Palin’s “Donated” Clothing Sitting In Trash Bags
In spite of the Republican promises to donate Sarah Palin’s expensively-bought clothing to charity, the $180,000 wardrobe is sitting in trash bags at RNC headquarters, reports NewMajority.
While Palin followed through on her promise to return her controversial wardrobe after the election, it seems the RNC has not followed through on its promise to give most of the clothes away.
When taken to task for not dressing like the soccer mom she purported to be, Palin said the clothes belonged to the RNC, not to her, and that they would be returned at the end of the campaign. The duds would be given to charity, and the clothing not worn would be returned to retailers, we were told.
The fact that the clothes have not been donated or publicly accounted for, however, has angered some big donors – who want to know exactly how their money was spent, and who are already enraged by the extravagant wardrobe figure. They say it’s time for the RNC to air its dirty laundry, if you will.
“Has the party not learned their lesson?” a source who raises significant funds for the party said in response to the news of the undonated clothing. “First they make a colossal mistake of judgment by even agreeing to squander the party’s resources on these clothes and then compound the error by failing to properly dispose of them. If they think donors are going to sit by and simply accept this they are mistaken.”
Did the RNC hope this would all go away after the campaign? This is the kind of mismanagement that got the country in trouble in the first place.
We are going to talk about clothes again?? Let’s talk about the cost of the inaugeration to the taxpayers, or how about the 12 million dollars that went to a bank in mass. (because barney frank thought it would be socially unacceptble to let that bank tank)only to find out the bank just bought a porsche for their execs, or let’s talk about bernie madoff and the other guy from Florida who has disappeared with other folk’s money.
But no, let’s talk about clothes again.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 am
I predict this post will have the most entries!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Please tell me this isn’t really a cover of VOGUE magazine… this is not an attractive pic at all.
Not at all.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Okay, checked it out online. Don’t know how I missed the original cover when it came out last year. But this is a HORRIBLE picture. If she’s going to show all that breast, why didn’t she throw fire to the wind and take off those glasses? She’s got nothing on Michelle Obama’s classy and sophisticated and sexy sense of style.
With that being said, I AM ticked they haven’t returned the clothes. She shouldn’t have said she was going to is she wasn’t going to follow through. And isn’t not doing what you say you’re going to do something the right likes to accuse the left of???
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
She does actually looks pretty good but I would bet that is someone they found who looks very much like Sarah Palin.Now as to the clothes,this is a story which I can understand why an Elitest,(Self Thought of at least),sort such as Alan Colmes would think was real important. All this proves is what kind of lowlifes most Liberals are anyway.What can you expect from Babykillers,who are as another post on here I noticed said are Immoral,Amoral,Godless,Trash.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Cheryl,
She returned them. It is the RNC that has not done their part.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Looks like Obama is killing civillians in Pakistan,killing babies in amerika [abortion], and stepping on whitey. Are there any white construction workers in America that are democrats? If there were there arn’t anymore! [they may NEED Palins clothes !
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Alan, you know, after that pricey inauguration that Blissful pointed out (which I don’t necessarily have a problem with…just the double standard) this doesn’t look like so much! Chicken feed!
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I propose – giving this story it’s due importance – that Alan travel to the closet where the clothing is stored and stay there to keep an eye on it for as long as it takes to make those’ wascally wepubwicans’ take them to the homeless…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hopefully, if this story goes away, certain RNC officals stand to make a killing selling these costly vestements, especially the used bits…
So could all of American, and you, Alan, please stop keeping such a close watch on this? Aren’t there starving babies in Africa and other unpleasant places to write about?
Thar’s gold in them thar’ duds!
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Carlotta said: All this proves is what kind of lowlifes most Liberals are anyway.What can you expect from Babykillers,who are as another post on here I noticed said are Immoral,Amoral,Godless,Trash.
Aw Carlotta. What would drive you to say such awful things about some of your fellow Americans? That is one of the most divisive comments I’ve ever heard here on Liberaland. How do you know that ALL liberals support abortion? “Oh the BABYKILLERS! These Immoral, Amoral, Godless pieces of trash!” Well, I’m Catholic. That puts me out of the Godless category. Abortion is necessary when the mother’s life is at risk, but Radical Neocons as yourself are so self-centered and ignorantly closed-minded that you just think every GD Liberal must be a “BABYKILLER.” With all due respect, Carlotta, your promotion of divisiveness in our nation is the most unpatriotic action a citizen can take.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I actually agree with Mr. Frosty in a way…why the heck are you posting on this, Alan? Right after Bush was elected (if I recall correctly) you were always telling conservatives that the Clinton years are over…Palin was through on November 3rd!
Let it go! The Messiah has been inaugurated! All our troubles are solved! ;)
P.S. I do have a crush on Palin, though…what a gal!
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Vegaslib, I will remind you that abortion to save the life of the mother isn’t ever necessary. Deliver the baby. If it’s too early to be compatible with life, that’s the way it goes.
Late-term (3rd trimester) abortion is scientifically, biologically, factually terminating a human life. Currently it’s legal but that doesn’t mean correct.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
flap said: Let it go! The Messiah has been inaugurated! All our troubles are solved! ;)
P.S. I do have a crush on Palin, though…what a gal!
Yea. Who cares about Palin, the other other The Messiah. Eheheheheh. Even though she IS eternally much better to look at than, as you would like to say, Hussein. THE Messiah. BO.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Pfft, I never called President Obama by his middle name. I couldn’t care less what his middle name is!!
I remember when Mark Steyn was subbing for Sean on H&C, when Obama was first on the radar in mid 2007 or so. Steyn called him “Bear-ick Oh-bamm-uh” and it pissed Bob Beckel off a little bit. I don’t think Steyn was intending to mispronounce it or be malicious but it was pretty dang funny.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
flap said: Vegaslib, I will remind you that abortion to save the life of the mother isn’t ever necessary. Deliver the baby. If it’s too early to be compatible with life, that’s the way it goes.
I haven’t done research on Abortion because I’m a Liberal who happens to think that it should be avoided at ALL costs, just like Torture or War. If you’re right and NO abortion will save the mother’s life, then I’ll agree with you and say that it probably should not be done. If somebody decides to though, then THEY did it. I will not embrace it, but I will not judge the individual that does. This is something were I think government might want to think to step out…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I figure the ‘legs’ on this embarrasing story can be calcualted mathematically…
Take the $400 from John Edward’s hairstlying bill, divide it into $180,000, and mutliply the rusult by the length of time the far-right harped on and on about Edwards…
…Sadly, it appears that you will be talking about this until some time early in March, 2112…
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
“I will not embrace it, but I will not judge the individual that does. This is something were I think government might want to think to step out”
Vegaslib, but you could have said the same thing about the slavery issue back before the Civil War. You honestly could. This is my position: 3rd trimester abortions as birth control should be completely banned, and allowed only in extreme cases medically when a baby is found for some reason to have a condition that is incompatible with life (like anencephaly, no brain).
I would agree that 2nd and 1st trimester abortions are hard to quantify. It is my opinion that it’s killing a life, and I’d say biological evidence backs me up during the 2nd trimester, but going back to the 1st trimester (when most abortions occur, like 75%+) it’s very murky.
But I would even say this: it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. That would allow more conservative states to outright ban it and more liberal states to outright keep it legal.
Liberals constantly talk about making sure science is taught properly in the classroom, i.e. evolution, and then conveniently forget about science when it infringes on abortion rights. 3rd trimester abortion is terminating a human life. That’s not really an opinion. The question is if that human life deserves rights or if the mother’s life trumps those rights. I strongly believe ALL innocent humans deserve the right to live.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Huh? Palin who? What is this story about? Is this just some publicity for the salvation army or something?
Sure, I agree, it’s a good idea to donate clothing you won’t be using anymore. Why does that lady in the picture have such a weird expression, anyway?
Happy Friday!
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Flap said: Vegaslib, but you could have said the same thing about the slavery issue back before the Civil War.
I don’t think the comparison to the two is viable if you’re refering to 1st term abortions. 2nd maybe. I don’t like 3rd term abortions at all, but IF they WILL save the mother’s life, then what has to be done has to be done. Only in that case would I probably agree with 3rd term, but you said that no abortion will save any mother. In that case I’d be completely against 3rd term.
A state by state basis might be a good idea, but I STILL think that this is one of the instances were government should step out, except for 3rd term…
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Hey, what’s up Um! Happy Friday!
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“” I strongly believe ALL innocent humans deserve the right to live.”"
How odd, coming from someone that supports an necessary war where 200,000 innocents have been killed?
Do you support state executions? There have been innocent people killed there too?
Do you support your police tasering unarmed non-compliant citizens? Dozens are killed that way too…
How about health care for your fellow citizens? Especially the poor and impoverished. Do you support THEIR right to live?
Do you support social safety net that allow the jobless and poor to feed their children nutricious food to prevent the obesity epidemic that now kills more Americans than smoking?
How about a tax on junk food?
It sometimes seems to me, Flap, that the ONLY humans that the far -right ‘cares’ about are the ones that are actually unborn fetuses.
Once they’re born they can rot for all many of you care…
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
. fade to black
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
So, one organization can spend a lot of money on what they want to; another can’t.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Frosty,
I don’t believe the 200,000 killed figure. Where did you get that?
State ececutions are acceptable for certain heinous crimes.
Tasering those unarmed, non-compliant citizens is the best and easiest way to bring them in. They can’t accuse officers of “police burtality” like so many do.
I don’t have a problem providing some health care to the poor and impoverished. It is the National Health care that is absolutely scary to me.
Social safety net to help needy feed nutricious meals. That one is funny to me and I’ll tell you why. The food stamp program does that now. The first of every month, if you are in the grocery, you will see many of these people shopping. Inside their shopping carts you will see potato chips, pop, candy, Hostess treats, pizza, doughnuts, Doritos, frozen tv dinners, ice cream, pies, and other assorted high fat items.
The only way that will work Frosty is if they can only buy high nutricious foods. What I mentioned above should be off limits.
You have the conservative views all wrong Frosty.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Mr. Frosty, I was talking about one specific issue. But, I’ll partially respond.
The war: I support certain types of killing during war. I admit that killing is going on. I may be evil for supporting it, but I admit it is occurring. Do you admit that late-term abortion takes a life?
Executions: I support capital punishment, but again I admit that killing is going on. I would be willing to get rid of capital punishment if need be. Do you admit that abortion takes a life?
Now, do you disagree with the FACT that an abortion in the 3rd trimester is terminating a human life? We’re talking science, here, not belief. A human life is being terminated. A birth canal should not convey humanity and rights.
Innocent human life should not be purposefully terminated. War, administered properly, does not purposefully terminate innocent human life. Capital punishment, administered properly, does not purposefully terminate innocent human life.
Late term abortion, and I would argue even further back, 100% of the time purposefully terminates innocent human life.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Vegaslib, we’re actually probably very close to being in agreement. If your side would agree to do something similar to (generally) banning 3rd trimester abortions then I’m telling you it would truly marginalize and make a lot of us conservatives look like unreasonable religious nuts. There’s no way of proving exactly when life is beginning, but by the 3rd trimester there’s no reasonable scientific doubt.
Oh, and if there were instances that would SAVE the life of the mother (everything I know about it tells me there are not), I would be for abortion in those circumstances.
But as it stands now, with many Democrats barely NOT supporting partial birth abortions, I think it makes your side more unreasonable and unwilling to budge on the issue.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Hey Frosty,
What Flap said. Abortion is the intentional, willful taking of a life.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Pino,
So, one organization can spend a lot of money on what they want to; another can’t.
From the story it sounds like the big republican donors are the ones who were irritated with bible spice’s spending spree.
I too think those donors wasted their money, whether Sarah and the dude were spending the cash on clothes or jetting around the country turning people against the republican party. I guess they have the right to whine about how their donations were spent though.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“” fade to black”‘
Lol, excellent ‘themic’ editorial vision, Craig.
perhaps i was being a little overly-dramatic, lol, but it DOES strike me as the height of hypocrisy the was the far-right is so vociferous in their defense of the ‘rights’ of the ‘un-born’, and not so much after-wards…
…I heard a theory, which I am not cynical enough to quite believe (yet), that it has a religioius base. If you believe, as all big “C” christians say they do, that we are all “born a sinner” (not, me thanks, but I’ve been workin’ on it)…then the only humans WITHOUT sin are the unborn!
To me, this is very creepy, but the Bishop that came up with it, was very sincere!
crazy.
And maybe THAT’S where this term “innocent human life” comes from? once you’re born, and luch has it that you’re an “Arab”, or a “Palestinian”, or “gay” or “poor” …than all of a sudden you’re no longer “innocent” in the eyes of these christians…
…Remember, ‘god’ killed the babies of Gomorrah as well as the adults that p**sed him off!
And hundereds of infant newborns died at the hand of Herod so that Jesus could escape to Egypt!
Hey, I wonder if HE ever felt guilty about that?
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Hey, this is going to irratate some liberals, but, what the hey.
I think Sarah Palin is a Great American!
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Yes. Sarah Palins IS a Great American! … And so is Bill Ayers! (;
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Why are we talking about abortion? This is about Sarah’s frackin clothes. Or the RNC’s clothes, whomever. Please don’t pick on little Sarah!!! You know that evil Barney Frank got us in a mess. Let talk about that money (RNC talking point) We can’t pick on little Sarah, but John Edward’s haircut is fair game. And on it goes………..Please…for the love of God……..Sarah….RNC clothes….just….go…away. And please, for the sake of our country, let’s make a pledge to get along and stop all of this ridiculous sniping that came in vogue, starting with the Clinton years. You know, those awful years of peace and prosperity.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“”The first of every month, if you are in the grocery, you will see many of these people shopping. Inside their shopping carts you will see potato chips, pop, candy, Hostess treats, pizza, doughnuts, Doritos, frozen tv dinners, ice cream, pies, and other assorted high fat items. “”
Because they’re cheaper, highly addictive, and promoted non-stop by our uber-capitalistic advertising culture.
Did you know that ‘junk foods, including “soda” are now banned in the UK from avertising during children’s shows, and at schools?
“”Now, do you disagree with the FACT that an abortion in the 3rd trimester is terminating a human life? We’re talking science, here, not belief. A human life is being terminated. A birth canal should not convey humanity and rights.
“terminating a ‘human life’…so?, did you miss the post where I gave you several examples of ‘terminating a human life’ that you likely not only agree with, but whole-heartedly support?
I don’t think there are many doctors, at least not in Canada, that abort 7-8 month fetuses…it’s a red-herring thrown in the bin by your religious leaders, most who don’t give a damn about ‘human’ life, really, they just want to hold onto their power and control of the female.
If they spent a fraction of the energy to care for the children ALREADY born, we could save the world!
This issue, along with anti-gay, takes up so much of the time of christians, it makes me sad…what a waste
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Frosty,
Let me correct you. We are all born into sin. Of course infants and babies are not sinners per say. We are all like you. We work on it. But there is a solution to fighting sin.
As a Christian I love all mankind. But also as a Christian I do not like the sinful nature of man, myself included. You have no choice what nationality you have, or your social status, or if true, what sexual orientation you are. But you have the choice not to murder or engage in immoral behavior such as the homosexual act.
Herod was an evil and jealous man. He assumed Jesus was a threat to his throne.
God weeps at every lost soul who does not accept His free gift of salvation. Sodom and Gonorrah were two evil ridden, sexual immoral cities that had no love for God. God saved Lot and his family, but could find no one in the cities who loved God.
God has and continues to give us heed that there are consequences to our choices we make. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah made their choice and suffered the consequences.
I don’t believe God feel guilty, but I do believe that He mourns the death of all who do not seek Him and accept His gift of salvation and eternal life.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“” You know, those awful years of peace and prosperity.”"
Lol, good point. Like the halcyon days of the 50s and 60s (for whites, anyway) caused by the most non-partisan congresses EVER, and mutual agreement that the equality and properity of the NEW DEAL had created harmony and oppurtunity in the US…
…and along came the neo-cons..
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Vegaslib,
How are you?
Ok. Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist. If he qualifies to be a “Great American” then Timothy McVeigh qualifies also.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
But you have the choice not to murder or engage in immoral behavior such as the homosexual act.
It isn’t for me to tell people how to interpret their holy texts, or what to believe.
But, really Willy – murder and homosexuality? I mean, murder is one of the top 10, not ‘engaging in homosexual acts’. If you really believe Jesus cares about homosexuality, shouldn’t you compare it to something on the level of using his name in vain or something? That would still be comparing it to one of the top 10 though…
Hmm.. Maybe compare it to wishing you had your neighbor’s new lawnmower? No, that would still be a top 10 sin.
I don’t know what it would make sense to compare it to, but to me – mentioning it in the same breath as murder comes across as a bit hysterical.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Willy,
Pretty good man. Just hangin. Yourself?
Well, I think the idea that Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist is subject to opinion. Tim McV killed. Bill Ayers did not. They did not have similar goals. They are nothing alike. If Bill Ayers had done what Tim McV did, he’d be dead. I’m sorry, but TMcV is does not qualify as a Great American.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Cara,
Frosty brought up the Gomorrah question. I was just giving him my thoughts on it as I believe.
I believe that to God a sin is a sin. Murder is a sin. Abortion is a sin. Practicing homosexuality is a sin. According to my Bible, which I take to heart, they are all sins that will condemn a person to Hell if they do not accept God’s free gift of salvation and turn away from such lifestyles. That is what I believe Cara.
The lawn mower thing. You haven’t seen my neighbors lawn mower. I think I’ll keep mine.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hey Alan, and all tyhe rest of you Girlymen,
Leave Sarah Palin alone! She’s not gonna be the President “in a heartbeat” so leave her alone!~ Brad
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Vegaslib,
I’m doing great. Thanks for asking.
Maybe Ayers didn’t kill anyone but he made a comment once that sometime innocents have to die in a revolution. Sounds like condoning murder for a cause to me. Whether he did it or not he is culpable since he advocated it.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hey Alan, and all the rest of you Girlymen,
Leave Sarah Palin alone! She’s not gonna be the President “in a heartbeat” so leave her alone!~ Brad
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
My sedements exactly Brad.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
LOL, glad you have a good lawnmower, Willy. To tell the truth, I miss having a lawn.
Yea, my understanding is that all the sins are bad news, and everyone commits some of them. There are some who question the translation of the one one word in the one book in the new testimate that maybe says something about homosexuality.
But anyway, I’m definitely not trying to change anyone’s religious beliefs. I sincerely appreciate your straightforwardness in stating yours, it is refreshing.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
You Girlymen cannot leave a good woman alone! Can you? Even though she will not be the President “in a heartbeat”, Ya’ all still hafta hound her like a Hound Dog in heat!
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“”Frosty,
I don’t believe the 200,000 killed figure. Where did you get that?”"
Well, I used a ‘low ball’ estimate that I thought even the most hawkish American would accept.
The lowest credible estimate is by an average of several non-partisan NGO and even conservative groups of around 150,000 (until early 2007), but these are DOCUMENTED deaths: “”Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents. “”
They range from 150,000 documented deaths (not including those from suicide, disease, accidents due to the physical destruction, etc etc)…
The higher-end estimate, which includes the hundereds of thousands that died later from massive injury, disease etc…comes from John’s Hopkins University, and the WHO, who both agree the final total as of the end of 2006 (early figures!! the tally is yet to be released!) was about 600,000.
What are YOU trying to tell us it is?
A buncha ‘bad guys’?
“We’re fighting them over there, so’s we don’t have to fight them over here..”
Good Lord man…
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Willy,
I believe that God has the ability to decide, individually, who will be condemned and who will not from each individual’s intent. I believe that if there is a homosexual out there that commits a homosexual act with no evil intent and has never heard of the Lord, then he is not able to be condemned to Eternal Damnation. I believe there to ALWAYS be evil intent with murder, therefore ANY murderer that has not sought redemption with the Lord or has not repented from that action, even if he/she knows NOT of the Lord, will be condemned.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Willy said: Maybe Ayers didn’t kill anyone but he made a comment once that sometime innocents have to die in a revolution. Sounds like condoning murder for a cause to me. Whether he did it or not he is culpable since he advocated it.
I don’t believe that he meant to condone murder. I simply think that he was saying that historically in revolutions innocents HAVE perished. That would be a true statement.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I notice that the subject of 3rd term abortion keeps on coming up. I do not know too many people (any actually) who are in favor of this option unless there is medical reason for it. And I live in super liberal Northern California. How common is it? How legal is it?
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Vegaslib,
I understant what you are saying but I do believe that just about every human being on earth, to some extent, has had the opportunity to hear about Jesus and his teachings. If any refuse to even want to hear, which many do in all walks of life. then because they haven’t heard the words and works of Jesus they are condemning themselves. Even the homosexual who does not want to hear and for that reason has never heard. Make sense?
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Alan,
You been getting ANY sun lately?
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Vegaslib,
Yes, that is true. In revolutions innocents have been killed. What I was referring to was that to say such a thing you are in a sense, giving the ok to kill innocents to get your point across. You are in a sense ligitimizing it, especially to some of the most radical elements working for your cause.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Is it just me or do you think it is kinda funny how we start out talking about Sarah Palin’s donated clothing and end up discussing such topics as Bill Ayers and religion?
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Well, how much is there to say about her clothes? It is pretty much a non issue. I doubt anyone but the folks who donated money, expecting it to be used for other purposes, honestly care much.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I’ll be back later. Gotta get a bite to eat.
Hey Frosty, I’ll try and get something really nutricious to eat. OK. By the way Frosty, can I borrow a few bucks to buy that nutricious food? lol :)
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“”God has and continues to give us heed that there are consequences to our choices we make. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah made their choice and suffered the consequences.”"
What a frightening and unjust way to have to live your life!
I am so glad that I am FREE from this tyrannical nonsense, and I suppose I should be more compassionate towards those of you that still live under this awful shadow!
There is no ‘god(s)’, he/she is NOT looking over your shoulder and writing down your name every time you lust, love, or come out ‘on top’ on a business deal (the American way!)…
To indoctrinate your children to feel this way is, IMO Child abuse, and must be stoppped. ..
Do you have ANY idea the damage done by this nonsensical belief that a supernatural being is peeking over your sgoulder and scowling with jealousy and rage?
Unlike UM CARA, I do not appreciate hearing biblical excuses for the evils that men do in the name of ‘god’, nor am I particularly ‘refreshed’ to hear about it: another example of UM CARA taking the easy road, IMO.
Willy, you say over and over that ”abortion’ is a sin…so therefore, according to the 2 or 3 bible verses that ‘kinda’ hint at ‘wasted seed’….must be masturbation, withdrawl (practiced in the OT/Talmud BTW, on sexual slave girls)) and even sex after menopause!
‘Sodomy’ and lying with men, is mentioned all of 3 times in the OT,, and even that is unclear due to revisions and translations… while the ‘evils of divorce’, is mentioned a hundred times!
Which do you REALLY would bother your ‘god(s)’ more?
I think, mayhaps, that you and your ‘christian’ brethren are often committing the sin of presuming to know the mind of God…and that, to me, is the worst of the worst ’sin’….
[fade, to black]
[roll thunder]
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“”By the way Frosty, can I borrow a few bucks to buy that nutricious food? lol :)”"
Sorry mate, as a crazy Canuck, all my income goes to tax, and towards subsidizing health care for the unpleasant, unwashed and lazy “least amongst us”….
;-)
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Willy said: If any refuse to even want to hear, which many do in all walks of life. then because they haven’t heard the words and works of Jesus they are condemning themselves. Even the homosexual who does not want to hear and for that reason has never heard. Make sense?
I can understand what you mean, but that wasn’t my point. Would you agree that God’s process of condemnation is probably greater than our capability to understand it? Would you agree that God has the capability to do as He pleases, including decide not to condemn a homosexual who has committed a homosexual act, but who does NOT believe that he/she has committed an act against God?
Willy said: giving the ok to kill innocents to get your point across. You are in a sense ligitimizing it, especially to some of the most radical elements working for your cause.
I still don’t believe that he was trying to say that killing innocents was ok. I agree that to a point Bill Ayer’s actions were radical, but don’t believe that he ever legitimized killing innocent civilians for his cause simply because he DIDN’T kill anyone or conspired to kill anyone. I believe that someone who is against unjust war, as he was, can qualify as a Great American.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Unlike UM CARA, I do not appreciate hearing biblical excuses for the evils that men do in the name of ‘god’, nor am I particularly ‘refreshed’ to hear about it: another example of UM CARA taking the easy road, IMO.
I’m comparing it to those who use pseudo intellectual mental masturbation exercises to show why they think homosexuality is wrong, as opposed to those who have the honesty to say it is for religious reasons.
I don’t, however, think it makes any sense (in case I gave that impression).
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Senhor Frostido,
I am curious where I am ‘taking the easy road’. I suppose it is in regards to saying God could use evolution as a mechanism for the creation of mankind? That’s not my original idea, that’s just an example I give of how a Southern Baptist biologist I know reconciles his belief system with science.
I’ve never stated what my ideas on god(s) may or may not be, other than to say that science doesn’t have anything to say one way or the other on it (other than I suppose to disprove certain specific literal religious beliefs, like lightening being weapons of Zeus…though I suppose Zeus could be using the properties of electricity and his omniscience to do his will…).
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Would that be a Kregg reference there Um? :)
I aggree it is refreshing to discuss gay issues without goats, trees, man/boy references being brought up.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
hehe, I concur.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Placefield said: “Would that be a Kregg reference there Um? :)”
I believe Um was referring to what BadMrFrosty said earlier, hence Senhor Frostido in Portuguese. Eheheheheh. See Um, I can understand some of the language. LOL.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“”I am curious where I am ‘taking the easy road’”"
By acknowledging that ANY ‘christian’ has the right to condemn 10% of the human population, as ’sinners’, that are ‘hell-bound’ and are ‘un-loved’, or if you will, an ‘abonimation’ in the eyes of the christian god…you are copping out.
As a free-thinking liberal, even one that often irks me with unecessary logic and fairness, I believe it is your duty, and even ‘privelege’ to toe the line and NEVER to admit that there is ANY ethical, moral, evolutionary or logical reason for a ‘christian’ to have such hatred and intolrance against his fellow man.
You know very well, UC, that the ‘bible is ‘filled’ with ancient laws regarding stonings, slavery ( the story of Lot is a great example of incest/sexual slavery!) ‘killing non-believers’ and truant sons…ETC ETC.
So we hear over and over again from christians that these old laws are ‘dated’ and no-longer ‘relevant’….EXCEPT when it comes to the 2 or 3 ‘nebulous’ lines concerning ‘homosexuality’…suddenly the bible is a fount of unchanging and un-comprimising TRUTH!
When you know as well as I do, that it is NOT.
And so to say that you are ‘refreshed’ to hear ignorance and blatant ‘cherry-picking’ of this higgle-piggle of ancient writings (to discriminate against gays) …is indeed the ” easy way out” a way out of not having to be “unpopular” with the far-right religious extremists that have infiltrated Liberalland with their intolarant, racist, homophobic, war-mongering, xenophobic “holier-than-thou” BS.
This is Liberalland, not Myspace….or some meet and greet site… X-(
You’re not foolin’ ole fRosTy, mate, no free-thinker could possibly be ‘refreshed’ by hearing this drivel…Once again the bible is wheeled out and thumped as the drum of hatred and personal bias…
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
No Frosty,
It is refreshing to just hear someone be honest about it rather then try and justify it logicaly.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“” other than to say that science doesn’t have anything to say one way or the other on (the existence of God)”"
that depends on what you define as God.
If you mean the ‘personal’ god of big “C” christianity’s God…the God that comes attached with the new earth, virgin births, miracles, resurections, ect etc…than science VERY much has something to say about it, e.g. ‘nonsense’
IF you mean the “Deist” God (like the founding fathers and other illuminaires of the first Age of Enlightenment)…which is simply the ‘impetus’ behind the creation, the laws of nature etc…then science is happy to accept that, for now…for lack of a better term…
…although VERY few “christians” would accept that their prayers don’t work (they don’t)…and if not, what’s the point of calling the universe and the laws contained within, “god”?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Whoa. Christians really do bug you, huh Bad?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Some do, indeed.
Especially the ones who profess to be free-thinking ‘liberals’, and then go on to say rubbish like THIS:
“I believe that God has the ability to decide, individually, who will be condemned and who will not from each individual’s intent”
Condemned to what, my friend?
I feel sorry for anyone that needs a supernatural being looking over their shoulder. and the threat of ‘hell’ (it feels ludicrous just to type this) to keep them from stealing and murdering..and, erm, not ‘lusting after your neighbour’s wife’ (or his new SUV/LCD TV/SPEEDBOAT, lol….how’s that working out for ya?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Crap. Wrote a long response to you, Frosty – but the SPAM filter ate it.
Basically, what Placefield said:
It is refreshing to just hear someone be honest about it rather then try and justify it logically.
(in one sentence, as opposed to my dissertation. in this case, the SPAM filter probably was right).
re:
the God that comes attached with the new earth, virgin births, miracles, resurections, ect etc…than science VERY much has something to say about it, e.g. ‘nonsense’
I dunno – that would be stuff outside the realm of physics and nature, so science can’t really test it to prove it or disprove it. The way I understand it, the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god, at least, gets to do whatever he wants, and isn’t bound by the Rules.
I don’t really get too wrapped up about it, to tell the truth. It seems like some atheists like to proselytize more than some of the most ardent evangelicals – proselytism in general kind of irritates me.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“god” indeed, lol
I’ve got a boat to work on in my garage, which is a far better use of my time than more discussions and warm fuzzy agreements on such a ridiculous concept…
have a good one
;-)
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Eheheheh. Relax Bad. I grew up in a super-Catholic family. Are you going to blame me for that one? I’m still under the belief that I can believe whatever the Hell it is I want to believe, as can you, that is what makes me a “free-thinker” in my opinion. If I choose to believe, I choose it by my free-thinking will and the moment I let your angry and colsed-mindedness affect my beliefs, that’s when I will cease to be a free-thinker.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Vegaslib,
God does have the ability, the right as our creator to decide to do with man whatever he so chooses. If He chooses to forgive and admit any uncomitted sinner He can do that. Our minds are so finite compared to God’s. We are not meant to completely understand God’s way. If we could understand completely God’s thinking and why He does things the way He does them, then that would put us on equal footing with God. He would no longer be the only God. We would all be like God. Am I making any sense? Sometimes I feel like I ramble on and never get to the point.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Vegaslib understands ole Frosty my friend.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Willy,
You make sense this time. More so than before. I’m glad you understand the concept that God is more complicated than ANY of us can understand, but here’s were I think we will differ: I also don’t think that one book can express accurately to a human being the intent that God has to any certain individual. At most, in my belief, it can give you an idea, but I don’t think ANY human being knows whether another human being can certainly be condemned for whatever action it is they have commited. I believe that your intent has a big role in your actions as well. Like I said: murder will ALWAYS have the EVIL intent of hurting someone, but I don’t know that I can say the same for a homosexual act.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
We’ll have to agree to dis-agree on the homosexual act issue, Vegaslib.
Great conversation.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Frosty,
“…although VERY few “christians” would accept that their prayers don’t work (they don’t)”
You know, I’m currently an atheist but I don’t agree that prayers do not work. I also believe ‘miracles’ can happen like cancer disappearing etc.. I started to touch on this in another thread with our creationist friend ‘Kregg’.
Basically, if you think about an outcome, it can actually influence the events producing the outcome. There is a wealth of scientific evidence to back this claim up. It’s a fascinating area of science and for the layman, I recommend the movie/book ‘What the *bleep*’ which explains this phenomenon a little.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Agree to disagree is good. Agreed that the conversation was a good one.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Oh come on, not the dumb clothes issue again.Yawn Yawn Yawn
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Clothes are the most important issue on Earth. If she did not wear them, liberals would probably go straight.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
More mother humpin mosse 8 days a week. Is Palin ADHD ?
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Something to think about,
What does this mean?
It is a prophetic promise concerning the future of humanity and its relationship with the redeemer, a redeemer who would be born into humanity with the purpose of providing atonement.
The future offspring would divide into two types, repentant, faithful believers who would desire a relationship with, and honor their God, and unrepentant, covetous, self-righteous, murderous, slanderous, proud, boastful, arrogant, deniers of God, who would rebel against Him.
We see both of these types within the first two births.
Why was Abel’s offering pleasing to God, and Cain’s offering unacceptable?
Because Abel sacrificed according to the instruction of God, a blood sacrifice to atone, (or cover over), for his sins, representing a substitutionary death, and Abel’s sacrifice was sincere in that he sacrificed his best animal, and this is why Abel’s sacrifice was pleasing to the Lord.
Cain’s sacrifice was unacceptable because he offered the fruit of his own labor, the result of his toiling in the field, the “works” of his own hands, the “sacrifice” that he himself decided to be acceptable, and it was offered grudgingly. Self-righteous is to pronounce your own goodness, and Cain self-righteously offers this unsuitable sacrifice to God.
And what’s of particular interest is the historic nature of blood sacrifice. The pagan cultures, globally have offered to their various gods human blood sacrifices, in an act reminiscent of what follows.
Am I my brother’s keeper?
This is classically misinterpreted as, “do I have an obligation to my brother?”
What this really is is a denial of guilt, while admitting the act, and Cain slyly poses it as a question.
Abel was a keeperof sheep.
God is seeking a confession, and Cain responds in typical human fashion, defiantly saying, “Have I not offered the blood you require? Who are you to tell me what is a suitable spilling of blood?” (sound familiar?)
So how does God respond to this first murder?
And God demonstrates His grace, His exceeding kindness, in that His desire is for Cain to repent, to turn from his pride and soften his heart, and to return to the Lord. The hand of the All Mighty grants time for the guilty to consider their ways and repent.
The purpose of the genealogies listed in scripture is to show the bible as an historical document, and not a book of fables.
And in the Gospel of Matthew we are again shown the genealogy so that we might believe in the promise of God and see that it has been fulfilled.
The enemy of God seeking to destroy the bloodline of the promised redeemer is the overarching narrative of the bible.
That indeed from a woman the savior would be born; her seed refers to the fact that it would be a miraculous virgin birth, without need of “knowing” a human male.
And so from a very old book we have the description of how we came to be and what happened along the way, and interestingly the God haters walk among us to this day.
Only the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.
Hi Willy.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
God will glorify Himself
Either thru the just punishment of the wicked
Or through the merciful saving of the guilty
The choice is freely given regardless.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I love the HYPOCRITE right wingers upset about the costs of the inagural. Obama’s cost 170 million, Bush 43’s second inagural cost 157 million. LOL
Or even worse, Ronald Reagan’s funeral cost the tax payers 80 MILLION!!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Daniel,
here’s some headlines for ya:
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”
“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”
“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”
Headlines Today:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million”
“Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”
“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”
“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”
Sounds like a bunch of petty idiots, kind of like the folks whining about Obama’s inauguration, eh?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The same ones who whined about Bush’s inaugeration are STILL whining about palin, all the while the inaugeration we just had tops them all.
Kinda hard to criticize either side when they are both guilty of spending far too much on something that should be for the people, instead of for the folks with the most money.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
The same ones who whined about Bush’s inaugeration are STILL whining about palin, all the while the inaugeration we just had tops them all.
Don’t know about that – I still think Palin is pretty horrible, and couldn’t care less how much Bush’s inauguration cost.
Maybe it’s not the same people. Maybe the world is a tiny bit more complicated than you think.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Alan – Yeah, I can’t stand the woman either. But please let’s just let Palin crawl back into the hole she crawled out of! I’m so sick of this woman.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I’d like to put my 2 cents in on Ms. Palin’s wardrobe. It’s extremely unlikely that anyone $$Paid for them, they were donated or given if you like, however, the media wants to refer to it in, dollars and cents Stores and designer do this on a regulars basis, it’s not only a tax right off for the giver but, in this case Ms. Palin, seeing she was from the wilds of Alaska, quite plainly,needed some new duds. So what? ( The Hollywood red carpet is littered with freebies(
Seeing the notoriety these clothes produced, may I suggest they go on the auction block…
A piece of history to the highest bidder.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:49 am
You know those clothes are going to lose alot of value getting all wrinkled up in garbage bags.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:27 am
It’s called Dry-Clean, unless they’ve tossed them to the curb, hope not.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Hell, I’ll take them and sell them to the highest bidder, all proceeds go to a good cause.
Perhaps, to feed the poor and hungry.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Place: Would that be a Kregg reference there Um? :)
I aggree it is refreshing to discuss gay issues without goats, trees, man/boy references being brought up.
K: Place, sorry you all missed the logic of the argument. Those references were used to represent other points along the sexuality spectrum. Its interesting how everyone feels free to discriminate at whatever point they choose along the spectrum of belief regarding sexual conduct while criticizing others for simply picking a different spot on that spectrum…
January 24th, 2009 at 1:42 am
My spectrum is Ms. Palins discarded wardrobe, Kregg and yes, I know you weren’t talking to me. What’s new Bud?
:)
January 24th, 2009 at 1:53 am
“”And so from a very old book we have the description of how we came to be and what happened along the way, and interestingly the God haters walk among us to this day.
Only the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.”"
You, sir, are IMO, mentally ill.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:07 am
I believe in my own deity, works for me!
January 24th, 2009 at 2:15 am
“”Only the fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.”"
Maybe so, TAPT, but I think that if we all live our lives as honestly, fairly and compassionately as we can, then your ‘god(s)’ will forgive us for not worshipping priests and pastors…or ‘tithing’, or being hateful and homophobic and xenophobic….In fact, ‘people’…as I type this, it seems obvious to me that people like YOU, who post BIBLICAL quotes, are commiting the worst ’sin’ of all! – PRIDE!
Who do YOU think you are to ‘know the mind of ‘god(s)’?
You are a great example of the self-righteousness and ridiculous ‘bible-humping’ that has driven the membership of the ‘christian’ church down by 150% in the last 40 years!
Good luck with that….
Posting stupid biblical quotes on Liberalland is the height of ignorance!
Here’s one for you, my friend:
“”You must kill those who worship another god”". Exodus 22:20
…better lock and load you ignorant prick!
January 24th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Snoop said: My spectrum is Ms. Palins discarded wardrobe, Kregg and yes, I know you weren’t talking to me. What’s new Bud?
K: Snoop, how’d you choose your screen name?
January 24th, 2009 at 2:58 am
My kitty cat I had for 16 yrs…still miss her. Bad vet pratices she would of lived to be an easy 20yrs..Calico!
I adopted female twin after 8 yrs :)
Meow
January 24th, 2009 at 3:05 am
A year ago, I love my babies, apparently so does my block.
January 24th, 2009 at 3:06 am
Yeah, lost two of my labs this last summer in one month. Ages 14 and 12…
January 24th, 2009 at 3:08 am
It sucks to lose a pet( she died in my arm, that’ll never go away) they love you, for who you are and not from some pre-conceived notion of who their God is…we should take lessons from them…don’t you think?
:)
January 24th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Snoop said: It sucks to lose a pet( she died in my arm, that’ll never go away) they love you, for who you are and not from some pre-conceived notion of who their God is…we should take lessons from them…don’t you think? :)
K: Snoop, Actually, I think a person who truly understands God and His love for his children will love you as unconditionally. The fact that people sometimes fail at unconditional love doesn’t mean that their God is faulty… ;-)
January 24th, 2009 at 3:25 am
The unasked question remains this. You CANNOT donate certain items of clothing, e.g. Todd’s silk boxer shorts. Any lingerie, brassieres, stockings, Trig’s baby clothes.
Given the choice between throwing them away or keeping them, what do you suppose happened to them?
Given the lavish amounts spent on exterior (donatable) clothing, one wouldn’t think they’d have stuck with Wal-Mart Fruit-O-The-Loom. THAT question needs to be asked.
And yes, it’s a legitimate news story. Sorry.
January 24th, 2009 at 3:41 am
I would never propose the underpinning that’s personal. The suits (most costly) coats, jewellerly, purses, even shoes, aren’t though. It’s done all the time.
As I’ve stated, put them up for auction… Ebay…???
I am going to disagree that she should of been clothed by Wal-mart, sorry. She was representing a primary political party and I don’t see anyone questioning McCain’s suit price. Quite ironic, that noone questions where Mc Cain’s suit came from. I’m sure his wife received tons of freebies herself seeing she’s one of the blue-bloods of America…
January 24th, 2009 at 4:05 am
That Mc Cain didn’t have to give back due to his connections, thanks.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Worshipping priests or pastors??
I worship God, I don’t know where you get the idea I worship my pastor.
I don’t hate homosexuals, disagreeing with a behavior does not mean that you hate the individual.
Ok, that’s an interesting thought, are you practicing this?
Have you ever considered that the most charitable and caring organizations that seek to provide humanitarian aid to places where it is desperately needed are big “C” Christian?
But by pointing this out, in defense of my faith, I’ll be labeled “self-righteous”.
John, if atheism and evolution is true then why do we need compassion? Wouldn’t the species be “better off” letting the weak and diseased and those who cannot survive die?
John, you know me. I have never proudly proclaimed my own goodness, I have in the past held myself up as an example of human failure.
Goodnight John, your friend trees
January 24th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Kregg,
I’ll simplify it, there is no faulty god, only faulty beings.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:17 am
John, if atheism and evolution is true then why do we need compassion? Wouldn’t the species be “better off” letting the weak and diseased and those who cannot survive die?
Dear Trees, one has nothing to with the other,being an atheist doesn’t mean you don’t have compassion, it just means you don’t believe in a man-made divinity, or such.( Sure this be open for debate, who cares:) (I’ll get to the 2nd part shortly) We mostly, unless your the hardest core cynical, believe in something other than ourselves. May I pose a question for you and ask where do you come up with that assumption? Who taught you, your thought? Were those people divine in your eyes, or Gods? Those same people that held up your holy bible, do you think truly that they were without their own sins….Sorry, God doesn’t work that way…don’t you know? I do mean that in the kindess way, trees.
As for species being “better off” it’s always been that way, you’re quite naive in your thinking on that point. It’s called the survival of the fittest and so it should be and it will continue to be that, for all of gods critters. Yes, they will die as planned. Do you know what animals do to their newborn,(not all) deformed, sickly young…they eat them and there’s a reason for that, it provides them with added nutrition, for the rest of their living off-springs.It also hides the scent of decay. You see trees, Mother Nature has a wonderful way of dealing with the weak and sickly , unlike humans who have to over-analize everything to death. And NO, I’m saying you should eat your young :)
BTW,wild hares have multiable nests…Hence, the old adage never keep all your eggs in one basket.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:41 am
oops>>>NOT eat your young typo.
peace
January 24th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Good post, Snoopy.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Wouldn’t the species be “better off” letting the weak and diseased and those who cannot survive die?
Those who ‘cannot survive’ do die.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Well, I guess I can answer a part at least about the God and Prayer Question, As far as Prayers being answered, I am sure that a bunch of liberals were praying for Barack Obama to win and he did so Prayers answered? And I know for sure that they were at least praying for McCain/Palin to loose and they did so Prayers answered? As far as believing in God, well a lot of liberals seem to regard the O as a sort of Messiah so they must believe in God also, this proves most of them a very confused they just do not believe in the Christian God,
January 24th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As far as believing in God, well a lot of liberals seem to regard the O as a sort of Messiah so they must believe in God also,
‘a lot of liberals’ do not think Obama is the Messiah, though plenty of conservatives label him as such. Generally conservatives who can’t stand him. Seem to be a lot of conservatives who don’t like the guy they think is the second coming of Jesus.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Have you ever considered that the most charitable and caring organizations that seek to provide humanitarian aid to places where it is desperately needed are big “C” Christian?
Maybe they are trying to offset some of the many atrocities that have been committed in His name?
January 24th, 2009 at 9:50 am
But a lot of right wing Christians believed the same about about Bush, as he himself said:
Bush said to James Robinson:
‘I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.’
Yikes! Talk about being confused!!
January 24th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Lefty,
I really don’t know your religious beliefs. I don’t know your faith, and I will be the last person to question your faith. But, I believe that God does talk to people. It may not be His voice. It may be through some action or sign. It might be something some child says to you. It could be a myriad of ways. What I am saying is the maybe George Bush did receive some sign or whatever from God. I will never question his integrity when it comes to what he said. According to my faith, God does and has in the past installed certain leaders to furfill His will.
I don’t think he is confused.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Come on Cara, I thought you knew better than that. You are saying that Christian organizations give to the lesser of us that they are only doing it to relieve their conscience? If you truly believe that than I am a little disappointed in you.
Christian groups give because Jesus taught us to give to those who are in need. Help the poor. Love your neighbor. And so on.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:00 am
You are saying that Christian organizations give to the lesser of us that they are only doing it to relieve their conscience
No Willy, I don’t really believe that. I was just reminding Trees that being Christian doesn’t make a person good any more than being an atheist makes a person bad.
It is what you do, how you treat people.
There are many Christian organizations around the world doing good things because they are good people, and have good people backing them.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
My point was in response to:
“As far as believing in God, well a lot of liberals seem to regard the O as a sort of Messiah so they must believe in God also, this proves most of them a very confused they just do not believe in the Christian God,”
Posted by carlotta
I personally don’t believe that God had any more to with Bush than anybody else.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:06 am
There are many Christian organizations around the world doing good things because they are good people, and have good people backing them.
Posted by Um Cara
This is true, as there are also Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and secular groups who do the same.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Saw a post somewhere on here about bringing all the terrorists over and let the liberals talk to them.I agree with that post only thing is lets put the liberals and the terrorists together in their on part of the country and see how long they can peacefully co-exist, LOL LOL LOL
January 24th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Carlotta,
And yet NOBODY has been a better friend to al Qaeda than the Bush administration!
January 24th, 2009 at 10:17 am
What I think of all of you..:-) everyone lacks a good sense of humor, not in a degrading way, but Lefty just showed it…sweet! It’s ok to just be able to say stupid unrelated things and not live in the we are going to pergatory any minute….Sshhhh, don’t wake Kregg or Frosty…lol
January 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Snoop said: I’ll simplify it, there is no faulty god, only faulty beings.
K: Exactly right. ;-)
January 24th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Boy, it seems very easy to stir up a Rabid,Godless,Liberal such as Frosty.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Or Lefty.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Previously: Have you ever considered that the most charitable and caring organizations that seek to provide humanitarian aid to places where it is desperately needed are big “C” Christian?
Um said: Maybe they are trying to offset some of the many atrocities that have been committed in His name?
K: UM, if they did not love why would they even worry about “the many atrocities that have been committed in His name”?
January 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Of course lefty seems to not know that Bush and Conservatives do not neccessarily coincide.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Cara, My faith is restored in you. lol You had me going there for a while. I am not disappointed in you. My apologies.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Mornin Kregg.. have a great day and talk later. I’m off to bed. “Yawn”.
:)
January 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
course lefty seems to not know that Bush and Conservatives do not neccessarily coincide.
Posted by carlotta
……………………………………
But you seem to assume that rabidness, Godlessness, liberals, and it seems ANYONE who is not your brand of conservative, “coincide”.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Negative,however if the shoe fits then by all means wear it then.However I was refferring to a specific type person,if you are not in that category then don’t be bothered.I am quite sure that all liberals do not fit that specific description which I gave,
January 24th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Willy said: “What I am saying is the maybe George Bush did receive some sign or whatever from God.”
I doubt that God would ever send a message to leader to go and bomb the country of another leader and kill people in such country. It is my understanding that the New Testament says turn the other cheek, but we hadn’t even been struck yet. In any case, I’m pretty sure that God would be against ANY war.
January 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
[...] Alan Colmes’ Liberaland » Blog Archive » Palin’s “Donated … [...]
January 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“God haters” as trees puts it walks among US. take a good look at that remark. Hmmmm where to begin? nah Im not feeding that animal. But I do have a good quote.
Atheist are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit… When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirizes the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting god, for he does not admit the existence of any such being.
-G. W. Foote
January 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“God has and continues to give us heed that there are consequences to our choices we make. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah made their choice and suffered the consequences”
You know, the whole problem God had with those cities was not HOMOSEXUALITY but rather giving in to LUST and leaving the women who could bare child without a man to build a family with for he was not just having gay sex but engaging in all manner of desires.
So basically if you want to use that story out the Bible as a justification for condemning homosexuality you have to condemn all lustful and non-procreation related sexual acts. Which is really the point the modern Christian seems to have missed as they rail against the ‘horrors of abnormal sexual behavior’ in that they never seem to be interested in promoting that message that lust and ‘being sexy’ is a path to sorrow and pain.
The response to this originally was about not being bound to traditions of the Bible being a relief. I can see this perspective but it is not mine. I deal is what I call Divine Truth and I don’t get it from the Bible or from Buddha or any outside source. So I don’t feel contained by continuing to study the Bible and religious works.
These ‘religious factions’ that spring up in the form of evangelicals usually are hurtful to me thus I start speaking out. Word to the wise: don’t ever share your religious views ever, ever, ever, no matter what.
I am a grand fool is the only reason I do it.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Eric well said brother
January 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Of course Palin’s clothes are sitting in trash bags. Conservatives are not used to doing charity and when the RNC said they would donate the clothes I had a inkling this would happen instead. They could promote a war or try to crush a union without blinking but when it comes to being a human being they have troubles.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Thanx Craig
Wow, 100+ comments. Haven’t seen this in a few weeks. If i had net @ home I’d make it 150+ comments!
January 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Eric, I went back and read my post of which you addressed above. I didn’t use Sodom and Gomorrah to condemn homosexuality.
I was in a discussion with Frosty and he brought up points that I was addressing. Namely the sinful nature of man. That man is born into sin and continue their sinful nature throughout life. I also said that sin can be forgiven through the free gift of salvation through Jesus. God offers us that opportunity every day.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Dear Snoopy, I am respectfully responding
I guess we could say it simply means they’re in denial. Paul addressed this in 2 Timothy 3:
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.
I don’t like to post only 1 verse, but if I post more the natives get restless. It seems they don’t like scripture, unless they’re using it to mock, and then they feel it their liberty to do so.
So you believe in a “higher power” but don’t feel that you should acknowledge or worship it?
I used to share this view, taking my life and the good things of this world for granted, and not acknowledging the being who provided it.
Snoopy, all human knowledge is contained within books, meaning it is stored and maintained by the written word. My beliefs were arrived at through reading the bible, the written word of God, and not thru mind control or indoctrination. I form my own opinions, and you do also. Human education is based on this principal.
In this country we have institutions of knowledge, schools and universities, and they are storehouses of the written word, with instructors who teach it. They are organized institutions, and who would say they are bad?
People often say “I don’t hate God, I hate organized religion, and organized religion is the problem”.
If we didn’t have an organization, a church, how long do you suppose it would be before this knowledge was lost?
The ancient Hebrew scribes meticulously kept this word of God on their scrolls, preserving it and teaching it, they were the first scholars, and the very fact that this ancient document exists is a miracle, its enemies have been trying to destroy it since the very beginning. Ownership of a bible was a death sentence for early believers, and I feel very fortunate that I can freely purchase and read one.
Oh, and by the way, most if not all of the college universities in this country and elsewhere were founded by Christians.
And at one time the bible was the textbook in elementary school classrooms, it was used to teach children to read.
Our country’s freedom was founded on the principal, allow men to freely read and exercise their religion.
Those same people that held up your holy bible
Any pastor worth listening to will hold up the bible, promise to read and interpret it within context, understanding the verse within the context of the paragraph, the paragraph as it relates to the chapter, the chapter as it relates to the book, and the book as it relates to the other books (there are 66 books contained within the bible), and encourage his listeners to read along with him, and ask that anyone who disagrees with the interpretation respectfully bring their disagreement to his attention.
do you think truly that they were without their own sins….
None of us are without sin Snoopy, it’s why we need forgiveness……..
Sorry, God doesn’t work that way…don’t you know?
Snoop, I don’t base my opinion of how God works on my feelings, the human heart is deceitful, even to itself. This inner deceit is the basis of “being in denial”.
I do mean that in the kindess way, trees.
Snoopy, if I lived next door to you and every morning I threw my garbage in your front yard, and then every afternoon when I saw you I apologized, but then the following morning I threw my garbage in your yard again after awhile you might begin to think I wasn’t sincere, wouldn’t you?
How would you feel if I threw garbage in your yard every day, never apologized, and denied that you even exist?
Snoop I was speaking specifically of humanity.
Why should we take care of the sick and the genetically inferior if it degrades the gene pool? Why should we spend resources on people who will never contribute to the upward “evolution” of the species? Why should we allow them to breed?
If there truly is no God, shouldn’t we be selectively breeding only the smartest, strongest, and fittest? What farmer purposely breeds inferior stock?
Ok, what about homosexuality? If an animal were to engage in homosexual behavior would you then point to it and say, “they do it so therefore we can too”?
Why is one behavior, homosexuality, ok and not the other, cannibalism?
And why does a liberal hold up one example to claim a behavior as normal and not the other?
January 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Because we aren’t idiots, and can see the difference between sexual behavior between two consenting adults and cannibalism.
I did make one comment to you, Trees, that I would like to apologize for. I won’t repeat it, but it was something I said in my last post to you, a couple months back, that I felt bad about and for which I would like to sincerely apologize.
It was uncalled for.
I’m sorry.
January 24th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Hi, um.
No apology necessary, how ya been.
I’ve got an important phone call, I’ll be back in a bit
January 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Hey um,
Please allow me to apologize to you for that previous post a ways back. It was not my intention to demonize an entire group of people based on the behavior of some. My posting was not directed at you, and I felt that if some posters wanted to “take the gloves off”, well, “ok”.
I am also sorry.
sincerely, your friend trees
January 24th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Trees,
I posted this to Willy a different day about homosexuals. I’d like to see if you would consider it:
Would you agree that God’s process of condemnation is probably greater than our capability to understand it? Would you agree that God has the capability to do as He pleases, including decide not to condemn a homosexual who has committed a homosexual act, but who does NOT believe that he/she has committed an act against God?
January 24th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Trees,
You know I was going to resist engaging in this as I don’t believe you cannot have a constructive debate where one party is using theological reason and the other scientific (and I’m not being insulting when I state that)..
However:
“Why should we take care of the sick and the genetically inferior if it degrades the gene pool?”
To give you the biological answer here.. It is actually very common for animals to look after the sick and needy (e.g crocodile mothers carry their eggs in their teeth and lots of other examples like that). However, one characteristic that is particularly unique about humans is their intelligence and how important intelligence is to their survival versus physical characteristics.
For example, killing Prof Stephen Hawking because he has motor neurone disease would not be good for our species.. Therefore, judging a ‘weak’ person based on strength etc is a facile argument.
In fact, even other genes that are ‘weak’ like the sickle-cell anaemia gene, actually provide an advantage in other situations so generally speaking, it is in our best genetic interests to keep the gene-pool as wide as possible to keep the species powerful.
However, this raises a question which always gets ‘interesting’ when posed to those believing in the strict genealogy as specified the bible (i.e that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve).
Namely that the process of ‘inbreeding’ makes it biologically impossible for humans to survive from just two progenitors. Furthermore, even if somehow we had managed to resist sterility throughout 1000’s of years, the genetic damage would be so severe that we should all be ‘morons’ by now.
The usual response I see to this from Christians believing in the Adam and Eve literal concept is that ‘Gods hand’ guided the early generations. However, if thats the case, apart from being illogical and undocumented, why did he see fit to change the laws of biology afterwards and if he’s perfect why couldn’t he of created one scientific process in the first place which didn’t need ‘changing’ later on?
If you don’t believe literally in Adam and Eve then feel free to ignore the latter argument.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Hi Lee,
Actually I believe it’s more along these lines,
After God completed His creation it was “very good”.
After the fall, as a result of sin, death enters the world.
“In the day that you eat of it you will surely die”
However God doesn’t say that this death would be immediate, only that it would be certain, the immediate consequence was a type of death, a spiritual death which is to be separated from the direct presence of God, and this is followed by the inevitable physical death. I believe God fulfills His promises, all of them.
And so the first humans didn’t suffer from genetic maladies during what we would call inbreeding because their genes were more pure, and with the passage of time the genetic material became more flawed, they hadn’t suffered the accumulated defects or degradation from existing in a fallen world whereas we do because they were closer to the event of creation when God ceased activity.
The world was more perfect at one time than it is currently, and the creation is “wearing out like a garment”
This would also explain why a brother marrying his sister and reproducing is not a problem until many generations later, and then forbidden, and interestingly this is supported by scripture, it’s why it’s not condemned until Moses codifies it into law, although fallen humans continue to practice incest, even up until today.
What’s also interesting is the discovery of pseudo genes, genes that don’t have a discernible purpose, and appear to be something similar to genetic “noise”, maybe the result of repeated copying or the slow degrading of information over time?
January 25th, 2009 at 2:49 am
The difference is these crocodile eggs are healthy, I believe the animal kingdom is actually pretty savage in regards to sick and needy creatures.
January 25th, 2009 at 2:56 am
No that would make God’s judgment unfair. We are able to understand His law.
Now there are exceptions I believe, the mentally impaired for example, and God does indeed know who they are and is merciful because they lack the ability, or in the case of children the maturity, to understand completely. He states that He judges individually, and ultimately His judgment is His decision.
I feel for the plight of the homosexual Vegas, I really do. I’m not against homosexual marriage because I hate gays.
January 25th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Hi Trees,
“Actually I believe it’s more along these lines,”
“And so the first humans didn’t suffer from genetic maladies during what we would call inbreeding because their genes were more pure”
Ok, I credit you with trying to give a better description than simply ‘Gods hand’ although its basically the same premise except you are stating that in successive generations our genetic material is tainted with more sin and thus more prone to genetic irregularities.
In the world of science, it is understood that the genetic mutation rate is generally increasing. However, its a double-edged sword in that as many of the mutations are beneficial versus detrimental so stating we have ‘degraded’ is a stretch to say the least. In addition, there are many examples where scientists have compared current dna to that of samples several thousand years ago and there is no evidence that the folks of thousands of years ago could more easily inbreed than today.
The point with the crocodile was missed.. The egg is a helpless offspring and it would not be a successful genetic trait for the crocodile to want to eat the offspring while they are eggs. I then explained that in the case of humans we are different to most animals because of our intelligence. We do not simply rely on physical attributes to survive but in fact, intelligence has proven a greater asset. ‘Compassion’ and good morals are naturally desirable traits to ensure a wide gene-pool and more successful species. There is no need for a God to instill these..
Finally ‘pseudo-genes’.. Well here is a good example of why I often don’t bother with this kind of debate. Instead of finding specific evidence to dispute a theory, theologians simply try to find any part of the theory which has not yet been explained and therefore claim that this is evidence the theory is wrong (and God is responsible etc)..
In another discussion, I described to Kregg how Isaac Newton mistakenly believed God’s hand must have formed the solar system because of the incredible ‘regularity’ of the planetary orbits and the fact that ‘for no explanable reason’ they all went in the same direction.
In his case, he just needed some new scientists/mathematicians to come along and explain it (i.e Kant/Laplace). It’s no different here..
January 25th, 2009 at 6:02 am
Hi lee,
I am unaware of any “beneficial mutations” in regards to humans, genetically speaking.
I think we do see a very large number of mutations of a very harmful variety, that we call cancer.
It’s a condition that’s generally believed to be caused by chronic inflammation, and that produces unregulated, run away cell growth.
This runaway cell growth has never resulted in the growing of healthy tissue, has never produced a new organ with a new function, and has always strangled and destroyed the healthy organs in its vicinity resulting in the death of the unfortunate cancer patient.
When it metastases it spreads to almost every organ in the body.
As our world continues to plummet into its fallen dilemma we see the incidence of cancer increase, which maybe is something to consider?
January 26th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Hmm. Kinda what I meant.
Let me try and explain a little further.
After the fall God removed His immediate sustaining presence, in other words He withdrew. God describes Himself as a type of purifying fire that incinerates sinful creatures, and that we cannot stand before Him in all of His glory in our present fallen state. Thus the degrading of matter is caused by sin, and is exacerbated by the inability to remain within close proximity to its Creator, and so over time the situation worsens.
When God entered into the world in the flesh of Christ Jesus, the creation was shielded by this encasing of flesh, and He interacted with us while God the Father remained outside of the physical universe. In the scriptures it refers to Christ in heaven as being seated at the right hand of the Father, and when it speaks about Him returning to Judge it, it says He will return with all power and authority, so I interpret this to mean that the Father will be returning with Him.
The Godhead is a mystery that is something we struggle to comprehend. I have heard it described thusly, we can apprehend it but not fully comprehend it.
I sometimes describe the concept of three being one as such, time is three parts, past present and future, matter exists in three dimensions, and man is created in His image, mind, body, and soul.
His moral law consists of Ten Commandments, divided into two sets of five, one tablet for each hand.
Four apply to our relationship with Him, one applies to our parents who are His appointed representatives, and five apply to our relationship with our siblings.
These Commandments outline for us a way in which to live in harmony, but as fallen beings we cannot keep them. The moral law was given to show us who we are, it’s a kind of mirror. When we turn it toward our creator it reflects is holy and righteous nature, and when we peer into it and examine ourselves it reflects our sin stained countenance.
We are made in His image, one tablet for each hand, and the promise is for those who put their faith in Him and believe, that we will someday be as He is. He will perfect those who desire Him to do so.
Have a good night Lee, your friend trees
January 26th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Hi Trees,
“I am unaware of any “beneficial mutations” in regards to humans, genetically speaking.”
Well most (95% or so) are considered ‘neutral’ and the rest a mixture of beneficial/harmful. But to give you a few specific human examples of beneficial:
Resistance to Atherosclerosis, Immunity to HIV, ‘Lactose tolerance’ as well as sickle-cell anaemia (but this can be negative too obviously)
As for your cancer hypothesis.. Firstly, I would like to state that I do think you are intelligent and I don’t mean to disrespect you here but your explanation here is very simplistic and highly flawed.
There are very few cancers which are caused by faulty genes and certainly no evidence that in these cases the ‘faulty gene’ is more prevalent than it was 1000 years ago. Most cancers are caused by the changes in our diet and lifestyles (e.g smoking, urbanization etc).
This is borne out by looking at say people from Okinawa who have very long lifespans and rarely suffer from cancer/heart disease etc.. Their diet is very simple food such as fish, vegetables and fruit and they don’t have many big industries like western countries. Now, are you trying to seriously state that people in Okinawa have less of a legacy of ’sin’ than others?
January 26th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hi Lee,
Ok. let’s address this;
And so people who choose to live deliberately sinful lives have more of a sin legacy, and that would be the implication.
I think it’s a bit of a mischaracterization in that it fails to address accountability.
Lee we all have an inherited sinful condition, and if we give ourselves over to it completely, then we suffer to a greater degree and experience a shorter lifespan.
Engage in adultery and you may find yourself the victim of a jealous spouse.
Bullets kill just as surely as health problems from gluttony and a poor diet do.
Jesus said, “I come that you might have life and have it more abundantly.”
I interpret this to mean that His desire for us is to live in accordance to the way He designed us to live, and to have eternal life.
Sin has consequences.
And let’s revisit this for a minute.
You only accept half of the genesis account because of a preformed bias against its reliability.
You’re assumption seems to be that Adam and Eve would have had a very limited number of first generation offspring because you discount a hundreds of years long lifespan.
I believe that the population pool for the very early humans would have been extremely large due to the fact that the first parents, and their subsequent offspring lived hundreds of years, have you considered this?
Most people believe the bible to be in error because they personally have never witnessed a lifespan of such duration, but this doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, only that you didn’t see it.
Scientists studying the genetic code that regulates growth rates and longevity have been recently excited by the location of “genetic switches” that determine the lifespan of a creature. It’s their belief that a beings lifespan is regulated by the settings of these switches and they are hoping to learn how to manipulate them and vastly increase individual human life spans.
And so life and the duration of it are determined by the Master Designer?
Things to think about.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Trees,
“Lee we all have an inherited sinful condition, and if we give ourselves over to it completely, then we suffer to a greater degree and experience a shorter lifespan.”
Hmm, previously you stated that you believed the genetic mutations were due to a kind of ‘wearing out’ of the material. However, now you seem to be implying that the material itself does not possess a certain amount of ’sin’ but that the sin is somehow universal, right, like oxygen in the air?
Furthermore, you’ve not really addressed why Okinawan’s have a longer lifespan? For example, very few even believe in a Christian god, and there is no evidence they have better morals than say you or I. The key difference is simply their diet? Shouldn’t the fact they are largely a godless people (and thus extremely sinful) outweigh this?
Then there is your arguments about ‘adultery’ as a sin that implies shorter human lifespan. Do you have any statistical evidence to back this up? Do you really think that most victims of adultery resort to murder? This is a highly illogical assertion..
What about proponents of fraud, embezzlement and other so called ‘white collar’ crimes? Why do they not have markedly shorter lifespans?
And I guess the biggest question of all here (the logical conclusion), why is there no evidence that atheists or non monotheistic believers, have shorter lifespans than Christians/Muslims/Jews who devoutly believe in the one god?
January 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
As pleasant and well-spoken as this Trees poster is, there seems little or no point in joining a ‘debate’ that pits a theological explanation of our world against a scientific one. Why cannot it be enough to allow science and religion to co-exist without one needed to inform the other? They will have to if religion is to continue to be relevant. If I was a church-going type, I would be far more concerned with attracting members with the good news of the bible, and about not scaring away an increasingly educated and informed youth with a set of arguements that grows thinner and weaker every day.
Especially this Theist Evolution; this new angle of allowing a 4 billion year-old earth, and allowing that God used genes/evolution as His tools? Really, it seems more like a painful (and slightly embarrasing) death-throw of a dying type of religion, e.g. fundamentalism. I’m pretty sure that the important messages of Jesus Christ’s teachings and life can be celebrated without having the Bible compete with science and history.
Does no-one understand how damaging this is to today’s church? It is dividing us like never before, with neither side about to give in, and yet it doesn’t have to be this way.
Teach the morality and love from the bible, but allow that it is, of course, largely metaphorical, and watch the flocks return. Personally, I think the sin of pride is at play here. Many theologians and priests can’t seem to bear the thought of having to back down from the fundamentalist positions they were trained in, and have been espousing. They would have to admit they were, at least in part, wrong about the bible being some “perfect” book.
On the other hand, many are doing so, and are focusing less on miracles, heaven and hell, and Jesus-as-divine, and spending more time teaching against racism, bigotry and hatred…
I wish those churches the best of luck in spreading the IMPORTANT message of Christianity, love…
January 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am