Dec 18, 2013
commented on Good Grief and Great Tits
@31, I thought the same thing. How can her purchase of a legally obtained weapon be civil disobedience?
Dan, I don't think you are an asshole if you say, "Merry Christmas". I'm Jewish and when somebody wishes me a "Merry Christmas" I take it with a smile and simply say, "Thank you, and to you, too!" I recognize that we live in a country where Christianity is the majority, and many non-Christians celebrate Christmas as a cultural/secular holiday, so I don't get upset when people assume I celebrate Christmas. Besides, it's always nice to have people send goodness your way.
No, what makes somebody an asshole is if you say, "Happy Holidays," and the other person replies with anything other than, "Thank you, and to you, too," in one form or another: a lecture about how you should be saying, "Merry Christmas," or how you saying, "Happy Holidays," is somehow taking away from Christmas, or by punching you.
In addition, as a non-Christmas celebrating Jew, why am I expected to just deal with people wishing me a "Merry Christmas" and accept it as the well-wishes it is (which I'm happy to do), but when I say, "Happy Holidays," some Christians cannot return the courtesy of being grateful for my well-wishes to them without being upset about the precise wording? Why can't they be respectful of other people and the fact that not everybody wants to say, "Merry Christmas"? Why are we expected to accommodate them, but when we ask them to accommodate us, they freak out?
TL;DR: Whenever anybody wishes you goodness, regardless of wording, simply say thank you and return the sentiment. Why is that so hard to understand?
Dec 9, 2013
commented on The Pope Won't Judge—But People Who Work for Him Continue to Fire
Seattleblues, so let me get this straight. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality being an abomination because it was already in the Laws of Moses, which he upheld, and he felt he didn't need to comment any further (how you can know that is beyond me, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it for now).
This would imply that Jesus intended for his follows to also uphold the Laws of Moses, yes? If Jesus just assumed everybody understood that homosexuality is an abomination and didn't need to explain any further, then that would mean his followers would have to not only be familiar with, but be expected to follow, the Laws of Moses.
Yet, Christianity rejects the Laws of Moses, and claims they don't have to follow them because Jesus fulfilled them and humanity is now under his grace. If Jesus had intended for his followers to reject the Law (as Paul claims) then why would he assume his followers would still know that homosexuality is an abomination and not say anything about it? And if Paul is correct, that those who follow Jesus don't have to follow the Laws of Moses, why would Jesus assume that everybody would just "know" that the part about homosexuality being an abomination is still valid, but all the rest about not eating pork or shellfish, not wearing mixed fibers, no tattoos, not eating milk and meat together, etc., isn't?
I'm guessing you would explain this disparity by saying that Jesus's early followers were Jews who were familiar with the Laws of Moses, so they already knew, and once Paul came along, he was able to inform the new Gentile converts about this one particular Law of Moses that was still to be upheld, even though all the rest weren't.
Of course, I could be wrong in my guess of how you would explain this discrepancy, but even so, it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. And no matter how you "interpret" Jesus's motives or intentions to fit your agenda, you cannot change that fact.
Oct 16, 2013
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Dominate Other Men For Money?
One question I have that has nothing to do with her boyfriend: What does she do for her day job, and what would happen if one of her co-workers discovered her sex-work side-job? In other words, would being a sex-worker (even a non-sex sex worker) jeopardize her job, if it was discovered that is what she is doing on the side to make extra money? Considering how monetarily focused she seems to be, she might well consider that question before pursuing her non-sex sex work.
Aug 20, 2013
commented on Shooting at Elementary School in Georgia
From the way fairly.unbalanced talks, you would think Dan's opinion was the only factor that made it possible for us to go to war with Iraq! As though Dan's opinion really made a difference in whether or not we invaded that country. I remember active protests against the war as it approached, and that didn't stop anything, so why would Dan's single opinion, an opinion for which he has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and has apologized, have any affect on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq? (Sorry, Dan, I'm a huge fan, but as we all now know, once W was [s]elected, our going to war with Iraq was pretty much guaranteed, and nothing was going to stop it.)
Now as COMTE @16 has pointed out, the people whose opinions DID lead us into that horrific war (with the exception of Colin Powell) have never apologized or acknowledged that they were wrong about WMDs and that the entire war was a complete blunder. Why don't you hold them as responsible as you seem to hold Dan?
And you linking this latest school shooting to Dan's support for the war in Iraq is disingenuous at best. Remember, W and his cronies promised us that we would be greeted as "liberators" and that the war would be over in a matter of months. Therefore, Dan wasn't supporting killing Islamic children, he was simply duped, as many members of Congress were, into thinking that by invading Iraq, we would actually be saving many Iraqi children from death at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Dan's only mistake was in believing that our presence in Iraq would be a good and stabilizing force, and he's not the only one who made that mistake.
Just because he might have been mistaken about the Iraq war doesn't mean his opinions on gun control have no merit. We all make mistakes. At least he is able to admit when he was wrong. Will you have the same strength and courage to admit that perhaps you might be wrong about the need for rational gun control? Or, with each school shooting, will you keep bringing up this same, old, tired, and completely unrelated argument over and over again? I'm guessing it will be the latter, but you never know.
Jul 2, 2013
commented on It Says Right There In Deuteronomy That It's a Sin to Establish Your Own Kingdom in the Video Room
Toward the end there, when he was calling out Cox, I couldn't help but think that he sounded like he thought he was God - if you submitted to me, you would know my heart.
I haven't been an evangelical for a long, long time, but from what I recall, those are things one should only say or think when referring to God, not your narcissistic pastor. The whole point of being a "born-again" Christian is that you answer to no priest or clergy - you only answer to God (well Jesus, but they believe Jesus is God). Apparently, this pastor has forgotten that and considers himself to be the personal savior for his entire "flock".
For the sake of all the people in that room, I hope he and his wife do pack up and leave in their "paid for" vehicle. It's guys like this that helped make me an ex-Christian.
Jul 1, 2013
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Dom Dom
Agree with @14 and @20. Legalities aside, LW seems to have emotional issues and/or is emotionally immature.
It's time to just let it go and perhaps seek some counseling for those emotional issues.