archie bunker Loc: Texas

Bless your heart....😩

Airforceone

Typical response for accepting child abuse why not comment on what’s not true. I only used his words.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Af1, isn’t it something that you ask an honest question, framing it in such a way that is easy to understand, limiting it to a comparison between Trumpet and Roy “I only date high school girls” Moore, and the GOPTPers can only respond with insults and deflections away from the subject at hand. Instead of replying with verifiable facts related to the subject matter, they interject irrelevant innuendo and outright lies that have ZERO bearing on anything except an obvious effort to change the subject away from the shameful behaviors of both Trumpet and Roy Moore.

Although I’ve lived in Tennessees for the past 20 years, I spent 25 years growing-up in Alabama (1964-1989). During my time in Alabama and then in Tennessee, I followed the careers of many of the Alabama and Tennessee career politicians, from George Corley Wallace and Ray Blanton to present. So, I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the political history of both states and what drives the voters. That so many people, who don’t have any connection to Alabama, other than to “claim” a similar political belief, would venture to act as experts as to the morals of Roy Moore, who has a history of being a “borderline child molester,” one who flagrantly opposes the rule of law unless it benefits him and his agenda, who takes huge payments from his “charity,” even to the point that the charity must sell their building in order to make their payments to him.

He flouts his “Christianity” like he’s “God’s gift to America.” He claims to be a “patriotOf course, since he can seldom make a comment without interjecting unproven “facts” and “proven” lies to buttress his position(s). Then, when asked for specifics, he demurs away from his comment(s) and skips to a, “Well, it was told to me by a friend/acquaintance/colleague.” And, he changes the subject.

Actually, at present, me and the wife are spending the month of November in Gulf Shores, AL, like we’ve done for the past few years. This year is especially fun because we get to ask the locals about the Moore vs Jones election. Most everyone we talk to say that Moore’s actions aren’t surprising to them. However, when asked if they’d vote for Jones, they reply with a shrug of their shoulders. When asked if Moore’s actions represent their version of Christianity they say, 0Of course not!” However, again, when asked if they’d vote for Jones, they reply with a shrug of their shoulders.

This makes me wonder just how much the locals actually do follow their religious beliefs, since Moore likes to claim how much he’s a follower of Christ and His teachings. I wonder where, in the Bible, Jesus is accused of molesting underage women. As to flaunting the legal authorities, He chastised the Pharisees and Saducees for being fake in their religious teachings and practices. Israel, being a theocracy, in practice. As to Roman law, Jesus said, “Give unto Caeser what is Caesar's.” He also said that His “... kingdom was not of this world.” “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Whatever you do to the least of mine, you do to me.” To me, all that means is, “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

And, while I’m at it, for those who think that Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality, read the following:

The text of Genesis 19 implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God apparently had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. According to the story, he killed all of the men and women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city. This is one more example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: transferring the punishment from guilty people to innocent people. This is commonly called "scapegoating" and is condemned in all major religions.

It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis why God demolished the city. The following theories have been advanced.

The people of Sodom:
Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians. This option seems unlikely because:
Genesis 19:5 said that all of the men (perhaps all of the people) of Sodom formed the mob at Lot's house and demanded to "know" the angels. The percentage of homosexuals in a typical group of male adults is generally around 5%, not 100%.

Also, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have know if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual.

Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

The locals were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Many Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom. This belief has considerable support in the many other references to Sodom in the Bible and Jewish literature.

They wanted to “humiliate” their visitors by engaging in an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring." Some theologians suggest that the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.

Wanted to engage in bestiality -- having sex with members of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species, created by God. This would be consistent with the frequently MIS-translated verse in Jude about the men of Sodom going after "other flesh" or "strange flesh."

The men of Sodom anted to adsorb the power of the angels: In ancient times, sacred sex was very common. People would engage in sexual intercourse with temple prostitutes (male and female) who represented a god or goddess. By doing so, the people believed that they would receive a blessing from the deity. If the people of Sodom realized that angels, sent by God, were present in their city, the men of Sodom may have concluded that raping the angels might give them supernatural powers.

A common procedure among biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret itself. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations are/is correct.

The interpretation of Genesis 19, as referring to a homosexual sin, appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term "sodomy" is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003 as part of its Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Opinion among most moderate and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the ORIGINAL Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers.

Consider the following:

In ancient Jewish literature, such as the “Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud,” there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant: “a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc.” In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.

Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evil-doing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

As a side note, for those who think that abortion is against God’s Word, I invite you to read:
Numbers 5:11-29New International Version (NIV)

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife:
“11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband,”

Now, for those of you who think that abortion is murder, then please, take your argument before God. I’m sure He’ll appreciate your not wanting to follow his order and arguing with Him. According to the Scripture, the potion will cause the unborn to be aborted and die. So much for your argument that God protects innocent unborn babies. In this case, He orders their death.


As such, to those of the “political right” who believe that we were founded as a “Christian” nation and want to have Christianity as our “national religion,” I will ask you: IF Christianity were to become our “National Religion,” which Christian denomination would be the one selected to represent ALL United States citizens? Would you let Roman Catholicism be your religious representative? Would you want your tax dollars to support Roman Catholicism? How about Southern Baptists? How about Churches of Christ? Or, Presbyterians? Or United Methodists? Or, Pentecostals?

And, don’t think, for even a minute, that a “National Religion” would NOT receive any government “sponsoring.” There’s no way that whichever Christian denomination were chosen to be our “National Religion” that it’s leaders would NOT ask for (or even demand) some government monies to “support” its evangelical/conversion missions. If this were come to pass, I can assure all of you that the religious civil wars that are destroying the Middle East would pale in comparison to what would occur in the US if a “National Religion” became a reality here.

Our “Founding Fathers” knew of the religious oppressions that were the cause of much of the same migration from Europe to the colonies. As such, they put it in the Constitution that there would be NO “National Religion;” and NO religious tests for holding public office.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Af1, isn’t it something that you ask an honest question, framing it in such a way that is easy to understand, limiting it to a comparison between Trumpet and Roy “I only date high school girls” Moore, and the GOPTPers can only respond with insults and deflections away from the subject at hand. Instead of replying with verifiable facts related to the subject matter, they interject irrelevant innuendo and outright lies that have ZERO bearing on anything except an obvious effort to change the subject away from the shameful behaviors of both Trumpet and Roy Moore.

Although I’ve lived in Tennessees for the past 20 years, I spent 25 years growing-up in Alabama (1964-1989). During my time in Alabama and then in Tennessee, I followed the careers of many of the Alabama and Tennessee career politicians, from George Corley Wallace and Ray Blanton to present. So, I believe I have a fairly good grasp of the political history of both states and what drives the voters. That so many people, who don’t have any connection to Alabama, other than to “claim” a similar political belief, would venture to act as experts as to the morals of Roy Moore, who has a history of being a “borderline child molester,” one who flagrantly opposes the rule of law unless it benefits him and his agenda, who takes huge payments from his “charity,” even to the point that the charity must sell their building in order to make their payments to him.

He flouts his “Christianity” like he’s “God’s gift to America.” He claims to be a “patriotOf course, since he can seldom make a comment without interjecting unproven “facts” and “proven” lies to buttress his position(s). Then, when asked for specifics, he demurs away from his comment(s) and skips to a, “Well, it was told to me by a friend/acquaintance/colleague.” And, he changes the subject.

Actually, at present, me and the wife are spending the month of November in Gulf Shores, AL, like we’ve done for the past few years. This year is especially fun because we get to ask the locals about the Moore vs Jones election. Most everyone we talk to say that Moore’s actions aren’t surprising to them. However, when asked if they’d vote for Jones, they reply with a shrug of their shoulders. When asked if Moore’s actions represent their version of Christianity they say, 0Of course not!” However, again, when asked if they’d vote for Jones, they reply with a shrug of their shoulders.

This makes me wonder just how much the locals actually do follow their religious beliefs, since Moore likes to claim how much he’s a follower of Christ and His teachings. I wonder where, in the Bible, Jesus is accused of molesting underage women. As to flaunting the legal authorities, He chastised the Pharisees and Saducees for being fake in their religious teachings and practices. Israel, being a theocracy, in practice. As to Roman law, Jesus said, “Give unto Caeser what is Caesar's.” He also said that His “... kingdom was not of this world.” “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Whatever you do to the least of mine, you do to me.” To me, all that means is, “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

And, while I’m at it, for those who think that Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality, read the following:

The text of Genesis 19 implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God apparently had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. According to the story, he killed all of the men and women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city. This is one more example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: transferring the punishment from guilty people to innocent people. This is commonly called "scapegoating" and is condemned in all major religions.

It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis why God demolished the city. The following theories have been advanced.

The people of Sodom:
Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians. This option seems unlikely because:
Genesis 19:5 said that all of the men (perhaps all of the people) of Sodom formed the mob at Lot's house and demanded to "know" the angels. The percentage of homosexuals in a typical group of male adults is generally around 5%, not 100%.

Also, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have know if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual.

Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

The locals were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Many Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom. This belief has considerable support in the many other references to Sodom in the Bible and Jewish literature.

They wanted to “humiliate” their visitors by engaging in an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring." Some theologians suggest that the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.

Wanted to engage in bestiality -- having sex with members of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species, created by God. This would be consistent with the frequently MIS-translated verse in Jude about the men of Sodom going after "other flesh" or "strange flesh."

The men of Sodom anted to adsorb the power of the angels: In ancient times, sacred sex was very common. People would engage in sexual intercourse with temple prostitutes (male and female) who represented a god or goddess. By doing so, the people believed that they would receive a blessing from the deity. If the people of Sodom realized that angels, sent by God, were present in their city, the men of Sodom may have concluded that raping the angels might give them supernatural powers.

A common procedure among biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret itself. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations are/is correct.

The interpretation of Genesis 19, as referring to a homosexual sin, appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term "sodomy" is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003 as part of its Lawrence v. Texas decision.

Opinion among most moderate and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the ORIGINAL Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers.

Consider the following:

In ancient Jewish literature, such as the “Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud,” there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant: “a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc.” In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.

Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evil-doing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

As a side note, for those who think that abortion is against God’s Word, I invite you to read:
Numbers 5:11-29New International Version (NIV)

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife:
“11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband,”

Now, for those of you who think that abortion is murder, then please, take your argument before God. I’m sure He’ll appreciate your not wanting to follow his order and arguing with Him. According to the Scripture, the potion will cause the unborn to be aborted and die of th mother became pregnant by someone other than her husband. So much for your argument that God protects “innocent” unborn babies. In this case, He orders their death.


As such, to those of the “political right” who believe that we were founded as a “Christian” nation and want to have Christianity as our “national religion,” I will ask you: IF Christianity were to become our “National Religion,” which Christian denomination would be the one selected to represent ALL United States citizens? Would you let Roman Catholicism be your religious representative? Would you want your tax dollars to support Roman Catholicism? How about Southern Baptists? How about Churches of Christ? Or, Presbyterians? Or United Methodists? Or, Pentecostals?

And, don’t think, for even a minute, that a “National Religion” would NOT receive any government “sponsoring.” There’s no way that whichever Christian denomination were chosen to be our “National Religion” that it’s leaders would NOT ask for (or even demand) some government monies to “support” its evangelical/conversion missions. If this were come to pass, I can assure all of you that the religious civil wars that are destroying the Middle East would pale in comparison to what would occur in the US if a “National Religion” became a reality here.

Our “Founding Fathers” knew of the religious oppressions that were the cause of much of the same migration from Europe to the colonies. As such, they put it in the Constitution that there would be NO “National Religion;” and NO religious tests for holding public office.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Sorry for the double post.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

That is OK. I stopped reading your novella after the first paragraph.

Airforceone

Ya and I read it twice.

Airforceone

You don’t read anything

Big Bass

... and still didn't understand it.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

I am not concerned with trash and therefore do not waste my time reading it.

Molly2399 Loc: Ohio

Everything you have written is not proven. You ask why I turned Republican. This is my answer. I am retired and watched my daughter’s 401k go to nothing after years of hard work. I saw store front after store front closed. I saw my college age children struggling to find a job. I lost the most important person in my life who could not get the treatments he deserved after he worked all his life.

I haven’t posted in awhile because now I see how low congress and the senate have sunk. I believe the states could vote for term limits and that would solve one big problem. E-verify would be a great start and DACA should be rewritten. No state has the right to become a sanctuary for any illegal. That is my feelings.

debeda

I agree completely!! And one of the most frustrating things with medical is that people on the dole (this includes a large segment of illegals and ALL of the "refugees") get their medical and dental care as needed FOR FREE!! Us poor responsible working folks can be bankrupted by "deductibles" and refused treatment for nonpayment. Or we simply skip visits and medications because we can't afford them. Ugh...