MSNBC's David Shuster: "Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery"

MSNBC ^ | November 7, 2004 | David Shuster

[Dont Mention the War]

A loss for true conservatism (David Shuster)

• November 7, 2004 | 2:26 p.m. ET

On Tuesday, eleven different states outlawed gay marriage.

The basic argument I heard was not about marriage (more on that below) but about being gay. And a majority of voters seem to believe that homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice."

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows it is not a "choice." It is something wired into the genes of approximately 3 or 4 percent of the human population in every single culture on the planet. Secondly, when it comes to morality, consider this: While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of threat. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward.

[Esther Ruth]

"It amazes me that those who are otherwise rabid about nature and the environment would oppose mother nature in so blatant a fashion"

There is nothing amazing about the sequencing of events. The God of this universe has rules - when they are broken there are consequences - whether we like it or not, believe it, accept it - it happens. This is exactly what Romans 1 tells us. That ... because they worshiped the creation (nature) instead of the Creator (God), because they do this, God GIVES them over to... these sins.

[prairiebreeze]

There's no need for secession. Anybody who wants to leave the US is completely free to do so. Finding another country who wants them might take a while but it's do-able. Perhaps a new continent entirely should be considered by these unhappy Americans.

But they won't leave. Not one. Because no where else would Shi*ster have the forum for spewing his spew. And he knows it. So spew he will, but leave? Not on your life.

Prairie

[cyncooper]

David Shuster is just as I suspected way back during impeachment when he was employed at Fox.

[Publius6961]

The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows fights cognitive dissonance by pretending it is not a "choice."

There. I fixed it.
...and rendered the entire remainder of the article comical.

[EllaMinnow]

Smarmy little creep. His little "news" segments are the lowpoint of "Hardball" and "Hardball" is the lowpoint of news.

Schuster is scraping the bottom. I'm beginning to suspect that he's Ron Reagan's boyfriend.

[Publius6961]

How does this statement keep gettng repeated without any proof to support it?

Psssst.
Don't knock it. It was just a few years ago the perverts kept claiming 15-20%. Inflate their numbers and the power will come!

It's still astonishing the social destruction that 1% of the population and their sympathizers have accomplished.

[jwalsh07]

btt

[GraniteStateConservative]

I had no idea that journalists at MSNBC-- and I thought David was calling himself that-- were spouting opinions like this. I can understand Chris and Joe and the rest, but David Gregory isn't writing opinion pieces like this. Carl Cameron isn't. This is just weird-- more than either bad or good. How can they think this makes the least bit of sense?

[gobucks]

"How many times do we have to hear this claim that the Bible only speaks to homosexuality in the Old Testament? Check out Romans 1."

We are going to be dealing w/ this nonsense until Christ returns . ...

[quack]

He must not have read the "newly released" New Testament.Been on bookstands for only 2000 years now.

[kipita]

Which historical slavery document do these phrases come from:

“…..it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,….”
“…..experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer…”
“……..destroyed the lives of our people….”
“….In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms…”
“..ought to be Free and Independent…”

None, it's from our "Declaration of Independence", taken out of context.

[safisoft]

What the heck is this guy talking about? Return to observing Sunday?

The day 'Sunday' or 'First Day of the Week' etc. was NEVER mentioned even once in relation to the Sabbath until a nutty Emperor in the Fourth Century got tired of 'Christians' looking like those hated JOOOOS and outlawed the Sabbath observance. Like it or not, its history. All the foaming at the mouth 'Sunday sabbitarians' will never prove a SCRIPTURAL connection between Sabbath and Sunday.

Shabbat, is still shabbat... was, and always will be: NOT Sunday. LOL.

[vaudine]

Thanks for the link.
Just emailed him--basically said the has been media are too close minded to report or comment on homosexuality--that it has been around historically in all societies but has never contributed to anything except dissention and disease. Suggested he read a little Juvenal for an ancient take on homosexual marriage. Also said they never report on homosexual crimes but over report acts against homosexuality.

Refuted his assumption of genetically based origin of homosexuality as scientifically unsupported and that news persons refuse to allow recovered homosexuals any air time. Told him the reason MSNBC is so little watched is that they are too PC and close minded to logic--biased in fact.

vaudine

[familyop]

Shuster's kind have no shame. They use people who really have it tough.

[safisoft]

i too would like to see society move forward, just as jesus christ moved us from the law of the old testament to the "love thy neighbor as thyself" of the new testament.

Most 'Christians' do not know (because they never bothered to study) that the so-called 'New Testament' contains NOTHING original at its core level. It is all simply more detail. For instance, the 'Love your Neighbor' of Matthew 22 (the first and second greatest commandments) is found NOT in the 'New Testament' first - it is found in Leviticus. 'Love your enemy' is NOT found in the 'New Testament' first - it is found in Leviticus. 'Love the LORD your God' is NOT found in the 'New Testament' first, it is found in Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on. 1/3 of the 'New Testament' is in fact quotes from the 'Old Testament' - ever wonder WHY?

There is a biblical principle that modern Evangelicals have abandoned, just as their Roman Catholic predecessors had - the biblical principle of priority. No biblical covenant EVER invalidates a previous one.

This concept is what gives us the foundation of what is actually considered Scripture. In other words, what is written AFTERward MUST, MUST, MUST always agree with what came before, or it is to be DISCARDED. Since the Bible is a book of progressive revelation they 'New Testament' CANNOT disagree with the 'Old Testament' - no matter how prettily you paint it, when you start using the MAN-MADE page between the two as your dividing line for authority you have missed the ENTIRE POINT. God is not man that He should change His mind.

Go read Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18. You will soon discover that 'Jesus' could not have POSSIBLY over turned God's 'Law' or He would have been a FALSE PROPHET. If that had been the case, those 'Zealous for the Law' should have stoned Him. Go read Acts 21 and understand that nearly half of Jerusalem at that time were followers of Y'shua [Jesus] - and it says that they were ZEALOUS for the 'Law'. Apparently, they did not get the 'memo', huh?

Maimonides (aka RAMBAM), who lived in the 12th Century is one of the principle sages of Judaism. He is the one who finalized what is now known as the 13 Principles of Judaism. Maimonides was a scholar in every way, and wrote extensively about Messiah. The 12th Principle says,

I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await His coming every day.

What is ironic about Maimonides is that he clearly understood Scripture and the fact that Messiah would be a upholder of Torah [incorrectly translated 'Law'], not a destroyer. Since Maimonides heard all his 'Christian' friends and associates always tell him that 'Christ did away with the Law' - he knew that if this was true, 'Jesus' could not be the Messiah. He was wrong about the last conclusion - but his logic was entirely correct - he just shouldn't have taken his 'Christian' friends' word for the life that Y'shua [Jesus] lived. He should have focused more on how He lived, and what he SAID,

Don't think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to bring to full understanding. For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the Torah, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least of these mitzvot [commandments], and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 5:17-18

There is a comprehensive Bible study series on this called 'Mattityahu: Matthew's Account' at www.bereansonline.org/studies. There are extensive study tools and audio lessons for free. The main web site is www.bereansonline.org/studies

[Unam Sanctam]

The orientation may not be a choice, but the activity is most certainly a choice. Those with same sex attraction, as all outside of marriage (between a man and a woman), are called to chastity. That is Christian moral teaching.

[safisoft]

God didn't write the Bible. The King James version was completed in the year 1611, much closer to now than to the Resurrection. Nobody is saying that we should own slaves or stone people to death because of their choice of whether or how to observe the Sabbath...we don't appreciate the idea that the government of our nation, which was founded upon the principle that God granted us freedom, shouldn't pretend He doesn't exist.

I don't get your logic. First, the King James Version of the Bible was not the first. It was not even the first English version... by a LONG shot.

Second, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the plethora of ancient Greek manuscripts, it can be stated quite authoritatively, that the Bible sitting on your shelf is translated from physical manuscripts (albeit copies) dating from no later than the 2nd Century CE, and most dating well before. And if THAT Bible says one thing regarding Sabbath, homosexuality, etc. as God's ideal society, and one cannot accept that - why accept that God even exists, seeing that His Word is the best evidence of that fact?

A better logical process against Shuster's hit piece would be to tell him that his understanding of Scripture is woefully inadequate, and until he studies a little more of it and less of GC magazine he cannot make any informed comments about it, or what those who believe it think.

[safisoft]

Shuster completely neglects the fact that the Levitical laws of the Old Testament -- man's laws as defined by the time -- were superceded by the grace of Jesus Christ as noted in the New Testament.

There is no 'Grace' where there is no God. We cannot know God without His revelation of Himself. His revelation is found within the pages of Scripture: Starting with Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy... You just said that the 'Old Testament' is man's laws. Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the 'Grace' of 'Jesus' in the 'New Testament':

'Jesus' said in Matthew 5:17: "Don't think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets [That is 'Old Testament' to you]. I didn't come to destroy, but to bring to full understanding.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Anyone who throws up these Biblical arguments when it comes to homosexuals has no understanding of Levitical law. It's a classic tactic by the pro-sodomite left.

Schuster doesn't see the difference between cultural and moral law. Not cutting your hair is a cultural law. Not eating pork is a cultural law. Sodomy is a moral law. As are murder, rape, theft, and incest. Many of the punishments (stonings) were harsh because the Jewish people were adamantly rebellious, and needed stiff punishments for disobeying the laws.

When Jesus Christ died, He abolished the need for the old cultural laws. The moral laws, however, are straight from the Lord. They are eternal and do not ever change.

Nice try Schuster, but try doing some research next time so you don't end up looking like an ass.

[Grampa Dave]

David Shuster seems to spend his miserable life pushing the gay agenda and trying to justify the farce of Gay Marriage.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=David%20Shuster%20Gay