Ann Coulter

@Trish

I vote for the green party if possible. Try to select the lesser of two eveils the rest of the time. That's all anyone can do.

@Tfan

Perhaps I am reading wrong but you sound more uptight than either Jesus or Mohammed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFan

The bible warns Christians of this "pigs at the trough" mentality.

Certain posters do not warrant replies. They do not behave as men, nor as women.

---

Ah but the bible also says the following....

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Seems Jesus is describing transsexuals (and the intersexed) there.

Further it is well known and easily found on the internet that Mohammed s.a.s knew at least two people who would be called transsexuals if they lived in our time. One used to vist a wife of Mohameds with whom they were friends. The other was almost lynched and Mohammed sent this person to live in another town. Like all religious leaders he did not like that we often end up in erotic entertainment. Such was the case even 1500 years ago, a long way from here geographically and culturally. Erotica was all people like me had to fall back on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrendaQG

Perhaps I am reading wrong but you sound more uptight than either Jesus or Mohammed.

---

You are reading me wrong.

Quote:

---

Ah but the bible also says the following....

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

---

Quote:

---

Seems Jesus is describing transsexuals (and the intersexed) there.

Further it is well known and easily found on the internet that Mohammed s.a.s knew at least two people who would be called transsexuals if they lived in our time. One used to vist a wife of Mohameds with whom they were friends. The other was almost lynched and Mohammed sent this person to live in another town. Like all religious leaders he did not like that we often end up in erotic entertainment. Such was the case even 1500 years ago, a long way from here geographically and culturally. Erotica was all people like me had to fall back on.

---

On Eunuchs, the consensus among theologians is that "eunuchs" means "abstinent" or "chastity". The same is the consensus among late ascetic and essene jews.

So when Jesus talks about "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake", he's not talking about surgery and hormones, he's talking about those who remain abstinent "for the kingdom of heaven".

From my studies, I've yet to find anything in the bible that condemns transexuality. It seems that the only people who push t's from Christ are bitter liberals and a few pitiful Christians.

Pretty sure I had. You wouldn't be called Tfan if such things made you uncomfortable. :-)

Quote:

---

On Eunuchs, the consensus among theologians is that "eunuchs" means "abstinent" or "chastity". The same is the consensus among late ascetic and essene jews.

---

Saying that the passages I have cited are in favor of transsexuality would be the only other interpretation. Since those who think themselves religious are often uncomfortable with sex they cannot say that. :-?

The trouble with what you cited is that it contradicts the accepted definition of a eunuch Wikipedia article: Eunuch. I am really puzzled by how anyone can look at term and not see transsexuals who did not have surgery and synthetic hormones. Because such things had not been invented until the 20th century. Other than the medical procedures available to them they would be mentally indistinguishable from a modern transsexual.

The fact that many theologians will stick to the precise meaning of the words then deviate when that meaning is not to their taste exposes their hipocracy.

Thankfully I am submissive to Allah and practice a religion that feels sex itself is a natural thing to do. A religion that, while homophobic, is genuinely transfriendly. i.e. Tehran Iran reputedly has at least as many if not more transsexuals than New York. Due to a fatwa from Ayatolla khomeni the govt. will pay for their medical procedures and protect/oppress them just the same as any XX woman. Which is 100% more than we get out of the USA.

Hey Bush-What's All This Firing of Gay Arabic Linguist Specialists?

Hey, Bush. How are you this morning?

You know, I think we're all very grateful the British Foreign Intelligence discovered that terrorist plot BEFORE it happened. That's really terrific.

I wonder if our intelligence is in as good shape? Can't tell yet.

And it makes me think of all those stories over the years about the Army firing soldiers who are Arabic linguists just because someone accused them of being gay.

Linguist, by the way, means they read and perhaps speak Arabic.

Boy, those language skills sound pretty helpful for the war on terror, huh?

Here's the latest one - a soldier named Bleu Copas was a decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist, and he was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy... though he didn't "tell" anybody, his dismissal was the result of a series of anonymous emails sent to superiors, accusing Bleu of being gay.

Now I admit it - his first name is scary. Bleu means "blue" in French. Why did his parents name him blue? And not only that but, judging from the picture that accompanies the CNN.com story, he's quite handsome. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/gaysmilitary.ap.ap/

So much so, I suppose it's possible that a straight soldier who felt really horny one day might choose to dally with him. Or if not a straight soldier, maybe another gay soldier might choose to dally with him. And, boy, the world would be a less worthwhile place if that happened, wouldn't it?

President Bush, I know you and your evangelical and fundamental Christian base really value abstinence. You and they think that if people can just go through their lives and NEVER EVER HAVE SEX, the world would be a better place. You even prefer that American teenagers and African men, women and children die of AIDS rather than let anyone tell them of how to use contraception to protect themselves. That's your position, right? ONLY TALK ABOUT ABSTINENCE.

You really are a card. I know Jesus Christ talks to you, but you know what - he talks to me too, and he thinks you're just nuts.

So, okay - I doubt I can convince you to support telling people at risk of AIDS about condoms. I know it's just too important to you and your base that people not touch their genitals. And, of course, that is one of the main teachings of Christ, it's in the Beatitudes, "Blessed are they who never touch their genitals, for they shall be pure as the innocent babe."

Fine, we'll grant you that nobody should hear about condoms, and that sex is bad, and that touching yourself is bad, except in marriage where it's fine but slightly repellent. (I'm sorry, I'm channeling Saint Paul on that one.)

But tell me - I know you talk about the war on terror. Do you think just possibly you might not keep firing solidiers who speak Arabic, and who could be used to protect us?

Do you remember that there was a backlog of email messages in Arabic that related to 9-11, but weren't translated until several days AFTER 9-11, because there was a backlog of non-translated messages because the intelligence services don't have enough translators?

And it's not just Bleu Copas, Mr. President.

Look at this quote from the CNN story: "But the GAO [General Accounting Office] also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California."

Yo Bush. Do you speak Arabic? Does Laura? Does Condi? I won't ask about Donald, because he seems ready for a rest home... any hope of that, he doesn't seem well, I worry for him.

But really... 55 gay people in the army who are proficient in Arabic and you want them fired?

Gosh, and here I thought you wanted to protect us all in your war on terror.

Whaddya say, President Bush?

Do you think for five seconds you could not cater to your fundamentalist base, and you might try to protect us FOR REAL rather than just with a lot of fancy talk?

How about reinstating those 55 maybe gay people who are proficient in Arabic? And maybe find out about the other 745 who had "critical abilities." Sounds like they might be helpful too.

What do you think? Any chance you'll consider putting the safety of America above worrying about whether someone is gay or not?

(Here's another article with more information on this case and this issue: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2077.html It's from a British gay newspaper, I hope that doesn't scare the President or anyone else. I don't think it turns you gay to read such a newspaper. It's just it has some information that wasn't in the CNN one. So don't be afraid.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...t_b_27017.html

:)

:lol: ROFLMAO.
I can't think of a better way to end this topic. Oh crap I should not have posted this. :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrendaQG

The trouble with what you cited is that it contradicts the accepted definition of a eunuch Wikipedia article: Eunuch. I am really puzzled by how anyone can look at term and not see transsexuals who did not have surgery and synthetic hormones. Because such things had not been invented until the 20th century. Other than the medical procedures available to them they would be mentally indistinguishable from a modern transsexual.

The fact that many theologians will stick to the precise meaning of the words then deviate when that meaning is not to their taste exposes their hipocracy.

---

I doubt either of us hold a degree in Christian Science so I'm going to leave the biblical interpretations to those best studied and equipped to to interpret.

The biggest problem in both our attempts to interpret Matthew is that the interpretation is poor because of linguistical differences between english and an ancient semitic language, aramaic.

The metaphoric style of writing in the bible makes any further interpretation all the more contentious.

In short, what we're arguing over is a copy of a copy of a copy. We're best off leaving the interpretations to the scholars.

Quote:

---

Thankfully I am submissive to Allah and practice a religion that feels sex itself is a natural thing to do. A religion that, while homophobic, is genuinely transfriendly. i.e.

---

That is a belief held by Christians, Muslims, Buhdists and Hindu's alike.

Quote:

---

Tehran Iran reputedly has at least as many if not more transsexuals than New York. Due to a fatwa from Ayatolla khomeni the govt. will pay for their medical procedures and protect/oppress them just the same as any XX woman. Which is 100% more than we get out of the USA.

---

Our government GIVES what a government is supposed to GIVE.

LEGAL protection from bigotry and hate. Personally, "I'm the kind of man who likes to know who's buying their drinks for them". I'd much rather pay for my own needs and be given freedom and equal protection than to have my needs paid for by an oppressor.

It seems that in Iran, freedom is subjugated by fatwa.