Senator sorry after number appears on D.C. Madam's list

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Sen. David Vitter apologizes for link to D.C. Madam
'I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife,' he says in statement
Vitter says his number was on phone records of Madam before he ran for Senate

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/09/dc.madam.ap/index.html

Who cares if it happened before he got elected. It just shows that he is an asshole and prick for cheating on his wife. If he was a Senator at the time I would sat do the samething to him that was done to President Clinton. Adultry is a horrible thing to do to someone, as it really hurts them.

[GW in Ohio]

Is he one of those church-going, "family values" Republicans who believes his party is morally superior to the Democrats?

Just wondering................

[nevadamedic]

Is he one of those church-going, "family values" Republicans who believes his party is morally superior to the Democrats?

Just wondering................

Here we go with the flaming.

[GW in Ohio]

Here we go with the flaming.

"Flaming"?

Naw, I was just wondering if he was a family values guy.

You guys are kinda sensitive, aren't cha?

[jimnyc]

Is he one of those church-going, "family values" Republicans who believes his party is morally superior to the Democrats?

Just wondering................

Not sure, but at least he wasn't doing his dirty work in the oval office.

[avatar4321]

Not sure, but at least he wasn't doing his dirty work in the oval office.

At least he actually apologized and came clean.

Still waiting for an Apology from Clinton. All he did was say its none of our business and its the peoples fault for having him investigating instead of letting him violate the law.

[nevadamedic]

(CNN ) — Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani called Senator David Vitter’s apparent connection to the D.C. Madam “a personal issue”, but admitted that “some people disappoint you.”

Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has endorsed Giuliani and serves as his southern regional chair. The two appeared together two weeks ago in New Orleans. Vitter admitted in a statement that his phone number was in the records of an escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Giuliani was asked about the admission after a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire on Tuesday morning. He noted he had not spoken to Vitter and that “it’s too early to tell” if he will leave the campaign position. ”I believe it’s a personal issue,” he said. “We’ll have to hear from Senator Vitter.”

Last month, Giuliani’s South Carolina chairman resigned after he was indicted on drug charges. Giuliani insists he should not be judged based on the behavior of certain individuals associated with his campaign or mayoral administration.

“If you look at all the people I’ve appointed, a thousand or so, sure, some of them have problems,“ he said. “The vast majority were outstanding. You couldn’t accomplish the things I’ve accomplished without outstanding people. Some people are flawed, but the percentage is no greater than other people would have encountered. People look at this in the big picture.”

Giuliani said his record “came about by having mostly good people. And some people disappoint you.”

In his statement, Vitter said, “This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and from my wife in confession and marriage counseling.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[JohnDoe]

I am not so certain on how ''clean'' he 'came....?

Just think about it... he said it took place before he became a senator, and he is a Senator from where? From Louisianna....!!!!

This is a DC Prostitution service, Washington DC maddam's service.

It appears to me and is OBVIOUS that he is lying, it took place in DC, while he was there as a Senator... I can't picture him driving to DC on vacation, visiting from louisianna...to hook up with this Prostitution/escort service.

That being said, it's none of my business, hope he can conquer his own deamons now that he has been exposed.

update: Just heard he was a Congressman before Senator.

[nevadamedic]

I am not so certain on how ''clean'' he 'came....?

Just think about it... he said it took place before he became a senator, and he is a Senator from where? From Louisianna....!!!!

This is a DC Prostitution service, Washington DC maddam's service.

It appears to me and is OBVIOUS that he is lying, it took place in DC, while he was there as a Senator... I can't picture him driving to DC on vacation, visiting from louisianna...to hook up with this Prostitution/escort service.

That being said, it's none of my business, hope he can conquer his own deamons now that he has been exposed.

He could have had business trips there, h could have been a lobbiest as well. Maybe he was a Congressman? The article only said he didn't do it while a Senator. :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

She has a long list that is yet to be revealed. This guy and all the others knew they would be fingered in this deal, he should have spoke up long before this. Is she only releasing names with R's after them or will she be an equal opportunity madam and release the D's as well.

[nevadamedic]

She has a long list that is yet to be revealed. This guy and all the others knew they would be fingered in this deal, he should have spoke up long before this. Is she only releasing names with R's after them or will she be an equal opportunity madam and release the D's as well.

For sure.....................:salute:

[diuretic]

It's not so much the moral weakness and infidelity that's the issue, it's the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man, campaigning on family issues while banging prostitutes. For mine a bloke cheating on his wife is between them to sort out. But saying one thing and doing the other is just hypocritical.

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Magazine says its phone call prompted senator's confession
Publisher Larry Flynt had offered reward for information
Journalist working on book with alleged madam notified Flynt
Sen. David Vitter admits his phone number appears in escort service's records

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/vitter.madam/index.html

Why am I not surprised that Larry Flint has his nose in this situation. He is such a scumbag.

[stephanie]

I doubt if we hear one Democrat name released..

If Flint got with the Madame, and promised to pay her bills and such...

We'll probably only see the drip drip drip of Republicans names, all the way up to the elections....

Just my thinking...

Well see, I guess....

[nevadamedic]

I doubt if we hear one Democrat name released..

If Flint got with the Madame, and promised to pay her bills and such...

We'll probably only see the drip drip drip of Republicans names, all the way up to the elections....

Just my thinking...

Well see, I guess....

Yup and they will save the big wammy until people are ready to vote, that way the candidate's they screw over can't defend themselves.

[JohnDoe]

YIKES!

Did you catch this?


In 2000, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service she could not be as forgiving as Livingston's wife or Hillary Clinton if her husband were unfaithful.

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," she said. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Lorena Bobbitt, in a 1993 case that drew worldwide attention, cut off her sleeping husband's penis after an argument.

[JohnDoe]

The other issue not being discussed is, this maddam is on trial because she serviced people like Vitter, our actual lawmakers, who are essentially sending her to jail for it.

I'd say that is another hypocrisy involved.

And poor Giulliani, this was his picked (R) Southern religious liason for his campaign, isn't this the 3rd poor pick of Giulliani's, Bernard K who was up to his eyeballs in misdoings for HS, the recently busted coke user/dealer Treasurer he picked for his campaign leader, and now Vitter, his religious rep for the South?

How will he do picking a Cabinet if he was president? Makes one wonder?

[waterrescuedude2000]

Well maybe his wife wasn't giving him any. Got to get it from somewhere. at least he didn't use an intern.

[diuretic]

I don't care what my political reps get up to sexually, i'm more interested in policy. I don't care if my state MP bangs anyone other than his wife. I don't care if my federal MP bangs anyone other than her current (if she has one) partner.

I do care about hypocrisy though.

[GW in Ohio]

It's not so much the moral weakness and infidelity that's the issue, it's the breathtaking hypocrisy of the man, campaigning on family issues while banging prostitutes. For mine a bloke cheating on his wife is between them to sort out. But saying one thing and doing the other is just hypocritical.

diuretic: You have hit on the crux of the matter.

I couldn't care less if politicians patronize hookers. If they want to cheat on their wives, that's between them and their wives and the Almighty.

It's when one of these "family values" guys (who invariably are Republicans) campaigns on a platform of moral rectitude and says he represents the family values of his constituents...blah, blah, blah.....and then it turns out that he's been patronizing hookers and cheating on his wife.......

That's when they become fair game.

[GW in Ohio]

And as far as Clinton is concerned, what he did with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office was shameful and embarrassing, but at least he wasn't one of those hypocrites who campaigned on a platform of "family values." We knew Clinton was a womanizer before we elected him. There was no false advertising there.

[Dilloduck]

And as far as Clinton is concerned, what he did with Ms. Lewinsky in the Oval Office was shameful and embarrassing, but at least he wasn't one of those hypocrites who campaigned on a platform of "family values." We knew Clinton was a womanizer before we elected him. There was no false advertising there.

Maybe you did but I sure as hell didn't vote for someone just so they could get blow jobs in the oval office.

[jimnyc]

It's when one of these "family values" guys (who invariably are Republicans)

Yeah, sucks that none of the Democrats claim to have "family values". Their family values are defending the vile, repugnant queers instead of helping them get medical assistance.

[GW in Ohio]

Yeah, sucks that none of the Democrats claim to have "family values". Their family values are defending the vile, repugnant queers instead of helping them get medical assistance.

One of my family values is to accept gay and lesbian people as children of God and fellow citizens with the same rights as you or me.

My family values don't include labeling my fellow Americans as "vile repugnant queers."

[GW in Ohio]

Maybe you did but I sure as hell didn't vote for someone just so they could get blow jobs in the oval office.

Well, you know, duck......

If I have the choice of a president who is pretty competent but has sex with the interns in the White House, vs. a president who is "morally upright" (according to Republican family values) but otherwise is a complete nincompoop who sets our foreign policy back 50 years, and pisses away $1 trillion and the lives of thousands of Americans on an idiotic war.........

I'm gonna go with competence and blowjobs over family values and incompetence every time.

How 'bout you?

[jimnyc]

One of my family values is to accept gay and lesbian people as children of God and fellow citizens with the same rights as you or me.

My family values don't include labeling my fellow Americans as "vile repugnant queers."

They already have identical rights, which has been proven countless times.

And you have my sympathies for having the family values of an animal.

[GW in Ohio]

They already have identical rights, which has been proven countless times.

And you have my sympathies for having the family values of an animal.

Really? Did same-sex couples get the right to marry, and nobody told me?

"The family values of an animal".........? This because I said I practice tolerance and acceptance of my fellow Americans?

Listen, Jimbo, I even accept Republicans for what they are. And you never met a queerer, more deviant bunch than the GOPers.

[jimnyc]

Really? Did same-sex couples get the right to marry, and nobody told me?

"The family values of an animal".........? This because I said I practice tolerance and acceptance of my fellow Americans?

Listen, Jimbo, I even accept Republicans for what they are. And you never met a queerer, more deviant bunch than the GOPers.

Sure, they have the right to marry the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. And heterosexuals are denied the right to marry the same sex just the same as the fudgepackers.

Yes, MANY have stated homosexuality is ok because it's natural, that animals have been doing it for some time. Hence the relation to having family values of an animal.

And I've never met a more fucked up bunch of scumbags like Democrats.

[GW in Ohio]

Sure, they have the right to marry the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. And heterosexuals are denied the right to marry the same sex just the same as the fudgepackers.

Yes, MANY have stated homosexuality is ok because it's natural, that animals have been doing it for some time. Hence the relation to having family values of an animal.

And I've never met a more fucked up bunch of scumbags like Democrats.

jimmy: Interacting with conservatives like yourself is a real education. You reveal yourselves to be nasty, intolerant, and full of hostility.

[jimnyc]

jimmy: Interacting with conservatives like yourself is a real education. You reveal yourselves to be nasty, intolerant, and full of hostility.

Glad I could educate you!

Nasty - guilty
Intolerant - of the queers - guilty
Hostile - guilty again!

So I'm a nasty individual who despises queers and their vile behavior. Would you like a cookie for stating the obvious? :)

[avatar4321]

id rather have someone who supports family values who doesnt live up to them then those who pretend they dont exist.

[darin]

Maybe his wife was a bitch? (shrug) :) It's over and done with.

[nevadamedic]

Glad I could educate you!

Nasty - guilty
Intolerant - of the queers - guilty
Hostile - guilty again!

So I'm a nasty individual who despises queers and their vile behavior. Would you like a cookie for stating the obvious? :)

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::l augh2:

[Gaffer]

jimmy: Interacting with conservatives like yourself is a real education. You reveal yourselves to be nasty, intolerant, and full of hostility.

And libs would never be like that. :poke:

[nevadamedic]

And libs would never be like that. :poke:

Actually that's the definition of a Liberal! :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Actually that's the definition of a Liberal! :laugh2:

Yes it is, and gw lives up to it at every opportunity.

[nevadamedic]

Yes it is, and gw lives up to it at every opportunity.

I think we have all realized that. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

No, I have to disagree. In this forum the spite is from the Right. The sudden resort to personal attacks from the conservatives here is breathtaking and illuminating. When you run out of talking points or you can't sustain a position you make it personal. I'm not fussed though. I'm used to it and I find it funny as well (or I wouldn't keep coming back here). :coffee:

[nevadamedic]

No, I have to disagree. In this forum the spite is from the Right. The sudden resort to personal attacks from the conservatives here is breathtaking and illuminating. When you run out of talking points or you can't sustain a position you make it personal. I'm not fussed though. I'm used to it and I find it funny as well (or I wouldn't keep coming back here). :coffee:

Actually the spite is from the left. They are the first ones to start flamming and get nasty.

[darin]

a perceived 'sudden' resort to the Principal tactic of the Left is shocking?

[OCA]

One of my family values is to accept gay and lesbian people as children of God and fellow citizens with the same rights as you or me.

My family values don't include labeling my fellow Americans as "vile repugnant queers."

People who choose to live the queer lifestyle are certainly children of God but they are children who will not be allowed to return home.

The queer lifestyle is considered vile and repugnant by an overwhelming majority of Americans and for good reason.

[OCA]

Well, you know, duck......

If I have the choice of a president who is pretty competent but has sex with the interns in the White House, vs. a president who is "morally upright" (according to Republican family values) but otherwise is a complete nincompoop who sets our foreign policy back 50 years, and pisses away $1 trillion and the lives of thousands of Americans on an idiotic war.........

I'm gonna go with competence and blowjobs over family values and incompetence every time.

How 'bout you?

Who said Buba was competent? Name 1 competent thing he did while in office besides having Vince Foster whacked?

[OCA]

Really? Did same-sex couples get the right to marry, and nobody told me?



Yep, they've had it all along, just got to marry someone of the opposite sex then cheat.

[nevadamedic]

a perceived 'sudden' resort to the Principal tactic of the Left is shocking?

Not to me..........

[Yurt]

Yep, they've had it all along, just got to marry someone of the opposite sex then cheat.

Nice.. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

People who choose to live the queer lifestyle are certainly children of God but they are children who will not be allowed to return home.

The queer lifestyle is considered vile and repugnant by an overwhelming majority of Americans and for good reason.

To lay with a man as with a woman is an abomination to the Lord your God.

I would, however, be careful about saying who gets to go to heaven and experience the new earth. Stealing is surely also something God does not approve it, as He codified it in stone, yet, one thief I know found paradise.

[Hugh Lincoln]

At least he actually apologized and came clean.

I think he did the one before the other.

[diuretic]

I think he did the one before the other.

Apparently he came a few times - there are reports he was a regular client at some New Orleans brothels.

[diuretic]

Actually the spite is from the left. They are the first ones to start flamming and get nasty.

Well we'd both say what we did, wouldn't we? But really, I know I'm biased but it does seem to me that the Right get personal almost immediately.

[diuretic]

a perceived 'sudden' resort to the Principal tactic of the Left is shocking?

No, a sudden resort to personal attacks is shocking :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

To lay with a man as with a woman is an abomination to the Lord your God.

I would, however, be careful about saying who gets to go to heaven and experience the new earth. Stealing is surely also something God does not approve it, as He codified it in stone, yet, one thief I know found paradise.


There are only 2 unforgiveable sins mentioned in the Bible, When it comes to Christianity.

The first was sinning against the Holy Spirit....

Some ask, what does this mean? I have heard and read theologians speak on this and I found it quite interesting.

As Christians, we believe that the Holy Spirit is God, manifested in the Spirit form, HERE ON EARTH.

Denying the pressense of the Holy Spirit or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is denying God's power and ability to "move" people in the right direction, (towards Jesus Christ, if Christian) here on Earth.

Saying that a person is doomed to hell, is also DENYING the power of the Holy Spirit, blaspheming the Holy Spirit/God.

Condeming Gays and others to hell with certainty is denying and blasphemeing the power of the Holy Spirit.

Christ said His miracles of Good came from God, the Pharisees and Sanhedrin denied the pressence of the Holy Spirit when they said his Miaracles came from Beelzebub.

In this passage where Jesus speaks of the unforgivable sin, He states specifically that HE can be Blasphemed, the Son of Man can be denied/sinned against by people and these people WILL BE forgiven for it, but NOT forgiven for blaspheming/denying the Holy Spirit,

...I guess because once denying the Holy Spirit, there is NO CHANCE of salvation, because I presume, the Holy Spirit will be unable to work with you, to bring you to God the Father?

So, as a Christian, when we proclaim and make the judgement that anyone who has not accepted Christ as Savior and Lord will burn in Hell IS ABSOLUTELY UNBIBLICAL in my opinion and denying the power of the Holy Spirit.


... 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

It is interesting, that Jesus says that Sins against Him, or blasphemy against Him will be forgiven...

Does this mean we are too quick to judge those Athiests or Jews or anyone that speak out against Him here on this board? Are we, ourselves, denying the capability of the Holy Spirit to work with them down the road?

I don't know, but as I said, I find it interesting.

And the other unforgiveable sin is taking the Mark of the Beast.


The other unforgivable sin can only be committed during the seven year period in history that the Bible calls the “Tribulation”, or the part of the Tribulation called the “Great Tribulation” The reason that this sin can only be committed then is that it involves taking the mark of the beast on the head or on the forearm, and that is the only period of time that that mark is pushed on the people. The Bible says:



Rev 14:9-11 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." NKJV

The antichrist tries to force everyone to take this mark by ruling that no one can buy or sell unless they have that mark.



Rev 13:16-17

16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
NKJV



Several manuscripts read "in" the hand or forehead not just "on" the hand/forehead.

[darin]

So, as a Christian, when we proclaim and make the judgement that anyone who has not accepted Christ as Savior and Lord will burn in Hell IS ABSOLUTELY UNBIBLICAL in my opinion and denying the power of the Holy Spirit.

So...what Jesus said about HIM being the Only path to God isn't right?



It is interesting, that Jesus says that Sins against Him, or blasphemy against Him will be forgiven...

Forgiven under the condition of repentance. Right.

[nevadamedic]

Well we'd both say what we did, wouldn't we? But really, I know I'm biased but it does seem to me that the Right get personal almost immediately.

No, it's the left that get's personnel immediatly.

[JohnDoe]

So...what Jesus said about HIM being the Only path to God isn't right?



Forgiven under the condition of repentance. Right.

Actually, YOU are putting words in to the mouth of Jesus that HE did not say DMP.


32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

NKJV



this is also in Mark 3 and in Luke somewhere too and IT DOES NOT mention with repentance....Dmp.

So, this is a Mystery to me, a mystery of faith I guess?

But I would NEVER presume to put words in Jesus's mouth and say that ONLY with repentence, can blaspheming/or denying Jesus, be forgiven, becaue He DID NOT say this....He specifically said that BLASPHEMY against Him WILL BE FORGIVEN.

He didn't say could be or can be or should be -forgiven, He said WILL BE forgiven, and I would have to presume, there is meaning behind this, a reason for Him wording it this way...don't you think?

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, YOU are putting words in to the mouth of Jesus that HE did not say DMP.



this is also in Mark 3 and in Luke somewhere too and IT DOES NOT mention with repentance....Dmp.

So, this is a Mystery to me, a mystery of faith I guess?

But I would NEVER presume to put words in Jesus's mouth and say that ONLY with repentence, can blaspheming/or denying Jesus, be forgiven, becaue He DID NOT say this....He specifically said that BLASPHEMY against Him WILL BE FORGIVEN.

He didn't say could be or can be or should be -forgiven, He said WILL BE forgiven, and I would have to presume, there is meaning behind this, a reason for Him wording it this way...don't you think?


JohnDoe, you are putting too much emphasis on the words "will" be forgiven. Think about it: common sense tells you that to be forgiven, you must repent of the action. I read it as "can be forgiven", to differentiate between blasphemy against Jesus, and blasphemy against the Spirit, which cannot be forgiven.

More importantly, if you read the rest of the Gospels, it is clearly stated that we must repent of our sins to be forgiven. I.e., in Mark 2:17, he calls the sinners to repentance. Check also Luke 15:7. There are many more and better examples, as I am sure you know. To argue that repentance isn't required in the one case of blasphemy against Jesus, because of one word quoted above, is illogical. Do you really think that this is such a minor sin that it is the one sin that does not require repentance?

[JohnDoe]

JohnDoe, you are putting too much emphasis on the words "will" be forgiven. Think about it: common sense tells you that to be forgiven, you must repent of the action. I read it as "can be forgiven", to differentiate between blasphemy against Jesus, and blasphemy against the Spirit, which cannot be forgiven.

More importantly, if you read the rest of the Gospels, it is clearly stated that we must repent of our sins to be forgiven. I.e., in Mark 2:17, he calls the sinners to repentance. Check also Luke 15:7. There are many more and better examples, as I am sure you know. To argue that repentance isn't required in the one case of blasphemy against Jesus, because of one word quoted above, is illogical. Do you really think that this is such a minor sin that it is the one sin that does not require repentance?

Maybe Abbey...but that is NOT what the three different passages say.

It does not say that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit CAN NOT BE FORGIVEN, it clearly says "WILL" NOT be forgiven and that means EVEN WITH REPENTANCE doesn't it?

This goes "Much deeper than Pastry" as a former poster from the South, I knew once, said about something complicated! :D

Their words were so maticulous and precise in those days and may not interpret precisely in to Englis and because of it many versions of the Bible may have single words wrong in their interpretation, and you can see this if comparing the different "Versions" of the Bible so it is possible that this "WILL BE" forgiven means something else....but in this case, every interpretation of the greek or arabic versions of this verse interprets it as ''will be forgiven'', and sins against the Holy Spirit ''will not be forgiven'', NOT EVEN WITH REPENTANCE....yes, not even with repentance....

Doesn't THAT also go against everything that we have been taught? That with the acceptance of Jesus dying for our sins, that Sins will be forgiven(with repentance)?

Like I have said, I don't pretend to understand it completely, but I know enough to not put words in to this passage that clearly don't exist in it.

And I do believe that when we deny the ability of the Holy Spirit to work with Gays or Adulterers or Murders or Thieves to bring them to Salvation but professing with certainty that God can't and will not work eternally with these sinners, we are POSSIBLY committing this unforgiveable sin.

These passages regarding this unforgiveable sin are very interesting to me, especially the way they CHOSE to word it, when writen. :salute:

[JohnDoe]

Getting back to the thread, today a prostitute/maddam from Louisianna said he frequented her service also, so he did not just do this in Washington DC.

Let's just hope for his sake, this was not done within the last year, because if it was, he could be indicted for it.

The Statue of Limitations is a year for this crime.

I feel sorry for Vitter's wife, unlike some of you guys, who put this "all" on to her.

Who would want to sleep with a man that only seems to enjoy sticking his Peter in to the over abused cavity of Prostitutes? In addition to wanting to have sex with a serial CHEATER( Liar) and ADULTERER?

Would you honestly "feel the love" towards your spouse if she was a cronic liar and she did this cronic cheating on you?

[nevadamedic]

Getting back to the thread, today a prostitute/maddam from Louisianna said he frequented her service also, so he did not just do this in Washington DC.

Let's just hope for his sake, this was not done within the last year, because if it was, he could be indicted for it.

The Statue of Limitations is a year for this crime.

I feel sorry for Vitter's wife, unlike some of you guys, who put this "all" on to her.

Who would want to sleep with a man that only seems to enjoy sticking his Peter in to the over abused cavity of Prostitutes? In addition to wanting to have sex with a serial CHEATER( Liar) and ADULTERER?

Would you honestly "feel the love" towards your spouse if she was a cronic liar and she did this cronic cheating on you?

This prostitute/madam in Lousiania is just looking for attention and to be in the spotlight. I don't think he did that there. She's lying.

[OCA]

To lay with a man as with a woman is an abomination to the Lord your God.

I would, however, be careful about saying who gets to go to heaven and experience the new earth. Stealing is surely also something God does not approve it, as He codified it in stone, yet, one thief I know found paradise.

Yurt, do you agree that queers without repenting their lifestyle and accepting Christ as their saviour will srely end up ponding rocks in hell for eternity?

[GW in Ohio]

To lay with a man as with a woman is an abomination to the Lord your God.

I would, however, be careful about saying who gets to go to heaven and experience the new earth. Stealing is surely also something God does not approve it, as He codified it in stone, yet, one thief I know found paradise.

I don't think Jesus really gives a shit who lies with whom.

But that's just my opinion. I don't talk to Jesus, but if I were to sit down and have lunch with him, I think he's probably say, "Well, you know, GW, I really don't give a flying fuck what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I'm much more concerned about what they do once they get out of bed."

[OCA]

There are only 2 unforgiveable sins mentioned in the Bible, When it comes to Christianity.










So, as a Christian, when we proclaim and make the judgement that anyone who has not accepted Christ as Savior and Lord will burn in Hell IS ABSOLUTELY UNBIBLICAL in my opinion and denying the power of the Holy Spirit.





Bullshit, if you are a queer choicer and you are giving and taking it in the ass regularly but you were then baptised and accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour but continue to give and take er up the ass you are considered lukewarm and the bible clearly states that God will spit you out and you will surely suffer eternal damnation, thats unargueable.

Did you know Matt Shepherd is in hell right now?

[OCA]

I don't think Jesus really gives a shit who lies with whom.

But that's just my opinion. I don't talk to Jesus, but if I were to sit down and have lunch with him, I think he's probably say, "Well, you know, GW, I really don't give a flying fuck what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I'm much more concerned about what they do once they get out of bed."


LMFAO! Ignorance is bliss ain't it boy!

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think Jesus really gives a shit who lies with whom.

But that's just my opinion. I don't talk to Jesus, but if I were to sit down and have lunch with him, I think he's probably say, "Well, you know, GW, I really don't give a flying fuck what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I'm much more concerned about what they do once they get out of bed."

I used to think you were a fairly reasonable guy. But you've shown yourself to be just another Christianphobic flamer.

If you really think the above is true, you should go ahead and read Paul's writings in the gospels. You would then see that you couldn't be more wrong.

Btw, do you have the nerve to post that bilge on an Islamic web site, but substitute the name Mohammed for Jesus?

[diuretic]

No, it's the left that get's personnel immediatly.

Sounds like you think it's compulsory :D

I'm left of centre, I try to avoid getting personal. Yes I have in the past and I look back and think it was really stupid of me to let something get to me. Look I like to read a bit of blueing - I would hate for this place to get all pc (I know, not a bloody chance :laugh2:) and slinging a bit of shit at each other is good fun, provided it's not taken to extremes.

[diuretic]

I used to think you were a fairly reasonable guy. Butr you've shown yourself to be just another Christianphobic flamer.

If you really think the above is true, you should go ahead and read Paul's writings in the gospels. You would then see that you couldn't be more wrong.

Btw, do you have the nerve to post that bilge on an Islamic web site, but substitute the name Mohammed for Jesus?

GW wasn't insulting Jesus Abbey, well I don't think he was and I ain't got a dog in this hunt (I love that saying :D). GW was making the point that for him (assume GW is a bloke) Jesus is more tolerant of people than Jesus as he's being portrayed by some posters. Now it's long time for me since Catechism classes but I do seem to remember my impressions that the God of the Old Testament was to be feared whereas the God of the New Testament, in the flesh as Jesus, was to be loved and admired and emulated. Isn't the essence of the love that Jesus taught us to develop essentially a form of understanding of others? I'm not talking about tolerance by the way. And since this thread seems to be focusing on homosexuality and religion I'll just enlarge on that point.

The tolerant liberal (someone like me) can have tolerance - not acceptance or admiration - of homosexuality. I can rationalise it by saying, "as long as innocent people aren't hurt then it doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah..." the argument is well known I think. So I use a form of logic to come to my position. Now I know what homosexual men are capable of in terms of sexual behaviour and frankly I consider it pretty repugnant. But I have to look at my position - tolerance on the basis of no innocent person being hurt by their behaviours - and then basically ignore it. That's not approval, nor is it condemnation. I can't condemn because my logic won't let me.

The true Christian (and I'm not trying to insult anyone here by implying they're not "true" Christians, I'm going from my understanding of the teachings of Jesus as I've read them in the Gospels and I will be corrected by those with far better knowledge than me), the true Christian will understand not simply tolerate. The true Christian will still love those people ("love" in the sense as preached by Jesus and as expressed so clearly by Sister Prejean of 'Dead Man Walking' fame) despite their behaviours. I don't even like them! I only tolerate them! I am in a sense morally deficient to the true Christian who can hold and express understanding and love.

[nevadamedic]

I just read that this guy is the Southern Regional Chairman for Rudy Guiliani's Presidential Campaign. That is the second person with a scandal that is a part of his campaign. So far that makes 3 scandals 2 for Guiliani's people 1 for McCains.

[JohnDoe]

Bullshit, if you are a queer choicer and you are giving and taking it in the ass regularly but you were then baptised and accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour but continue to give and take er up the ass you are considered lukewarm and the bible clearly states that God will spit you out and you will surely suffer eternal damnation, thats unargueable.

Did you know Matt Shepherd is in hell right now?Are you sin free OCA?

In your religion, can you EARN your way to Heaven? I think Jews, and Muslims, and Budhists etc, believe they ''Earn'' their way to Heaven, and I always thought Christianity was different than these other religions? Hmmmm, I guess not, huh?

What was the Purpose of Christ's dying FOR OUR SINS in your denomination of Christianity? I really am curious...?

And no, I don't KNOW that Matthew Sheppard is in hell right now, and I hate to break this to you OCA, but YOU certainly don't know it either....or rather, you know it about as well as the Sanhedrin knew Jesus performed his miracles through the hand of Beeelzebub.

Thou shall not commit homosexuality is not one of those 10 commandments carved in stone, how come? Surely it ranks ''worse'' of a ''sin'' than the other sins the Commandments speak about to you...no?

But not to God, I guess...

And guess what? Moses was a murderer and an adulterer, you would have had him executed on death row and burning in hell it seems, but guess what?

Moses is in Heaven, much to your dismay! :(

You are NO representative of a good Christian as far as it seems, you are only filled with hate....and that is not a trait of God/ Jesus CHrist, that is a trait of Satan, so please be careful on your judging gays or whoever you want to project your hatred towards ... in the GUISE of Christianity or any religion.

Christ/God rebukes people because he loves them, Not because he hates them...at least that is what Jesus told us.

Do you rebuke gays and correct them because you love them, or not?

[nevadamedic]

GW wasn't insulting Jesus Abbey, well I don't think he was and I ain't got a dog in this hunt (I love that saying :D). GW was making the point that for him (assume GW is a bloke) Jesus is more tolerant of people than Jesus as he's being portrayed by some posters. Now it's long time for me since Catechism classes but I do seem to remember my impressions that the God of the Old Testament was to be feared whereas the God of the New Testament, in the flesh as Jesus, was to be loved and admired and emulated. Isn't the essence of the love that Jesus taught us to develop essentially a form of understanding of others? I'm not talking about tolerance by the way. And since this thread seems to be focusing on homosexuality and religion I'll just enlarge on that point.

The tolerant liberal (someone like me) can have tolerance - not acceptance or admiration - of homosexuality. I can rationalise it by saying, "as long as innocent people aren't hurt then it doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah..." the argument is well known I think. So I use a form of logic to come to my position. Now I know what homosexual men are capable of in terms of sexual behaviour and frankly I consider it pretty repugnant. But I have to look at my position - tolerance on the basis of no innocent person being hurt by their behaviours - and then basically ignore it. That's not approval, nor is it condemnation. I can't condemn because my logic won't let me.

The true Christian (and I'm not trying to insult anyone here by implying they're not "true" Christians, I'm going from my understanding of the teachings of Jesus as I've read them in the Gospels and I will be corrected by those with far better knowledge than me), the true Christian will understand not simply tolerate. The true Christian will still love those people ("love" in the sense as preached by Jesus and as expressed so clearly by Sister Prejean of 'Dead Man Walking' fame) despite their behaviours. I don't even like them! I only tolerate them! I am in a sense morally deficient to the true Christian who can hold and express understanding and love.

Actually in a way he was.

[diuretic]

Actually in a way he was.

In the eye of the beholder I suppose.

[Abbey Marie]

GW wasn't insulting Jesus Abbey, well I don't think he was and I ain't got a dog in this hunt (I love that saying :D). GW was making the point that for him (assume GW is a bloke) Jesus is more tolerant of people than Jesus as he's being portrayed by some posters. Now it's long time for me since Catechism classes but I do seem to remember my impressions that the God of the Old Testament was to be feared whereas the God of the New Testament, in the flesh as Jesus, was to be loved and admired and emulated. Isn't the essence of the love that Jesus taught us to develop essentially a form of understanding of others? I'm not talking about tolerance by the way. And since this thread seems to be focusing on homosexuality and religion I'll just enlarge on that point.

The tolerant liberal (someone like me) can have tolerance - not acceptance or admiration - of homosexuality. I can rationalise it by saying, "as long as innocent people aren't hurt then it doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah..." the argument is well known I think. So I use a form of logic to come to my position. Now I know what homosexual men are capable of in terms of sexual behaviour and frankly I consider it pretty repugnant. But I have to look at my position - tolerance on the basis of no innocent person being hurt by their behaviours - and then basically ignore it. That's not approval, nor is it condemnation. I can't condemn because my logic won't let me.

The true Christian (and I'm not trying to insult anyone here by implying they're not "true" Christians, I'm going from my understanding of the teachings of Jesus as I've read them in the Gospels and I will be corrected by those with far better knowledge than me), the true Christian will understand not simply tolerate. The true Christian will still love those people ("love" in the sense as preached by Jesus and as expressed so clearly by Sister Prejean of 'Dead Man Walking' fame) despite their behaviours. I don't even like them! I only tolerate them! I am in a sense morally deficient to the true Christian who can hold and express understanding and love.

If you reread the words that GW put into Jesus' mouth, it is beyond insulting, it's fairly blasphemous. It may not seem so to you, but to those of us who love our Lord, it is.

Quite often, believers and non-believers alike espouse the theory that God is all-loving and forgiving, and that we therefore have no right to judge anyone's behavior, or as you put it, to merely tolerate them. However, the Bible does tell us that certain behaviors are sinful, and homosexuality is one of them. To believe that, is to understand and accept the word of God. It therefore cannot be un-Christian judgmentalism, as many liberals like to frame it. Remember, when Jesus told the adultress that she was forgiven, that was not the end of His words to her. He also told her to "Go and sin no more". People love to conveniently leave that part out, because it means we are definitely accountable for our sins.

So yes, as Christians we are called to love the sinner. And, to me at least, there is no reason to be cruel. We are all sinners. I try to refrain from name-calling in general. I agree that it is not very Christ-like to do so. But that does not mean that we "understand" or condone behavior which our Bible tells us is wrong.

I appreciate your reasoned response... :)

[nevadamedic]

In the eye of the beholder I suppose.

For the most part..............

[diuretic]

Thanks Abbey - I appreciate your considered response and I learned from it. Nevada - yours too.

I still think GW wasn't being disrespectful but I can understand your views.

[OCA]

Are you sin free OCA?

In your religion, can you EARN your way to Heaven? I think Jews, and Muslims, and Budhists etc, believe they ''Earn'' their way to Heaven, and I always thought Christianity was different than these other religions? Hmmmm, I guess not, huh?

What was the Purpose of Christ's dying FOR OUR SINS in your denomination of Christianity? I really am curious...?

And no, I don't KNOW that Matthew Sheppard is in hell right now, and I hate to break this to you OCA, but YOU certainly don't know it either....or rather, you know it about as well as the Sanhedrin knew Jesus performed his miracles through the hand of Beeelzebub.

Thou shall not commit homosexuality is not one of those 10 commandments carved in stone, how come? Surely it ranks ''worse'' of a ''sin'' than the other sins the Commandments speak about to you...no?

But not to God, I guess...

And guess what? Moses was a murderer and an adulterer, you would have had him executed on death row and burning in hell it seems, but guess what?

Moses is in Heaven, much to your dismay! :(

You are NO representative of a good Christian as far as it seems, you are only filled with hate....and that is not a trait of God/ Jesus CHrist, that is a trait of Satan, so please be careful on your judging gays or whoever you want to project your hatred towards ... in the GUISE of Christianity or any religion.

Christ/God rebukes people because he loves them, Not because he hates them...at least that is what Jesus told us.

Do you rebuke gays and correct them because you love them, or not?

Are you blind man? The Bible, specifically the new testament states that Christ certainly did die for our sins but that doesn't mean you can sin all you want and still get into heaven. The Bible clearly states that seek forgiveness and ye shall be forgiven but it doesn't say seek forgiveness then keep going out sucking cocks and you'll still be forgiven, you must refrain from or at least give it your best effort to refrain from the sins you asked foregiveness for, do you underrstand that? Would you like me to paste those verses for you?

Unless and only if Matt Shepherd asked Christ for forgiveness as he was strapped to that fence in Wyoming is Matt Shepherd not in hell. I'm not condoning what happened to Matt Shepherd but the hard truth is that if he didn't repent and ask for forgiveness for ALL his sins Matt's surely pounding rocks in Hades right now.

No, OCA is not sin free, i've stated many times that although I know what the Bible says and what I should do i'm under 10% in the achievement part, I have a hard time with the lusting after other women in my heart thingy, doesn't mean I can't recognize right from wrong and homosexuality is wrong no matter how you splice it.

Go out and sin no more was actually what Christ said, what does that mean to you?

[JohnDoe]

Are you blind man? The Bible, specifically the new testament states that Christ certainly did die for our sins but that doesn't mean you can sin all you want and still get into heaven. The Bible clearly states that seek forgiveness and ye shall be forgiven but it doesn't say seek forgiveness then keep going out sucking cocks and you'll still be forgiven, you must refrain from or at least give it your best effort to refrain from the sins you asked foregiveness for, do you underrstand that? Would you like me to paste those verses for you?

Unless and only if Matt Shepherd asked Christ for forgiveness as he was strapped to that fence in Wyoming is Matt Shepherd not in hell. I'm not condoning what happened to Matt Shepherd but the hard truth is that if he didn't repent and ask for forgiveness for ALL his sins Matt's surely pounding rocks in Hades right now.

No, OCA is not sin free, i've stated many times that although I know what the Bible says and what I should do i'm under 10% in the achievement part, I have a hard time with the lusting after other women in my heart thingy, doesn't mean I can't recognize right from wrong and homosexuality is wrong no matter how you splice it.

Go out and sin no more was actually what Christ said, what does that mean to you?

Wow Oca, I really appreciate your unexpected response to my post! Please forgive me for prejudging you,, if not in words, in my mind. :(

I would like to comment on the passage both you and Abbey have mentioned on the Bible Passage regarding the Adultress.

It's odd that both you and Abbey bring up this passage but only brought up the very END of the Story... The Story of those Pharisees that wanted to punish a woman for committing adultery, Stone her in the public square, to death for her sin...

They knew Jesus was a compassionate man and they wanted to trap Him in to showing the world that he did not follow The Law, (thus a fraud) so they brought him to where they were going to stone this woman who had committed this adulterous act and asked Jesus the Rabbi what would he do in this situation?

Jesus turned to them and said, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone!"

Slowly, one by one, the Pharisees left, without casting a stone at the adulteress, and she was left in the area with Jesus alone.

(And Jesus COULD NOT be condemned by them for not following "the Law" because He did not tell them 'not' to kill her or not cast the stones at her that they were suppose to, He just told them that whoever was not a sinner themselves should cast the first stone.

And obviously, their own reevaluation of themselves, kept them from stoning her.

Also NOTE! That Jesus was the only one sin free... that could punish her according to the Law and have no "guilt" over it as the others who seemed to come to the revelation that they were not worthy of doing such, condemning her for her sin. He SHOULD have stoned her to death, according to the Law,

BUT, He didn't.... he didn't!

On a side note:
This is the passage I often like discussing when discussing the Death Penalty with other Christians.)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Now HERE is where it gets a little tricky, if you PAY ATTENTION to the positioning of Jesus's words, the words you mention and Abbey noted, but NOT with the emphasis that I would have put on to the words of Christ...

He Said paraphrased to the adulteress, "Your sins are forgiven, now go, and sin no more."

OKAY, now here is where I believe the two of you MIGHT have missed something...(And note that I am very open to discussion on this and not so set in cement so please, let's discuss it, if you all have time)

What did Jesus do first?

Did he tell her that she had to repent BEFORE He forgave her or BEFORE she was "forgiven" of her sins by Him?

The answer to this is resoundingly NO, he FORGAVE HER, then He asked her to sin no more.

He asked NOTHING of her BEFORE he forgave her of her sins!

He did NOT say REPENT and your sins will be forgiven, but instead, said her sins were forgiven, then he expected her to change, He KNEW she would CHANGE....

Why?

Because FORGIVENESS given to someone that is soooooooo undeserving, someone who has not even repented yet, is what I would describe as DEVINE.

This "Forgiveness" given to the sinner BEFORE the sinner has repented LURES the sinner IN TO repenting... perhaps out of pure humbleness, and greatfulness for the forgiveness and second chance, so to say?

Anyway, this is one of my favorite passages! :coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

...
Now HERE is where it gets a little tricky, if you PAY ATTENTION to the positioning of Jesus's words, the words you mention and Abbey noted, but NOT with the emphasis that I would have put on to the words of Christ...

He Said paraphrased to the adulteress, "Your sins are forgiven, now go, and sin no more."

OKAY, now here is where I believe the two of you MIGHT have missed something...(And note that I am very open to discussion on this and not so set in cement so please, let's discuss it, if you all have time)

What did Jesus do first?

Did he tell her that she had to repent BEFORE He forgave her or BEFORE she was "forgiven" of her sins by Him?

The answer to this is resoundingly NO, he FORGAVE HER, then He asked her to sin no more.

He asked NOTHING of her BEFORE he forgave her of her sins!

He did NOT say REPENT and your sins will be forgiven, but instead, said her sins were forgiven, then he expected her to change, He KNEW she would CHANGE....

Why?

Because FORGIVENESS given to someone that is soooooooo undeserving, someone who has not even repented yet, is what I would describe as DEVINE.

This "Forgiveness" given to the sinner BEFORE the sinner has repented LURES the sinner IN TO repenting... perhaps out of pure humbleness, and greatfulness for the forgiveness and second chance, so to say?

Anyway, this is one of my favorite passages! :coffee:

JD, I think you are again putting too much emphasis on specific words, and positioning of words, and thereby missing the big picture.

The definition of repent is to "turn away from sin or do penitence", and "to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent". So, whether Jesus spoke the words "repent" or "Ask forgiveness first" at that exact moment is irrelevent. By telling the woman to sin no more, he is requiring her repentance.

Here's a couple of very blunt verses to set it straight:
Jesus in Luke 17:3: Luke 17:3 (New International Version)

So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

Acts 3:19 (New International Version)
Peter:
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out...

There are many more, but I guess my question to you is, what is your point in claiming that we are forgiven without repentance? Do you really believe that we can all it around committing sin after sin, and God will unilaterally forgive us without repentance? True repentance really is a fundamental part of salvation, regularly expressed as such in the Bible.

[nevadamedic]

Ok, im lost...........

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Sen. David Vitter, linked to alleged prostitution, to return next week, a friend says
Senate colleagues "very anxious to help him get through this," friend says
"It's my hope he can ... keep a low profile for a while," says fellow senator
Vitter apologized after his phone number was found in escort service records

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/13/vitter/index.html

Most recent article. As long as he wasn't in office when this happened then it's ok in my book. I find it real hipocritical that Democrat's are going after him on this matter when a simular situation happened when President Clinton was in office and they defended him.

[JohnDoe]

JD, I think you are again putting too much emphasis on specific words, and positioning of words, and thereby missing the big picture.

The definition of repent is to "turn away from sin or do penitence", and "to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent". So, whether Jesus spoke the words "repent" or "Ask forgiveness first" at that exact moment is irrelevent. By telling the woman to sin no more, he is requiring her repentance.

Here's a couple of very blunt verses to set it straight:
Jesus in Luke 17:3: Luke 17:3 (New International Version)

So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

Acts 3:19 (New International Version)
Peter:
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out...

There are many more, but I guess my question to you is, what is your point in claiming that we are forgiven without repentance? Do you really believe that we can all it around committing sin after sin, and God will unilaterally forgive us without repentance? True repentance really is a fundamental part of salvation, regularly expressed as such in the Bible.

i guess my point is...

There is nothing different in the way you think compared to the Jewish religion, that you ''earn'' your way to Heaven, to everlasting life and I thought you were a Christian, who is supposed to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works?

Yes, repentence is important, but I and others, contend that repentence is not necessary to be saved from the fires of hell, but ones faith and belief in Christ's saving grace, through HIS death and atonement for our sins, are we saved.



Romans 3
God's Faithfulness
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."[a]

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

No One is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better(b)? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.[/B]

Righteousness Through Faith

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

[B]There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.


I think I was getting the feeling that OCA, ( and even perhaps you ), felt that somehow, because OCA did not commit homosexual acts, that this gave him the right to judge gays, to the point that he could determine that they were burning in Hell, or burning in hell because their peepee was going in to another's poopoo and if they had not repented for it, before they were killed or died.

I disagree.

Also, in the same breath, OCA confesses he has a problem with adultery, adultery of the mind...''coveting'' thy neighbor's wife. One of the 10 commandments from the per say, horses mouth.... yet he expects to be forgiven for his breaking of this commandment even though, one could deem he has not truely, repented?

Homosexual sex is an abomination according to scripture, I am not denying this...

But it is NOT one of the 10 commandments because it does not HURT someone else, as with adultery, or with stealing, or withmurder, or with lying about someone.

Just as fornication IS NOT one of the sins mentioned in the 10 commandments.

peter asked the Lord how many times should he forgive someone who had sinned....Christ said 70 times 7 times.... in otherwords, we should always forgive the sin of others... it is the mind set of giving unlimited forgiveness so that we may be forgiven for our own sins that I believe He was trying to teach us....

This takes a humble man, not one that continually condems the sins of others.

jd

[nevadamedic]

i guess my point is...

There is nothing different in the way you think compared to the Jewish religion, that you ''earn'' your way to Heaven, to everlasting life and I thought you were a Christian, who is supposed to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works?

Yes, repentence is important, but I and others, contend that repentence is not necessary to be saved from the fires of hell, but ones faith and belief in Christ's saving grace, through HIS death and atonement for our sins, are we saved.




I think I was getting the feeling that OCA, ( and even perhaps you ), felt that somehow, because OCA did not commit homosexual acts, that this gave him the right to judge gays, to the point that he could determine that they were burning in Hell, or burning in hell because their peepee was going in to another's poopoo and if they had not repented for it, before they were killed or died.

I disagree.

Also, in the same breath, OCA confesses he has a problem with adultery, adultery of the mind...''coveting'' thy neighbor's wife. One of the 10 commandments from the per say, horses mouth.... yet he expects to be forgiven for his breaking of this commandment even though, one could deem he has not truely, repented?

Homosexual sex is an abomination according to scripture, I am not denying this...

But it is NOT one of the 10 commandments because it does not HURT someone else, as with adultery, or with stealing, or withmurder, or with lying about someone.

Just as fornication IS NOT one of the sins mentioned in the 10 commandments.

peter asked the Lord how many times should he forgive someone who had sinned....Christ said 70 times 7 times.... in otherwords, we should always forgive the sin of others... it is the mind set of giving unlimited forgiveness so that we may be forgiven for our own sins that I believe He was trying to teach us....

This takes a humble man, not one that continually condems the sins of others.

jd

I think most everyone here has a problem with adultry. It is not right and it is a horrible way to really hurt someone who cares about you.

[JohnDoe]

I think most everyone here has a problem with adultry. It is not right and it is a horrible way to really hurt someone who cares about you.
I agree.

But I am not condemning OCA for the lust he feels, I admire that he recognizes his own weakness, knows it is a struggle...but guess what else?

I don't believe for any second that OCA does not love the Lord!

Just as could be the case, with someone else struggling with their own deamons...like Matthew Sheppard.

[nevadamedic]

I agree.

But I am not condemning OCA for the lust he feels, I admire that he recognizes his own weakness, knows it is a struggle...but guess what else?

I don't believe for any second that OCA does not love the Lord!

Just as could be the case, with someone else struggling with their own deamons...like Matthew Sheppard.

I think OCA is against adultry also if I am not mistaken.

[JohnDoe]

Story Highlights

Sen. David Vitter, linked to alleged prostitution, to return next week, a friend says
Senate colleagues "very anxious to help him get through this," friend says
"It's my hope he can ... keep a low profile for a while," says fellow senator
Vitter apologized after his phone number was found in escort service records

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/13/vitter/index.html

Most recent article. As long as he wasn't in office when this happened then it's ok in my book. I find it real hipocritical that Democrat's are going after him on this matter when a simular situation happened when President Clinton was in office and they defended him.

HE was in office, he was not a senator yet, he was a Congressman in the house of representatives in DC.

He replaced a Republican that was FORCED to resign because of his extramarital affairs taking place while he was condemning Clinton for it.

He won this election on family values and marital faithfulness, basically a lie.

But I do not believe he should be forced to resign, I believe this is up to his own constituants and him.

[nevadamedic]

HE was in office, he was not a senator yet, he was a Congressman in the house of representatives in DC.

He replaced a Republican that was FORCED to resign because of his extramarital affairs taking place while he was condemning Clinton for it.

He won this election on family values and marital faithfulness, basically a lie.

But I do not believe he should be forced to resign, I believe this is up to his own constituants and him.

But it didn't happen while he was in his current office.

[JohnDoe]

I think OCA is against adultry also if I am not mistaken.
Yes, I am certain he is!

This doesn't mean he does not struggle with it.

He said he falls short of the Glory of God, he said he struggles with one of the 10 commandments, the one about covetting thy neighbor's wife...he likes the ladies, so to say.

This is a FORM of adultery.

2 of the 10 commandments deal with adultery.

This is probably because of what we both agree on, adultery really sucks, and hurts someone gravely.

But adultery in the physical, is mentioned and adultery in the mental stage is mentioned as a sin too, covetting thy neighbor's wife, adultery of the heart and mind.

[JohnDoe]

But it didn't happen while he was in his current office.
But IF this is the standard that you hold for him as a Senator, why not hold him to that Standard as a Congressman? Both were positions representing the people of his state?

I don't think he should resign either way, because I believe that this is his decision along with the decision of the people he has represented, I just thought that if you felt that he should resign if he did this when he was a Senator or in this position, then why NOT expect him to resign for him doing it while he was a Congressman? If he had been caught in his adultery back then, do you think he would actually have won the Senator's seat? ;)

[goober]

But it didn't happen while he was in his current office.

Well, he didn't use this escort service while he was a senator.
He did use it while he was a congressman, and that's a little dicey, since it's Congress that makes the prostitution laws for DC.

Let's wait and see what else comes out.
I think you'll see a lot more Republicans than Democrats,for a couple of reasons. One, because this was during the GOP heyday, when they were riding high, and lobbyist supplied hookers are a good way for a lobbyist to show a congressman the "merits of his position".
Two, because in the divisive partisan atmosphere that existed then (and still does), you tend to hang out with like minded people, and not expose your weakness to "the other side", so if these phone numbers were passed around, they probably went mainly to Republicans, at least for this service.

[nevadamedic]

Yes, I am certain he is!

This doesn't mean he does not struggle with it.

He said he falls short of the Glory of God, he said he struggles with one of the 10 commandments, the one about covetting thy neighbor's wife...he likes the ladies, so to say.

This is a FORM of adultery.

2 of the 10 commandments deal with adultery.

This is probably because of what we both agree on, adultery really sucks, and hurts someone gravely.

But adultery in the physical, is mentioned and adultery in the mental stage is mentioned as a sin too, covetting thy neighbor's wife, adultery of the heart and mind.

It's all in how you interperate it. Adultry is when you commit the action, not thinking about it.

[nevadamedic]

Well, he didn't use this escort service while he was a senator.
He did use it while he was a congressman, and that's a little dicey, since it's Congress that makes the prostitution laws for DC.

Let's wait and see what else comes out.
I think you'll see a lot more Republicans than Democrats,for a couple of reasons. One, because this was during the GOP heyday, when they were riding high, and lobbyist supplied hookers are a good way for a lobbyist to show a congressman the "merits of his position".
Two, because in the divisive partisan atmosphere that existed then (and still does), you tend to hang out with like minded people, and not expose your weakness to "the other side", so if these phone numbers were passed around, they probably went mainly to Republicans, at least for this service.

:link: Does it say it happened while in Congress? :link:

[LiberalNation]

Romans, good stuff. Lots of don't throw stones in glass houses type stuff in it.

[nevadamedic]

Romans, good stuff. Lots of don't throw stones in glass houses type stuff in it.

Huh?

[LiberalNation]

Real vengeful to which makes things interesting. Anyway, that was an off the cuff remark from me with little relevance Nevada but here’s an example of the glass house stuff.


Romans 2

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?


21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

[nevadamedic]

Real vengeful to which makes things interesting. Anyway, that was an off the cuff remark from me with little relevance Nevada but here’s an example of the glass house stuff.

What does that have to do with anything were talking about?

[goober]

:link: Does it say it happened while in Congress? :link:

It was a Washington escort service that operated from 1993 to 2006, and he was a congressman during that time frame, and before he was a congressman, he was in Louisiana. So unless you have some theory about "road trips", he most likely used this service as a congressman.
After all, when he was in Louisiana, he had his girlfriend Wendy Cortez.

[LiberalNation]

Nothing, that's what I just said. It doesn't have too but in regards to this and our dear senator. He shouldn't have thrown stones while living in that glass house of his cuz now it's coming back to bite him int he ass.

[nevadamedic]

Nothing, that's what I just said. It doesn't have too but in regards to this and our dear senator. He shouldn't have thrown stones while living in that glass house of his cuz now it's coming back to bite him int he ass.

I agree, I don't approve of adultry no matter who it is who commits it. It doesn't matter if he is a Republican or Democrat, a cheater is a cheater in my book. If he did it while in office he should be removed if he is in the same position he was in when he committed it.

[goober]

I agree, I don't approve of adultry no matter who it is who commits it. It doesn't matter if he is a Republican or Democrat, a cheater is a cheater in my book. If he did it while in office he should be removed if he is in the same position he was in when he committed it.

So when he was elected to the Senate he gets a free pass on everything he did before?

Besides, the fact that he got caught doesn't mean that was the only time he did it, it means that was the only time he got caught.

He doesn't face an election til 2010, if he resigns now, Blanco will appoint a Democrat in the interim til a special election can be held, but if a Republican gets elected Governor of Louisiana, there may be some pressure on him to resign.

[LiberalNation]

There is nothing different in the way you think compared to the Jewish religion, that you ''earn'' your way to Heaven, to everlasting life and I thought you were a Christian, who is supposed to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works?
True but it also says this in James NT stuff.


2:20 Do you not see, O foolish man, that faith without works is of no use?
2:22 You see that his faith was helping his works and was made complete by them;
2:24 You see that a man's righteousness is judged by his works and not by his faith only.
2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead even so faith without works is dead.

[nevadamedic]

So when he was elected to the Senate he gets a free pass on everything he did before?

Besides, the fact that he got caught doesn't mean that was the only time he did it, it means that was the only time he got caught.

He doesn't face an election til 2010, if he resigns now, Blanco will appoint a Democrat in the interim til a special election can be held, but if a Republican gets elected Governor of Louisiana, there may be some pressure on him to resign.

No, but I don't think he should get kicked out of the Senate for something he did while he wasn't in the Senate. If he was still in Congress I would say yes he has got to go.

[JohnDoe]

True but it also says this in James NT stuff.

Yes, James is another of my Favorites, along with the parable of the sheep and the Goats.

The chicken or the egg came first quandry?

I believe, Faith came first....then good works follow, and not always immediately... we struggle sometimes, but persevere.

[JohnDoe]

It's all in how you interperate it. Adultry is when you commit the action, not thinking about it.

We are reminded in several parts of Scripture that we can sin with our eyes through our mind....I think this means things like Covetting thy neighbor's WIFE. Having the thoughts and the lust for another's wife is as mortally a sin as committing the physical act...otherwise, why would God list it twice?


7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

[nevadamedic]

We are reminded in several parts of Scripture that we can sin with our eyes through our mind....I think this means things like Covetting thy neighbor's WIFE. Having the thoughts and the lust for another's wife is as mortally a sin as committing the physical act...otherwise, why would God list it twice?

It's the act.

[JohnDoe]

And Nevada,

Vitter was in Congress when he committed his crime, in the House of Representatives.

Vitter is in Congress now too, only he is in the Senate.

The idea that you think he should be removed from office if he were still a Representative but not a Senator makes no sense.

Like I said, if he had been caught in his crime when he was in the House, would he even had been elected to the Senate?

Both are houses of One Congress?

And if he had committed another crime when he was a Representative, let's say murder or theft or treason,

would you actually be using as a DEFENSE for Vitter that he committed this crime as a member of the House but NOT as a member of the Senate THEREFORE he should not resign now for his past crime?

[JohnDoe]

It's the act.
I can understand your thinking, but Theologians differ with you.

;)

[nevadamedic]

And Nevada,

Vitter was in Congress when he committed his crime, in the House of Representatives.

Vitter is in Congress now too, only he is in the Senate.

The idea that you think he should be removed from office if he were still a Representative but not a Senator makes no sense.

Like I said, if he had been caught in his crime when he was in the House, would he even had been elected to the Senate?

Both are houses of One Congress?

And if he had committed another crime when he was a Representative, let's say murder or theft or treason,

would you actually be using as a DEFENSE for Vitter that he committed this crime as a member of the House but NOT as a member of the Senate THEREFORE he should not resign now for his past crime?

Nope, I wouldn't be making an excuse if he killed someone while in office because that is different, those things you listed are crimes, adultry isn't.

[goober]

Nope, I wouldn't be making an excuse if he killed someone while in office because that is different, those things you listed are crimes, adultry isn't.

Adultery is a crime, on the books, but most Americans feel it's a personal issue, and not one where legal action is required, although it's a showstopper in the military.
That's why most Americans thought the Clinton impeachment was bullshit, and it's why I don't think Vitter should be forced to resign or censured. I think he should face the people in 2010, and let them decide, they hired him, I'm willing to let them decide whether he should be fired or not.