God and Sex
You really have no standards do you?
You're sticking up for an immoral .......... (fill in the blank). You're trying to keep the contradiction alive, just give it up, you can't win. You can never be correct if you claim murder and rape is moral for anyone to commit, not even for "god". If that's what "god" thinks is moral, I'm glad I'm not a follower.
Example:
My mom and dad (whoever he was) created me with a sperm cell and egg. Does that mean they have the right to be threatening and otherwise abusive? NO!
My point being: even if your god was the creator, he has no right to conspire murder with humans he brain-washes. Where I come from that's a crime! In fact, he has more in common with Charles Manson than a "merciful and loving god".
POINT COMPLETE.
Some religious parents do believe they have to use a heavy hand to raise God fearing children. Unfortunately. Perhaps in an attempt to emulate God's treatment of his Human children
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
Some religious parents do believe they have to use a heavy hand to raise God fearing children. Unfortunately. Perhaps in an attempt to emulate God's treatment of his Human children
They do, if you remove the commas from the end you will be fine. My apologies for the confusion. Also yes I am a Catholic.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
And just being vocal about your beliefs doesn't count. Some things I've said might be offensive to some, but I like to think that we all view each other with mutual respect even if we disagree. Insult are always uncalled for.
As to what "stupid" is--I like the definition of "stupid" being "knowing better but doing it anyway."
I was totally replying to you, AngelRho and I wasn't insulting you; I wouldn't dream of it. I insult the Abrahamic God a lot, granted.
I only got upset because I thought b9 just came out of nowhere with an insult. It bothers me when people don't seem to have a logical reason to dislike me...but it turns out he was just a bit tired and mistaken.
We cool.
I typically spend a lot of time on these kinds of discussions, and I'm working on a HUGE project right now that's keeping me away from WP. It seems to me Ragtime could use the practice more so than I right now, anyway. I'd love to talk about some of the things you brought up, but unfortunately now isn't a good time.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
As I've stated before, what is ultimately right (i.e. right by God) and what is right according to man is merely a subjective (non)argument. Someone mentioned parenting--I unfortunately have to discipline my children OFTEN. As an adult, I know the bigger picture, that human beings are expected to act towards each other in certain ways and that it is my job to see that my children understand that. But my children CANNOT see what I see because they haven't experienced what I've experienced yet. They can't legitimately claim that I'm wrong in any absolute sense (unless, of course, I AM wrong...), but they can express how they feel about my decisions. In the end, my children learn to make the right decisions. But that doesn't mean that their immediate OPINIONS about me and those decisions are going to be favorable ones.
It's no different. God knows God is right. What we think about it is ultimately irrelevant, but I can't help but think that somehow asserting that our way or our OPINIONS about what we know of God's will is superior to the reality of it is just outright silly.
The right wingers do but the left often pass way dumber laws.
What about laws against sodomy. That is purely a right wing stunt.
ruveyn
That is true but we never enforce sodomy laws unless it is rape.
Who are the "we" you are talking about? "Your" sodomy laws were enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court stopped them with a jurisdictional case involving Texas: LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/539/558.pdf
The laws are "still on the books", but blocked by the federal courts (in June 2003):
"Blackstone managed to impartially chronicle then-current statues, dated from the reigns of Henry VII [sic?, VIII] and Elizabeth I. Such statutes made sodomy a felony punishable by death." "Journal of law & social challenges, Volume 2", University of San Francisco School of Law, 1998, page 71. and:
SUBCHAPTER VII. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALITY AND DECENCY.
Article 26.
Offenses against Public Morality and Decency.
§ 14‑177. Crime against nature.
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon. (5 Eliz., c. 17; 25 Hen. VIII, c. 6; R.C., c. 34, s. 6; 1868‑9, c. 167, s. 6; Code, s. 1010; Rev., s. 3349; C.S., s. 4336; 1965, c. 621, s. 4; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1191; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/s ... apter=0014
"Your" stance involving rape sounds very familiar, as in other posts elsewhere, namely:
Well I see the supposedly optimistic outlook of one of the "Good Old Boy" candidates in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race is still showing some signs of parasitic life from similar devotees of finding the good in crimes against individual rights and other crimes of macabre inhumanities.
I know our Vice Principal told me and everybody else that we all better just keep quite and not tell anybody anything, but someone still called the police. Being raped with brute force by a High School teacher during seizures didn't have any positive points, but the Vice Principal and police managed to suppress the negative points through intimidation. You would probably label it great service, and add the quip to "Relax and Enjoy It," just like Clayton Williams did about the Texas weather and rape.
In regards to "stop looking for someone to wipe your a**, " there were plenty of witnesses that related my teacher's attack on my epileptic body until he took off running, and I then appeared to be only concerned in getting my pants up and running off in the opposite direction, without any concern of wiping anything. For the first two times, I was more concerned with hiding my bloody butt than getting somebody to wipe it, but this still got me teased for messing by pants on the school bus rides back home, of course I got my own bus seat, because nobody wants to be near squishy bloody butt boy, though I should look on the bright side, since any one of those poor people in New York City might at any moment be selected by the vile few of the many general enforcement to get it with anything from a toilet plunger to a billy-club.
Whining is good, because lucky people tend to complain much more than the unlucky dead people.
And as far as the Great Religions Go:
I was told that God was speaking through me when I was kid with my bouts of "speaking-in-tongues." A somewhat hostile atitude was held against medicine also, somewhat along the lines of Mary Baker Eddy, but with my deja vu near perfection at times, I wondered about predestination much more. All of the more minor churches were very unstable, and anybody kissed-by-the-gods with epilepsy alternated between being regarded as Holy, and then Satanical.
I didn't grow out of epilepsy in adolescence, but I grew into additional neurological problems with epilepsy, and again religion was usually directly involved, with seizures and the Bible mixed with sex and rape. One theologian pronounced my ocassional priapic seizures during my clusters of seizures as the Father's curse, and I didn't know what the guy was talking in a rave about, until a couple decades later when I read the book "The Poisoned Embrace" by Lawrence Osborne, and the written 'Scientific Account (read anti-Semitic myth) of the male menses, recorded by Thomas de Cantimpre in the 13th century. My monthly clusters got me a lot of teasing about it being "that time of the month" for fairies. When the fathers of the church r******d to murder of others involved to force my favors and silence, I escaped and ended up living off the streets, much like an epileptic version of the movie "My Own Private Idaho."
The talk about gay marriage here in California has also again raised the spectre of marriage laws prohibiting people with disabilities not being allowed to marry like it "rightly" used to be before Atheists and Humanism "took over" the great country, with epilepsy being the fanatical subject of debate involving circumcision being God's cure for epilepsy with USA "medical evidence" being central, and bizzare third world "medical evidence" proving "female genital mutilation" curing epilepsy, as "it is in" the B***e and "even in" the K***n.
While I've been in Federal Court involving medical evidence and many treatments with epilepsy being counter to my religious beliefs, and the EEOC and SSA taking an all or nothing approach, the last church I was closely involved with, again ended in sex scandals, this time making it even on Youtube, with the leader chasing a masseuse around a table stark n***d demanding a "q*****e." Then our local U.S. Congressman told a self-proclaimed "conservative terrorist" that such a declaration makes a true patriot. With all the well armed t** partiers drinking a strong, strange brew straight from the "true American religion," handing out copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and declaring every other church "cults," I don't want to be the epileptic J** they decide to burn at the stake because my seizures make me a "fairy Satanist."
I looked for Brenda J. Robinson's book on a Kindle, but I found the book "Mad Church Disease: Overcoming the Burnout Epidemic" by Anne Jackson. With Uncle Sam teetering on popular insanity, the title might be taken a bit too seriously, and strict quarantines established to protect whatever's true at the moment.
and as I noted here:
Before adolescence I was often called "creepy" for speaking-in-tongues, foretelling the future, and reading people's aura.
During adolescence, I was often called "creepy" for my simple partial seizures skewing my verbal behaviour, and for my large Becker's Nevus, but most everyone who seen my Nevus still wanted to pet it, which seemed to make them more creepy than me (mine was more "Satyricon-Hadrian-Creepy-Mann" silky and dense, larger, left chest, and with a Janus-Antinous spectre upper divine neurological "nipple effect" from Priap** furry-left to the innocent Tadzio right, than the example often at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CoBvwhPXqg ).
I still wonder if the social joking with periodic seizures is very common, but one theologian pronounced my occasional Priapic seizures during the clusters as the Father's Curse, and I didn't know what the guy was talking about while in his ranting rave, until a couple decades later when I read the book "The Poisoned Embrace," by Lawrence Osborne, and the written 'scientific account' (anti-Semitic myth) of the male menses, recorded by Thomas de Cantimpre in the thirteenth century.
Late adolescence and early adulthood, I was "creepy" for already "deja vu" pre-knowing many people and for many perfect/near-perfect university exam scores (some professors punish students for having great scores!! !).
In adulthood, I was "creepy" for having complex partial seizures, secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures, 100% failed job interviews (with many aspects recorded with many synonyms of creepy), many Rehab discrimination lawsuits, and lately, I'm "creepy" for the way I walk and for my having to use a GPS to know where I'm at and to get anywhere, or to return from anywhere (I'm going to have to try a 360-degree cam for public excursions since my "creepiness" has received threats of "helpful" violence from the public and officials, but I've been luckier than people in Fullerton so far: http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2011/th ... -standard/ .
Now being labeled as an autistic "ret*d idiot-savant" over being catergorized with Asperger's Syndrome expands the spectrum of the Great Gods and their Wonderful Churches.
Tadzio
It's a direct observation that officials in the Catholic Church prefer longer relationships, while Non-Catholic Christian Church Officials more prefer "quickies", much as this one did: http://www.ondoctrine.com/1armsg04.htm
At least that one wasn't chasing me at the time. But when the facts are out, it is always the some such claim as:
________"Any comparison of God's rights to human rights is going to be flawed from the start."________
As if the Gods will protect such utter degeneracy of the "rights of any God" through the self-interested-AGENTS of the selected "God" over all Human Rights!! !
Tadzio
Good defined as what G'd wants is about as dumb as Good defined as what Elvis wants.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
They do, if you remove the commas from the end you will be fine. My apologies for the confusion. Also yes I am a Catholic.
I still would like the biography of the presenter. At the end of page 3 he says it is not his field, and the introduction was not what I expected in a theological piece.
EDIT: I do not mean to be rude, but I am a little unclear on what you think of the matter, and especially on what I said specifically. I cannot imagine you agree with me on my Biblical interpretations completely. It is hard for me genetically to go on the small amount you have said, and genetically I feel repulsed if I am misleading or misconstruing an argument.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
@ HerrGrimm
The first article was written by James B. De Young professor of New Testament Literature and Language at Western Seminary in Portland.
Article two was written by David E. Malick a Professor at DTS.
Article three was written by Calvin Smith; a more popular writer but still respected thinker in evangelical circles.
I support the view set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Article three was written by Calvin Smith; a more popular writer but still respected thinker in evangelical circles.
I support the view set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter.
Based on your other posts on PPR I knew you supported the Catechism. I was looking for a more detailed answer honestly. My question now is, do you have a positive view on the Smith paper? There is something strange about it, but I have not finished it yet.
_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime
Article three was written by Calvin Smith; a more popular writer but still respected thinker in evangelical circles.
I support the view set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter.
Based on your other posts on PPR I knew you supported the Catechism. I was looking for a more detailed answer honestly. My question now is, do you have a positive view on the Smith paper? There is something strange about it, but I have not finished it yet.
The reason I picked those three articles was because their authors were evangelicals; I honestly thought they would help ragtime elucidate his points. I certainly do not support the entire view of the Smith paper. Mostly because I think that some of the scholars; like Bailey have a good point when it comes to certain individual passages. The problem is that the final conclusion they reach is not supported by their evidence. They make a good case for some passages but do not obscure the certain points sufficiently to warrant reaching their final position. I have a problem with people like Smith putting these scholars into the category of 'other'. Considering their supposed political agendas first is no way to address their claims and arguments. In fact I think it is most often used as an excuse not to engage with their particular criticisms. I don't mind engaging with these thinkers, so long as they don't pigeon hole my arguments also.
I can however sympathize with Smith. I have met a number of gay rights lobbyists whose only reason for reading the work of someone like Bailey is so that they have mud to fling on the certainty of other arguments. This sort of obscurantism is pretty annoying when you encounter it. The explicit narrative of irreducible and inevitable conflict is pretty common on both sides and I think it misguided on both also. I support rights for same-sex couples with regards to inheritances, insurance and even raising children from previous marriages. I do draw the line at marriage (please don't see this as a slight or an argument) and assisted reproduction. So apart from a small number of issues there really is no need to have a sense of impeding doom emanating from the ideologues on both sides.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Humans are but animals and thus should not be bound by a book that talks in archaic terms. Homosexuality is natural and occurs in many animals, thus your god actually approves of such acts. Also as primates we naturally do not hold a single mate and thus the idea of a spouse is putting a manacle on our freedoms. We are however somewhat sophisticated (whatever that means) and I'm not saying we go on a rape fest. In conclusion, following an ancient idea that contradicts itself many a time is hindering our success as human beings.
