Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

Abortion is easy... Only lawyers that can fully discharge their duties to act in their client's interest should take a case-- and that applies to abortion no differently than any other issue

How many clients do you have in a case regarding abortion?

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to love big government. If you didn't, you would let people decide what is best for themselves.

Well, that's the problem. Under self-actualization, the negation of self is entirely contrary to it. How can death be the 'best outcome'?

People do have the right to decide for themselves, but they do not have the right to get someone to help them kill themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it's your own damn fault if you fail to anticipate how your spouse will behave in ten or twenty years.

It's a bit more of a commitment if you believe that marriage is for life, and that marriage is a sacrament, then if you believe that marriage is a contract that can be broken anytime. If I marry someone where it doesn't work out for me, I don't get a 'do-over'. So I have to make sure that I know the gal well enough that I will be happy with her, not just in 5 years, but as you said, 10 or 20 years down the line.

Sure you can't know everything, but it's a very different attitude to be looking at the long term rather than the short term.

[Ben Kenobi]

I really want to interfere with his life by sending these things to potential girlfriends of his.

MRT - all class.

Here's a question for you- do you think that anyone that I'm serious about wouldn't already know how I feel about marriage?

[giblets]

Well, that's the problem. Under self-actualization, the negation of self is entirely contrary to it. How can death be the 'best outcome'?

People do have the right to decide for themselves, but they do not have the right to get someone to help them kill themselves.

I never said anything about "self-actualization" and don't care for your strawmen. Death can be the best outcome if it is someone's personal preference to die a quick, painless death instead of a slow, painful death from a terminal illness. Your relentless desire to have the government restrict consensual relationships and agreements based on your conviction that what suits your preferences is also best for everyone else is frankly quite elitist.

[Flubber]

It's a bit more of a commitment if you believe that marriage is for life, and that marriage is a sacrament, then if you believe that marriage is a contract that can be broken anytime. If I marry someone where it doesn't work out for me, I don't get a 'do-over'. So I have to make sure that I know the gal well enough that I will be happy with her, not just in 5 years, but as you said, 10 or 20 years down the line.

Sure you can't know everything, but it's a very different attitude to be looking at the long term rather than the short term.

Ben -- a person can believe marriage is for life, act well, do everything right and then her husband of 20 years announces

1. that he is gay and has been having sex with men for years OR
2. that he despises her and wants nothing to do with her OR
3. that he has slept with her sister OR
4. that he actually killed their child 3 years vefore and it was not an accident

etc etc

Yet in each and every case, you would require these people to remain married??



Oh and Ben -- I have been married for 10.5 years and am raising two children-- so its not a cavalier desire for a do-over that leads me to my acceptance of divorce. Instead its my understanding that some relationships are irretrievably broken and nothing positive is served by having people remaining formally linked. It makes more sense to allow people to find happiness and love and have those new bonds formally recognized if and when the couple cgooses

[Ben Kenobi]

Worse than the rape of your daughter. Yes we know. Thanks for admitting you base your moral stance on this story.

Apparently logic eludes you still.

They didn't say the sky was blue.

So again, why are you reading yourself into the text and not letting it speak for itself? There's no evidence for your interpretation.

You don't have to be a genius to understand that Lot didn't highly value his daughters. He offered them to be raped.

If he believed he and the rest of his family were going to be killed by the mob - does that suggest that he didn't value his daughters?

a) Lot didn't let his daughters choose if they would be raped or not, he was willing to force them to do his will
b) Lot didn't value his daughters enough to even try to stand up for them
c) You're an idiot for not realizing a and b, and doubly so since it's blantantly obvious that for most of history women were second class citizens

Well, Lot was sheltering an angel, and the men outside wanted to defile the angel. Then they start hammering his door down. It's clear to me that you think the men sodomizing the angel was no big deal, ergo, Lot choosing to avoid this was indication of how little he cared about his daughter. However, if you believe that permitting the men to do that to the angel was a death sentence by God on your family - then wouldn't that change how you saw things? If you believed that God was going to punish you for it?

For starters, Jesus never said it was sinful.

Then why does he say that marriage was between a man and a woman, and everything outside of this is sinful? This isn't hard, Elok.

I will argue your religion with you to show how you are ****ing up when reading your own religious texts

Fair enough. If you feel you can convince me otherwise, then feel free.

Am I my brother's keeper? Not for lack of trying...

We have an obligation to look out for each other's welfare and that includes spiritual welfare.

Accept correction as discipline. You are not an authority to correct or discipline anyone. This is another clear case where you are hypocritical. You want to correct and discipline others, but won't accept it for yourself.

Actually, I do have some as a teacher.

Ask Nikolai if I refuse to accept correction, then. He's corrected me before.

It's good you can admit you didn't accept and love Jesus.

Not helping people isn't good enough. You have to help them where you can. You can't just 'mind your own business', and 'keep to your own spirituality.'

You are confusing judging, condemning, and discriminating against people with "being a good example". You definitely are not a good example.

I'm talking about Christ, not myself. I have an obligation to make Christ known, not keep it to myself.

Those are what Paul teaches.

You said that there was 'nothing that backed up my views in these books'. Now you concede that yes, in fact there is plenty of evidence.

So, which books do you consider valid, Aeson?

If he is saying that is the only way marriage can be, he is demonstrably wrong.

Well, I'll say. So Christ himself is wrong. I rest my case. It doesn't matter if it comes from Paul or Christ, or anybody. If they express the opinion that homosexuality is wrong - they must be wrong.

[Flubber]

MRT - all class.

Here's a question for you- do you think that anyone that I'm serious about wouldn't already know how I feel about marriage?

I think I will simply refrain from passing comment on the attributes of anyone you are serious about--


But tell us Ben-- Is there such a potential person? or was your retort merely theoretical at this time

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- a person can believe marriage is for life, act well, do everything right and then her husband of 20 years announces

1. that he is gay and has been having sex with men for years OR
2. that he despises her and wants nothing to do with her OR
3. that he has slept with her sister OR
4. that he actually killed their child 3 years vefore and it was not an accident

Yet in each and every case, you would require these people to remain married??

Again, I believe marriage is a sacrament. I might as well ask you if there is anything that can make you unbaptised. Marriage works the same way. You can't be 'unmarried', once you are married, save for the death of your spouse.

Now, I would ask you again. Say that same person does everything right, and her spouse says that he is 'unhappy' and wants a divorce.

Do you believe it is right for the man to be able to divorce her just because he is unhappy, even though his wife is very happy?

Oh and Ben -- I have been married for 10.5 years and am raising two children-- so its not a cavalier desire for a do-over that leads me to my acceptance of divorce. Instead its my understanding that some relationships are irretrievably broken and nothing positive is served by having people remaining formally linked. It makes more sense to allow people to find happiness and love and have those new bonds formally recognized if and when the couple cgooses

I never said your opinion was cavalier, simply that I'm coming from a very different conception of marriage than you. See, I don't see happiness as a primary purpose of marriage. I would get married because I believed I had found a soulmate that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. There will be times that I will be happy because of her, and times that I will be unhappy because of her. That doesn't change how I feel about her, or how she feels about me.

[Flubber]

So again, why are you reading yourself into the text and not letting it speak for itself? There's no evidence for your interpretation.


.

No evidence other than reams of historical evidence regarding how women were regarded in various societies.

Ben -- the bible may not specifically say that the sun rose on a given day or that respiration occurred for person x or y , but wouldn't it be idiotic to not assume normal things unless faced with evidence otherwise.

His point is that women were less valued than men. I don't know if this was true for this society at this time, or not. But it has been true of many many societies through human history and offering your daughters for rape would be completely consistent with a lower value on women, would it not?

[Ben Kenobi]

But tell us Ben-- Is there such a potential person? or was your retort merely theoretical at this time

Does this username say, "Albert Speer"?

[kentonio]

There will be times that I will be happy because of her, and times that I will be unhappy because of her. That doesn't change how I feel about her, or how she feels about me.

How do you know? having never been in that situation, you have absolutely no grounds to make a statement like that. Many married people come to literally hate each other, and find their lives an absolute misery for being around the other person. Others just grow apart and feel nothing at all for each other. What exactly is gained by those people staying together?

[Flubber]

Does this username say, "Albert Speer"?

Sorry-- I vaguely remember a poster of that name but recall almost nothing about them ( I am often not in here for months and ignore many threads )

So your reference is lost on me

[kentonio]

Does this username say, "Albert Speer"?

Al openly admits to being a virgin. In your case it's just obvious from the evidence of you being you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- the bible may not specifically say that the sun rose on a given day or that respiration occurred for person x or y , but wouldn't it be idiotic to not assume normal things unless faced with evidence otherwise.

Well, this gets into theories of historical interpretation. I believe that I am always bringing in my modern background into every single text. There is no way for me to entirely separate me, and my experiences from what is written. This is why I think it's so important to minimize this as much as possible by relying on the texts, and the commentaries that we do have, from the people who were much closer to the bible.

Any intepretation that is contrary to how the Church fathers saw things is unreliable. Full stop. Any interpretation that corroborates with them may be correct. It may still be incorrect, but it is more likely to be true than an interpretation that is not substantiated by them.

offering your daughters for rape would be completely consistent with a lower value on women, would it not?

If he were offering them for prostitution, I would agree with you, but I think there is significant coercion going on in this particular circumstance. I am not saying that Lot did the right thing. He should have offered up his own life to preserve the lives of his daughter and his guest. But because of the circumstances, I do not believe that they necessarily indicate that his offering them up demonstrates that he believes they are not valuable to him.