Texan Bigotry

[Sava]

you are a putz

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as I can recall from basic anatomy, anal sex isn't confined to gay men- heterosexuals do it too. In fact in some countries unfortunate enough to have a mainly Catholic culture, I believe it's often used instead of contraception.

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.

Most likely based on your personality, if your posts are anything to go by. If you don't have a big tattoo on your forehead proclaiming your disability

I wear short hair and hearing aids. So yes, I do have a 'tattoo' on my forehead.

then it's unlikely in the extreme that you'll have experienced anything like the same prejudice and discrimination that an average African American faces- it's not simply the day to day stuff, it's the accumulation of it in that society.

I have had a professor go on about 'how he wasn't going to teach, and didn't have to teach folks like me.' I got an immediate transfer to his less prejudiced professor.

5 percent of folks with my disability go on to complete university. Black people are actually overrepresented at the college level for enrollment but are less likely to finish. So about 15 percent of black people have a degree. That's 3x the rate of folks like me.

If only 5 percent of black folks were graduating with a degree, there would be such a stink about it. Nobody cares about deaf folks -there's not enough for us to matter. The other interesting thing is that only about 1 quarter of all students with a disability actually qualify. 3/4ths of the folks on the 'disability' rolls are there because of ADHD. The simple fact is, if you have a disability, any disability, you are profoundly unlikely to get into college and even less likely to finish.

I like how your response blithely ignored the point of course- that certain kinds of discrimination as doled out by self-proclaimed Christians are no longer acceptable- because society has evolved.

It was Christians who ended slavery in the first place. White Christians didn't invent slavery, but they did end it. When do we start giving white Christians credit?

Similarly, we longer have the deeply unpleasant routine anti-semitism as displayed previously by the Roman Catholic hierarchy or political parties. Small mercies, I suppose.

Yes, but anti-Catholicism is still alive and well. Hey, you and the Klan share something in common.

[Sava]

idiot

[Ben Kenobi]

Lots of heterosexual marriages don't result in children.

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

Are gay people infertile? No? Then you concede that there's a difference between infertility and choosing not to have children. And yes, I agree that those choosing not to have children are doing it wrong as well. Lumping those folks in who want children but are infertile with gay people is wrong.

In any case, marriage was more about property than fecundity

To whom? Christ? Christ doesn't mention property anywhere.

, although of course if you were dynastically minded and the Pope was scared of yoru big armies, he might let you have an annulment. Of course if you were really powerful, you could just ignore him, and ditch the missus for the mistress.

"Yes, because they are evil and horrible people that justifies the sin you're committing, because hey, nobody is good, not one". Jesus beat you too it, btw, and it doesn't justify you either.

Shall I just point out that the collection of texts we call the Bible aren't a set of instructions from IKEA ?

Answer the question Molly!

What part of scripture is supposed to be taken literally?

those ten commandments that Christians seem to have such trouble observing for instance.

So in this instance "Love the Lord God" is a command that everyone is supposed to follow?

Well that would depend on whether you have the distorted historically invalid notion that marriage was solely about f*cking and spawning.

As opposed to true love, right? I bet Jesus totally said that, "If you love someone enough you should marry them no matter what stands between you." Amor vincit Omnia right?

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

The fact that in many Western countries a woman could not own property in her own right if she were married (as late as the 19th Century) should tip you off about what the underlying aim of the union was.

"Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it?" THIS appears in scripture, btw. "sacrifice your children to molech because the earth is too full", does not.

[Sava]

you are below ****-eating retarded

seriously

you should be locked up

[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.