Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: AD2100 on September 13, 2014, 09:43:52 AM
-
Drunk? Coked-up? What makes a man post this? ???
Mark Sanford Announces Break-up with His Argentinian Fiancee in a Rambling, Bizarre Facebook Post
(http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sanford-640x330.jpg?51cdbb)
The already too-public love life of former South Carolina Governor and current House member Mark Sanford has become even more public with a lengthy and difficult-to-decypher post apparently spurred by a break-up with his fiancee and former Argentinian mistress Maria Belen Chapur. Politico reported the “rambling” post, which is getting the attention of many political observers. Oh, and he posted it on Facebook. It’s best to just dive into this bad boy, so grab a chablis (non-alcoholic, if you prefer), and digest this stemwinder:
I apologize for the length of this post, but given the gravity of the issue at hand when I sat down to write late last night a long list of things came to my mind.
More than anything, I am struck by two truths. One, it seems that history well documents that those who work to avoid conflict at all costs wind up being those destined in many instances to find much conflict. Peace at all costs rarely brings it. On the other hand, Jesus was incredibly clear in the book of Luke that we are to turn the other cheek at offenses and that if someone took our shirt, we were to offer our coat as well.
In this light I have struggled in how to respond since being contacted little more than a week ago regarding yet another lawsuit by yet a new, and third, lawyer retained by my former wife Jenny. I first learned of it through the media and I didn’t want to respond at all, but given the level of accusation after waiting a day I gave a brief response.
My question now though is how to respond given I am being summoned to the court room again on Monday. I have prayed on it, thought on it and asked the advice of friends.
Here is where I have settled:
I cannot do this anymore. In all life there comes a point wherein lines must be drawn in the way that we attempt to respond in ways that don’t invite more in the way of conflict and add more in the way of modeling Christ’s humility in giving in every instance. I’ll never get that mix right, none of us do, but I believe it’s what we are to pursue in all of our responses to the inevitable reality of conflict in our lives.
So here are a few thoughts that hit me:
One, in as much as you sign my paycheck and you have elected me to represent you in Washington, I think I owe you my thinking on this personal, but now public matter. More than at any time in my life, I believe I am subject to not just the laws of God, but the authority of my fellow man.
Two, I am going to get a lawyer to defend me on this case. I will instruct them not to fight back, to work to de-escalate and defuse and to look for measured justice and an end to controversy. At the time of the divorce I did not get a lawyer because I could not imagine standing in a court room with one in some adversarial form against the mother of our boys. Since then, and almost as clock work over the last four and one half years since the divorce, unfortunately there has been either the threat of lawsuit or actual lawsuit about every six months. In every instance I have either settled, represented myself or gotten two longtime friends to help me in responding. I have always tried to quiet the matter because at so many different levels I wanted to do anything to avoid conflict. I didn’t want to further hurt or embarrass the boys, Jenny, the people I had once represented…or even myself with more talk on my personal life. In fact more public conflict after the events of five years ago was the last thing in the world I wanted.
There was also the issue of money. Spending money getting lawyers to resolve differences, when I believed any two people sitting down could do the same, also broke with my belief on stewardship…or what some would call my frugal ways. But here we are and I am comfortable knowing I have tried near everything within my power to avoid lawyers and court – and in my belief that I will continue to work to avoid acrimony going forward. I am simply handing off the keys in dealing with this so that I can focus without further distraction on our boys and my work in Washington. Three, let’s recognize the degree to which what’s being done seems designed to embarrass me rather than change anything. As mentioned I never hired a lawyer at the time of the divorce which in practical terms means I just folded all the cards in giving Jenny what she wanted at that time. She wanted a certain financial number that I didn’t have, and so I gave her pieces of our family farm that my dad and mom assembled in the 1950’s and 60’s. They were obviously not “marital assets” normally divided in a divorce, but the only way I could manage to get to her number. She wanted full custody of the boys, I gave it. She wanted full control of their custodial accounts which were very significant in size, I gave it. I did these things for two reasons. One, because my good friend Cubby Culbertson had reminded me that it was all God’s – and if he wanted you to have more, you would…and if he wanted you to have less, you would have less. He accordingly strongly advised against spending money and time and controversy fighting over things that God ultimately controlled. It was good advice. I also did it because in that chapter of life I could not take any more controversy, and what Jenny had said at that time was that if she didn’t get those things we would go to court and just have another public spectacle. I found that idea haunting, and so I indeed folded all the cards and that brings us to today.
Jenny’s attorney’s newest summons asks that the visitation schedule be changed to limit my visitation with our youngest son Blake. The question is how do you change what does not exist? There is no visitation schedule. She has full custody. Over the last five years she has determined the visitation schedule and informed me at the beginning of this year that I would not be given one. I pleaded otherwise, pointing out that no boy wants to be put in the place of having to pick between their mother and dad.
This year with no schedule has certainly resulted in a lot of time apart from the boys, as for instance I was not able to spend a night with Bolton for 17 weeks this spring. The same holds true last year when they were not allowed to be with me during the five months of the campaign, save the election nights. The trump card has always been, “if you don’t like it, take me to court”, and for all the reasons described this has never been a place I felt comfortable going. The absence of schedule now simply results in strange emails, as for instance I got one two days ago from Jenny’s new lawyer advising me that to arrange any visit with Blake I should come through her. If I had normal parental rights why in the world would I be getting a note like this from an attorney when in that case our son wants nothing more than to go to the USC football game?
So here is my take away. To now suggest that we need to amend what does not exist strikes me as either pure theatre or a punitive restriction to further limit what has devolved to be very limited time with the boys.
Four, let’s call an ace an ace when someone is playing for the media. In fact there is a touch of irony when one reads about the attorney’s desire to seal the records “to protect the children” at the very time when I am getting calls and emails from across the country from friends reading about this matter in their hometown papers. Let me give you a few examples of the way some of these accusations seem designed to generate media attention, and let me in short form answer a few of these accusations.
In their summons I am “restrained” from the following:
“Consuming or being under the influence of illegal drugs or excessive amounts of alcohol in the presence, or while responsible for, the care of the minor child.” This really is crazy. Why would one throw out the need for restraint if it were not a problem – or if one did not want to raise the specter of a problem? On this one all I can ask is that you talk to anyone who has seen or known me over my entire 54 years in the Low Country. I have never taken any illegal drug in my life. I did not drink in high school or college and though I do drink now, my consumption is so limited that my friends give me a hard time about it. I will have but one beer or two when out at a social occasion.
“Restrained from entering or attempting to enter the property of Plaintiff.” We have already been through this with the Super bowl and my taking our youngest son Blake home from a Super bowl party two years ago when his mom was out of town. I made the wrong call (though I thought the right call as a dad to be with him and not to just drop him off) and have never set foot on her property since then. I don’t know why this is being brought back up again.
“Exposing the minor child overnight to a member of the opposite sex not related by blood who could be reasonably construed as a paramour.” Though Jenny herself has certainly not lived up to this clause it is clearly aimed at me given near everyone knows about Belen and in that regard it seems designed to create intrigue where none exists. The younger boys have never spent a night housed under the same roof with Belen and with the exception of one night and a major conversation that lasted well into that night, the same holds true for the older boys. I was primarily motivated to do so by a love for the boys and wanting to go to great lengths to never again put them in an uncomfortable spot. I was also motivated by fear because there was very frequently a consequence in not being allowed to see the boys if I did something my former wife disliked.
No relationship can stand forever this tension of being forced to pick between the one you love and your own son or daughter, and for this reason Belen and I have decided to call off the engagement. Maybe there will be another chapter when waters calm with Jenny, but at this point the environment is not conducive to building anything given no one would want to be caught in the middle of what’s now happening. Belen is a remarkably wonderful woman who I have always loved and I will be forever grateful for not only the many years we have known and loved each other, but the last six very tough ones wherein she has encouraged me and silently borne its tribulations with her ever warm and kind spirit.
Finally, Jenny and her lawyer also go on to ask me to undertake an array of programs and evaluations, each one more riveting than the next. As a public figure people have seen me over twenty years in the highs and lows and most trying of times, and if I was plagued by the afflictions they suggest wouldn’t people have seen me mad or angry by now? In simplest form I don’t understand how I can be elected by a wide array of folks at home to attempt to represent their interests in Washington, but if the Plaintiff’s view was to prevail, be required to take psychiatric and psychological evaluations to be with our youngest son. Posing those sorts of questions is destructive plain and simple, and in fairness to my friends in the media if those type questions are raised they will report them – which is why you have been subjected to reading this response and media accounts.
So where does all this leave us?
One, with my continued belief that for whatever our differences, I believe these boys have a mom who loves them and cares about them. I will never attempt to detract from her or all the positive things she has done in her life, but having to go frequently to ask a former spouse when you can have time with a son is a recipe for conflict. I hope and believe Jenny and I can find a new way. It’s also reminder for every one of you who have been blessed to avoid the agony of divorce, of how important it is you spend time when you have it with those who now bear your name.
Two, I am left with a wise oldest son who’s wisdom is to follow Christ’s example of just letting go and trusting that God is in control and will ensure his youngest brother’s future success. That the key to ending conflict sometimes just means walking away from it. If there is a way I can do that without walking from my son, I will pursue it.
Finally, I am left humbled in my inability to determine outcomes and reminded again of how the only thing we can ultimately work on fixing is ourselves. So for me these days it means rededication to trying as best I can to walk in the light of God’s grace. It means pointing to truth wherever I see it and trying to live by it. It means listening a bit more so that maybe I can better understand the grand canvas of what I don’t see and understand.
This posting has been most personal, but again given the gravity of what has been alleged I felt compelled to address it and the larger context of where our family is and where we are headed. I ask for both your prayers and consideration in this process.
Thank you. Mark
Former Governor Sanford, one might recall, resigned in June 2009 after admitting infidelity with an Argentinian mistress after disappearing on a six-day jaunt. Sanford claimed he had spent it walking the Appalachian trail, which turned out to be not-so-accurate. It may be that this public notice was cathartic for him and refreshing for many, but it’s unusual for a public figure to take such details of his private life directly to social media. The Internet at this point can’t make heads or tails of what the Congressman was trying to say in his uncomfortably personal Facebook post, but thousands of baffled Americans are now trying to figure it out.
-
Ill be honest I expected more from the Argentinian fiance, Ive known a few women from Argentina and that have all be damn gorgeous.
-
Sanford isn't playing with a full deck. His willingness to throw away what could have been a presidential run for a fun-run to south america on the taxpayers dime... and using an easily disprovable excuse like hiking...
Well, it just seems like he's not all there. I'd bet more than a few glasses of red wine were involved in this late-night train wreck of a post. And I'd guess he's about 5 minutes away from some abuse allegations, judging on how he goes out of his way to quote "“Exposing the minor child overnight to a member of the opposite sex not related by blood who could be reasonably construed as a paramour.” while talking about giving a minor male a ride home two years ago.
Methinks dude has some dark demons in that closet :-\
-
he is one of the gifts that just keep on giving.
-
One, it seems that history well documents that those who work to avoid conflict at all costs wind up being those destined in many instances to find much conflict.
Um, no. Those who work to commit adultery wind up finding much conflict. And rightdully so.
And he left Jenny for that?
-
Drunk? Coked-up? What makes a man post this? ???
Mark Sanford Announces Break-up with His Argentinian Fiancee in a Rambling, Bizarre Facebook Post
(http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sanford-640x330.jpg?51cdbb)
The already too-public love life of former South Carolina Governor and current House member Mark Sanford has become even more public with a lengthy and difficult-to-decypher post apparently spurred by a break-up with his fiancee and former Argentinian mistress Maria Belen Chapur. Politico reported the “rambling” post, which is getting the attention of many political observers. Oh, and he posted it on Facebook. It’s best to just dive into this bad boy, so grab a chablis (non-alcoholic, if you prefer), and digest this stemwinder:
I apologize for the length of this post, but given the gravity of the issue at hand when I sat down to write late last night a long list of things came to my mind.
More than anything, I am struck by two truths. One, it seems that history well documents that those who work to avoid conflict at all costs wind up being those destined in many instances to find much conflict. Peace at all costs rarely brings it. On the other hand, Jesus was incredibly clear in the book of Luke that we are to turn the other cheek at offenses and that if someone took our shirt, we were to offer our coat as well.
In this light I have struggled in how to respond since being contacted little more than a week ago regarding yet another lawsuit by yet a new, and third, lawyer retained by my former wife Jenny. I first learned of it through the media and I didn’t want to respond at all, but given the level of accusation after waiting a day I gave a brief response.
My question now though is how to respond given I am being summoned to the court room again on Monday. I have prayed on it, thought on it and asked the advice of friends.
Here is where I have settled:
I cannot do this anymore. In all life there comes a point wherein lines must be drawn in the way that we attempt to respond in ways that don’t invite more in the way of conflict and add more in the way of modeling Christ’s humility in giving in every instance. I’ll never get that mix right, none of us do, but I believe it’s what we are to pursue in all of our responses to the inevitable reality of conflict in our lives.
So here are a few thoughts that hit me:
One, in as much as you sign my paycheck and you have elected me to represent you in Washington, I think I owe you my thinking on this personal, but now public matter. More than at any time in my life, I believe I am subject to not just the laws of God, but the authority of my fellow man.
Two, I am going to get a lawyer to defend me on this case. I will instruct them not to fight back, to work to de-escalate and defuse and to look for measured justice and an end to controversy. At the time of the divorce I did not get a lawyer because I could not imagine standing in a court room with one in some adversarial form against the mother of our boys. Since then, and almost as clock work over the last four and one half years since the divorce, unfortunately there has been either the threat of lawsuit or actual lawsuit about every six months. In every instance I have either settled, represented myself or gotten two longtime friends to help me in responding. I have always tried to quiet the matter because at so many different levels I wanted to do anything to avoid conflict. I didn’t want to further hurt or embarrass the boys, Jenny, the people I had once represented…or even myself with more talk on my personal life. In fact more public conflict after the events of five years ago was the last thing in the world I wanted.
There was also the issue of money. Spending money getting lawyers to resolve differences, when I believed any two people sitting down could do the same, also broke with my belief on stewardship…or what some would call my frugal ways. But here we are and I am comfortable knowing I have tried near everything within my power to avoid lawyers and court – and in my belief that I will continue to work to avoid acrimony going forward. I am simply handing off the keys in dealing with this so that I can focus without further distraction on our boys and my work in Washington. Three, let’s recognize the degree to which what’s being done seems designed to embarrass me rather than change anything. As mentioned I never hired a lawyer at the time of the divorce which in practical terms means I just folded all the cards in giving Jenny what she wanted at that time. She wanted a certain financial number that I didn’t have, and so I gave her pieces of our family farm that my dad and mom assembled in the 1950’s and 60’s. They were obviously not “marital assets” normally divided in a divorce, but the only way I could manage to get to her number. She wanted full custody of the boys, I gave it. She wanted full control of their custodial accounts which were very significant in size, I gave it. I did these things for two reasons. One, because my good friend Cubby Culbertson had reminded me that it was all God’s – and if he wanted you to have more, you would…and if he wanted you to have less, you would have less. He accordingly strongly advised against spending money and time and controversy fighting over things that God ultimately controlled. It was good advice. I also did it because in that chapter of life I could not take any more controversy, and what Jenny had said at that time was that if she didn’t get those things we would go to court and just have another public spectacle. I found that idea haunting, and so I indeed folded all the cards and that brings us to today.
Jenny’s attorney’s newest summons asks that the visitation schedule be changed to limit my visitation with our youngest son Blake. The question is how do you change what does not exist? There is no visitation schedule. She has full custody. Over the last five years she has determined the visitation schedule and informed me at the beginning of this year that I would not be given one. I pleaded otherwise, pointing out that no boy wants to be put in the place of having to pick between their mother and dad.
This year with no schedule has certainly resulted in a lot of time apart from the boys, as for instance I was not able to spend a night with Bolton for 17 weeks this spring. The same holds true last year when they were not allowed to be with me during the five months of the campaign, save the election nights. The trump card has always been, “if you don’t like it, take me to court”, and for all the reasons described this has never been a place I felt comfortable going. The absence of schedule now simply results in strange emails, as for instance I got one two days ago from Jenny’s new lawyer advising me that to arrange any visit with Blake I should come through her. If I had normal parental rights why in the world would I be getting a note like this from an attorney when in that case our son wants nothing more than to go to the USC football game?
So here is my take away. To now suggest that we need to amend what does not exist strikes me as either pure theatre or a punitive restriction to further limit what has devolved to be very limited time with the boys.
Four, let’s call an ace an ace when someone is playing for the media. In fact there is a touch of irony when one reads about the attorney’s desire to seal the records “to protect the children” at the very time when I am getting calls and emails from across the country from friends reading about this matter in their hometown papers. Let me give you a few examples of the way some of these accusations seem designed to generate media attention, and let me in short form answer a few of these accusations.
In their summons I am “restrained” from the following:
“Consuming or being under the influence of illegal drugs or excessive amounts of alcohol in the presence, or while responsible for, the care of the minor child.” This really is crazy. Why would one throw out the need for restraint if it were not a problem – or if one did not want to raise the specter of a problem? On this one all I can ask is that you talk to anyone who has seen or known me over my entire 54 years in the Low Country. I have never taken any illegal drug in my life. I did not drink in high school or college and though I do drink now, my consumption is so limited that my friends give me a hard time about it. I will have but one beer or two when out at a social occasion.
“Restrained from entering or attempting to enter the property of Plaintiff.” We have already been through this with the Super bowl and my taking our youngest son Blake home from a Super bowl party two years ago when his mom was out of town. I made the wrong call (though I thought the right call as a dad to be with him and not to just drop him off) and have never set foot on her property since then. I don’t know why this is being brought back up again.
“Exposing the minor child overnight to a member of the opposite sex not related by blood who could be reasonably construed as a paramour.” Though Jenny herself has certainly not lived up to this clause it is clearly aimed at me given near everyone knows about Belen and in that regard it seems designed to create intrigue where none exists. The younger boys have never spent a night housed under the same roof with Belen and with the exception of one night and a major conversation that lasted well into that night, the same holds true for the older boys. I was primarily motivated to do so by a love for the boys and wanting to go to great lengths to never again put them in an uncomfortable spot. I was also motivated by fear because there was very frequently a consequence in not being allowed to see the boys if I did something my former wife disliked.
No relationship can stand forever this tension of being forced to pick between the one you love and your own son or daughter, and for this reason Belen and I have decided to call off the engagement. Maybe there will be another chapter when waters calm with Jenny, but at this point the environment is not conducive to building anything given no one would want to be caught in the middle of what’s now happening. Belen is a remarkably wonderful woman who I have always loved and I will be forever grateful for not only the many years we have known and loved each other, but the last six very tough ones wherein she has encouraged me and silently borne its tribulations with her ever warm and kind spirit.
Finally, Jenny and her lawyer also go on to ask me to undertake an array of programs and evaluations, each one more riveting than the next. As a public figure people have seen me over twenty years in the highs and lows and most trying of times, and if I was plagued by the afflictions they suggest wouldn’t people have seen me mad or angry by now? In simplest form I don’t understand how I can be elected by a wide array of folks at home to attempt to represent their interests in Washington, but if the Plaintiff’s view was to prevail, be required to take psychiatric and psychological evaluations to be with our youngest son. Posing those sorts of questions is destructive plain and simple, and in fairness to my friends in the media if those type questions are raised they will report them – which is why you have been subjected to reading this response and media accounts.
So where does all this leave us?
One, with my continued belief that for whatever our differences, I believe these boys have a mom who loves them and cares about them. I will never attempt to detract from her or all the positive things she has done in her life, but having to go frequently to ask a former spouse when you can have time with a son is a recipe for conflict. I hope and believe Jenny and I can find a new way. It’s also reminder for every one of you who have been blessed to avoid the agony of divorce, of how important it is you spend time when you have it with those who now bear your name.
Two, I am left with a wise oldest son who’s wisdom is to follow Christ’s example of just letting go and trusting that God is in control and will ensure his youngest brother’s future success. That the key to ending conflict sometimes just means walking away from it. If there is a way I can do that without walking from my son, I will pursue it.
Finally, I am left humbled in my inability to determine outcomes and reminded again of how the only thing we can ultimately work on fixing is ourselves. So for me these days it means rededication to trying as best I can to walk in the light of God’s grace. It means pointing to truth wherever I see it and trying to live by it. It means listening a bit more so that maybe I can better understand the grand canvas of what I don’t see and understand.
This posting has been most personal, but again given the gravity of what has been alleged I felt compelled to address it and the larger context of where our family is and where we are headed. I ask for both your prayers and consideration in this process.
Thank you. Mark
Former Governor Sanford, one might recall, resigned in June 2009 after admitting infidelity with an Argentinian mistress after disappearing on a six-day jaunt. Sanford claimed he had spent it walking the Appalachian trail, which turned out to be not-so-accurate. It may be that this public notice was cathartic for him and refreshing for many, but it’s unusual for a public figure to take such details of his private life directly to social media. The Internet at this point can’t make heads or tails of what the Congressman was trying to say in his uncomfortably personal Facebook post, but thousands of baffled Americans are now trying to figure it out.
Straight out of a Kennedy playbook except he didn't leave her in a car to drown to death. "Liberals" lol
-
The mind of the Right Winger.........an interesting thing indeed.
-
Straight out of a Kennedy playbook except he didn't leave her in a car to drown to death. "Liberals" lol
it's true. 100% of liberals are heartless bastards that send women to a watery death at the bottom of a lake.
I'm pretty sure you have to melt a gun and drown a registered republican to get your DNC membership.
-
it's true. 100% of liberals are heartless bastards that send women to a watery death at the bottom of a lake.
I'm pretty sure you have to melt a gun and drown a registered republican to get your DNC membership.
Yup a succesfull date goes: Eating, movie, sex and drowning.
-
Yup a succesfull date goes: Eating, movie, sex and drowning.
actually most liberals prefer sex AFTER drowning their date.
Liberal "males" typically have 3 inch ding dongs and finish in 45 seconds. They even disappoint the dead.
-
Cliff's notes?
-
I am not reading all that, but did you "really" have to label her as a whore? She was doing what women should do, which is have sex. You tolerant left types are so judgmental.
-
I am not reading all that, but did you "really" have to label her as a whore? She was doing what women should do, which is have sex. You tolerant left types are so judgmental.
Actually the rambling post was mislabelled, and was not about his Argentinian mistress. She was a mere afterthought. This was about the messy situation with his ex-wife. The only thing I can make of this is, he's taking away her trump card which... if I'm reading him correctly, has always been his fear of further press scrutiny and rehashing of his infidelity. He's trying to pull the rug out from underneath her, and her legal team by putting it all out there.
-
I am not reading all that, but did you "really" have to label her as a whore? She was doing what women should do, which is have sex. You tolerant left types are so judgmental.
A woman that knowingly sleeps with a married man is a WHORE. She may well be a well-mannered, intelligent and kind woman (on appearances, she looks like she has those characteristics). Nevertheless, she meets my definition of a WHORE. :)
-
Cliff's notes?
Sure.
1. Nobody - including the retard that started this thread actually read the mini-book above.
2. Everybody is basically commenting on what it might be about given the title (and OP's known homosexual leanings).
3. Nobody really gives a fuck.
-
Sure.
1. Nobody - including the retard that started this thread actually read the mini-book above.
2. Everybody is basically commenting on what it might be about given the title (and OP's known homosexual leanings).
3. Nobody really gives a fuck.
AND
4. I bet we're a few days away from allegations involving a child and some inappropriate car ride. Dude doesn't drink a bottle of merlot and randomly come up with that, unless it's weighing heavily on his mind...
-
Sure.
1. Nobody - including the retard that started this thread actually read the mini-book above.
Retard? Okay...lol
You are correct about me and quite wrong about others, as 24KT has made clear in this thread.
STRIKE ONE FOR YOU, DUMB ASS! :)
2. Everybody is basically commenting on what it might be about given the title (and OP's known homosexual leanings).
??? What a quirky attempt at a low blow. Sorry but I am straight and no I will not let you suck my dick.
STRIKE TWO!
3. Nobody really gives a fuck.
Yet this thread has over a dozen comments, 450+ views, AND you took the time to write a comment. ::)
STRIKE THREE! You're out!
DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT
-
This is what opiates combined with benzos and speed either coke or adderall looks like
This isn't uppers isolated
That results in grandiose Eric Dollard type babble
Not opiates
That's introverted
Nor benzos
That can get weird though
It's all 3. He needs rehab or is dead by end of year . This isn't mental illness I read the post then looked at
His images. He's fucked off his head on uppers + downers combined
-
This guy is a "sleazeball" but Anthony Weiner is a great man. ::)
Fake moral outrage by the libtards.
-
It seems the older people get, their ability to handle their drugs/booze deteriorates at an alarming rate.
-
This guy is a "sleazeball" but Anthony Weiner is a great man. ::)
Fake moral outrage by the libtards.
please post ONE liberal that said this guy is a sleazeball but Weiner is a great man.
Quotes, links, etc? I mean, I don't think anyone in america has said that.
-
I think ANY govt official that uses govt resources to get laid, well, boot them from office. I dont care that the dude had a side dish, that's his business. I do care that he used a taxpayer airplane to get away for the weekend to get laid.
-
You gotta love the fundies who commit adultery
Isn't that punishable by death according to the book that they believe is the word of their god?
-
You gotta love the fundies who commit adultery
Isn't that punishable by death according to the book that they believe is the word of their god?
Is he a jew?
-
You gotta love the fundies who commit adultery
Isn't that punishable by death according to the book that they believe is the word of their god?
you gotta love the morons who fail to understand that the central idea behind christianity is that all people are sinners and salvation is obtained through God.
-
Is he a jew?
why
are you going to tell me that portion of the "word of god" only applies to Jews?
-
you gotta love the morons who fail to understand that the central idea behind christianity is that all people are sinners and salvation is obtained through God.
what are my options again......accept jesus as my saviour or suffer eternal damnation?
any other choices?
-
what are my options again......accept jesus as my saviour or suffer eternal damnation?
any other choices?
why quote my post if you dont even address it?
hahaha run along now straw
-
why quote my post if you dont even address it?
hahaha run along now straw
address what?
those are your personal beliefs
if you want to believe you're a sinner and all that other shit then go right ahead
the fact remains that the book that christians believe is the word of their god has a death penalty for adultery
let me take a page out of your book and point out that you never addresses that
-
you gotta love the morons who fail to understand that the central idea behind christianity is that all people are sinners and salvation is obtained through God.
The central idea is to live your life based on a fairy tale viewpoints of an ancient book written by uneducated scared men who didn't know how the world worked. Only to get a reward after you die which - due to death conveniently stopping you from telling everyone how great/shitty/nonexistent that said reward is, you believe you are going to sprout wings and go sit on clouds for eternity.
-
why
are you going to tell me that portion of the "word of god" only applies to Jews?
Well I guess its pointless since you don't understand the difference between the torah (old testament) and the new testament. But please continue with your nonsense
-
Well I guess its pointless since you don't understand the difference between the torah (old testament) and the new testament. But please continue with your nonsense
you're going to tell me that the new testament has different prescriptions for adultery and other so called "sins" ("sins" of course being totally subjective)
that's fine
we can ignore the old testament then or does it only still apply if you're a jew?
-
you're going to tell me that the new testament has different prescriptions for adultery and other so called "sins" ("sins" of course being totally subjective)
that's fine
we can ignore the old testament then or does it only still apply if you're a jew?
The old testament is the covenant between God and the Israelite's, where the new testament is the covenant between God and those who accept Christ. So yes they are totally different.
-
The old testament is the covenant between God and the Israelite's, where the new testament is the covenant between God and those who accept Christ. So yes they are totally different.
so are all the same things still "sins" but just the penalties have changed or if it's not mentioned in the New Testament then it's off the "sin" list?
btw - why not just exclude the Old Testament from the bible all together if it only applies to jews?
-
so are all the same things still "sins" but just the penalties have changed or if it's not mentioned in the New Testament then it's off the "sin" list?
btw - why not just exclude the Old Testament from the bible all together if it only applies to jews?
Sins are still sins, but Christ takes the burden of them for Christians, the old testament is used as the proof that Jesus is the Christ.
-
Sins are still sins, but Christ takes the burden of them for Christians, the old testament is used as the proof that Jesus is the Christ.
so when you work on the Sabbath you are sinning?
same goes for wearing a piece of clothing made of linen and woollen or eating shellfish or getting a tattoo or shaving your beard, etc...?
all still sins except Jesus takes the burden? What does that mean that he takes the burden anyway.
does he also take the burden for homosexuality and adultery. I assume so.
I don't understand how the old testament proved that jesus is christ?
can you explain that
-
so when you work on the Sabbath you are sinning?
same goes for wearing a piece of clothing made of linen and woollen or eating shellfish or getting a tattoo or shaving your beard, etc...?
all still sins except Jesus takes the burden? What does that mean that he takes the burden anyway.
does he also take the burden for homosexuality and adultery. I assume so.
I don't understand how the old testament proved that jesus is christ?
can you explain that
That question is the bane of all religions.
-
That question is the bane of all religions.
I'm being serious
I'd like to know the answers to those questions
-
The central idea is to live your life based on a fairy tale viewpoints of an ancient book written by uneducated scared men who didn't know how the world worked. Only to get a reward after you die which - due to death conveniently stopping you from telling everyone how great/shitty/nonexistent that said reward is, you believe you are going to sprout wings and go sit on clouds for eternity.
I dont know what happens when you die, neither do you. Fact is I admit it openly and you condemn others for their beliefs b/c you feel superior.
Typical libtard
-
so when you work on the Sabbath you are sinning?
same goes for wearing a piece of clothing made of linen and woollen or eating shellfish or getting a tattoo or shaving your beard, etc...?
all still sins except Jesus takes the burden? What does that mean that he takes the burden anyway.
does he also take the burden for homosexuality and adultery. I assume so.
I don't understand how the old testament proved that jesus is christ?
can you explain that
The laws of the old testament apply to Jews, no one else
Christ is the intermediary between God and man, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for man.
The point being that if you are truly repentant for bad things you have done you are forgiven.
The old testament predicts the coming of Christ, that is why it is included.
-
That question is the bane of all religions.
Why?
-
The laws of the old testament apply to Jews, no one else
Christ is the intermediary between God and man, Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for man.
The point being that if you are truly repentant for bad things you have done you are forgiven.
The old testament predicts the coming of Christ, that is why it is included.
are the laws of the old testament different from the various sins listed in the old testament. I'm not sure of the difference?
doesn't the old testament have many different prophecies about the future. How does that prove something?
wasn't the bible predicting the return of jesus and the end times to occur soon after his death?
btw - I'm sure that parts of it were written "bc" but of course we know it was translated/mistranslated, redacted, etc.. thousands of times after jesus died so I'm just not follow the "proof of christ" part but I guess one has to fill in those parts with faith (at least I assume that to be the case)
edit: aren't many of the old testament prophecies somehow claimed to be validated by books of the new testament written years after his death.
-
I dont know what happens when you die, neither do you. Fact is I admit it openly and you condemn others for their beliefs b/c you feel superior.
Typical libtard
No. I don't condemn anyone for anything. I point out the irony that their "God" doesn't reward or punish them until after death. A time when there is no way anyone can come back and report what happens and how they were rewarded or punished. The notion that you float up to sit on the clouds is beyond common sense. What kind of paradise is it for Grandma to spend eternity with crippled hands, bad hearing, and a face full of wrinkles? Oh wait... she might not be that way huh? She may be a young woman again. Of course, then all her grand kids will never recognize her.
-
Why?
Because religion calls for blind devotion, suspension of common sense, and acceptance of contradictions without offering any explanation or evidence.
-
Because religion calls for blind devotion, suspension of common sense, and acceptance of contradictions without offering any explanation or evidence.
No it doesn't, only the weak minded never question anything
-
No it doesn't, only the weak minded never question anything
Yes it does. You can't question anything. You can't apply common sense to it's teachings. You have to chalk up any contradictions or things you don't agree with at the risk of appearing to be a hypocrite as it is something that "was written down wrong" or "open to interpretation".
-
Yes it does. You can't question anything. You can't apply common sense to it's teachings. You have to chalk up any contradictions or things you don't agree with at the risk of appearing to be a hypocrite as it is something that "was written down wrong" or "open to interpretation".
Whatever dude, you atheist types always seem to think you are some expert on religion
-
Whatever dude, you atheist types always seem to think you are some expert on religion
There is no "whatever" to it. Using the same logic and "rules" that apply to religion, one can argue that unicorns exist as well and it can't be proven false.