Dear Presiden Bush

“How am I to debate with someone who doesn't even know what they have said.

"If Christianity is based on the new Testament Only, then why does the Bible have the Old and New testament? Why not just the New?

Or why not only the chapters that "apply" to Christianity".

Why are Levicticus and some of the other "passe" books in the bible quoted from the pulpit of Christian Churches if they no longer apply?" - Redhawk

Then in response to my stating that The New Testament does not stand alone , you said

"I never said it did."

You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. You have a very basic misunderstanding of the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. The New Testament tells us how to apply the Old Testament. For instance see the Lord's own words (Matthew Chp. 5) The New Testament refers to the Old Testament throughout, constantly telling us of the relationship of our New Covenant through Christ, to God's earlier covenant with the Israelites. What you refer to as "picking and choosing" is what we are told to do in the New Testament, but it's not "picking and choosing" it's understanding what the Lord has told us is involved in his Covenant with us.”

“[Tommy Versetti] Dicks! You're all dicks! [/Tommy Versetti]”

“I didn't think this thread was about stealing cars.”

“;-)”

“JIHAD JESUS AND BUSH!”

“The President is a Christian, that is his faith, and like other people of various faiths it shapes his values and attitudes. Redhawk's use of scripture shows a very deep misunderstanding of Christianity and the Bible, if as I take it, His intent is to link the Presidents political positions to his faith. Please develop an understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments before the next time you start throwing quotes from Leviticus around in a Christian context."
Bison
02:01:11 PM
03/29/04



I have to run so here's the short version - Christ's death and resurrection represent a new covenant - the old rules don't necessarily apply."
Bison
02:13:23 PM
03/29/04


Some of you seem to have missed a word, you're free to read it again, or you can go back to remedial English.

the old rules don't necessarily apply."
bison
02:59:49 PM
03/29/04

***************

so at this point you are saying that "The Old Rules don't necessarily apply" referring to the Old testament and in context to talking about leviticus. So it can be safely stated that you are , in context, saying that Leviticus does not apply to christianaity because it is Old testament:

*************
I replied:
?For those who argue that Levictus doesn't apply any more because it's Old Testament"?

I seem to remember reading somewhere in the Old Testament (Exodus?) about 10 something, uh, hmm, Oh Yeh COMMANDMENTS!!

So do they no longer apply either?

Its All or None, or else it's "selective choosing" which indicates bias.

"Take what suits us and screw the rest"

Thats not Christian, Thats hypocritical!"
redhawk
11:53:23 AM

**************

You said:
""Redhawk, you implied that the difference between the applicablitity of Leviticus and the Ten Commandments to a Christian represented a "selective choosing" which was hypocritical."
Bison
11:33:21 AM
03/31/04
*******
What I said was:

"For those who argue that Levictus doesn't apply any more because it's Old Testament"

I seem to remeber reading somewhere in the Old Testament (Exodus?) about 10 something, uh, hmm, Oh Yeh COMMANDMENTS!!

So do they no longer apply either?

Its All or None, or else it's "selective choosing" which indicates bias.

"Take what suits us and screw the rest"

Thats not Christian, Thats hypocritical!"
redhawk
11:53:23 AM
03/30/04

Note the "Take what you like and leave the rest" statement.

***************************

Now you say that I am playing both sides of the coin.

I think the real problem is that you have an untenable position and do not know how to make your point.

At any rate you sound like Bush Screaming "Fuzzy Math, Fuzzy math" in the peresidential debates when he cound not explain why his figures for SS came to 4 billion when there was only 3 billion.

Actually I could argue your point much better then you can and this whole debate is no longer any fun.”

“Fuzzy math is exactly the analogy I was thinking of before I read your post. It's like try to argue with someone who continues to insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

But of course none of this explains why you used this thread to attach a religous argument to the Presidents stand on gay marriage, that the President has never used himself.”

“I’d be interested in knowing exactly where in the Jewish scriptures it says the law would pass away. Do the Jewish scriptures say that the covenant and the law are eternal (yes)? Did not Jesus himself say the law shall not change one single bit until heaven and earth passes away? Why is the "New Covenant" so different to christians than to Jews?”

“So, what is the foundation of GW's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? I say it's his christian faith, combined with his wanting to pander to the religious right. Otherwise, as a states-rights conservative, he would leave this issue to the states, (the majority of which already have laws on the books regarding marriage).
However, Jesus, who said nothing regarding homosexuality, stated that he came to "make all things new".”

“BTW, Bison, it looks to me like you are refusing to argue.”

“"Jesus, who said nothing regarding homosexuality"

I've already gone over this point.”

“Of course he is refusing to argue.

I have stated my views, backed them with intelligent and relevant commentary, pointed out with examples of his own words where he is contradicting himself and his only defense of his position is to try to tell me that I didn't mean what I said.

He quotes Matthew to show that the
the ren Commandments applies, yet in Jesus's words there are only six.

He has yet to give a substanive reason as to why the Ten Commandments would apply, but not levicticus. On the one hand he says that Christiananity is based on both the old and new testament and on the other hand he says that "The Old Rules don't apply". Then he has the nerve to say that I am using both sides of the coin, which I am not.

He fails to cut and paste any of my posts which contradict each other (because their aren't any), yet he acuses me of it. On the other habd I have shown using his own posts that his arguments are ambiguous.

So his only recourse is to tell us how much he knnows about the new testament witrhout actually using that knowledge to state his case. It;s the old "I'm christian so of course I'm right" argument.

I think that the more he has stated, the more hypocritical he has gotten which further advances the view that started this whole debate. Well not a debate really, I'm the ony one being relevant.”

“Once again I have been misquoted by Redhawk, that's why it's no longer useful to argue with you.”

“"But of course none of this explains why you used this thread to attach a religous argument to the Presidents stand on gay marriage, that the President has never used himself."
bison
06:30:11 AM"
04/06/04

Becasue it was meant to be humor you ninny.
My mistake was that I forgot that republicans cannot laugh at themselves.


Also if you read it, I never \said that Bush quoted leviticus. The point was if you want to base a constitutional amendment on Christian values, then what about all these other things? Can you justify punishing others for the sins which are presented in the bible?

See the problem here is that you never understood that you didn't have an argument, leave alone a defense.

It's called "selective hearing" or in this case "selective reading".
You have to be able to understand the question before you can answer it and so far you have not really understood what the point was.

It's useless for me to try to convince you because your mind is closed.

it's useless for you to continue becasue the more you talk, the weaker whatever point you are trying to make becomes.

I have been in some debates with some real smart people who really kicked my tail. I was able to respect the fact that either they were right or that they were better at making their point then I was.

Thats an ability you should work on acquiring.

Thats all I have to say about this subject. If you must have the last word, go ahead. it just strengthens my position”

“With all due respect it does appear as though everyone is overwhelming Bison. Just because he gets called out on the carpet does not mean he has to answer. His desire to argue something just might not be as great as ours. Does this mean he's a cop out? Does this mean he "loses" the argument somehow? No, not in the least. He can make a statement if he chooses to and if called on it he can answer or not.

Let's not make him out to be some sort of loser here.”

“So true, Nigal. Bison is free to play the game any time he chooses.
My point remains that GW is basing his support of a constitutional amendment on his religious views and his pandering to the religious right. From a strictly secular and constitutional view, there is no need for such an amendment and it is a waste of time and money.”

““My point remains that GW is basing his support of a constitutional amendment on his religious views and his pandering to the religious right.”

I feel it’s a matter of stopping a landslide in it’s tracks. If we do not define exactly what marriage is and recognize gay marriage then we will also have to open the door to everything else like fringe Mormons who have five wives, someone who wants to marry their niece/daughter/mother whatever. I’m not saying this is the whole reason but it is a huge factor.

It doesn’t really bother me one way or the other. The percentage of gays in America is so small (something like only 3%) that allowing gay marriage won’t have that big of an impact. It’s the fundie right that thinks G-d will reign down fire on us the second it is allowed.”

“Here's how this argument has gone.

We go outside and I point to the grass and say "you see Redhawk, the grass is green" and "Redhawk says no that is red." So I break out the color wheel and point out what green is and redhawk still says it's red.

At some point there's just no use in trying to explain it anymore. There are millions of Christians who understand how and why the Old Testament relates to the New Testament with regard to both the Ten Commandments and the rites and laws of Leviticus, it's not something that a lot of time needs to spent on trying to convince them of, because, based on the passages I've quoted, it's glaringly obvious. Why you can't understand it, I don't know.

"It's useless for me to try to convince you because your mind is closed."

I will continue to read and think on things you have to say Redhawk, although I usually dismiss anything said by anyone who uses this language. It a typical liberal slur used to convey the idea that you can only be open minded if you agree with what the "open minded" person is saying. It assumes that someone who does not agree with you, has not considered all sides of the argument, which is usually not the case.

I never said that you said Bush quoted Leviticus with regards to his stance on Gay Marriage. My point was that he has never quoted or even pointed to his religion at all in regards to the subject. Marriage isn't a uniquely Christian value, and to disregard the fact that the issue can be understood in a broader sociological context by placing the Presidents religous values front and center in the debate is... hmmm... how should I put this... (maybe if I was a liberal I would say "closed minded")”

“Nigal -
I've never considered there to be a winning or losing side in any type of debate that considers matters of faith, that judgement is best left to God.”

“"Nigal -
I've never considered there to be a winning or losing side in any type of debate that considers matters of faith, that judgement is best left to God."

True but some people just won't be happy until they hear the oh so sweet word they are looking for..."Uncle.".”

“Wow, Bison, I try to cut you some slack, but your last post makes Redhawk sound like something less than intelligent. Anyway, I don't think you are debating with as much skill as you need to convince me.
Nigal, if there are already laws against multiple marriage, in-law marriage marriage, animal marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment?”

“I understand that there are a huge number of people desiring to marry their sisters, cousins, uncles and pets. The only thing really holding back mass depravity is the law against homosexual marriage.”

“"Nigal, if there are already laws against multiple marriage, in-law marriage marriage, animal marriage, why do we need a constitutional amendment?"

Right. There are also laws against gay marraige. So why change one and not all? Why change any at all then?”

“Bison says:
"Once again I have been misquoted by Redhawk, that's why it's no longer useful to argue with you."

I say:
So those "misquotes" that I cut and pasted were made by another Bison?
They are from your posts.

I'm sorry. I realize that I am being unfair bringing up what you posted.

Bison says:
"We go outside and I point to the grass and say "you see Redhawk, the grass is green" and "Redhawk says no that is red." So I break out the color wheel and point out what green is and redhawk still says it's red."

Please cut and paste all the parts of the "color wheel". I fear that it was posted in white ink on white paper or else you are bs'ing.

I have used your words to prove my point.

I ask you to cut and paste mine to prove your allegations. Cut and paste your comments and my reply to them.

If you are unable to do that then I guess that your generalizations are just delusions of articulation.”

“"With all due respect it does appear as though everyone is overwhelming Bison. Just because he gets called out on the carpet does not mean he has to answer. His desire to argue something just might not be as great as ours. Does this mean he's a cop out? Does this mean he "loses" the argument somehow? No, not in the least. He can make a statement if he chooses to and if called on it he can answer or not.

Let's not make him out to be some sort of loser here."
Nigal
02:34:52 PM
04/06/04

As far as I am concerned, if you are unwilling to back up your words with proof, then you have no business commenting.

I think that I have addressed every issue that has been brought up by Bison intelligently amd taken the time to back my statements.

He then replies that either I don't understand the new testament, says that i am contradicting myself (without presenting the evidence of it)

I am not saying he is a loser, not trying to. I am arguing my points and would really like him to support his with some substance instead of allegations about what I have said or what I meant.

An argument without substance is not an argument.”

“But then again, you may be the only one argueing. That's all I'm saying.”

“i don't blame bison for not wanting to discuss things here. the main theme to off topic posts on this entire site seems to be a body can post liberal stuff for discussion and if conservative thought is offered it is wrong, wrong, wrong. swarms of people will come down and call you a blind stupid sheep.

why try and talk to people who have already decided you are wrong before you speak? even a dumb blind sheep can see there is no sense in it.”

“I'm becoming increasingly convinced that redhawk can't read.

"So those "misquotes" that I cut and pasted were made by another Bison?"

The very first quote in the previous post from you was not directly cut and pasted, anyone who goes back through the thread can see that it is not a direct quote.”

“Sounds like the conservatives around here are a little sensitive about all their ideas being proven wrong by recent experience. It’s always ugly when ideology meets reality.”

“thank you for proving the point violin.”

“Perhaps if the libs were literate they could make clearer points.”

“"i don't blame bison for not wanting to discuss things here. the main theme to off topic posts on this entire site seems to be a body can post liberal stuff for discussion and if conservative thought is offered it is wrong, wrong, wrong. swarms of people will come down and call you a blind stupid sheep."

And this is why the group that hangs here is so lopsided to the left. It's not a very friendly place if you have conservative values because any comment, no matter how small, gets attacked by the libs who are on a mission to prove themselves right. They get all lathered up and demand links to proof text and documentation for even the tiniest things.

I see a great deal of simularities between these types and the ultra fundimentalist christians. It is their religion.”

“"Nigal -
I've never considered there to be a winning or losing side in any type of debate that considers matters of faith, that judgement is best left to God."
bison
03:30:58 PM

Well for your sake you better hope God debates a lot better then you do
04/06/04”

“"I'm becoming increasingly convinced that redhawk can't read.

"So those "misquotes" that I cut and pasted were made by another Bison?"

The very first quote in the previous post from you was not directly cut and pasted, anyone who goes back through the thread can see that it is not a direct quote."
bison
06:37:30 AM
04/07/04

The quotes I cut and pasted have the date and time on them. Oeople cah look and see that they are in fact your posts.

As far as if I can read or not. Yes I rread in several languages including greek which the New Testament was written in.

I also Understand 14 different languages and I comprehend English very well.”

“well... there's your problem!”

“Just to show how ridiculous and hypocritical politics/religion can be:

Lynne Cheney is an excellent Author and has written many books for adults and children.

In 1981 she wrote a historical romance novel titled "Sisters".

The New American Library was planning to reprint Sisters, which features brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair.

Cheney did not know the re-issue was in the works until alerted by media inqueries.

The reissue has been cancelled because the wife of the Vice-President says "it is not her best work".

Now, I'm curious. Is the book any less readable today then it was 23 years ago?

Do the president and Vice-President feel that the book deals with immorality? If that is the case, why did Dick Cheney not talk his wife out of publishing the book in 1981?

I don't have a problem with the book or the author. I think Lynne Cheney is a wonderful author.

I just feel that to not let the book be reissued now because it is an election year, would indicate that the Cheneys are being hypocritical.”

“And this ranks as some sort of hypocritical scandle with you? Jeezus! Do you realize just how politiclly retarded your post was?

Maybe, just maybe the book sucked and it has nothing to do with it being an election year?”