Free Republic

speaking about running out of world petroleum supplies, was it my imagination, or did Freeper have something on the fact that oil is now found to be a RENEWABLE resources, with old oil fields replenishing after a certain number of years?

Thought that is what I read.

Wow, if the world media was run by Freepers what a freer, braver and better place this world would be.

Very sad story.

I think Dobson would do much better with his defense of marriage if he would start investigating and publishing the statistics on the rate of sexual abuse in homosexuals.

From my personal life, I have NEVER NEVER NEVER met a gay man or lesbian who was NOT sexually molested at an impressionable age.

This is why Christians need to be PRAYING for "gays" -- not trying to out-legislate them.

"You are on to something here. I have always said the same thing.
If sodomy is okay between a man and a woman, what would be wrong with it between two men? When Sex is thought of as less than a sanctified union between two married people, and more of a recreational activity between two consenting adults; then there is no argument against homosexuality! "

It sounds so Puritan but -- there are absolutes in God's kingdom.

God looks upon the heart in all we do, including what we do in bed.

Ann Coulter DEFINTELY NEEDS TO BE HIRED BY THE W CAMPAIGN.
She can actually write. She can actually speak. Her arguments on intelligence and espionage are founded in the research she's done on Joe McCarthy (he was right but didn't know it) and the absolute infiltration of our intelligence services and State Department since FDR's days by various anti American Marxists. Let's start with Walter Krivisky, Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss.

Once someone understands the painful truth about 20th century espionage, as Ann Coulter demonstrated in her book SLANDER, this whole Iraq WMD situation becomes very very clear -- our Intel services and State Departments are mostly run by ignorant, cowardly and LAZY liberals with no loyalty to God or country.

Joe Wilson and his wife -- what actual work did they do for the CIA? When the wife was "undercover" when was her life on the line? Seems like they were both in it for the glamor, not the painful realities of intelligence grunt work.

All that adds up to George Bush getting screwball Intel from Clinton-era lackeys on a middle Eastern problem they could've cared less about.

Real reason they hate Bush for going into Iraq? It's liberal racism. Iraqis just aren't glamorous enough for libs to save.

Very interesting -- 'specially about the Indians.

I'd also give him a good lecture on how Coppola's Marxism seeps through the movie. Coppola once said that his GODFATHERs were an indictment of American Capitalism.

When I was a kid, films like this confused me because they leave you with the feeling that, literally, there is no "law and order" in the world to fight these mobsters -- and that one could live a respectable life as a gangster while making your living off pimps prostitutes, drug addicts, gamblers and the dregs of society. I remember even being wary of going back East to school, as my college was in a town long known for harboring gangsters during the summer months. America can not be seen just as a greedy Capitalistic country as the GODFATHER attempts to do.

I'd balance it with a great old film inspired by then D.A. Thomas Dewey's "gangbusting" tactics in the '30's. It starred Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart, if I recall, called MARKED WOMAN. I think Robert Rossen wrote it and I think Bogie's first wife was also one of the gun molls.

(Dewey's firm and heroic stance against Luciano and the NYC mob was what propelled his Republican career to challenge Truman in the infamous 1948 Presidential election.)

Davis plays a prostitute -- toned down in the film to be a "dance hall gal" -- who risks her life to turn in the mobsters. Very effective, if dated story of real heroics in mob land.

Early Modern Protestant? Cool.

I've noticed that the Chinese have been stockpiling lots and lots of Sukhoi 27s, purchased from the Russians. If they get to Sukhoi 37s, we're in trouble because these 37s were designed to nail our F 22s.

There's been SAMs since Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the Urals... since when has this stopped our fighter program? What the no nothings are saying is that we don't have the ingenuity or designers anymore. And that's the scary part. Where are the designers and inventors?

It reminds me of the problem of intelligence that we have. Somehow the Libs think that the CIA is this impenetrable, invincible monolith -- they can't see that it is a flawed, human and frail organization, only as good as its weakest man. Somehow, people think that our military is just invincible. Now some Indians pound us in a fighter exercise? Dang!

Interesting that our F 15s were designed in the sixties however.
Equally interesting that the F 22s were designed right at end of the cold war and the very beginning of the super computer age. (so were the SU-37s as the Russkies were trying to beat our design)

(some of my assignations for the Suks may be wrong, I think those are their numbers from memory)

Nice work. However the Lord added something individualistic to the rich man's inquiry about eternal life -- "go and sell all that you own, then come and pick up your cross and follow Me." (my paraphrase from memory). I take this to mean that we all have individual "crosses" to bear in our lives -- crosses that perhaps only we and the Lord know about -- alcohol, drugs, sexual addiction, gambling, etc., but things that, like the young man's riches - would prevent one from entering the Kingdom unless "crucified".

The common "lib" interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, by the way, is that Lot's sin was the sin of inhospitality! Not homosexuality. However, this is resolved in the tiny book of Jude as I recall, where the sin of Sodom is spelled out more plainly.

But back to Dobson -- there will be no headway gained in this debate over gay "marriage" until the body of Christ humbles itself, repents of its own sexual sin (the statistics on even Christian women who log on to porn sites is very high!) and then loves the homosexual in a non judgmental manner. All the legislation in the world will not win anyone to the love of Christ. And it is only the love of Christ that has the power to change the world. Not education. Not psychology. Not debate, diplomacy, politics or war. Only the power of the Creator can change the lives of His creatures. Christians are called to be wise as serpents but meek as doves.

Interesting. My understanding was that Jesus doesn't like masturbation because of the images conjured up in our minds during the act itself -- i.e. His teaching on the true meaning of "lust" is if we lust after someone in our hearts, we have committed a sin.

I was only describing the revulsion of an innocent kid, not my own sexual proclivities. The Bible plainly says that "likewise, women gave up what was natural for unnatural intercourse." That's not a stretch. What was Paul referring to if not the same sexual acts that the homosexual men he was discussing previously?

But I am not judging you or anyone -- I'm just saying that I have heard this teaching and I tend to agree with it -- even Clintoon's argument that it is "not sex" means that it is something other than normal sexuality, no? And, the classic definition of anything outside normal sexuality is, unfortunately, "perversion".

read posts 64 66 and 69 -- unfortunate number, that last one!

Look at posts #66 and 64.

Then ponder the fact that Paul delineates 'catamites" as those sinners who now can enter the Kingdom of heaven because they have been washed clean. (Paul also specifies homosexuals as being changed, too, but that is an entirely different argument than Dobson's)

God considers excrement and things having to do with excrement as unclean. You've got a concordance. The devil is called a liar, a deceiver, a destroyer and the accuser of the brethren but also an "unclean" spirit. But read 64 and 66 because I forgot to address you...

Too busy tonight to do a real search for you, but an eye opener as to how "hip" Jesus is about sexuality was the reading a while back in a King James Bible where Paul is talking about those people who have been saved and he mentions the word "catamite".

Catamites are the passive partner in any kind of sodomic act, usually homosexual prostitutes but also heterosexual.

I was positively astounded at the level of specificity regarding sex in the Bible...

Actually, this sexual teaching was taught by Pastor Jack Hayford, now the president of the Foursquare Church International formerly of The Church on the Way in L.A. Hayford's position on it was the same as Christ's toward the unmarried eunuchs -- "for whoever can accept this, accept it." Maybe it's on his website. It bugged some celeb church goers I knew, too. (Perhaps "bugged" is the wrong choice of words... )

Well, the first scripture that comes to mind is the one in Romans about how "women gave up what was natural intercourse for what was unnatural." Hayford's attitude was that you would not subject your spouse to anything that would put your body on a physical level in any way debasing -- but face to face as equals, looking into each other's souls. I hope I don't have to spell out the logistics of what he was talking about.

I recall he talked about the sin of Onan, too, which was masturbation. Point is that the Lord, who calls us to respect our bodies as the living temples of the Holy Spirit, looks upon our hearts even during sex. Who we are and what we think about and -- most importantly -- what we project upon our spouses with whom we are "one body" is extremely important to Christ.

The Word about it being a "narrow path" and that the Lord will save a "remnant" of His washed clean virgins come to mind in this day and age of attenuated Sodom and Gomorrah.

I agree with Hayford -- let who accept it who will -- but I can never get over the revulsion I experienced as a young teen when the older brother of a friend of mine first showed me a photo of oral sex -- (he was gay and is dead now of AIDS) -- it just seemed so unclean to put your mouth where any kind of excrement might have been.

And another scripture is how the Lord commanded Moses I think to bury human excrement in a way that made things okay for God's spirit to be around -- because the excrement was ritualistically 'unclean". It is interesting to me that the devil is often called "an unclean spirit".

In any case -- I think it is a matter of whoever can accept it should -- but for me it is difficult to imagine the Holy One of Israel blessing sodomy. And it was illegal for heterosexuals to have oral or anal sex in this country until the last generation. Reading the script for the upcoming film KIN SEY recently, the writer noted that a man was put in jail for cunnilingus on his own wife in the late 1930's.

The point being for Dobson's article is that for prayerful intercession on the part of Christians for the upholding of marriage and family values -- God needs people to take a personal stand in their own lives for holiness in order for there to be any efficacious prayer in the spiritual realm.

Do a concordance search on the meaning of an intercessor or intercession -- that our prayers have authority only when we are ourselves pure -- and the problem of sodomy will make sense.

As for the Song of Solomon, suckling of breasts and other romantic allusions somehow aren't the same thing. God calls us to not be of this Sodomic culture -- are we already like Lot, so desensitized to sexual purity that we would offer up our daughters to appease the sexual lusts of the men at his door who wanted to have sex with the angel that was visiting him?

The one thing Dobson seems to have forgotten to mention is that until Christians abstain from the same sexual practices homosexuals engage in, there will be no moral authority or moral high ground for "family values" to stand on. This is a difficult teaching, as all oral sex is sodomy, according to the Bible, and according to our old time sodomy laws in this country. This means heterosexual oral sex, of course.

Thank you thank you.

Though I am partial to Emmanuel Hertz's 1939 tome "LINCOLN TALKS" which is all Lincoln in Lincoln's own words -- (Lincoln had his suspicions about the art of biography) this book appears to be a treasure.

I think it is still the case that there have been more biographies written about Lincoln than any other living being besides Jesus Christ Himself.

Streep has done such a bang up good job of impersonating Hillary Clinton in MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE that the Paramount executives are reportedly recutting her scenes to make them more "dem friendly"...

Streep's outburst could have been set up so she could maintain her credentials as a flaming lib with the other flaming libs in Hollywood.

You've got an interesting circular argument going on there.

The rent that the illegal immigrants pay to their landlord gets mixed in with the landlord's other income from a job or whatever else he does.

So, by your reasoning, if we buy something from a landlord in his other job as a salesman or something, we are ALL paying a portion of his property taxes.

That's watery socialist thinking.

But the argument is really that illegal immigration drives up ALL taxes in all areas. Illegals drive up taxes MORE than the taxes that they "pay" indirectly.

"... so tenants do pay property taxes.."???

usadave --

like I said, watery socialism here at work.

Dane, let's be real clear: The person who owns the property is responsible to the government to pay the property tax, whether or not he has a tenant on his property.

Just for your information, property rights are the first thing to go in a Marxist i.e. socialist, i.e. communist takeover.

Ignorance about property rights is just another sign of... creeping socialism.