Author Topic: One man and one woman  (Read 8565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2013, 06:10:10 PM »
You know, the main thing I have tried to do in this discussion is get some clarity on what the legal definition of marriage is, and what the legal purpose of a marriage is. The blog post I linked to suggested that the legal purpose for marriage was a means to generate families.

Now, not surprisingly, many of you have weighed in with opinions on what marriage is and isn't, or what it should or shouldn't be. A lot of things Quesi said were wonderful. However, the facts seem to be that most states define mariage as a union between man and woman. Therefore, for gays to marry the definition of marriage has to change. Doesn't it? Or at least be extended. If that happens, it certainly seems clear that the legal purpose of a marriage will no longer be to generate family. I think that would be a shame, purely from a societal point of view.

It's a moot point, of course, from a Christian perspective. I believe God intended sexual relations to be between a man and a woman.

Edit to add: The emphasis placed on homosexuality as being an especially "bad" thing by some groups saddens me and I don't agree with it.

 



« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:26:52 PM by magicmiles »
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2013, 07:14:36 PM »
You know, the main thing I have tried to do in this discussion is get some clarity on what the legal definition of marriage is, and what the legal purpose of a marriage is. The blog post I linked to suggested that the legal purpose for marriage was a means to generate families.


Ahhh.  You see, no one here is being evasive concerning the legal definition of marriage in the US.  In fact, we don't know at this point, but we might know tomorrow.

You see, two very big cases have been before the Supreme Court over the past couple of weeks, and the outcome of the court's decision will probably alter the national definition of marriage, which differs from some individual states and their definition of marriage.

Up for scrutiny is a law that was passed in the 1990's known as DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act.  That legislation was passed by the Newt Gingrich congress during the "Republican Revolution," and oddly, signed by President Bill Clinton.  That 1996 legislation defined a marriage as between a man and a woman.  The Supreme Court is deciding whether to repeal the law. 

You see, as others have pointed out, various states have either had popular votes to endorse same sex marriage or to prohibit it, and other states have had executive actions which defined marriage in one way or another. 

And the great irony here, is that the republicans, who tend to be more anti-gay marriage than pro-gay marriage, it is those republicans who are all about the rights of individual states to make their own laws, and keeping the federal government out of family matters and business matters.  They are also great proponents of giving tax breaks to the rich. 


So some states, including my home state of NY, legalized same sex marriage.  And the states were within their rights to do so.  But under DOMA, matters in the federal domain, such as immigration, (and other international events) as well as federal taxes, could not recognize same sex marriage.  So if a heterosexual US citizen married a qualified immigrant, the US citizen could petition for the residency of his or her spouse.  But if a gay US citizen married a qualified immigrant, that US citizen could not petition for the residency of his or her spouse.  And same sex couples married in other countries, or in states that recognized same sex marriage had problems if they moved to states that did not.  Adoption, child custody, and a whole range of other issues were in chaos. 

And then there were taxes.  And issues near and dear to the republican identity, such as estate taxes when a wealthy loved one dies. 

That is where it starts getting fun. 

You see, the plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court right now is an 83 year old woman who married her partner of many decades in Toronto Canada in 2007.  The couple lived in NY.  In 2009, her wife died.  Now if a spouse dies, that person's property becomes the property of the surviving spouse.  But if someone dies and leaves her massive wealth to her roommate, the roommate has a HUGE tax burden.  In this case, the widow owed over $300,000 in federal taxes due to DOMA, which prohibited her marriage from being recognized by federal law. 

Now here in NY State, (also the plaintiff's home state) the State Assembly had passed same sex marriage legislation several times, starting in 2006, but it was rejected by the State Senate.  These votes had taken place both before, during and after the couple's marriage in Toronto.  But way back in 2004, some mayor in a dinky little upstate town called New Paltz decided it was within his right to conduct same sex marriages, and so he married 25 couples in front of cheering crowds.  Other localities within the state decided to recognize the New Paltz marriages.  Finally, in 2011, NY state officially legalized same sex marriage. 

So all of these events were taking place during the period of time that the widow was contesting her tax bill via the various court systems, and the case landed in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago.  We are expecting a ruling, probably this week.  It is widely expected that the court will repeal DOMA, and the implications will be huge, impacting not only on this widow's tax burden, but extending into immigration law, family law, and a wide range of other laws.

Now the poor republicans, who really want to prohibit same sex marriage, but who also have a legacy of fighting against federal mandates (like DOMA) are really in a tizzy.  The best they can do at this point, is be upset about the fact that the courts, (rather than the legislative or executive branches of government) are making the decision.

So it is a party all around for those of us who like to smirk at republican hypocrisy.

But it is a really bad week to ask for clarity on the US legal definition of marriage.   
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM by Quesi »

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2013, 07:56:17 PM »
I've come back to the forum in a real "Video Linking" mood. The video below is of our pastor addressing the question "Is the bible anti-Gay?"



Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2013, 08:05:29 PM »
Now just in case you think I’m exaggerating about the fun to be had watching the hypocrisy of our republican elected officials on this topic, I delighted to share this interview with South Carolina politician Mark Sanford.  He has been at various points in his career, both a congressman and a governor. 

He’s a far right fiscal and social conservative.  And a good Christian. 

A few years back, when he was governor, he disappeared for a week, launching a federal investigation.  But don’t worry.  He was ok.  He had said he was going to hike the Appalachian Trail on his own.  But instead, he decided to take a little vacation in Argentina with his girlfriend, which he failed to mention to his wife or his staff or his constituents.  He didn’t even call his 4 kids on father’s day, because he was a little busy. 

During his tenure in congress, he voted for DOMA.  Remember, he is all about keeping government out of our families.  But he voted for a federal definition of marriage that had never existed before.  And this is a guy who is attempting to create federal mandates on marriage. 

He’s back in Congress this year, and he has strong feelings about the role of the judicial branch in terms of overturning DOMA.  Here he is, speaking from the heart on the topic. 



I think that the current debate has little to do with same sex marriage, and whole lot to do with the democratic tradition in this country.  And a whole lot to do with the role of the courts.  If you are a conservative, you believe in this notion of Federalism, that one size does not fit all, and that we shouldn’t have prescriptive answers coming out of Washington. 
….
We’ve got to resolve as a family of Americans. 


Tell me this isn’t hypocrisy at its best.  I can't help but feel giddy as this orgy of hypocrisy continues. 

This governor and PP's neighbor have a lot in common.  Maybe they could double date some time. 



Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2013, 09:42:19 PM »
@MM

I just watched your video.  I was posting my video about Sanford when you were posting your pastor.  Kind of ironic, I guess.

But you know, I don't get it. 

All of this pain and suffering and guilt about sex.  I really don't get it. 

I can't help but think that all of this pain and suffering that your pastor is describing has more to do with issues related to dishonesty, betrayal, manipulation and power imbalances than with the sexual act itself.  I mean, he makes it all sound pretty horrible.  But it bears no resemblance to my sexual experiences.  And I find myself wondering, does this brand of Christianity appeal to folks who blame sex for lying and deceiving people they purport to love? 

Is it easier to blame sex and sin for your own poor life choices and bad behavior, than it is to own up to your own bad decisions?   I mean, take this Sanford guy.  I don't really care where he puts his dick.  But someone who abandons his post, lies to his wife, (and everyone else) and doesn't even have contact with his 4 children on father's day - while there is a national search going on to determine if he is dead or alive?  That is not about sex.  That is about poor character, and bad decisions.  So he, and your pastor, it seems, think it is all about sex.  I think it is about a much deeper set of issues, and that his actions speak volumes about his loyalties, his priorities, and his desire for control. 

The people of South Carolina would agree with you and your pastor.  They have forgiven him.  Re elected him.  But I think this whole "we are all sinners too" bs gives him and everyone else a free pass to NOT take responsibility for their own behavior. 

I think the man is scum, and I'm embarrassed that he is an elected representative of my country.  The fact that he has the power to legislate other people's intimate relationships is beyond comprehension.  And I think blaming sex and sin is a cheap cop out. 

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2013, 10:15:33 PM »
I've come back to the forum in a real "Video Linking" mood. The video below is of our pastor addressing the question "Is the bible anti-Gay?"



What a bunch of side-stepping bullshit.



Quote from: Dipshit In Video @ about 2:31
Friends, if you think that what those people are saying is what the Bible says to gay people, to any people, if that's the mess-- if you think-- if you've been given the impression that that is the message of the Bible to you, if you're gay, if you're anyone, I'm really sorry about that.

That's funny, because both Fred Phelps and I, when reading Leviticus 20:13, are getting the same shit out of it. No amount of John 3:16's can change the context of this barbaric ignorance.





This is what the Bible says to gay people.


Leviticus 20:13:


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -King James Version

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." -New American Standard Bible

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -New Revised Standard Version

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -New International Version



You've been lurking around here long enough to know better than to come at us with this feeble bullshit.

Jesus is getting his ass raped by gays all over the internet.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2013, 10:38:37 PM »
@MM

I just watched your video.  I was posting my video about Sanford when you were posting your pastor.  Kind of ironic, I guess.

But you know, I don't get it. 

All of this pain and suffering and guilt about sex.  I really don't get it. 

I can't help but think that all of this pain and suffering that your pastor is describing has more to do with issues related to dishonesty, betrayal, manipulation and power imbalances than with the sexual act itself.  I mean, he makes it all sound pretty horrible.  But it bears no resemblance to my sexual experiences.  And I find myself wondering, does this brand of Christianity appeal to folks who blame sex for lying and deceiving people they purport to love? 

Is it easier to blame sex and sin for your own poor life choices and bad behavior, than it is to own up to your own bad decisions?   I mean, take this Sanford guy.  I don't really care where he puts his dick.  But someone who abandons his post, lies to his wife, (and everyone else) and doesn't even have contact with his 4 children on father's day - while there is a national search going on to determine if he is dead or alive?  That is not about sex.  That is about poor character, and bad decisions.  So he, and your pastor, it seems, think it is all about sex.  I think it is about a much deeper set of issues, and that his actions speak volumes about his loyalties, his priorities, and his desire for control. 

The people of South Carolina would agree with you and your pastor.  They have forgiven him.  Re elected him.  But I think this whole "we are all sinners too" bs gives him and everyone else a free pass to NOT take responsibility for their own behavior. 

I think the man is scum, and I'm embarrassed that he is an elected representative of my country.  The fact that he has the power to legislate other people's intimate relationships is beyond comprehension.  And I think blaming sex and sin is a cheap cop out.

Well, thanks for watching and being polite in your response.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2013, 10:48:48 PM »
@ lotanddaughters, if that's what you insist on believing, that the bible is instructing that gay people TODAY be put to death, then I can't stop you and no amount of contextual explanation will convince you.

You like to see God as the villain, so I won't ask ever agan that you suject yourself to a Christian perspective that challenges that.

Now, go on, get out of here and go watch some Westboro Baptist youtube snippets to soothe your nerves.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +291/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2013, 03:19:24 AM »
@ lotanddaughters, if that's what you insist on believing, that the bible is instructing that gay people TODAY be put to death, then I can't stop you and no amount of contextual explanation will convince you.

You and your lot keep on re-printing it.  The context is that it is being deliberately included as holy text in your holy book.  Put your money where your mouth is and take that vile shit out of there.  By all means keep it recorded - it's cultural history and should not be erased.  But if what you're saying is true, then that bit of text - indeed, most of that section - doesn't belong in a modern Bible.  Rip it out of your own, or you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1247
  • Darwins +129/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2013, 04:45:03 AM »
I must add my crazy random thoughts to the mix.  At the beginning of this argument (I mean years ago) I was against gay unions being called marriage.  I was all for civil unions and gay partners being able to adopt and be covered under each other's insurance and have legal recognition - I just didn't think it should be called marriage or performed in a church.  But as more and more states legalize gay marriage;  as our own catholic state senator Steven Saland voted to legalize it here in NY knowing he was sacrificing his reelection by doing so I kind of had a change of heart.  I know people don't like the Federal goverment being involved in the State's business but if you're legally married in one state you should be legally married in all of them.  As far as my crazy theist spin goes -- whoever is familiar with me knows my brand of theism is far from the norm.  The more I look into books that didn't make it in to the bible as we know it, and how the bible as we know it was decided upon - the more I am suspicious of it's falibility.  That does not mean I discount it completely.  But I look at it more as an incomplete reference.  Gay marriage and homsexuality in general did not fit into the vision of the men who voted on the bible as we know it - therefore it was "baad."  (voice of teacher from southpark) IMHO  Disclaimer -- this is my OPINION, I have no proof so please don't attack or maim me.
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2013, 05:02:35 AM »
Before we go much further I want to discuss something, because it's really difficult sometimes when discussing the bible and Christianity with non-believers who are only arguing against a "partial God". By that I mean, for the purpose of a discussion on something (such as homosexuality) a non-believer will talk about what God says, (even though they deny His existence), and point to passages in the bible wherein God does something that strikes them as abominable (like decreeing that practicing homosexuals be put to death). This is cited as evidence that God is not worthy of worship even if he does exist. However, in doing so, I think a non-believer loses sight of the fact that, if God really exists, He created all life, sustains all life and is the only possible ultimate authority. How can a created being tell its creator that it is wrong? How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?

Does that make sense?

Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2013, 05:06:10 AM »
so please don't attack or maim me.

Only if you change your screen name to Switzerland.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1247
  • Darwins +129/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2013, 05:12:43 AM »
How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?

Does that make sense?

If you wanted to we could start a whole new thread and get in to a whole new sticky debate on that one...
It be a basically theist bit on penalties of blood & love & redemption & yadda yadda
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 05:15:26 AM by LoriPinkAngel »
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +291/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2013, 05:27:11 AM »
... However, in doing so, I think a non-believer loses sight of the fact that, if God really exists, He created all life, sustains all life and is the only possible ultimate authority. How can a created being tell its creator that it is wrong? How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?

Does that make sense?

It does, and it doesn't.  Great topic for another thread.  Ripped those pages out of your Bible yet?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2013, 05:29:41 AM »
You know I won't be. Like everything else in the OT, ultimately it points to the cross.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +291/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2013, 05:30:26 AM »
God telling humans to kill gays points to the cross.  Okay.  So long as you support what the passage calls for.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2426
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2013, 05:36:42 AM »
These are people who remember life in the 1980s and want to keep it that way. A generation before them remembered life in the 1960s and want to keep it that way. The previous generation remembered the 1940s and want to keep it that way (though there are progressively fewer of those around) ...

They have no logical reason for what they do, and they have no logical reason for what they don't do. They can sell their daughters into slavery according to the very bible they thump, yet you are not likely to catch any of them doing that much less acknowledging it. Some people just don't like change, and religion poisons everything.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2013, 05:44:37 AM »
God telling humans to kill gays points to the cross.  Okay.  So long as you support what the passage calls for.
The passage isn't directed to me. I'm reading through an interesting discussion of the two Levituc verses at the moment, and I'll link to it when I'm finished.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline LoriPinkAngel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1247
  • Darwins +129/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm Your Nurse, Not Your Waitress...
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2013, 05:54:48 AM »
I remember a FB post that was going around with a Leviticus translation about homosexuals being stoned & comments about legalizing gay marriage & marijuana the same week...  see you all just read it wrong...
It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long.  But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.


Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +291/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #49 on: April 10, 2013, 06:20:26 AM »
The passage isn't directed to me.

Then none of the passages in the Bible are directed at you.  Why keep it around?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2013, 06:28:05 AM »
Sure they are. The ones that aren't directed specifically to the ancient Israelites. Which is a lot of them.

Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +291/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2013, 07:25:05 AM »
Quite the assumption.  Mighty big of you, too.

You are not the audience to which anyone in the Bible is speaking.  You weren't there.  Other people were there.[1]  They are the audience.  Whether you include yourself among the audience is a matter of your own personal decision/interpretation.  Own it.
 1. Assuming any of it actually took place, I mean.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 07:31:08 AM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1333
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2013, 08:43:18 AM »
How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?

Does that make sense?

Yes, this was enshrined in Roman law a man could kill his offspring as per the 12 tables (can be seen in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, 1 B.C. (Oxyrhynchus papyrus 744. G))

This also was referenced in 1984's The Terminator and it's sequels.

doesn't make it right though.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2013, 09:03:02 AM »
@ lotanddaughters, if that's what you insist on believing, that the bible is instructing that gay people TODAY be put to death, then I can't stop you and no amount of contextual explanation will convince you.

All passages are from the New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised:

"For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished." -Malachi 3:6

"The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation for ever." -Psalm 12:6-7

"The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." -Isaiah 40:8

"Go ye then, and stoneth every fucking faggot who cometh in unto thine neighbor's ass. These are supposedethly the Words of the Lord thy God. Unlesseth, of course, thou art one seriously trolling fucking poe. Hence, the joke is on us who are those without faith, who hath wasteth by even bothering with Babble On." -Lot 12:34
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2013, 10:02:49 AM »
@ lotanddaughters, if that's what you insist on believing, that the bible is instructing that gay people TODAY be put to death, then I can't stop you and no amount of contextual explanation will convince you.

Notice how you capitalize "TODAY". You, and your liar(name one pastor who isn't) are clearly saying that the Bible's teachings of putting homosexual men to death don't apply to people living today. For all I know, your pastor might even be saying that the Bible never said that.




Then, you switch lanes with this:


Before we go much further I want to discuss something, because it's really difficult sometimes when discussing the bible and Christianity with non-believers who are only arguing against a "partial God". By that I mean, for the purpose of a discussion on something (such as homosexuality) a non-believer will talk about what God says, (even though they deny His existence), and point to passages in the bible wherein God does something that strikes them as abominable (like decreeing that practicing homosexuals be put to death). This is cited as evidence that God is not worthy of worship even if he does exist. However, in doing so, I think a non-believer loses sight of the fact that, if God really exists, He created all life, sustains all life and is the only possible ultimate authority. How can a created being tell its creator that it is wrong? How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?
Does that make sense?

Here, it's like you are proving that you can actually comprehend what you are reading, just like me and Fred Phelps. So what do you do? You concede the point without saying "Good point", "Fair enough", "I was wrong", or anything of that sort. But, you are not showing us that you are acknowledging to conceding the point, because taking into account our vast experience with contradictory arguers, we find it highly likely that you will jump back and forth between these two contradictory positions for as long as you are a member here. We have thoroughly dealt with you, your fellow Christians, and your stupid Bible[1]-- all of which contradict themselves on a regular basis.

You know, when atheists at WWGHA find themselves without any Christians to devour, we will argue among ourselves about a wide range of random topics. I learned very early on that if you want to argue here, your argument had better be solid, or the resident atheists here will tear it to shreds.

But, I mean, come on.

This contradictory shit of yours that I put on display above is easily rendered mince meat in a place like this. My advice to you is: Drop the fairy tales. Little children in elementary school have access to extremely vast amounts of knowledge by just the click of a mouse. After awhile, if you remain indoctrinated in this ridiculous, ancient bullshit, there will just be you, and a few other backward cult members, all huddled together, praying to your imaginary God . . . hoping that He is real . . . hoping you didn't waste your life in a shit-heap of false hopes and unnecessary guilt.
 1. Actually, the Bible is an awesome collection of ancient human writings when treated as such and applied together with non-canonical writings, archaeology, anthropology, and other stuff.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2013, 10:13:01 AM »
But seriously MM, what are your thoughts on the serendipity juxtaposition of the Sanford video with your pastor's video? 

I'm guessing that you have as much disdain for Sanford's actions as I do.  Or perhaps you are more forgiving than I am, and you are willing to exonerate him, just as his constituents have. 

But let's look back at that week in June a few years back, when he abandoned his post as governor, lied to his wife, his staff, his children, and his constituents, and ran off to have a little holiday Argentina with his girlfriend rather than spending father's day with his family.  What do you think his real "sins" were?  Were they about sex?  I'm pretty sure he had some on his clandestine international voyage. I ask, because when I look at this story, I'm really much less interested in the sex, and more interested in the other things that you Christians also consider sins, but don't seem to talk as much about.  He lied.  To so many people, including the people closest to him.  He betrayed his family's trust.  He failed to keep a commitment that he had promised to keep.  And pride in there too.  Almost delusions of omnipotence, that he could just get away with it. 

You know, there have been some studies which indicate that there is a biological tendency in some (most?) men to "spread their seed."  It is so common, it is almost a cliché. Starter wives and mid-life crises and mistresses.  But when you think about it, it makes evolutionary sense.    Women tend[1] to be more drawn to monogamy.  And that makes evolutionary sense too.  The urges of (some) men to spread their seed around diversifies the gene pool, while the urge to find someone to provide during the childbearing years increases the survival of next generation.  But some women also seem to want to diversify the gene pool, and find themselves wanting sexual relations with men other than their husbands. So clearly not ALL men and not ALL women have these tendencies.  But for those who do, this is not a weakness or a character flaw.  It is something that is born into them.  And certainly there are social influences which promote these tendencies to a subset of humanity.

Then there are the other social influences.  Marriage is an INSTITUTION.  People are expected to partake.  Individual tendencies are not really taken into  account.  Young people, who have not even had the opportunity to examine their own hard wiring, and pretty much expected to pair off, and make a LIFETIME COMMITMENT to a spouse.  A lifetime commitment is really huge. 

So some men, and some women, get to a point in their lives in which they question their decision to continue to honor the pledge that they made to their spouses.  And what do they do?  Well, they have a bunch of options.  They can decide that the commitment that they made, and the benefits of maintaining that commitment, are more important than their other (natural) urges.  So they establish their priorities, and either deny their biological urges, or they spend a disproportionate amount of time in the bathroom, fantasizing about, but not acting on those urges.  Or, they can decide to have clandestine relationships, fulfilling their biological urges, while attempting to maintain all of the benefits of their marriage, and hoping that their spouse does not find out.  Or, they could decide that these urges are so important, that they trump the commitment that they made to their spouse, and decide to change their priorities and leave the marriage. 

Another possibility, which I suspect is much more rare than the others, is that they can discuss these urges with their spouse, and perhaps explore the possibility of sexual experimentation outside of the lifelong commitment.  In my very subjective opinion, this is perhaps the best option. [2]  It is honest.  It is respectful, even if it is difficult and painful to discuss.  And it gives both parties the option to re-evaluate that commitment that they made, rather than having one party make a unilateral decision. 

Sex is programmed into us.  We are going to seek it out.  And each us is programmed a little differently in terms of what motivates our sexual pursuits.  But in my opinion, it is the lies and deceptions and broken commitments that are painful and damaging and what I suppose you would call "sinful."  Sanford's sexual urges were just there.  His decision to act on those urges, and the way in which he acted are so much bigger than the sex itself. 

Seriously MM, I know you and I come at this from really different perspectives.  But what are your thoughts?  Do you think that the sex was the biggest sin in this sad story?  Breaking the marriage vow?  What about all those other sins?  Lies?  Deception?  Pride?  Arrogance?  Sloth?  (He literarily ran away from his job of governing the state) Or was sex the sin that trumps all the others?   
 1. and there are certainly lots of exceptions here
 2. Again, I am someone who has chosen to never make this sort of a commitment to another human being.  Partly, because I honor my pledges and commitments, and I really had trouble imagining myself NOT being drawn to someone else at some point in the future.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2013, 01:32:17 PM »
a non-believer will talk about what God says... and point to passages in the bible wherein God does something that strikes them as abominable

That is because you would likely see those things as abominable too.  I have a hard time when people read the OT bible and are not horrified.  It really makes me wonder whether they are sane or moral.  kcrady had a Numbers 31 Challenge to demonstrate.[1]  Unfortunately, the old forum is... inaccessable.

You are not judging yhwh on his actions.  You are viewing yhwh through a lens of preconceptions.  A plain reading of the OT portrays yhwh as an abominable character.  Early xians - gnostics - saw this too.  It's not just us.



if God really exists, He created all life,

So what? An evil god could create life.  Maybe you have just been duped by his PR team?

sustains all life

Debatable.  And besides, an evil god could do that too.

and is the only possible ultimate authority.

You've said it, but not demonstrated.  I consider things like concepts and natural laws to be authorities.  Gravity is an authority.  The say so of bigger people, not really ultimate.

How can a created being tell its creator that it is wrong?

I depends.  For one, if the created being was created with the capacity to know and the creator had the capacity to be wrong.  Remember, when speaking of morality, we are yhwh's equal.  Eve at the fruit of moral knowledge.  So, that is another way. 

How can the creator of life not have the authority to end life?

You need to make a case that a creator has authority over sentient creations, not just defy us to show it doesn't. 

I do not understand how xians argue that human life is so intrinsically valuable and then turn around and view it as a posession.  If life - our lives - are valuable, then they are valuable.  If rights matter, then they matter.  If morality is real, then it applies to everyone, even god.

Does that make sense?

No.  It's fucking barbaric.


edit authoritied --> authorities
 1. here too http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=5435.msg94202#msg94202
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 03:34:25 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6869
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: One man and one woman
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2013, 02:32:30 PM »
It does seem like a dictatorship, when Christians (and Muslims) say that god does not have to follow the rules. That only god determines what morality is, and morality is whatever god says it is, even if thatseems horrible to people today. (Why would it god's morality seem horrible to anyone today if morality is eternal and unchanging?)

So, if god says it is moral to kill adulterers or gays or children who disrespect their parents, or non-virgin rape victims who did not yell loud enough, so be it. If god says slavery is a-okay, so be it. If god wants to kill everyone on the planet and start over, who are we puny humans to complain? Anything god does is by definition the right and best thing to do.

As thinking human beings, we don't put up with that crap. Who thinks that the best system to live under is one where the folk in charge make the rules or laws, but are exempt from them? Remember Nixon saying that if the president does it, it's not illegal? Aren't we supposed to try to do what god says? Nixon was only following in the glowing footsteps of god. (stealing imagery from kcrady)

Anyway, most Christians (and many Muslims) don't really agree with everything god approves of. I have not noticed many proposals to bring back slavery in any modern country. Most modern states have either eliminated the death penalty altogether, or reserve it only for capital crimes. In the US, we don't execute adulterers or gays.

It seems that 1)our morality is better than god's, and 2)morality is not eternal and 3)morality changes over time.

Or maybe the stuff that god said was moral in the OT was only meant for the ancient Israelites. Like the rules regulating how to beat a slave or how to sacrifice a goat or what animals are unclean to eat. Except when it is not only meant for the ancient Israelites, like, say, when gays want to get married.

The word of god is so very clear on all this. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.