Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all?
Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,844 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 1 2006, 10:02 AM


Quote:
 

Defective in no way implies foreknowledge. It simply means it does not work for it ostensible purpose.


Ok so defective requires knowledge of purpose. If you're a theist that means knowing of God, if you're not and you understand what evolution is, it means nothing.

Is a mutation that makes bacteria reproduce slower a defect? Oh wait but now they're resistent to antibiotics. If defect is merely about reproductive capacity relative to some statistical norm then the kind of personality that makes you less likely to have children is thus a defect. Plus why is genetic fitness relevent at all, why would we choose to define ourselves with a stigma inducing description like "defective" by using the language of evolutionary biology, a process reviled as hideous from an ethical stance by those who champion it as an intellectual masterpiece?



Since we are only complexes of biochemical activity governed by physical reactions, then your arguments make no sense. "Stigma inducing" -- which seems to be for you a cause effect relationship typical of any chemical process -- means nothing in the scheme of things. So what if some "people" -- really, not an important division of the material world since they are just happenstance biochemical activity governed by physical reactions -- can be induced to feel a sense of stigma? That sort of subjective element should not be allowed to slip unnoticed into apparently objective statements.

If people feel stigmatized, that is not anyone's problem but theirs. Maybe they have a glitch in their chemistry, or maybe it is more like the mild aspergers that seems to enable genius. who is to say that they should be protected from such biochemical reactions? Subjectivity subjectivity subjectivity.

Quote:
 


Quote:
 

If you were born without fingers, your hand would be defective. It does not matter whether "God" or "evolution" or "emergence" intended the hand to be able to grasp things: human hands are "meant" to grasp (and I put that in quotations since even the atheist realizes that the hand is "meant" to grasp even if not "designed" to grasp). You seem to be quibbling here also.


Intended!? Evolution doesn't "intend" anything, what on Earth do you think evolution is? Emergence doesn't intend anything either, emergence simply is. You can have God "intending" something because God is an intelligent agent, what exactly do you think intention means outside the context of an intelligent agent?



It is precisely why I placed "meant" and "designed" in quotes -- because it is necessarily a metaphor. Either you are dense to that convention or being deliberately argumentative. If you are a "normal" human being you have a pair of hands that enable you to grasp things with your upper body. If you were born without hands, then you are defective. de-facere -- to not be able to do. Sure there are mouth and foot artists who can compensate for the lack of hands, but it is precisely why they are so interesting since that is clearly not normative.


Quote:
 


If we all essentially agree that something is bad news, then ok there seems no problem in calling it something that spells that out. The term "defective" spells it out.

So sure if i was born without fingers i'd think it was bad news, you'd think it was bad news, we'd all think it was bad news. In that scenario i suspect i'd rather have liked fingers and so would view myself as lacking that which others had.



Once again you lapse into subjective language. "Bad"? no such thing. It is what it is, just physics. Deal with it. You must be consistent Moonbat. Don't be irrational, and let your feelings into this -- they are but physical reactions within your complex of biochemical processes, and therefore have no objective meaning. They are entirely subjective to you, and should not be advanced in the conversation as if they have any objective bearing.

Quote:
 


It's still an emotional laden term hence not simply an objective statement however if we all agree it doesn't seem particualarly problematic (though it can blind us to objective understanding - see end), but it's clearly inapplicable in the context of a debate regarding whether homosexuality _is_ bad, do homosexuals really think of themselves as defective? If it weren't were for sociological impositions of persecution or ideological drivers would homosexuals pine away wishing they were heterosexual in the way i would minus a hand? Should we ask Kenny whether he feels defective?

Again, your delicate scruples are but subjective element that should not be allowed to slip unnoticed into apparently objective statements.


:wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
His tactic of logic does not work for those whose position is not based on logic or even based on consistency of Scriptual interpretation any more than logic worked on those who opposed civil rights for blacks. Those who publicly lead the debate against the gay community generally come from this group. Their tactics do not use logic, either. Primarily it uses fear.


Would you care to google up all of the states who have already passed laws against gay marriage?

And would you then care to make a broad generalization that the majority of the people in those states that have passed such referenda or enacted laws are all crazed, fear-mongering fools?

If that's all you got, it ain't gonna play in Peoria...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 07:09 AM
Quote:
 
His tactic of logic does not work for those whose position is not based on logic or even based on consistency of Scriptual interpretation any more than logic worked on those who opposed civil rights for blacks. Those who publicly lead the debate against the gay community generally come from this group. Their tactics do not use logic, either. Primarily it uses fear.


Would you care to google up all of the states who have already passed laws against gay marriage?

And would you then care to make a broad generalization that the majority of the people in those states that have passed such referenda or enacted laws are all crazed, fear-mongering fools?

If that's all you got, it ain't gonna play in Peoria...

Should we also google the campaign strategies in these states -- and which side's strategy used fear and bigotry to appeal to the voters?

Fear and bigotry are always strong political strategies and often win elections; but that does not mean they produce good laws.

Witness the history of the South after the carpetbaggers left.

Witness the past and the current debates over immigration.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Ah yes, the b-word.

Rick, either we all use bigotry or none of us do. You can't just say it like it's exclusive to those who support traditional marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 2 2006, 07:51 AM
Ah yes, the b-word.

Rick, either we all use bigotry or none of us do. You can't just say it like it's exclusive to those who support traditional marriage.

Ya gotta call 'em like you see 'em.

Yes, bigotry is a major part of the fight against gay rights.

It is the fact we all have some level of intolerance in us that makes its use so effective -- and so insidious and despicable.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

What bigotry are you talking about?

People who believe that marriage should be defined as one man/one woman?

Oh the horror! What horrible people! Such intolerant bigots! Why haven't they left for their KKK meeting yet?

:rolleyes:

As Jolly has been saying, you can have all the parades and tv shows you want. You can teach it in the classroom, and drape the argument for gay marriage with the "tolerance" flag, but IN THE END, when people are behind the curtain, and vote what they truly think, gay marriage gets rejected each time!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 2 2006, 08:03 AM
What bigotry are you talking about?

People who believe that marriage should be defined as one man/one woman?

Oh the horror! What horrible people! Such intolerant bigots! Why haven't they left for their KKK meeting yet?

:rolleyes:

As Jolly has been saying, you can have all the parades and tv shows you want. You can teach it in the classroom, and drape the argument for gay marriage with the "tolerance" flag, but IN THE END, when people are behind the curtain, and vote what they truly think, gay marriage gets rejected each time!!

I'd suggest you find the campaign materials that were and are being used.

You will find all sorts of subtle and not subtle statements of "us versus them," of "we don't want their kind", of "they are evil we are good", of "they are after our children", of "they are the same as pernisious sexual predators like pedophiles and rapists", oif "they are not normal we should not cater to them", of "they will destory what you care most about" of "they want special rights, more than you are entitled to" and on and on and on; with no justification for any of them.

It is all the same argument as "you just let them niggers get too uppity and get the same rights as whites and you know what they'll do"

Yep, it is bigotry, 89th. You may not want to see it or admit to it, but it is bigotry and fear that are the primary tactics being used by those who oppose gay rights.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Since when has political conservatism = bigotry and fear?

Yep, that's exactly how I'm gonna get folks to vote for my agenda, keep callin' them bigots.

Works everytime...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 08:16 AM
Since when has political conservatism = bigotry and fear?

Yep, that's exactly how I'm gonna get folks to vote for my agenda, keep callin' them bigots.

Works everytime...

Political conservatism does not equal bigotry but political opportunists of all stripes often use it, Jolly. There are many political conservatives and conservative libertarians who support gay rights.

And no, I do not expect to change the minds of the bigots themselves. But then, neither did Dr. King when he marched in the south. He audience was not the bigots -- but rather he wanted to show the rest of the nation what the bigots were doing, and thus changing the laws of the land and imposing on the bigots that which they would never accept.

The American people are inherently fair. This is why the movement to full acceptance of gays and lesbians in this society is moving forward, slowly but surely. It really is just a matter of time.

It may take a while for Americans to wake up to how they are being manipulated, but eventually they do and when they do, they do the right thing. It is one of the great strengths of our democracy.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 2 2006, 09:25 AM


It may take a while for Americans to wake up to how they are being manipulated, but eventually they do and when they do, they do the right thing. It is one of the great strengths of our democracy.

Just don't be surprised if when people wake up as to have they have been manipulated there might well be a massive backlash against the gay "marriage" agenda.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 12:16 PM
Yep, that's exactly how I'm gonna get folks to vote for my agenda, keep callin' them bigots.

Works everytime...

Certain people have made a career of insulting their political opposites, and they sure as hell aren't all on the left. Brain-dead what was it? :)

Bigot is an ugly word. Speaking for myself, I don't believe it's fair in a lot of cases. I do believe that a lot of the religious opposition to gay marriage is rather dogmatic, however. Quoting chapter and verse from the Old Testament is not an effective or logical argument technique, in my atheistic opinion. Are other people maybe being a little over-cautious?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Yep, there's plenty of yarns in that Old Testament to strike fear and loathing in people's hearts.

Prohibitions against certain meats for example. At a time and place when there was no refrigeration and a chronic shortage of firewood it probably was a good idea to stay away from swine flesh and critters with paws. Besides that if you're leading a nomadic or even semi nomadic existence, neither type of quadroped are much for herding. Cattle, sheep and even geese are much more managable. If you lived by the coast, avoiding shellfish would save you from Red Tide toxins. By setting it up as a divine law declaring these foodgroups as unclean, the simple folk would willingly refrain from chowing down on them. Smart move in the long run, soon no one could remember the real reasons why the prohibitions were in place, so they just attributed it to tradition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Since we are only complexes of biochemical activity governed by physical reactions, then your arguments make no sense. "Stigma inducing" -- which seems to be for you a cause effect relationship typical of any chemical process -- means nothing in the scheme of things. So what if some "people" -- really, not an important division of the material world since they are just happenstance biochemical activity governed by physical reactions -- can be induced to feel a sense of stigma? That sort of subjective element should not be allowed to slip unnoticed into apparently objective statements.


What arguments don't make sense given the knowledge we are made of flesh and bone?

This statement: "Since we are only complexes of biochemical activity governed by physical reactions, then your arguments make no sense. "Stigma inducing" -- which seems to be for you a cause effect relationship typical of any chemical process -- means nothing in the scheme of things. So what if some "people" -- really, not an important division of the material world since they are just happenstance biochemical activity governed by physical reactions -- can be induced to feel a sense of stigma? That sort of subjective element should not be allowed to slip unnoticed into apparently objective statements."

is just silly. My ethics is not axiomerically dependent on knowledge of our material make up, its dependent on the nature of subjective experience. Pain hurts, doesn't matter what's going on with cells or molecules pain still hurts - i don't like experiencing it. However i apply my ethics to real world scenarios, objectively real scenarios, and for this to work in a coherent fashion i must have the objective stuff separate to start with so i can work out what's actually going on, then i can decide whether i think it's right or wrong.

The statement that X is causalely related to feelings of stigma experienced by X percentage of the population is not a subjective statement.

The fact that i think this is bad is an entirely different kind of description, the former relates to nature of things the latter to my response to that nature. It is important not to get the two confused. Otherwise how you think reality should be starts to interfere with your ability to see how reality is.

Now it is true that language is useless and many descriptions also have hidden in them emotional slants stigma no doubt is one of them so ok if you disagree with the very idea that stigma has a negative element to it's results then clearly in the context of a debate it would be inappropriate for me to use it however i was assuming that we would both agree on that point.

If that assumption was false ok then we could explore why and if we did so I would not use definitions that implicitly refer to the very concept you are rejecting - that would be circular and incoherent.

Quote:
 

If people feel stigmatized, that is not anyone's problem but theirs. Maybe they have a glitch in their chemistry, or maybe it is more like the mild aspergers that seems to enable genius. who is to say that they should be protected from such biochemical reactions? Subjectivity subjectivity subjectivity.


Your first sentence is clearly not an objective description "it's not anyone's problem but theirs" can be contrasted with "it's everyone's problem" this is about our response to something not the thing itself. Thus in the context of this paragraph you can hardly go on to claim objectivity. Only when we are discussing how things _are_ in and of themselves is objectivity important, once we have that THEN we can see how we think of it in terms of our ethical considerations.

If you disagree that we should try to minimise pain and suffering then it seems difficult for me to converse with you about ethics, but usually people have some common ground since we have the same faculties that ultimately guide our ethics, generally my attitude is to explore differences given some common ground OR it's to point out incoherence in the reasoning from someones axioms to conclusions.

Quote:
 

It is precisely why I placed "meant" and "designed" in quotes -- because it is necessarily a metaphor. Either you are dense to that convention or being deliberately argumentative. If you are a "normal" human being you have a pair of hands that enable you to grasp things with your upper body. If you were born without hands, then you are defective. de-facere -- to not be able to do. Sure there are mouth and foot artists who can compensate for the lack of hands, but it is precisely why they are so interesting since that is clearly not normative.


So we we're appealing to physical functionality - our handless child has its physical functionality reduced relative to some statistcal norm (which we can presumably define reasonably coherently -though no doubt with some arbitraryness slipping in) ok so he's defective. Of course that means the term is entirely inapplicable to homosexuality or indeed your 7 toed 3 eyed child.

It seems to me what you mean is not a statement about functionality at all it's about something bad, defective is some specific attribute or attributes who's expression or non-expression is contrary to the statistical norm and _crucially_ is viewed as a negative. It is simply a value judgement. And hence should not masquerade as anything other than a value judgement. That doesn't make it entirely useless it just means it's inapplicable in the context of a debate about the very thing assumed by the statement.

Evolution and emergence have nothing to say here: we could attempt to find an objective definitionn terms of genetic fitness function but it immediately loses the negative connation that the you seem to want to keep: WE could say that a defect is a trait whose expression reduces the genetic fitness of the individual relative to the average phenotype, thus having no hands is defective because the average human has hands and not having hands reduces your genetic fitness, likewise homosexuality is a defect because the average phenotype is not homosexual and gaining the homosexual phenotype reduces your genetic fitness. Fine but then of course we see that there are numerous other examples that we must now call defective, something like 50% of the population become defective by definition, behaviour that means you are less likely to have children whether it be merely a lack of desire to have children, or a religiously determined celibate lifestyle immediate become defects.

Quote:
 

Once again you lapse into subjective language. "Bad"? no such thing. It is what it is, just physics. Deal with it. You must be consistent Moonbat. Don't be irrational, and let your feelings into this -- they are but physical reactions within your complex of biochemical processes, and therefore have no objective meaning. They are entirely subjective to you, and should not be advanced in the conversation as if they have any objective bearing.


Subjectivity has it's place as long it's not pretending to be anything other than subjectivity. You and 89th seem unable to understand this point. I'm happy to call something bad, when i say it i mean it's bad according to my ethical stance founded on compassion and utiliatrian concepts. Often however this proviso doesn't seem necessary as numerous phenomena are deemed negative jointly by the vast majority of people's ethical systems, certainly in the context of _an agreement_ there seems no issue.

If you think homosexuality is bad because your ethics is determined by biblical stuff, if you think it's bad because God told you it's bad. Fine. Just say that and don't muddle your language and your thinking into an incoherent mess by presenting this point _as if_ it's an objective statement independent of your theological framework.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Meanwhile back at the ranch....

It seems our minority Conservative government in Ottawa is going to revisit the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples this fall. Their gonna have a free vote in parliament just to see if the House will uphold last year's law....

Same-sex marriage vote will be held in the fall

... there's always the notwithstanding clause if the House votes it down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 2 2006, 11:07 AM
Yep, there's plenty of yarns in that Old Testament to strike fear and loathing in people's hearts.

Prohibitions against certain meats for example. At a time and place when there was no refrigeration and a chronic shortage of firewood it probably was a good idea to stay away from swine flesh and critters with paws. Besides that if you're leading a nomadic or even semi nomadic existence, neither type of quadroped are much for herding. Cattle, sheep and even geese are much more managable. If you lived by the coast, avoiding shellfish would save you from Red Tide toxins. By setting it up as a divine law declaring these foodgroups as unclean, the simple folk would willingly refrain from chowing down on them. Smart move in the long run, soon no one could remember the real reasons why the prohibitions were in place, so they just attributed it to tradition.

Which is germaine to the Jewish contingent of our board, but a lot of the OT law has been superceded by the teachings of the NT.

And yes, some of those teachings are about homosexuality.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat:

You miss my point entirely. It is not that God said so or the bible said so. My arguments have been exclusively biological and sociological. Don't confuse me with others who argue along different lines.

It is simply that homosexuality should not be granted the equivalent status as marriage and the state has no interest in regulating it on the same level as marriage since by its very nature a homosexual relationship is incapable of engendering children within its confines. All other rights and responsibilities can be accommodated under some sort of registered domestic corporation. Do not confuse the language of matrimony and marriage (which imply complementary sexuality and therefore the procreative potential) for the sake of some political agenda.

As for the rest of your "ethics", on your own terms it seems that it can be nothing more that only some accommodation for your delicate scruples. You are nothing but a complex of biochemical forces that for some reason has consciousness. So what? You want to play your little utilitarian game of "lessen pain and increase pleasure", but that it only some accommodation since you are too weak to dominate. There is no value other that what you ascribe, and whatever you can get other people to agree with you about. Hopefully you'll get enough people to agree that your precious little bundle of biochemical forces will not be snuffed out by some more powerful bundle of biochemical forces. But even if it were, so what? That material will return to the nitrogen cycle and shift into some other chemical state. It may or may not be in the state's interest to keep you around and to try to implement some form of "order" (as ironic as that term really is) so that the bundles of biochemical activity who are more dominent can stay in existence and indulge their own pleasure and avoid pain. And this is all sold to you under some emotional propaganda as "justice" or "equality" or "fairness" -- none of which have any objective meaning.

Face it, Moonbat, there is no meaning in life other than the existence of life itself. But your "life" is only a complex of biochemical reactions that have no meaning other that what you choose to give them. And even this "flesh and bone" argument is insufficent. That flesh and bone is only massive amounts of space knitted together by the energy of sub atomic particles in a particular state of existence. No reason to privilege that other than for the sake of trying to find some foundation for human dignity. But even dignity is not real -- it is only the product of our biochemical processes and does not exist apart from a common agreement that it is so. So your appeals to objectivity can only be maintained on the level of physics -- what is measureable. Everything else that you have written is subjectvity masquerading as objectivity. There is no objective reason that anyone should be accorded "rights" or "liberties" -- it is only a utilitarian value that is the remnant of a Hellenic/Judeo/Christian value once God was removed from the equation.

;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 2 2006, 12:13 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 2 2006, 08:03 AM
What bigotry are you talking about?

People who believe that marriage should be defined as one man/one woman?

Oh the horror! What horrible people! Such intolerant bigots! Why haven't they left for their KKK meeting yet?

:rolleyes:

As Jolly has been saying, you can have all the parades and tv shows you want. You can teach it in the classroom, and drape the argument for gay marriage with the "tolerance" flag, but IN THE END, when people are behind the curtain, and vote what they truly think, gay marriage gets rejected each time!!

I'd suggest you find the campaign materials that were and are being used.

You will find all sorts of subtle and not subtle statements of "us versus them," of "we don't want their kind", of "they are evil we are good", of "they are after our children", of "they are the same as pernisious sexual predators like pedophiles and rapists", oif "they are not normal we should not cater to them", of "they will destory what you care most about" of "they want special rights, more than you are entitled to" and on and on and on; with no justification for any of them.

It is all the same argument as "you just let them niggers get too uppity and get the same rights as whites and you know what they'll do"

Yep, it is bigotry, 89th. You may not want to see it or admit to it, but it is bigotry and fear that are the primary tactics being used by those who oppose gay rights.

Just like the gay community is using bigotry to spread their agenda?

"Us vs Them"

"Stop the religious right"

"Neocons are full of hate"

"They are evil, we are good"

"They are close-minded"

"They are afraid of change"

"They are intolerant bigots"

Hmmm...looks like the b-word swings both ways, just as I have always said. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
...but a lot of the OT law has been superceded by the teachings of the NT.

And yes, some of those teachings are about homosexuality.


You're absolutley right, that Paul fellow had a heck of a lot to say about interpersonal and conjugal relations.

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:24-32: "Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers,

backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.



While we're at this a few other words of wisdom and admonitions from Paul and one of his students on women:


1 Corinthians 11:5 " And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved."

1 Corinthians 14:35 "If women want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"

Timothy 1: 9-10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."


1 Timothy 2:11
" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."


1 Timothy 2:12 " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."


But Jesus, not Paul, appears to have had a lot to say about bankers and weathy misers and nothing to say about homosexuals. In fact, I don't think Jesus particularly cared for the well heeled bankers of the day any more than Paul later cared for women and homosexuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
You know, I might be going out on a bit of a limb here, but that Paul bloke sounds a little like some of the nutters who harangue me when I try to walk through the park on my way to the liquor store. Did they have sandwich boards back in biblical times? REPENT! REPENT!

I wonder if he got much action? It sure doesn't sound like it.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Nope, don't have much problem with that.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 03:11 PM
Nope, don't have much problem with that.

Have you ever succeeded in getting a woman to be silent without the use of firearms and/or medication?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
Jun 2 2006, 01:29 PM
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 03:11 PM
Nope, don't have much problem with that.

Have you ever succeeded in getting a woman to be silent without the use of firearms and/or medication?

Firearms won't work.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jun 2 2006, 03:30 PM

Firearms won't work.

They will if you fire them.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
AC: "1 Corinthians 14:35 "If women want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church"


1 Timothy 2:12 " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."


I always wondered what women who cited the bible to justify their hatred of gays thought about these passages? Jesus is silent on the issue. It all comes from Paul. I wonder what MS and M+M and the others say about these passages, which get cited much less frequently.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Moonbat: I think I can help you out here. IT really does seem to think that without God there is no ethics. When I first saw him post that I thought he was making some sort of self-depreciating joke - but, no, he was apparently serious. He really is serious when he claims that you are contradicting yourself by both being a materialist and holding an ethical position.

I asked him once to try to explain why, in a purely materialist universe, there would be no moral values. He was unable to even parse the meaning of the sentence asking him the question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply