Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BB - How is letting adult non-related human beings marry one another
bullying others? Why does what they are doing have any effect
whatsoever on you?
By the same logic, marrying children, polygamy, bestiality, since they
do not have an effect on me should be legally sanctioned? =3DA0But of
course they all do effect me, as this does since it alters the
institution of marriage, and makes it something it was never intended
to be.
B - and by your logic..because women voting was never meant to be we
should equate that with allowing buffalo to vote? Makes about as much
sense. WE are talking about adults...adult nonincestual people
deciding to marry one another. If they do not affect you then..why
would it be considered "bullying" as you have stated?
OK, children, there is one of your boundries; incest, there is
another, yet niether affect you do they? What of multiple marriages?
You see, these instutitons were created for a purpose and have a
cultural history. If you are allowed to change their intent to promote
another agenda, imposing that alteration without common consent, you
are bullying, using the force of law to achieve your means.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comWhat if she wants to have a post birth abortion? Doesn't like the
pesky little bugger?
B - that would not be abortion..that would be murder. If she wants to
remove an embryo or fetus before what I consider the time that the
soul sticks to the earth plane (around the quickening or fifth month )
that to me...is totally fine and practical if it happens at a bad
time. Besides that, for me...a man's voice on abortion means little
because he does not have to carry the being at all. Everyone has their
own opinions however and I"m fine with that. I don't understand the
judgement however by the conservative front. If you don't want an
abortion ..don't have one.
The state has an intrest in protecting the lives of children, and I
confess I can not really be objective here. My first wife was diabetic
and had a good deal of difficulty carrying my daughter, my grandson
was born out of wedlock. In both cases there were people advising an
abortion. When I look at my daughter and at my grandson, both of whom
would be dead, I really question the assertion that they were not
people before they exited the birth canal. I opposed abortion (which I
do consider killing a person) as an atheist, I really think that it
cheapens life to allow it to occur so easily. Naturally I still feel
that way.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comLook at this from Merriam-Webster especially 2e
Main Entry: in=3D3D3DC2=3D3D3DB7no=3D3D3DC2=3D3D3DB7cence
Pronunciation: \=3D3D3DCB=3D3D3D88i-n=3D3D3DC9=3D3D3D99-s=3D3D3DC9=
=3D3D3D99n(t)s\
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comFunction: noun
Date: Th century
1 a: freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil=
blamelessness b: chastity c: freedom from legal guilt of a particul=
ar
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comcrime or offense d (1): freedom from guile or cunning : simplicity
(2): lack of worldly experience or sophistication e: lack of
knowledge : ignorance <written in entire innocence of the Italian
language =3D3D3DE2=3D3D3D80=3D3D3D94 E. R. Bentley>
B - and? because it's in a dictionary it's truth? I remember reading
that a witch was a woman bent on doing evil.
The dictionary was wrong or more correctly...lacking a whole lot of
"and/or".
OK, how would you define innocence? What authority would you prefer to
use?
B - to me innocence is that of unknowing AND/OR living without dual
motives ...non-cynicism....acceptance without judgement.
And how do you arrive at a definition no one else uses? You can't just
hijack words and make them mean what you want them too. Or do you have
another authority with that definition?
"There's glory for you"
Post by BB - I believe that when a child starts to ask questions..then he/she
should be given answers. You tend to go to extremes with your comments
it seems,
Reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly valid argumentative approach.
Post by BB - did I say that I do? =A0I'm all for Christian teachings.
Except in the refrenced case?
Post by BIt seems you want to be able to select the knowledge
Post by d***@aol.compeople are exposed to?
B - like those that push the Bible as to be taken literally and the
only source of religious dogma? to not question? to accept blindly?
You have no idea what sort of approach or position the people in
question were attempting. They might have even been Christian
Universalists. But assume you are right, they were literalist
fundamentalists, that is their choice, they were offering, not
coercing their point of view, you can reject it , the Moslems can
reject it, but why do you think it is OK to prohibit them, by law,
from offering it?
Post by BSexual propaganda is OK but religious teaching
Post by d***@aol.comshould be severely restricted... let me guess, you are not a parent.
B - again ..you are going to extremes. I know a lot of parents that
have no problem with religious teaching and sexual teachings.
Let them have it then, but how do you justify imposing it on people
who don't want it for their children. And I wasn't even thinking of
teaching, I was thinking of the ubiquity of smut which, in the name of
the first amendment, you cannot keep out of your community.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comI don't approve because I love my daughter and want to see her share
the blessings I have found.
B - what makes you think she won't?
Scripture and my own experience and observations.
Post by B=A0I don't think she is being particularly> honest about the question (as=
many Christians aren't, granted)
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comadopting it for reasons that have nothing to do with its truth.
B - assumption on your part.
Yes
Perhaps you come at her so biased that
Post by Bshe pulls away and does not share? that can happen and often does. The
reason things are called "occult" is because they are hidden so that
one does not give pearls to swine but keeps it pure or protected as
best they can so that it will not be corrrupted as much as
possible....so that it will be ready when a person is ready for it.
Some are never ready..at least not in this life and out of pure
frustration they just nay-say or call it down. If they can't grasp
it...then it must be evil or wrong. How simplistic.
And, on the other hand, some things are pure malarkey. I did my time
with the "occult" as a young man, had a good friend in AMORC studied
the popular works on the Kabbalah etc., etc. think I know a bit about
it.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comB - Manipulate people by using fear to get them to believe in the=
ir
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.combrand of dogma.
OH, you are talking about the global warming hysteria? I thought yo=
u
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comwere talking about Christianity.
B - funny..I am talking about what some "claim" is Christianity.
Argue that with them, it is permitted in this country.
B - No need. I have no problem unless they say "it is" and not "it
might be".
There is no "it might be" in reality, a thing either is or it is not.
If they are convinced "it is" then it would be dishonest for them to
say "it might be" just avoid hurting someone's sensibilities.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BPost by d***@aol.comthe marketplace of ideas, so they need Big Brother's help? =3D3=
D3D3=3D
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comEvery single founder of a religion harangued people concerning their
faith, it should not be sensitive and arguably is not totally
personal. Why should the most important topic there is be off limits
for discussion?
B - in days gone by people were hit by the inquisitors and murdered or
tortured to accept their way.
Still are in many places, which box did you pull this straw man out
of? Do you think these people wanted to murder the Moslems, or just
convert them?
Maybe they should not have been so
Post by Bsensitive about their limbs being torn off??? Discussion is one
thing...uttering after death threats and blatant bigotry and fear
mongering is hate pure and simple...hate for others way of life.
Yep, I hate the Nazi way of life for example, I hate human sacrifice
and the ways of life that produced it, but what makes you think these
people were "uttering death threats and blatant bigotry or fear
mongering?" Besides, I think the Left is far more into this sort of
tactic these days, and much much more into hate.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BB - Yeah. I don't want children calling other children or adults
"niggers" "kikes" "faggot" etc. I also don't want so-called Christian=
s
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by Btelling other people that they are going to hell for not following
their brand of Christianity.
The two things are hardly equatable, but I am familiar with the
tactic, you don't have to justify attacking Christians if you can
pigeonhole them as bigots.
B - ????? I've never attacked Christians. How could I when I am one?
What I don't like are people who claim they are Christian and then
harangue others and force them to do things like drop their own faith
and stick them in residential schools to become more "english and
Christian" like what happenned here to the first nations folk.
Haranguing is pretty harmless and not very effective. Who wants to
FORCE people to drop their own faith? (other than some Islamists),
persuasion is not force. You seem unable to dissociate Christians
today from those that lived a hundred years ago or more. Why do you
feel trying to convince someone that your religion is right is any
different from trying to convince them that your political point of
view is right?
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comWhat I want is tolerance for others and
Post by Btheir differences. I don't see tolerance in some conservative brands
of so-called Christianity and I don't see it in skinhead white
supremicists, either. You could say I am intolerant of intolerance
making me intolerant of myself...and you'd be right. That being
said....you get my drift.
One of the great problems I have with the Leftist philosophy is that
they elevate tolerance above every other virtue, and they define it as
simply accepting every cockamamie moral and philosophical position no
matter how absurd it is.
B - goodness now I'm a "leftist"??? LOL. Do you often pidgeonhole
people so easily?
My Lord!!! You have been calling people bigots, and practically
accusing them of inciting murder, people you don't even know anything
about, and I am pidgeonholeing people???? Yes, the views you have been
expressing, if not definitively, at least associatively are left wing
views. Deal with it.
I know it makes for one not having to concern
Post by Bthemselves with the individual =A0if you can label them as "one of
those". Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do
with accepting what others say as "truth" but knowing someone may be
totally on the other page as you...and still seeing that they have a
right to exist and be and speak.
Where do you come up with these things? The only people that were
denied the right to speak were the Christians.
It's about accepting that you don't
Post by Bhave all the answers..that there is a chance you may be wrong and that
allowing yourself real humility.
Physician, heal thyself. Can you really not see the hubris in your
arguments?
Post by B=A0There are other virtues that I feel more
Post by d***@aol.comimportant; honor, duty, nobility, charity, and not least, love of
liberty. It is hardly virtuous to tolerate those who would destroy
liberty, Barry Goldwater was exactly right on that point.
B - so you want the liberty to hurt others?
That does not follow
to call someone down? to
Post by Bharass someone daily? to promote intolerance and bigotry?
again, that does not follow, but, I would not by force of law
proscribe those who do, their freedom is necessary for mine.
Post by Band what's more...
Well then I guess then my liberty to be what I want to be...for gays
to marry...for Wiccans to exist and be free and talk about their
faith...for some teachers to be openly gay...etc.? seems your idea of
freedom stops where you want it to. I guess we are more alike then you
would have others believe.
Nope, I willingly insist you have the right to your opinion and the
right to try to persuade me and others you are correct. No one has to
agree with me, I would not run to the courts to suppress every point
of view I think is wrong, unless it actually involved harming
someone. I know and like several Wiccans, I think they are wrong
about their religious perspective, we discuss it, and still remain
friends. I would not deprive them of the freedom to believe what they
feel is right, nor do I know any Christians, who, if pressed, would
deprive them either.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BB - No...if people said to me "it might be real" I'd have no problem
and thank them. It's when they say it is and can't prove it that
irritates.
Just curious, what would you accept as proof?
B - prove that the bible was written by Gods own influence directly to
man. If you can't..then you can't say it is...only it may be.
I can say whatever I like, it is still a free country, for now
anyway.
But I was wondering what YOU would accept as proof and you just ask me
to prove something else?
What if the Bible were not written by God's influence but Hell existed
anyway. At the risk of being redundant, what would you accept as
proof?
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comPost by BB -again..saying "it might be" is far more honest than saying "it is"=
.
Post by BPost by d***@aol.comNo, it would be a blatant lie. It is either true or false, since you
do not have experiencial verification does not mean others do not.
B - LOL...everyone has their own private experience but until it
happens to each of us it is as if someone who just said "I flew her
using my own arms" so it is true and you must believe it.
There is no "must" here, you can accept what I am telling you because
you think I am a trustable, reliable athority, or try to discover if I
am right for yourself, or reject it out of hand.
Post by BSaying "it may be true" is the only truth one can say to another on
the subject of God....or "it is true to me."
It is either true or it is not. (Law of the excluded middle-- not both
A and not A) Either God exists or He doesn't, if He does, and has
certain requirements of us, and I know them and don't at least try to
communicate what they are, I am being rather selfish and callous,
leaving you to your fate, am I not?
Post by BTo say "it is" and have no proof what so ever and expecting the others
you tell to agree with you without you giving proof......is like me
saying I am Jesus. I have no proof but you'll just have to believe
me...and then expecting them to. If they don't...I give them
afterdeath threats...
Yeah..that oughta work.
Naturally it would not, so why are you so afraid of someone doing it?
Do you know that was what was going on here? A person decides for
themselves who is believable. There are things which we believe that
are not subject to objective proof, even mathematics has its axioms.
You can perhaps provide evidence, but not always proof. If you waited
for "proof" of everything you wouldn't have much.
Daryl-