Texan Bigotry

[Berzerker]

Where does the Bible claims that Jesus lived with dinosaurs?

If Jesus is God and God created dinosaurs, then Jesus was around when they lived

Now why does it matter? You're taking what the author said about dinosaurs and ignoring what he said about Ishmael's sons founding various peoples and towns as documented by pre-Islamic writers. You said that documentation didn't exist... Is the Bible wrong about everything if its wrong about anything? Thats the standard you're using to discredit the author instead of addressing his argument.

It's not a command. He didn't tell David, "You must take two wives". He says that as a concession, as proof how much he loves David that , "if that were not enough I would give you all his wives."

It wasn't a concession, it was a gift - a blessing from God - and you dont say no to God. Was God sinning when he gave David many wives or was David sinning for accepting the gift?

You're ignoring Deut 25

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

God also knows what will happen to Uriah which is why he says this to David. To make us understand that it has nothing with 'not having enough sheep', but everything to do with, "stealing the one sheep from the poor to add to the herd." THAT is why God is furious with David.

Then Uriah aint relevant to polygamy, David stole somebody's wife - apparently its okay for God to steal wives for David but it aint okay if David does the stealing.

That's not what Muslims claim. Muslims claim that they are children of Ishmael just like Jews are children of Isaac.

Then Muslims do make that claim

Now you said we were made for marriage and that means one man and one woman. Did Jesus and his disciples marry? I think you've just accused Jesus and his disciples of sin for not living up to your ideals.

[Sava]

His ideals do differ from Jesus. Quite substantially.

[molly bloom]

The actual text also refers to sodomites by name. So, again. You're trying to dodge it. Appealing to the Greek isn't going to help you when the Greek is more explicit than the English.

I'm not appealing to the 'Greek': however (by the way, when did you learn New Testament Greek ?) Paul was a Hellenized Jew, supposedly from a city that was a centre of Stoic thought, and a citizen of Rome. Romans (as you evidently are unaware) distinguished between acts that were proper for a freeborn male to commit and those that were not- they did not see it as either being gay or heterosexual. They even had particular terminology to distinguish between whether one was the 'active' or the 'passive' partner. No opprobrium attached to being the active one of coure, since that was seen as being the more masculine option....

We could digress about how you're interpreting the Greek to suit your own viewpoint, but that's fairly obvious.

So yes, I do have a 'tattoo' on my forehead.

Yeah, short hair and hearing aids- the equivalent of having black skin. I'm so bored with your self-pity party.

I have had a professor go on about 'how he wasn't going to teach, and didn't have to teach folks like me.'

So how do you know (or for that matter, more importantly, how do WE know) he was referring to your disability ?

Nobody cares about deaf folks

Yeah, we don't have a society for people with a hearing disability in the U.K., places for the deaf community to meet, or respected high visibility deaf campaigners such as Jack Ashley. Oooppsy, I meant we have/had all those and more. See the problem is I know people who were either born deaf or acquired a hearing disability, so your sob story just isn't working.

When do we start giving white Christians credit?

Oh that's so funny. You mean the idea that William Wilberforce isn't talked about as being a Christian in his connection with the anti-slavery movement is widespread in the United States ? Perhaps it's just the sloppy history that's taught there. Over here the Clapham Sect have books and television programmes made about them- and films, such as the recent 'Amazing Grace' directed by Michael Apted.

Perhaps it hasn't reached Texas yet.

Hey, you and the Klan share something in common.

Indeed we do- I have white skin. However I'd think being Irish & Roman Catholic would not get me a seat at the nearest Klanbake. Oh and whole left of centre gay thing too. In any case, I'm not anti-Catholic- I'm quite fond of a lot of Catholics, even my cousin, the priest.

[molly bloom]

Fallacy of the undivided middle. You're not distinguishing causes from effects.

No, I'm simply correcting part of your assertion that the overriding purpose of marriage is propagation. You haven't shown this is the case, you've simply claimed it is. Procreation may take place in a marriage- or it may take place and frequently does, outside.

Are gay people infertile?

Some are, some aren't- just like heterosexuals.

To whom?

Umm, to those people who had to enact legislation like the Married Women's Property Act, poltroon. I like how you blithely ignore hundreds of years of Western inequality in favour of drivelling on about that well known married person from Nazareth... Acts like those helped distinguish women as property owning individuals separate from their husbands at last. The clue is in the title, by the way.

What part of scripture is supposed to be taken literally?

Not the Book of Revelation for a start. It should be blindingly obvious even to someone as professionally obtuse as you, that there's a big difference between the style and thrust of that text and say, Leviticus.

Revelation of an apocalyptic endtime as opposed to a lot of absurd rules about what clothing to wear, which crops to sow, or what you can or can't eat. Yeah, I'd say even a fairly loose reading might clue you in as to which was metaphorical and which was a set of guidelines cobbled together for itinerant sheep and goat herders.

Please show me where Jesus says this, anywhere in scripture and I will concede that you are right.

Oh that's funny. I'm talking about how marriage actually took place and the reasons underlying it, you're wittering on about the Nazarene again. Boring.

THIS appears in scripture

I have read the Bible, from the beginning to the end. I'm aware of some its better parts, just as I'm aware of its tedious genealogies, and the fire and brimstone bits, and the lame attempt at patronizing really won't fly.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Jesus is God and God created dinosaurs, then Jesus was around when they lived

Did Jesus live here on earth? No

Thats the standard you're using to discredit the author instead of addressing his argument.

The argument goes something like this. A source that is willing to cite nonsense to justify nonsense is not a reliable historical source. If the citation is in fact historically correct, it will be corroborated by reliable historical sources. Find them, please.

It wasn't a concession, it was a gift - a blessing from God - and you dont say no to God. Was God sinning when he gave David many wives or was David sinning for accepting the gift?

Was David sinning when he took up with Uriah?

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

This isn't polygamy.

Then Uriah aint relevant to polygamy, David stole somebody's wife - apparently its okay for God to steal wives for David but it aint okay if David does the stealing.

So polygamy on the part of the man, good, polyamory bad, right?

Then Muslims do make that claim

And unjustifiably so.

Did Jesus and his disciples marry? I think you've just accused Jesus and his disciples of sin for not living up to your ideals.

Nonsense. Jesus said, "the one who can accept it should accept it.

[Ben Kenobi]

His ideals do differ from Jesus. Quite substantially.

Says the man with considerable assets.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not appealing to the 'Greek': however (by the way, when did you learn New Testament Greek ?)

Learned enough of it over the years. Where did you?

Paul was a Hellenized Jew, supposedly from a city that was a centre of Stoic thought, and a citizen of Rome. Romans (as you evidently are unaware) distinguished between acts that were proper for a freeborn male to commit and those that were not

And Romans are not an authority in the case of Christ.

- they did not see it as either being gay or heterosexual.

Cool beans. Which means exactly nothing.

They even had particular terminology to distinguish between whether one was the 'active' or the 'passive' partner. No opprobrium attached to being the active one of coure, since that was seen as being the more masculine option....

Given that Paul wrote in Greek, what he said was that sodomites were condemned.

We could digress about how you're interpreting the Greek to suit your own viewpoint, but that's fairly obvious.

Given that all the authorities interpret these passages the way that I do for thousands of years and then magically a few insist on an alternative position 'revealed by the light of Christ' to justify sodomy, I'll think I'll stick with the former interpretation.

Yeah, short hair and hearing aids- the equivalent of having black skin. I'm so bored with your self-pity party.

Actually the argument can be made that it's significantly harder for a deaf person.

So how do you know (or for that matter, more importantly, how do WE know) he was referring to your disability ?

Because that's what he referred to in front of the entire class. As I courtesy I spoke with all my professors beforehand to inform them that I had difficulty hearing, usually after the first class.

Yeah, we don't have a society for people with a hearing disability in the U.K., places for the deaf community to meet, or respected high visibility deaf campaigners such as Jack Ashley. Oooppsy, I meant we have/had all those and more. See the problem is I know people who were either born deaf or acquired a hearing disability, so your sob story just isn't working.

Just like you know black people. I'm sure you have lots of deaf friends.

Oh that's so funny. You mean the idea that William Wilberforce isn't talked about as being a Christian in his connection with the anti-slavery movement is widespread in the United States ?

The fact that white people are blamed as the sole responsible ones for slavery and yet not credited with ending it. The fact that Muslims owned (and in many cases, still do), own slaves, and took slaves is quietly swept under the rug. Why is this?

Perhaps it's just the sloppy history that's taught there. Over here the Clapham Sect have books and television programmes made about them- and films, such as the recent 'Amazing Grace' directed by Michael Apted.

Generally, the only one associated with 'ending slavery', is MLK. It's poor history and I endeavour to correct this perception.

Perhaps it hasn't reached Texas yet.

Don't know. Not in the curriculum, but I teach Wilberforce.

I'm not anti-Catholic- I'm quite fond of a lot of Catholics, even my cousin, the priest.

Then why do you spend so much time attacking them?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I'm simply correcting part of your assertion that the overriding purpose of marriage is propagation. You haven't shown this is the case

I cited scripture citing God's command to 'fill the earth and subdue it', and Christ's statement in Matthew 19 that the husband is to cleave to his wife. We had this discussion earlier as to the greek word used in cleave is quite special. It means to join together such that there is no longer two people but one person. It's part of what lead me to become Catholic, because I realized what Christ was trying to hammer home.

Procreation may take place in a marriage- or it may take place and frequently does, outside.

Outside of marriage, it's a sin.

Some are, some aren't- just like heterosexuals.

You then cede my point. Thank you.

Umm, to those people who had to enact legislation like the Married Women's Property Act, poltroon. I like how you blithely ignore hundreds of years of Western inequality in favour of drivelling on about that well known married person from Nazareth

Ohoho. Now you're citing Christ as not an authority on marriage. Convenient. You, however, have just ceded that Christ never did teach any of this, otherwise you'd be all to happy to cite him as an example of 'western oppression'. But since you seem to believe the west (and Christ), got it wrong, I bet you like sharia much more.

... Acts like those helped distinguish women as property owning individuals separate from their husbands at last. The clue is in the title, by the way.

Only a Marxist defines personhood by property ownership.

Not the Book of Revelation for a start. It should be blindingly obvious even to someone as professionally obtuse as you, that there's a big difference between the style and thrust of that text and say, Leviticus.

Still haven't answered the question. I didn't ask the question, "what part of scripture shouldn't be interpreted literally". I asked, "what part of scripture should be interpreted literally."

snips irrelevant rant on Revelations

Oh that's funny. I'm talking about how marriage actually took place and the reasons underlying it, you're wittering on about the Nazarene again. Boring.

So you believe that 'just because marriage occurs in this fashion that this is the ideal for marriage?' Wow, no wonder you support Sharia.

[Sava]

Go away.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrap around my ass.

[molly bloom]

Learned enough of it over the years. Where did you?

Not answering the question. Ho hum.

And Romans are not an authority in the case of Christ.

And when did Paul extensively interview J.C. ? Oh wait, he didn't.

Which means exactly nothing.

No, it means you're ignoring the sexual mores of the Hellenized part of the Roman Empire in favour of your own interpretation of someone else's translation of the Greek New Testament. I'm referring directly to what Romans of Paul's time thought and believed, as recorded by them.

Given that Paul wrote in Greek, what he said was that sodomites were condemned.

Yeah, boring. See above.

Actually the argument can be made that it's significantly harder for a deaf person.

By you perhaps. As I said, not interested in your self-pity party, possibly because I know quite a few folks who were born deaf or became so and don't trot it out on a regular basis to bewail their lot in life.

Because that's what he referred to in front of the entire class

Again while deeply unpleasant and entirely unprofessional conduct if true, we have only your word for it. Doesn't really compare with a few decades worth of lynchings of black folks or their being denied the franchise until 1964 in the U.S. though.

Just like you know black people. I'm sure you have lots of deaf friends.

I do- there's a flourishing gay deaf society in London and my partner lost his hearing entirely in one ear due to an attack of viral labyrinthitis. Poor Mr. Smartypants.

The fact that white people are blamed as the sole responsible ones for slavery and yet not credited with ending it.

Umm, you were discussing how Christians didn't get credit for their part in ending slavery. I just showed they did. As far as I know, no historians sweep slavery in Islam under the rug- the story of the African slave who became the first muezzin is fairly well-known. Perhaps not to you, though.

The theory and practice of slavery differed too- unlike white Christian Americans, Muslims were forbidden from owning their own offspring.

Generally, the only one associated with 'ending slavery', is MLK. It's poor history and I endeavour to correct this perception

Comedy isn't really your forte, but that's not half bad for a try.

Then why do you spend so much time attacking them?

I don't- it just happens that Catholicism is the cult I was brought up in, and the one with which I am most familiar- the art, the music, the history, the lies, the crimes....

[molly bloom]

I cited scripture

And I referred to what actually took place in societies and why. I win!

Outside of marriage, it's a sin.

Missing the point. You haven't established that the sole or main purpose of marriage (certainly in Western civilization) was spawning progeny. Why do people past the age at which they could produce offspring get married ?

You then cede my point. Thank you.

No I don't. But way to delude yourself.

[QUOTE] [Ohoho. Now you're citing Christ as not an authority on marriage. Convenient./QUOTE]

Yeah, because there's no record of him marrying anyone, or even producing an heir. I learned that from the Bible.

all to happy to cite him as an example of 'western oppression'. But since you seem to believe the west (and Christ), got it wrong, I bet you like sharia much more.

Oh dear, is someone self-medicating ? Looks like it!!!

Only a Marxist defines personhood by property ownership.

Well, there's a good argument that the Anglo-Saxons did- given that the penalties for killing or injuring people varied as to how much property they owned, or if they were a slave and not a free man.

And I would refer you to the replies of Cromwell and Ireton in the Putney Debates... as well as the kind of franchise common in England until the 1832 Reform Act... perhaps history isn't your thing though.

Still haven't answered the question.

I believe distinguishing between an 'apocalyptic vision' and a set of rules as to what to wear, who should be admitted to temple, what makes you unclean gives the game away. If it's too subtle for you, too bad.

So you believe that 'just because marriage occurs in this fashion that this is the ideal for marriage?' Wow, no wonder you support Sharia.

I've no idea what the Sharia nonsense is about- suspect temporal lobe activity on your part perhaps. No, I'm referring to what took place in history- you're droning on about 'sin' and a well known childless Jewish bachelor.


No surprise there then...

[Ben Kenobi]

Not answering the question. Ho hum.

I haven't studied it formally, but I have studied it some over the years. I have also consulted certain translation issues with folks who have studied Greek formally. Including these passages, when they came up, oh, 5 years ago. So I'm pretty confident I have this correct. That's an answer to your question. Now, answer mine. Where did you study Greek?

And when did Paul extensively interview J.C. ? Oh wait, he didn't.

As he says, he saw the Risen Christ.

Your argument is because Paul is a Hellenized Jew that therefore he agreed with the Pagan Roman understanding of homosexuality. That's not even in the running for the third or fourth most likely understanding. Paul's a convert to Christianity, one. He's a convert FROM Judaism, two. He is quite familiar with Greek culture. Four, he's a Roman citizen. Where's the evidence for him siding with Pagan Romans on anything and on homosexuality in particular?

No, it means you're ignoring the sexual mores of the Hellenized part of the Roman Empire in favour of your own interpretation of someone else's translation of the Greek New Testament.

Yawn. You would have people believe that it's 'my interpretation'. No. it's not. It's the exact same interpretation as every other Christian up to the last few years. When some magically decided that this sin was no longer sin and tried to sell other people to their 'revelation'.

By you perhaps.

Yeah, and I cited statistics showing that deaf folks are substantially less likely to earn a degree.

As I said, not interested in your self-pity party, possibly because I know quite a few folks who were born deaf or became so and don't trot it out on a regular basis to bewail their lot in life.

I'm sure you do. I bet you even have black friends you invite for all your cocktail parties.

Again while deeply unpleasant and entirely unprofessional conduct if true, we have only your word for it. Doesn't really compare with a few decades worth of lynchings of black folks or their being denied the franchise until 1964 in the U.S. though.

Sure. They didn't have to lynch because they could just sterilize us.

I do- there's a flourishing gay deaf society in London and my partner lost his hearing entirely in one ear due to an attack of viral labyrinthitis. Poor Mr. Smartypants.

Gosh, Gay and Deaf. Bet he's black too. And a loss of hearing in one ear is exactly the same as my hearing.

Umm, you were discussing how Christians didn't get credit for their part in ending slavery. I just showed they did. As far as I know, no historians sweep slavery in Islam under the rug- the story of the African slave who became the first muezzin is fairly well-known. Perhaps not to you, though.

It's not taught over here, and I was not taught it growing up. Imagine my surprise when I start digging into the history and realizing, hey, this part never got taught?!

unlike white Christian Americans, Muslims were forbidden from owning their own offspring.

Hey, quel surprise. Molly tries to stand up for Islamic slavery!

Comedy isn't really your forte, but that's not half bad for a try.

I only wish I were joking.

I don't- it just happens that Catholicism is the cult I was brought up in, and the one with which I am most familiar- the art, the music, the history, the lies, the crimes....

Ahh, I see. So you 'love' Catholicism like you 'love' the west. Reap all the benefits piss on it when it suits you.

[Ben Kenobi]

I win!

You win sharia!

Missing the point. You haven't established that the sole or main purpose of marriage (certainly in Western civilization) was spawning progeny.

I've established that one (of two), purposes of 'cleave' is to bear children. The other is the loving bond between husband and wife. This is long before the 'west' and was founded in the 'east' by Christ himself. That Western Civilization has chosen to take some parts of Christianity and extend that to their legal codes is represented by the Common Law, which is not nearly as old as 'Western Civilization'.

Why do people past the age at which they could produce offspring get married ?

Again - why do people get married at all if the purpose of marriage is to love someone? Why not simply love them and dispense with marraige altogether?

Yeah, because there's no record of him marrying anyone

Have you? Authority on marriage requires 'personal participation in marriage', is contrary to the philosophy that one can gain understanding through empirical observation sans participation.

I learned that from the Bible.

Where?

Oh dear, is someone self-medicating ? Looks like it!!!

Point is still well taken.

Well, there's a good argument that the Anglo-Saxons did- given that the penalties for killing or injuring people varied as to how much property they owned, or if they were a slave and not a free man.

And are you still claiming that unless one owns property that one is not a person?

And I would refer you to the replies of Cromwell and Ireton in the Putney Debates... as well as the kind of franchise common in England until the 1832 Reform Act... perhaps history isn't your thing though.

I'm not quite sure why an English Catholic Jacobite would cite Cromwell as an authority for civil administration of anything, save maybe his bowel movements.

I believe (snips irrelevant speech on Revelations)

What parts of the bible do you believe ought to be intepreted literally?

No, I'm referring to what took place in history

So am I. Do you support Sharia because it's a historical non-western understanding of marriage?

[Berzerker]

Did Jesus live here on earth? No

How do you know?

The argument goes something like this. A source that is willing to cite nonsense to justify nonsense is not a reliable historical source. If the citation is in fact historically correct, it will be corroborated by reliable historical sources. Find them, please.

I did find them, the author cites various pre-Islamic writers who documented peoples and towns founded by Ishmael's sons.

Was David sinning when he took up with Uriah?

I think you're confused, Uriah was the soldier David set up to die in battle so he could have his wife - and of course it was sinful. Now please answer the question: was God sinning when he gave David many wives or was David sinning for accepting the gift?

This isn't polygamy.

It is when the brother accepting his brother's widow as his wife is already married.

So polygamy on the part of the man, good, polyamory bad, right?

Neither is bad or good, but wife stealing is bad when man does it and okay when God does it...apparently.

And unjustifiably so.

How do you know Ishmael's sons left no descendants who eventually converted to Islam?

Nonsense. Jesus said, "the one who can accept it should accept it.

But you've said not accepting it is less than ideal which you've defined as sin