Blaze readers have to be careful about jumping to the defense of people simply because they identify themselves as Christians. A seemingly nice Christian couple in NJ was found to be starving 4 adopted kids just a few years ago. They didn’t hide the 4 boys from the community. They would routinely dress them up and take them to church. When asked why the boys were so small their stock answer: eating disorder. The two ‘Christian’ monsters had kids of their own that were fed and treated well, but the 4 adopted boys had to forage for food. One of the boys was 19 years old, only 4ft tall, and weighed less than 50 pounds!
So when I read that this little girl had an eating disorder and would refuse food, but then go find trash or ask neighbors for food, I find it utterly suspicious and illogical. What ‘eating disorder’ compels you to binge on garbage when there is fresh food available? Answer: none. That 19 year old had gained 50 pounds and a foot in height within a year after being removed from the care of those parents.
Read the article in the link. Not once does it mention Christians.
April 3, 2013 at 3:58pm
I expect inanity from people who are trying to argue for the inane. Of course, you missed the irony of your attempt to highlight my alleged hair splitting with regard to the word ‘slavery’. People like you are attempting to distort the meaning of the word ‘MARRIAGE’ as it’s described in the Bible.
April 3, 2013 at 12:05pm
I would respect him more if he just came out and said “I am a post-Bible pastor”. Or if he said that “I believe in the Christian spirit of ‘love thy neighbor’ but not Christian doctrine” I could stomach it. But the truth is he’s a charlatan who is leading his “flock” to Satan. The Bible is unequivocal about homosexuality. And I love the canard about slavery. The Bible doesn’t mandate slavery, so humanity is not violating some biblical principle by abandoning the practice. Furthermore, the type of “slavery” outlined in the Bible was more akin to indentured servitude and bears no resemblance to the slavery practiced in the past 500 years – especially not the US version.
If you have to split hairs to argue exactly what TYPE of slavery your religion supports, I think you should maybe rethink your religion.
And if you don't understand context and history, I suggest you bow out gracefully and realize you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand something you've clearly never studied.
The old Jewish Bible gave us the concept of jubilee, which Bono of U2 fame went around spouting until his 15 minutes were up. As an aside I was personally for it, so we could tell various countries & governments that It is all you now. No more excuses about crushing debt yada, yada.
So the bible gives us the concept of jubilee, that the poor can eat their fill & not starve, etc & you have to bash it. Elsewhere at that time there was utopia. NOT!
Me thinks though doth protest too much.
Are you here as part of an evangelical effort, community service or you have nothing better to do because you just split up?
And in actuality, the indentured servitude was only mandatory for people who got so far into debt that even selling all their belongings didn't cover the debt they owed. Better than the (ye) olde debtors prison, people were expected to work off their debt - and never for more than 7 years. That was the point of Jubilee. All debt was forgiven on Jubilee.
I expect inanity from people who are trying to argue for the inane. Of course, you missed the irony of your attempt to highlight my alleged hair splitting with regard to the word 'slavery'. People like you are attempting to distort the meaning of the word 'MARRIAGE' as it's described in the Bible.
March 25, 2013 at 4:20pm
You’re not going to pettifog the issue. Ann smacked the libs in their blind spot and more conservative pundits should follow suit. The same left that champions homosexuality, which leads to higher HIV infection rates, are now telling us that we should be prevented from buying a Big Gulp because of the potential healthcare costs. It lays bare the reality that these people are not about saving money. They’re about telling people how to live and which behaviors are acceptable – despite the costs.
Heterosexual activity causes children? Where did you read that? PAY ATTENTION FOLKS. I’ve seen this lamebrain argument in other forums so it must be a new strategy. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS CHILDREN. It can do without sodomy and its attendant maladies, but there’s no future without children. Of course, you were born an adult, right? I already addressed your blather when I said society should encourage heterosexual monogamy. Doing so would mitigate both the problem Ann mentioned and the one about which you’re droning. But the left (and apparently you) would NEVER let that happen again. They’d much rather go after Big Soda.
March 25, 2013 at 11:55am
FINALLY!!! Leave it Ann to hit them where it hurts. Libs talk out of both sides of their mouths. Notice how the pretty authoritarian became downright libertarian when Ann pointed out that HIV/AIDS is expensive too. She went from ‘we have to pay for your healthcare so deal with it’, with respect to cigarettes and soda, to ‘adults should be able to do what they want’ when Ann suggested gay bar regulation. Priceless.
March 25, 2013 at 11:50am
No, no, no. Unprotected sex is not the problem. The group most responsible for the proliferation of HIV/AIDS is men who have sex with men. Pregnancy is not a disease, but HIV/AIDS is and it’s very expensive to treat. So if we’re going to shame and call out smokers and the overweight, then we should be doing the same for the guys who prefer guys. Or better yet society should be encouraging (gasp!) … monogamous heterosexuality. Who knew?
March 5, 2013 at 3:46pm
I notice that ENCINOM and a few others like to throw the word ‘bigot’ around. I’ve never quite understood how disapproval of a behavior makes you a bigot. Is it bigotry if you don’t allow smoking in your home? What if you don’t like to keep company with gamblers or loud-talkers or people who bathe infrequently, does that make you a bigot too? Or is it just sexual behavior that you’re not allowed to condemn? Oh, but we can all despise pedophiles, right? Well, at least today we can. Because good people realize we’re on the road to depravity and the forces of “tolerance” won’t abide an early exit.
January 13, 2013 at 5:31pm
I don’t know if these comments are from real Blaze readers or trolls. But for the record, MIL_DOT, no race of people holds the patent on bad behavior or sloth. If half of American households are receiving government assistance and Blacks are only 12% of the population (and shrinking), math says that most of the lazy and shiftless are non-black. It’s SOP for people who only see color to overlook the misdeeds of people who look like them, but fall over themselves to point out the missteps of the people who don’t. And while this country disintegrates socially, morally, and economically, it’ll be the ‘white is right’ folks who will form Nazi-type political parties to hasten the nation’s demise because to them color is more important than the Republican party or the country. The examples Powell cites are just stupid and aren’t evidence of racism unless you’re channeling Chris Matthews. Next time he can just refer to the comments posted here instead.
October 25, 2012 at 5:40pm
You and the writer of this article make assumptions based on your own biases. I’ve either been present or involved peripherally with about a dozen weddings in the past 15 years – including my own. And in neither ceremony was the couple intimately acquainted with the person officiating the event. My wife and I were married in a judge’s chambers during a break in trial testimony. An atheist is no more likely to be acquainted with a certified celebrant than an unaffiliated believer is to be acquainted with a religious person authorized to perform weddings.
One has to infer from the suit that atheist view religious institutions as mere social organizations. I think that’s a fair interpretation. So if the leader of club A (i.e. pastor, priest, rabbi, etc) can solemnize weddings, why not one from club B? If you follow their logic why can’t a football coach officiate a wedding for one of his players? Why not a police lieutennant for one of her officers? Does the law discriminate against the ball player or officer who believes, but doesn’t attend church regularly? Of course not. Get a justice of the peace, have your secular wedding, and give it a rest.
September 24, 2012 at 9:26am
Nice try Wine(y)Dude. Just make up some quotes and attribute them to Jefferson and Madison and make those “righties” squirm, right? Wrong! We know better.
May 18, 2012 at 11:36am
So is the administration promoting the idea that America needs more people who can relate to these images? That won’t lead to a ‘land of dreams’ in my book. It’d be more like a ‘land of nightmares’.
February 6, 2012 at 6:14pm
Where to begin? First off, a “comedienne” is a female. I know the name ‘Tracy’ is unisex, but Tracy Morgan is a dude. Secondly, he didn’t get a pass for his tirade. He actually had to do a ‘we are the world’ apology tour. Lastly, there’s a difference between talking about how you’d do something untoward to your son if he said he was gay and shouting n**ger at the top of your lungs to complete strangers in the audience. And then, to top it off, saying how a few decades ago those same audience members, 2 black guys, would have pitchforks shoved up their you-know-whats. Michael Richardson wasn’t black-balled for his tirade. He was black-balled because he sucks as a stand-up comic. But he’s still cashing those Seinfeld syndication checks so God bless.
Roland Martin is, more often than not, a grievance peddler. So it would appear that he’s reaping what he sows.
November 11, 2011 at 1:01pm
Reagan won California just 27 years ago. Today it may as well be part of Europe, Asia, or South America – politically speaking. That is an unimaginable level of change in just over a generation. Can statehood be rescinded? It may come to that because the people who run that state don’t even act like they’re part of the US.
May 11, 2011 at 8:01am
They post Larry’s videos for information. It’s not “red meat meant to stoke up a reaction’. If you don’t know what the counter-argument is, how do you know your argument is correct?
O’Dummy and his ilk have their blinders on. They see how a country like China has embraced capitalism, to a degree, and it’s paying off like crazy. But they fail to see the inverse as they cheer-lead our march further into socialism and the misery that it created in places like China, Cuba, and elsewhere.
The real endgame of the “progressives”, whether they admit it or not, is for the US to become a country like China – a totalitarian state with just enough free enterprise to keep folks busy. Raul Castro could never sound like any Republican I respect because he doesn’t believe in liberty. Castro and his acolytes, like O’Dummy, only believe in control. They are the embodiment of Hayek’s ‘fatal conceit’.
May 1, 2011 at 10:14am
Gee … what happened to that no-fly zone? I thought we took out the air defenses weeks ago. So now we’re killing the grandchildren?? The Islamic radicals will have another excuse to burn Ole Glory on Al-Jazeera. Libya is turning into something ugly because our policy is very clearly duplicitous.
I saw Michelle Bachman very passionately denounce our involvement in Libya on Fox News Sunday. Where was that 2 months ago?!!
I say we drill, explore, and exploit our own energy resources right here. All of it. More coal. More nuclear. More natural gas. Even (gulp) more green. Whatever it takes to keep us from having to send our soldiers to fight and die in the hellhole that is the Middle East. If we ratcheted up our own production, the overall price of energy would fall dramatically but the rest of the world would be left to deal with the madness in the Middle East. They’d have to – not us. Oh and let’s not forget the millions of jobs it would create by expanding our energy sector!