Texan Bigotry

[Sava]

Yet you manage to convince everyone online of it. Why do you think that might be?

Knowing someone online, while not quite as accurate as knowing someone in real life, gives a revealing look at someone's mind.

I'm sure BK can be a very polite and easy going person in real life. But on the inside, he's a monster. Morally, he is absolutely lost and refuses to take responsibility for it... blaming the "liberal orthodoxy", for instance.

He isn't psychotic in the sense that a lack of impulse control causes him to commit horrific crimes. But his utter lack of empathy is indicative of a sociopathic personality. He doesn't have any real power. Thus, his views on public policy won't ever come to fruition. I would suspect he suffers from an extreme lack of confidence and will to make that happen. Also, his personal situation might not afford him the opportunity to be more active.

He's probably also a coward and would back down from any direct personal challenges regarding his views. I could see him finding comfort in a crowd, protesting an abortion clinic perhaps. But he's not about to engage in a confrontation.

Nope. From the safety of behind the keyboard, he'll throw his stones at everyone who he blames for perceived sin.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet you manage to convince everyone online of it. Why do you think that might be?

Because you're engaging in hyperbole. This isn't very solid ground you are fighting on - I suggest you try a different line of inquiry.

Nope, neither I or most other people here give a **** about your beliefs per se. Nikolai for instance shares many of your religious beliefs, yet he has always come across as a genuine, compassionate and kind person.

Perhaps then the issue doesn't rest with me.

The problem is not what you believe (though I find some of it absolutely abhorrent) but rather that you tell blatant and bald faced lies and twist the truth whenever you are losing an argument.

I see. Where have I lied in my argument against gay marriage?

Try being an honest person, and you'd find people treating you with a lot more respect and dignity.

Doubtful. One would think that if you held respect in esteem, you would respect those who disagree with you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Knowing someone online, while not quite as accurate as knowing someone in real life, gives a revealing look at someone's mind.

I confirm I have had the opportunity to speak with Sava.

I'm sure BK can be a very polite and easy going person in real life. But on the inside, he's a monster. Morally, he is absolutely lost and refuses to take responsibility for it... blaming the "liberal orthodoxy", for instance.

Morally lost? In what way do you believe I am morally lost? I should think that I have found solid ground.

He isn't psychotic in the sense that a lack of impulse control causes him to commit horrific crimes. But his utter lack of empathy is indicative of a sociopathic personality. He doesn't have any real power. Thus, his views on public policy won't ever come to fruition. I would suspect he suffers from an extreme lack of confidence and will to make that happen. Also, his personal situation might not afford him the opportunity to be more active.

Interesting. I suspect you lack the credentials to make such a diagnosis. I

He's probably also a coward and would back down from any direct personal challenges regarding his views. I could see him finding comfort in a crowd, protesting an abortion clinic perhaps. But he's not about to engage in a confrontation.

What makes you suspect this, other than wishful thinking?

Nope. From the safety of behind the keyboard, he'll throw his stones at everyone who he blames for perceived sin.

Again, I find this a curious assessment. Are you suggesting that in real life that I do not express the same views that I hold online?

[Berzerker]

Then why that bit about, "he made them male and female".

Because the subject was easy divorce laws men used to dump their wives, not when sex is sinful - that is the context of his answer. Look at the question:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

I dont know if polygamy was legal or if the other wives were called concubines, but Jesus was not condemning the practice in that verse. He was criticizing men for divorcing their wives without justification and invoking God and the first (Adam & Lilith? ) marriage to emphasize the importance of such a commitment. What do the Mormons say about that verse? They'd probably say the first marriage was between a man and a woman but had there been a 2nd woman they would have been polygamists. If God or Jesus specifically condemned polygamy we shouldn't need to rely on a questionable interpretation of Matthew.

We're supposed to fit together in a union in marriage because that's what we were made for. Other unions - unions outside of marriage, unions of more than one man and one woman are all deviations from what we were made for. That's why the Christian ideal is so radical

Not only did Jesus not marry, in his lesson about abstinence - strange lesson if you're right - he left it up to the individual and even discussed people like eunuchs who were made that way by men or nature. Thats just one thing I dont understand about Catholicism, Jesus didn't tell priests they had to abstain from sex or marriage. Is Jesus telling Arabic peoples they're the result of sin because Abraham was their father?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the subject was easy divorce laws men used to dump their wives, not when sex is sinful - that is the context of his answer. Look at the question

And why is divorce wrong? If it's just a contract, no harm no foul. It comes back to his answer - what is marriage about? The Union of one man and one woman in marriage. Divorce breaks this union apart.

I dont know if polygamy was legal or if the other wives were called concubines, but Jesus was not condemning the practice in that verse.

Then why does he go all the way back to Genesis in his answer? It wasn't Adam and Eve and Mabel. It was Adam and Eve. He goes on to state that they are no longer two, (not three, or four), but one.

What do the Mormons say about that verse?

I don't know. I've never been a Mormon and I am not qualified to speak for them.

If God or Jesus specifically condemned polygamy we shouldn't need to rely on a questionable interpretation of Matthew.

Questionable interpretation? It's right there. One man one woman, two becoming one flesh. I'm not sure how you find justification for polygamy in there.

Not only did Jesus not marry, in his lesson about abstinence - strange lesson if you're right

Jesus goes on to teach in Matthew 19, "the one who can accept this should accept it." Not all are called for Marriage.

Thats just one thing I dont understand about Catholicism, Jesus didn't tell priests they had to abstain from sex or marriage.

Catholicism itself permits married men to occasionally become priests. The Eastern (Byzantine rite), allows it. The Latin Rite does not. It's been that way since the Council of Elvira for the Latin Rite. While the Latin Rite is by far the most common, it is not the only rite.

Is Jesus telling Arabic peoples they're the result of sin because Abraham was their father?

There's no evidence that there's any connection between the two.

[Sava]

We're supposed to fit together in a union in marriage because that's what we were made for.

Nope. Gender is sort of a biological oddity. It's arbitrary, for the most part. Scientists can create embryos based upon skin cells from two people of the same gender. The biology God created differs from the delusion in your brain.

And the bull**** social construct of marriage is just manmade... like the sick and twisted ideas you believe.

[Berzerker]

Divorce isn't wrong, divorcing wives without justification is wrong. Why? Because it becomes adultery when either remarry.

The God of the OT allowed and even commanded polygamy but you think God condemned it in Genesis?

You just said we were made for marriage, but not all are called to it?

Hagar and Abraham is the connection

If a polygamist converts to Christianity, do they need to divorce all but the first wife?

[notyoueither]

And the bull**** social construct of marriage is just manmade... like the sick and twisted ideas you believe.

Indeed. The facts suggest that in pre history, and some history, there was a whole lot of ****ing going on.

[SlowwHand]

If a polygamist converts to Christianity, do they need to divorce all but the first wife?

Forget Christianity. It's not legal in the United States, period. End of discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope. Gender is sort of a biological oddity.

Then why do we see 99 point some odd percent with XY XX. Surely it's not a coincidence. Math and science suggests otherwise.

It's arbitrary, for the most part.

Not when it's 99 plus percent conforming. .

Scientists can create embryos based upon skin cells from two people of the same gender.

Have they? No. Can they? Maybe.

The biology God created differs from the delusion in your brain.

99 point some odd argues otherwise.

And the bull**** social construct of marriage is just manmade

[[citation needed]].

[Ben Kenobi]

Divorce isn't wrong, divorcing wives without justification is wrong. Why? Because it becomes adultery when either remarry.

First you argue, "it's all about divorce"

Then you argue, "Divorce isn't wrong".

Yes, divorce is wrong because it destroys the union. The only exception to this is marital infidelity where the partner committing infidelity has already broken the union through their actions.

The God of the OT allowed and even commanded polygamy but you think God condemned it in Genesis?

If polygamy were the norm and the ideal, why was there just Adam and Eve?

You just said we were made for marriage, but not all are called to it?

Yes, we were made for marriage. Most of us anyways. Some aren't.

Hagar and Abraham is the connection

So sayeth who? Christians? Jews? Anyone involved in the actual source material when it was written? No. Sorry.

There's no indication if you look at the time prior to Islam that anyone claimed this connection. Which means that it's a very late interpolation.

If a polygamist converts to Christianity, do they need to divorce all but the first wife?

According to Canon law it's up to the husband when he converts. He must choose one. The default preference is for the first.

[kentonio]

Because you're engaging in hyperbole. This isn't very solid ground you are fighting on - I suggest you try a different line of inquiry.

The level of abuse you get here is far, far in excess of anything anyone else gets. We've already established that its not a result of your beliefs (because others here also share them) so what's the distinguishing factor?

Perhaps then the issue doesn't rest with me.

Gosh, it's everyone else's fault again?

I see. Where have I lied in my argument against gay marriage?

If you're speaking to a known liar, why would you trust them just because they haven't told you a lie yet that day? It's interesting that you shaped your question so narrowly by the way, were you self conscious enough to realize that 'When have I lied?' would have led to an avalanche of quotes?

Doubtful. One would think that if you held respect in esteem, you would respect those who disagree with you.

You have to earn respect.

[Berzerker]

First you argue, "it's all about divorce"

Then you argue, "Divorce isn't wrong".

I didn't say its all about divorce, I said it was about men divorcing their wives without justification.

Yes, divorce is wrong because it destroys the union. The only exception to this is marital infidelity where the partner committing infidelity has already broken the union through their actions.

It aint sinful for two people to divorce if thats what they want, it is sinful for men to dump their wives which is the situation Jesus was addressing.

If polygamy were the norm and the ideal, why was there just Adam and Eve?

You didn't answer the question, how do you figure God was condemning polygamy in Genesis when God allowed and even commanded polygamy afterward? Many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, Jesus wasn't accusing them of sin.

Yes, we were made for marriage. Most of us anyways. Some aren't.

So which is it and where'd Jesus say that?

So sayeth who? Christians? Jews? Anyone involved in the actual source material when it was written? No. Sorry.

The Bible says it, Hagar was given to Abraham by Sarah because she was barren. Thats polygamy

There's no indication if you look at the time prior to Islam that anyone claimed this connection. Which means that it's a very late interpolation.

The Bible says this:

As to Ishmael, I have heard thee; lo, I have blessed him, and made him fruitful, and multiplied him, very exceedingly; twelve princes doth he beget, and I have made him become a great nation

What nation was God talking about?

According to Canon law it's up to the husband when he converts. He must choose one. The default preference is for the first.

So divorce for a reason other than infidelity is allowed?

[molly bloom]

Exactly. That's what I was saying earlier. Conscience rights take priority over convenience. If you don't like this one pharmacist, go to the on across the road.

Would it have been okay if the baker said, 'Sorry, but my cakes are too whitely iced and delicate for you nappy-headed jigaboos' ? Claiming of course to belong to one of those fundy type Protestant sects that believes in the inherent inferiority of some of Noah's progeny... you know, like the South African Reformed Church did.

[Sava]

Would it have been okay if the baker said, 'Sorry, but my cakes are too whitely iced and delicate for you nappy-headed jigaboos' ?

You see... this would seem wrong to all of us "normals". But BK would find that acceptable... because he's evil and racist (among other things).