August 12, 2008

It's OK to be Gay?

Some people tell me it's OK to be gay. Especially here in California, many people talk to me about my judgmental attitude and how I need to be more accepting of others. I have been told that a real Christian would never judge a homosexual because God made them that way.

There are many misconceptions of my viewpoint as I have been asked "Who are you to decide what happens to someone's personal life." As a Christian I am not deciding I am pleading. Here are some of the things I have said in the past.

Montage of discussions:

God's Word says that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, an abomination, fornication, vile affections, and a great sin against Him. He states any sexual act outside of marriage is adultery for anyone gay or strait. The Bible is clear that sex is to be between man and woman within marriage.

You're Just Homophobic!

Acts like that are just another branch on the sin tree. Some people do drugs, some drink heavily, some rape, some lie, some steal. It is all sin and we are in Judgement of God's Law. For the record, I am in the business of Advertising and Design and there are a fair amount of gay people in my field. I have placed ads in gay magazines and my wife and I have had intimate sit down dinners with gay people. I also have witnessed to them, there are plenty of other sins to talk about then the obvious. Some have been receptive, some not, it all depends on the individual.

God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy. Changing societies do not dictate God's standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination. Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not "go with the flow."(All About God)

A woman has the "right" to an abortion. Homosexuals have the "right" to their lifestyle. Everyone has the "right" to "do" anything that "feels right."

Were it not for the authority of God over our lives as Creator and Owner of all things (Isaiah 45:5-12), man would have "total" choice freedom. Where do our "standards" come from? If from the statistical norms or the popular vote of society, then a woman has indeed made a "right" choice. If, however, authority over man rests in the Creator of man in the "image of God," then that woman made a "wrong" choice. Ultimately, all the issues of life begin with our conscious "choice" about who "God" really is (Romans 1:18-25).

That was Old Testament!

1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"(NIV, NASB)

1 Timothy 1:10 "and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"(NIV,NASB)

{KJV) calls it "abusers of themselves with mankind," and for them that "defile themselves with mankind"

Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."(KJV)

You cannot possibly look outside the Bible to find some other meanings for these. These are New Testament verses not Old.

In contrast to the modern rush to make homosexuality an approved life style, it is noteworthy that the Apostle Paul classifies homosexuals right along with murderers and pimps.

Remember Jesus' own words in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." God is about righteous and justice not 'just' peace and harmony.

Loveless Homophobic "Christians"

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.

A person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity ... . This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. The Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6–7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

No harm between consenting adults!

There is plenty of data that says the contrary.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced on November 26, 2003, that AIDS infections increased 17% among homosexuals and bisexuals. There was a 7% increase in AIDS infections among non-homosexuals. (I will add non-homosexual fornicators)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that cases among homosexual and bisexual men jumped 17% over the last three years. "Thirty eight of them tested positive for HIV-1 antibodies, almost all of them homosexuals (37 cases)"

U.S. National Institutes of Health said 325 homosexual and bisexual men have been recruited for tests. STD clinical history and examination: previous STD 59.7%, current urethral secretion 6.1%, genital ulcers 5.9%, genital/anal warts 7.4%. Sexual practices: Average number of sexual partners in the previous 6 months: 11, anal coitus 37.2%, condom use in the previous month 50.8%, circumcision 16.8%, rectal douches 43.3%. STD's laboratory markers: T. pallidum 34.9%; HIV 18.8%, H. simplex 10.9%, HBsAg 5.0%, C. trachomatis 4.3%, N. gonorrhoeae 2.8%. Consistent risk factors for HIV/STD were number of sexual partners (more than 10 in previous 6 months) and story of imprisonment.

National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC), more than half of AIDS cases in the U.S. are located in the 15 largest cities. Alarmingly, the NYAC data showed that more than 10% of young homosexual men in major cities were already infected with AIDS.

According to Gay.com, researchers in San Francisco found that the customary places for homosexual men to find sex partners were the Internet (33%), bars (21%), bathhouses (13%), sex clubs (13%), and adult bookstores (6%).

Gay parents are just as good at parenting

Not so. "The young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Forty percent spent time living with their grandparents (compared to 10 percent of the rest); 19 percent spent time living on their own before age 18 (compared to 4 percent among everyone else). In fact, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood." ~Mark Regnerus (Study)

Is that good fruit to you? A good tree will bear a good fruit. Consider if people would just follow the Bible's instruction, what kind of world we would live in. Men and woman that have followed the Bible and waited until marriage have no worry of STD's at all.

We are not set out to enact the will of God or anything like that. I would like to see people get to Heaven and avoid the inevitable punishment

I believe it's not OK to be gay. I love you too much allow such sinful behavior. I want to see you in Heaven. Please repent!

There are Homosexual Christians So, it's OK to be gay

I disagree. Romans 6:15-16 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

You are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

As most of my viewpoints the following are also from a witnessing perspective, but I enjoy and agree with the approach that is taken from Ray and Kurt talking to Homosexuals.

Part 1: ("All sexual sin is offensive to God... Hetero or Homo")



Part 2: ("If we really love them we need to be honest")



Part 3:





bit.ly/Oktobegay

48 comments:

  1. I would if I could find it Irv, can you just link it?

    To link: <a href="url">text</a>

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry buddy I erased your comment. So I am putting it back

    Irv said:

    "I found a rather unusual approach to the same-sex issue. To see it, Google "Open Letter to the Noah/Lot Gang." Would love to get opinions of it. God bless. Irv"

    OPEN LETTER TO THE NOAH/LOT GANG!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Irv,

    I get it. It's kind of raw and angry. The letter's ire reminded me of the enacting God's will post I made.

    We are to be kind and sensitive but not shameful and abusive. They will just dig in for a fight. I know I have tried many ways as you can see by the post. At the same time we owe it to them to speak truth lovingly. A gay man is no different then I am. I chose to sin one way they chose to sin another. We are all guilty in front of God. We are here not to judge and shame gay people we are here to plead with them to stop sinning (REPENT) before Christ comes, the same goes for atheists or Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah witness and any other group that clings to sin rather then cling to Christ. We love them enough to tell them the truth of what God said he will do to unrepentant sinners.

    Thanks Irv,
    Blessings

    ReplyDelete
  4. In regards to the picture from califoniafamily.org defending "traditional marriage":

    1700's: Marriage is an arrangement made by parents for monetary or social gain.

    1900's: Marriage is a consensual contract between a man and a women of the same race.

    1960's: Marriage is between a man and a women.

    2000's: Marriage is a consensual contract between two people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Bible is clear that sex is to be between man and woman within marriage.

    Really?

    Strange... I must've been reading a different version or translation, because I was under the impression that the bible was filled with examples in which sex was allowed, even regulated, outside the "traditional" (read: unenlightened post-modern) view of marriage.

    How many wives did Joseph have? David? Solomon? Abraham? (Oh, that's right, Abraham's extra sex-partners were concubines and/or slaves)

    Don't be such a jackass and claim that the bible says something it most certainly does not. By your own admission in a previous post (onto which I promptly pounced, as you'll recall), before Moses there was no "Law", so there was nothing explicitly wrong about the Sodomites attempting the action which has since been named after them. Indeed, Lot's own offer of his two daughters to the mob seems like a pretty foul act of its own, but that is beside the point.

    The bible claims that homosexuality is an abomination, true, but it does not hold to the "traditional" view of marriage that you so prefer. Moreover, while the bible is so painfully persecuting gays, it is also blissfully regulating the conditions of slavery, including the right of a slave-owner to beat his slave nearly to death, so long as the slave gets up after a couple days.

    The fleas come with the dog, they say, and that bible of yours is one hell of a flea-bitten mongrel.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Heh. I just finished watching the videos. Is Ray Comfort now your spokesperson?

    I laughed at several points, so it was humorous, and for that I thank you, but it was also sad and sickening -- and not due to the "sins" so gleefully exposed by Comfort and Cameron.

    You're right, that email was funny, but I have to wonder how it is that the man's voice was recorded. I am aware of various text-to-speech applications, but it seemed strange that this "Way of the Master" production found it necessary to find voice talent which sounded gay and/or effeminate (note that being effeminate is also contrary to scripture). Poisoning the well much?

    I also found it amusing, and then merely annoying, that virtually every person interviewed was pressured into admitting that they were a "lying, blasphemous thief and adulterer".

    Part of this is almost certainly untrue.

    First, Jesus' statement that thinking about adultery is committing adultery cannot merely apply to only that sin. If it does, then there seems to be something especially interesting about lustful thoughts, such that murderous thoughts are uninteresting by contrast.

    Assuming that Jesus' statement should be taken to include any arbitrary sinful thought, then virtually everyone is a murderer, rapist, etc. If that's where you wish to go with Jesus' statement, that's fine, but why pick on adultery in that manner? Part of the agenda?

    Second, the constant reference to the word/phrase "goddammit" as breaking the third commandment is a lie.

    That's right -- saying "Jesus Christ" as an expletive, or saying "goddammit" is not taking the lord's name in vain.

    Instead, a person whose death was imminent crying "Save me, god", or "Jesus deliver me", or something similar is taking the lord's name in vain. Indeed, praying for a terminally ill person is a technical violation of the third commandment.

    Don't believe me? Read it again. A plain reading. Don't swear by god (as in the swearing of an oath), and don't make a vain request of god.

    Additionally, per Jesus' statement outlined above, if the thoughts are the issue (especially since the actions stem from the thoughts), then the use of replacement profanity "frak", "shoot", "darn", "gosh", etc., are all equivalent to the expletives they replace. If I say "goddammit" without actually wishing for god to damn whatever it is that is troubling me, then I cannot be guilty of breaking the third commandment.

    Comfort and Cameron continuing to harp on people, misleading them into thinking the third commandment is something it is not, is deception (although I will grant it may not be willful, but merely ignorant).

    Enough of that con-artist and his propaganda films. Back to your post:

    [god] states any sexual act outside of marriage is adultery for anyone gay or strait.

    No, he doesn't. The bible does mention certain acts as sinful, but it doesn't specifically define adultery (I may be wrong on this, and if so please correct me). Even if it does, however, it most certainly does not restrict appropriate sexual behavior to one man per one woman marriage. Sex with servants, slaves, and concubines (you are free to combine and/or redefine those terms as you see fit, within reason) is both commonplace, acceptable, and expected.

    Furthering your misconception of the biblical notions of acceptable sexual behavior is the GIF advertising for CaliforniaFamily.org. One of its rotating phrases is the following:

    If same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy won't be far behind.

    Beneath the rotating text, the constant statement "Help protect Traditional Marriage" looms, adding insult to ironic injury.

    News Flash: Polygamy (specifically, polygyny) preceded "Traditional Marriage".

    Nevermind the irony, I suppose, just focus on the current notions of what "Traditional Marriage" are -- regardless of how non-traditional, historically, those notions might be. While you're at it, continue attempting to restrict the actions of consenting adults in their own bedrooms, and claim moral superiority based on misrepresented pseudo-historical text.

    Oh, and don't worry about the negative implications regarding the evils that are regulated and/or mandated in that same text, and don't concern yourself over the inference that offering one's daughters and/or concubine as (unwilling) gang-rape victims is better than allowing the same perpetrators to have sexual access to male guests.

    No, you hold to your "higher standard" of morality. When people like me point out the inconsistencies and/or the more blatant bullshit so prevalent in the bible and so ignorantly proselytized by its adherents, just laugh and claim that I have misinterpreted the scripture, or that I was a false convert, or that I am a member of a false religion, or whatever else it is that helps you justify your bigotry.

    Or... You could admit cultural relativism and recognize the truth in what I say.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reynold,

    Interesting take on the traditional marriage. I agree it's been all over the map. Notice how people view it in different times yet the Bible has been clear and consistent as to what a marriage should be all along. Their eisegesis is suspect to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stan,

    How many wives did Joseph have? David? Solomon? Abraham?

    You just listed people of an Old Covenant which was all nailed to the cross, we are now in a New Covenant with God and the instructions are clear.

    "Don't be such a jackass and claim that the bible says something it most certainly does not."

    I am beginning to suspect you have never read the Bible for yourself, please correct me if I am wrong. The Bible is very clear:

    Mark 10:7 "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;"

    Jesus Himself told us all about it in Matthew 19 all you have to do is read it.

    1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

    2And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

    3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

    4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

    8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    So Jesus told us who should marry and who should divorce, so I will accept your apology for calling me that awful name, Stan. Humble yourself to do so also or I will be forced to rebuke you.

    "The bible claims that homosexuality is an abomination, true, but it does not hold to the "traditional" view of marriage that you so prefer."

    I will accept your apology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stan,

    "First, Jesus' statement that thinking about adultery is committing adultery cannot merely apply to only that sin. If it does, then there seems to be something especially interesting about lustful thoughts, such that murderous thoughts are uninteresting by contrast."

    I know for a fact that you haven't studied the Bible now. This is the most important thing you will have to study and you treat it like summer school math. How do you do research for a thesis? Whatever sounds good in your head? Come on Research research research. The subject is just too important. Your life depends on it.

    So yes just hating someone means you are a murderer:

    1 John 3:15 "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."

    That is backed up by 1 John 4:20; 1 John 2:11; 1 John 2:9

    And I don't know if you have even read the Bible or not but everything you said was called blasphemy

    The Bible is clear about using God's name in vain or blasphemy. Plus there is two definitions for "in Vein" right ? You do understand that point? No?

    In Vein: Without success; ending in failure;

    also

    In Vein: In a disrespectful manner, especially when concerning religion

    "then the use of replacement profanity ... are all equivalent to the expletives they replace."

    YES! True they are all blasphemous! If you use God's name to replace a statement 'oh sh*#' then you have just broken the 3rd Commandment.

    It gets worse. Let's just say you break God's Law (the Ten Commandments) 5 times a day. You cussed once, lied once, lusted once, etc. In one year, that would be 1,825 sins. If you live to 70 you would have broken God law 127,000 times.

    You will have to answer for every sin that you commit against God on Judgment day, when 'every one of us shall give account of himself to God' (Romans 14:12)

    You are storing up God's wrath and the only hope of saving yourself is to throw yourself at the feet of Jesus Christ and beg for His forgiveness. You have to stop all this sinning and turn away from it (repent). Then to ad insult to injury you must give your life up completely and pick up your cross and follow Him and turn away from this world to let Jesus completely run your life. Instead of being punished for all those sins you will become the servant of Jesus Christ. Then you will be forgiven of all that sinning and have eternal life with God in Heaven. Otherwise you will suffer the due punishment that we all deserve. You have no choice if you don't want to suffer in hell. You must give up and give in to His will.

    Now Stan I want to hear back from you please. You have said some awful things to God and to myself.

    What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting take on the traditional marriage. I agree it's been all over the map. Notice how people view it in different times yet the Bible has been clear and consistent as to what a marriage should be all along. Their eisegesis is suspect to say the least.
    Too bad that "eisgesis" has been done by many of the OT heroes themselves with no rebuke from god. The only thing he got made at people like Solomon was for going after false idols later in his life or something.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You just listed people of an Old Covenant which was all nailed to the cross, we are now in a New Covenant with God and the instructions are clear.
    Ok, does this "old covenant" include the Ten Commandments along with the plethora of other commandments that were given to the ancient Jewish people? If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great question Reynold,

    We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament. The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way we are to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because Jesus has come, the perfect sacrifice. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law.

    The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.

    The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You just listed people of an Old Covenant which was all nailed to the cross, we are now in a New Covenant with God and the instructions are clear.

    Ahem.

    Matthew 5:17 says:

    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Therefore, the law (read: the Torah) was still valid -- else, you must show in the NT where the ten commandments you and Comfort so brazenly toss about are still required.

    This fact notwithstanding, your assertion that the old covenant is invalid says nothing to the fact that polygamy (polygyny) was normal as well as perfectly acceptable in the OT. Indeed, the practice was commonplace even in the NT, and no less acceptable, but lucky for you it wasn't explicitly documented in the canonized bible.

    So your request to return the concept of marriage to its "traditional" roots would, as I've said, require a general acceptance of polygyny (as per Reynold's post).

    Curiously, however, later in Matthew, Jesus contradicts himself -- given a plain reading -- when, in verse 8 he says:

    Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    This would seem to contradict his statement quoted further above, in which he claimed that the law was not being destroyed. On the contrary, this particular aspect of the law was being quite specifically destroyed.

    Even this aspect of Jesus' sayings notwithstanding, he still has said nothing of polygamy. Mark 10:7 and Matthew 19:8 each discuss the rite of passage known today as marriage, but there are no restrictions on the number of wives a man may have, and given the later context from Paul, it is made clear that the wife is the property of the husband. Together with the cultural context, a given man may have as many wives as he can afford to support, and the act of marriage had little to do with the wishes of the woman.

    So perhaps before you begin your rant against homosexuality (which was not explicitly declared a sin during Lot's time, whose own offer of his daughters as sexual distraction you have avoided yet again), you should first define exactly what you mean by "traditional marriage", since your apparent definition has nothing to do with actual tradition.

    So Jesus told us who should marry and who should divorce, so I will accept your apology for calling me that awful name, Stan.

    Thin-skinned all of a sudden? Or is this the other person who occasionally posts on your behalf? Is it a matter of medication?

    Believe it or not, I'm serious. It's a crap-shoot figuring out your mood and/or persona in this blog, and if you're crying about being compared to a jackass, I can only assume that you're not the same "Dan" who posted a portion of the script to Pulp Fiction, including the following:

    ...if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better fucking do it and do it quick!

    ...So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the fucking car!


    You're putting it on a little thick if you think feigning offense is going to work given that quote.

    Anyway... I had said:

    The bible claims that homosexuality is an abomination, true, but it does not hold to the "traditional" view of marriage that you so prefer.

    To which you replied:

    I will accept your apology.

    For what? For calling you a jackass when you insisted that the bible's view of marriage was 'one man, one woman, for life'? If that was anywhere near an accurate portrayal of your initial position, then I have no reason to apologize. If you are now accepting the fact that the bible's concept of marriage accepts, and even promotes, polygamy, whether explicitly (in the OT) or implicitly (by virtue of acceptable customs -- traditions -- circa 30 CE), then perhaps I will apologize. I'm still annoyed by your apparently random mood swings, however, and I would again request that whoever else is accessing your account use their own credentials so that the two of you can be distinguished.

    Back to your assertion, however, I'll repeat my quoted statement:

    The bible claims that homosexuality is an abomination, true, but it does not hold to the "traditional" view of marriage that you so prefer.

    This is true. The bible does not HOLD to the traditional view of marriage that you prefer. In fact, the view of marriage you describe is nowhere explicitly defined in the bible. Nowhere. Don't worry, though, I neither require nor expect an apology.

    So yes just hating someone means you are a murderer

    No kidding? Did you have trouble reading that aspect of my post? I suppose I'll give you another taste of it:

    Jesus' statement that thinking about adultery is committing adultery cannot merely apply to only that sin...

    I was merely exposing the inconsistency used by Comfort and Cameron when they kept referring only to adultery as a thought-crime -- to be completely accurate, they should have picked on another sin, like murder, as well.

    If that confused you, though, I'm afraid of where this will end up...

    ...everything you said was called blasphemy... Plus there is two definitions for "in Vein" right ?

    You mean "in VAIN", right? And do you mean in ENGLISH? Because I thought we were talking about the bible, and the verse in question was written in HEBREW.

    Not only does is word translated as "in vain" (Strong's 07723) typically used in precisely the manner I depicted (e.g. a vain request for divine assistance), but it is also commonly used to describe things which are valueless or false.

    Additionally, dear Summer School Math student, the word translated as "take" (Strong's 05375) is usually translated as "lift up" -- something I can hardly be accused of doing in this context.

    Lastly, for posterity's sake, the word for "lord" (Strong's 03068) is 'Jehovah', or, more appropriately, 'Yahweh'. Again, this is not what I do.

    So... was that treatise on "in vein" (sic) your example of exegesis and/or scientific hermeneutics?

    :)

    I anxiously await your reply.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stan,

    You mean "in VAIN", right?

    Yes. It might of been a Freudian slip because you were boiling mine. Who knows.

    Personal attacks are not welcomed. In the very beginning before the rules (BR) yes, I cussed in quoting a movie. In reflection and now because of the new rules (NR) there is a request of refraining from foul language, I will do my best to comply also. We are adults here I can take a punch when given, it just isn't necessary to degrade people when discussing things. You sure help me endure patience for people.

    "Jesus contradicts himself -- given a plain reading -- when, in verse 8 he says: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

    My plain reading would say there was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practice polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginning, may mean the original intention or design. That is what I take from it...plainly.

    Lastly, for posterity's sake... It is your choice but do you really want to split hairs with the Creator? No matter what language, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus Christs, God still means the one God, the Creator. To use it is as a cuss word is blasphemy. As you so eloquently pointed out also 'the use of replacement profanity are all equivalent to the expletives they replace'.

    I like you Stan, even though you hold a worldview that is completely wrong and destructive, not to mention you may be my alter ego, you do keep me honest and I can only appreciate that.

    Keep up the great work.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trust me, Dan, calling you a jackass is hardly a personal attack. It's more a compliment, really.

    Splitting hairs? The bible uses the term god constantly in reference to the various idols and competing supernatural beings, so is it safe to say, as an example, "Baaldammit"?

    Recall, I don't believe in your god, much less any god, so by definition I cannot be taking the lord's name in vain, even if we accept your interpretation of the commandment, when I say "goddammit".

    As for the hair-splitting, I would say that your own choices regarding which interpretation(s) of the bible to follow are exactly that: hair-splitting. I am no different from you or any other professing Christian in that regard -- if there is a god, and he disagrees with my interpretation(s), then the hair will be split, just as with any dogmatic disagreement god may have with you or anyone else.

    My plain reading would say there was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practice polygamy.

    Heh. No, they practiced incest... alot.

    :)

    Also, the lack of reference to divorce prior to Moses hardly counts as evidence against its occurence. Indeed, since it was so loosely regulated, we could easily suggest it may have been every bit as commonplace as it is here in the U.S. today. Really, since there was so much polygyny back then, and since the Hebrew regulations concerning divorce were so liberal, it may have been more common than it is today...

    My plain reading would say [one thing is meant by Jesus' statement]. But our Lord, by 'the beginning', may mean [something else entirely]. That is what I take from it...plainly.

    ...and that is what I mean by ambiguous. With this seemingly simple example you are forced to choose a possible interpretation, based on your presupposition that the text is error-free, and in the hopes that it doesn't somehow deflate your entire premise.

    If either interpretation is theologically acceptable, then perhaps other interpretations of other portions of the text -- which interpretations are at odds with one another, even if superficially -- may be theologically acceptable. Moreover, if different interpretations are theologically acceptable, they may also be divinely acceptable, in which case we are back at a major break point in our discussions: why your interpretation is so much better than mine, or anyone else's.

    As to profanity/expletive use, I don't pretend [not to use them], like so many other people do. I should like to think it obvious that I am perfectly capable of speaking without profanity, but I am obviously unafraid of its use. I prefer to use it in many cases, precisely because of the statement you found so eloquent.

    Consider the offending statement:

    Don't be such a jackass...

    What if I had instead said:

    Don't rephrase things so disingenuously...

    For me, because I fully understand the underlying meaning of each version, the latter is the more offensive -- in it I would be calling you a liar, willfully using deception to support your claim. In the former, I am merely offering light ridicule.

    The words, you'll remember from childhood, are not nearly as painful as the sticks and stones. I can easily insult someone, with or without cause, to the point that they may wish to take a swing at me. What I've found, though, is that an insult of the kind which includes profanity is easier to retract than one which uses more erudite speech.

    We're getting off-topic here.

    Marriage, as I've shown, was traditionally a union between a man and a woman, this much is true, but it was not the only acceptable avenue to carnal relations, and it was by no means an exclusive contract with respect to the man. Concubines (sex slaves) were commonplace. Multiple wives were commonplace. Carnal relations with servants was commonplace.

    Considering the acceptable non-wed intimate relationships, not even the female was required to be exclusive. A pair of brothers, as a hypothetical example, could each have acceptable relations with the same servant of their father's, with neither shame nor punishment.

    Recall also that if two slaves, who were unwed at their acquisition, later wed and have offspring, only the male is allowed to leave at Jubilee -- the female and her offspring remain in the possession of the owner.

    As to your assertion that Adam and Eve weren't polygamists, I strongly disagree.

    Necessarily, they were incestual (or at least their children were), and in order to most efficiently populate the planet, only one man at a time is needed, but several women. Since we know Adam and Eve had three sons, and since we are forced to assume some special creation of their wives, or that various other siblings were left out of the story (and provided the incestual relationships from which we all stem), it is most logical that they had a great many daughters versus the number of sons.

    The reason for this is obvious -- one man can impregnate a large number of women in a one-year period (my compassion provides the formerly pregnant women ~3 months repose), whereas one woman can only successfully give birth once in the same period (yes, 40 weeks, technically, give or take a week or two). Since Cain, Abel, and Seth were specifically mentioned, we must assume a large number of daughters by Adam -- who may very well have produced offspring with his own daughters (the original rednecks?), and very probably did. After all, why should the incest taboo apply to him, when it cannot have applied to his children?

    Not uncoincidentally, this is the likely origin of the objectification of women: followers of Moses (and subsequent believers of his tale) must assume several women per one man. The women must remain exclusive and available, while the man sows his seed to his unending enjoyment.

    Homosexuality is wrong? I am not one to judge it. I am not one, and am not interested in finding out what I'm missing.

    What I do know is that the notion of "traditional marriage" is a mirage, at best. In fullness of truth, it is a willing ignorance of past circumstances. Like Reynold showed, fairly recently marriages were arranged, polygamist, forced, bigoted, etc. Even today, we can find stories in India of brides being flogged by their husbands because her family was unable to provide an acceptable bride-price, or in Africa, where forced marriage is commonplace, or even in Texas, where little girls are expected to marry older men who already have several other wives.

    Traditional marriage?

    Thank you, but no. I'll take the marriage I have, for better or worse (...for richer or poorer...) -- one which involves a consensual arrangement, a mutual commitment, and unconditional trust. (The sex isn't bad, either)

    It's not traditional outside of this century (read: the 21st century) -- rather, it's an improvement. My wife is not my property, as I am not hers. We share in the duties and responsibilities with regard to raising our two children and maintaining a residence.

    Your views toward homosexuality are somewhat backward, but not unexpected. I'm glad cooler heads prevail, and the law protects people from one another, and I look forward to the soon-to-be-realized day in which the legal benefits of marriage are available to any consenting adults.

    Traditional marriage? I think it's a fiction, and even if it's not, good riddance. It reminds us of a past in which women had virtually nothing in the way of rights, and although at times I may jokingly lament those days, I am in fact happy that my wife is my equal, legally speaking.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stan,

    "who may very well have produced offspring with his own daughters (the original rednecks?)"

    Your words are so offending. This is just an unsubstantiated claim and outright wrong. I can tell you for a fact that is not true. If you had any daughters, you would believe the same as I do. My entire soul is sickened as to that thought. If a sound man raises a baby to maturity not one would ever do that.

    "My wife is not my property, as I am not hers. " Are you saying that the Bible says that? That is just false again.

    1 Peter 3:7 "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

    Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

    " I am in fact happy that my wife is my equal, legally speaking." Is that code for she wears the pants?

    ReplyDelete
  17. So is godsdammit OK on the cuss-meter?

    ;)

    Dan wrote:
    "I like you Stan, even though you hold a worldview that is completely wrong and destructive..."

    Just curious: Do you mean "destructive" in the afterlife sense (In which case, taking into account your personal beliefs, that's a fair enough statement), or "destructive" in a more tangible sense?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your words are so offending. This is just an unsubstantiated claim and outright wrong. I can tell you for a fact that is not true. If you had any daughters, you would believe the same as I do.

    Ummmm...

    I have a daughter, and no, I'd never even consider carnal relations with her (indeed, I'd prefer not to consider any man having carnal relations with her), but nonetheless I do not believe the same as you do.

    For one, I reject the biblical notion of special creation -- of Adam and Eve and the whole Genesis account. Secondly, whether it churns your stomach or not, it is a biological necessity that incest occured, unless you instead propose massive special creation until a genetically sustainable population existed.

    No, you cannot tell me for a fact that Adam refrained from sex with his direct offspring. Why? For the same reason you cannot tell me for a fact that the earth was created before the sun. Your "evidence" in this example case is in fact far better than your "evidence" that Adam remained sexually exclusive with Eve. In the example, you at least have support from Genesis, regardless of questions regarding its authenticity and/or accuracy.

    In the case of Adam, however, the only reason you are so appalled at the notion that he had children through his own children is because of your feelings regarding incest -- the incest taboo. Like it or not, however, Seth had sex with his own sister. Get over your inadequacies here and accept the biological necessity -- it's not any more disgusting than any other biological necessity, and it's not like we're discussing this in a pornographic manner.

    No, as I said, it is logically probable that Adam took on several of his daughters as additional wives -- out of necessity.

    But why so offended?

    --- I think I understand ---

    You share your account with your wife, don't you? Sometimes you post, sometimes she posts. It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of for your radical mood swings, your obvious changes in diction, spelling, and grammar, and your apparent levels of knowledge.

    A couple posts ago, you made an amateurish mistake by citing two English definitions of the phrase "in vain", despite your vaunted expertise in hermeneutics, exegesis, and eisegesis (I propose that was your wife, or at least not you). You then recovered long enough to effectively apologize (that is, you-actual posted), and now you have reverted again into not-you, crying foul because incest occured amongst the first humans.

    Whatever.

    ...giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel...

    "Weaker" vessel? Is this meant physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, based on some other quality, or a combination of all of these?

    (Hint: the Greek word in question -- Strong's 772 -- is always translated as physically weak or infirm)

    Are you saying that the Bible says [that wives are property of their husbands]? That is just false again.

    Not so!

    Per 1 Cor 14:34, women are not permitted to speak in church, because "they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law".

    You know, like a slave.

    What about the OT? How about the tenth commandment:

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

    Which one of those items isn't a possession of the hypothetical neighbour? What does hermeneutics tell you?

    Can you not see that each item in this list is directly related in that they all belong to the neighbour? "[N]or any thing that is thy neighbour's".

    Shall I dig deeper? I'm sure I can find even more damning scriptures which show that women are indeed a man's property.

    I am in fact happy that my wife is my equal, legally speaking.

    Is that code for she wears the pants?

    No, it's merely a statement of fact. Are you implying that your wife is not your equal? Are you implying that it is your desire to have a submissive wife?

    In fact, I am at present unemployed, as I prepare to return to school in a week. My wife sustains us financially. Does this make me less of a man in your eyes?

    No, my wife doesn't wear "the pants". As I said, we share in the duties and responsibilities -- including decision-making. I didn't marry a drone, a patsy, a sex-slave, a concubine, or whatever term you might find more accurate. I married a thinking, feeling, breathing woman.

    How silly a question.

    In fact, how asinine. You cry because I matter-of-factly recognize the logical necessity of incest amongst the first humans, including likely father-daughter incest, and then you come back with a weakly insulting question like that? Yes, I am insulted, but not because of any implications the question may have posed, but because you thought it might have been insulting. I am insulted because you are attempting to be insulting.

    Jackass.

    Settle down. Read the post, and re-read the bible's edicts and descriptions of marriage and male-female relationships. After doing so, kindly show me which of the following statements is false, using the bible as a reference:

    1. Women are clearly depicted as property

    2. Women have little to no legal status compared to men

    3. Marriages were frequently arranged, with little or no deference toward the woman

    4. Men typically had multiple wives

    5. Men typically had culturally acceptable carnal relationships with concubines and/or servants

    6. Offering one's virgin daughters and/or concubine to be gang-raped by throngs of gay men is acceptable, with no regard to the desires of the women in question

    7. Murdering one's concubine after she's been gang-raped by gay men at your behest, and cutting her body into pieces is normal and acceptable behavior


    That's enough, I suppose. Certainly it's enough to illustrate the sexist, and even bigoted nature of the bible, and if that doesn't get you to recognize that your notion of "traditional marriage" is not at all based on the bible, then I don't know what will.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Quasar,

    No please stop any blasphemy for your own sake and mine. Be nice to me both of you. Fine call me a jackass when I act like one but the blasphemy is offensive to me and my daughter. At 7 she changes the channel or says "awww" when we hear it on TV. We change the channel quite a bit.

    Just keep the three monkeys in mind and keep me safe. Look I was in the Navy so I have herd and said it all but not anymore. I have a long way to go so I need all the help i can get.

    Destructive as in destroys souls yours and others around you that you talk to and convince. You are all worse then Mormons when it comes to recruiting people. Give it a break, please.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stan, you say:

    Not uncoincidentally, this is the likely origin of the objectification of women: followers of Moses (and subsequent believers of his tale) must assume several women per one man. The women must remain exclusive and available, while the man sows his seed to his unending enjoyment.

    While the Bible has certainly codified the objectification of women, and has provided divine authority for various kinds of sexism (I'm sure both you and Dan can come up with lots of examples), it is not the origin of such objectification. Sexism is a cross-cultural phenomenon, existing in various forms all over the world, and as far back in history as we can see.

    To explain sexism is a topic for another time and place, but its origins are ultimately biological: eggs are larger than sperm. All other genetic differences between the sexes, and the various kinds of social structures and strictures that have evolved concerning men and women, start from this point.

    Note: this does not mean that sexism is ineluctable or excusable. Women are as intelligent as men, on the average, and that alone should render sexism obviously unfair. But there are differences, and most of them are in favor of women: they are less violent and more social than men, and this is especially important in today's world, armed to the teeth and turning a cold shoulder to the hungry masses and the dying Earth.

    Dan- you accuse us of being "worse than the Mormons" when it comes to recruiting people. While I can't speak for others here, I don't get the feeling that any of us are trying to "recruit" anyone. All I want is to live and let live. I don't really care if Christians remain Christians, as long as they keep their beliefs out of public schools, others' bedrooms, and don't kill for God. I do enjoy arguing about this stuff, but my soul doesn't depend on winning or losing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While the Bible has certainly codified the objectification of women... it is not the origin of such objectification.

    I realize that, and I apologize if my statement seemed to credit Moses with the objectification of women -- since I neither believe Moses' tale, nor even that he wrote it, and since I doubt highly his very existence, I don't by any means actually credit him with anything.

    My statement was a poorly written attempt at combining Dan's assumptions about humanity's origins with the unfortunate fact that the bible represents some of the oldest complete texts available to us. Clearly, the sixth commandment wasn't the first time anyone realized killing was bad...

    Perhaps I could get away with blaming the bible for perpetuating the objectification of women, or at least assisting dramatically in its perpetuation?

    :)

    I'm sure both you and Dan can come up with lots of examples [of biblically endorsed sexism]

    I know I can, but Dan seems to struggle when it comes to locating any evidence which works against his pet worldview -- and I'm not about to require him to incriminate himself.

    Dan, you're free to plead the fifth for any of the seven questions I posed. I give you leave.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  22. Stan- I agree, the Bible bears its share of blame for perpetuating the objectification of women. Or I should rather say, people who still believe in its literal truth bear responsibility for not moving along with the times. Socially, the Old Testament, with its rather testy God, was probably pretty much in the spirit of its time, and the codes are what one would expect from an Iron Age tribe just starting to settle in cities. And I'm willing to admit that the New Testament was ahead of its time in many respects: Jesus, or whoever wrote in his name, had some pretty advanced ideas, many of which are still a good basis for workable societies.

    But time and culture, at least for those of us lucky enough to live in civilized countries, have moved on, and most civilized peoples have now abjured slavery, are tolerant of other religions or no religion, and have granted women the same rights as men (at least on paper!). Even most Christians have moved along in these respects, despite what the Bible says.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan,

    I so want to run far away from this subject, I am getting out of my comfort zone mainly because of the creepiness of it all, but I will hammer my points to clear the air.

    No, you cannot tell me for a fact that Adam had sex with his direct offspring. Why? Because there is no evidence of it anywhere. It is a wild assumptions that is very common to most atheists. (making wild assumptions that is)

    Like it or not, however, Seth had sex with his own sister.

    Now I perfectly understand that happened, though I cannot relate because my sister wasn't "hot" like my friend's sister. What a blessing to grow up as a pubescent boy with that fine specimen of a woman related to my best friend. I asked him and he knew she was very pretty. So siblings is understandable but not Father/Daughter, the relationship is just to sacred. I am glad to hear you have the blessings of a daughter. So as a man, even to populate the earth, you couldn't bring yourself to do such an awful thing could you?

    "You share your account with your wife, don't you? Sometimes you post, sometimes she posts."

    Now your tapping on something personal. I wish my wife would contribute to this blog, she has her own account, but she doesn't. She read maybe two posts that I made but she doesn't stay up late as I do. I deal with a great deal of gogo gaga quite a bit and I need the adult intellectual release of a good conversation once in a while.

    Per 1 Cor 14:34, women are not permitted to speak in church, because "they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law".

    Per 1 Cor 14:34, women are not permitted to speak in church because of convenience because like Zilch said they are social beings and nothing would get done. A law had to be made out of necessity, Besides that's what sewing circles are for. Was that sexist?

    In fact, I am at present unemployed, as I prepare to return to school in a week. My wife sustains us financially. Does this make me less of a man in your eyes?

    Hello, I am a stay at home Dad and I homeschool our kids, we get our income from my wife working. So there are a plethora of other reasons that make you less of a man. Settle down

    "Dan, you're free to plead the fifth for any of the seven questions I posed. I give you leave."

    Whew, I hate homework.

    Zilch added: "Even most Christians have moved along in these respects, despite what the Bible says."

    Look there has to be an order of authority in any system. You have heard the term to many cooks... Push comes to shove someone is responsible for the household. You can't have a spouse going all rogue on you, there has to be a chain of command. In that same breath though I would be very dumb not to take into account my wife's wishes and needs. Like a CEO of a company or a Captain of a ship I am held as head of household for better or for worse. I suggest you be real men and be the same.

    Sorry for being grumpy to you in the past Stan, I am dealing with some personal issues that is testing me. I also get frustrated in my time constraints.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.
    If anything, one would expect that those laws would be extended instead of cancelled since his "kingdome" is supposed to have been extended to all nations.

    The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.
    And the "civil law" and whatnot were NOT reflections of your God's character?

    The "civil" law was also extended you said, but in that case, it means we don't have to follow the rules the ancient Isrealites did.

    Unless you can show where in the NT he's specifically ordering the deaths of pregnant women and children I think he does change.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Dan: sorry about the blasphemy, but I think you may have misread me: note the "s" in godsdammit. I bolded it before, but it didn't come out as obvious as I'd hoped.

    Rather than taking the christian God's name in vain, I'm taking the generic name for all deities in vain.

    Indeed, since I don't capitalise it I could argue that I'm taking the name of every god except yours in vain.

    :)

    If I wanted to get blasphemic I would replace "godsdammit" with "God*", "Jesus*" or "Jehovah*". I'd also change the second "m" to an "n" in each case, because it looks more serious written like that and is more eloquent besides.

    FlyingSpaghettiMonsterDammit!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fine. I'll leave the incest stuff alone, but for the record, I never claimed knowledge of Adam's sexual activity, I merely claimed it logically probable that he had sex with a direct descendant. To populate the planet, the options were limited. Speculation? Yes. Wild and baseless? Not at all. Creepy? Apparently, but it's your bible, man, I'm just addressing it logically.

    Per 1 Cor 14:34, women are not permitted to speak in church because of convenience because like Zilch said they are social beings and nothing would get done. A law had to be made out of necessity, Besides that's what sewing circles are for. Was that sexist?

    Nope. Not at all. That's also what powder rooms, nurseries, and laundry rooms are for. It's a shame, really, that the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, or they'd still have no voice politically. Those were the days.

    ----------
    What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? (answer later)
    ----------

    Look there has to be an order of authority in any system. You have heard the term to many cooks... Push comes to shove someone is responsible for the household. You can't have a spouse going all rogue on you, there has to be a chain of command.

    Actually, the adage is, "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians", but that, too, is no longer politically correct.

    ---------
    Nothing -- she's been told twice already (clearly, she doesn't listen).
    ---------

    I understand completely, and I agree. There has to be a chain of command. Since I have a penis and she doesn't, I win, every time. I just dare that woman to try to go rogue on me again. I'm pretty sure she remembers what happened last time...

    --------
    A man returns home from work one evening, and finds that his wife hasn't made him dinner. Angered, he threatens her by saying, "Look, if my dinner isn't on the table when I'm ready to eat after work, I assure you that you won't see me for at least three days".

    His wife laughed at the impotent threat, and said, "Forget it -- cook your own dinner. I'm going out."

    "All right", the man said, "then you're not going to see me for three days."

    [One day has passed]

    The woman hasn't seen her husband.

    [Two days have passed]

    The woman still hasn't seen her husband.
    --------

    In fact, just because I feel like it, I'll even give my wife a vote, and we'll decide things democratically (I don't want to be called a totalitarian). One vote per adult, and one additional vote per adult with a penis. It's just like the legal system c. 30 CE, in which a man's testimony was worth the testimony of two women.

    Indeed, it's just like how my wit is worth twice yours.

    Like a CEO of a company or a Captain of a ship I am held as head of household for better or for worse. I suggest you be real men and be the same.

    Again, I couldn't agree more. Fortunately for us, the analogy fails pretty quickly, for there isn't a Board of Directors to fire us if profits are too low, and if the XO gets mouthy, I'll just smack her around. I have little fear of a mutiny due to the fact that I'm the strongest guy on the boat (might makes right), and as CEO I'll either outsource or lay off most of my crew, paying the remnants peanuts, and keeping the resulting profits to myself.

    --------
    [Three days have passed]

    The woman saw her husband, out of focus, and only out of her left eye.
    --------

    I get it, Dan. We're the same, you and I. If that woman fails to cook, clean, do the laundry, tend to the children, or be sexaully available to me, she'll fetch a beating. If she tries to leave me as a result, she'll fetch a bigger beating. If she successfully leaves me, manages to get a divorce, and later remarries, she'll have become an adulterer:

    Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    Preach it, Jesus. That's why the RCC is so right-on regarding divorce. Jesus was clear that divorce for any reason other than infidelity, where either party remarries, is adultery, plain as plain reading gets.

    Now, my dinner had better be ready.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan, you say:

    women are not permitted to speak in church because of convenience because like Zilch said they are social beings and nothing would get done. A law had to be made out of necessity, Besides that's what sewing circles are for. Was that sexist?

    Now you are treading close to quote-mining. I did say that women are more social than men, but I most certainly did not say that they don't get anything done. You could have at least put a comma after "social beings" to make it clearer who said what.

    In fact, as I said, while regarding men and women equal before the law is a requirement of civilized society, we now live in times where the superior sociability of women, and the more violent nature of men, behoove us to pay more attention to women, and ensure that they have at least as much political power as men do.

    That's what being a "real man" means to me: doing my best to make the planet a good place for my children to grow up in. That includes acknowledging and cherishing the differences between men and women, but recognizing that we all should have equal rights. Sometimes that means that men are the bosses; sometimes women. As Gloria Steinem said:

    There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Quasar,

    but I think you may have misread me:

    No I didn't I understood what you meant. I just don't want anyone to push the boundaries just in case they offend our Father. Even saying something polytheistic is offensive to God and I just don't want that wrath to come down on any of us. With sugar on top, please stay clear.

    Funny man Stan,

    For her sake I just hope that dinner was ready.

    You know Zilch you are absolutely right I did word that so badly that it sounded like you said that. That isn't quote mining that is totally misrepresenting someone, I apologize.

    Correction:

    women are not permitted to speak in church because of convenience because like Zilch said "they are social beings" and besides I believe nothing would get done.

    Sorry for that Zilch

    Sometimes that means that men are the bosses; sometimes women.

    I am OK with a woman boss but in the home there must be a head of the household and that must be the man, if we are to glorify God.

    To say men and woman are equal is an absurd notion. IF men could bear children I could understand. We are different and we have different roles in life. We need not to blur the boundaries but celebrate them.

    A comedian said the reason men get paid a dollar more in a job is because of that statement "woman and children first" He was complaining that if it's equal then men should be able to go first also, so get over it, men get paid a dollar more as emergency pay so when the time comes for "woman and children first" we will honor it. Otherwise...

    Someone has to be head of the household as Jesus is the head of His Church. The same goes for any company or ship. Someone must be in charge and accountable.

    Too many cooks spoil the broth. We can't let woman decide for us in our household, just look what happened to Adam when he did that exact thing. There is purpose to God's plan and that is one of them. Start to lead and be leaders men. Direct your family (company) to greatness.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You needn't apologize, Dan. Actually, I knew you didn't mean to misrepresent me, but I am like your wife in at least this one regard: I too am a perfectionist, especially when it comes to expressing oneself through language. But I goof up often myself, so I can't reasonably be too critical.

    You say:

    To say men and woman are equal is an absurd notion. IF men could bear children I could understand. We are different and we have different roles in life. We need not to blur the boundaries but celebrate them.

    "Equal" can of course mean many things. Obviously I don't think men and women are "equivalent", but I think they should be "equal" before the law and socially. That is, men and women should be granted the same rights and the same respect. Saying that women should not talk in church and should submit to their husbands does not constitute equal rights and equal respect, not to mention some of the nastier stuff in the Old Testament I won't mention, so I don't go along with the Bible on that one point (and a few others, as you may have noticed). I do like the Golden Rule, though. And Ecclesiastes- that's pretty cool.

    ReplyDelete
  30. [J]ust look what happened to Adam when he [let a woman decide for him in his household]

    Okay, first of all, Eve's action was her action, and Adam's action was Adam's action -- nary the twain shall meet.

    If you accept the Genesis 2-3 account, then Eve is to be blamed for eating the apple first, absolutely, but how much of that blame is also Adam's?

    If you go back and re-read the Genesis 2 account, and compare it to Genesis 3, we find there are some subtle hints at what must have transpired before Eve took that fateful bite...

    Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV): And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


    Versus...

    Genesis 3:2-3: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


    Now, I'm sure you've heard this before, but just in case, take note of the fact that Eve has it partly wrong. The command issued was that every tree's fruit could be sampled with the lone exception of the KGE tree. Touching it was not restricted. Note also that she did not name the tree (perhaps a sign had been erected?) -- could it be she was unsure whether it was the KGE tree or the tree of life?

    Nevermind that last bit -- it is unnecessary in any event. The fact is that per the Genesis 2 account, Eve was still Adam's rib when the command was issued, so how did she come by knowledge of the edict?

    We have three options:

    1) She was told directly by god.

    2) She was told indirectly by Adam.

    3) She was told indirectly by the serpent.


    Now, with these three options, we have two further possibilities:

    a) Eve was told correctly but misinterpreted.

    b) Eve was told incorrectly.


    Now, if we accept any of the story at all (for the sake of argument), we must assume that god did not change the rule, nor did he tell Eve a lie. So 1b is impossible.

    Also, since the serpent asked Eve what god had said, it stands to reason that he didn't tell her, true or false, at all, so 3a and 3b are out.

    Which leave us with three combined possibilities:

    1a: Eve was told by god but misinterpreted

    2a: Eve was told by Adam but misinterpreted

    2b: Eve was told by Adam, who had mis-stated the rule

    Which is it?

    Well, if we further accept Dan's proposition that prior to "The Fall" all of creation was in a perfect state, then so, too, must Adam and Eve been perfect human specimens, including perfect memory and cognitive ability.

    So neither Adam nor Eve could have misinterpreted the rule -- their mental abilities were unparalleled. The only option left, therefore, is that Adam mis-stated the rule, and this makes it deliberate, and this means that a sinful act by a human preceded the tempting by the serpent of Eve -- making Adam the source of sin.

    So based on this analysis, with due consideration of your contention that women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions in the household, your position is backward. Rather than the man, who is the apparent instigator, the woman, by the bible's "logic", should be the head of the household.

    What? You disagree?

    I see.

    Perhaps, then, you will join me for a completely different analysis of Genesis 2-3 (again accepting the biblical account for the sake of argument):

    1. Eve expresses confusion, is tempted by serpent, sins by eating apple.

    2. Eve takes apple to Adam, who accepts it, sinning himself.

    3. After god finally locates them, and gets pissy because they ate the apple, Adam blames the woman for his failure.

    4. Eve blames the serpent for tempting and confusing her.

    Now, let's look at this from the stance of administering justice.

    Who is more deserving of punishment?

    Eve confessed to the crime, claiming confusion due to the serpent.

    Adam confessed to the crime, claiming "the woman" -- not even using her name -- had tempted him. Note also, that in Genesis 3:12, Adam implies that god is also to blame: "...whom thou gavest to be with me..."

    As for the serpent, well, that's a whole different animal (pun intended) -- did it have legs before, and lost them? Was it (the animal) truly to blame, since it was really Satan in disguise? Was it even a serpent at all?

    Rather than get too far off-topic, I'd just like to point out that your whole sexist slant is not truly founded on justice. Whether you accept my analyses of Genesis 2-3 or not, you must see that Adam's first action following the discovery of his sin was to blame "the woman". He certainly wasn't "being a man", and owning his mistake. His cowardice and his attempt to pass the buck are worse than her attempt to blame the serpent, and all the more so for his implication that the woman "whom thou gavest".

    Translation: It wasn't my fault, it was hers, and you're the one who gave her to me.

    So the sexism so prevalent in the bible isn't based on justice at all -- rather, like Zilch has pointed out, it was a virtually universal cultural tradition; certainly for that area. The psychology of men vs. women certainly has helped perpetuate this, and, of course, people who accept the bible literally, or nearly so, are also responsibility for perpetuating the myth.

    I'll leave you with a couple movie quotes of my own (from the same scene) from one of my best movies of all time:

    HELICOPTER GUNNER: Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC. (Laughs)

    ...

    HELICOPTER GUNNER: I've done got me 157 dead gooks killed... And 50 water buffaloes, too. Them are all certified.

    JOKER: Any women, or children?

    GUNNER: Sometimes...

    JOKER: How can you shoot women, and children?

    GUNNER: Easy -- ya just don't lead 'em so much! (Laughs)

    ----------

    You're the gunner. I'm Joker. Your concsience is Rafterman, who is getting sick throughout the entire scene.

    (One more)

    DRILL INSTRUCTOR HARTMAN: Private Joker is silly and he's ignorant, but he's got guts, and guts is enough. Now, you ladies carry on.



    --
    Stan (not Kubrick)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zilch,

    I do like the Golden Rule...

    Did you mean the atheists golden rule?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stan,

    you must see that Adam's first action following the discovery of his sin was to blame "the woman". He certainly wasn't "being a man", and owning his mistake.

    I agree to this claim.

    And in my own defense I am far from sexist though I tease about being so. Look woman are loved by God also, he gave them the duty to bear the worlds children and he says to care for them and respect them as a weaker vessel and it boils down to Galatians 3:28 again. We are all one in Christ.

    "In Adam’s fall, sin gained entrance into humankind. And what are the results? All men are guilty; all are sinners; in Adam we all die! All are under the judgment of God. But God so loved the world that He gave His only Son as a ransom to purchase back what Adam forfeited. Adam’s disobedience resulted in death for man, both spiritually and physically. The Last Adam, Jesus, was sinless, and like the first Adam, had no human father. Christ’s death resulted in everlasting life for those that repent and submit to him. And just as we have born the likeness of Adam, the earthly man, so shall we, one day, bear the likeness of Jesus, the man from heaven.Jesus Christ, the last Adam, freely offered himself as atonement for man’s sin and purchased eternal life for all who trust Him." (taken from AIG)

    So who do you want to be associated with, a man that blames the woman for his faults or a Man that took the punishment for all to save all? I have made my choice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan- yes, I like that "atheist golden rule" too. But I think it should apply to religious folk also, who it must be admitted, do a lot of dumb stuff to one another.

    Stan- how about the Holy Modal Rounders version of the Garden:

    Kissed Eve on the bottom, patted Adam on the back
    I smiled at the serpent, and the serpent smiled back
    Took a bite from the apple with two bites gone, and shouted
    Euphoria!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Holy Modal Rounders?

    Zilch your hippie is showing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. (Sorry, Zilch, I don't know of the Holy Modal Rounders. I've seen Easy Rider, in which I understand one or more of their songs appear, but I haven't watched it recently... That movie, incidentally, is older than I am)

    As to Dan... I know I said I'd drop the incest thing, and I meant it, but there is one more thing relevant to the discussion: Lot.

    Given the myriad of kinky sexual proclivities documented in the bible, I'd say Lot was probably not the first to impregnate one of his daughters (both, in his case).

    Also, since in Lot's case, his two daughters, in successive nights while hiding in a cave, managed somehow to procure enough wine so that Lot got so trashed that he didn't know he had impregnated either of them. Such a strange story.

    He was in hiding in a cave, yet had so much alcohol that he had blacked-out sex with his oldest daughter one night, and the next night, when the other daughter is getting him blitzed again (overzealous hair-of-the-dog?), he again has blacked-out sex, this time with the younger daughter.

    Was that a good thing? Lot's daughters were under the impression that all of humanity had been wiped out, so they did what they thought they had to do. Lot is not guiltless either, unless you'll allow a man who is accused of incestual relations with his daughter to use the "but she got me drunk" excuse...

    Good tree bears good fruit

    Well, then I guess Lot's incestual relations with his daughters -- one of them, at least -- was indeed of a good tree, since the fruit produced David (Ruth 4:13-22 shows that Ruth, a 'Moabitess', was David's great-grandmother).

    What's that? Jesus was a direct descendant of David's? You mean Jesus is the product of father-daughter incest and brother-sister incest?

    Well, I guess that settles it. If father-daughter incest, or brother-sister incest, is of a bad tree, then its fruit is necessarily bad, and, as we've now seen, that fruit is ultimately Jesus.

    Since I'm on a roll with movie quotes...

    MARSHAL POOLE: Care to revise your statement, sir?

    PRISON GUARD: What?

    DEPUTY MARSHAL SAMUEL GERARD: Do you want to change you bullshit story, sir?


    Look, I don't mean to rub your nose in the biblically documented incest, and I really am trying to leave it be, but you're also claiming that homosexuality is so evil based on a religion whose savior is the product of two different types of incest. You are now free to re-examine your position on any of these sex acts, and consider why it is that you believe the way you do concerning them.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  36. Stan,


    Such a strange story indeed. Fine you made your point, now let me go throw up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan, I was never really a hippie: I was a nerd in the 60's, even though I had a beard and long hair (still do, in fact). I visited the Haight and duly made my pilgrimage to the Fillmore Auditorium to see Jefferson Airplane, but I was taken aback by the grunginess and drugs. Only later did I realize their usefulness, when treated as sacraments :lol: Nowadays, though, my drug of choice is coffee.

    Stan- yes, the story of Lot is a strange one indeed, and closer examination is revealing. Peter called Lot "just" (2 Peter 2:7). Does drunkenness excuse incest? Why is incest taboo, and when is it not taboo?

    The biological reasons against incest are pretty clear: since brothers and sisters, or fathers and daughters (or mothers and sons), share 50% of their genes (on the average), there is a high risk for the propagation of recessive genes in the offspring, which are often harmful. This is presumably why there is (apparently) an inborn aversion to incest: it does no good (from the standpoint of evolution) to have children who are likely not to reproduce themselves.

    But this aversion is sometimes overcome, from Lot to the present. I can't imagine having sex with my daughter either, but unfortunately, incest can and does happen.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Here's another vote for the atheist golden rule. :)

    On the sexism front: I'm of the opinion that there is a lot more difference between individuals than there is between man and woman.

    In other words, if someone is a natural leader, let them lead no matter the sex.

    If the woman is better suited to a position of authority then why shouldn't she be head of the houshold?

    On the incest front: Ewwwwwwww...

    On the fiction quoting front:

    "But you read a lot of books, I'm thinking. Hard to have faith, ain't it, when you've read too many books?" - Granny Weatherwax, Carpe Jugulum

    ReplyDelete
  39. well if all sexual sin is offensive to god and he loves the gays (hate the sin not the sinner) then why not let them marry one and other he supposidely gave heterosexuals marrage (didnt originate from christianity but for arguments sakes lets say it did) and so they can have sex with one and other and since it is not outside marrage and therefore not fornication and/or adultery then is that sinful? then why not have the same for homosexuals? i mean he says it is an abomination but that hetero AND homosexual sexual sins are also sinful why not give them a kinda loophole so to speak that he gave to heterosexuals?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks Connie,

    RE: Gay marriage.

    I am glad you brought that up.

    Its up to God and His criteria who will marry or not, certainly not anyone willy nilly, or some state.

    I am going to blow your mind here a bit. The State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry. That is a Biblical term reserved for a union of two according to God (and His criteria) and God alone. Think about it. Its not up to the state to marry. Its not their authority to determine a Biblical thing. You want gay unions then erase marriage from the United States vocabulary. I am married under God's terms. Who cares if some state says I am or not? That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God. There is your separation of Church and State. Push for that legislation, and I will vote with you. ...this should be a separate post. If Prop 8 comes up again, and it will, I will post anew.

    ReplyDelete
  41. ok thats cool you feel that way so should the state then grant civil unions to gays and just recognize them as civil unions just give them the STATE benifits and leave all religion out of said civil unions? would that be so wrong i mean technically they would not be married right? so why should they be denied a civil union? i mean you say your married before god ok thats cool what if they take god out of there gay ummm "marrage" or civil union would that be a fair compromise? i mean they wouldnt be married in the eyes of god but the state you can call yourself married under god and them civil unions of the state i mean i dont see how they are going to change marrage doing that i mean it will only be state recognised and not recognised before god right?
    again as i have stated before i am from australia so i cant exactly vote for or against prop 8 i dont even know what that is!!!
    again out of curiosity is it like legal for US citizens not to vote? over here it is a crime!! yet the government party in charge can vote within itself a new leader (prime minster) to run the country like wth?!?

    ReplyDelete
  42. dan,
    you say state has no right to call anyone married correct? so does that mean you do not receive any state given benifits relating to marriage (legal rights concerning children, payments ect) because the state has no right to call you married so in order for that to be true you must then reject every single right and privilage given by the state to married couples if you already do i take my hat of to you if you dont, you sir are a hypocrite

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rebel,

    Should people get paid subsidies for children? Of course not. Do we? Yup.

    Its wrong to get paid, or tax breaks, for having children. Its wrong to have income tax even. So should a gay couple be paid to adopt children? NOPE. Do they have the right to visit their spouse in a hospital? They sure do. Do they have children? Nope impossible.

    The benefits that I receive as a parent has nothing to do with the government. I play the game and try to get my money back that was stolen from me sure, but taking my money to give back to me should of never happened in the first place.

    I pay for secular public schools and yet my kids are home schooled so the government is stealing from us.

    I certain would choose to bow out of all government involvement in reference to my family if possible. If the government would leave us alone and let us raise our kids they way we wish I would be all for it.

    Give me examples of what gay people would want as we married couples enjoy. Hospital visits? sure Subsidies to adopt children? No way. Maybe I am missing your point but I don't see too many things that the government offers to married couples, besides tax issues, that gay couples don't have. Taxes are illegal anyway so they must go away.

    ReplyDelete
  44. oh i apoligise for not making myself clear this is what im talking about

    In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage.

    sorry bout the copy and paste but im sure the laws are different country to country this is what ive found for America (plus im pretty lazy lol)

    Tax Relief:
    •Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
    •Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.


    Medical:
    •Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
    •Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
    (so pretty much if they were holidaying in another state and a serious accident happened theyre screwed legally)

    Gifts:
    •Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
    •Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.
    (hmm gifts i wonder if thats the same here note to self gifts......)

    Death Benefits:
    •Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
    •Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other GOVERNMENT benefits in case of death
    (way harsh)

    Immigration Rights:
    •Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
    •Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members
    (and you thought we were strict :P)

    btw this is a very very condensed list of just 300 out of 1049 benifits the civil unions get opposed to married ones and theyre only given state benifits and not federal ones not sure of that one but seeing as your the one in america maybe you can understand that better then me =D

    also theres issues with insurance and many others and even more disheartening some couples apparently in NJ? are/were(?) being denied the legal rights they were promised would go with civil unions such as being denied family or partnership health care (which married couples get) from their employers aparently its one in eight hopefully it is going to improve if it already hasn't

    still dont see many benifits from the governement? then i suggest you look up your states law and rights reguarding marriage and also federal? law and rights reguarding marriage to see what civil unions are missing out on because as i have stated earlier the federal rights are the ones they arent being given in any state

    ReplyDelete
  45. damn double posts and also i meant to say if it isnt clear that civil unions only get 300 benifits as opposed to the 1049 state and federal benifits married couples get and also i agree with your point about taxes they should go away eat away at my earnings grr!

    ReplyDelete
  46. i think this illistrates the point by gay people for gay marriage or at least why civil unions dont afford them the same rights

    http://www.countercurrents.org/shaw100110.htm

    not sure if the link worked :S

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Men and woman that have followed the Bible and waited until marriage have no worry of STD's at all"
    ummmm citation needed!! what if they caught HIV/AIDS from their mothers it freaking happens you know maybe thier parents were infected by a blood transfusion or caught it in africa its a STD sure but there are alot of ways to catch it outside sexual encounters my friend and what if they themselves are unaware they have it then pass it onto to thier spouse after all you dont believe in condoms which is the best way to prevent the spread of disease

    btw straight people have anal too and thats one of the high risk factors as well

    striaght people suffer from STD's just like homo/bisexual people like hello have you even had a health lesson?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>