Texan Bigotry

[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

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you know?

It's possible that he was here, and the priest of Melchizedek is generally interpreted as an apparition of Christ pre-incarnation. There's just no concrete evidence prior to Christ's birth and incarnation here on earth of his physical presence.

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

Quote the citation then, and I can check out the actual sources. I already did that for Imran's post islamic sources.

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.

But why?

Now please answer the question: was God sinning when he gave David many wives or was David sinning for accepting the gift?

Neither. Was God condoning polygamy when he says, "I am making a concession to you?" If God believed that polygamy was the ideal, why then did he give Adam, Eve?

You stated, "if it is not the ideal it isn't sinning". Where is that statement in the bible?

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

Uh, no, she isn't. Marriage ends with the death of his brother. When his brother dies, she is an unmarried widow and the bible calls for the unmarried brother to marry his brother's now unmarried widow to carry on the line.

Neither is bad or good, but wife stealing is bad

Why is wife stealing bad if it's ok for a woman to have two husbands?

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

My family is related to Ishmael too! Here's a genealogy.

Ishmael.
....
Snip 200 generations
Me.

Isn't that cool?!

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

Not accepting it when you are called for it is one thing. Not accepting it when you are called for something else is not.

[Berzerker]

It's possible that he was here, and the priest of Melchizedek is generally interpreted as an apparition of Christ pre-incarnation. There's just no concrete evidence prior to Christ's birth and incarnation here on earth of his physical presence.

Then Jesus aint God

Quote the citation then, and I can check out the actual sources. I already did that for Imran's post islamic sources.

Now you can do it for this author since you attacked him with a strawman, walk that extra mile

But why?

I just explained why, David set up a soldier to die in battle so he could steal his wife.

Neither.

You said polygamy is a sin but now it aint a sin?

You stated, "if it is not the ideal it isn't sinning". Where is that statement in the bible?

When Jesus said we're not obliged to accept your ideal

Uh, no, she isn't. Marriage ends with the death of his brother. When his brother dies, she is an unmarried widow and the bible calls for the unmarried brother to marry his brother's now unmarried widow to carry on the line.

Deut 25 doesn't say the surviving brother must be unmarried

Why is wife stealing bad if it's ok for a woman to have two husbands?

Because stealing is wrong and having someone killed to steal their wife is even worse, neither applies to polygamy

My family is related to Ishmael too!

okay

Not accepting it when you are called for it is one thing. Not accepting it when you are called for something else is not.

You said we were made for marriage and you defined marriage as one man and one woman, anything else is less than ideal and sinful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then Jesus aint God

What evidence do you have for the physical presence of Christ on earth prior to the incarnation?

Now you can do it for this author since you attacked him with a strawman, walk that extra mile

It's not a strawman. It's your job to prove your case by citing competent authorities. Citing already proven incompetent ones isn't going to get you there.

See. There are people who study this sort of thing. I'm familiar with some of them. Your source? Not one of them. Why didn't you cite someone who is competent? Because this evidence isn't there. That's my point, and the point you are making simply reinforces mine. Why isn't there significant scholarly evidence for this position? Because it doesn't exist. Islam claims x. x has no foundation in any historic reference.

Cite the actual references if they exist. I'm not going to dig the article for it.

I just explained why, David set up a soldier to die in battle so he could steal his wife.

You just said, "it's obviously sinful." My question, why is it sinful?

You said polygamy is a sin but now it aint a sin?

You asked, "Is obeying God a sin". No, it's not a sin. "Is God a sinner". No he's not. So the correct answer to your citation is, 'God didn't sin, and neither did David in obeying God, because God never commanded polygamy, like you claimed he did.' God specifically concedes it to David. He never commands, "do this".

When Jesus said we're not obliged to accept your ideal

Uh, yeah, Jesus does say you're obliged to accept that the ideal of marriage is just that, marriage between one man and one woman for life. Anything outside of this is sinful.

Jesus also said, that if one does not wish to be married, that is an acceptable response to finding this teaching hard. If, one is unable to accept this, he must refrain from marriage. .

Deut 25 doesn't say the surviving brother must be unmarried

Uh uh. You said that the woman who was widowed was still married, Berz. Nice try.

Because stealing is wrong and having someone killed to steal their wife is even worse, neither applies to polygamy

Is the problem theft or is the problem that she was already married and couldn't share?

You said we were made for marriage and you defined marriage as one man and one woman, anything else is less than ideal and sinful.

We, (as in the majority), are made for marriage. Some of us have other callings. If you can accept the rigors of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life, then you marry. If you cannot, then you do not marry. What you don't do, is what everyone tries to do, alter marriage because they don't like what Jesus actually teaches.

Again.

If God intended for marriage to be between two woman and a man, why did God provide only Eve to Adam?

[Berzerker]

What evidence do you have for the physical presence of Christ on earth prior to the incarnation?

If Jesus is God, and God created the dinosaurs, then Jesus lived at the time of the dinosaurs. What is wrong with that logic? If the author is saying dinosaurs lived ~2,000 years ago then I'd disagree with him, but thats still irrelevant.

It's not a strawman. It's your job to prove your case by citing competent authorities. Citing already proven incompetent ones isn't going to get you there.

See. There are people who study this sort of thing. I'm familiar with some of them. Your source? Not one of them. Why didn't you cite someone who is competent? Because this evidence isn't there. That's my point, and the point you are making simply reinforces mine. Why isn't there significant scholarly evidence for this position? Because it doesn't exist. Islam claims x. x has no foundation in any historic reference.

You said there was no evidence of pre-Islamic peoples linked to Ishmael's sons and then ignored what the author said because he talked about Jesus and dinosaurs. If thats the standard you're using then the Bible is all BS if anything in it is wrong.

And thats another strawman... You keep arguing there's no evidence Ishmael's sons did not leave descendants that converted to Islam when I said pre-Islamic writers referenced towns and peoples linked to them. Whether or not those descendants converted to Islam is irrelevant to what I said, but its likely some of them did become Muslims. Its possible some of them were Jews and Christians too.

You just said, "it's obviously sinful." My question, why is it sinful?

Are you asking me why its a sin to have someone killed to hide adultery and take their wife?

You asked, "Is obeying God a sin". No, it's not a sin. "Is God a sinner". No he's not. So the correct answer to your citation is, 'God didn't sin, and neither did David in obeying God, because God never commanded polygamy, like you claimed he did.' God specifically concedes it to David. He never commands, "do this".

So God tells David to take multiple wives and David takes them and you think polygamy is a sin even though you also think neither the polygamist or the God providing the wives sinned?

Uh, yeah, Jesus does say you're obliged to accept that the ideal of marriage is just that, marriage between one man and one woman for life. Anything outside of this is sinful.

He didn't say that, he said divorcing your wife without cause is not how it was in the beginning.

Jesus also said, that if one does not wish to be married, that is an acceptable response to finding this teaching hard. If, one is unable to accept this, he must refrain from marriage.

I think he was talking about sex and probably the priesthood, but you said we were made for marriage - Jesus didn't say that. And neither he or some (all?) of his disciples married.

Uh uh. You said that the woman who was widowed was still married, Berz. Nice try.

Where'd I say that? I quoted the actual verse and you changed it making the surviving brother a bachelor. That command was not made to just bachelors and it does command polygamy.

Is the problem theft or is the problem that she was already married and couldn't share?

He did "share", got her pregnant and tried to hide that by having Uriah bang her and when that didn't work, had him killed in battle and then took her as a wife. Thats adultery and murder, not polygamy.

We, (as in the majority), are made for marriage. Some of us have other callings. If you can accept the rigors of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life, then you marry. If you cannot, then you do not marry. What you don't do, is what everyone tries to do, alter marriage because they don't like what Jesus actually teaches.

I just dont think Jesus was calling his fathers adulterers and sinners for having multiple wives.

Again.

If God intended for marriage to be between two woman and a man, why did God provide only Eve to Adam?

Before them God told people to be fruitful and multiply, polygamists do that faster than monogamists...

Because he wanted Adam to have a companion... If they were part of a community and Mabel was a widow without children then God wants someone to step up and be her man even if he's married. Thats polygamy.

[SlowwHand]

Let me give you a chance to recover. There was no "before them". I'm sure you misspoke.

[Ben Kenobi]

Before them God told people to be fruitful and multiply, polygamists do that faster than monogamists...

C'mon Berz. You're smarter than this. The reason he didn't do so is because the ideal for God is one man and one woman. Jesus argues exactly this. The reason he does so is because marriage isn't just about ****ing. It isn't just about children. It's about a man and a woman coming together and becoming one person - the union together in marriage.

This is why divorce is wrong. It's wrong because it's sawing your arm off. If people saw divorced people as hurt and broken folks, they would be less likely to divorce their better half for trivial reasons.

This is why polygamy is wrong. You cannot have this connection with your wife if you've got another to replace her with. Chesteron writes, and writes well - that the problem with Polygamy isn't that they like sex too much, it's because it's blase to them. Think about it. Sex with one person is so boring. Why not have sex with someone else once in awhile?

This is also why gay marriage is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong because you are using the parts against what they were made to do. You're saying, "it doesn't matter, men and women are perfectly alike", and this, again, gets back to the complementary bond in Marriage. I know some folks are going to howl at this as 'bigotry'. But it's all connected together.

Because he wanted Adam to have a companion

A companion. And why, for Adam, was the ideal a companion - a woman for him? Not two women. Not another man.

If they were part of a community and Mabel was a widow without children then God wants someone to step up and be her man even if he's married. Thats polygamy.

Horsecrap. You yourself claimed, "the widow was already married", and then quickly backtracked. You want to prove, "POLYGAMY IS A-OK", and you're willing to damn all the evidence to prove it.

So show me. Show me where Jesus Christ comes down from heaven to make sure people understand that 'polygamy is the way of the world'. He doesn't. He comes right out in Matthew and says. "You know what's crap?"

What's crap in this world, is that the very people who are My People - divorce their wives, take up with other men and take other wives. I'm gonna tell you what sucks. You. This is the model. Adam and Eve. Nothing else.

People then as now thought that was offensive. That he was condemning man and his ways as deviating from God and His ways. That his vision was 'too narrow', and yet 'too broad'. Too hard and yet too easy. Could it possibly just be that. Yes.

Marry or don't. Abide by what God teaches, or decline. Those are your only two choices. You don't get this whole, "oh I'm going to hook up with girl number b, and God's gonna forgive me". No. Marry or don't. Too hard and too easy, the disciples themselves complain, "who can follow this! This is hard teaching." So do you.

And no, I'm not going to read what Dinosaur Jesus boy writes. Find an actual citation then we talk.

If Jesus is God, and God created the dinosaurs, then Jesus lived at the time of the dinosaurs.

You specified, "Jesus lived on earth with the dinosaurs." that's not true.

If the author is saying dinosaurs lived ~2,000 years ago then I'd disagree with him, but thats still irrelevant.

Awesome. You are so unfamiliar with your own crap ass source. That's exactly what Jesus dinosaur boy is saying. That dinosaurs live 2k years ago. That is why he's not a reliable historical source. Find someone other than dinosaur Jesus boy, like those 'cited sources' you claimed exist, yet, mysteriously, have been unable to quote. Why? Because apparently Ben Kenobi has the ****ing time to wade through Dinosaur Jesus boy's bull****.

I'm gonna go kick some orc ass.

And thats another strawman... You keep arguing there's no evidence Ishmael's sons did not leave descendants that converted to Islam when I said pre-Islamic writers referenced towns and peoples linked to them.

So sayeth, "Dinosaur Jesus Boy"? You're so unfamiliar with your own source that you don't even know the actual book. I looked up the book, and the author and sure enough - he believes Dinosaurs and Jesus existed together 2k years ago.

Why would I believe a source that you yourself haven't done due diligence? Find a source that's not Dinosaur Jesus boy. I'm off to kick orc ass. Damn orcs.

[kentonio]

You just said, "it's obviously sinful." My question, why is it sinful?

If you're going to keep pretending to be a Christian, you should probably learn the ninth commandment.

[Nikolai]

Let me give you a chance to recover. There was no "before them". I'm sure you misspoke.

[Berzerker]

"before them" were the people made on the 6th day, the people - male and female (before Eve) - told to be fruitful and multiply

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're going to keep pretending to be a Christian, you should probably learn the ninth commandment.

AFAIK Berz isn't a Christian. Unless that's recently changed...