive and not dead.
Amen brother. The ressurected Jesus is the cornerstone of our faith. One can approach Christianity as a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but the core of our faith is that Jesus died and was ressurected historically and that's the first reason for believing in Him. Not only because His teachings make sense to a sane mind. |
ba2
Intermediate Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 397
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.92
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
Yes, so maybe we should stick with the Gospels, focus on the red letters and skip the rest. Paul was never taught by Jesus; actually, he never even met him or any of the Apostles, so maybe he didn't have it perfectly right. The only real problem I have with the NT is that is missing the Gospels of most of the Apostles and in its place, the majority of it is assembled using writings of a legalist Pharisee. There are also some changes made to the original Jewish bible when it was assembled and translated for the Christian bible. This thread is suppose to be about the “Anti Gay Hypocrisy” so maybe we should focus on what Jesus had to say about that. |
rachelengland
Senior Member
Username: rachelengland
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 216.109.192.236
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Man that was awesome ba2! I have always felt that way about Paul!
I even printed that out!
(Message edited by rachelengland on August 10, 2006) |
trainedobserver
Senior Member
Username: trainedobserver
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 198.49.119.5
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore the behavior is not "unnatural" and must have a biological cause. With genetics determining or greatly influencing our sexuality how can we condemn someone for simply being attracted to the same sex? If sexuality is as genetic as skin color then condemnation of homosexuals is clearly wrong for the obvious reasons.
Take a look at "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate" Caution: Contains a picture of lesbian Japanese macaques.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html |
dream_truth
Senior Member
Username: dream_truth
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 72.224.167.26
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Nice article T.O.
And of course, let's not forget the famous Romeo and Juliet of Boston's Public Garden
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/12/thou_art_no_romeo/
This is the funniest quote:
''I think this proves that there's something in the environment in Massachusetts," Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham-based organization fighting same-sex marriage, joked in a telephone interview. ''Maybe it's the water that's causing all this lunacy."
LOL!!! Better not drink the water in Mass if you don't want to be gay!  |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 316
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Doug
I most have last posted to you over a year ago. Took a long time to make your rebuttal.
As to the allegation that the King James translators intentionally changed the meaning of the Hebrew text, their translation ("they pierced my hands and feet") actually reflects an ancient Jewish interptetation along with some important variations in the medieval Masoretic manuscripts. In other words, it's as much of a Jewish issue as a Christian one! In any case, there really is no problem. With either rendering, the imagery is one of extreme bodily violence done to the sufferer's hands and feet, corresponding to the realities of crucifixion.
Total garbage. There is no Jewish issue in this Psalm. It is King David speaking about his enemies. There are multiple animal metaphors throughout that entire psalm. Other than lions, the psalm also mentions worms, dogs, bulls, and wild oxen. The Christian issue has to do with changing G-d’s words and ignoring Hebrew grammar.
The Septugint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh
Wrong again. When the Jews were forced under duress to translate the Tanakh, they only did the five books of Moses and purposefully did a hatchet job. It is unknown who translated all the rest. The Septaugint is NOT a Jewish bible, but a Christian one.
Everything about this is just Christian mistranslations, changes, and contrivances.
The reason many scholars, intellectuals, educated Jews, and thinking people of all faiths have put their faith in Yeshua the Mesiah…
ROFL. It is usually the reverse. Missionaries target the young or the ignorant to deceive them to abandon Judaism. While the highly educated realize the problems with Christianity and leave it. http://messianicjewishtruth.com//finding.html
To be John Smith from Oceanville Florida who was born on october 5th 1910 and died November 6th 1987 at #15 Main Street at 5 pm would be one in three hundred million (a made up number for all the people in the united states because it could have only been one person).
A more accurate example is to be John Smith from Hysrt Planet Pluto who was born on green toad 67th 19AP at inner core, Moon at 17 pm. In other words, made up times and places to correspond to made up prophecies. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 537
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
TO
Your nature point is irrelevant. This is a tired argument that holds no water to human behavior.
Just because a thing exists does not make it right.
"All things may be lawful but not all things build up"
All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]. 1Cor10
Nature has countless perversions.
The homosexuality behavior in animals is very small, and means nothing but following an impulse wrong reaction sometimes from some stimulous. This is just like that of the perverse lustful behaviors of some humans.
Animals are a far cry from human behavior.
They do whatever they feel like. They have no concience or intellect.
If you want to follow a few animals...?
Animals cannot distinguish right or wrong and all sorts of feelings they have. They do all sorts of inconsistent behaviors. None of which are biological or genetic. Most of which are just knee jerk reactions to stimulous. Pavlovs dogs etc.
If people are led by their feelings everday, rather than their concience, millions would be doing some God awful things.
Personally I could care less about this subject except for all the deceived fools twisting and turning looking for the loopholes to try and JUSTIFY their behaviors.
It reminds of the same fools that put in denial of their behavior is ok and not hurting anyone. It is like an alcoholic or drug addict saying he can have few and it doesn't hurt him.
They are in complete denial.
So are those who commit perverse acts.
The denial does not stop the hurt that they inflict upon themselves and others. |
dream_truth
Senior Member
Username: dream_truth
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 72.224.167.26
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
trs. how does being a homosexual hurt anyone, say for example, two men or two women who are in a loving monogomous relationship. How does their private sex life affect anyone? |
bluewater2
Senior Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.75.252.89
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Doug, all I can say is that that was quite a copy and paste job from an Xtian appologist. And Josh McDowell, Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze. He is a complete moron. I don't have time to tear into your christian boilerplate. Needless to say, it is wrong. |
bluewater2
Senior Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.75.252.89
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Common sense and reason dictate that if you want to know how accurately the Jewish Bible was translated into the Christian Old Testament, ask the Jews. I certainly wouldn't ask the Jews about the Christian New Testament. It only makes sense. |
ba2
Intermediate Member
Username: ba2
Post Number: 400
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 165.189.17.92
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 3:00 pm: |
|
I don’t know who would ever be interested in reading such a long cut and paste.
I don’t think I saw anyone suggest that they were trying to justify their own behavior by condoning homosexual behavior. I for one do not have any clue as to what it means to have gay tendencies, I admit I totally do not understand the concept, but I also say I am not threatened by those who have those tendencies. I can’t say for sure, but my take is that the gay rights movement didn’t get started until after the religious bashing of gays which prompted the rise in hate crimes towards them. They started demanding protection. In my younger years, I can’t remember it being much of an issue but as I said, I really don’t understand it so it is not an issue with me. And NO, I do not want laws which would allow active open sexual homosexual behavior in public. I don’t think any sexual behavior should be allowed in public.
As far as homosexuality in the animal world, it is there. I have personally seen it in my tropical fish tanks (males definitely trying to spawn with other males), and I have observed it at the zoo with some animals. Do a google on “bonobos sex” and see the really interesting articles. There is a really good group in the Brookfield zoo in Milwaukee Wis and occasionally you will see the sexual activity there. Doing a further search on the topic, I find that virtually every species of animal performs some sort of homosexual activity to some degree. I don’t know how this relates to humans, and quite frankly, I don’t care, but to suggest that it is rare in nature is pure fiction.
blue: I totally agree with you on the bible translation. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 540
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
dream truth,
You and I know it isn't just about masturbated perverted sex, mens penis to mens anus or oral stimuation, female using oral stimulation or toys to another females genital.
It's all about the deception to sweep under the rug all the negative effects that homosexual lifestyle has caused and the push to destroy the society.
Many including myself answered this question with countless facts, studied data and simple common sense.
The United States Center for Disease Control has had countless studies and data finding disproportionate number of negative effects caused by homosexuality. The extreme high cost to society to stem the negative affects of homosexuality. Not limited to just the disproportionate outrageous higher amount of disease, crime, depression, societal destructions, deteriation of family units etc.
Homosexual relationships cannot produce children in and of themselves. In that sense alone homosexual relationships might appear irrelevant to society. But homosexual relationships, instead of just being irrelevant, are profoundly harmful to society.
First, homosexual relationships are a well-spring for the recruiting of youth and others to become homosexual practitioners. The scientific evidence demonstrates that those who engage in homosexuality are less apt to get married, less apt to be faithful marriage partners if they get married, and less apt to produce well-socialized children if they have progeny.
Further, those who engage in homosexual relationships disproportionately engage in criminality, child molestation, interpersonal violence, illicit drug use and other forms of substance abuse, more frequently test as mentally disturbed, and contribute less to the commonwealth.
Secondly, homosexual relationships disproportionately spread disease (e.g., AIDS, hepatitis B, syphilis). Many of these diseases cost society a great deal (perhaps as much as 1% of the United States' Gross Domestic Product [GDP] for AIDS alone, at least half of which is attributable to homosexual males).
Society thus has an important interest in suppressing homosexual activity.
Third, males who form homosexual partnerships (or ‘marriages') are more apt to acquire blood-borne germs and infectious agents than those who do not form such partnerships. They thus endanger themselves and those with whom they interact, including medical personnel who treat them and those whom these homosexual practitioners serve as food handlers, surgeons, or in other intimate capacities
Cancer outnumbers aids 10000 to one yet more money has been spent on aids then cancer. More people die of cancer and ten other diseases than aids yet the homosexual lobby has politically got more money to be spent on them, while they do nothing to stop aids the easiest way. Information and protection.
The list goes on and on. |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 72.68.4.237
| | Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Bluewater,
Most of the cut and paste job was not my own research except for the part "The same Hebrew word, mool, is translated as different English words in different places in the Tanakh
Deut. 10:16 Cut away
Deut 30:6 open up
Josh 5:2 circumcision
Josh 5:4 circumcision
Jere 4:4 Open
And then they translate a different Hebrew word, nawmal,
Gene 17:11 cirumcise
The Tanakh translates the same word in Hebrew as different words in English and different Hebrew words as the same English word too to fit its context (or someone's interpretation of its context)
but my Rabbi had told me a couple of things I believed were from the Christian Bible but I showed him the older version, I think it was Isaac Leeser version and I don't remember what points. Also, it is logical to believe Jesus did fulfill the prophecies, but no one is forcing you to interpret it that way. One of my points to Yaakov was that I have taken the time to look up the context of words as were used in Jewish and Christian translations and my point was that people translate the same word, including the Tanakh writers, to mean one thing a few times and then change it later to make it mean what they see it but I believe what I understand and checked it out for myself.
Also, I looked up many words in the Tanakh in their original Hebrew and saw how things were translated and showed you a small example of it. Yehovah or however you want to abreviate His name, has given me understanding of the meaning of His laws.
Yaakov
You make some points that I would consider but am not educated on but thisA more accurate example is to be John Smith from Hysrt Planet Pluto who was born on green toad 67th 19AP at inner core, Moon at 17 pm. In other words, made up times and places to correspond to made up prophecies. is absurd and you cou hate Jesus but if you have a logical mind see that it may be a different opinion but is not illogical to believe that Jesus at least fulfilled a few of the prophecies concerning messiah.
Also, It didn't take me this long. I coppied that from my previous rebuttal.
Overseas,
I quoted from someone else's study. |
bluewater2
Senior Member
Username: bluewater2
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.75.252.89
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:46 am: |
|
Doug, you mention your Rabbi. Are you a Jew? You sound like a Christian. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3802
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 205.215.251.10
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 9:58 pm: |
|
yaakov, Would you please explain why Genesis 1 tells about the creation, and chapter 2 tells it over again? Some people say this means there was a creation, it was destroyed between chapter 1 and 2, then recreated in chapter 2. Why was it written this way? Thanks for your help. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 328
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
godchild
I don’t know. Traditionally, when G-d repeats Himself, it means the message is very important. I’ve never heard any theory that two separate creations were made. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3817
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 205.215.252.20
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Thanks, yaakov, I agree with you.
If you could answer two more questions. Is it possible evil men took over as scribes (pretending to be Jews) and polluted the Tanakh? (I don't believe it for a minute, but would like your opinion.)
Have you ever understood the Tanakh to say we were in heaven with God as spirits or angels previous to coming to earth in our flesh bodies?
(I don't believe this either, but would again like your educated opinion, which I respect.)
Thanks again. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 332
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |
|
godchild
If you could answer two more questions. Is it possible evil men took over as scribes (pretending to be Jews) and polluted the Tanakh? (I don't believe it for a minute, but would like your opinion.)
<shaking> Where are you getting this stuff from?
Think back to ancient times. There was no electricity, no internet, no telephone or telegraph. No way that people could communicate quickly over long distances. And yet, every Tanakh is identical to every other one. A Tanakh in Morocco is the same as a Tanakh in India. I’ve heard people allege that some vast conspiracy caused all the rabbis world wide to change the Torah, simultaneously and in the same way, to hide evidence of the Christian (or Moslem) deity. That is total nonsense. Even on the face of it, I can’t comprehend how anyone could think this.
Rigorous quality control unmatched by anyone else at any time. Specific spacing, specific word counts, specific writing, chanting, etc. Each person doing the scribing needs a high level of education. All the copies we have now are identical to the original scrolls of Moses.
Have you ever understood the Tanakh to say we were in heaven with God as spirits or angels previous to coming to earth in our flesh bodies?
(I don't believe this either, but would again like your educated opinion, which I respect.)
Thanks again.
Thank you.
I’ve heard some scholars say stuff like this before. I’m not sure where the references are, Tanakh, Talmud, or Aggadah. We can speculate if our souls are eternal and residing somewhere or are created with our bodies. I guess I believe that our souls are eternal, since I believe that my soul was present at Mount Sinai when G-d gave us the Torah. However, I’ve never thought about where my soul was hanging out until my body was ready. Hmm…If my soul will reside in Heaven after the body is gone, then where was my soul before the body was created? … … … I don’t know.
I don’t think its terribly important. What we do while we are living is what’s important. However, let me see what I can find out. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3818
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 205.215.252.20
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
<shaking> Where are you getting this stuff from?
I hope you were shaking from laughter. This is some of the stuff watchman and zeke preach at the am/sc threads. Check out the 'Kenites' thread there. All about how kenites are Cain's children, and Cain is from Adam and Eve having sex with the serpent, and how the kenite's live among the Jews (so they can't really recognise them), and became the scribes in the Bible, and that is why they don't trust anything a rabbi has to say, only their teachers who are brother british israelists, who are the 'real Jews'. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 336
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 68.205.254.133
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:39 pm: |
|
That was weird. I actually typed "shaking head", but the word head didn't post.
Ah, those guys. I looked at their inane posts and tried posting there a bit. But, it quickly became pointless.
BTW, I got some answers for your question. It's a bit over my head, but I'll relay what I remember.
Depending on a person's belief, the pre-body soul is either 1) in Heaven 2) In Heaven in a treasure box called "The Body" 3) In Sheol being purified or 4) On Earth being reincarnated. Given the varying opinions I got from just two people, there may be other opinions as well.
The soul is made up of two parts based on two different Hebrew words used in Gen 1 and 2. The mortal soul is called nefesh and the immortal soul is called neshama. Many more details appear in the Talmud. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3822
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.55.108
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
yaakov, God works in mysterious ways, .
The soul information you give opens up new thought. It appears that this is one of the bits of knowledge God didn't feel necessary for us to understand completely. We can only make supposition; re: differing belief as you showed. Since all things come from God, could the 5th be 'residing in God'? It was His breath that caused man to become a living soul. (I'm not suggesting this would make us little gods, because the created can't become the Creator).
All this requires me to do more study. Thanks, yaakov.
Oh, another question. In your opinion, (and if you have seen it), is the information on JewishEncyclopedia.com reliable? I've been researching from it. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 339
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Hello Godchild
I’ve never seen this before. So, I asked around and several of my friends have heard of it. The general consensus is that it is not reliable. Much of the information is secular or out of date. The general opinion rated it lower than Wikipedia (which is limited also) for useful information. Of the six people (all Jews) that knew about it, none gave me a positive opinion of it. |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 66.192.99.67
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hello Godchild
I’ve never seen this before. So, I asked around and several of my friends have heard of it. The general consensus is that it is not reliable. Much of the information is secular or out of date. The general opinion rated it lower than Wikipedia (which is limited also) for useful information. Of the six people (all Jews) that knew about it, none gave me a positive opinion of it. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3829
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 205.215.250.201
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Thanks yaakov. Do you have any recommendations? |
yaakov2
Intermediate Member
Username: yaakov2
Post Number: 341
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 68.205.254.133
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Well, I know several good sites, like Judaism in general, language, holidays, etc. But, I'm not aware of a "Great Big Book of Everything (Jewish)". Tell you what, I'll put a few links up here and see if anything trips your trigger.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/index.htm?VI=420808060816
http://www.askmoses.com/
http://ohr.edu/
http://www.beingjewish.com/
http://www.jewfaq.org/
http://www.kashrut.com/
http://www.torah.org/
http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023
http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=0
http://www.jewish-food.org/catindex.htm
http://www.honestreporting.com/ |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3830
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 205.215.249.159
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Fantastic. Thanks again. This will be a big help. |
freedom43
Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 100
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Interesting reading here -- but talk about a thread that got way off topic. I realize it's old, but I wanted to address a few issues.
trsinheaven -- sounds like you've been listening to Paul Cameron -- an anti-gay "researcher" who has been discredited by every professional medical and psychological society.
On hate crimes, gay rights activists do not want to ban free speech with anti-hate crimes laws. The Supreme Court has already ruled that hate crimes laws are constitutional and do not violate the First Amendment/free speech. The federal statute they are trying to pass applies only to DEATH and BODILY INJURY. So, if the law passes, you can still say whatever hateful thing you want to about gays and still preach they are going to hell, etc., you just can't beat them up and kill them. Everyone should have a right to live free of violence.
But, the right-wing doesn't want any laws on the books for protections based on sexual orientation. They think it legitimizes same sex relationships. They say gays can change. If gays can change, then they don't need any protection. They also lie about what the hate crimes laws would do -- and use the issue as a political wedge and to bilk money out of their followers. That and the marriage issue.
As someone who tried the ex gay route, I can tell you it doesn't work-- and the "ex gay ministries" are a bunch of hooey from what I have read:
http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/index.html |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2495
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Yeah,
My born again friend is trying to set up a former Bob Jones University cultee with women. This guy is clearly gay, but still under the guilt of religion that he was born into. The new church feels that he can be "redeemed" so they try to set him up on dates or whatever.
Hopefully he won't end up getting some girl pregnant, and get guilted into marrying her, and living a miserable lie for the rest of his life.
Freedom43,
You will find many discreditted whackjob sources listed here as gospel truth. If it is written somewhere, it must be so. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.190.249.231
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
The problem with hate crime legislation is that you prosecute not the crime but what is going on in someones head and what they think. Once you go that route your the thought police and that is a slippery slope. Lets say someone gets in a fight, gets mad and says a racial slur because he is trying to hurt someone. Why is that a hate crime vs him using his fist alone? prosecute the guy for using his fist. How do you define hate? I consider a mugger mugging me a hate crime. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 614
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Amen to that 40 days,
Isn't all murder and assault a hate crime.
It seems the whole hate crime addition is totally stupid.
I do not know how the special category of hate crime can even be constitutional.
A crime is a crime. To add more years and severe punishment because someone assaults another because he hates them versus he hates them because he is white or whatever is still the same crime. The thought motive is hard to prove and totally irrelevant.
In any first degree murder it's all self centered hate. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 103
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Our court system ALREADY bases penalties on “what people think.” We do it all the time: manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, first, second degree murder. Federal hate crimes laws have been on the books for race, religion and national origin since the 1960s. Think of it in terms of “because of.” If someone – say James Byrd Jr. or Matthew Shepard – is killed simply “because of” race or sexual orientation, then it is a hate crime. And, I do believe hate crimes are different than other crimes. They are meant to send a message to an entire community of people and thus have a greater impact and can cause civil unrest. That’s why we have federal laws on the books already for some categories. For example, writing “Joe loves Suzy” on the overpass is vandalism and illegal. That is quite different from writing “Hitler was right” on the side of a synagogue. When James Byrd was dragged to death, it sent a message about what they do to “his kind” in Jasper, Texas.
I am not talking about penalty enhancement. The federal hate crime legislation that the gay community wants DOES NOT ENHANCE PENALTIES. It simply updates the law already on the books to include sexual orientation and allows federal assistance/prosecution if the state and local government does not or cannot (resources) take action. Most high profile murders like those cited above get a lot of attention and get prosecuted. I met both the Byrd family and the Shepard family. In the case of James Byrd, I learned that the locals received close to $800,000 of federal money to help with the prosecution. They could get the money and forensic and other help because race is already a covered category. At the same time, the police force in Laramie, Wyoming, sought and could not access any help from the feds. They ended up having to furlough five police officers to be able to scrape together the money to prosecute the Shepard case.
But, it’s really the cases you don’t hear about that illustrate the need for the legislation. You would be shocked at some of the bias that still exists in many places where people go out on Friday night looking for “f-gs” to bash – and the local police do nothing. I have actually talked to people who have gotten beaten up and when they reported it to the police, the response was: “well maybe if you weren’t hanging out at a place like that [a gay bar] you wouldn’t have gotten beaten up” or "had you been drinking?" They blame the victim. It’s shameful. I have also heard of straight people mistaken for gay who were beaten up. In one case, the guy hugged a male friend and left a restaurant. He got followed out, called anti-gay ephitets and was severely beaten which left him permanently blind in one eye. He reported the crime right away to the local police. The locals did nothing and finally said they didn't have the resources and suggested he contact the state. The state sent him to the FBI -- who sent him a form letter telling him they would love to help but since he was attacked for perceived sexual orientation -- and that is not covered under federal law-- their hands were tied. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
On constitutionality, if you are interested, the Anti-Defamation League website is a wonderful resource on the issue of hate crimes and discusses the relevant Supreme Court cases here:
http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/constitutionality.asp |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2499
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
What goes on in someones head is not at issue until they act on it.
Mugging someone is already illegal, but the mugger's motive is not to terrorize all members of a particular demographic. This is why we have hate crime laws, because hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. If you need this explained, you have lived a sheltered existence. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 617
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Increasing "Hate Crime" Punishment Violates American Principles
Generic penalties are more than sufficient}
In their book, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics (Oxford University Press), law professor James Jacobs and lawyer Kimberly Potter dissect and challenge the rationale for "hate crime" legislation. Here is some of what they have to say:
It is a serious mistake for the government to pursue the goal of seeking to identify and highlight the maximum possible amount of prejudice in the crime problem by counting as a hate crime every offense motivated in any degree by the offender's prejudice. This definition sweeps under the hate crime umbrella crimes involving low-intensity prejudices that bubble to the surface during ad hoc conflicts. The majority of hate crimes turn out to be fights involving epithets rather than "hard core" ideologically driven violence by people identified with extremist groups or causes.
Because the former are much more numerous than the latter, the numbers suggest a picture of American society as a conglomeration of clashing identity groups.
Defining the prejudice-motivated criminal as a group representative rather than as a lone outlaw transforms the social understanding of crime from aberrant and deviant behavior into the kind of sociopolitical conflict among broad social groupings that marks the current situation in the former Yugoslavia. . . .
Hate crime cannot be accurately counted because, given the ambiguous, subjective, and contentious concept of prejudice, it cannot be accurately defined.
Anything like an accurate accounting is also doomed by the difficulty of reliably determining the motivation of individual and group offenders.
The FBI's annual reports, produced pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, have been fragmentary, nonuniform, and distortive. They have shed much more heat than light. Clearly, they have not contributed to a more accurate understanding of crime, prejudice, or prejudice-motivated crime in American society; nor have these reports laid the basis for more effective law enforcement.
If anything, some journalists, advocacy groups, and academics have used this government-sponsored hate crime accounting system to create the false impression that the nation is experiencing an epidemic of prejudice-motivated crime of every kind. Then pundits and commentators claim that the statistics only represent the tip of the iceberg, that is, they indicate massive prejudice among the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Some writers find in the statistics evidence of an imminent race war. . . . |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 618
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
.......continued
Note:
Crimes motivated by hate invariably are not morally worse or lead to more severe consequences for victims than the same criminal act prompted by other motivations.
Of course, assassinations and firebombings rooted in prejudice and hate deserve the severest punishments, but so do all assassinations and firebombings.
Generic criminal and sentencing laws provide draconian penalties, including the death penalty in some jurisdictions, for murder, terrorism, and bombings. There is no need for, and sometimes no possibility of, more severe penalties when such terrible crimes are motivated by anti-Semitism, misogyny, or other prejudices. It certainly would be ironic if the consequence of the importation of the civil rights paradigm into criminal law was the execution of prejudiced murderers, some percentage of whom would be blacks and members of other minority groups.
Across-the-board sentence enhancement for hate crimes cannot be justified. The breadth of the definition of hate crime means that the typical hate crime will not be a neo-Nazi assassination of a civil rights worker but, more likely, a fight in a campground or on a basketball court involving the utterance of a racist, sexist, or other bigoted epithet.
Further, most crimes labeled as hate crime are committed by young people, a high percentage of them juveniles. *
To punish prejudiced offenders two or three times more severely than otherwise similarly situated offenders strains constitutional doctrine and violates principles of proportionality. Enhancing the criminal sentence because of the offender's prejudiced motivation is essentially punishing the offender for his beliefs and opinions.
While we have no doubt that holding and acting on negative stereotypes and prejudiced beliefs is wrong and ought to be condemned, punishing an offender whose crime traces to such views twice or three times more severely than his fellow otherwise-motivated colleague in crime is ........
disproportionate punishment and a violation of the First Amendment.
-- Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics, by James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, is in bookstores, and can be purchased from Oxford University Press.
* [Often, these young people are hardly older than juveniles. For example, in separate cases, two young men in their 20s, Matthew Marshall in Texas and Brian Swetnam in Maryland, are serving 10 years in prison for the "hate crime" of burning a piece of wood in the shape of a cross.] |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2501
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:01 pm: |
|
The American principle we should be protecting is looking out for those who can't defend themselves. In the '50s it was blacks. In the '80s it was gays. Whoever it is, should be protected against those that would seek to terrorize a group of people into hiding, or living as second class humans. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Geez -- is it my imagination or do others feel that trsrinheaven does a lot of cutting and pasting:
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1002/article/1199
I think FactNet discourages that. Try thinking and writing something on your own next time -- or at least paraphrasing. Cutting and pasting as you do seems lazy, at the very least. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.182.75.80
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Yeah I agree trsinheaven. I watch tv and the reports that hate crime legislation does not impose extra penalties??? How often do you hear something like: if convicted of a hate crime the person could be sentanced to 3 times the normal prison sentance or something like that? This happens all the time and they bring this up after a story about people fighting and an incidental racial slur is used and then they start talking about hate crime enhancement.
So let me get this straight I could be beaten within and inch of my life by a silent mugger but if another person is hurt far less by someone who uses a hateful slur then that perpetrator gets the hate crime book thrown at them far worse then the mugger that almost killed me?
Also hate crime charges are subjective and politically correct. There have been quite a few times where white people are attacked horrificly for racial reasons and the attacker has not been charged with a hate crime. In California there was a case where a transvestite young man had sex with some young working class kids and they found out that Gwen was a man and not a woman and like most teenagers they freaked out. They did kill this person in a rage. Instead of going after these kids under manslaughter or 2nd degree murder charges the prosecuters were talking about hate crime charges. Now sure charge these kids with a crime but??? See how subjective that is.
This hate crime legislation is a forerunner to the stifling of freedom of speech and it gives the prosecuters to much subjective wiggle room. Just the facts goes out the window. Look at what you see in Canada and Sweden where ministers have been told to not give their critical opinions on homosexuality because its considered hate speech.
Hey do you think someone would ever charge anti-abortion protesters with a hate crime or try to? They already went after them with RICO charges.
If you go down this road I could see guys like Michael Savage or Pat Buchannan being silenced because their speech is considered hateful and insites anti social bigoted behaviour. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 1:10 pm: |
|
40days40years -- for clarity, I was writing specifically only about the federal legislation. I am not that familiar with all the state laws, but I understand that many are penalty enhancement statutes. I personally don't have a problem with anything that helps law enforcement lock up perpetrators. And, I don't have a problem with using a hate crime statute to "send a message" that hate violence will not be tolerated by our society. (notice I say violence, not words). I do think many times the hate crimes enhancers are not used because they are too hard to prove. But, I say give law enforcement all the tools they need. If they want to use five statutes to lock up murderers and throw away the key, let them. And, for the record, most of the nation's major law enforcement organizations (including NOBLE -- black law enforcement officers) support hate crimes laws and expanding them to cover sexual orientation.
The U.S. will NEVER silence Pat Buchanan -- as long as we have the Constitution. Oh, that's right, the homophobes want to write discrimination into that too.
On Gwen Aruba (the transgendered woman). Sadly, we don't even keep statistics on how many transgendered people are murdered every year, but there are many. All too often, the defense uses the same lame excuse -- the "surprise" issue. Essentially, very homophobic men are attracted to a woman and when they find out the person is transgendered, they freak out and attack them in a rage. It's essentially the "gay panic" defense. The judge threw it out in the Matthew Shepard case. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 619
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 4:12 pm: |
|
freedom43,
You are pushing to lose your freedom with more stupid laws.
Why not comment on the excellent article the law professor and colleague wrote. I posted only a small portion. Instead of Whine, whine, and more whining.
You are neandrathal with that tired homophobe accusation every time someone sees how totally ridiculous not to mention dangerous that classifying homosexuals as a minority is.
Evident by the way you use the word you don't even know the definition of "homophobic". For all their destructive attributes as a result of their backward lifestyle we are not phobic or in fear of homosexual people at all.
Why do people who can't defend their position always wind up whining to hide their A D D and lack of substance and change the subject? This is public forum and posting a portion of an article is within decorum.
(More thought police?)
Try reading above the portion of the great article by the law professor. I posted my thinking all over the place.
So called special laws like these reek of totalitarianism, socialism, communism and restrictions of more freedoms.
Individual liberty in a free society is at stake.
This is just the beginning.
Will you be next to be locked up for spueing your hate?
Here is just the beginning of more government and special interests restricting freedoms.
If it is right for the state to criminalize one idea, it is right to criminalize any idea.
Consider the other precedent established by hate crime: that it is a crime to hate.
In a free society, hatred is not a crime. Those consumed by irrational hatred are free to act upon that hatred. There is only one prohibition: do not initiate force against another. and we already have laws to govern illegal acts FAIRLY not discriminately.
Hatred is an intense dislike of something. Hatred, like love, may be rational or irrational. If you love freedom, you hate enslavement. The hatred of those things which may destroy your values is perfectly rational. Such hatred is good.
Since the defining characteristic of hate is the intensity of your dislike of something, the campaign by the haters of hate is really an attempt to destroy your capacity for a passionate belief in anything, rendering you impotent to oppose them. Create a nation of sheep, individuals incapable of loving or hating anything, a nation of docile, pliable people and you have the kind easily manipulated by statists.
With the precedent of jail time for bad ideas and hate as a crime, socialist communists and their whiners and wimps will move with a vengeance against their enemies--those who love their freedom.
The use of "hate" will be selective. It may be a few years before journalists, writers--and you--are hauled off to jail for the crime of "hate," but it is coming as long as the precedents of hate crime are accepted and codified in law. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 112
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hate crimes laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the 60s, and so far, Chicken Little, the sky has not fallen in.
If I wanted to read or hear narrow minded rhetoric, I'd go back to the cult I came out of. Your cut and paste job of propaganda does not impress me. I have no fear of losing my freedoms because of the laws I propose. I have no intention of beating up or killing anyone despite how vehemently I might dislike them. If you bothered to read my post, you would know that I am only advocating laws dealing with death and bodily injury. If you can deny that people are being beaten up and killed because of race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation, then you need to pull your head out of the sand. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 622
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
freedom43,
Stop calling people homophobes and using this stupid word altogether.
No one but a few people are afraid of homosexuals. You sound like you are phobic about a number of groups. Lets get real.
You are neandrathal using that old lame and tired homophobe accusation every time someone sees how totally ridiculous not to mention dangerous that classifying homosexuals as a minority is.
Evident by the way you use the word you don't even know the definition of "homophobic". For all their destructive attributes as a result of their backward lifestyle we are not phobic or in fear of homosexual people at all.
We already have plenty of laws that make violence and even slander illegal.
Since there are so many ideas that show hate laws are prejudicial, totally stupid and unconstitutional I will deal with them indidually. Singling out one group above another is not democratic and infringes on peoples liberties in a truly free society.
These hate laws are prejudicial at the very least.
If it is right for the state to criminalize one idea, it is right to criminalize any idea.
Consider the other precedent established by hate crime: that it is a crime to hate.
In a free society, hatred is not a crime. Those consumed by irrational hatred are free to act upon that hatred. There is only one prohibition: do not initiate force against another. and we already have laws to govern illegal acts FAIRLY not discriminately. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2511
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Uh, you mean Neanderthal? If you're going to insult someone, at least spell check. Thank you. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.182.234.51
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 6:59 pm: |
|
One thing about hate crime legislation is it can be manipulated. The prosecutor says to the accused plead guilty or if you fight this I will charge you with a hate crime which is a triple penalty and I will throw away the key. Criminals should be punished for what they do not because they don't like this or that group.
If some messed up young skin head commits a crime against an elderly nun with brittle bones and this crime calls for a 2-1/2 year sentance then o.k but should he get 7 years if he does the same thing to a young person wearing a gay pride tee shirt? Keep in mind that when this messed up skinhead is attacking he will be saying verbally hateful offensive things to any victim he attacks.
Ofcourse there are time enhancements in many states if you belong to a gang or an organized crime group or use a gun....etc.
freedom43: discrimination is suppose to be illegal but it does not stop the people running the universities who actively attack bigoted behaviour from discriminating against political conservatives enmass across the country when it comes time to get hired or tenure. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 624
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 7:23 pm: |
|
freedom43,
Nothing like we have seen of the hate crime statutes with extra punishment like they passed in New York and elsewhere have been on the books until recently and unecessary. Read this great article. You are promoting bigotry and a loss of liberty. This is Communism and Naziism all over again.
What Makes A Crime Of Prejudice Worse Than Any Other Crime?
By Charley Reese
Passing ``hate-crime'' laws is a step toward (communism and) totalitarianism. There are several reasons such legislation is a bad idea.
First, to make a distinction between crimes based on motive is nonsense and an injustice. People who are victims of violence, vandalism or arson are equally injured whether the criminal's motives are greed, general malice or prejudice.
To punish a crime of prejudice more than an otherwise identical crime of greed or general malice is a slap in the face to the victims of ordinary criminals.
Second, so-called ``hate crimes'' are a minor percentage of crime, and the government shouldn't be wasting its time trying to make the problem larger than it is.
Third, hate-crime legislation is just laying the groundwork for hate-speech legislation, which, indeed, is already on the books in some states. This is one more step toward totalitarianism. This is a direct assault on free speech and should be vigorously opposed.
The First Amendment of the Constitution was not designed to protect safe or noncontroversial or politically correct speech or government-approved speech. Such speech needs no protection. You can speak of trivia and government- approved topics in a government-approved manner in any dictatorship in the world, current or past.
Remember that old Cold War joke in which an American tells a Russian, ``Look, I can stand out in front of the White House and call the president a warmonger, and nothing will happen to me. That's how free my country is.''
The Russian said, ``So what? So can I,'' and to prove it, he shouted, ``The American president is a warmonger.''
No matter how obnoxious or offensive we find certain speech, we must never consent to allowing the government to police it, for to police speech is to police thought, and that is the essence of the totalitarian philosophy.
And we have plenty of would-be totalitarians who are eager to brand as hate any speech that criticizes them or their sacred cows or just meets with their disapproval. In Canada and Germany it is considered hate speech to question even the details of the Holocaust. People in Germany have ended up in prison for doing nothing more than that. Since when does a fact of history need the police power of the state to protect it? No one who values liberty should ever allow a government to make it a crime to be wrong or to question the orthodox version of events.
Some people in this country seem to want to enjoy the privileges of the Communist Party as it was in the Soviet Union--to be completely immune from criticism and to make sure none of their ideas or policies, no matter how cockamamie, is questioned.
Hence the eagerness to brand all their critics, legitimate or otherwise, as peddlers of hate speech, and to push the government into criminalizing it.
A free society, if it's to remain free, must leave even genuine hate speech free to be combatted by reason and education. The alternative is to move toward totalitarianism, in which thinking the wrong thoughts can land you in prison or in front of a firing squad. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2512
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 8:03 pm: |
|
" People who are victims of violence, vandalism or arson are equally injured whether the criminal's motives are greed, general malice or prejudice. "
This is a false statement. Hate crimes are designed to terrorize and intimidate an entire group of people. A guy getting in a fight with his neighbor or at a bar is nothing like the Birmingham church bombings of the late '60s.
Seeking to protect minorities from the likes of the KKK is hardly creeping communism. And if evangelicals seek to incite violence upon gays, they should be punished as well. I think there is no danger of that - there has been no action taken against the most radical anti-gay group around- the nuts over at God hates F-gs, and Fred Phelps .
But speaking of free speech, the conservative regime in Washington DC, has recently upped the fines for people who use dirty words on TV to 500K dollars per offence. This all after the Janet Jackson boob episode.
Funny that this FCC initiative was initiated by letter writing campaigns by groups like the AFA , PTC, and other right wing nut job acronyms. Presumably groups who would like to protect their right to verbally assault gays. |
trsrinheaven
Advanced Member
Username: trsrinheaven
Post Number: 625
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 67.175.31.119
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 12:22 am: |
|
"How stupid can some people be and still breathe?"
So now you make ignorant statements calling right wing nut jobs. What about left wing nut jobs?
Hate crimes are designed to terrorize and intimidate an entire group of people. You are right "This is a false statement."
So called 'Hate crimes' have been prosecuted with one on one more times than any group.
The so called hate crime First, to make a distinction between crimes based on motive is nonsense and an injustice. People who are victims of violence, vandalism or arson are equally injured whether the criminal's motives are greed, general malice or prejudice. The amount of injury has laws already to cover every injury. To special case this and dole out stiffer penalty if totally in violation
To punish a crime of prejudice more than an otherwise identical crime of greed or general malice is a slap in the face to the victims of ordinary criminals.
Evangelicals care about everyone including gays so you don't ever have to worry about them. It's the non evangelicals that commit the so called violence against minorities.
You might have to worry about rednecks and the few fools.
the fines for people who use dirty words on TV to 500K dollars per offence?
GOOD.
Use some intelligence and vocabulary other than four letter words. Children have enough junk to deal with on the public airways, tv and elsewhere.
Any person or group including the kkk will be punished if they commit violence against anyone.
There are few attacks on gays. The lobby and media just report on them more.
There are more muggings in New York in a month than any violence in a year against gays in the whole United States. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 115
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 9:21 am: |
|
trsrinheaven -- finally I agree with you about something -- it does seem to be rednecks and fools committing most of what I consider to be hate crimes. Then there are a few people like Benjamin Smith, the white supremacist who went on a rampage shooting and killing any minority he laid eyes on in the summer of 1999. Or the ignorant people who reacted to 9/11 by killing Sikhs because they wear turbans.
Do you think there is a difference between spray painting "Joe Loves Suzy" on the side of the 7-11 and "Hitler was right" on the side of a synagogue?
Do you believe there is a difference between burning down your office building for insurance money and burning down a black church?
Do you think we should repeal all the hate crimes laws we already have on the books, including protections based on race?
Do you understand that all people, including majority religion Christians, are covered by hate crimes laws -- not just minorities? So, you are protected should someone attack you based on your religion.
Our judicial system looks at MOTIVE all the time in determining what charges to file, what penalities, etc. That is how it works. I don't understand how you are getting all hung up on that.
Let's use your mugging example, suppose you were mugged in NY one night in a certain area of town and your purse was taken. That is a random event. I think you'd think twice about going to that neighborhood again alone. You might not wear a purse, etc. On the other hand, suppose you were instead attacked because you were coming out of your church or someone saw you were wearing a cross or handing out tracts or heard you say God Bless You to someone and realized you were a Christian. Suppose they beat you for no reason while yelling "I hate you freakin' Christians -- this is what we do to Christians around here." Don't you think there is a difference? You can't change who you are. Well, you could change your religion, but I don't think you would. I think there is a big difference.
Sadly, as I have stated before, not all anti-gay violent hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted. See many examples in this list:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27103 |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 116
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
P.S. I noticed in one of your previous posts, I think the article, someone criticizing the use of a hate crime law to prosecute someone for burning a cross in someone's yard. Please tell me you see the difference between that and violating a county fire code for burning trash in your yard?
Ever hear of lynching? That's what a burning cross represents to many African-Americans in this nation. There are still folks around who remember what that was like. It strikes terror in their hearts. It's sickening and perverted to me that someone would make light of cross burning and refer to it as just "burning a piece of wood." |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 117
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
ihavesinned -- I appreciate your voice on this thread. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2513
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
Freedom,
People will go to any length to justify their bigotry. You will find trsinheaven will spam threads over and over with huge cut and pastes, and repeat the same phrases over and over. Discussion is really pointless.
I think I have posted this link before, but here it is, the FBI's 2004 hate crime statistics. It seems the majority of these attacks are still carried out against blacks.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2514
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Oh, and just so you know I'm not making up the thing about the right wing acronyms perfectly willing to limit other people's speech in order to use the T.V. as a babysitter:
http://www.parentstv.org/
These are the very people who took great pride in the fact that they got "Saving Private Ryan" banned from T.V. on Veteran's Day!
"Brent Bozell, Founder and President of the Parents Television Council and Executive Director, Tim Winter were at the White House Thursday, June 15, 2006 to witness President Bush signing the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, increasing fines from $32,500 per incident to $325,000 per incident. "
Good thing W has his priorities in order. We have no idea where Osama bin Laden is, but let's fine people for dirty words on t.v.
The scary part is that these FCC rules really got underway after Howard Stern began to criticize the Iraq war on his radio show, which had an audience of some 18 million morning listeners. His show had been on the air for some 24 years, and suddenly, the FCC decided it was indecent. Coincidence, or limiting of Constitutionally protected political speech? |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.182.75.84
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 2:42 am: |
|
ihavesinned, Hitlers first followers who were member of the SA were fanatical in their support of that man, huge numbers of transvestites, transexuals, homosexuals and criminals were right wing and loved Hitler. Your friends gave Hitler his wheels but he turned on Rohm or however you spell his name and went with his own program called the SS. Sorry but I live near the bay area and I see gay guys walking around with Nazi officer hats on their heads. It was the average american hetero Christian male that stopped the madness. DEAL WITH IT! You have freedom today because of them! How about a little thankfulness on your part. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.182.237.206
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 3:04 am: |
|
ihavesinned it sounds like you support the Howard Stern show? How noble of you. Now Howard is hetero but don't you think that is the show that represents your value system whether your gay or straight. Imagine people being offended by Howards antics on the air. 20 years after Howard what do we do for an encore? It does not matter it is all good for you. You are showing your true colors. Sorry freedom43 this shows the average man is right. |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 121
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 129.33.119.12
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
40days40years -- I am trying to understand your post. I was never friends with Hitler or his cronies and do not defend the actions of all people who ever have or will engage in same-sex sex. Just like, I am sure you are not prepared to defend the action of all heterosexuals -- say for example Charles Manson (sorry, that just popped into my head. I saw snippets of a news show recently on him -- I think it was the anniversary of the murders or something). There are good and bad people of all orientations.
Most people are heterosexual and therefore most people in the military are heterosexual -- including my father who served in the Navy at the end of WWII. But, there were and are gay servicemembers fighting along side those heterosxual men -- for exampe, the story of Frank Kameny, who fought his way across Germany with the U.S. Army in 1945. This booklet has his story and those of some other gay folks who served their country in the military, fighting in wars, etc:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Military2&CONTENTID=19340&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2521
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 11:36 am: |
|
40days,
I'm not sure where you're going with the Hitler remarks. Surely gays supported Hitler, but they were vastly outnumbered by the hetero Christians who supported him. I don't see the point.
BTW,
Howard Stern was just an example. All Americans should be concerned any time the governement stifles political speech, and this is clearly what happened in Stern's case. I think he was on the air for like 24 years before he made the deadly mistake of attacking the war in Iraq, then suddenly he was indecent.
The people at the FCC are not even elected officials, they are appointed without oversight- the previous guy was none other than Colin Powell's son.
My grandfather was one of the hetero christian males who fought for freedom in the Phillipines, and was abandoned to his fate by his government. He survived the Bataan death march, and three years of torture in a Japanese internment camp. Please don't tell me who to be thankful to. Of course, he didn't get religion until after the war...
I know better than most what it took, which is why I was shocked to the point of writing letters to the "Parents Television Council" when they had Saving Private Ryan pulled from the air on Veteran's Day. This was a story of what it took to stop Hitlers insanity and they were more concerned with "••••" and "••••" making it on the air where their fragile children might hear it. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1115
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 172.192.43.20
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Ihavesinned and freedom, kudos to your grandfathers and I know you don't support nazis. I threw what I said out there because usually when the buzz word "right wing" is thrown out there in the context of the American conservative movement it is not to long before someone starts equating them with nazis if the debate is around gay rights. Then when people talk about what Hitler did to attack gay people or squash freedom of speech there is and assumed similarity between a nazi and a conservative American that might not support gay marriage for instance. It was kind of a pre-emptive strike to address that point quickly and show that many Nazis especially from the early days embraced some very unorthodox lifestyles. Certainly your average heterosexual conservative would not want to be equated with Manson or the nazis.
In regards to Saving Private Ryan the movie was shown across most of the country. O.K the Parents Television Council went to far but I know some would have been offended by the language if they stumbled into the room when it was being played.
In regards to Howard Stern I am not so sure he would not have been in trouble anyway irregardless of Iraq. Howard kept on pushing it and the company kept on paying the fines. It does not surprise me that some would be offended at Howard when he would graphically detail the most bizarre fetishes out there on public airwaves or make fun of the retarded. The FCC felt that Howard had shown he won't stop at anything so they reeled him in, anyway he is laughing all the way to the bank. It does not really offend me that people took offense, have you ever heard his nastiest shows? ihs you may call that intolerant others might call it having standards, humans are pretty depraved in my opinion. One thing I am wrong about though is that Howard actually did represent a large block of average Americans.
I have been thinking about hate crimes which you can argue are caused by hate speech. Where do you balance freedom of speech with stopping violent crime? Christian ministers may oppose certain behaviour but they are not telling their congregations to go out and kill someone over it or bash them. The people doing the gay bashing don't even go to church is my bet. Now with the radical muslims it is differant their mullahs are teaching young muslims to hate even as small children and to go out and kill in many cases. An argument could be used to lock them up for insighting violence. I gotta think about that one. |
40days40years
Senior Member
Username: 40days40years
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.182.238.235
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Another thing ihavesinned, George Bush is not Bill Clinton it makes sense the Bush administration is going to get around to being stricter with Howard Stern then Bill Clinton would be for many obvious reasons. I believe Howard gave Bush the benefit of the doubt concerning Iraq for at least awhile. I tend to believe that Howard Stern would be on thin ice no matter what with Bush as prez.
Your FBI hate crime stats can be misleading I think. when it says black people are the biggest victims of hate crimes? I am sure that is true for the more obvert stuff like cross burnings...etc. but that report makes it look like black people are really being singled out for attacks. The thing is many more white people are attacked by black people then black people are attacked by white people when it comes to ordinary crime. There could be a lot of mugging victims chosen because they are white but it is not reported as a hate crime in that report. That is one reason why I think it is smart to just prosecute the crime. When I was mugged and severely beaten it certainly was'nt a love crime that took place and I was singled out individually so it was a hate crime against me. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2610
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Well,
here's another for the list, Congressman Mark Foley announced his resignation today after he was caught making "inappropriate" emails to a 15 year old male congressional page.
Of course, being a Republican from Florida, he voted against a bill allowing states to define marriage, and for the defense of marriage act.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNIP8121
Here is his voting record. Apparently this mother f-er was co-chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Can you believe that? |
freedom43
Intermediate Member
Username: freedom43
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2006
Posted From: 71.252.22.42
| | Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
The Foley situation is pretty sad/sick. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 24.241.6.246
| | Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
a homosexual person can be saved if they come to JESUS CHRIST and if they coome to HIM they will live right and forsake their homosexual ways. we do not persecute the homosexuals that may come in contact with us or our church but we do not allow them to serve as preachers or deacons or any office in the church if they are still doing homosexual acts. we do have blacks that come to our church who are as saved as us or anyone else for that matter and they are shown love and accepted pentecostal have for many years accepted other races in the church. i think nothing of it when a different race comes to our church we receive them. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2612
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.17.78.60
| | Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 1:09 am: |
|
It's not the homosexuality that bothers me, it's the hypocrisy. And the fact that the kid was 15.
Arron,
That's great that they even let blacks into your church, very magnanimous. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 24.241.6.246
| | Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
the 15 year old being sent a note or what ever by him that bothers me too and is unaceptable |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 2771
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 71.121.140.84
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Here's another one, what a surprise:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The Rev. Ted Haggard resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals on Thursday after being accused of paying a man for sex in monthly trysts over the past three years.
Haggard — an outspoken opponent of the drive for gay marriage — also stepped down as senior pastor at his 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation by a church panel, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
"I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity," Haggard said in a written statement. "I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance." |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 3050
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.22.199.176
| | Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Well,
It's been awhile - I suppose it was about time for another whopper of a fall from grace. Straight out of the Vatican this time...
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican said Saturday it has suspended a monsignor from a senior post at the Holy See after an Italian TV program using a hidden camera recorded him making advances to a young man and asserting that ••••••• was not sinful.
The Vatican did not identify the monsignor by name.
But Monsignor Tommaso Stenico confirmed in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that he had been suspended from his post at the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, an office which aims to ensure proper conduct by priests.
"Don't condemn me," Stenico said, adding that the program "was done fraudulently" because it used a hidden camera.
In the program on private Italian network La7, a man identified as a priest is heard saying that he "didn't feel he was sinning" by having sex with gay men. |
ihavesinned
Senior Member
Username: ihavesinned
Post Number: 3051
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 24.22.199.176
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 8:47 pm: |
|
God has spoken, (through U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett) and the God hates •••• people have been ordered to pay almost 11 million dollars! Funds far exceeding the "Westboro Baptist Churches" net worth.
I think we can all agree that this is a clear sign from God himself, that what these people have been up to is sick and wrong.
Amen. |
stillrecovering
Member
Username: stillrecovering
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 76.64.78.173
| | Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 12:52 am: |
|
Well, I agree it reeks of hypocrisy - but I don't blame Haggard and Stenico entirely for their actions. I'm not condoning their actions - but I'm not at all surprised. In my opinion, religious institutions are just as much to blame for imposing heterosexuality and/or lifelong celibacy on closeted homosexuals.
It's the "we love you but we hate your sin" garbage I find most hypocritical and infuriating. I don't think the GLBT community buys any of this insincere crap for a moment!
I understand people can be fired in the US because of their sexual orientation. I think that's absolutely disgusting! I thank God I live in a country where my life is valued, my rights are protected and through hard work and diligence, I can advance in my career. |
kingdavid
Intermediate Member
Username: kingdavid
Post Number: 165
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 68.18.33.95
| | Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 6:22 pm: |
|
http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/ghf.html |
|
