• Part 2: I'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class, especially since I rule. October 03 - 3:58 pm

All I know is that the Bible says that, while not wrong, it is better that you don't marry outside your religion.

Friendships--fine, dandy, and excellent, just so that the friendships don't pull you from your religion.

Relationships and Marriage--I think we should be leery about this, for the benefit of both people. Invariably, there would be problems, and this would lead to trouble, perhaps separation from religion for one of the people in the marriage, which isn't good.

Marriage? Friendship? You speak strange words.

Well, they are foreign concepts, Grasshopper, but one must continue exploring them...

Who cares if people of different faiths marry? It's nobody's business but their own, and as long as they're truly in love with each other and can see past, and overcome, their religions and religious differences (if any, and there most probably would be), then so what? There's nothing wrong with it at all and, IMO, anyone who does think there is is the one with the problem. When I used to flirt with MJ on NC I've basically said a few times that I'd accept her Wicca wholeheartedly and wouldn't be put off by it at all, so why are so many people so opposed to others of different faiths marrying (that's actually rheotorical but answer if you like)? I suppose it's not to the extent that it once was but there are still those who oppose it, and those people need to wake up and smell reality. The top three reasons for marriage is LOVE, RESPECT and TRUST. Religion is, again IMO, nowhere near as important than those first three, unless the couple wish it to be, and are willing to deal with any and all consequences. Why does anyone that think people of different faiths marry, as well as some theists who marry atheists? Because they've learned, or are learning, how to overcome their religious (or lack thereof) differences. And why is that? Simple. Because they love, respect and trust each other.

Discuss.

I would agree with almost everything you say if that were all there was to it. But "unequally yoked" couples, who are in love with one another often find that the pressures from outside the marriage, especially from family can put a strain on the relationship. And when the children come, if they are deeply religious, they find it matters a lot more than they had expected it would if the children are being raised in the other faith, or in no faith, or "in both faiths."

Yes, even these forces can be overcome, but a relationship, even without theses extra strains, often proves to be a lot more work than the couple were prepared for.

Love, respect, and trust are the most important factors in establishing a relationship, as you said, but dedication and commitment are just as important, if not more important in maintaining the relationship. And a shared vision, which includes shared values (hopefully including religious ones), makes the dedication and commitment a little easier to acheive.

I take the admonishment to not become "unequally yoked" to non-believers not as a fiat or external ban, but as a warning or advice that in doing so, you may be attempting to bite off more than you can chew.

The bible has been and can be used to justify almost anything--especially things which judge, denigrate, and ostracize other people.

I'll grant you that, ASDF, but a full understanding of the Bible led me to realize that it is not out to "judge, denigrate, and ostracize," regardless of what many extremists attempt in using it for.

The interfaith marriage thing, I think, is just sort of troubling. Usually the situation that is presented is two people who are not really strong in their faith marrying, so then it doesn't become a major issue. While I can't really say that's okay, for the purposes of the marriage at least, okay. But what bothers me is when two people who are strong in their separate faith marriage. Think about it! If a Christian marries a Hinduist, the Christian could not participate in or attend the Hindu's religious ceremonies, and vice versa. That would certainly be trouble, and probably both would feel bad.

Now I'll grant you that there have been successful interfaith marriages, but usually they choose to merely drop the religious point, which as I've said, would hurt people of strong faith in their religion.

(I think George Burns and Gracie Allen were interfaith. Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara were, but I think she converted.)

True. People have (mis-)used the bible as a club in too many instances. But that alone is not a good reason for descrediting all the good in it.

Condemn the bigots and hypocrites if you must, but don't throw the baby away with the bath water.

::It's nobody's business but their own, and as long as they're truly in love with each other and can see past, and overcome, their religions and religious differences (if any, and there most probably would be), then so what?:: MarkN

I'm sure it was probably not intentional this time, but saying a religion must be overcome is insulting.

::I would agree with almost everything you say if that were all there was to it. But "unequally yoked" couples, who are in love with one another often find that the pressures from outside the marriage, especially from family can put a strain on the relationship. And when the children come, if they are deeply religious, they find it matters a lot more than they had expected it would if the children are being raised in the other faith, or in no faith, or "in both faiths.":: TomM

Alot of the time when children are raised by parents with different religions, the kids end up without any religion of their own or some kinda mishmash of ideas that don't go together.

::True. People have (mis-)used the bible as a club in too many instances. But that alone is not a good reason for descrediting all the good in it.

Condemn the bigots and hypocrites if you must, but don't throw the baby away with the bath water.:: TomM

I agree that some people misuse it, but I don't think we can all agree on the manner in which it is misused. For example, I don't think the Bible says "Never judge anyone for any reason ever." as some people do.

Alot of the time when children are raised by parents with different religions, the kids end up without any religion of their own or some kinda mishmash of ideas that don't go together.

How someone else raises their children is entirely *not* your business.

Maybe not, but wouldn't two people committed to their different faith want their children to grow up with religion? And what religion would they grow up with? Who would teach them? Would they both, and let their children decide? These are the kind of difficult questions that would get posed in a situation like this.

I think that most of the time the child ends up with the faith to which the mother subscribes.

I also believe that you shouldn't "throw out" the bible because people have used it to judge denigrate, and ostracize.

However, those (namely the broad designation of "the Church") who should be the most receptive (and yes JWB the bible teaches acceptance of everyone) are nearly always the first to judge.

Define "acceptance of everyone." I define it as loving and caring for everyone, regardless of race, creed, or sex, but nevertheless still being capable of having "disagreements."

For example, I have friends of other religions. I knew and was a friend to a homosexual. I don't agree with their faith or decisions, but I can still be friends and love them.

In most situations, though, you're correct, intolerance reigns. Most Christians wouldn't even TALK to homosexuals, for instance, which is just dumb in my opinion.

I'm sure it was probably not intentional this time, but saying a religion must be overcome is insulting.

Jwb, I believe that MarkN was referring to the differences in their religions, and phrased it badly. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now I'll grant you that there have been successful interfaith marriages, but usually they choose to merely drop the religious point, which as I've said, would hurt people of strong faith in their religion.
Well, I don't think it would inherently hurt anyone of strong faith, but rather that they'd chose to feel hurt, even if they were totally unaware of doing so, but of course that's just my opinion.

Jwb, I believe that MarkN was referring to the differences in their religions, and phrased it badly. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you, Scott...um, I think(?). However, I thought I made my point clear enough, but maybe I could've worded it better, so let's try this:

Jwb, what I meant wasn't that religion itself should be overcome, or that the couple basically turn their back on it, but that if they truly love each other strongly enough, then they'd be able to see beyond their religions and religious differences in order to get married and make it work. Yes, there'd be some trouble but if they truly love each other strongly enough then they can, and hopefully will, prevail. Of course it may not always work out that way but they'd deserve credit for trying their best, at least.

As for kids and religion I personally don't like the idea of people basically indoctrinating their kids into it at a very early age when the kids are still very impressionable and open to whatever their parents tell them, and not being allowed to learn to think for themselves. Yes, it's none of my business how someone raises their kids, and yes, I realize that not every kid raised in a religious family doesn't learn to think for themselves, but I'm just thinking about those who aren't so fortunate, you know, like...well, gimme a moment. I'm sure I can think of someone that sounds like they could fit that description.

MikeC--

I pretty much concur with your definition of "acceptance of everyone."

Thanks, I try. I'm just sort of disheartened in this age when it seems that the only two stances to take are bigotry and passive acceptance of everything ("Ford's in his flibber and all's right with the world").

("Ford's in his flibber (sic) and all's right with the world"). quoted by MikeC

That should be "flivver," a slang term for the Model T. However, since I believe the quote is from Huxley's Brave New World, which I haven't read in a while, and while his "our Ford" was based on Henry, he did make minor changes to indicate that "our Ford" was a social reformer, not an industrialist, and since its been a while since I read it, if the spelling change is Huxley's rather than yours, I apologize.

Yes, there'd be some trouble but if they truly love each other strongly enough then they can, and hopefully will, prevail. MarkN

While I don't disagree with this, I find it a little naive. Even when the couple are in sync on all their values, it takes work and commitment to make a relationship work. Add the external pressures, and the inevitable resentments (however unconscious), and too many people will decide that because it's so much work, and constant compromise, we must have fallen out of love at some point, and it's not worth it. Given this, not warning a couple about such an obvious source of potential conflict, and urging them to see how it could become a wedge in their relationship, would be doing them a grave mis-service in the name of "tolerence."

I think I just got it wrong, Tom. I listened to an audio adaptation of "Brave New World," in which they used the phrase once, and not hearing "flivver" in reference to a Model T before, I thought it was "flibber" instead. But I have never actually seen it on paper, so I don't know.

Tom is right. It's "flivver", and it's a reference to Henry Ford. That's why all the crosses had their tops cut off to become 'T's.

Well, Tom, I wasn't trying to be naive, but I can see your point about my sounding so. I'm aware that there's more to a marriage than what I've said above, even though I never intend to get married. But I do agree with your statements.

I again apologize to Aldous Huxley.

::How someone else raises their children is entirely *not* your business.:: Matthew Patterson

Anyone or anything that will affect society is everyone's business. Raising of children is one such thing that will affect society.

:: (and yes JWB the bible teaches acceptance of everyone):: ASDF

Not if you mean "carte blanche approval of all actions or thoughts."

::As for kids and religion I personally don't like the idea of people basically indoctrinating their kids into it at a very early age when the kids are still very impressionable and open to whatever their parents tell them, and not being allowed to learn to think for themselves. Yes, it's none of my business how someone raises their kids, and yes, I realize that not every kid raised in a religious family doesn't learn to think for themselves, but I'm just thinking about those who aren't so fortunate, you know, like...well, gimme a moment. I'm sure I can think of someone that sounds like they could fit that description.:: MarkN

For a religious person, that is like saying, "Don't teach anyone morals until they are an adult." If you don't teach some things at a young age they are never learned properly.

::I'm aware that there's more to a marriage than what I've said above, even though I never intend to get married.:: MarkN

Machiko never did either...think about that one. LOL

I remember once in middle school when a guy said "I will never marry a girl! Girls are gross!" (it was that sort of period, an interesting breed between goofiness like this and reality). You can imagine the cracks that followed.

Raising of children is one such thing that will affect society.

That doesn't mean you have a right to tell someone else how to raise their children. As long as they are not abusing them or encouraging them to commit crimes, both of which are crimes themselves, then how they raise their children is none of your business.

::As for kids and religion I personally don't like the idea of people basically indoctrinating their kids into it at a very early age when the kids are still very impressionable and open to whatever their parents tell them, and not being allowed to learn to think for themselves. Yes, it's none of my business how someone raises their kids, and yes, I realize that not every kid raised in a religious family doesn't learn to think for themselves, but I'm just thinking about those who aren't so fortunate, you know, like...well, gimme a moment. I'm sure I can think of someone that sounds like they could fit that description.:: MarkN

For a religious person, that is like saying, "Don't teach anyone morals until they are an adult." If you don't teach some things at a young age they are never learned properly. Jwb

In agreement with Jwb here. Children will end up having more than enough evil influences in their lives later on, and even with sufficient "indoctrinization" from their parents, many eventually choose a different path anyway. Children could use a good framework to get started out upon, as long as that framework is good. I don't see that having parents teach religious principles to their children in any way takes away the children's ability to choose for themselves how to live their own lives.

I will say, though, that I think it's very important for children to think for themselves. Parents should encourage their children to develop their own testimonies of the truth, and not just follow something for the sake of family tradition.

Uh oh! Looks like I'm telling parents how to raise their children! I think, Matthew Patterson, you're possibly being a bit harse. I don't suppose people should poke their noses into everyone else's business all the time, but is it really bad to make general statements about what parents should and should not do? It's not like anyone's been specifically in any one person's business, here. Jwb made a general statement, and so did I. If you like it, fine, if not, it's not like we've invaded your privacy.

(I will be away for a week camping, so don't expect any new responses from me until then)

::I'm aware that there's more to a marriage than what I've said above, even though I never intend to get married.:: MarkN
Machiko never did either...think about that one. LOL
OMG! That's right! Well...hmmm...considering I'm somewhat older than her and still haven't gone down that route yet there's a pretty good chance of it not happening with me...now that MJ's marrying someone else. That's a joke, folks. I'm not in love with her. Never was. Really. Honest.

(I will be away for a week camping, so don't expect any new responses from me until then)
Then you'll have quite a bit of catching up to do, I'm sure, Mike.

I'm not sure how I feel about telling parents how to parent cuz I can see both sides of it. I might say what I don't like, but that's not necessarily telling someone how to raise their kids, although it's soooo tempting sometimes. Frinstance, when I used to do fast food drive thru work not a day went by that some white trash in their heap o' junk came thru with all the windows closed except for the driver's, there's one or two little kids in the backseat and everyone else is smoking like chimneys. I soooo wanted to yell at them and tell them that they couldn't tell me they loved their kids if they're gonna treat them--no, abuse them that way. But of course I couldn't tell them that. I'd get bitched at from them and fired for it. With all the antismoking laws we have here in California I'm almost surprised that they don't have any laws about that. Maybe in good time.

I said I can see both sides cuz were I a parent I sure wouldn't want someone telling me how to raise my kids. Now, when you see how bad some parents are they do need to be told and shown how to raise the kids or have their kids taken away from them (but I'm not saying you just go up to them and tell them that). That's mostly in abusive situations, of course. Everyone's got their own ideas on how to raise kids and no one else has any say in how to do it, except of course again in certain situations, but overall no.

Take a mom who enters her girl in beauty pageants since she was a baby. I think that's totally idiotic and very selfish on the mom's part to begin with cuz she's not thinking about the girl at all but instead herself living vicariously thru her girl, in a way. She pressures the girl constantly since birth practically on how to walk, talk, dress, wear makeup, look at the judges, smile and so on and so forth. To me that's not right, but if it's not my little girl I don't really any have say in the matter. But if it was my little girl then I wouldn't allow her mom to do that in the first place. I'd just let our girl make that sort of decision for herself when she's old enough and if she wants to do it.

::That doesn't mean you have a right to tell someone else how to raise their children. As long as they are not abusing them or encouraging them to commit crimes, both of which are crimes themselves, then how they raise their children is none of your business.:: Matthew Patterson

I believe in the old saying, "It takes a whole village to raise a child." By that, as long as children exist every adult should watch over every child because the next generation's welfare and behavior is everyone's business because a good future for our species is in our best interest. I believe we all have a say in the next generation's upbringing, no matter if we have children of our own or not.

::But if it was my little girl then I wouldn't allow her mom to do that in the first place.:: MarkN

You can't do that these days because you would be called a controlling spouse and a chauvinist.

Yeah, god forbid, I don't let the woman be the controlling one in the family and myself be pussywhipped, right, Jwb? So, I don't suppose you subscribe to the christian view that the man is in charge of the family and that the wife is supposed to be subservient to him and abide by all his rules and wishes without question? I know there's a big movement in that direction now, but just how strong it is, I dunno.

Anyway, look, if my wife wanted to put our baby daughter into beauty pageants I wouldn't allow it and I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse it. Marriage is supposed to be equal, and when there are any disagreements then they have to be settled in the best way possible, but something like that I'd have to totally not agree to. In my view it's a form of child abuse, especially when you see how deeply into it some moms get, and that's just not good for their daughters.

Dads (and I guess moms, as well) can just as bad when it comes to their sons' Little League games and push them too much, too. I'd support my son's decision to play if he wanted to, but that would be when he was old enough to make that decision for himself. Babies don't have that option, so putting them into pageants is wrong, and if I'm called a chauvinist by some for it then oh, well. It ain't their kid so they'd really have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever now, would they? No, of course not.

BTW, that's not an angry response to you, J (I'm actually in a very good mood), so please don't take it as such, ok? I'd tell ya the same thing about baby pageants in person in a civil way, but I was only stating my views on it.

>as long as children exist every adult should watch over every child because the next generation's welfare and behavior is everyone's business<

Try telling that to the parents who yell at ME when I ask their children to stop doing something they shouldn't be doing. Most parents in my neighborhood are very hostile to anyone who tries to correct their precious baby. And I'm not talking about my yelling at the children either. I'm talking about asking them politely to stop swinging on my gate because it's not too sturdy and they could get hurt. The mother actually told me to mind my own business! But if their child gets hurt, you can bet your bippy that a lawsuit would be smacked at me within a day! (Sorry,I kind of went off on a rant there, but it's been bugging me to no end. Aaahh...now I feel better.)

::Yeah, god forbid, I don't let the woman be the controlling one in the family and myself be pussywhipped, right, Jwb? So, I don't suppose you subscribe to the christian view that the man is in charge of the family and that the wife is supposed to be subservient to him and abide by all his rules and wishes without question? I know there's a big movement in that direction now, but just how strong it is, I dunno.:: MarkN

Most people who think this way have the relationship slightly skewed. The husband is in charge, yes, but he's not supposed to be a mean ogre who doesn't love his wife or listen to her.

::Anyway, look, if my wife wanted to put our baby daughter into beauty pageants I wouldn't allow it and I'd be perfectly within my rights to refuse it.:: MarkN

I know, but I was trying to illustrate how silly relations between men and women have become all in the name of "equality."

BTW, Margie, people like that shouldn't be parents.

Jwb, there are a lot of people who shouldn't be parents! Unfortunately, they are.

I never said the husband has to be a mean ogre. A friendly ogre would be better. Anyhoo, if two people want to commit their lives to each other then, IMO, neither one should be above, or in charge of, the other, just that they should be equal to each other. No one is above anyone else, regardless of race, sex, religion, occupation, married, single, old, young and what have you. It's just too bad that many people think otherwise.

My grandmother always said that a wife should obey her husband as the church obeys Jesus Christ. So, when grandpa starts acting like Christ, she'll start obeying him. :-)

Merry

::It's just too bad that many people think otherwise.:: MarkN

I know you don't get this, but it's a Biblical thing.

My grandmother always said that a wife should obey her husband as the church obeys Jesus Christ. So, when grandpa starts acting like Christ, she'll start obeying him. :-)

Good one!

Personally, I don't have a problem with men who think they should be in charge. I just would never, ever marry one! My mother-in-law is a strong woman who nevertheless believes that the husband should be in charge, so I pretend to be a somewhat "dutiful wife" whenever we visit. That way my husband can save face and I can get along peacefully with my in-laws.

Mark, if a couple follows the Biblical style of marriage willingly and in the privacy of their own home, what's wrong with that?

Mark,

juli has a point. It seems as if you're trying to impose your view of what a proper marriage should be just as much as the fundamentalists are.

::I know you don't get this, but it's a Biblical thing.:: Jwb

So's the line about slaves obeying their worldly masters.

I don't pay attention to that line either.

Jwb, don't make false assumptions about what I may or may not get.

Scott, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone at all, nor would I ever cuz I'm not that sort of person. This is a discussion board, I'm discussing my views. That's all. And please don't compare me to fundamentalists. I might almost be insulted if I didn't like you and respected your views so much.

Mark, if a couple follows the Biblical style of marriage willingly and in the privacy of their own home, what's wrong with that?
Nothing, Juli, if that's what they choose. I'm just saying that no one is inherently above anyone else, such as by nature or anything. Now, if a woman wants a husband who'll be in charge, then fine. That's her choice and I believe that it could still be a great and long marriage if they both love and respect each other a great deal. By the converse, if a man wants a woman who'll be in charge, then that's fine by me, too, for the same reasons, cuz in either case it's none of my business. But no one, by nature, is inherently supposed to be in charge over anyone else, IMO. That's just a choice made by each individual, to either be in charge of someone else or have someone else be in charge of them. I choose neither. Granted, one should take charge in some things, the other in other things, but as long as it all balances out for the most part then I find that acceptable. I just don't agree with the idea that only a man must be the one in charge, as if decreed by nature.

I have to admit here that I'm also coming at this from the standpoint of a brother whose sister is going thru a tough divorce. She's been married for over half her lifetime to not only a very controlling assh*le but one that practically every single day would denigrate her and their kids and our family and wasn't shy about doing so. Add that to the facts that he enjoyed verbally abusing her, and us, and never once apologized for his actions. He's one of those who thinks they're always right, and isn't very mentally sound, in some of our opinions. I wasn't aware of how he treated my sister for a long time cuz she never spoke of it, or if she did when she eventually would then she'd protect him. Well, she doesn't have to anymore cuz they're separated, but he's still quite the thorn in her side. They'd been married since 1978 and she hasn't been happy for most of those years, and it shows in many of their family pictures. She used to have a beautiful figure but not anymore, due to the depression she's suffered for years of marriage to this assh*le.

I think a question nobody's asked is, "What is the purpose of marriage?" Or, more specifically, "What is the goal of marriage?"

If marriage is purely about two people loving each other and deciding to be together for the rest of their lives, then there is very little needed besides love, respect, and trust. If, however, one defines marriage as having broader objectives (building a household together, building a family together) there are many other qualities one must take into account.

Specifically, I define my marriage in terms of my religion. It's Step One for me. Therefore, I need a husband who's eager to help me raise my kids in a vibrant, intellectual, stimulatnig Jewish home. However, I am the only member of the extended family to go with this theory. I've got one set of intermarried rel's who don't hold with religion at all, get along perfectly, and have sweet, moral, ethical kids; I've got another set where Christmas vs. Hannukah became a big issue and spawned a nasty divorce. (The kids are sweet, ethical, disaffected, and bitter.) The parents' priorities are a huge chunk of the issue, IMHO, and I just happen to know a lot of people who came to value their religion later in life and got mad because their spouse didn't share those feelings.

Re: kids, raising them, and other people's business, I don't think anyone here advocates breaking into intermarried homes and interrogating the children! The point is (as I understand it), intermarriage may be a poor idea because some of the potential conflicts would screw up the kids' perspectives.

Re: who's in charge. Right on Mark! As long as both partners are happy and self-actualized, I belive in matriarchy, patriarchy, or any happy meduim in between.

::So's the line about slaves obeying their worldly masters.

I don't pay attention to that line either.:: Captain Obvious

Just because you don't does not make it wrong.

::Jwb, don't make false assumptions about what I may or may not get.:: MarkN

I only go from what I can get from what you tell me.

::I'm just saying that no one is inherently above anyone else:: MarkN

Try to remember that that is only true if you disregard the Bible.

::I have to admit here that I'm also coming at this from the standpoint of a brother whose sister is going thru a tough divorce. She's been married for over half her lifetime to not only a very controlling assh*le but one that practically every single day would denigrate her and their kids and our family and wasn't shy about doing so. Add that to the facts that he enjoyed verbally abusing her, and us, and never once apologized for his actions. He's one of those who thinks they're always right, and isn't very mentally sound, in some of our opinions. I wasn't aware of how he treated my sister for a long time cuz she never spoke of it, or if she did when she eventually would then she'd protect him. Well, she doesn't have to anymore cuz they're separated, but he's still quite the thorn in her side. They'd been married since 1978 and she hasn't been happy for most of those years, and it shows in many of their family pictures. She used to have a beautiful figure but not anymore, due to the depression she's suffered for years of marriage to this assh*le.:: MarkN

That's what happens when someone perverts something and changes the way it was supposed to be when it was created.

::The kids are sweet, ethical, disaffected, and bitter.:: Kira Sharp

How can they be disaffected and bitter at the same time?

I just don't agree with the idea that only a man must be the one in charge, as if decreed by nature.
Okay, I think I understand your position better now, Mark.

If marriage is purely about two people loving each other and deciding to be together for the rest of their lives, then there is very little needed besides love, respect, and trust.

Except patience. Lots and looooooots of patience!

Specifically, I define my marriage in terms of my religion. It's Step One for me. Therefore, I need a husband who's eager to help me raise my kids in a vibrant, intellectual, stimulatnig Jewish home.
I agree with your ideas on marriage, Kira, except I personally wouldn't frame things from a religious perspective, and I would probably say "intelligent" rather than "intellectual." To me, the word "intellectual" brings up visions of discussing political theory in Greek around the breakfast table, although I'm sure that's not exactly what you have in mind (is it?). I'd be interested in hearing your idea of an intellectual home in more detail, though.

About parents and childrearing, here are some stories that I've heard or experienced recently in Japan:

My friend M was at the park with her toddler one day. A bunch of kids were playing in a mud puddle. A 4-year-old splashed a 10-year-old by mistake, so the 10-year-old put the younger boy's face in the mud and held it there. None of the other mothers said anything, but my friend is thinking, Oh my god, that child is going to drown! So she went and grabbed the older kid and told him to stop it before he killed the other boy. Without a word, the other mothers took their children and left the park and never spoke to my friend again, and they also instructed their kids to ignore her boy, as if to say, "Dare to discipline one of our kids, and pay the consequences."

Another time (same park), M's toddler was playing with a grasshopper. A group of three 12-year-olds came up and said, "Hey, let's kill that grasshopper," and took it away from him. Well, M went over and told them just what she thought of that idea. The leader of the group said, "Okay, lady, but I'm gonna remember your kid's face and where you live, so you better watch out." Obviously this is a kid who has never been told, "no." Needless to say, M doesn't take her child to that park anymore.

My friend K also has a toddler. In her apartment building there is an older boy who terrorizes the smaller children, and even injures them sometimes, and the mother gets a lot of complaints. One day she whined to K, "I wish people wouldn't tell me how to raise my son. Anyway, I don't know why they let him bother them. I mean, he doesn't bother me." Ummmm, right.

One of the most disturbing things is when parents tell a child to stop doing something not because it's bad or wrong, but because some mean stranger will yell at them. Two examples:

I was on the bus one day, and there was a little boy jumping up and down on the seats, and the mother wasn't making much of an effort to stop it. The bus driver said over the speaker, "Please don't bounce on the seats. You could get hurt if I have to brake suddenly." The mother said to the child, "See, you should stop that, because if you don't that man will yell at you."

Another friend, C, is a nurse. One day, there was a child racing up and down the corridors of her hospital. The boy's mother said to him, "Stop that right now, or the doctor will give you a nasty shot." C was livid. She told the mother she shouldn't say things like that, because the child would be afraid of shots when he really did need one, and he might even think of it as some kind of punishment.

Recently I was in a department store, and there was a 10-year-old boy running toward me down a narrow aisle. Well, you know how sometimes you and another person try to step out of each other's way but end up blocking each other several times instead. Normally, it's so absurd that both parties end up laughing, but this kid lets out an explosive sigh and mutters under his breath, "P*ss me off!" and finally plows through. I thought of saying something to the mother, but having heard the stories I just told you, I thought, forget it, I'll end up being the bad guy or a scapegoat anyway.

If a kid is disrespectful to his own parents, or doesn't do chores at home, or whatever, I don't think that's anyone else's business. I just don't get this idea that it's wrong to scold other people's children when they are destroying property, doing harm to others, treating strangers rudely, or otherwise causing trouble in public. I mean, where did this idea come from? Does anybody have an answer?

Marrige is taking a term of slavery to another person. It must selfless, or is doomed.

Why Interfaith Marrige can be a problem.
If we accept the whole point behind marrige is sex and reproduction, (Arranged marriges have the lowest divorce rate) then the question would be what faith to raise the child in. Since it is nearly impossible to raise a child in two religions, this is a major concern. While raising a child agnostic may seem a option, I point you to Catcher in the Rye, and Holden's lack of religion as a contributer to his state. While some children may find the truth, most would just be confused, and many would end up in much worst situations. The membership roles of cults are filled with those on unguided quests for the Truth. Human nature demands it. The Catholic Church, for example, requires that interfaith marriges sign a document to raise the children Catholic as a prequiset for a sacremental marrige. My opinion. the ever useful statement, more trouble than it's proberly worth.

Problems in worldview
"What luck is it that men do not think" Adolph Hitler.
As the 1/2 point for the Game pointed out, men do not think. A local newspaper printed a story about how Bob was Jehovah's witness and Kathy played with Tarot Cards and divination. They didn't realize this would be a problem until they attended a consulor. If one thinks concerning taboos, dietary laws, ways of life et cetra, the list of complications could get long. Of course, never insult the host.

Ultimately, If James Carvile and Mary Madline can make it work, anyone can.

::I know you don't get this, but it's a Biblical thing.:: Jwb

::So's the line about slaves obeying their worldly masters.

I don't pay attention to that line either.:: Captain Obvious

::Just because you don't does not make it wrong.:: Jwb

Of course not.

Slavery is wrong simply because it's wrong.

::::I'm just saying that no one is inherently above anyone else:: MarkN

::Try to remember that that is only true if you disregard the Bible.:: Jwb

Cool. What's your point?


::The kids are sweet, ethical, disaffected, and bitter.:: Kira Sharp

::How can they be disaffected and bitter at the same time?

Easily. Disaffected means having lost loyalty and affection. What I'd like to know is, how can they be disaffected and SWEET at the same time?

::While raising a child agnostic may seem a option, I point you to Catcher in the Rye, and Holden's lack of religion as a contributer to his state. While some children may find the truth, most would just be confused, and many would end up in much worst situations. The membership roles of cults are filled with those on unguided quests for the Truth.::Matt Pesti

Oh, that's just lovely, Matt. Most agnostics are confused people, fodder for cults, and the reference for this is a fictional story. Just lovely.

Sorry, but my brother and I grew up in an agnostic home, and we turned out fine. I wish the same could be said for my friend's sister, who was raised in a strict Baptist family and wound up getting into drugs and dropping out of school to have a baby out of wedlock.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that religious upbringings are bad, I'm just pointing out that they're not necessarily any better than agnostic ones.

Ahhhh, so close to proving that non-Christians are pathetic, misguided people--and yet so very, very far.... =D

I only go from what I can get from what you tell me.
Yes, I know, j, and that's where you often misread posts, cuz you only get what you think we're saying, as opposed to what we're actually saying (or, um, trying to, at least).

I'm just saying that no one is inherently above anyone else.

Try to remember that that is only true if you disregard the Bible.
*sigh* Jwb, you do realize that I already do disregard the Bible, right? At least as far as taking its stories for absolute fact and truth, which they're not. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Okay, I think I understand your position better now, Mark.
Thanks, Juli. Yes, it's my position. I'm glad someone finally understands, cuz I really try my best to make myself clear but I know it doesn't always happen.

Pesti, I've read Catcher in the Rye, and all I got from it was, "This is one majorly screwed up kid who likes to say 'goddamn' a lot." But then I wasn't reading it to read anything between the lines, but just to see what all the hubbub was all about over it.

Ultimately, If James Carvile and Mary Madline can make it work, anyone can.
Definitely.

Captain, I'm purty darned sure you're being sarcastic about agnostics cuz speaking for myself I'm not confused or fodder for cults, since I hate religion overall and would at best laugh at anyone trying to convert me. At worst, well, let's just say that I can tell them in no uncertain, colorful terms what they can do with their religions, literature and beliefs.

Anyway, I personally have absolutely no problem with nonconformist relationships (which really aren't all that nonconformist anymore these days), be they interfaith, interracial, same sex or what have you, as long as no one's getting hurt, cuz frankly any relationship is no one else's business. It doesn't matter if members of either or both families feel hurt by it, or society frowns on it or whatever, cuz it's no one's business except for the couples' themselves, so everyone else can just butt out. Unfortunately, too many people (whether family or society in general) choose not to butt out and like to make their views known, often, but not always, with dire results.

Yes, on the one hand the couple should maybe consider how their families might feel about it, but on the other hand the families should also consider the couple's feelings and just watch how the relationship progresses and offer any positive help they can if things go sour.

You know Marriage isn't the ONLY thing this about. Not just friendships (talked about breifly) either.

What about when two siblings are of different faiths? I am an Atheist, my brother is a Neo-Paganist (well, as neo-paganistic as a 9 year old can be anyway).

::Captain, I'm purty darned sure you're being sarcastic about agnostics cuz speaking for myself I'm not confused or fodder for cults, since I hate religion overall and would at best laugh at anyone trying to convert me.:: MarkN

Yes, Mark, I was responding sarcastically to Matt's post above, as did Juli. I quoted Matt's original post right before I responded to it, as do most people. Please refer to it.

Nice to see the Japanese taking to the English alphabet so keenly. Sadly they haven't realised there are only 26 letters in ours' and they will run out of names for their kids very fast.

Juli, only an idiot would suggest no one could do well from a non-Christian up bringing or that all those with such an up bringing will be better off. But just because there are examples like yours doesn't change the way Christian morality can be a great boost to anyone. That friend would have been even more likely to do those things, had she had no Christian values. She would then have had only selfish reasons not to become pregnant and have a baby: "What a hassle iot will be. How troublesome a baby is. I'll kill him." Who knows? Maybe the Christian element of her upbringing prevented a lot of other things from happening, such as drugs and so on. Accidentally conceiving a child outside marriage is not the end of the world: people make mistakes. I would still think that a moral and religious unbringing gives a child a security and sense of duty and decency in a way that others would not. I wish I had been brought up to be a Christian myself, as I regret some of the things I did before I had the moral compass that is offered by it. I'd almost hate to think of the sort of person I might now be if a few events had not coincided to make me reconsider my own ideas.

Peter.

Jwb52z: ***How can they be disaffected and bitter at the same time? ***

I think you may be confusing disaffected with unaffected.

What about when two siblings are of different faiths? I am an Atheist, my brother is a Neo-Paganist (well, as neo-paganistic as a 9 year old can be anyway).

So how does the difference affect your relationship, Brian, if at all?

There seems to be an empty spot which makes no sense between Captain Obvious' post at 01:11 and Mikey's at 8:15. I hope that we can all ignore it and avoid falling into the trap it poses.

juli: Well, we don't see each other much. I mena there IS an entire mountain range seperating us after all. And he is only 9, and when we talk on the phone he usually only wants to talk about new things he's gotten as gifts and such, so maybe using myself as an example was a bad idea. I don't think he even knows what my [lack of] faith is.

In Catcher in the rye Holden notes that his parents were of different faiths and raised their children as agnostic. That was the interpitation I got out of that line, which fits into my "he was a pathetic little brat who should be the first agaist the wall when the revolution comes" theisis.

I'm not saying that all agnostics are fodder for cults, I'm saying that people with a spiritual void are more likely to be attracted into the message of cultists, that is one, one of faternity and security. Chrisopher Buckley raised his children agnostic, until Waco, then raised them Roman Catholic, for the reasons suspected.

Ultimately the problem is called moral captital. It's too complicated to be discussed here. Simply put, agnosticism does not produce enoght morality to substain itself, therefore, it must be "parasicitic" upon Christanity. Like I said, it's complicated to explain.

Juli K: As I do not know the full extent of both situations, comment is immpossible.

Mark N. However, if the couple is declared persona non grata (Note my intellegent use of Latin) that is the result of their choice. Actions have Consequences.

Brian Webber: You mean he treats Kevin Sorbo with more reverance than William Shatner, assuming you have done your duty as a Nitpicker and introduced him to Star Trek :-)

LOL! {Peter, even though censorware catches these things, it still might not be a bad idea to lay off the cussing. You only prove your opponents right when you do that.}. I don't know why I posted here anyway. I have better things to do than negotiate my way around idiotic moderators as it is.

Peter.

{I'm going to ignore that one Peter, but call me idiotic again, and, well, seeing as banning does nothing, I'll have to find a more entertaining way to punish you. Entertaining for me anyway.}

Actually, Anonymous, that was one of Peter's more rational and reasonable posts, and he also made it clear about his joke (which was actually pretty funny).

Peter, more like that please, though perhaps a bit lighter on the "idiotic".

Peter, is it humanly possible for you to go more than an hour without insulting anyone? I doubt it.

Pesti: Actually Dylan IS a herc/Xena fan. Far as I know the only Trek he knows is Voyager (poor boy).

I'm not saying that all agnostics are fodder for cults, I'm saying that people with a spiritual void are more likely to be attracted into the message of cultists, that is one, one of faternity and security.
It's an interesting theory, Matt, but I think you're operating from the assumption that all religious people are firm in their faith. I'm afraid that the surface appearance of being religious does not preclude a spiritual void. Do you have any statistics that show that cult followers are disproportionately agnostic?

I understand what you are saying about "moral capital." I'm willing to admit the possibility that agnosticism is somewhat "parasitic" on Christianity and other religions in terms of moral framework. However, if that's the case, Christianity is equally parasitic, since most of its ideas have been drawn from other sources. The Garden of Eden "serpent" motif was borrowed from the goddess religions that preceded Christianity, and the myth of a messiah was apparently already fairly common before the birth of Christ. Jews could fairly say that Christianity is parasitic on their religion. We all borrow from the past to some extent.

I wasn't going to mention it, but since you keep using Catcher in the Rye to support your position: are you the same Matt Pesti who lectured someone about "primary sources" when they suggested reading The Crucible to gain a better understanding of McCarthyism? ;)

Anyway, I fully intend to raise my future children as good agnostics. They will be taught right from wrong, they will be loved, they will shown the beauty and wonder of life, and I'm sure they will be fine.

Matt Pesti: I'm not saying that all agnostics are fodder for cults, I'm saying that people with a spiritual void are more likely to be attracted into the message of cultists, that is one, one of faternity and security. Chrisopher Buckley raised his children agnostic, until Waco, then raised them Roman Catholic, for the reasons suspected.

Ultimately the problem is called moral captital. It's too complicated to be discussed here. Simply put, agnosticism does not produce enoght morality to substain itself, therefore, it must be "parasicitic" upon Christanity. Like I said, it's complicated to explain.

Luigi Novi: Do you have any data or information to substantiate this, Matt? Or is it just a matter of you seeing religiousness as superior to lackthereof simply because you happen to be religious?

Juli K: Your're right, I fell for the literature is everything trap of thinking. However, in my defense, I will state that Catcher in the rye, has less obvious ideological motives than The Crucible, which has nonthing to do with clay triangels (Whoever gets thats gets boasting rights).

Moral Captital: The theory of moral captital, I think goes as follows. We are currently living on the moral fondation set up by previous generations. We are good moral people, only because we were raised that way and grew up in a moral society. However, we are using up that moral framework, and not repleshing it. How this relates to agnosticism, is that agnostics were mostly raised Christian, and like it or not, are still effected by that upbringing and still act in a Christian manner, of charity et cetra, and still treat those as life values, knowingly or unknowingly. However, faith and morality cannot remain seperated forever, and eventually morality will die off, when it is questioned and to be found without support. Since agnosticism breeds no morality, it must exist amoung a religious society. This rooted in the enlightenment belief in the rationality of man, and that man can discover his morality through reason, which was part of a religous belief called deism. This belief was flawed, and the flaw has lead post modern thinkers to existentialism, a post war movement that focus's on man being alone in the universe, brought on by despair over WW2, and denying reason. So man tried to substitute faith for reason, and eventually found out that reason dosen't work either. Seeing I barely understand what I am talking about, I shall reasearch the theory and get you the exact arguments behind it.

We all borrow from the past. The real question is how long can we get away with it.

I do not argue that agnostics are all cult fodder or that every religious person is solid in their faith. I argue that Cult members are drawn from the confused and by root meanings of words, agnostics are certainly "confused" concerning religion. I argue that if you do not instill your children with religious beliefs some else will try to.

Luigi: Atheists in ancient rome thought of themselves as moral due to the fact they refused to worship immoral gods. While I will always hold the Holy Faith claims the best hold on the Truth, it has little to do with this claim. Buddahism is atheististic over the path to salvation, yet is morally superior to Hinduism per se (Again, note my intellegent use of Latin). I belive I tried to explain how most agniostics live in a Christian moral worldview, having never built a agnostic moral worldview.

Unfortuently, I will try to post tommarrow, but I cannot gurrantee this. As of Sunday I will attend the weeklong National Conservative Youth Conferance, and will be in Washington. Keep an eye out for me on C-SPAN.

I'm not saying that all agnostics are fodder for cults, I'm saying that people with a spiritual void are more likely to be attracted into the message of cultists, that is one, one of faternity and security.
Well, maybe some, sure, but I for one am not, cuz the more someone tried to convert me the more they're gonna fail at it. I'm not in need of spirituality at all, so I'm not gonna fall for the first person who tries to get me to attend their church.

Simply put, agnosticism does not produce enough morality to substain itself, therefore, it must be "parasicitic" upon Christanity. Like I said, it's complicated to explain.
Speaking for myself again, I know that I'm not "parasicitic" upon Christanity, but again perhaps some others are, I dunno. And plenty of agnostics are quite full of morality, like me. You don't need religion to have morals.

How this relates to agnosticism, is that agnostics were mostly raised Christian and like it or not, are still effected by that upbringing and still act in a Christian manner, of charity et cetra, and still treat those as life values, knowingly or unknowingly.
I agree with this...

Since agnosticism breeds no morality, it must exist amoung a religious society.
...but not with this. Again, one doesn't need religion to have morals, Pesti. If you've never been agnostic then I really wouldn't expect you to realize this.

...agnostics are certainly "confused" concerning religion.
No, Pesti, that's not true at all, not any more than anyone would be confused about whatever else, but again unless you've ever been agnostic you wouldn't know this personally for a fact, so you're not in any position to speak for or about agnostics and what we're actually like or feel inside. You can only go by your opinions.

I argue that if you do not instill your children with religious beliefs some else will try to.
Yeah, ain't that the truth! Not that I'd let anyone do that with my kids, if I ever had any.

Buddahism is atheististic over the path to salvation, yet is morally superior to Hinduism per se...
No religion is superior over any other, nor is there any proof to support that there is. It's just a personal opinion.

Speaking for myself again, I know that I'm not "parasicitic" upon Christanity, but again perhaps some others are, I dunno. And plenty of agnostics are quite full of morality, like me. You don't need religion to have morals. Mark

As I understand Pesti, he is not saying that agnostics have no morality or cannot act on moral principles. What he is trying to do is examine the source of their morality. Ultimately morality, or so it seems to me, comes from three sources, 1) religious philosophy (the greater good), 2) social contract (the good of society), and habits and attitudes learned in childhood. In most people, most morals derive in part from all three.

Any given moral decision is based on the habits and attitudes learned in childhood, but if it is questioned the other two sources lend their weight to the legitimacy of that decision. I think this is what Pestiwas trying to say when he defined Moral Capital.

The problem Pesti was trying to describe is that agnostics cannot use their religious philosophy to support their moral decisions, and must fall back only on the good of society. There is a potential pitfall there because there is no philosophical basis for the moral correctness of the good of society itself but itself.

Unlike Pesti, I feel that for the most part, this is more of a theoretical problem than a practical one because the human animal is "hard-wired" to be a social animal, so even without a philosophical basis, will accept the correctness of the concept of the common good.

I'm back. Everything's cool. More later. Can ya dig it?

Oh if only all the boards could be as in use as this one. Then I'd never be bored.

The Crucible, which has nonthing to do with clay triangels (Whoever gets thats gets boasting rights).

When doing chemistry experiments that require substances to be heated to very high temperatures, one places them in a porcelain vessel called a crucible. The crucible is then placed on a clay triangle suspended on a ring stand above some type of burner or other heat source (though I don't know what else you would use.)

I don't really like chemistry, I just remember irrelevant details.

Juli--
(I do not feel like participating in the discussion alerady in progress, so I will respond to...)

::To me, the word "intellectual" brings up visions of discussing political theory in Greek around the breakfast table, although I'm sure that's not exactly what you have in mind (is it?). I'd be interested in hearing your idea of an intellectual home in more detail, though.::

In Greek, no. In Hebrew, maybe. ;-)
Seriously, it's not impossibly far from what I had in mind. By "intellectual," I mean a balance between incessantly asking "Why???" and observing religious precepts "because God says so." I'm a big believer in study, and I want my home to be a place where the Torah is God's word, and yet constantly under scrutiny. An "intellectual home" to me is one where everybody is always seeking to understand something, being a student in some kind of class, discussing moral implications and legal theory around the breakfast table, and generally engaging their brains with their religion.

It's the opposite of intensely shallow Bible-thumping where, "God said so!" is the First, Last, and Final Answer to every possible query.

Okay, Kira, that makes sense to me, although it's not something that I could do in my own home (well, maybe around the supper table in Japanese, but definitely not at breakfast, and not in Hebrew OR Greek!).

Assuming you have a lot of kids in the future, do you think it's possible that one or two of them might not be interested in discussing things of an intellectual nature? How do you think you'll handle that.

In my family, everyone was different: my mother read a lot, but she didn't discuss much; my father liked to debate, but he never read; I liked a little of both; and my brother was interested in neither. So usually our suppers consisted of me and my (very conservative) father arguing about politics and my mother and brother looking at each other and rolling their eyes.

"A lot" will not be on the To Do List, but I know what you mean. ;-)

As long as the atmosphere is there, and Junior grows into an engaged, dynamic communicant (my new word for the week, heh heh heh!), I will be pleased. Discussion is ideal, but is only a symptom of a larger quality.

::It's the opposite of intensely shallow Bible-thumping where, "God said so!" is the First, Last, and Final Answer to every possible query.:: Kira Sharp

I know you didn't think of it that way when you wrote it, but that is kinda insulting to those of us who believe that way. We don't believe there is another necessary reason except, "God said so."

::Slavery is wrong simply because it's wrong.:: Captain Obvious

And you know this how?

::What I'd like to know is, how can they be disaffected and SWEET at the same time?:: Captain Obvious

Well, unless the parent has done something to the child to deserve it, they deserve respect and honor as being parents.

:: Oh, that's just lovely, Matt. Most agnostics are confused people, fodder for cults, and the reference for this is a fictional story. Just lovely.:: Captain Obvious

The sentiment is not automatically invalidated because of its source. Even the Bible says that it is better for you to be hot or cold than lukewarm.

::Yes, I know, j, and that's where you often misread posts, cuz you only get what you think we're saying, as opposed to what we're actually saying (or, um, trying to, at least).:: Mark N

I can't get anything perfect about what you think unless you tell me what you mean by something.

::*sigh* Jwb, you do realize that I already do disregard the Bible, right? At least as far as taking its stories for absolute fact and truth, which they're not. But you already knew that, didn't you?:: MarkN

Yes I do realize that, you just don't sound like you keep that in mind when you write things.

::It doesn't matter if members of either or both families feel hurt by it, or society frowns on it or whatever, cuz it's no one's business except for the couples' themselves, so everyone else can just butt out.:: MarkN

How sad it is that you feel that way.

How sadder that you feel you need to judge.

Mikey, anyone who told you judging anytime was wrong, wasn't reading and understanding properly the way I see it.

The question then becomes, Jwb, are you ready to have random strangers over the Internet slam your personal beliefs? Aren't you saying that all that verse means is, "If you're going to do it to someone else, you just better be ready to have it done to you?"

I can't get anything perfect about what you think unless you tell me what you mean by something.
And quite often not even then, Jwb...

Yes I do realize that, you just don't sound like you keep that in mind when you write things.
...such as here.

It doesn't matter if members of either or both families feel hurt by it, or society frowns on it or whatever, cuz it's no one's business except for the couples' themselves, so everyone else can just butt out.

How sad it is that you feel that way.

Jwb, that statement stands on its own with how I feel. Let's do a couple of what ifs, shall we?

Say you're my dad and you've raised me to be a good christian as well as you knew how, ok? I sang in the choir and did lots of church functions and tried my best to do everything I could to be the good christian you wanted me to be, and made you proud for it. But one day I had an epiphany, if you will, and realized, or at least thought in my mind, that what you've taught me all my life most likely wasn't true, that I'd begun to question it, and even begin to argue with you against it. You wouldn't be too happy, would you? No, but would you still love me even if I totally renounced everything you've taught me and expected from me in that regard, or would you disown me?

Now, suppose I never strayed from our religion at all but fell in love a woman of another religion with which you had nothing good to say about, and I was determined to see her and, if it came to it, to marry her against your wishes. Well, if I'm an adult then it's time I lead my own life, right? Even if you disagree with me on how I may do it, it's still my life to lead and that means loving whomever I wanted. What if I were gay and had a boyfriend? Would you feel insulted and ashamed and too embarassed to talk to or about me?

The bottom line in those cases above is simply that it's my business, and not yours, no matter how you raised me. You wouldn't have to agree with it but you'd have no choice but to butt out and let me live as I choose, and as long as I'm not harming anyone else then there's no biggie. If you felt harmed by it that'd be only by your own choosing, and nothing I'd ever intended, so then you'd have to learn to deal with it.

I hope that's clear enough for you to understand. If not, well, it's not through any doing on my part.

::The question then becomes, Jwb, are you ready to have random strangers over the Internet slam your personal beliefs? Aren't you saying that all that verse means is, "If you're going to do it to someone else, you just better be ready to have it done to you?"::

Yes, that is all it means and yes I believe I am ready. They do it now anyway.

MarkN, I don't really know how to respond to your situations without being tedious in the details of what would be wrong with your scenario in relation to me.

::You wouldn't be too happy, would you? No, but would you still love me even if I totally renounced everything you've taught me and expected from me in that regard, or would you disown me?:: MarkN

Love you? Yes. Accept it? No. Disown you? Possibly. It would depend on how far from what I taught you that you went.

::Now, suppose I never strayed from our religion at all but fell in love a woman of another religion with which you had nothing good to say about, and I was determined to see her and, if it came to it, to marry her against your wishes. Well, if I'm an adult then it's time I lead my own life, right? Even if you disagree with me on how I may do it, it's still my life to lead and that means loving whomever I wanted. What if I were gay and had a boyfriend? Would you feel insulted and ashamed and too embarassed to talk to or about me?:: MarkN

First of all, I would hope my children would not marry someone they knew I and my future spouse would not like. Second of all, if that happened, I would do my best to help the new daughter-in-law with her problems. I would try to talk the child out of it. No matter how old your children get, they are always your children. Your opinion should always matter to them. Would I be happy you are gay? No. Would I be ashamed to talk TO YOU? No. About you? Possibly. It would depend on how you handled it.

::The bottom line in those cases above is simply that it's my business, and not yours, no matter how you raised me. You wouldn't have to agree with it but you'd have no choice but to butt out and let me live as I choose, and as long as I'm not harming anyone else then there's no biggie. If you felt harmed by it that'd be only by your own choosing, and nothing I'd ever intended, so then you'd have to learn to deal with it.:: MarkN

I disagree, I don't think there's a magic age where your parents simply don't matter anymore and you can just do whatever the hell you like without thinking about them or the rest of your family. Harm has changed definitions these days. I would see what you were doing as harm if I saw it as wrong. I don't relegate the idea of harm to the physical realm. If you don't intend to hurt your parents, you either don't do things they don't like or don't tell them you do them. It's that simple.

::Slavery is wrong simply because it's wrong.:: Captain Obvious

::And you know this how?:: Jwb

Uh, because I have empathy for other people, a belief in the right of all people to be be free and happy, and a moral center and a conscience?

Are you saying that you ADVOCATE slavery?

::What I'd like to know is, how can they be disaffected and SWEET at the same time?:: Captain Obvious

::Well, unless the parent has done something to the child to deserve it, they deserve respect and honor as being parents.:: Jwb

I respectfully disagree (no pun intended).

You don't deserve respect simply because you spread your legs and popped out a kid, a biological act that every dumb animal on earth participates in (the sexual ones, that is.) You earn respect when you ACT RESPECTFULLY. I respect people who are intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, kind, friendly, who I can talk to, and who are honest enough to admit when they're wrong once and a while. I do not respect people who are cruel, st upid, close-minded, presumptuous, anti-intellect, malicious, etc. My Uncle Frank is a racist who, during a discussion that arose at a holiday dinner table about the LA riots or some other matter, referred to blacks as niggers. His son, Andrew, casually refers to blacks as niggers, (He once laughingly pointed to a cable documentary on apes, saying, "Hey, there they are!"), to Asians as chinks, and to Hispanic people as spics. Because of this, I don't have a strong rapprot with them, and feel sad whenever they say these things.

Now I'm lucky my parents aren't racist, but what if they WERE, Jwb? Should I accept and emulate their beliefs? If I say a given flaw or crime makes someone unworthy of my respect or love, that's the way it is. Respect is a feeling. You either feel respect for someone, or you don't. You can't just force yourself to feel something you don't. All you can do is be honest about your feelings.

If you act respectfully in someone's eyes, you'll earn their respect. If you act shamefully, you'll earn their shame. Saying that respect is some automatic priviledge that comes with parenthood, as if an idiot somehow becomes a wise old sage when he becomes a parent, no matter how dumb or evil he is, is something I simply disagree with.

Also, what does this have to do with being simultaneously disaffected and sweet?

:: Oh, that's just lovely, Matt. Most agnostics are confused people, fodder for cults, and the reference for this is a fictional story. Just lovely.:: Captain Obvious

::The sentiment is not automatically invalidated because of its source.:: Jwb

It wasn't a sentiment. Matt was making an argument about the effects of agnosticism on people, and rather than cite REAL LIFE studies on the subject, he appeared to be citing a fictional story, and his interpretation OF that story, to support the argument. It's like citing The Turner Diaries as "proof" that racism is the right way to go.

::Even the Bible says that it is better for you to be hot or cold than lukewarm.:: Jwb

I don't care. I don't agree with everything the Bible says.

::I disagree, I don't think there's a magic age where your parents simply don't matter anymore and you can just do whatever the hell you like without thinking about them or the rest of your family.:: Jwb.

Every person is an individual, and has the right to find their own path in life that they feel is right, and which will make them happy. How much each person chooses to consider what their parents would do is up to them. To say that you have to think about your parents implies that somehow a parent is always right. A parent is just someone who had a child. Having a kid doesn't make you Solomon.

Matt Pesti: I do not argue that agnostics are all cult fodder or that every religious person is solid in their faith. I argue that Cult members are drawn from the confused and by root meanings of words, agnostics are certainly "confused" concerning religion.

Luigi Novi: Bulls hit. That's just a bigotry, no matter how you slice it. When you make judgements on wide swaths of people you've never met, based solely on your biases, and not on anything substantial resembling proof, it's quite obvious that you're merely "other-izing" people whose choice you perceive as a threat. This assumption is merely a case of seeing purposefulness of design in what one is most familiar with (i.e.: I'm of this religion, therefore this religion is the best one.) Obviously, all religious bigots naturally assume they have the right religion, and others (or having none) are all wrong. What a convenient coincidence! Just how much research have you done on this subject? How many agnostics have you known? How many of them did you know well enough to make such broad generalizations on being agnostic? Were your samples accurately representative of agnostics in general in the country? In the world? How the hell do you figure this?

Why do you arbitrarily assign an element of ambiguity or doubt to one choice, and associate certainty to yours? Self-doubt and confusion are universal, Matt, and are not religion-specific. Agnostics are presumably no more "confused" about religion than anyone else. They simply choose not to have any. What does not choosing an aspect of one's lifestyle have to do with confusion about it?

Matt Pesti: Luigi: Atheists in ancient rome thought of themselves as moral due to the fact they refused to worship immoral gods. While I will always hold the Holy Faith claims the best hold on the Truth, it has little to do with this claim. Buddahism is atheististic over the path to salvation, yet is morally superior to Hinduism per se (Again, note my intellegent use of Latin). I belive I tried to explain how most agniostics live in a Christian moral worldview, having never built a agnostic moral worldview.

Luigi Novi: Putting aside the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, what does this have to do with agnostics being "parasites", which is what I originally responded to?

Love you? Yes. Accept it? No. Disown you? Possibly. It would depend on how far from what I taught you that you went.
Jwb, if I were your gay and/or atheistic son, how can you say you'd love me but disown me at the same time? That's contradictory. You don't disown a child you love.

First of all, I would hope my children would not marry someone they knew I and my future spouse would not like.
First of all, children always marry someone one or both parents don't like, and if yours did you really wouldn't have any say in the matter, especially if they truly loved each other and were strongly determined to make the relationship work.

Second of all, if that happened, I would do my best to help the new daughter-in-law with her problems. I would try to talk the child out of it.
Second of all, you'd have no right to talk your daughter/son-in-law out of their problems without their permission first. You can't just go up to them and say, "This is why I object to your marrying my son/daughter." If someone loves your child enough to marry them then they're gonna do it and your objections will have no weight at all with them. And BTW, children don't get married (except in the backwoods), adults do, so by that time they should be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. After all, did you choose your spouse only because your parents approved of her, even if you didn't and would've perferred someone else?

No matter how old your children get, they are always your children. Your opinion should always matter to them.
And their's should always matter to you. But you don't seem to believe that. Why, is way beyond me.

Would I be happy you are gay? No. Would I be ashamed to talk TO YOU? No. About you? Possibly. It would depend on how you handled it.
Do you have any idea just how many parents, even very religious ones, have gay children that they're extremely proud of, who don't care about their kids' sexuality, who can see beyond that minor aspect of their kids' lives? These are parents who are not only more than happy to talk about their kids, or to their kids, but to appear with their kids in gay parades and other functions. If these parents can feel that way about their gay kids then why couldn't you if you had gay kids?

I disagree, I don't think there's a magic age where your parents simply don't matter anymore and you can just do whatever the hell you like without thinking about them or the rest of your family.
And once again you've misinterpreted my words, J. I never said parents don't matter. Parents always matter, but guess what? Their children, especially when they've become adults, matter just as much, and can do whatever the hell they want as long as, again, they're not harming anyone else or doing anything illegal. Who you marry is nowhere near as big a problem as if you did something illegal and your parents had to bail you out, maybe dipping into their life savings and hoping the neighbors didn't find out, or that the national media didn't, either (well, as long as it didn't turn out that you married a recidivistic criminal, but you can't always predict that or else you'd've never married them in the first place, right?).

Harm has changed definitions these days. I would see what you were doing as harm if I saw it as wrong. I don't relegate the idea of harm to the physical realm. If you don't intend to hurt your parents, you either don't do things they don't like or don't tell them you do them. It's that simple.
No, it's not. If I'm completely in love a woman I wish to marry, despite your objections to her for whatever reason, and she's completely in love with me then there's no harm there. Why you'd want to think there was just cuz she may not have been your ideal mate for me is beyond me. How would you feel if your kid eloped with someone they knew you absolutely hated or at least didn't approve of? You'd feel hurt, but they probably did it cuz they'd feel hurt as well if you tried to stop them had they been more open about it. So you see, it works both ways. Just cuz you're a parent doesn't necessarily put you above your kids. If you want your kids to be good, productive citizens then you've got to let them make their own choices and mistakes. That's only human, and that's how we grow as humans.

Mark, loving and disowning is sort of applicable (I'd say loving and disapproving myself). It's when I say, "You're gay, son, and I will love you no matter what. But I cannot approve of your decision."

I agree about the "loving and disapproving" part. If your kid is gay and you say you love him/her but you're gonna disown them then you've just contradicted yourself cuz if you truly loved your kid, despite his/her sexuality (which really should be the least of your problems with them) then you wouldn't disown them for being gay. Now, regardless of their sexuality, if they were a psycho mass murderer then yes, disowning them would be perfectly acceptable, espec. when the news media came to your place in droves and hounded you about what your kid's done, how you felt about it, what s/he was like as a kid and so on. But just for being gay? Nahhh. If your kid being gay is the worst of your problems then I'd say you're doing pretty damned good.

Love you? Yes. Accept it? No. Disown you? Possibly. It would depend on how far from what I taught you that you went. JWB52Z

Jwb, if I were your gay and/or atheistic son, how can you say you'd love me but disown me at the same time? That's contradictory. You don't disown a child you love. {MarkN}

Mark-

While I'm not sure that I would quite go so far as to say that I could both love and disown someone at the same time, Jwb does have a better understanding of what love is than you do. Love is not unconditional approval of everything the other person does. Not even the most loyal of dogs does that, though they do come closer than any rational human can. Loving someone is wishing the best for them at all times.

Sometimes when they are on a distructive course and won't be turned away, it is necessary to shock them into realizing what they are doing. When an addict's family and friends hold an "intervention," even if they then have to turn him out of their lives because he still won't listen, that is more loving (in a constructive way) than just continung to "enable" him.

Shunning, as it is practiced by the Amish and related sects, is usually not "forever," but just until the destructive behavior ends. As soon as reconciliation is sought, the strayed lamb is welcomed back into the fold.

I'm not saying that any of your hypotheticals is "wrong" enough to warrent shunning, but those were just some possible examples, and both you and JWB were considering generalities in your more philosophical responses.

...Jwb does have a better understanding of what love is than you do.
No, he doesn't. He's just got his own idea of it, is all, one that I disagree with. That doesn't mean his view is any better than, or supercedes mine, as your statement strongly implies.

But answer me this: why do you think J's idea of love is valid and mine's not, espec. if you said none of my hypotheticals are wrong? Please clarify that for me. And you'll also want to remember something else: you're coming at this from a closeminded, judgemental, biased, religious view, whereas I come at it in an openminded, nonjudgemental, unbiased, nonreligious view because I can accept gays for what they are: people first. Everything else is secondary: their sexuality, religion (or lack thereof), gender, ethnicity, etc. Of course that goes perfectly well for straights and bi's, too, cuz everyone is a person first. Why Christians choose not to realize that is way beyond me, and why they waste so much time hating and misunderstanding the greatest gift God gave us is just appalling. We're all sexual beings (except for those rare individuals called "neuters"), but Christians would rather hate sex of any kind rather than embrace it, unless of course in marriage and then it's only in the dark, with clothes on and just the genitals exposed in order to procreate and that's it. Yes, I'm being a bit silly, cuz I realize that's not how it is for majority of Chrisitians, but that is what many of them give the impression of.

Look, I'm not advocating things like promiscuity or adultery, but I am advocating stop focusing on someone's sexuality (which again is no one's business) and learn to love them as a person first because they are a person first. Christ preached love for everyone, so why can't you follow his perfect example? If you can't, or choose not to, then you're not really a Christian, are you (unless being Christian means being a hypocrite, and very many are)? Like they say, what would Jesus do?

Love is not unconditional approval of everything the other person does.
That's right. I never said it was, did I?

Loving someone is wishing the best for them at all times.
Agreed, and that includes letting them live their lives as they see fit with no interference from you if they don't want it. Otherwise, you're imposing your views on them, which could royally p¡ss them off to no end (I know it would me), and have lifelong repercussions, which in turn would mean you failed to "change" them, if that was your goal. Do unto others, blah, blah, blah.

Sometimes when they are on a destructive course and won't be turned away, it is necessary to shock them into realizing what they are doing. When an addict's family and friends hold an "intervention," even if they then have to turn him out of their lives because he still won't listen, that is more loving (in a constructive way) than just continuing to "enable" him.
Why do you equate drug use with homosexuality? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One chooses whether or not to start doing drugs and become addicted, but one doesn't always choose one's own sexuality. I'm not gonna get into whether it's genetic or a choice (though I believe some do choose it, or if they realize they're gay they choose to accept it and live that lifestyle), cuz I really don't care. Why? Because it's none of my business, so I suggest you don't make it yours as well.

I've one final question for you. Which is worse in your opinion: someone who's gay, kind, considerate, productive, the best friend you could have, nonjudgemental, tolerant and who'd give you the shirt off his back, or an unconscionable, homocidal mass murderer who kills on a whim without a care for his victims or their families, who has a superiority complex, and who doesn't live in reality? Many Christians (or at least some who call themselves Christian) seem to think that only for the fact of being gay makes you a bad person, and that's just not true, so I want to know where you fit in there.

Sometimes when they are on a distructive course and won't be turned away, it is necessary to shock them into realizing what they are doing. When an addict's family and friends hold an "intervention," even if they then have to turn him out of their lives because he still won't listen, that is more loving (in a constructive way) than just continung to "enable" him.

I agree with the idea of "tough love," Tom, but I don't think it has to be an all-or-nothing "either disown or enable" proposition. Disowning is not the same as Amish "shunning." Once you have said, "You are no longer my son," there is no turning back. Even if the son did get himself together, it would be nearly impossible for him to come back, because everybody's pride would be in the way.

With a drug addict, it would be much better to say, "Nobody in this family will see you or speak to you until we are satisfied that you are completely drug free and are going to stay that way. Until that time, don't even bother to try and contact us. Goodbye and good luck." That way, you imply that there is a choice--it's either the drug or the family--and that the person has something to look forward to once they have cleaned up their act. Disowning the person takes that away from him.

If you are going to let the words "disown" cross your lips, you had better be sure that whatever that person did is so horrible that you don't even want to see them on your (or their) deathbed. Otherwise, you set yourself and everybody in the family up for a lifetime of heartbreak and regrets.

What would Jesus do?

Jesus loved everybody, yes, but he wasn't "sit back and let people do anything they want." He viciously insulted religious hypocrites, he talked tough (although kindly) with the woman at the well, he called Peter "Satan" when he screwed up, etc.

I think that a Christian following Jesus' example as a father, when faced with a gay son, should do the following things.

1. Talk to the son. Determine that choosing to become homosexual is a mature decision, not a petty case of rebellion or spite.

2. Tell him that you will always love him. Assure him of that.

3. Say that you cannot support or approve of his decision. Say that you are disappointed, and remind him of your/his faith.

4. Pray to God, and let things play out as He wishes.

Love is not unconditional approval of everything the other person does.
That's right. I never said it was, did I?

I went back over your posts and it looks like I read things into them that weren't there. I apologize. Since my statement about your understanding of what love is was based on my interpreting your statements to mean something which you say you did not mean, it was wrong factually, and any judgment of its correctness would be wrong and innappropriate.

But then again, you did the same thing with my posts. For example, I never said that love (or worse emotions that get tangled up with love and confused for it) excuse any and all interference in a persons's life. (that includes letting them live their lives as they see fit with no interference from you if they don't want it. Otherwise, you're imposing your views on them, which could royally p¡ss them off to no end.) Nor did I ever equate the "wrongness" of being Gay with drug addiction. I specifically said I was not sure that any of your specific examples was wrong, but that the generalized conclusion was (and I should have said "seemed to me to be") that you didn't think the parents should interfere in the life of an adult child under any circumstances, and I was just giving an example where that interference was warranted.


Juli-

I never claimed that it was all-or-nothing, just that if it did go so far, it would not necessarily mean that the love was broken. Nor did I say that the "failed" intervention would result in disowning the addict. There was only one place where I mentioned the word disown (other than in the quotes from JWB and Mark), and I did indicate that I thought that word and that action might be inappropriately extreme.

1. Talk to the son. Determine that choosing to become homosexual is a mature decision, not a petty case of rebellion or spite.

Error: You assume it's a choice.

Peter, stop stealing the coal from the bathroom sink, you silly disgusing little girl!

::Uh, because I have empathy for other people, a belief in the right of all people to be be free and happy, and a moral center and a conscience?:: Captain Obvious

Done properly, it would not be abusive and they would be treated well. If that's your only objection to it, find another. It's only a fairly recent idea that people don't have the right to own each other. You only believe it is wrong because you have been taught that. Your being taught that molded you into responding to it as being totally wrong all the time.

::Are you saying that you ADVOCATE slavery?:: Captain Obvious

If it is done as the Bible suggests, yes, I'm ok with it.

::You don't deserve respect simply because you spread your legs and popped out a kid, a biological act that every dumb animal on earth participates in (the sexual ones, that is.) You earn respect when you ACT RESPECTFULLY. I respect people who are intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, kind, friendly, who I can talk to, and who are honest enough to admit when they're wrong once and a while. I do not respect people who are cruel, st upid, close-minded, presumptuous, anti-intellect, malicious, etc. My Uncle Frank is a racist who, during a discussion that arose at a holiday dinner table about the LA riots or some other matter, referred to blacks as niggers. His son, Andrew, casually refers to blacks as niggers, (He once laughingly pointed to a cable documentary on apes, saying, "Hey, there they are!"), to Asians as chinks, and to Hispanic people as spics. Because of this, I don't have a strong rapprot with them, and feel sad whenever they say these things.:: Captain Obvious

You don't think of what a parent is properly. A parent is not just each of the people who screwed around and had a baby. They are the person who raises the baby and cares for it.

::Now I'm lucky my parents aren't racist, but what if they WERE, Jwb? Should I accept and emulate their beliefs? If I say a given flaw or crime makes someone unworthy of my respect or love, that's the way it is. Respect is a feeling. You either feel respect for someone, or you don't. You can't just force yourself to feel something you don't. All you can do is be honest about your feelings.:: Captain Obvious

You don't have to accept anything or emulate anything. I do believe that parents should be respected and honored as commanded by God simply because they are who they are as parents.

::Also, what does this have to do with being simultaneously disaffected and sweet?:: Captain Obvious

I was asked other questions I was responding to here.

::It wasn't a sentiment. Matt was making an argument about the effects of agnosticism on people, and rather than cite REAL LIFE studies on the subject, he appeared to be citing a fictional story, and his interpretation OF that story, to support the argument. It's like citing The Turner Diaries as "proof" that racism is the right way to go.:: Captain Obvious

Nope, sorry. I don't buy into the theory of circular logic very much.

::I don't care. I don't agree with everything the Bible says.:: Captain Obvious

Why should it matter whether you care or not as to what the Bible says?

::Every person is an individual, and has the right to find their own path in life that they feel is right, and which will make them happy. How much each person chooses to consider what their parents would do is up to them. To say that you have to think about your parents implies that somehow a parent is always right. A parent is just someone who had a child. Having a kid doesn't make you Solomon.:: Captain Obvious

The first sentence is too close to "if it feels good, do it" for me. That's just, well, the only word I can think of is, "nasty." I disagree with the rest of what you say here. I know you don't care what God says. Parents are not always right, but they should always be thought of so as not to disgrace your family unintentionally or intentionally. A parent is NOT just a person who screwed around and got a baby. That's a sperm and egg donor. Those are not parents.

::Jwb, if I were your gay and/or atheistic son, how can you say you'd love me but disown me at the same time? That's contradictory. You don't disown a child you love.:: MarkN

As the Bible says, love the sinner hate the sin. In other words, I don't stop loving you, but I will not support what I believe to be wrong, in any form.

::First of all, children always marry someone one or both parents don't like, and if yours did you really wouldn't have any say in the matter, especially if they truly loved each other and were strongly determined to make the relationship work.:: MarkN

Well, they are wrong for not thinking how their parents will feel before they decide to marry someone. As I said before, I wouldn't support things I think are wrong, and even if they are not technically a sin.

::Second of all, you'd have no right to talk your daughter/son-in-law out of their problems without their permission first. You can't just go up to them and say, "This is why I object to your marrying my son/daughter." If someone loves your child enough to marry them then they're gonna do it and your objections will have no weight at all with them. And BTW, children don't get married (except in the backwoods), adults do, so by that time they should be mature enough to make that decision for themselves. After all, did you choose your spouse only because your parents approved of her, even if you didn't and would've perferred someone else?:: MarkN

It is my right as a parent to have my child do what I think they should no matter how old they are unless I am unable to stop them. A parent doesn't ask permission of a child, it is the other way around. You bring your child into the world, you can take them out. If the day comes that my child feels that what I say does not matter, I will have done something wrong in raising them when they were growing up for that to happen. Oh, by the way, where I come from talking about marriages with phrases like "in the back woods" is offensive. It's not automatically wrong for a kid to get married if they are responsible and are marrying a responsible person themselves. Yes, I am not married, but I would not choose a person I knew my parents would not like or want around.

::Do you have any idea just how many parents, even very religious ones, have gay children that they're extremely proud of, who don't care about their kids' sexuality, who can see beyond that minor aspect of their kids' lives? These are parents who are not only more than happy to talk about their kids, or to their kids, but to appear with their kids in gay parades and other functions. If these parents can feel that way about their gay kids then why couldn't you if you had gay kids?:: MarkN

I know it happens, I just think it is wrong for people to accept things that are wrong according to God. I don't support what I see as wrong, in any form.

::And once again you've misinterpreted my words, J. I never said parents don't matter. Parents always matter, but guess what? Their children, especially when they've become adults, matter just as much, and can do whatever the hell they want as long as, again, they're not harming anyone else or doing anything illegal. Who you marry is nowhere near as big a problem as if you did something illegal and your parents had to bail you out, maybe dipping into their life savings and hoping the neighbors didn't find out, or that the national media didn't, either (well, as long as it didn't turn out that you married a recidivistic criminal, but you can't always predict that or else you'd've never married them in the first place, right?).:: MarkN

I disagree with what you say about children being able to do whatever they like. No matter how old they get, they are always your kids and must consider what you want. Again, I don't think of harm as being relegated to physical terms. If I don't like what my children do, that is a form of harm to me.

::And their's should always matter to you. But you don't seem to believe that. Why, is way beyond me.:: MarkN

Yes, but not to the point of allowing them to do things you think is wrong as their parent without a fight.

::No, it's not. If I'm completely in love a woman I wish to marry, despite your objections to her for whatever reason, and she's completely in love with me then there's no harm there. Why you'd want to think there was just cuz she may not have been your ideal mate for me is beyond me. How would you feel if your kid eloped with someone they knew you absolutely hated or at least didn't approve of? You'd feel hurt, but they probably did it cuz they'd feel hurt as well if you tried to stop them had they been more open about it. So you see, it works both ways. Just cuz you're a parent doesn't necessarily put you above your kids. If you want your kids to be good, productive citizens then you've got to let them make their own choices and mistakes. That's only human, and that's how we grow as humans.:: MarkN

Yes, it is that simple, people just want to make things purposely complicated by clouding the issue with irrelevant cr ap. Yes, it is harm because in doing what I don't like it is harming me in my mind. Any child who would go against their parents' and family's wishes is ungrateful. Also, no matter what you think, a parent IS above their children in the scheme of things. They're the ones in charge. You simply teach them what they need to do and how to act and make sure they do it or have them punished. Eventually people will learn not to disobey.

::Mark, loving and disowning is sort of applicable (I'd say loving and disapproving myself). It's when I say, "You're gay, son, and I will love you no matter what. But I cannot approve of your decision.":: MikeC

Thank you, but I would be a little bit more strict or harsh than you would apparently.

::I agree about the "loving and disapproving" part. If your kid is gay and you say you love him/her but you're gonna disown them then you've just contradicted yourself cuz if you truly loved your kid, despite his/her sexuality (which really should be the least of your problems with them) then you wouldn't disown them for being gay. Now, regardless of their sexuality, if they were a psycho mass murderer then yes, disowning them would be perfectly acceptable, espec. when the news media came to your place in droves and hounded you about what your kid's done, how you felt about it, what s/he was like as a kid and so on. But just for being gay? Nahhh. If your kid being gay is the worst of your problems then I'd say you're doing pretty damned good.:: MarkN

You don't approve of sinful things or support them, that's just the way it goes. You have too much of a stratified morality for my taste. It's too separated like a mesh as far as I can see. Some things you let through and others you don't even though both are bad.

::Jwb does have a better understanding of what love is than you do.:: TomM

Thank you Tom, and yes I do, MarkN.

::No, he doesn't. He's just got his own idea of it, is all, one that I disagree with. That doesn't mean his view is any better than, or supercedes mine, as your statement strongly implies.:: MarkN

Your idea of love is flawed and mine is superior because it is more distinct. I would say that does make it better. BTW, yes, shunning like the Amish do is a better term than "disown."

::And you'll also want to remember something else: you're coming at this from a closeminded, judgemental, biased, religious view, whereas I come at it in an openminded, nonjudgemental, unbiased, nonreligious view because I can accept gays for what they are: people first.:: MarkN

You'll want to recognize that you're being condescending and rude. You can't even comprehend that someone who doesn't agree with you is anywhere near right because it hurts your idea of being fair and being nice. Actions matter, it's just that simple. Stop making life so complicated with irrelevancies.

::but Christians would rather hate sex of any kind rather than embrace it, unless of course in marriage and then it's only in the dark, with clothes on and just the genitals exposed in order to procreate and that's it.:: MarkN

Wrong, except for the "in marriage" part. Everything before or after it is wrong. Sex is for marriage. It was designated by God to be that way.

::Look, I'm not advocating things like promiscuity or adultery, but I am advocating stop focusing on someone's sexuality (which again is no one's business) and learn to love them as a person first because they are a person first. Christ preached love for everyone, so why can't you follow his perfect example? If you can't, or choose not to, then you're not really a Christian, are you (unless being Christian means being a hypocrite, and very many are)? Like they say, what would Jesus do?:: MarkN

I would love anyone AS A PERSON, but that does not mean I will want them around as long as they are doing things I consider to be sinful. They need to be shown, or taught, that they are acting improperly as TomM explained. If the person or people chooses not to come to that realization after thinking about it, that's their problem. Christ also preached "fire and brimstone" for everyone who didn't do what God wanted and that they would burn in Hell for it. You can't just forget about that. You have to take both. Being unreligious, I can't really expect you to have a good understanding of what being a Christian is, but at least it's not any worse than most incorrect denominations.

::Agreed, and that includes letting them live their lives as they see fit with no interference from you if they don't want it. Otherwise, you're imposing your views on them, which could royally p¡ss them off to no end (I know it would me), and have lifelong repercussions, which in turn would mean you failed to "change" them, if that was your goal. Do unto others, blah, blah, blah.:: MarkN

Wanting the best for someone is NOT letting them do whatever the hell they want when you can see something bad coming out of it if they are allowed to do it. That's called being careless and not a friend or loving. As for doing unto others, I would want someone to tell me they can see I'm probably going down a bad path.

::Why do you equate drug use with homosexuality? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One chooses whether or not to start doing drugs and become addicted, but one doesn't always choose one's own sexuality. I'm not gonna get into whether it's genetic or a choice (though I believe some do choose it, or if they realize they're gay they choose to accept it and live that lifestyle), cuz I really don't care. Why? Because it's none of my business, so I suggest you don't make it yours as well.:: MarkN

It's called, "equating two things that are wrong," but you won't agree to that idea. God says that there are no sins that are worse or less than any others. BTW, morality of the human race is always everyone's business.

::I've one final question for you. Which is worse in your opinion: someone who's gay, kind, considerate, productive, the best friend you could have, nonjudgemental, tolerant and who'd give you the shirt off his back, or an unconscionable, homocidal mass murderer who kills on a whim without a care for his victims or their families, who has a superiority complex, and who doesn't live in reality? Many Christians (or at least some who call themselves Christian) seem to think that only for the fact of being gay makes you a bad person, and that's just not true, so I want to know where you fit in there.:: MarkN

Nonjudgemental and tolerant are not always good. They can lead to the idea of "if it feels good, do it." That's just wrong. Unless God tells me, and I don't think God talks to people anymore in a physical sense, that being anything but heterosexual, is accepted by Him, I will not accept it. I will not support it. Both that and drug use are equal to God and they are equal to me. Being gay does not make you evil, but it does make you a sinner who is unrepentant and willful.

::Even if the son did get himself together, it would be nearly impossible for him to come back, because everybody's pride would be in the way.:: juli k

Maybe someone should remind the Amish that Pride is a sin too. TomM, I'm kinda disappointed in your last post before this one about what I thought you had said and apparently didn't mean it like it sounded.

::1. Talk to the son. Determine that choosing to become homosexual is a mature decision, not a petty case of rebellion or spite.

Error: You assume it's a choice.:: Matthew Patterson

To be sin, it has to be a choice. You have to choose to sin, therefore it is a choice because the Bible says that it is wrong. It's just that simple.

Sorry, Tom, but to be honest, I had a hard time reading exactly what you were saying in that post. At least now (after your more recent post) I know why.

The point I was trying to make was more a semantic one. You seemed to be implying that to disown someone need be no more permanent than the Amish tradition of "shunning," and I just wanted to show that most people think of disowning as very permanent. So basically, I guess, my post was a misunderstanding based on your misunderstanding of Mark's post, so you can disregard it.

It's confusing when you can't talk to people face to face....

1. Talk to the son. Determine that choosing to become homosexual is a mature decision, not a petty case of rebellion or spite.

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Some times I forget why we're friends. It's not a choice. Believe, there are some days where I wish I was gay (especially after a woman breaks my heart), but no matter how hard I try, it'll never happne. Why? Becuase I'm hetero, and I'm just going to have to deal with it.

Jw: I am losing respect for you faster than the turnover rate at the movie theatre I used to work at. And tha't pretty fast since while I was there it seemd that someone quit every 36 hours.

Juli-

I know.

Not being able to hear the inflections in the voice, or the expression on the face of the speaker, it is easy to incorrectly "read between the lines." Sometimes without even realizing that what you find there does not exist except in your own mind. I try to be careful when reading others' posts, but I often don't even see it until after I've made a fool of myself.

I know that it happens to my writings, even with people who do know me face-to-face, and who should understand my real point better. Because of this I try to choose my words very carefully in forums like this, but the more careful i am in the choice of words I use, the more I discover that I chose someone's "hot-button word, or just made it that much harder to follow my point.

It is my right as a parent to have my child do what I think they should no matter how old they are unless I am unable to stop them. Jwb52z

No. It is your duty as a parent to raise your children to be upright and independant adults. If you do this duty right, they will hopefully respect the wishes of (or at least address the concerns of) any other persons that their decisions will affect, and to have a special respect for you as their teacher, freind, and parent.

Morally, your "right" as a parent to interfere in your children's life should be something that you relinquish as they grow and learn to make important decsions on their own; legally, it ends when they reach the age of majority.

Maybe someone should remind the Amish that Pride is a sin too. Jwb52z

You've totally lost me there. Perhaps you should look over my post and Juli's response again, and even more importantly our later posts about reading into things more than what is there.

TomM, I'm kinda disappointed in your last post before this one about what I thought you had said and apparently didn't mean it like it sounded. Jwb52z

Jwb, I am a Christian and am conservative, but I can't always agree with your conclusions, and even on things that we do agree on, I don't always agree with the arguments that you use to justify them.

Neither do I think that just pounding people like Mark and "Captain Obvious" on the head with "God said so," or "It says so in the Bible" is very productive when they have repeatedly said that they do not hold those statements in the same regard that you want them to.

On the other hand, since those statements are meaningful to you, let me remind you that not only does the Bible say "Honor thy mother and thy father," it also says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." Colossians 3:21

Because of this I try to choose my words very carefully in forums like this, but the more careful i am in the choice of words I use, the more I discover that I chose someone's "hot-button word, or just made it that much harder to follow my point.

At the risk of sounding religious, Amen to that.

::Even if the son did get himself together, it would be nearly impossible for him to come back, because everybody's pride would be in the way.:: juli k

Maybe someone should remind the Amish that Pride is a sin too.

No, Jwb. Pride gets in the way when you disown someone. The Amish do not disown, they "shun," which is less permanent. I wasn't talking about the Amish at all, and I don't know where you got the idea that I was.

This is the semantic difference I mentioned. I think you have confused the meanings of "disown" and "shun." All this time, when you said "disown," I thought you were talking about breaking off a relationship with a family member permanently, but now you say, ...[Y]es, shunning like the Amish do is a better term than "disown." I don't see how one can be a better term than another when they are two completely different things. I have a feeling that some of the responses to you are based in part on this confusion.

About slavery. Oh, what a can of worms you've opened up, Jwb! Just a question to start with--if someone captured you and pressed you into slavery, would you be okay with it? (If so, I have a huge pile of work I'd like you to do. I'll feed you well and treat you nicely, and you won't miss your freedom in the slightest....) Can you explain how slavery fits in with the idea of "doing unto others"?

the Bible says that it is wrong.

The Bible also says that it is wrong to:

*Eat the camel, the hare, the rock badger, the pig, and a huge list of birds. (Deut. 14:1-21)

*Wear mixed fabrics of wool and linen woven together. (Deut. 22:11)

Just off the top of my head, you understand.

Jwb, if you're going to keep one part of Levitical law it seems to me that you ought to keep all of it, otherwise you're just doing the same thing you accuse others of doing: picking and choosing what to follow. You just happen to do it differently, and then rationalize to yourself somehow that you're not.

At this point, I don't think we know enough to decide if being gay is a choice or not. Regardless, the Bible shouldn't be the source to tell us, as it is not a treatise on genetics, environment versus heredity, and/or psychological phenomena. Let us leave it to guide us in spiritual matters, not temporal matters such as this.

::Jw: I am losing respect for you faster than the turnover rate at the movie theatre I used to work at. And tha't pretty fast since while I was there it seemd that someone quit every 36 hours.:: Brian Webber

I am sorry, but I won't change for anyone with regards to morality.

::No. It is your duty as a parent to raise your children to be upright and independant adults. If you do this duty right, they will hopefully respect the wishes of (or at least address the concerns of) any other persons that their decisions will affect, and to have a special respect for you as their teacher, freind, and parent.:: TomM

That's true, but I still believe I am right.

::Morally, your "right" as a parent to interfere in your children's life should be something that you relinquish as they grow and learn to make important decsions on their own; legally, it ends when they reach the age of majority.:: TomM

It doesn't end if they keep on making the wrong decisions. I don't really agree with this "18 is adult" thing.

::You've totally lost me there. Perhaps you should look over my post and Juli's response again, and even more importantly our later posts about reading into things more than what is there.:: TomM

Juli k was talking about the Amish and pride and that was my comment that Pride was also a sin.

:n the other hand, since those statements are meaningful to you, let me remind you that not only does the Bible say "Honor thy mother and thy father," it also says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." Colossians 3:21:: TomM

That does not mean "do not make your children mad." It means, "Raise your children in such a way as so they will not want to make bad decisions and commit crimes later." Or, looking at it another way, "wrath" means outbursts of inappropriate thought or behavior. You stop this wrath by discipline and appropriate punishment until they learn how to act and decide things properly.

::No, Jwb. Pride gets in the way when you disown someone. The Amish do not disown, they "shun," which is less permanent. I wasn't talking about the Amish at all, and I don't know where you got the idea that I was.:: juli k

You were talking about shunning and disowning in relation to the Amish and then you said that if you don't think about what "disown" really means very seriously, you would end up with pride getting in the way if you really mean to let the person you "disown" back in to your family one day.

::I don't see how one can be a better term than another when they are two completely different things.:: juli k

I think of them as related by degrees of treatment.

::About slavery. Oh, what a can of worms you've opened up, Jwb! Just a question to start with--if someone captured you and pressed you into slavery, would you be okay with it? (If so, I have a huge pile of work I'd like you to do. I'll feed you well and treat you nicely, and you won't miss your freedom in the slightest....) Can you explain how slavery fits in with the idea of "doing unto others"?:: juli k

I wouldn't have mentioned it again if I hadn't been asked about slavery. I wouldn't really LIKE slavery if it were done like we used to do it in the Old South. If it is done properly, it is more like working without a salary in a job. It's only thought of as some horrible thing because humanity never has done it properly. The term slave has gotten a bad connotation. A better term is servant. I don't really know a way to explain it to someone who can't entertain the idea at all that it could be ok if done properly.

::*Eat the camel, the hare, the rock badger, the pig, and a huge list of birds. (Deut. 14:1-21)

*Wear mixed fabrics of wool and linen woven together. (Deut. 22:11)

Just off the top of my head, you understand.:: Matthew Patterson.

The New Testament overrided the old ceremonial and food laws.

::Jwb, if you're going to keep one part of Levitical law it seems to me that you ought to keep all of it, otherwise you're just doing the same thing you accuse others of doing: picking and choosing what to follow. You just happen to do it differently, and then rationalize to yourself somehow that you're not.:: Matthew Patterson

No, you only keep laws that are not overriden by another part of the Bible. I'm not picking and choosing. I believe God did away with most of the old law except that which was not overridden by the new New Testament.

::At this point, I don't think we know enough to decide if being gay is a choice or not. Regardless, the Bible shouldn't be the source to tell us, as it is not a treatise on genetics, environment versus heredity, and/or psychological phenomena. Let us leave it to guide us in spiritual matters, not temporal matters such as this.:: Matthew Patterson

Morality is not a temporal mattter, it is absolute.

MikeC, I almost fully agree with your four points, except for the first one's second sentence. It's not a choice necessarily. However, I see nothing wrong with talking to your gay child(ren) about their sexuality because if you don't understand it, or even if you do, it's always best to hear their side to try to better understand their view. That's what too many families don't do, is simply talk. Why, or who's at fault isn't so much the issue (if at all) as just not talking at all. Make the effort. It'll make a world of difference. (Jeez, I sound like one of them "Put children first" commercials. eechhh!! )

I went back over your posts and it looks like I read things into them that weren't there. I apologize.
Accepted. Although I wasn't wanting to strangle ya, I was just a bit miffed cuz I have this thing about people assuming they know things about me that they so don't, like when TV ads say, "You'll feel this about our product or service", or "You'll wanna see this movie again and again", so I know I can go overboard sometimes. But hey, at least I didn't lace it with a ton of cussing that time! That's gotta account for something, right?

But then again, you did the same thing with my posts.
Well, yeah, we all at one time or another misinterpret each other's words, either cuz the author didn't express themselves as they meant to (like me sometimes), or the reader wasn't in the best mood, or they were distracted by something or whatever. Like you told Juli: Not being able to hear the inflections in the voice, or the expression on the face of the speaker, it is easy to incorrectly "read between the lines.

I thought it seemed to me that you equated homosexuality with drug addiction, but later I also realized that you didn't, cuz you didn't specifically say as much. However, although I'm straight, I see no wrongness about being gay. It's just part of the human sex drive (and that of many animal species, too) that, if God exists, was given to us by him. Sure, we decide what to do with it (enjoy it a lot or not at all or use it to get whatever we want, etc.) but like I said before I dunno what determines our sexuality but again we do decide what we're gonna do with it. And if I did say anything wrong to you from misreading your message then I apologize for that. Trust me, it'll happen again with all of us, and more than once.

That does not mean "do not make your children mad." Jwb52z

I never said that! In fact I didn't say anything at all, other than quote the words of the Scripture itelf. (Or do you read that into the Scripture and then disagree with your own interpretation?) My point in the whole post is that parenthood should be about responsibility, not rights, and that the Scripture demands as much from the parents as it does from the children.

Can you explain how slavery fits in with the idea of "doing unto others"? juli k

If it is done properly, it is more like working without a salary in a job. ... I don't really know a way to explain it to someone who can't entertain the idea at all that it could be ok if done properly. Jwb52z

and

No, you only keep laws that are not overriden by another part of the Bible. Jwb52z


So you accept that there are things which God used to "break" the Israelites of their stubborn pride and stiff-necked obstinancy that He has decided are no longer applicable today. Isn't it just possible that there are things that were "tolerated" because of that pride and obstinancy that He would prefer we learn to rise above? Matthew 19:8 specifically addresses this question in relationship with divorce, but surely you don't think that is the only one? The only New Testament passage written about slavery to a slave owner* was Paul's letter to Philemon, in which he asks Philemon to recieve the slave Onesimus "Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." This does not sound as if Paul (nor The Spirit which inspired him) accepts slavery in the one situation where his words can affect change for the good. (* There are other passages where slaves are addressed and are instructed to accept the suffering of their position, but that is more in line with [as we would say today] finding their own center in a situation they cannot change, rather than giving an imprimatur to the system. I believe that there may be other practices which have been tolerated and are wrongly thought to be endorsed as well, but none that I am specifically prepared to argue right now.

BTW --

When I was looking up the Colossians verse, I noticed that almost all of the passages about "provoking" someone to "wrath" were the Israelites "provoking" God. Are you saying that God has "outbursts of inappropriate thought or behavior"? ( )

::Slavery is wrong simply because it's wrong.:: Captain Obvious

::And you know this how?:: Jwb

::Uh, because I have empathy for other people, a belief in the right of all people to be be free and happy, and a moral center and a conscience?:: Captain Obvious

::Done properly, it would not be abusive and they would be treated well. If that's your only objection to it, find another. It's only a fairly recent idea that people don't have the right to own each other. You only believe it is wrong because you have been taught that. Your being taught that molded you into responding to it as being totally wrong all the time.:: Jwb

::Are you saying that you ADVOCATE slavery?:: Captain Obvious

::If it is done as the Bible suggests, yes, I'm ok with it.::

Beautiful. In addition to being a childish, delusional hypocrite, you're a slavery advocate as well.:: Jwb

So if someone or a group of people wanted to institute slavery, say, as it's being done in the Sudan right now--you'd have no problem with it?

What exactly would be your criteria for "acceptable" slavery? (In other words, how specifically do you feel the Bible says it should be done?) Only certain races of people? If someone wanted to make you a slave, and did it according to the Bible, would that be acceptable.

::You only believe it is wrong because you have been taught that.::Jwb

I haven't been taught ANYTHING on the subject. My conclusions on the subject are my own, and I really wish you could, just for a second, recognize how condescending you can be when you say things like this. Why do you automatically ASSUME you know how or why I came to a certain conclusion? Because I'm too s tupid to arrive at a given conclusion on my own? I was raised Catholic, and yet, I don't agree with everything the Bible says, or in general with everything I was taught in school.

You do not know me.

You know nothing about me, yet you make these ridiculous assumptions about me. (And then have the nerve to play the victim when others say something to you that you take offense to.) There's nothing WRONG, mind you, with being taught a certain belief or principle (I assume it's possible that YOUR religious beliefs might have been "taught" to you?), and I don't know why you feel that holding a principle that was "taught" to you is some indication that the person holding it has a less than sincere or intelligent belief in it, but as it so happens, my feelings that slavery is wrong doesn't require a map and slide rule to figure out.

::Your being taught that molded you into responding to it as being totally wrong all the time.:: Jwb

You don't know that.

And, it's not true. My parents and teachers didn't teach me anything about slavery. I learn things, in part, because I READ. Do you know how to read? You ignorant F U C K?




::Now I'm lucky my parents aren't racist, but what if they WERE, Jwb? Should I accept and emulate their beliefs? If I say a given flaw or crime makes someone unworthy of my respect or love, that's the way it is. Respect is a feeling. You either feel respect for someone, or you don't. You can't just force yourself to feel something you don't. All you can do is be honest about your feelings.:: Captain Obvious

::You don't have to accept anything or emulate anything. I do believe that parents should be respected and honored as commanded by God simply because they are who they are as parents.:: Jwb

Fidel Castro’s daughter lives in a city adjacent to mine. She speaks out against her father. Do you believe that she should not do so, even if she is morally opposed to his regime, and it’s actions toward the Cuban people? Similarly, if Charles Manson, or Adolf Hitler, had kids, and their children came to feel that they were evil men, should they be respected? And if not, where do you draw the line? When are certain acts, that a person’s child sincerely believes are wrong, grounds for those children to lose respect?

::Also, what does this have to do with being simultaneously disaffected and sweet?:: Captain Obvious

::I was asked other questions I was responding to here.::Jwb

This was the exchange that prompted this current thread on respect for parents:

Captain Obvious, 7/19/01, 2:23am: What I'd like to know is, how can they be disaffected and SWEET at the same time?::

Jwb, 7/23/01, 7:23pm: Well, unless the parent has done something to the child to deserve it, they deserve respect and honor as being parents.

So I’ll say it again. Disaffected means to have lost loyalty and affection. How can one be this, AND "sweet" at the same time? The funny thing is, despite this big thread on parental respect, I never said children shouldn’t respect their parents, particularly when they are minors, but rather, simply how can someone have lost affection and be sweet? I guess that was MY can of worms, eh, Juli?

::It wasn't a sentiment. Matt was making an argument about the effects of agnosticism on people, and rather than cite REAL LIFE studies on the subject, he appeared to be citing a fictional story, and his interpretation OF that story, to support the argument. It's like citing The Turner Diaries as "proof" that racism is the right way to go.:: Captain Obvious

::Nope, sorry. I don't buy into the theory of circular logic very much.:: Jwb

Whose? Matt’s, or your own?

::I don't care. I don't agree with everything the Bible says.:: Captain Obvious

::Why should it matter whether you care or not as to what the Bible says?:: Jwb

Who said it did? You told me that the Bible says it is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm, and that was my response.

::Every person is an individual, and has the right to find their own path in life that they feel is right, and which will make them happy. How much each person chooses to consider what their parents would do is up to them. To say that you have to think about your parents implies that somehow a parent is always right. A parent is just someone who had a child. Having a kid doesn't make you Solomon.:: Captain Obvious

::The first sentence is too close to "if it feels good, do it" for me. That's just, well, the only word I can think of is, "nasty.":: Jwb

That’s not what I said, it doesn’t RESEMBLE what I said, and obviously, I don’t believe such a thing. From your use of phrases like "feels good, do it" and "nasty", it sounds like you’re inferring my statement to relating to sexual matters. It doesn’t, at least not specifically. All I said was that each person has to find their own path in life, and be their own person, even if their parents believe in a different one. If you think a person choosing to make their own decisions in life is "nasty", so be it.


::I disagree with the rest of what you say here. I know you don't care what God says. Parents are not always right, but they should always be thought of so as not to disgrace your family unintentionally or intentionally.:: Jwb

And just what do you mean by "thought of?" I "think of" my parents all the time. I simply don’t agree with all of their philosophies, beliefs or conclusions.

::Jwb, if I were your gay and/or atheistic son, how can you say you'd love me but disown me at the same time? That's contradictory. You don't disown a child you love.:: MarkN

::As the Bible says, love the sinner hate the sin.:: Jwb

Ok. What does that have to do with "disowning?"

::First of all, children always marry someone one or both parents don't like, and if yours did you really wouldn't have any say in the matter, especially if they truly loved each other and were strongly determined to make the relationship work.:: MarkN

::Well, they are wrong for not thinking how their parents will feel before they decide to marry someone.:: Jwb

Fine. Let’s say they "think" of their parents. What does that mean in practical terms? That they decide NOT to marry? That they say to themselves, "Well, Honey, we’ve considered the fact my parents can’t stand you, and I love ‘em and all, but I’ve decided I’m still going to marry you."?

::It is my right as a parent to have my child do what I think they should no matter how old they are unless I am unable to stop them.:: Jwb

You ARE unable to stop them. When you’re child reaches adulthood, as Mark was saying, they make their own choices.

::A parent doesn't ask permission of a child, it is the other way around. You bring your child into the world, you can take them out.::Jwb

"Take them out?" What’s that supposed to mean? Are you saying you can kill your kids if they don’t do what you want them to do, or do you get all your childishly naïve metaphors from Bill Cosby’s comedy material?

::I disagree with what you say about children being able to do whatever they like. No matter how old they get, they are always your kids and must consider what you want. Again, I don't think of harm as being relegated to physical terms. If I don't like what my children do, that is a form of harm to me.::Jwb

People as egocentric as you would.

::Yes, it is that simple, people just want to make things purposely complicated by clouding the issue with irrelevant cr ap. Yes, it is harm because in doing what I don't like it is harming me in my mind.::Jwb

Is there some particular reason that you think the most ridiculous delusional rambling somehow becomes rational when you attach the phrase "in my mind"?

::Any child who would go against their parents' and family's wishes is ungrateful.:: Jwb

No. A person going against their parents wishes is simply disagreeing with them. There is no particular emotion, or lackthereof present, when a person simply decides to do something their parents wouldn’t. You are simply confusing reaction with intention. You’re assuming that because your kid’s doing something you wish they didn’t makes you feel bad, that they must therefore, ipso facto, be feeling so and such a negative emotion, like lack of gratitude. And just out of curiosity, just which wishes does this pertain to? Do you feel EVERYTHING a person does has to be decided by their parents?

::Also, no matter what you think, a parent IS above their children in the scheme of things. They're the ones in charge.::Jwb

When your kid is grown up and on their own, you’re not in charge of jack sh it .

And for how many generations does this apply? My grandmother is a great-grandmother. Does EVERYONE have to do as she says, despite that fact that she’s 90, and isn’t in the best of health?

::You simply teach them what they need to do and how to act and make sure they do it or have them punished.:: Jwb

Punish who? A grown adult?

::Eventually people will learn not to disobey.:: Jwb

Some do. Some don’t.

::Jwb does have a better understanding of what love is than you do.:: TomM

::Thank you Tom, and yes I do, MarkN. Your idea of love is flawed and mine is superior because it is more distinct. I would say that does make it better.::Jwb

You don’t have a better understanding of s hit. You simply think your fevered perceptions are the be all and end all of everything. Get over yourself.

::And you'll also want to remember something else: you're coming at this from a closeminded, judgemental, biased, religious view, whereas I come at it in an openminded, nonjudgemental, unbiased, nonreligious view because I can accept gays for what they are: people first.:: MarkN

::You'll want to recognize that you're being condescending and rude.:: Jwb

You come off that way often, as more than one person has stated.

::You can't even comprehend that someone who doesn't agree with you is anywhere near right because it hurts your idea of being fair and being nice.:: Jwb

Incredible! An exact decision of your behavior! So tell me, just WHO is the leader of the Borg again?

::Being unreligious, I can't really expect you to have a good understanding of what being a Christian is, but at least it's not any worse than most incorrect denominations.:: Jwb

"Incorrect denomination?" Can you name some? Which ones are "incorrect"?

::Agreed, and that includes letting them live their lives as they see fit with no interference from you if they don't want it. Otherwise, you're imposing your views on them, which could royally p¡ss them off to no end (I know it would me), and have lifelong repercussions, which in turn would mean you failed to "change" them, if that was your goal. Do unto others, blah, blah, blah.:: MarkN

::Wanting the best for someone is NOT letting them do whatever the hell they want when you can see something bad coming out of it if they are allowed to do it.:: Jwb

Why do you automatically assume that if a parent perceives something as leading to something bad, that they will necessarily be proven correct? Parents are human. They make mistakes just like everyone else. Sometimes they give good advice, sometimes not. Some parents are very wise. Some are dumber than a box of bricks. A person (the son or daughter), even when considering the parent’s advice as one of many course of actions, ultimately has to make their own decision, and sometimes, it diverges with the parent’s. It doesn’t mean the kid is disobedient or ungrateful, it just means they respectfully disagree with the parent. Many parents freely offer advice and EXPECT the child to ultimately decide for themselves, even if it means sometimes making the choice other than the one prescribed by the parent. Parents aren’t omnipotent. Sometimes the wrong, sometimes right. When young, kids generally have to obey their parents, but growing up means making your own decisions.

::That's called being careless and not a friend or loving. As for doing unto others, I would want someone to tell me they can see I'm probably going down a bad path.:: Jwb

Okay. You’re wrong on just about everything you’ve said on this board. In addition to being childish, delusional and hypocritical, you’re a bigot and a slavery advocate. I sincerely believe this is the wrong path. Change.

I ASSUME you’re not going to take my advice, right? Well, that’s your right. Would you suddenly drop everything and experience a sudden, massive paradigm shift if these exact words instead came from your father?

By Jwb52z on Wednesday, July 25, 2001 - 11:57 pm:

::Morally, your "right" as a parent to interfere in your children's life should be something that you relinquish as they grow and learn to make important decsions on their own; legally, it ends when they reach the age of majority.:: TomM

::It doesn't end if they keep on making the wrong decisions. I don't really agree with this "18 is adult" thing.::

I’m sorry, but the legal system won’t change for anyone with regards to people who don’t think "18 is adult".

:n the other hand, since those statements are meaningful to you, let me remind you that not only does the Bible say "Honor thy mother and thy father," it also says "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." Colossians 3:21:: TomM

::That does not mean "do not make your children mad." It means, "Raise your children in such a way as so they will not want to make bad decisions and commit crimes later.":: Jwb

Nope, sorry. That’s not what it says or what it means. Thanks for playing.

:r, looking at it another way, "wrath" means outbursts of inappropriate thought or behavior. You stop this wrath by discipline and appropriate punishment until they learn how to act and decide things properly.:: Jwb

The quote was not to PROVOKE the anger in the first place.

::About slavery. Oh, what a can of worms you've opened up, Jwb! Just a question to start with--if someone captured you and pressed you into slavery, would you be okay with it? (If so, I have a huge pile of work I'd like you to do. I'll feed you well and treat you nicely, and you won't miss your freedom in the slightest....) Can you explain how slavery fits in with the idea of "doing unto others"?:: juli k

::I wouldn't have mentioned it again if I hadn't been asked about slavery. I wouldn't really LIKE slavery if it were done like we used to do it in the Old South. If it is done properly, it is more like working without a salary in a job. It's only thought of as some horrible thing because humanity never has done it properly. The term slave has gotten a bad connotation. A better term is servant. I don't really know a way to explain it to someone who can't entertain the idea at all that it could be ok if done properly.:: Jwb

The usual Jwb claptrap. "I don’t really know a way to explain it to someone who doesn’t agree with me." Just how many times Now have you used that lame excuse for saying something incredibly stup id? Tell me, just how could slavery be "ok"? Does this "servant" you speak of have the right to quit? Is he owned by his master, er, I mean his BOSS, as property? Can he leave?

Mark, I agreed with just about everything in your July 24 and 25 posts. You GO, dude!

As the Bible says, love the sinner hate the sin. In other words, I don't stop loving you, but I will not support what I believe to be wrong, in any form.
I'll go easy here. If I was your gay son all I'd want from you is love. You wouldn't have to approve of homosexuality, but if you still loved me and didn't turn me away cuz I was gay then I'd consider that a start.

It is my right as a parent to have my child do what I think they should no matter how old they are unless I am unable to stop them.
So even as an adult they should still do what you want them to? Nope. It doesn't work that way. At some point every parent has to let their child leave the nest and lead their own life cuz otherwise their growth into adulthood is stunted. That's part of being a parent. You can control your kids only as long as they still live with you as kids, but once they're adults with their own lives, and eventually families, then they have to start living for themselves and not for you.

A parent doesn't ask permission of a child, it is the other way around.
So if you smoke and your kid doesn't and has his/her own place and you come over then it's perfectly ok for you to light up, to blow your smoke anywhere inside the house you like, getting it on the drapes and furniture, in your kid's and grandkid's hair and clothing, and worst, their lungs, without once asking your kid if s/he minds or not? So the parent should just have total disregard for his kid then? Nope. Doesn't work that way cuz it ain't right.

You bring your child into the world, you can take them out.
You do realize what this sounds like, don't you? It sounds like you think that it's perfectly ok for parents to just kill their kids if they do or are something that the parents disapproves of. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way (or did you?) but that's how it sounds.

No matter how old they get, they are always your kids and must consider what you want.
Hmm. So your wants always comes before your child's? Gee, what a great parent and role model you'd make.

Any child who would go against their parents' and family's wishes is ungrateful.
Or smart. It all depends on the circumstances. If your family are all criminals and you choose not to participate in their illegal activities then you're right not to. Smarter than them, in fact. Parents aren't perfect cuz they're only human. Sometimes a kid has to go against their wishes, otherwise they won't learn from their mistakes. My point is that your statement is too broad and can't be used for every single situation. You have to consider that there are many various circumstances for going against your parents' wishes.

You have too much of a stratified morality for my taste.
Oh, I'm so sorry! You know what? I'm gonna change right now, cuz I wanna be just like you! That would make my whole life so much better!

Some things you let through and others you don't even though both are bad.
Yeah? Like what?

Jwb does have a better understanding of what love is than you do.

Thank you Tom, and yes I do, MarkN. Your idea of love is flawed and mine is superior because it is more distinct.
Hmm, well, Peter...er, I mean Jwb, there's a word that kind of attitude. Now lemme see, what is it? Oh, yeah. PRIDE! And you know what that makes you, don't you? A sinner! Dude, you've just broken one of the Ten Commandments with that remark. You should be so ashamed of yourself. Looks like someone had to remind you that pride is a sin.

You can't even comprehend that someone who doesn't agree with you is anywhere near right because it hurts your idea of being fair and being nice.
Me? ME? Dude, you are so wrong. If there's anyone here who doesn't comprehend things it's you, given how often you misinterpret things. You don't know as much as you think you do. If I disagree with someone I am open to whether they might be right and I'm not cuz I'm not so arrogant as to think that only my opinion is the only one! You know, like you. You're increasingly becoming more and more like Peter all the time. I'd love to see what would happen if you two were locked up in a room together.

Actions matter, it's just that simple. Stop making life so complicated with irrelevancies.
After you.

Sex is for marriage. It was designated by God to be that way.
Opinion, not fact.

I would love anyone AS A PERSON...
Judging from your posts I seriously doubt that you could ever truly love someone as a person. Not if you advocate slavery in any form, not if you think it's ok to harshly judge gays just for being gay without getting to know them as people first, not if you think that parents always come before their kids. There are many different types of love, not just one. If you can love someone as a person despite some things about them that you disagree with then you'll be a better person for it. If you can't do that, then you're just that much worst, and that much less of a person for it. It's time you learned that, but hey, it's your choice.

Being unreligious, I can't really expect you to have a good understanding of what being a Christian is, but at least it's not any worse than most incorrect denominations.
You forget, not surprisingly, that I've said before that I used to be Christian and that's why I've come to hate it for almost 2 decades now, ever since you were still crapping your diapers. I don't hate it for having once been Christian, but from what I've come to realize it's really all about.

As for doing unto others, I would want someone to tell me they can see I'm probably going down a bad path.
Why? Are you completely unable to see that for yourself?

Unless God tells me...that being anything but heterosexual, is accepted by Him, I will not accept it. I will not support it.
Contradiction time! Ok, so let's see if I have this correct. You say parents are above their kids and kids should always do what their parents want, right? And God is the ultimate parent, right? So even if he told you, in some way that you'd completely undertood him correctly, that homosexuality was just as accepted by him as heterosexuality that you'd still denounce it? So you wouldn't put what he wants before what you want? But your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, so even if God said it wasn't you'd still think it was? Ok, so then if you wouldn't support God in something like that, if you'd dare go againsst God, then you're not really Christian after all, are you? If God says it's right, then it's right, don't argue. Dude, do you have any idea of often you contradict yourself?

To be sin, it has to be a choice. You have to choose to sin, therefore it is a choice because the Bible says that it is wrong. It's just that simple.
No, it ain't. Believing what you just said is naive. You think homosexuality is a sin, right? Do you think it's a sin simply cuz someone's gay, even if they've never had a relationship, or had gay sex and was celibate their whole life? Do you still consider it a sin if that person had gay thoughts that they never acted on?

It doesn't end if they keep on making the wrong decisions. I don't really agree with this "18 is adult" thing.
You don't really agree with a lot that you should. Making mistakes and wrong decisions are part of growing up, no matter how old a person is. As for the "18 is adult" thing, well, it's pretty obvious what it means: you're legally an adult at that age and can do many adult things without your parent or guardian's permission, like join the armed services or vote and have sex without getting in trouble as long as it's with another adult. If you're 18 and they're not, well then you'll be shipped off to a wonderful place where some big mean much stronger men are gonna do some big mean things to you that you'd reeeeally hate to experience.

It means, "Raise your children in such a way as so they will not want to make bad decisions and commit crimes later."
Every good parent wants that, but even so, no matter how well some kids are raised they're still gonna commit crimes later, either by their own decision or from hanging out with the wrong crowd or whatever. Some of the worst criminals come from some of the best families, some of the best people have come from some of the worst families.

I wouldn't really LIKE slavery if it were done like we used to do it in the Old South. If it is done properly, it is more like working without a salary in a job. It's only thought of as some horrible thing because humanity never has done it properly.
When the hell is or was slavery ever done properly?

Some very obnoxious posts and comments from a variety of people.

I think homosexuality is a choice. There is nothing to support or destroy this concept, so I am going purely by my faith. The Bible says (in NT, in Romans) that man abandoned natural relationships for homosexual ones, so God gave them over to their desires. Now, depending on your interpretation, this could mean that homosexuality is a choice OR that God created natural impulses, meaning it is not a choice. I don't think God is so cruel as to create people genetically bound to be trapped in sin, but I don't know God's full plan, and maybe it is no different than being born in natural sin, as we all are. Let me just say that there are people that claim to be homosexual that are NOT homosexual, and have merely chosen to act this way out of rebellion (I knew one). That is not the case for all homosexuals, of course. There's a big difference.

Slavery is condoned in the Bible, but the OT slavery was condoned out of mercy, I think, as instead of killing enemies, they were made slaves (and treated good). The NT slavery is not as approved of, and I think it is merely put in there because that was the way the Roman world operated at the time. There is nothing in the Bible to make me think that slavery should be brought back.

Mark, Jesus considered it a sin if a heterosexual male had sinful thoughts about a woman, so yeah, sinful thoughts are wrong. The Bible moral code, though, was not meant to create perfect people, but rather have people recognize that they can't live up to it, and accept Jesus to wash away their sins.

Brian, you're perfectly capable of acting on gay thoughts. You'd be doing that as a choice, however.

Mark, as a Christian, loving a non-Christian homosexual is a HECK of a lot easier for me than loving a Christian hypocrite.

I believe God did away with most of the old law except that which was not overridden by the new New Testament.

Like I said, rationalization. As far as I know, there is no place in the New Testament where Jesus sits down and says, "Okay, guys, I hereby repudiate this verse and this chapter and this bit here about dietary laws, and you might as well forget about most of Deuteronomy too." And again, to the best of my knowledge, there's never any place where a booming voice from the heavens does the same thing. In other words, no place in the Bible does it state exactly whatis overridden and what is done away with. Therefore to make any claims about it, you have to decide for yourself what you think, and pick and choose according to the best of your ability, and this is exactly what you're doing. The sooner you realize this, the better you'll fare in these discussions.

Morality is not a temporal mattter, it is absolute.

Well, now you're sounding uncomfortably like Peter. Anyway, I wasn't referring to the morality of homosexuality, as you might have seen if you'd actually read my post. I mean, the Bible does not mention if homosexuality is a choice or a genetically induced trait. Now, this could *lead* us to a moral decision. We could say, if it's the former then it's a sin,; if it's the latter then it isn't. The Bible wasn't written to tell us which it is, therefore to use it to say so is just dumb.

MikeC has decided that it's a choice. Specifically, I think homosexuality is a choice. There is nothing to support or destroy this concept, so I am going purely by my faith. And this is a perfectly fine and legitimate choice, because we have no other evidence! I myself have decided not to decide until I get compelling evidence one way or the other, because until then the possiblity of being wrong is too great and I have more important things to worry about anyway. I don't know why you can't accept that we simply don't know enough to be able to say what's going on.

Oh, yeah. PRIDE! And you know what that makes you, don't you? A sinner! Dude, you've just broken one of the Ten Commandments with that remark.

Bzzt! And thank you for playing. That's not one of the Ten. It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Matt, all I know are several things.

1. The Bible, in many places, not just in the OT law (which some things ARE specifically repudiated, i.e. "The Sabbath was made for man," "Eat what you want" in Paul's letters, "Christ came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it [meaning it is not completely invalid]") states that homosexuality is a sin.

2. God commands us to love sinners. I follow His command.

3. There have been homosexuals that, well, stopped being homosexual. There are also some that seem to cannot stop their impulses.

4. The Bible also says that ALL people, no matter their sin or condition, requires Jesus.

I live my live based on these points. Thank you.

1) Many places? I can think of maybe six. In all the books of both Testaments. It seems to me that there are many things that are far more important to God.

2) No problem there.

3) You have previously said to Brian Webber that you're perfectly capable of acting on gay thoughts. You'd be doing that as a choice, however. What makes you think that gay people who "turn straight" really aren't just doing this, but in reverse? Self-delusion is a powerful tool.

4) I don't argue against this either.

I didn't read all the above comments (that would take forever!) but something that Jwb is saying is bothering me. Jwb, you've been saying on this board that we should respect our parents and do what they say, right? Well, a year or two ago on one of these boards you had a very different opinion. From what you had said, I was responsible for my father's cancer death because I did not force him to stop smoking, or to go to a better (in my opinion anyway) hospital for treatment. You said I was as guilty of killing him as the cancer was. Now, my father's wishes were to keep smoking, and, when he became ill, to stay where he was for treatment. By forcing him to do anything different, I would be going against his wishes, which you have said on this board a child, even an adult child, shouldn't do. So, which is it?

As far as I know, there is no place in the New Testament where Jesus sits down and says, "Okay, guys, I hereby repudiate this verse and this chapter and this bit here about dietary laws, and you might as well forget about most of Deuteronomy too." And again, to the best of my knowledge, there's never any place where a booming voice from the heavens does the same thing. In other words, no place in the Bible does it state exactly whatis overridden and what is done away with. Matthew Patterson

There are two passages in Acts that speak to this.

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Acts 10:9-16

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:1-29

Granted, these passages do not spell out every individual passage of the Old Testament that does not apply to Christians, but it does mention several that you used as examples.

Also, we do not arbitrarily decide for ourselves which laws no longer apply. That is based on a long history of Church tradition tracing back to the Church Fathers, the same apostles who were inspired of God to write the Scriptures. While we don't hold Church tradition to be as infallible as the Scripture (oral tradition is more suseptible to transmission errors) we do believe that the Spirit which moved in the Church fathers continues to guide the Church. We may not hold the Church traditions in quite as high a reguard as the Jews hold the Talmud, but we do believe that, provided it does not contradict the clear teachings of the Bible, tradition can provide a compass to our lives.

Speaking of the Talmud, another source of information on which laws no longer apply to Christians is the idea in Jewish philosophy of the Righteous Gentile. Gentiles are not generally encouraged to convert to Judaism, but if the want to honor the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they are taught those laws which are necessary for righteousness, but are not held to the dietary laws and others intended to set apart God's chosen people unto Himself.

"You bring your child into the world, you can take them out." - Jwb
"You do realize what this sounds like, don't you?" - MarkN

Yeah. Bill Cosby. He's used the phrase in one of his routines.

"As for doing unto others, I would want someone to tell me they can see I'm probably going down a bad path." - Jwb
"Why? Are you completely unable to see that for yourself?" - MarkN

Hey! Sometimes we're all completely unable to see for ourselves what acts of stupidity we are about to commit. It doesn't hurt to have a second opinion or get advice from someone else.

" I would love anyone AS A PERSON..." - Jwb
"Judging from your posts I seriously doubt that you could ever truly love someone as a person. Not if you advocate slavery in any form, not if you think it's ok to harshly judge gays just for being gay without getting to know them as people first, not if you think that parents always come before their kids." - MarkN

Uh, I don't think J's advocating slavery. He's just saying he doesn't see anything wrong with it, if "done properly." Admittedly, an ambiguous statement.

As for judging gays. Well, saying it's a sin is not necessarily judging gays. At least not on an individual basis. J may or may not think, based on what I've posted so far, that I'm a nice person. That doesn't keep him from believing I'm a sinner going to hell in the proverbial handbasket. I think I'm getting to see where the two concepts are not necessarily the same thing.

Sorry for singling your comments out Mark. But they provoked thoughts I felt worth mentioning.

Now, if y'all excuse me. I'll go back to just reading these posts.

Matthew, well yeah there are more important things than homosexuality in the eyes of God. But I don't think it should be glad-handed out of the way. I'd rather it be brought into the open to discuss and explore than merely shoved aside to ignore. An intelligent, open discussion between a homosexual and a Christian about the nature of homosexuality is more meaningful to me than two Christians being swarmily pious. My third point was also open-ended--perhaps I was being self-deluded in saying you can stop being homosexual. Perhaps I'm not. It's hard to explore, but nobody said that this wasn't an easy issue.

::It's not a choice necessarily.:: MarkN

You don't know that.

::However, although I'm straight, I see no wrongness about being gay.:: MarkN

The foolishness of man is the wisdom of God.

::I never said that! In fact I didn't say anything at all, other than quote the words of the Scripture itelf. (Or do you read that into the Scripture and then disagree with your own interpretation?) My point in the whole post is that parenthood should be about responsibility, not rights, and that the Scripture demands as much from the parents as it does from the children.:: TomM

I thought that was what you were implying that it did mean "don't make your children mad." I'm sorry.

::So you accept that there are things which God used to "break" the Israelites of their stubborn pride and stiff-necked obstinancy that He has decided are no longer applicable today. Isn't it just possible that there are things that were "tolerated" because of that pride and obstinancy that He would prefer we learn to rise above? Matthew 19:8 specifically addresses this question in relationship with divorce, but surely you don't think that is the only one? The only New Testament passage written about slavery to a slave owner* was Paul's letter to Philemon, in which he asks Philemon to recieve the slave Onesimus "Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." This does not sound as if Paul (nor The Spirit which inspired him) accepts slavery in the one situation where his words can affect change for the good. (* There are other passages where slaves are addressed and are instructed to accept the suffering of their position, but that is more in line with [as we would say today] finding their own center in a situation they cannot change, rather than giving an imprimatur to the system. I believe that there may be other practices which have been tolerated and are wrongly thought to be endorsed as well, but none that I am specifically prepared to argue right now.:: TomM

I believe that if there is no necessary inference and we can't read about it in the Bible, it is better not to do whatever it is. By acknowledging its existence, if God thought it was wrong, he would have not allowed it at the time. He killed people for less transgressions, at least less in the human mind, in the Old Testament. I do think that the only acceptable reason for putting away of a spouse as the Bible puts it is adultery.

::Are you saying that God has "outbursts of inappropriate thought or behavior"?:: TomM

I think that's what's called blasphemy of a sort, joking about God.

::So if someone or a group of people wanted to institute slavery, say, as it's being done in the Sudan right now--you'd have no problem with it?:: Captain Obvious

I'm only in favor of slavery as suggested it be done in the Bible.

::What exactly would be your criteria for "acceptable" slavery? (In other words, how specifically do you feel the Bible says it should be done?) Only certain races of people? If someone wanted to make you a slave, and did it according to the Bible, would that be acceptable.:: Captain Obvious

My "criteria" are that it be done as the Bible suggests. That's it. You can read the Bible for yourself, I don't and should not have to always quote it for you.

::You do not know me.:: Captain Obvious

Yes, but as your name suggests, some things are obvious even though people do not wish to acknowledge them.

::And, it's not true. My parents and teachers didn't teach me anything about slavery. I learn things, in part, because I READ. Do you know how to read? You ignorant F U C K?:: Captain Obvious

Oh, that's really nice language for a discussion. I'm not an idiot, I am intuitive about things most people don't even realize about themselves and I'm usually eventually proven right. It's not hard to figure out how you were taught about how to treat people and how you should act toward them. Not all teaching is by words. I feel you had lots of teaching by example and watching people you were around.

::Fidel Castro’s daughter lives in a city adjacent to mine. She speaks out against her father. Do you believe that she should not do so, even if she is morally opposed to his regime, and it’s actions toward the Cuban people? Similarly, if Charles Manson, or Adolf Hitler, had kids, and their children came to feel that they were evil men, should they be respected? And if not, where do you draw the line? When are certain acts, that a person’s child sincerely believes are wrong, grounds for those children to lose respect?:: Captain Obvious

I told you that there are exceptions. Anything, illegal, immoral, or unethical by God's standards that we can read about in the Bible are exceptions. Fidel Castro is an exception. The man is contemptable.

::Whose? Matt’s, or your own?:: Captain Obvious

I don't believe I use it because what I say doesn't fit that category because it is different.

::That’s not what I said, it doesn’t RESEMBLE what I said, and obviously, I don’t believe such a thing.:: Captain Obvious

I think it does resemble it, but I'm glad you don't agree with it.

::it sounds like you’re inferring my statement to relating to sexual matters.:: Captain Obvious

No, that's not what I was meaning. I was meaning anything that a person may like that is actually sinful to do.

::And just what do you mean by "thought of?" I "think of" my parents all the time. I simply don’t agree with all of their philosophies, beliefs or conclusions.:: Captain Obvious

I meant "they should always be considered when you make a decision so as not to do something that would upset the family or cause it problems. As I said, you don't have go agree, but you do have to accept it and respect it because they are who they are as your parents the way I see it.

:k. What does that have to do with "disowning?":: Captian Obvious

I didn't think I would have to explain this one. Love the sinner means "don't stop loving the person who did something wrong." Hate the sin means "don't accept what is evil or wrong that a person does, no matter who they are."

::Fine. Let’s say they "think" of their parents. What does that mean in practical terms? That they decide NOT to marry? That they say to themselves, "Well, Honey, we’ve considered the fact my parents can’t stand you, and I love ‘em and all, but I’ve decided I’m still going to marry you."?:: Captain Obvious

If it would upset your family, yes, I do not think you should marry that person. Once your parents are dead you can do what you like.

::You ARE unable to stop them. When you’re child reaches adulthood, as Mark was saying, they make their own choices.:: Captain Obvious

Not necessarily. There are ways to stop them if they are being foolish and not thinking about it properly.

::"Take them out?" What’s that supposed to mean? Are you saying you can kill your kids if they don’t do what you want them to do, or do you get all your childishly naïve metaphors from Bill Cosby’s comedy material?:: Captain Obvious

No, you cannot kill your kids, but you can do whatever is necessary to have them act properly. Sarcasm does not help your argument, btw.

::People as egocentric as you would.:: Captain Obvious

Think what you will, but I would call it being correct, not egocentric.

::Is there some particular reason that you think the most ridiculous delusional rambling somehow becomes rational when you attach the phrase "in my mind"?:: Captain Obvious

I do not believe it to be irrational or delusional. I believe it to be correct.

::You are simply confusing reaction with intention.:: Captain Obvious

Reaction often is evidence of intention.

::You’re assuming that because your kid’s doing something you wish they didn’t makes you feel bad, that they must therefore, ipso facto, be feeling so and such a negative emotion, like lack of gratitude.:: Captain Obvious

Any child who would completely disregard their parents wishes and do what they wanted instead except in the exceptions I previously mentioned, is not correct in my mind.

::And just out of curiosity, just which wishes does this pertain to? Do you feel EVERYTHING a person does has to be decided by their parents?:: Captain Obvious

Not exactly the way you put it, but all important things in a person's life should involve their parents and disregarding their wishes throws them out of the situation that they have a right to be in in the first place since they gave you life.

::When your kid is grown up and on their own, you’re not in charge of jack sh it.:: Captain Obvious

Ok, here we go again with the potty mouth....but anyway. I don't know how many ways I can say the same thing.

::Punish who? A grown adult?:: Captain Obvious

There are ways to punish adults, if you think long enough. You can figure it out.

::Some do. Some don’t.:: Captain Obvious

Those that do not will usually have problems because of their lack of obedience in relation to their families. At least, that's true of families who care enought to watch over their kids very intently no matter how old they get.

::You don’t have a better understanding of s hit.:: Captain Obvious

You really like cursing, don't you?

::Incredible! An exact decision of your behavior! So tell me, just WHO is the leader of the Borg again?:: Captain Obvious

Nope, it doesn't. And here you are again doing something I specifically asked you not to, that's really honorable of you.

::"Incorrect denomination?" Can you name some? Which ones are "incorrect"?:: Captain Obvious

Trust me, we don't need to go there. I don't want to even start down that path. It would not accomplish anything but make everyone mad at me if they already are not.

::It doesn’t mean the kid is disobedient:: Captain Obvious

What else do you call a child who does not do what their parents want? It sounds like a definition of disobedient to me.

:kay. You’re wrong on just about everything you’ve said on this board. In addition to being childish, delusional and hypocritical, you’re a bigot and a slavery advocate. I sincerely believe this is the wrong path. Change.:: Captain Obvious

If I believed you meant that in reality and were not saying it for spite, I would thank you.

::I ASSUME you’re not going to take my advice, right? Well, that’s your right. Would you suddenly drop everything and experience a sudden, massive paradigm shift if these exact words instead came from your father?:: Captain Obvious

I am commanded by God to do as my parents say which is a form of honoring them which is also a commandment. I don't have to like it, I just have to do it unless it is one of the exceptions.

::I’m sorry, but the legal system won’t change for anyone with regards to people who don’t think "18 is adult".:: Captain Obvious

As you should know by your age, many people are not mentally adult at 18 and some people don't even get that way till their 30s or 40s. That's what should count as adulthood, not some arbitrary age.

::Nope, sorry. That’s not what it says or what it means. Thanks for playing.:: Captain Obvious

Using my own words against me is meaningless. It's called being cheaply sarcastic.

::The quote was not to PROVOKE the anger in the first place.:: Captain Obvious

"Wrath" does not mean anger there.

::The usual Jwb claptrap. "I don’t really know a way to explain it to someone who doesn’t agree with me." Just how many times Now have you used that lame excuse for saying something incredibly stup id? Tell me, just how could slavery be "ok"? Does this "servant" you speak of have the right to quit? Is he owned by his master, er, I mean his BOSS, as property? Can he leave?:: Captain Obvious

It's ok if done as God suggests in the Bible and just for the simple fact that He SAID SO. That's it. A servant in this instance couldn't quit no, but they would be freed every so many years like the Jubilee arrangement.

::You can control your kids only as long as they still live with you as kids:: MarkN

Any child who lives with their parents after they don't have to for financial or physical reasons, in the same house, has problems. Let's not go there.

::So if you smoke and your kid doesn't and has his/her own place and you come over then it's perfectly ok for you to light up, to blow your smoke anywhere inside the house you like, getting it on the drapes and furniture, in your kid's and grandkid's hair and clothing, and worst, their lungs, without once asking your kid if s/he minds or not? So the parent should just have total disregard for his kid then? Nope. Doesn't work that way cuz it ain't right.:: MarkN

No, that's not right, but not because they don't like it. It's wrong because it is harming someone else's property and someone else's health.

::Hmm. So your wants always comes before your child's? Gee, what a great parent and role model you'd make.:: MarkN

No, It's only the times that your will for their behavior should matter over theirs. Their wellbeing should matter over yours. It's a distinct difference.

::Hmm, well, Peter...er, I mean Jwb, there's a word that kind of attitude. Now lemme see, what is it? Oh, yeah. PRIDE! And you know what that makes you, don't you? A sinner! Dude, you've just broken one of the Ten Commandments with that remark. You should be so ashamed of yourself. Looks like someone had to remind you that pride is a sin.:: MarkN

It's only "pride" when you're wrong. I never said I was perfect or that I am not a sinner. EVERYONE is a sinner. It's impossible not to be one.

::I'd love to see what would happen if you two were locked up in a room together.:: MarkN

We would probably drive each other insane, but it would be interesting.

:pinion, not fact.:: MarkN

It's not an opinion when it comes from God.

::ever since you were still crapping your diapers.:: MarkN

I seem to be the only one that can avoid directly rude comments.

::but from what I've come to realize it's really all about:: MarkN

I know you won't agree, but the ideas that you have about it are misguided.

::Why? Are you completely unable to see that for yourself?:: MarkN

It is not always apparent that a person is wrong to their own mind when they are set on doing something.

::So even if he told you, in some way that you'd completely undertood him correctly, that homosexuality was just as accepted by him as heterosexuality that you'd still denounce it?:: MarkN

You misread what I said. I said that UNLESS he told me that, I would not agree or approve.

::No, it ain't. Believing what you just said is naive. You think homosexuality is a sin, right? Do you think it's a sin simply cuz someone's gay, even if they've never had a relationship, or had gay sex and was celibate their whole life? Do you still consider it a sin if that person had gay thoughts that they never acted on?:: MarkN

Even having those types of thoughts is wrong.

::When the hell is or was slavery ever done properly?:: MarkN

It has not been, by humanity. If it was done the way the Bible suggests it would be.

::Like I said, rationalization. As far as I know, there is no place in the New Testament where Jesus sits down and says, "Okay, guys, I hereby repudiate this verse and this chapter and this bit here about dietary laws, and you might as well forget about most of Deuteronomy too.":: Matthew Patterson

It's called a necessary inference. Otherwise, all the agnostics would be right.....and I don't even want to go there. I don't know how to describe that feeling I get when I think of that, except maybe by the word, "yuck."

::Well, now you're sounding uncomfortably like Peter. Anyway, I wasn't referring to the morality of homosexuality, as you might have seen if you'd actually read my post. I mean, the Bible does not mention if homosexuality is a choice or a genetically induced trait. Now, this could *lead* us to a moral decision. We could say, if it's the former then it's a sin,; if it's the latter then it isn't. The Bible wasn't written to tell us which it is, therefore to use it to say so is just dumb.:: Matthew Patterson

God calling something an abomination is pretty clear to me as being sin. It has to be a choice then.

::It seems to me that there are many things that are far more important to God.:: Matthew Patterson

Who are you to decide what is more important than something else to God? It owuld seem that all of it is or God wouldn't have said it.

::I didn't read all the above comments (that would take forever!) but something that Jwb is saying is bothering me. Jwb, you've been saying on this board that we should respect our parents and do what they say, right? Well, a year or two ago on one of these boards you had a very different opinion. From what you had said, I was responsible for my father's cancer death because I did not force him to stop smoking, or to go to a better (in my opinion anyway) hospital for treatment. You said I was as guilty of killing him as the cancer was. Now, my father's wishes were to keep smoking, and, when he became ill, to stay where he was for treatment. By forcing him to do anything different, I would be going against his wishes, which you have said on this board a child, even an adult child, shouldn't do. So, which is it?:: Margie

That's not about respecting a parent, that's about keeping a person alive. It is an exception to the thing.

::As for judging gays. Well, saying it's a sin is not necessarily judging gays. At least not on an individual basis. J may or may not think, based on what I've posted so far, that I'm a nice person. That doesn't keep him from believing I'm a sinner going to hell in the proverbial handbasket. I think I'm getting to see where the two concepts are not necessarily the same thing.:: Benn

Thank you. That's almost exactly perfectly it. I have a lesbian cousin. I don't hate her, but I do think she is very wrong for having chosen to be that way.

Are you saying that God has "outbursts of inappropriate thought or behavior"? -2{TomM}

I think that's what's called blasphemy of a sort, joking about God. Jwb52z

Sorry, no. I was just quoting your own definition of the word back to you. (and since you included a reponse to a post like this: "Using my own words against me is meaningless. It's called being cheaply sarcastic." No, it's called pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.


I believe that if there is no necessary inference and we can't read about it in the Bible, it is better not to do whatever it is.

.......

It's called a necessary inference. Otherwise, all the agnostics would be right.....and I don't even want to go there. Jwb52z

But since you give no criteria for necessary or unecessary inference how are the rest of us poor mortals supposed to determine whether an inference is necessary?

"Take them out?" What?s that supposed to mean? Are you saying you can kill your kids if they don?t do what you want them to do, or do you get all your childishly naïve metaphors from Bill Cosby?s comedy material? Captain Obvious

No, you cannot kill your kids, but you can do whatever is necessary to have them act properly. Sarcasm does not help your argument, btw. Jwb52z

You are the one who introduced the phrase in this conversation. You can't fault C.O. because he, (and everyone else who commented on it) took it at its clear and intended meaning just because you felt like using it as a meaningless phrase.

It's only "pride" when you're wrong. Jwb52z

???????

It's pride when you don't consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Jwb52z: ***You don't know that. ***

But I do.


Jwb52z: ***Sarcasm does not help your argument, btw. ***

Jwb52z: *** And here you are again doing something I specifically asked you not to, that's really honorable of you. ***

Nor does it help yours.


Jwb52z: ***Any child who lives with their parents after they don't have to for financial or physical reasons, in the same house, has problems. Let's not go there. ***

Sorry, you went there: What an ignorant and idiotic thing to say.

Myself, as a Hispanic, I am greatly insulted by this comment. There are a number of cultures who traditionally live together in the same home for a lifetime. It's not a health related nor a financially related issue, but is simpoly that their culture teaches them to respect the family unit. Some (maybe even many) Asian cultures have multiple generations living in the same household. Are you saying that all these people have "problems?"


Jwb52z: ***I never said I was perfect ***

Nor have you ever admitted you were wrong or mistaken, so it's not difficult to understand why someone would think that is what you believe.


Jwb52z: ***I seem to be the only one that can avoid directly rude comments. ***

Jwb52z: *** Bite me!***

'Nuff said.

The most dangerous "same old story" is the one we're meeting now! Those who go on misinformation, half-information, self-righteousness... lifeforms who are eager not to learn but to prosecute, to judge anything they can't understand or can't tolerate.

Brian, you're perfectly capable of acting on gay thoughts. You'd be doing that as a choice, however.

Uh, Mike, did I make myself clear? Perhaps not, and if not, I'm sorry. Let me try this again.

During a very early heartbreaking moment in my life, I actually tried to be gay. And you know what? Didn't happen. I couldn't bring myself to have those kinda thoughts about a guy, hard as I tried. Becuase, somewhere deep down, I was so wounded by that girl, that I thought I'd be better off if I didn't have to deal with women at all (my how misogynistic that sounds in hindsight). But it didn't happen. That is what led me to the conclusion, that one does not choose to be gay.

And the whole ex-gay thing? Self-delusion is a powerful tool.

::So if someone or a group of people wanted to institute slavery, say, as it's being done in the Sudan right now--you'd have no problem with it?:: Captain Obvious

::I'm only in favor of slavery as suggested it be done in the Bible.:: Jwb

::What exactly would be your criteria for "acceptable" slavery? (In other words, how specifically do you feel the Bible says it should be done?) Only certain races of people? If someone wanted to make you a slave, and did it according to the Bible, would that be acceptable.:: Captain Obvious

::My "criteria" are that it be done as the Bible suggests. That's it. You can read the Bible for yourself, I don't and should not have to always quote it for you.::

Bull. You quote the Bible whenever you want when you think it’ll support your argument. But there’s obviously some reason why you won’t mention those details NOW, even when I’m asking you to do so to humor your assertion about slavery being acceptable. I admit I don’t know where precisely in the Bible it offers details on how to make slavery acceptable, but I’m willing to listen to you if you point it out to me. Why are you now, all of a sudden, running away from the question? Is there some particular reason you’re afraid to talk about it?

::I am intuitive about things most people don't even realize about themselves and I'm usually eventually proven right.:: Jwb

::Think what you will, but I would call it being correct, not egocentric.:: Jwb

Thinking you’re always correct IS egocentric.

::Sarcasm does not help your argument, btw.:: Jwb

Neither does using tired old cliches or swiping from Bill Cosby’s old comedy material.

:: A person going against their parents wishes is simply disagreeing with them. There is no particular emotion, or lackthereof present, when a person simply decides to do something their parents wouldn’t. You are simply confusing reaction with intention.:: Captain Obvious

:: Reaction often is evidence of intention.:: Jwb

No, it isn’t. If a person is offended by something someone else says, it doesn’t automatically mean the speaker INTENDED offense. Many people have been offended by things they THOUGHT you meant in your posts, and you’ve said that you did not intend it. Here’s an example:

::I never said that! In fact I didn't say anything at all, other than quote the words of the Scripture itelf. (Or do you read that into the Scripture and then disagree with your own interpretation?) My point in the whole post is that parenthood should be about responsibility, not rights, and that the Scripture demands as much from the parents as it does from the children.:: TomM

::I thought that was what you were implying that it did mean "don't make your children mad." I'm sorry.:: Jwb

Now, did you INTEND something offensive simply because Tom REACTED with offense? Well, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say no. Intent on the part of a speaker and the reaction in a listener are two different things. Different groups thought "Basic Instinct" was implying that all lesbians are violent, that "Dogma" was blaspheming Christianiaty, and that "The Sopranos" implies Italians were all monosyllabic mobsters. That doesn’t mean Joe Esterhaus, Kevin Smith and David Chase MEANT to imply such things, or to offend people. (Particularly when, in the case of Kevin Smith, he IS a Christian.)

:: Any child who would completely disregard their parents wishes and do what they wanted instead except in the exceptions I previously mentioned, is not correct in my mind. All important things in a person's life should involve their parents and disregarding their wishes throws them out of the situation that they have a right to be in in the first place since they gave you life.::

Okay, so if someone’s in their forties, and married with two kids, they have to consult their parents with every important decision they make? What kind of ineffectual eunuch need’s to call up their mom and dad to get their say so on everything? So would a parent need to consult their parents (the grandparents, if you will) on where to take their family for vacation, which house to buy, whether to put in a swimming pool in the back yard, whether or not to have a third kid, etc, before doing so? And if the grandparent says, "No, don’t go to Hawaii for your vacation; I went and didn’t like it", the family can’t go? If Granny tells Mom and Dad not to have a third kid, even though Mom and Dad have two successfully raised children, can afford it, and one of them will stay home and raise them, Mom and Dad are disobedient and ungrateful if they decide to do so anyway?

::There are ways to punish adults, if you think long enough. You can figure it out.:: Jwb

Society can punish an adult if they’re convicted of a crime. I don’t know of any way for an grown adult on living on their own to be punished by their parents. Honest. If you have any examples, let’s hear ‘em. Or are you now running away from another question?

:: You really like cursing, don't you?:: Jwb

I express myself in a variety of ways. Sometimes I use an anecdote. Sometimes humor. Sometimes logic. Sometimes sarcasm. Sometimes profanity. Let me put it in a way you might understand: "I don’t know of any other way to explain to you why I feel it’s acceptable. In my mind, it’s correct."

:: Nope, it doesn't. And here you are again doing something I specifically asked you not to, that's really honorable of you.::Jwb

Tell you what. Please stop being condescending. Please stop being a hypocrite. Please stop criticizing others for doing or saying things that you do, and then turning around and saying that’s it’s somehow acceptable when you do it because "in your mind" it’s correct, or a different category or whatever. Please stop acting that others have difficulty in understanding you simply when they DISAGREE with you by saying, "I don’t know of any other way to explain to you in a way you’ll understand." You do all that, I promise to stop mentioning the whole "Borg leader" thing.

::"Incorrect denomination?" Can you name some? Which ones are "incorrect"?:: Captain Obvious

::Trust me, we don't need to go there. I don't want to even start down that path. It would not accomplish anything but make everyone mad at me if they already are not.:: Jwb

That’s the third time you’ve run away from a question. Besides, some here are already mad at you anyway. (By the way, did you really tell Margie she was responsible for her father’s death? If so, that certainly wouldn’t have endeared you to her.)

:: Parents are human. They make mistakes just like everyone else. Sometimes they give good advice, sometimes not. Some parents are very wise. Some are dumber than a box of bricks. A person (the son or daughter), even when considering the parent’s advice as one of many course of actions, ultimately has to make their own decision, and sometimes, it diverges with the parent’s. It doesn’t mean the kid is disobedient:: Captain Obvious

:: What else do you call a child who does not do what their parents want? It sounds like a definition of disobedient to me.:: Jwb

Given your personal philosophy regarding dictionaries and definitions, that’s not the most credible statement. If a kid refuses to do their chores, brush their teeth, etc, and there is no extenuating circumstance, the kid probably IS disobedient. (As far as extenuating circumstances, 20/20 did a story on a household where, if you saw part of the information, you might conclude the two boys were being willful, disobedient and violent, but if you saw all the info, you might conclude the mother was at fault because she stopped buying the boys their medication for their Attention Deficit Disorder, and was unreasonably harsh in her punishments to the two boys.) But if a kid is deciding where he or she wants to go to college, and is trying to pick from two schools, and the parent, who attended one of them, suggest that one, but the kid ultimately decides the other because he/she feels it has better teachers and courses that better suit him/her, that’s not disobedient.

kay. You’re wrong on just about everything you’ve said on this board. In addition to being childish, delusional and hypocritical, you’re a bigot and a slavery advocate. I sincerely believe this is the wrong path. Change.:: Captain Obvious

::If I believed you meant that in reality and were not saying it for spite, I would thank you.:: Jwb

I mean it in reality.

::Using my own words against me is meaningless. It's called being cheaply sarcastic.:: Jwb

No, it’s not (although it can ALSO be that). If the above quote isn’t rude and condescending, you wouldn’t mind when people use it with you.

::The usual Jwb claptrap. "I don’t really know a way to explain it to someone who doesn’t agree with me." Just how many times Now have you used that lame excuse for saying something incredibly stup id? Tell me, just how could slavery be "ok"? Does this "servant" you speak of have the right to quit? Is he owned by his master, er, I mean his BOSS, as property? Can he leave?:: Captain Obvious

::It's ok if done as God suggests in the Bible and just for the simple fact that He SAID SO. That's it. A servant in this instance couldn't quit no, but they would be freed every so many years like the Jubilee arrangement.:: Jwb

Would you feel this way if you were the slave?

::I seem to be the only one that can avoid directly rude comments.:: Jwb

No, you’re just the only one who never admits that he makes them, no matter how many people on this board say you do.

::You can control your kids only as long as they still live with you as kids:: MarkN

::Any child who lives with their parents after they don't have to for financial or physical reasons, in the same house, has problems. Jwb

Where did Mark say anything about kids living with their parents when they don’t have to? (By the way, it is common among Latinos, Italians and Polynesians, to name a few cultures, where living at home is pretty much the way things are, until you either get married or die.)

It's hard to explore, but nobody said that this wasn't an easy issue.

Actually, I think we did say so, or did you mean to say that nobody said this *was* an easy issue? ^_^

No, I agree with you, and let me just say once again that I find the side discussion to be of more value than the main issue, which I've completely lost track of and now seems to be "Everyone gangs up on Jwb52z for the things that we no longer have Peter to kick around for." May I suggest that this line of discussion cease at once?

I'm going to turn the clock back a little over a week to when the slavery discussion was new, but before Jwb made the claim that slavery is OK if it's done Biblically.

At that point, the discussion had gone:

I know you don't get this, but it's a Biblical thing. _Jwb

So's the line about slaves obeying their worldly masters.

I don't pay attention to that line either. Captain Obvious

Just because you don't does not make it wrong. _Jwb

Of course not.

Slavery is wrong simply because it's wrong. Captain Obvious

At this point we could have gotten into a productive discussion about where we get our ethics and morals by challanging C.O. to explain why he says that it is simply wrong. Instead, because Jwb made his shocking statement before challanging C O, when the challange came, it was weakened and thus easy to overlook.

Anyway, I'd like to ask C O now. I know why I feel that slavery is wrong, but my reasons are not your reasons, since you do not accept the authority of the Church and the Bible (which are important factors in my reasoning), so why do you say that it is wrong?

TomM: ***I know why I feel that slavery is wrong, but my reasons are not your reasons, since you do not accept the authority of the Church and the Bible (which are important factors in my reasoning), so why do you say that it is wrong? ***

Interesting. You use the authority of the Bible to form your case against slavery. Yet Jwb52z uses the same reference to advocate it.

But though I don't speak for Captain Obvious, I can say that not everyone uses the Bible to guide their moral behavior. Instead there are instinctual and societal influences that shape our concepts of right versus wrong. Some of those societal influences do originate with the Bible. But some of them precede it, too.

A more interesting question is who is more moral? The person who behaves in a moral fashion because he has determined for himself what is right or the person who does it solely because God told him to?

Interesting. You use the authority of the Bible to form your case against slavery. Yet Jwb52z uses the same reference to advocate it.

I do not claim that my understanding of the Bible is the only proper way to interpret it, just that it is the way I understand it.

Neither do I claim that it speaks directly to the question at issue: "Is slavery as a system evil?"

My conclusion that it is, like most of my philosophy, comes from a reasoned understanding of many facts, experiences, and impressions I have had throughout my lifetime. I do not "follow blindly" what the "Christian Right" claims. (And if I am mis-interpreting what I see as your underlying assumption, I apologize) But the fact that I did choose (fairly late in life after years of agnosticism and examining other philosophies and religions) to accept the teachings of Christ, and the authority of the Scriptures is an important experience in that mix.

But though I don't speak for Captain Obvious, I can say that not everyone uses the Bible to guide their moral behavior.

Exactly! That is my point in bringing up the question in the first place. I want to know just what his basis is. (And I would also like to find out your basis as well.) I feel that it will help us to find common ground, and may keep these threads from degenerating into flame-fests. (Well, at least keep them civil a little longer.)

A more interesting question is who is more moral? The person who behaves in a moral fashion because he has determined for himself what is right or the person who does it solely because God told him to?

More interesting? Or more insulting? But I'm going to assume that my reading of the tone of this question is wrong and that you mean it sincerely, and expand it by including other situations. What about the person who has never examined his life and behaves "morally" because he was diciplined/punished as a child? What about the person who behaves because he is being watched? Or because he could wind up in jail? What about the person who believes in the "right" things, but still does the wrong ones, both the hypocrite and the person who succumbs to an "overwhelming" temptation? There are dozens of other possible situations, but these should be enogh to start the ball rolling.

TomM: ***I do not claim that my understanding of the Bible is the only proper way to interpret it, just that it is the way I understand it. ***

Yet Jwb52z would have us believe that the Bible is not to be interpreted. It is what it is on its face.

Furthermore, if the Bible could be interpreted in such radically different and opposing ways, then what use is it as an authority to drive our moral compasses?


TomM: ***Exactly! That is my point in bringing up the question in the first place. I want to know just what his basis is. (And I would also like to find out your basis as well.) I feel that it will help us to find common ground, and may keep these threads from degenerating into flame-fests. (Well, at least keep them civil a little longer.) ***

The issue people are having isn't with you, but with people (like Jwb52z) who aren't as open-minded or willing to listen to other perspectives as you are.


TomM: ***More interesting? Or more insulting? ***

My apologies. My intent was not to insult. Nor was it directed at you, specifically.

The question is a philosophical one. And I think an interesting one...

Jwb52z (and others of his ilk) would have us believe that the Bible is the sole authority on morality. If it isn't in there, then it isn't from God and can't possibly be right. Even further, if you hold the same ideals as those professed in the Bible, but don't believe in God or Christ or even in the literal truth of the Bible, then you're not right either.

You're absolutely right. There are countless things in our lives (including religion) that guide our moral centers. You, yourself, admit that you interpret the meanings of the Bible.

But the Christian Right doesn't believe that. They believe the teachings of the Bible are not to be interpreted, they are to be followed to the letter. Why? Because God told us to. And why should we do what God says? Because we will be punished if we don't.

So I return to my question: Who is morally superior? The atheist who concludes that something is wrong because of his own, personally-developed beliefs and values? Or the Christian who concludes the exact same thing solely because he's afraid of being punished by God?

I'm not sure, but I think you may be mis-interpreting my position again, this time in the other direction, and this time it might be my fault.

When I made the decision to trust in Jesus and His teachings, that does include all of the clear teachings of the Bible. I just don't agree that everything is as clear as is sometimes claimed. I think you will find that most of the Christians on this board are much the same (perhaps to varying degrees.) There are things that I would have preferred to explain away, but that I feel the Bible is quite clear about, and others that my leanings are in disagreement with the usual understandings, but my own understanding of Bible's position is not clear enough to be sure of.

But on most issues it is quite clear, and most of these (At least most of the ones that are not specific to our relationship to God) it takes the same position as any reasonable philosophical or religious system, albeit there might be some disagreement in degree.

On the points where it is not clear, it is because it doesn't matter whether it is really that clear or not. These are not issues that will determine salvation. Yes many of them are sins to be avoided, but many are also lessons to be learned about our own attitudes. Either way they are in the Bible mainly to make it clear that no moral system on its own is adequate, and that we can't live up to even these inadequate moral codes.(*)

So I return to my question: Who is morally superior? The atheist who concludes that something is wrong because of his own, personally-developed beliefs and values? Or the Christian who concludes the exact same thing solely because he's afraid of being punished by God?

You've rephrased it, but you still only ask about the two situations. In fact the rephrasing seems (to me, though I suppose I could be reading something into it) to show both more of a "we're better than you" attitude toward Christians, and a lack of understanding of the complexity of their beliefs and motivation (*)

I can't respond to the real question about our differently developed beliefs and values because I know nothing about how you developed yours and what their sources were.

(*) at both these points I had more to say, but I deleted the following paragraphs because it sounded too much like an evangelistic sermon, and I did not want to divert this conversation away from a calm and mutual philosophic conversation.

Personally, I think that moral behavior is more important than asking why someone behaves that way, but I understand the point of your question, Mikey. To me, the whole religious dogma/secular humanism argument comes not when people on both sides who conclude the same thing, but when they conclude DIFFERENT things, and the religious claim to do so based solely on blind adherence to the Bible, be it a literal interpretation thereof, or Church dogma.

::Anyway, I'd like to ask C O now. I know why I feel that slavery is wrong, but my reasons are not your reasons, since you do not accept the authority of the Church and the Bible (which are important factors in my reasoning), so why do you say that it is wrong?:: TomM

Thank you for asking, Tom, and for trying to bring order back to this chaos. First off, my sister and I were both raised Catholic, and spent 8 years in parochial school (during which slavery was never mentioned). Now being very analytical and logical, and being what I consider to be one of few people who desires truth over comfort, and justice over harmony, I've always strived to challenge prevailing wisdom when I saw questions in them, including my own beliefs, even when it means facing uncomfortable truths and possbilities. Because of this, I do not believe in Biblical literalism (hell, even the POPE doesn't, and said he accepts evolution as scientific fact, and the Bible as the "ulitmate meaning" of the story). Bottom line is, my feelings on God are more as Kevin Smith had Rufus (Chris Rock) say in "Dogma": It's better to have ideas than rigid, unshakable beliefs. Questioning one's own beliefs is a part of growing and learning. When you put up a brick wall, and say, "No, I will not hear that, it goes against my literal interpretation of the Bible; I'm superior; I'm automagically correct; you're wrong, etc.", you have decided to stop being influenced by views other than your own, even when such views might ADD to your beliefs, rather than threaten them. If I may use a metaphor, a thousand years ago, to supposedly protect its culture, China tried to cut off influence from the outside world by sealing its borders and burning ships. By doing this, it became stagnant. China is now a world power, yet mired in third-world poverty at the same time. When a person does the same thing with their belief systems, not even CONSIDERING other points of view as being POSSIBLY viable, they stunt their own minds and keep from evolving as people. So as far as the whole "not accepting the authority of the Church and the Bible" thing, well, I believe in God. I'd LIKE to believe in Jesus and all that, but ultimately, whether he was the son of God and all that, whether the miracles really did happen, etc., to me, isn't important. I don't think that if I get to the Pearly Gates, that St. Peter is going to turn into Alex Trebek give me pop quiz on Christian dogma trivia, and tell me I won't get in if I don't believe the right combination of things. I just don't accept the authority of the Church or the Bible BLINDLY, Tom.

As for why I think slavery is wrong, why I will not think homosexuals should be put to death, even when it says they should in Leviticus 11:20, etc., simple, Tom. God gave me a conscience, an inner sense of guilt and shame when I do something wrong. If I tried to blindly follow the Bible, and keep slaves, I wouldn't feel right about it, not because society tells me to, but because I FEEL THAT WAY INTRINSICALLY. There are many things that society tries to tell me that I DON'T agree with, so for Jwb to tell me, "Oh, you only feel that way because society shaped you and taught you to feel that way", as if he himself wasn't "taught" some of his beliefs, but knows me well enough to know whether my belief is sincere or not, is both presumptuous on his part, and consdescending. Society, for the most part, is not accepting of homosexuality, and neither is the Church. So if my beliefs are simply recitations of what society tells me, and society and the Church AGREE on homosexuality being wrong, you'd think I'd decide it was wrong myself.

But I don't.

I will not condemn a person for doing something that has no effect on me or my life, and does not hurt others, nor do I accept the euphemistic explanations of why it supposedly "does" harm others.

A person does not need the Bible in order to be a moral person, despite what Matt Pesti says. A society doesn't need a map and a slide rule to eventually decide for itself that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong, etc.

It is obvious to me (and many other people) that every human being is created equal at least in their basic human rights when they reach the age of decision, and should be free to do whatever they want to in order to make them happy, as long as they don't hurt others. My sister, on the other hand, told me some years ago that she doesn't believe in God AT ALL any more, but I'd wager she still thinks slavery is wrong.

TomM: ***You've rephrased it, but you still only ask about the two situations. In fact the rephrasing seems (to me, though I suppose I could be reading something into it) to show both more of a "we're better than you" attitude toward Christians, and a lack of understanding of the complexity of their beliefs and motivation ***

Captain Obvious: ***Personally, I think that moral behavior is more important than asking why someone behaves that way, but I understand the point of your question, Mikey. ***

Now I think you're both misunderstanding the point of my question. My point is not to say or imply that one is actually superior to another (though I can see why you may make that inference).

My point is to counter Jwb52z's assertion that "We don't believe there is another necessary reason except, 'God said so.'" That view, in my opinion, is narrow-minded and logistically flawed. If God wants us to be simply obedient, why give us free will?

Being a Christian myself, I fully understand the complexities of the beliefs. And as a Catholic, I am also understanding of the motivations.

But I have another question for Jwb52z...

You claim that you believe in strict adherence to the literal word of the Bible until such time as God tells you otherwise. If God told you that homosexuality is as morally right as heterosexuality, you would suddenly turn around and love them as anyone else. Right? How, exactly, do you expect God to tell you?

Matthew, I mistyped. I do that a lot 'cuz I type fast and don't re-read my posts. Seems kinda silly.

Brian, "self-delusion can be a powerful tool?" If you'll permit a somewhat controversial thought, who is being self-deluded? I can easily accept the fact that you couldn't become a homosexual. But from your post, it seemed to me that you were attempting to become a homosexual not based on love for men, but based on "hatred" for women (sort of like the old cliche of a woman becoming a lesbian, but I digress). Now that's what I'm talking about! Your motives for becoming a homosexual seem (please correct me if I'm wrong), like I said, out of hatred for women. I don't think that's a good enough reason to become homosexual, and if my kid said he was becoming gay because of that reason, I'd talk to him HARD about it. That's like saying you don't want to go to church because you've met a mean pastor.

Jwb, everyone else, can we just cool it?

Captain Obvious, your story sounds similar to mine, although I think that when I returned to Christianity after I abandoned it the first time, I got more of a handle on the situation. What I believe now is that bandying semantics is fun and profitable for som e Christians, but not for me. The number one priority in a Christian life is living a life based on Christ's commands, which includes showing that to others, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't think a homosexual will change sexual orientiation just because I go up to him, and start talking to him about religion. He MAY accept Jesus Christ as his Savior, which is the first step, and who knows what will happen from there? I've met gay Christians, and I don't really want to say anything about their eternal destination. As I've said, this is a tough issue.

The slavery thing is far easier for me. I suppose if we did slavery like we did in the OT (pretty impossible in today's world--note the part about letting slaves go), it would be cool, but the Bible doesn't say we need to have slaves, it just gave us humane commands in a world where slavery was a major part.

Brian, "self-delusion can be a powerful tool?" If you'll permit a somewhat controversial thought, who is being self-deluded? I can easily accept the fact that you couldn't become a homosexual. But from your post, it seemed to me that you were attempting to become a homosexual not based on love for men, but based on "hatred" for women (sort of like the old cliche of a woman becoming a lesbian, but I digress). Now that's what I'm talking about! Your motives for becoming a homosexual seem (please correct me if I'm wrong), like I said, out of hatred for women. I don't think that's a good enough reason to become homosexual, and if my kid said he was becoming gay because of that reason, I'd talk to him HARD about it. That's like saying you don't want to go to church because you've met a mean pastor.


You mnake it sound like I'm still doing it, Mike. that was SO not the point of me OPENING UP AND SHARING SOMETHING I'VE NEVER SHARED WITH ANYONE BEFORE! I was still a child at that time, and I was sure that after that heartbreak I'd never be ABLE to love another 'woman' the way I loved Jamie. I've proved that wrong, three times over (and had my heart broken three times over, but I keep trying). My whole point was, if it were possible to simply choose to be gay, I'd be gay by now. But I'm not. See where I'm going with this?

Cap (May I call you Cap?)--

Your life experiernce sounds a lot like mine, except I had another 4 years in a Catholic high school after my eight in parochial school. In the mid seventies, I felt and believed very much as you do now. I might have even been more like your sister had I been a little more Thomist in my waning years as a believing Catholic.

I shared the story of how it happened that I came to accept Christ in an earlier thread, but basically I started reading the Bible for ammunition in a "game" of playing "Devil's Advocate" when two of my dorm-mates (one a "fundamentalist" and the other a "cultist," though each would have repudiated the label) were constantly disagreeing over its interpretation.

My position on homosexuality is complex, and in my experience unusual. (I hesitate to call it unique). When I have the time to articulate it clearly, I'll post it on the appropriate board. In the meantime, just let me say that I can appreciate the concerns of people on all sides of the issue.

::Cap (May I call you Cap?)-- :: TomM

Sure. Have a party.

::My position on homosexuality is complex, and in my experience unusual. When I have the time to articulate it clearly, I'll post it on the appropriate board.:: TomM

We’ll be waiting.

:: In the meantime, just let me say that I can appreciate the concerns of people on all sides of the issue.:: TomM

Sounds good to me.

(I've been off for a couple days--being laid off does that to ya--so I've got some replies to J, but I'll cool it after that if he does as well.)

Mark, I agreed with just about everything in your July 24 and 25 posts. You GO, dude!
Thanks, Captain. You too. Like the man said, "Uh, huh. Yeah, that's right. We bad. We bad."

Bzzt! And thank you for playing. That's not one of the Ten. It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
I knew that. You think I didn't know that? I knew that. I didn't say I didn't know that. You said I didn't know that. *S*

Ok, so I'm only human. I make boo-boos too. That was my one for this year. *S*

...perhaps I was being self-deluded in saying you can stop being homosexual.
Not at all, Mike. Even if one's born gay, if they, for whatever reason, wish to lead a straight life instead and they're strongwilled enough to try it then, yes, one can, for lack of a better term, convert. I've no doubt it'd be a hell of a struggle at first but like most anything else the more you keep at it the easier it is and the better you are at it.

It's not a choice necessarily. MarkN

You don't know that.
You realize what my statement says, don't you, J? It means that it might be a choice, or might not. There's no proof either way.

However, although I'm straight, I see no wrongness about being gay. MarkN

The foolishness of man is the wisdom of God.
So, what, is God a fool then, too?

I'm only in favor of slavery as suggested it be done in the Bible.

My "criteria" are that it be done as the Bible suggests. That's it. You can read the Bible for yourself, I don't and should not have to always quote it for you.
J, slavery is wrong, period. Nevermind what the bible says about it. Think for yourself, dude, think! That's what your grey matter's for. If anyone wants my opinion on why it's wrong it's simple: slavery denies people their basic human rights, their dignity, all of their freedoms, it denigrates them, makes them appear to less than human by their oppressors (which, ironically, makes the oppressor less than human) and so therefore is, for all intents and purposes, evil.

"Incorrect denomination?" Can you name some? Which ones are "incorrect"? Captain Obvious

Trust me, we don't need to go there. I don't want to even start down that path. It would not accomplish anything but make everyone mad at me if they already are not.
Hey, you brought it up, fella. Don't start something and then back out of it when someone calls you on it.

It doesn’t mean the kid is disobedient. Captain Obvious

What else do you call a child who does not do what their parents want? It sounds like a definition of disobedient to me.
There are times when a child has to be disobedient to what the parent wants, like, oh, I dunno, something that could harm the child perhaps?! If a parent commits incest then do you think the kids should just give in to their parents' perversions and not argue with them? I'm not saying you're saying that but again you've made another statement that's too broad to fit into just one example, J.

I'd love to see what would happen if you two were locked up in a room together. MarkN

We would probably drive each other insane, but it would be interesting.
Oh, wow! I agree with you on this, J.

Opinion, not fact. MarkN

It's not an opinion when it comes from God.
No, but it is when it comes from you ("you", as in anyone}.

I seem to be the only one that can avoid directly rude comments.
HAH!! Hardly.

It's called a necessary inference. Otherwise, all the agnostics would be right.....and I don't even want to go there.
How do you know we're not? And don't ask how do I know you're not, cuz well, you're not.

Who are you to decide what is more important than something else to God? It owuld seem that all of it is or God wouldn't have said it.
The same could be asked of you as well, J. Who are you to presume to know what God wants, thinks, says, what his Great Plan is and so on? Stop being so arrogant.

I have a lesbian cousin. I don't hate her, but I do think she is very wrong for having chosen to be that way.
So what is it, J? Is it choice or not? You can't have it both ways.

::Bull. You quote the Bible whenever you want when you think it’ll support your argument. But there’s obviously some reason why you won’t mention those details NOW, even when I’m asking you to do so to humor your assertion about slavery being acceptable. I admit I don’t know where precisely in the Bible it offers details on how to make slavery acceptable, but I’m willing to listen to you if you point it out to me. Why are you now, all of a sudden, running away from the question? Is there some particular reason you’re afraid to talk about it?:: Captain Obvious

I'm not afraid, I just feel there is nothing left to be said about it. There's nothing left on the topic that I can see that has not already been said many times.

::Neither does using tired old cliches or swiping from Bill Cosby’s old comedy material.:: Captain Obvious

I thought it was a good way to say something with humor that was adequately describing parental control with a little bit of fun.

::No, it isn’t. If a person is offended by something someone else says, it doesn’t automatically mean the speaker INTENDED offense. Many people have been offended by things they THOUGHT you meant in your posts, and you’ve said that you did not intend it.:: Captain Obvious

When I said, "reaction is often evidence of intention" I did not mean "your reaction is evidence of MY intention." I meant "your reaction is evidence of YOUR intention.

:: Okay, so if someone’s in their forties, and married with two kids, they have to consult their parents with every important decision they make? What kind of ineffectual eunuch need’s to call up their mom and dad to get their say so on everything? So would a parent need to consult their parents (the grandparents, if you will) on where to take their family for vacation, which house to buy, whether to put in a swimming pool in the back yard, whether or not to have a third kid, etc, before doing so? And if the grandparent says, "No, don’t go to Hawaii for your vacation; I went and didn’t like it", the family can’t go? If Granny tells Mom and Dad not to have a third kid, even though Mom and Dad have two successfully raised children, can afford it, and one of them will stay home and raise them, Mom and Dad are disobedient and ungrateful if they decide to do so anyway?:: Captain Obvious

Why did you think I meant "permission?" I meant "ask them what they think." Just because I think you should go as closely to your parents wishes as you can, does not mean it is permission.

::Society can punish an adult if they’re convicted of a crime. I don’t know of any way for an grown adult on living on their own to be punished by their parents. Honest. If you have any examples, let’s hear ‘em. Or are you now running away from another question?:: Captain Obvious

I was thinking of the legal system, if there could be a way to do it there.

::Tell you what. Please stop being condescending. Please stop being a hypocrite. Please stop criticizing others for doing or saying things that you do, and then turning around and saying that’s it’s somehow acceptable when you do it because "in your mind" it’s correct, or a different category or whatever. Please stop acting that others have difficulty in understanding you simply when they DISAGREE with you by saying, "I don’t know of any other way to explain to you in a way you’ll understand." You do all that, I promise to stop mentioning the whole "Borg leader" thing.:: Captain Obvious

You are basically telling me, "Never say anything unless you agree with another poster here." If I'm not allowed to disagree with anyone here in a way that I feel is not a lie or changing the way I mean things, I can't say anything.

::Would you feel this way if you were the slave?:: Captain Obvious

If I believed the Bible or what God has said the way I do and was a slave, then yes I would have to feel that way. I may not like it, but I would have to accept it.

::Yet Jwb52z would have us believe that the Bible is not to be interpreted. It is what it is on its face.:: Mikey

If I sounded that way, I am sorry. I believe the Bible is literal in some parts and figurative in others.

::Furthermore, if the Bible could be interpreted in such radically different and opposing ways, then what use is it as an authority to drive our moral compasses?:: Mikey

Isn't that kin to asking "Why make the Constitution vague?"

::The issue people are having isn't with you, but with people (like Jwb52z) who aren't as open-minded or willing to listen to other perspectives as you are.:: Mikey

I will LISTEN to anything. That does not mean I will consider it to be valid. I've had to listen to lots of things in college that I thought were crocks.

::But the Christian Right doesn't believe that. They believe the teachings of the Bible are not to be interpreted, they are to be followed to the letter. Why? Because God told us to. And why should we do what God says? Because we will be punished if we don't.:: Mikey

Although I don't believe there is more than one right way to see the teachings of Christ and the Bible, I do think that this is where some Christians get it wrong. You don't do it because you will be punished. You do it because you should WANT TO because you love God and want to please him because He is your Father.

BTW, TomM, I can't quote all your post, but I wish I could say things the way you do so people would not get mad at me. I just have a problem letting things go.

::I don't think that if I get to the Pearly Gates, that St. Peter is going to turn into Alex Trebek give me pop quiz on Christian dogma trivia, and tell me I won't get in if I don't believe the right combination of things.:: Captain Obvious

I don't believe people have to be perfect. Are you saying that you seriously think that you can be right with God and have a wrong belief though?

::Society, for the most part, is not accepting of homosexuality:: Captain Obvious

That phrase "for the most part" is the important bit. The idea of it being wrong is going the other direction and you have to be in certain places to still find people believing it is wrong.

::My point is to counter Jwb52z's assertion that "We don't believe there is another necessary reason except, 'God said so.'" That view, in my opinion, is narrow-minded and logistically flawed. If God wants us to be simply obedient, why give us free will?:: Mikey

God gave us free will because only that gives us the ability to CHOOSE to serve God. God didn't want robots. He wanted His creation to choose Him, and before you say it, yes, since He is the creator, He does have the right to punish people who don't use their free will the way He would want.

::Being a Christian myself, I fully understand the complexities of the beliefs. And as a Catholic, I am also understanding of the motivations.:: Mikey

So you see those as different things? I thought Catholics saw those as being the same thing.

::You claim that you believe in strict adherence to the literal word of the Bible until such time as God tells you otherwise. If God told you that homosexuality is as morally right as heterosexuality, you would suddenly turn around and love them as anyone else. Right? How, exactly, do you expect God to tell you?:: Mikey

First of all, I gave you all the wrong impression because I was imprecise. I don't believe every word of the Bible is literal because I believe there are a few things that cannot be due to our physical laws which I believe God would not violate after Biblical times because he created them. There are things I believe in the Bible to be figurative, but with a real meaning that is exact. It is just our job to figure it out. BTW, all this business has me thinking of something I've wanted to say for a long time. When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres. Why do people believe God would have more than one meaning when He says something? You would think a perfect being would not do that. That's why I say that there can't be more than one right interpretation. We may both be wrong, but we both can't be right.

::So, what, is God a fool then, too?:: MarkN

No, what that means is that alot of things that man considers to be stu pid are possibly actually what God wants and we just disregard them. Is that clear enough?

::Nevermind what the bible says about it.:: MarkN

I can't do that.

::Hey, you brought it up, fella. Don't start something and then back out of it when someone calls you on it.:: MarkN

Just because I give something a description I believe it deserves, does not mean I want to discuss it. That's like asking someone "Why do you call it the "religious wrong"?" Some people just don't want to discuss things they say when they don't think they are worth discussing.

::There are times when a child has to be disobedient to what the parent wants, like, oh, I dunno, something that could harm the child perhaps?! If a parent commits incest then do you think the kids should just give in to their parents' perversions and not argue with them? I'm not saying you're saying that but again you've made another statement that's too broad to fit into just one example, J.:: MarkN

I've said the exceptions are when a parent asks a child to do something that is illegal, immoral, or unethical, they don't have to do it.

:: Oh, wow! I agree with you on this, J.:: MarkN

Driving Peter insane might be kind of fun.

::No, but it is when it comes from you ("you", as in anyone}.:: MarkN

Not if we are right about what we say.

::HAH!! Hardly.:: MarkN

The keyword is "directly."

::How do you know we're not? And don't ask how do I know you're not, cuz well, you're not.:: MarkN

Now you're doing what you accuse me of doing.

::The same could be asked of you as well, J. Who are you to presume to know what God wants, thinks, says, what his Great Plan is and so on? Stop being so arrogant.:: MarkN

The only way we CAN try to do what God wants is to try to figure it out. That's not the same thing as assigning importance to things. As I said before, if it was not important, God probably would not have said it.

::So what is it, J? Is it choice or not? You can't have it both ways.:: MarkN

What does that have to do with what I said about my cousin? I don't hate her, but I think she is wrong and I do think it was a choice.

Brian, I apologize for misinterpreting your situation, but I'd still like to say that you sort of prove my point--there are people that have tried to be gay but really are not. And I'd like to drop this conversation now before it gets too out of control, and get back to the main thread.


Mark, I agree with your statement that anybody can change with the right willpower. Thanks for saying this.

Jwb52z: ***Isn't that kin to asking "Why make the Constitution vague?" ***

First off, you're avoiding the question by trying to imply that there's a logistical flaw in it. And if there is, this isn't it. I have not mentioned the Constitution. I have never said any such thing or made any such question.

*BUT*...

We accept that the Constitution is a document created by man. It is flawed. And some aspects of the Constitution are left vague and open to interpretation, perhaps purposely because our forefathers knew that a law created then may not stand the test of time. The Constitution ignores many rights that we deem fundamental today. But that is why we amend the Constitution.

But the Bible is supposedly a documentation of the Word of God. Thus it is infallible to you. Right? Otherwise, why would you follow it so strictly (and often literally)?

So how can a perfect document be interpreted in such radically opposing ways and yet still be the end-all-be-all word on morality?


Mikey: ***How, exactly, do you expect God to tell you?***

Jwb52z: ***First of all, I gave you all the wrong impression because I was imprecise. I don't believe every word of the Bible is literal...***

That's fine. I appreciate you clarifying your position because that is precisely how you sound.

But you ignored the question... How do you expect God to tell you that there's either been a change or that you've misinterpreted?

::So how can a perfect document be interpreted in such radically opposing ways and yet still be the end-all-be-all word on morality?:: Mikey

The answer is simply, "because we are human and imperfect and have finite minds."

::But you ignored the question... How do you expect God to tell you that there's either been a change or that you've misinterpreted?::

I don't believe God will do that because I believe God no longer has contact, physically or in a way we can perceive, with humanity anymore.

I disagree with your last statement, Jwb. What is the point with prayer if God does nothing?

The Constitution ignores many rights that we deem fundamental today

Actually, it does mention them. See The Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I don't believe God will do that because I believe God no longer has contact, physically or in a way we can perceive, with humanity anymore.

I can't accept that, because I can't believe a loving God would deliberately cut himself off from contact with his creations and not be able to warn them if they're going astray.

Besides, if there's something God can't do, doesn't that mean he's not God?

By MikeC on Saturday, July 28, 2001 - 08:00 am:


Brian, I apologize for misinterpreting your situation, but I'd still like to say that you sort of prove my point--there are people that have tried to be gay but really are not. And I'd like to drop this conversation now before it gets too out of control, and get back to the main thread.


Mark, I agree with your statement that anybody can change with the right willpower. Thanks for saying this.


Mike, since I know you fairly, I know you didn't mean that to be as insulting and ridiculous as it sounds. I should also throw into the mix that I know a fair sure of homosexuals and bisexuals. Perhaps I should've mentiuoned that earlier, then we could've avoided this whole mess.

In order to avoid yet another mess, I won't go into details, but suffice to say, their experiences, and mine, have led to the follwoing conclusion: 99.9, maybe 99.8 of homo and bi-sexulas are born. Yes, certain circumstnaces and traumas can lead to someone "becoming" gay as you point. Not one gay, bi, or transgender person I've met has ever contested this. But to say that all or most of them are by choice, or, as you put it, out of spite is just a prime example of many Christian's inability to remove the blinders.

I think that if you had a son that came out of the closet, and the first you said was "Why do you choose to be like this?", that could end up hurting him just as badly as if you'd called him a fag and kicked him out. Like when a bully would beat me up in school, and the first thing my 'loving' father would say would be, usually, "What did you do Brian?"

Just because I give something a description I believe it deserves, does not mean I want to discuss it.
Fine, then don't bring it up to begin with. That way you'll avoid getting angry responses that you might try weaseling out of anyway.

The only way we CAN try to do what God wants is to try to figure it out.
But with billions of people all with their own ideas, concepts, interpretations and so forth how can you honestly think and believe that yours is the one and only true interpretation of what God wants? You may think you know, but you don't. Nobody does, no matter what they believe. Again, it's just all one's own opinion.

What does that have to do with what I said about my cousin? I don't hate her, but I think she is wrong and I do think it was a choice.
What I meant was that you seemed to have said it's both a choice and not, specifically that I didn't know if it was or not myself (personally, I don't care either way). I also have a cousin that I suspect is gay but I've never asked her. You know, practicing a little tact. She's very cute and quite smart to boot (didn't mean to rhyme there but oh, well). Not really of any importance. Just thought I'd bring it up.

Also, again you think it's wrong that she, or anyone who's gay, is only gay by choice, but that's not always the case. In some cases I don't doubt it is but in others someone probably is born just as gay as the next is born straight or bi or feels trapped in the wrong gendered body. You're not gay (so far as I know, but hey...) so you don't know what it's like to be gay, and yes, I know you wouldn't want to find out. That's fine. You're straight (so far as I know, but hey...), so you only know what it's like to be straight. Do you believe you were born straight or decided to live that way? Don't blame someone for being gay if in fact they were born that way cuz it's not their fault. Don't judge so hastely with people you don't know or know anything about.

Someone's being gay is of no consequence or importance to me, even if was my own child or family member. As I think I've mentioned once upon a time before the only slight beef I have with some gays are men who are extremely effiminate or women who are extremely masculine, but again it's no concern of mine and has no bearing on my life so I wouldn't try to change them even if I could cuz it wouldn't be my place. Live and let live, ya know?

Here's a question for you, Jwb. In which case would you feel the most uncomfortable: 1.) Being in a room full of friendly gay people who'd respect your feelings and try having nice chats with you without trying to hit on you (well, the men, at least), or; 2.) being in a room full of crazed killers, arsonists, rapists and theives?
I'd choose the gays anytime.

::I admit I don’t know where precisely in the Bible it offers details on how to make slavery acceptable, but I’m willing to listen to you if you point it out to me. Why are you now, all of a sudden, running away from the question? Is there some particular reason you’re afraid to talk about it?:: Captain Obvious

::I'm not afraid, I just feel there is nothing left to be said about it. There's nothing left on the topic that I can see that has not already been said many times.:: Jwb

You’re a liar. You referred to Biblical criteria on how to institute slavery in an acceptable manner. No one else has made such an allegation, nor have you answered this question elsewhere in any detail. You’re simply running away from the question.

::Neither does using tired old cliches or swiping from Bill Cosby’s old comedy material.:: Captain Obvious

I thought it was a good way to say something with humor that was adequately describing parental control with a little bit of fun.:: Jwb

Okay. I can respect that. But two points:
1. I sometimes use sarcasm for the same reason, which is
nothing more than the use of irony for humorous purposes, yet you whine about it.
2. You once said you never joke.

So once again, we have a situation where you make some broad, sweeping statement where you criticize certain behavior, not realizing that doing so means it might trip you up later when you yourself exhibit that behavior.

::No, it isn’t. If a person is offended by something someone else says, it doesn’t automatically mean the speaker INTENDED offense. Many people have been offended by things they THOUGHT you meant in your posts, and you’ve said that you did not intend it.:: Captain Obvious

::When I said, "reaction is often evidence of intention" I did not mean "your reaction is evidence of MY intention." I meant "your reaction is evidence of YOUR intention.:: Jwb

You’re a liar.

This statement is nothing more than another attempt at verbal smoke and mirrors.

If one person makes a statement, and a second person REACTS to that statement, how can the second one have an "intent", when the first one is the one doing the speaking? The SPEAKER has an intent when he/she says something, not the listener when he or she reacts to it.

This point relates to your assertion in your July 25th post, "Any child who would go against their parents' and family's wishes is ungrateful." In other words, if a person is mulling over a decision, and their parent tells them what THEY wish the person would do, and the person decides against it, that it automatically indicates that person is ungrateful. It doesn't. A person can be loving and sincere towards their parents, and still RESPECTFULLY choose a different path. Not doing what someone else suggests, whether it's your friend or your parents, does not, in and of itself, necessarily denote a specific emotion (gratitude) or lackthereof (ungratefulness).

::Why did you think I meant "permission?" I meant "ask them what they think." Just because I think you should go as closely to your parents wishes as you can, does not mean it is permission.:: Jwb

Now you’re just backpeddaling.

You said, "Any child who would go against their parents' and family's wishes is ungrateful. Also, no matter what you think, a parent IS above their children in the scheme of things. They're the ones in charge. You simply teach them what they need to do and how to act and make sure they do it or have them punished.",

and "There are ways to punish adults, if you think long enough. You can figure it out."

You didn't say a person who doesn't even bother to consider their parents' suggestion is ungrateful. (If you had, I might've agreed. Anyone who doesn't even bother to listen to a loved one's advice, be it friend, sibling, parent, etc., particularly when that person has proven themself a dispensor of reliable information to that person in the past, may indeed BE ungrateful.) You said anyone who goes against a parents wishes is ungrateful. This means, if a parent says,

"Son, I really think you should do this..." and the son replies,

"Thanks, mom. I want you to know that I love you, and respect your point of view, but in this situation, I feel I have to do something different",

that the son is automatically ungrateful, no matter how respectfully he informs his parent of his decision, simply because it's not the one the parent would've made.

You seem to be in the habit of not thinking things through whenever you make one of these broad pronouncements concerning your beliefs, nor keep track of what you've said in the past, because you keep contradicting yourself. If you deliberated on these matters a bit more when answering them, rather than simply reacting for the sake of disagreeing with someone, which is what it appears you may be doing, you'd realize that it's difficult to set such braod parameters without tripping over them in the future.

::Tell you what. Please stop being condescending. Please stop being a hypocrite. Please stop criticizing others for doing or saying things that you do, and then turning around and saying that’s it’s somehow acceptable when you do it because "in your mind" it’s correct, or a different category or whatever. Please stop acting that others have difficulty in understanding you simply when they DISAGREE with you by saying, "I don’t know of any other way to explain to you in a way you’ll understand." You do all that, I promise to stop mentioning the whole "Borg leader" thing.:: Captain Obvious

::You are basically telling me, "Never say anything unless you agree with another poster here." If I'm not allowed to disagree with anyone here in a way that I feel is not a lie or changing the way I mean things, I can't say anything.:: Jwb

Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I NEVER SAID. I DIDN’T SAY "DISAGREE." Show me where in that post of mine I ever said the word "disagree." I said don’t "condescend", and don’t be a "hypocrite." Where did I ever use the word "disagree?" What part of that last post of mine did you not understand? Unless you haven’t noticed, Professor Plum, EVERYONE on these boards disagrees with one another to one degree or another. Have you never noticed this? You’re the only one who attempts to profess or establish standards of behavior that you yourself do not adhere to. Don’t tell people that you don’t make rude remarks when you damm well do. Don't tell us you never joke, and then use humor as the reason why you said something. Don't talk down to people for wording things in a way you claim caused you to misinterpret it, when you yourself often word things in a convoluted, redundant way, and at other times in a way that causes people to conclude you're saying questionable things. (For example, the statement "I don't believe I use it because what I say doesn't fit that category because it is different" would work much better if you simply said, "That's a different situation.") Stop doing this, and I’ll stop it with the Borg leader jokes. Deal?

:: I don't believe people have to be perfect. Are you saying that you seriously think that you can be right with God and have a wrong belief though?:: Jwb

I’m saying I don’t think my beliefs are wrong to begin with. If I did, I wouldn’t have them. If someone convinced me or persuaded me of a better conclusion, I’d change that belief. Obviously, everyone believes that they are right, and that their beliefs are the "correct" ones.

::When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres.:: Jwb

Or when they’re joking.

Or when they using metaphors.

Or when they using symbolism when writing stories with multiple levels of them or plot.

Or when they believe or know something subconsciously, but not consciously.

Or when they’re lying.

Or when the word itself has more than one meaning, or means something in different languages.

::Hey, you brought it up, fella. Don't start something and then back out of it when someone calls you on it.:: MarkN

::Just because I give something a description I believe it deserves, does not mean I want to discuss it. Some people just don't want to discuss things they say when they don't think they are worth discussing.:: Jwb

Interesting thing to say on a DISCUSSION board, especially since you brought it up.

By the way, given your beliefs on both parenthood and homosexuality, what should a person do if their father discloses to his son that he’s gay, and tells his son that that’s the way it is, he’s not going to change, and the son had better accept it or else? Just curious.

::I disagree with your last statement, Jwb. What is the point with prayer if God does nothing?:: MikeC

I never said God does nothing. I said that I believe that God doesn't physically communicate with humanity anymore. What he does or does not do other than that, I don't venture to even guess. There's no way to know.

::I can't accept that, because I can't believe a loving God would deliberately cut himself off from contact with his creations and not be able to warn them if they're going astray.

Besides, if there's something God can't do, doesn't that mean he's not God?:: Matthew Patterson

During the days before the Bible was written, God only spoke to people he found to be of some special favor or for some special purpose. The Bible says that there was a time when that was happening, but that it changed and "God is no respector of persons" That's just a paraphrase though. I know that other people don't think that it means what I think it means. I think that means that God does not speak to anyone any longer. For Him to do so, He would have to hold one person above any other and I believe that goes against what Christ did when He came. According to Him we are all equal for salvation chances so that is why I don't believe God would talk to people now. We have the Bible and that is what I believe God wants us to know and try to figure out. If God still spoke to people, the Bible would not be necessary. Oh, BTW, God CAN do anything, I just don't believe He DOES do everything.

::Fine, then don't bring it up to begin with. That way you'll avoid getting angry responses that you might try weaseling out of anyway.:: MarkN

Why should I just have to not say something because I don't want to have it as a focus of discussion? Why can't I say things that are just a passing comment?

::But with billions of people all with their own ideas, concepts, interpretations and so forth how can you honestly think and believe that yours is the one and only true interpretation of what God wants? You may think you know, but you don't. Nobody does, no matter what they believe. Again, it's just all one's own opinion.:: MarkN

The answer is simple. If NO ONE has it right, we're all doomed. There has to be SOMEONE who has it figured out because God meant for us to be able to get it right if we tried hard enough. There cannot be 2 diametrically opposed views that are both correct.

::You know, practicing a little tact.:: MarkN

My family never asked the cousin either. She told all of us.

::Also, again you think it's wrong that she, or anyone who's gay, is only gay by choice, but that's not always the case.:: MarkN

According to the Bible, it is wrong and it is a sin. Sin has to be a choice for it to be sin in the first place. You have to choose to do or think improperly.

::Do you believe you were born straight or decided to live that way?:: MarkN

I believe I was born the way I am. I just believe others choose to turn away from what they are to choose to sin.

::Here's a question for you, Jwb. In which case would you feel the most uncomfortable: 1.) Being in a room full of friendly gay people who'd respect your feelings and try having nice chats with you without trying to hit on you (well, the men, at least), or; 2.) being in a room full of crazed killers, arsonists, rapists and theives?
I'd choose the gays anytime.:: MarkN

That's a loaded question. I would choose sane people over those who are not any day. I believe both groups are wrong, but the gay people are safer.

::You’re a liar. You referred to Biblical criteria on how to institute slavery in an acceptable manner. No one else has made such an allegation, nor have you answered this question elsewhere in any detail. You’re simply running away from the question.:: Captain Obvious

You have no cause or reason to think I am a liar. That's unfair of you. I am not running away from it. I simply think that it is unimportant.

::1. I sometimes use sarcasm for the same reason, which is
nothing more than the use of irony for humorous purposes, yet you whine about it.
2. You once said you never joke.:: Captain Obvious

I also later said that there are times when I have tried and failed or was funny and didn't know it or intend it. I don't use sarcasm, because that's usually at someone's expense. What I said was not at an individual's expense.

::You’re a liar.

This statement is nothing more than another attempt at verbal smoke and mirrors.:: Captain Obvious

No, I'm not, and no, it's not. I meant what I said I meant.

::If one person makes a statement, and a second person REACTS to that statement, how can the second one have an "intent", when the first one is the one doing the speaking? The SPEAKER has an intent when he/she says something, not the listener when he or she reacts to it.:: Captain Obvious

Humans create their reactions. They choose to react the way they do. That's how they can have an intent. Your reaction shows what you think. What you think is a potential intention to act. I know you don't think you did, but you're really telling me to not say anything. I can't say certain things in the way you want me to without feeling like I'm not having the impact I intend. If I can't say it how I think something should be said, I wouldn't bother saying it.

If God still spoke to people, the Bible would not be necessary.

They had Scripture back when God still thundered out of the heavens every other Tuesday. Try again.

According to Him we are all equal for salvation chances so that is why I don't believe God would talk to people now.

So because we're all equal, we've been cut off from God because he doesn't want to look like he's playing favorites? What nonsense!

During the days before the Bible was written, God only spoke to people he found to be of some special favor or for some special purpose. The Bible says that there was a time when that was happening, but that it changed and "God is no respector of persons" That's just a paraphrase though. I know that other people don't think that it means what I think it means. I think that means that God does not speak to anyone any longer.

Sorry, but the statement "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)does not mean that God does not act (or will no longer act, or however you wish to phrase it) in the lives of individuals. When Peter realized and exclaimed this fact it was because the Gentile centurian Cornelius had had a visitation which directed him to seek out Peter to learn the Gospel and be baptised. Because of this, and another vision which Peter had at the same time, Peter realized that God didn't care who or what Cornelius had been, but only that Cornelius was sincerely seeking Him and willing to hear and belive in the Gospel.

Neither is it true that the statement marks a change in God's attitude toward men, or in the way He chooces to manifest Himself. Chapter 19 of Leviticus -- one of the books of Moses -- is a paraphrase and elaboration of the ten commandments, and verse 15 reads "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: [but] in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour," and every other verse which includes the words respect and person is similar. One, specifically directed to authorities sitting in judgment, shows the real intent of this phrase with the Hebrew poetic technique of parallelism: "Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." Deut 16:19

Also repeatedly God has shown that He does not respect the worldly power and position of men by those He's chosen to perform greatly in His name: Moses, the stutterer; Gideon, the doubter; David, the slight (underweight) shepherd; Simon/Peter, the quarrelsome fisherman; Levi/Matthew, the tax collector, Saul/Paul, the persecutor. It is not true that "God only spoke to people he found to be of some special favor."

Not respecting (taking undue note of) their circumstances and social positions did not mean not revealing Himself to them, or through them to the world. It meant manifesting Himself despite their unworthiness.

I know that a lot of people in the churches I used to attend believed that God spoke to them through the "gift of Tongues".

There are probably thousands of people, if not millions, who believe God has at one time or another spoken to them. If, as you believe, J, God doesn't communicate with us, then these people are either self-deluded, crazy, or in communication with the Devil or some other demon.

Jwb, I've felt God's presence in my life. Physically. And I'm not even that spiritual--there are people in my church (sane, godly types) that have felt God in their lives. I notice really nothing in the Bible to either support or tear down your statement, so I'll just let it stand as a personal opinion.

Brian, that's not the first thing I would do--asking my son why he became gay. The first thing I would do would be say "I love you." However, I WOULD ask him. If he says, "I don't know; I just felt that way," well, I'll leave it at that. But if he says "Because you're religious, so I'm spiting you!" Well, that's another hunk of beans.

Mark, I would LOVE to be in a room of intelligent, pleasant, ready-to-discuss homosexuals. After all, didn't Jesus eat with the "tax collectors and sinners?" He was called not to heal the healthy, but the sick. Similarly, while fellowship is important, what's the point of always being around people you agree with? Why do you think I come here?

Finally, if God does not SPEAK to anyone, I will state--Why do we pray asking God to tell us or guide us in our lives? Are we self-deluding ourselves?

Why should I just have to not say something because I don't want to have it as a focus of discussion? Why can't I say things that are just a passing comment?
*heavy sigh* Dude, you just never want to see it, do you?

The answer is simple. If NO ONE has it right, we're all doomed. There has to be SOMEONE who has it figured out because God meant for us to be able to get it right if we tried hard enough. There cannot be 2 diametrically opposed views that are both correct.
Then we're all doomed, cuz guess what? No one does have it right! Get that through your thick skull, J. Again, with now 6 billion people on this planet not everyone's gonna believe or think the same things, nor can you expect them to. Why can't you see that or wish not to? Why is your view the only valid one? Why are you so arrogant to believe that? Look, I respect that you have views, I just don't respect those views.

*getting closer and closer to strangling Jwb*

According to the Bible, it is wrong and it is a sin. Sin has to be a choice for it to be sin in the first place. You have to choose to do or think improperly. Why do you always only argue that it's a choice, making it a sin, but you never consider the possibility of being born gay, which isn't a choice and therefore not a sin, cuz you never chose to practice it to begin with?

That's a loaded question. I would choose sane people over those who are not any day. I believe both groups are wrong, but the gay people are safer.
It's not loaded at all, but you made the right choice.

Moses stuttered? I never knew that, nor has he ever been portrayed as such, so far as I know, at least on film. I mean how popular would The Ten Commandments be if Charlton Heston stammered, "Ph-Ph-Pharoah, let m-m-my people g-go!"

Hell, I remember that. But I used to be very fascinated by Moses. And Elijah.

It's why Moses didn't want to lead the Israelites. So God gave him Aaron to speak for him. Apparently Moses' stutter cleared up, 'cos later on he doesn't seem to have any problems speaking in public.

Yeah, according to the stories, Pharoah (the father of "Pharoah's daughter") had some worries about Moses (I forget why). So he had him put to the test as a baby. He put a bowl of jewels and a bowl of hot coals in front of baby Moses and let him pick. If he went for the jewels, it would be curtains for Moses.

Of course, Moses, being a baby, started for the jewels, but G-d turned his hand to the coals. Moses burned his hand and put it to his mouth, burning his tongue with the hot coals, and leading to his stutter.

::They had Scripture back when God still thundered out of the heavens every other Tuesday. Try again.:: Matthew Patterson

On the contrary, until the Bible was written and in its final form, those things were still necessary. Afterward they were not because the law had been fulfilled. The only things they really had were people who were inspired directly from God to teach and perform miracles by the power of God.

::So because we're all equal, we've been cut off from God because he doesn't want to look like he's playing favorites? What nonsense!:: Matthew Patterson

The foolishness of Man is the wisdome of God...

::Sorry, but the statement "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)does not mean that God does not act (or will no longer act, or however you wish to phrase it) in the lives of individuals. When Peter realized and exclaimed this fact it was because the Gentile centurian Cornelius had had a visitation which directed him to seek out Peter to learn the Gospel and be baptised. Because of this, and another vision which Peter had at the same time, Peter realized that God didn't care who or what Cornelius had been, but only that Cornelius was sincerely seeking Him and willing to hear and belive in the Gospel.:: TomM

I disagree. I do believe it means that God would no longer speak or have direct physical discernible contact with humanity. It is no longer necessary because of the Bible. The supernatural things that occurred in those times were for one specific purpose. They were to get people to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's it. Once they believed that they would then be taught more. There is no more need for those things that are mentioned in the Bible because all of that was not necessary after the Bible was finalized and after Christ was crucified and returned to The Father.

::Neither is it true that the statement marks a change in God's attitude toward men, or in the way He chooces to manifest Himself. Chapter 19 of Leviticus -- one of the books of Moses -- is a paraphrase and elaboration of the ten commandments, and verse 15 reads "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: [but] in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour," and every other verse which includes the words respect and person is similar. One, specifically directed to authorities sitting in judgment, shows the real intent of this phrase with the Hebrew poetic technique of parallelism: "Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." Deut 16:19:: TomM

I know why you think what you do, but I think you read it wrong or have an inaccurate translation that you are reading from to get that idea.

::Also repeatedly God has shown that He does not respect the worldly power and position of men by those He's chosen to perform greatly in His name: Moses, the stutterer; Gideon, the doubter; David, the slight (underweight) shepherd; Simon/Peter, the quarrelsome fisherman; Levi/Matthew, the tax collector, Saul/Paul, the persecutor. It is not true that "God only spoke to people he found to be of some special favor.":: TomM

Yes it is or God wouldn't have chosen those specific people. There was something different about them somehow that set them apart from other humans.

::There are probably thousands of people, if not millions, who believe God has at one time or another spoken to them. If, as you believe, J, God doesn't communicate with us, then these people are either self-deluded, crazy, or in communication with the Devil or some other demon.:: Benn

While I don't believe the Devil has any power other than slight nonphysical influence, I think you're right. They're either self deluded or insane.

::Finally, if God does not SPEAK to anyone, I will state--Why do we pray asking God to tell us or guide us in our lives? Are we self-deluding ourselves?:: MikeC

God wants us to speak to Him, and He does answer prayers, but not by direct manipulation or interference of the worldly order He created. It is more of "allowing things to exist or be learned or to happen that He might not have, had we not asked Him." BTW, God already knows what you were going to ask Him I believe, so it was already there to happen. God was just waiting for you to realize that it was something you should ask.

::Why do you always only argue that it's a choice, making it a sin, but you never consider the possibility of being born gay, which isn't a choice and therefore not a sin, cuz you never chose to practice it to begin with?:: MarkN

I argue that because if it were "born" in people it could not be wrong because it would then not be a choice. I don't think God would do that to someone and then say "even though you were born that way it is still wrong." That would be cruel and I don't believe God to be a bastard, which is what it would make Him if He did that.

::Why should I just have to not say something because I don't want to have it as a focus of discussion? Why can't I say things that are just a passing comment?::

Um, because this isn’t a "Passing Comment Board"? If there’s a subject you don’t want to talk about, don’t talk about it. Don’t drop a controversial statement and then cower away when others ask you to elaborate on it. This is a DISCUSSION board.

Obviously, there’s some reason why you’re afraid to talk about what specific conditions you’ve read in the Bible that would make slavery acceptable. I certainly don’t buy your anemic excuses that "there’s nothing more to be said on the matter", when everyone WANTS you to say more, or "you can look it up yourself and I don’t have to quote it" when you never shy away from quoting the Bible on any other subject, or the patented "it was just a passing comment" c rap, when you commented on it FOUR or FIVE times. It was a "passing comment" when I brought it up in response to your comment to Mark that male superiority in a marriage is a "Biblical thing." It ceased being a passing comment when you and I exchanged words on it FIVE TIMES.

::Humans create their reactions. They choose to react the way they do.:: Jwb

No, they don’t. Reactions are often automatic, and not deliberate. People often choose how to ACT. They don’t necessarily choose how to REACT.

:: Your reaction shows what you think. What you think is a potential intention to act.::

Okay, so if a person goes against their parents’ wishes, and the parents conclude that the person is ungrateful, what exactly is the parents’ "intent"?

::I know you don't think you did, but you're really telling me to not say anything.::

No, I’m not. I’m saying not to criticize others for doing or saying things that you yourself do, and refuse to admit it.

You are not the only person on these boards who is for the death penalty, for example, but you’re the only person who felt it necessary to condescendingly tell Brain Webber that he was "anti-justice" simply because he’s opposed to it, as if being opposed to a specific TYPE of punishment is somehow akin to being opposed to any and all punishments in general. I’m for the death penalty myself, but I don’t feel it necessary to demonize those I disagree with on the issue. Thus, you and I have the same position on the death penalty. We do NOT, however, both feel it necessary to condescend to others when articulating that point. If you do, it’s not because other methods have less "impact" (I wonder if impact for you merely means shock value—you’re version of profanity or sarcasm), it’s because you simply lack the character or the ability to communicate with others in an equitable manner.

::Why do you always only argue that it's a choice, making it a sin, but you never consider the possibility of being born gay, which isn't a choice and therefore not a sin, cuz you never chose to practice it to begin with?:: MarkN

::I argue that because if it were "born" in people it could not be wrong because it would then not be a choice.:: Jwb

Bingo! Now you’re learning! Homosexuality (and even TRANSEXUALITY) occurs in nature among fruit flies, mollusks, amphibians, and apes. Why would it not occur naturally in humans when so much evidence indicates it does?

::That would be cruel and I don't believe God to be a bastard, which is what it would make Him if He did that.::

Ya know, for all the profane things I’ve said, I don’t recall ever taking the Lord’s name in vain or referring to him that way. Shame on you for breaking the Second Commandment.

As for God’s cruelty, he did kill all the first born of Egypt, didn’t he?

As far as being of questionable parentage, well, he WAS born of a virgin, wasn’t he?

I disagree. I do believe it means that God would no longer speak or have direct physical discernible contact with humanity. It is no longer necessary because of the Bible. The supernatural things that occurred in those times were for one specific purpose. They were to get people to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's it. Once they believed that they would then be taught more. There is no more need for those things that are mentioned in the Bible because all of that was not necessary after the Bible was finalized and after Christ was crucified and returned to The Father. Jwb52z

I am not saying that there are not passages in the Bible that support the idea that the time is past for the special revelation of miracles and of new inspired scripture. There are many who can convincingly argue that cause from the Bible. I'm saying that the clear language and context of this passage shows that it is not one of them, that it's purpose and teaching is something different.

I know why you think what you do, but I think you read it wrong or have an inaccurate translation that you are reading from to get that idea.

I usually quote from the Authorized Version (the King James Version) on this board because it is the best known, but before I determine whether a passage is appropriate to my argument I read it in full context and from several versions, including an interlinear Greek/English or Hebrew/English version. Which translation do you use?

It is not true that "God only spoke to people he found to be of some special favor."TomM

Yes it is or God wouldn't have chosen those specific people. There was something different about them somehow that set them apart from other humans. Jwb52z

God chose to use them because they were so ordinary, or so obviously unworthy, that it would be clear to all that they could only acheive their purpose because of His enabling power. What set them apart from other humans was that God chose them. Perhaps you should read the passages in Exodus and Judges where He calls Moses and Gideon.

I disagree. I do believe it means that God would no longer speak or have direct physical discernible contact with humanity. It is no longer necessary because of the Bible. The supernatural things that occurred in those times were for one specific purpose. They were to get people to believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's it. Once they believed that they would then be taught more. There is no more need for those things that are mentioned in the Bible because all of that was not necessary after the Bible was finalized and after Christ was crucified and returned to The Father. Jwb52z

I am not saying that there are not passages in the Bible that support the idea that the time is past for the special revelation of miracles and of new inspired scripture. There are many who can convincingly argue that cause from the Bible. I'm saying that the clear language and context of this passage shows that it is not one of them, that it's purpose and teaching is something different. TomM

TomM, do you have any specific examples of Biblical passages which deny the possibility of new revelations?

In any case, Jwb, I can't see how you've come to the conclusion that upon completion of the Bible, suddenly there is no need of any manifestation from God. You referred to the fulfilling of the law, but that occurred with the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ. Prophets were receiving revelation for years after that time. Where does the Bible say at any time that the fulfilling of "the law" involves no more scripture? Where does it say that the Bible would ever need completion?

Matt, the "no more scripture" part comes from the last chapter of the Bible, Revelation. I agree with that. I don't agree with the concept of a god that apparently has the universe on auto-pilot. I just am not understanding Jwb here. Sorry.

MarkN, I think it's cool how God's great people all have personality quirks. I mean, they all were really flawed too. I mean, the sons of Jacob--the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel? Even Jacob admitted that they were a really flawed bunch (but godly too).

I also maintain that there IS a truth, it is available, and we are not doomed if we accept this. I'm sorry if you don't respect this, but it's the truth.

I've considered the possibility of being born gay. It's an interesting hypothetical situation, but the facts are that (a) the Bible maintains that it's a sin, and (b) everybody is a sinner that needs Jesus. Before I really start examining all this "born-gay-nature" things, I have to remember that first things first--people need the Lord before anything can change.

Benn, I think Moses overstated his stutter because he was afraid to speak. But that's just me.

Jwb52z: ***I know you don't think you did, but you're really telling me to not say anything. ***

That's fine, except...

"When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres."

How can the two be true? How can you imply that there's some subtext in CO's statements, then argue that there is no such thing as subtext?

Incidentally, if people don't say things with more than one meaning, then how can the Bible be interpreted? And what the heck were the Parables all about?

Of course, that would also mean that when someone says, "The Tribbles were the Leader of the Borgh," then that is that person's belief and not a joke at your expense.


Jwb52z: ***I think that means that God does not speak to anyone any longer. ***

So when you say things like, "I won't change my belief until God tells me otherwise," you're saying that you'll never change that belief? And if that's so, then why don't you just say, "I won't change my belief?" After all, "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres."

And what if He did choose to speak to you? How would you recognize it? Or do you believe that God will *never* speak to you.

BTW, when I say "speak," that doesn't necessarily mean orally.


Captain Obvious: ***You referred to Biblical criteria on how to institute slavery in an acceptable manner. No one else has made such an allegation, nor have you answered this question elsewhere in any detail. You’re simply running away from the question.:: Captain Obvious

Jwb52z: ***I am not running away from it. I simply think that it is unimportant. ***

Here's what's happened... You made a statment you believed to be true. It may have been a passing comment at the time. But regardless, you made a statement that you believed to be factual and the rest of humanity on this board has disagreed with that statement. And rather than acknowledge that you may have misspoken on the matter, you're avoiding the question, pretending it's not important.

If someone in a conversation makes a ridiculous allegation, then you are obligated to provide an explanation of how you arrived at that if you want people to understand and agree with you. Otherwise, we can just pass CO's allegations that "You're a liar" as a passing comment and you can't complain that he has "no cause or reason to think [you are] a liar."


Jwb52z: ***I can't say certain things in the way you want me to without feeling like I'm not having the impact I intend. If I can't say it how I think something should be said, I wouldn't bother saying it. ***

The power in a conversation is always with the Listener, not the Speaker. Because the Listener can always choose not to listen. Thus, if it is the Speaker's intent to have a point be understood, it is his obligation to present the material in whatever manner will help the Listener understand. The entire advertising industry is based on this. And religious groups are always trying to find new ways to communicate the Word to people.

This is why we use simple words when speaking to young children. This is why we communicate in a common language.

If the recipient of my statement is not grasping my meaning, then probably I need to find a new way to "think something should be said."


Jwb52z: ***God wants us to speak to Him, and He does answer prayers, but not by direct manipulation or interference of the worldly order He created. It is more of "allowing things to exist or be learned or to happen that He might not have, had we not asked Him.***

So how could God *not* allow "things to exist or be learned or to happen" without manipulation or interference?

Matt, the "no more scripture" part comes from the last chapter of the Bible, Revelation. MikeC

Thank you for the response, MikeC. I assume you're referring to the infamous Revelation 22:18-19? Yes, that's the first one I always hear, but it seems to me that people are trying to convey meanings that aren't even there. Here's the passage:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I could make an argument that when John says "this book" he is referring to Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole, which wasn't compiled in the form we now know, with Revelation at the back, for many years later. (By the way, many scholars believe that the Gospel of St. John was written some short years after John wrote Revelation, so if 22:18-19 were a statement that no more scripture was to be written, John violated it himself!)

But since someone will always say, "Nope, it refers to the whole Bible, not just Revelation," I won't make that argument. My argument, then, is that the verses still never say that all new revelation has ceased. It simply says that "if any man shall add unto these things" he'll be cursed of God, and that "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy," basically the same deal, he'll be condemned. The point I want to make is that God is expressly forbidding man to tamper with the scriptures, adding and taking away as they see fit. This scripture does NOT say that God cannot ever say more. He's never stated or implied that He would place such a limitation on HIMSELF. If God commands prophets to write His words, then we can't very well say that it's man who is adding. You already know 2 Peter 1:21:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Besides, for God to bring forth additional scripture isn't the same thing as the adding mentioned in Revelation. Moses stated something very similar in Deuteronomy 4:2, that none are to "add unto" or "diminish ought from" the words which he spoke. If this meant that no more scripture was to written, like everyone claims Revelation says, why does no one seem to mind that Joshua "added" his book to the mix, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or Daniel, or all the New Testament writers?

It just seems to me that the adding and taking away verses in Revelation mean that man is not to change God's word, not that God is never to bring forth more scripture. Please pardon me the long tirade.

Okay, I see your point, and I certainly did not intend to imply that God could never bring forth more scripture. Personally, I do not think He will, as being that He has not fulfilled at this time Revelation's prophecies, there is really no reason for additional scripture until that time. But I'm not God, and I'm sorry if I misrepresented the Bible there.

I think, though, many times man has attempted to present his scripture for God's scripture, and we must be very wary of that. If it contradicts God's Word, it's man's word, I say.

I think, though, many times man has attempted to present his scripture for God's scripture, and we must be very wary of that. If it contradicts God's Word, it's man's word, I say.

You'll get no argument from me on that point.

Matt Duke--

I'd answer your question, but I don't want to cover the same grounds that you and Mike have already worked through.

My point in that post was not specifically to endorse the position, but to tell Jwb that the context of the passage he quoted is clearly such that it is not an an appropriate one to try to use to support that issue. He seemed to think that if I repudiated his (mis)use of that one passage I was repudiating the conclusion, despite the fact that most who argue that same conclusion do not use that passage.

He was so caught up in this thought that he suggested that I was using a "questionable" translation of the Bible. There are translations available that most reputable scholars believe choose less likely or even impossible interpretations of certain phrases because they fit in with the translators' pre-concieved dogmas, and it was my intent to let him know that I was well aware of what he was implying.

If it had been my intent to argue the pros and cons of the issue, I would have included the specific verses and other reasons that support my position.

Personally this is one of a number of issues in which I don't find the evidence on one side overwhelming the evidence on the other side, so I try to avoid being the one to bring it up, and am willing to listen to reasonable defence of either side.

:: Obviously, there’s some reason why you’re afraid to talk about what specific conditions you’ve read in the Bible that would make slavery acceptable. I certainly don’t buy your anemic excuses that "there’s nothing more to be said on the matter", when everyone WANTS you to say more, or "you can look it up yourself and I don’t have to quote it" when you never shy away from quoting the Bible on any other subject, or the patented "it was just a passing comment" c rap, when you commented on it FOUR or FIVE times. It was a "passing comment" when I brought it up in response to your comment to Mark that male superiority in a marriage is a "Biblical thing." It ceased being a passing comment when you and I exchanged words on it FIVE TIMES.:: Captain Obvious

If you don't accept the answer I think something deserves, there's nothing else I can say.

::No, they don’t. Reactions are often automatic, and not deliberate. People often choose how to ACT. They don’t necessarily choose how to REACT.:: Captain Obvious

I used to think that too until I talked to a few people on the Oprah boards on AOL. I learned differently there.

::No, I’m not. I’m saying not to criticize others for doing or saying things that you yourself do, and refuse to admit it.:: Captain Obvious

I don't believe I do the things I'm accused of and I've said that.

::You are not the only person on these boards who is for the death penalty, for example, but you’re the only person who felt it necessary to condescendingly tell Brain Webber that he was "anti-justice" simply because he’s opposed to it, as if being opposed to a specific TYPE of punishment is somehow akin to being opposed to any and all punishments in general.:: Captain Obvious

If you are opposed to what is an appropriate thing, you are wrong in my opinion.

::Bingo! Now you’re learning! Homosexuality (and even TRANSEXUALITY) occurs in nature among fruit flies, mollusks, amphibians, and apes. Why would it not occur naturally in humans when so much evidence indicates it does?:: Captain Obvious

The reason is that God set humanity apart from the animals with minds of our own and free will and God would not tell us it is a sin if it were not a choice.

::Ya know, for all the profane things I’ve said, I don’t recall ever taking the Lord’s name in vain or referring to him that way. Shame on you for breaking the Second Commandment.:: Captain Obvious

That's not breaking it. I said "God WOULD be that way." I did not say, "God IS that way." Do you understand now?

::As for God’s cruelty, he did kill all the first born of Egypt, didn’t he?:: Captain Obvious

That was not cruelty, that was right because He is God. That's it. BTW, why do you tear in to me and then joke about what I say?

::Where does it say that the Bible would ever need completion?:: Matt Duke

Think about it. If we didn't have the complete knowledge that was everything God wanted us to know, we would be doomed.

::MarkN, I think it's cool how God's great people all have personality quirks. I mean, they all were really flawed too. I mean, the sons of Jacob--the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel? Even Jacob admitted that they were a really flawed bunch (but godly too).:: MikeC

That's why I disagree with some religious groups that say we have to be perfect to please God.

::Benn, I think Moses overstated his stutter because he was afraid to speak. But that's just me.:: MikeC

Thank you. Remember, God can be understanding about these things and that's where Aaron came into the picture.

::How can the two be true? How can you imply that there's some subtext in CO's statements, then argue that there is no such thing as subtext?:: Mikey

Simply because God is separate from humanity and people have created it when it didn't used to be that way.

::Incidentally, if people don't say things with more than one meaning, then how can the Bible be interpreted? And what the heck were the Parables all about?:: Mikey

Just because things CAN be misinterpreted does not mean they were MEANT to have more than one specific meaning.

:: Of course, that would also mean that when someone says, "The Tribbles were the Leader of the Borgh," then that is that person's belief and not a joke at your expense.:: Mikey

Yes, except I know how people feel about me on this board and I know that it is not something they are above doing when they don't like someone.

::So when you say things like, "I won't change my belief until God tells me otherwise," you're saying that you'll never change that belief? And if that's so, then why don't you just say, "I won't change my belief?" After all, "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres.":: Mikey

If I thought simply saying that would end the discussion when I wanted it to end, I would.

::And what if He did choose to speak to you? How would you recognize it? Or do you believe that God will *never* speak to you.

BTW, when I say "speak," that doesn't necessarily mean orally.:: Mikey

No, I don't believe God has contact with humanity anymore.

::Here's what's happened... You made a statment you believed to be true. It may have been a passing comment at the time. But regardless, you made a statement that you believed to be factual and the rest of humanity on this board has disagreed with that statement. And rather than acknowledge that you may have misspoken on the matter, you're avoiding the question, pretending it's not important.:: Mikey

You assume too much. It is not an important thing to discuss to me.

::If someone in a conversation makes a ridiculous allegation, then you are obligated to provide an explanation of how you arrived at that if you want people to understand and agree with you. Otherwise, we can just pass CO's allegations that "You're a liar" as a passing comment and you can't complain that he has "no cause or reason to think [you are] a liar.":: Mikey

First of all, I'm not obligated to do anything for anyone that is a stranger under normal circumstances. You don't call someone a liar without a good reason and knowing the person better than you can without having met them in person and known them for a significant amount of time.

::So how could God *not* allow "things to exist or be learned or to happen" without manipulation or interference?:: Mikey

You won't like the answer. It is because God is omniscient and omnipotent.

::21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.:: Matt Duke

I know this was not part of the discussion, but this verse is one of the main reasons I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God because God told the men throught he Holy Spirit exactly what to write.

::Besides, for God to bring forth additional scripture isn't the same thing as the adding mentioned in Revelation. Moses stated something very similar in Deuteronomy 4:2, that none are to "add unto" or "diminish ought from" the words which he spoke. If this meant that no more scripture was to written, like everyone claims Revelation says, why does no one seem to mind that Joshua "added" his book to the mix, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or Daniel, or all the New Testament writers?:: Matt Duke

Those were authorized by God.

:: Okay, I see your point, and I certainly did not intend to imply that God could never bring forth more scripture. Personally, I do not think He will, as being that He has not fulfilled at this time Revelation's prophecies, there is really no reason for additional scripture until that time. But I'm not God, and I'm sorry if I misrepresented the Bible there.:: MikeC

Don't tell me....you believe in the millennialist view?

::He was so caught up in this thought that he suggested that I was using a "questionable" translation of the Bible.:: TomM

You'll notice that I gave you TWO possibilities for what I thought was wrong. I thought either the one you mention here or you were misinterpreting what was said. It was obviously not the one you mention here that I quoted you saying.

I know I will regret mentioning this, but I am kinda regretting ever coming here after fighting it for so long after Phil created this board group.

Those were authorized by God.

And who are you to say that anything written after Revelation wouldn't be?

::No, I’m not. I’m saying not to criticize others for doing or saying things that you yourself do, and refuse to admit it.:: Captain Obvious

::I don't believe I do the things I'm accused of and I've said that.::

The only reason you choose not to believe this is NOT because you’ve attempted to look at the things you’ve said honestly, trying to deliberate as to whether you may have maintained double standards, and see if you’ve possibly been wrong, but because you’re one of those people who has this built-in mechanism that prevents them from being able to see when they are wrong.

::You are not the only person on these boards who is for the death penalty, for example, but you’re the only person who felt it necessary to condescendingly tell Brain Webber that he was "anti-justice" simply because he’s opposed to it, as if being opposed to a specific TYPE of punishment is somehow akin to being opposed to any and all punishments in general.:: Captain Obvious

::If you are opposed to what is an appropriate thing, you are wrong in my opinion.::

What a narrow little mind you have.

Here we go again. Confuse the general with the specific. Take a general principle and apply it to a specific situation where it doesn’t apply, or take a specific comment or belief by someone else, and over generalize it. Let’s try this again.

Whether or not you feel Brian Webber was wrong is BESIDE THE POINT. You could’ve told him you thought he was wrong, or that you disagreed with him. Telling him that he was "anti-justice", simply because he held a belief in the issue as sincere as yours, is overreaching. A person who is against a particular punishment is not necessarily against punishment IN GENERAL. This has nothing to do with whether or not you feel he was wrong. Saying someone is against the death penalty is one thing. Saying they are wrong is one thing. (Though I don’t see how being unable to bring oneself to take another’s life need necessarily be "wrong.") Saying that that person is against JUSTICE IN GENERAL is an entirely other thing which smacks of DEMONIZING people simply because they disagree with. A person can be PRO-JUSTICE by advocating life-imprisonment. Saying someone anti-death penalty is anti-justice is like saying someone who wants higher speed limits is anti-driving, or someone who advocates libel laws is anti-free speech. The specific and the general. The general and the specific. See the difference, Jwb?

:: That was not cruelty, that was right because He is God. That's it. BTW, why do you tear in to me and then joke about what I say?::

Because in my mind, I am correct and you are wrong. Do you understand now?

And for the same reason you like to explain obvious nits, often done at others’ expense: "Because it’s fun!"

::First of all, I'm not obligated to do anything for anyone that is a stranger under normal circumstances.::

So I guess the circumstances under which you told Keith Alan Morgan that he HAD to use smiley faces so you’d know he was joking were less than normal, eh?

Hey, hear that chirping sound coming from outside?

Why, the hypocrites are in season!

You'll notice that I gave you TWO possibilities for what I thought was wrong. I thought either the one you mention here or you were misinterpreting what was said. It was obviously not the one you mention here that I quoted you saying. Jwb52z

[Ignoring the odd phrasing at the end of that paragraph (hey when I re-write a paragraph several times I sometimes find an extra word or a word out of place myself)]

I didn't mention the other possibility because I felt that you had added it for politeness' sake and really didn't mean it.

After all, I explained the context of the passage and compared it to other similar passages and showed that, assuming it was translated correctly, it could not mean what you were claiming it to mean.

There are only two ways you could continue to claim that I misunderstood the meaning: Either show that the context and similar passages support your interpretation better, or show that my source was a bad translation. Since you did not even attempt the first, and specifically suggested the second (even though you didn't show it to be true), it must be because you believed it.

::And who are you to say that anything written after Revelation wouldn't be?:: Matthew Patterson

Ok, let me put it this way. If it is not in the Bible that I believe to be the right one, unless God told me differently and I don't think He would, yes I do think that nothing else is inspired by God.

::What a narrow little mind you have.:: Captain Obvious

I'm sorry you feel that way.

::Here we go again. Confuse the general with the specific. Take a general principle and apply it to a specific situation where it doesn’t apply, or take a specific comment or belief by someone else, and over generalize it. Let’s try this again.:: Captain Obvious

I don't have these distinctions and separations that you do in my mind.

::Telling him that he was "anti-justice", simply because he held a belief in the issue as sincere as yours, is overreaching.:: Captain Obvious

This is an example of what I said about you telling me I can't say what I think because you don't like it. I believe it was appropriate because I said what I believe.

::Saying someone anti-death penalty is anti-justice is like saying someone who wants higher speed limits is anti-driving:: Captain Obvious

Don't you mean "lower" speed limits? I would think the person who wants them higher would want to drive much more.

::See the difference, Jwb?:: Captain Obvious

I don't see a distinction between certain things in the way you do. Some things are just one way in my mind.

::So I guess the circumstances under which you told Keith Alan Morgan that he HAD to use smiley faces so you’d know he was joking were less than normal, eh?:: Captain Obvious

Yes, because without them it might have been seen by someone to be a different kind of statement than is intended.

::it must be because you believed it:: TomM

No, it was a guess on my part. I came to find out after seeing what you said and how you interpret it, I simply believe that your interpretation is wrong.

If it is not in the Bible that I believe to be the right one, unless God told me differently and I don't think He would, yes I do think that nothing else is inspired by God.

Well, at least you're immune to TV preachers.

Also, define "Bible that I believe to be the right one." Content? Translation? Etc?

If it is not in the Bible that I believe to be the right one, unless God told me differently and I don't think He would, yes I do think that nothing else is inspired by God. Jwb

Let me say, as someone who does believe in inspired words of God that exist outside the Bible, words of God that are important for the salvation of mankind, that I hope someday you'll be more open-minded in this respect. I mean no offense. For now, I hope you can at least consider my point-of-view hypothetically, that there are scriptures that God wants you to have, and that God does intend to make known the truth of these scriptures to anyone who will ask him sincerely. I believe in these scriptures because I'm sure that God has answered my prayers in respect to them. Of course, if you decide that God simply will have no contact with people anymore, you would never consider the possibility, never seek out the matter, and never know. I'd like to understand better why you believe that God no longer has any contact with man. You've said this often, but I don't think you've ever said why. You don't have to tell me why if you don't want to (I know you have plenty of other people to respond to ), but I really want to understand your view. Is it because of something you read in the Bible that suggests the idea to you? What part exactly? Or is it tradition?

Someone let me know if I get so far off topic that I should move to another board, OK?

Matt Duke, what other Scriptures do you believe in, if I may ask?

I'm not a "postmillenialist," and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm more of a "premillenialist"--Christ will return to earth, but Satan will lead a final revolt at the end of a thousand years.

Mikey: ***How can the two be true? How can you imply that there's some subtext in CO's statements, then argue that there is no such thing as subtext? ***

Jwb52z: ***Simply because God is separate from humanity and people have created it when it didn't used to be that way. ***

Huh?

What the heck are you talking about? We're talking about subtext and statements having more than one meaning. What does that have to do with God being separate from humanity?

Does not compute!


Jwb52z: ***Just because things CAN be misinterpreted does not mean they were MEANT to have more than one specific meaning. ***

Again... what about the Parables, which were simple stories which also had a symbolic meaning?


Mikey: *** Of course, that would also mean that when someone says, "The Tribbles were the Leader of the Borgh," then that is that person's belief and not a joke at your expense. ***

Jwb52z: ***Yes, except I know how people feel about me on this board and I know that it is not something they are above doing when they don't like someone. ***

OK, so what you meant to say the other day was "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres... and when I decide that they have a double meaning."


Mikey: ***So when you say things like, "I won't change my belief until God tells me otherwise," you're saying that you'll never change that belief? And if that's so, then why don't you just say, "I won't change my belief?" After all, "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres."

Jwb52z: ***If I thought simply saying that would end the discussion when I wanted it to end, I would. ***


Huh?

Again, does not compute.

If you're going to go through the trouble of quoting me and responding to my quote (even if it's just for more of your verbal "smoke and mirrors"), at least have it make some sense. Let's not waste bandwidth on indeciferable nonsense.


Mikey: ***And what if He did choose to speak to you? How would you recognize it? Or do you believe that God will *never* speak to you. ***

Jwb52z: ***No, I don't believe God has contact with humanity anymore. ***

Again, you completely ignore the question by answering one that was not asked.

I did not ask if you believe God still maintains direct contact with humanity. I asked whether or not you believe God will ever choose to re-establish contact. And if so, how would you recognize it?


Jwb52z: ***You assume too much. It is not an important thing to discuss to me. ***

Nope. I got it right on the money. There's no evidence otherwise.


Jwb52z: ***First of all, I'm not obligated to do anything for anyone that is a stranger under normal circumstances. You don't call someone a liar without a good reason and knowing the person better than you can without having met them in person and known them for a significant amount of time. ***

If that's "first of all," where's the second part?

You're not obligated to do anything for someone if that person is a stranger? That's a very Christian sentiment you have there (BTW, since there is no such thing as double meanings, then there can be no sarcasm here). Is that the meaning you've gotten from God's and Jesus's teachings?

Christian values aside, you are certainly obligated if you expect that stranger to understand your meaning. If you are not willing to explain or support your argument, then you run the risk of invalidating your argument in the minds of other people. And though you could certainly claim that you don't care whether or not people agree with you, what weould be the point of making an argument if you don't intend to persuade people to your point of view?

And thus far, there is ample of evidence of your dishonesty and deception and none of the Biblical promotion of slavery. So which do you think I'm more apt to believe?


Mikey: ***So how could God *not* allow "things to exist or be learned or to happen" without manipulation or interference? ***

Jwb52z: ***You won't like the answer. It is because God is omniscient and omnipotent. ***

sigh

What? Huh?

Are you on some type of medication today? This isn't up to your normal standards of verbal manipulation.

First off, "you assume too much." How do you know I won't like the answer? Have I ever given you any indication that I disbelieve the omnipotence of God? Or His omniscvience?

Secondly, you (again) answered a different question from the one that was asked. You claimed that God doesn't interfere or manipulate the world. When someone asked, then what was the point of prayer. You said that God does respond to your prayers, but he does so by allowing something to happen that He normally wouldn't. And so my question was, what if God chose not to allow something to happen? How could he do that without manipulation or interference?

I suppose that the question by itself suggests that I may be questioning the power of God. But reading it in the context in which it was delivered shows that I was questioning something else... your logic.

Your avoidance of the question merely supports my point.


Jwb52z: ***I used to think that too until I talked to a few people on the Oprah boards on AOL. I learned differently there. ***

You'll forgive me if I take that statement with a grain of salt. Based on your behavior in Nitcentral, I find it highly unlikely that you could be persuaded to think differently, much less learn something.


Jwb52z: ***I don't believe I do the things I'm accused of and I've said that. ***

We know you have. And you have said it in the face of ample evidence disputing that belief. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, by chance?


Captain Obvious: ***::Ya know, for all the profane things I’ve said, I don’t recall ever taking the Lord’s name in vain or referring to him that way. Shame on you for breaking the Second Commandment.***

Jwb52z: ***That's not breaking it. I said "God WOULD be that way." I did not say, "God IS that way." Do you understand now? ***

But to say "God WOULD be that way" suggests the possibility that God COULD be that way. And that's blasphemous.


Jwb52z: ***Yes, because without them it might have been seen by someone to be a different kind of statement than is intended. ***

Except, of course, "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres."


Captain Obvious: ***Hey, hear that chirping sound coming from outside?

Why, the hypocrites are in season! ***

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's always fun to play semantics games, isn't it, kids. What is this, "ESPN2's World Champion One-Up-Manship Contests" or something? Gee, cool it, people!

Although, what about the Holy Spirit, Jwb? First, do you believe the Spirit to be God, and if so, how does that fit in with your "God has no contact with humanity" belief?

I came to find out after seeing what you said and how you interpret it, I simply believe that your interpretation is wrong. Jwb52z

OK then. Please tell me how I misunderstood the context. How both Cornelius and Peter having visions means that God is no longer going to actively interfere in human affairs.

And tell me how I compared it with the wrong parallel verses. Where are the ones that show that God revealing Himself means He is "respecting persons."

In other words, show me how I should have studied that passage to reach the right interpretation the way you did.

MODERATOR!!!

We really need a new board, Part 2

Matt Duke, what other Scriptures do you believe in, if I may ask? MikeC

You may.

The "standard works", or canon scriptures, of the LDS church are:

The Bible
The Book of Mormon
Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

We also believe that the canon of scripture is not closed.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Article of Faith 9

::And who are you to say that anything written after Revelation wouldn't be?:: Matthew Patterson

I know what I believe to be right, that's all I can say.

::I'd like to understand better why you believe that God no longer has any contact with man. You've said this often, but I don't think you've ever said why.:: Matt Duke

I believe that what I have said about it is what the Bible says about it. I don't know what else to say.

::I'm not a "postmillenialist," and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm more of a "premillenialist"--Christ will return to earth, but Satan will lead a final revolt at the end of a thousand years.:: MikeC

That's exactly what I meant. You're one of the group that believes that God will come back to earth and set up an earthly kingdom at the end of that 1,000 year thing.

::Huh?

What the heck are you talking about? We're talking about subtext and statements having more than one meaning. What does that have to do with God being separate from humanity?

Does not compute!:: Mikey

If I knew a different way to say it or explain it, I would. I just don't know another way.

::Again... what about the Parables, which were simple stories which also had a symbolic meaning?:: Mikey

While they do have a meaning, I don't think they have MORE THAN ONE.

:: OK, so what you meant to say the other day was "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres... and when I decide that they have a double meaning.":: Mikey

In some ways that's right, but not like you intend it to mean or to make me look.

::If you're going to go through the trouble of quoting me and responding to my quote (even if it's just for more of your verbal "smoke and mirrors"), at least have it make some sense. Let's not waste bandwidth on indeciferable nonsense.:: Mikey

It makes sense to me or I would not have said it.

::Again, you completely ignore the question by answering one that was not asked.:: Mikey

You asked me if I thought God would "never" talk to me and I answered that. The first question you asked is also moot because of my belief in the answer to the second one.

::I did not ask if you believe God still maintains direct contact with humanity. I asked whether or not you believe God will ever choose to re-establish contact. And if so, how would you recognize it?:: Mikey

That is not what the question sounded like you were asking to me.

I do nto believe God would "re-establish" contact with humanity as you are asking me.

::Nope. I got it right on the money. There's no evidence otherwise.:: Mikey

What evidence is necessary when I don't think something is worth answering or discussing?

::If that's "first of all," where's the second part?:: Mikey

Sometimes I start to say things one way and then decide otherwise and just leave certain things the way they are because I believe they sound right said the way I say them.

::You're not obligated to do anything for someone if that person is a stranger? That's a very Christian sentiment you have there (BTW, since there is no such thing as double meanings, then there can be no sarcasm here). Is that the meaning you've gotten from God's and Jesus's teachings?:: Mikey

Ok, let me clarify. Someone who does not need anything done for them that I can do for them, is not someone I'm obligated to do things for, ok? If it wouldn't most likely be seen as running away, I would stop posting.

::what weould be the point of making an argument if you don't intend to persuade people to your point of view?:: Mikey

That's like asking, "What's the point of discussing anything?" It's pointless to answer.

::And thus far, there is ample of evidence of your dishonesty and deception and none of the Biblical promotion of slavery. So which do you think I'm more apt to believe?:: Mikey

Why do you think I care which you believe? If I cared what you think that much, I would tell you what you want to hear and kiss your rear end.

::First off, "you assume too much." How do you know I won't like the answer? Have I ever given you any indication that I disbelieve the omnipotence of God? Or His omniscvience?:: Mikey

When I answer questions from people, I am showing you the impression you give me by asking the things you do and saying things the way you do.

::How could he do that without manipulation or interference?:: Mikey

The answer is simply by not creating the ability for it to happen in the first place.

::You'll forgive me if I take that statement with a grain of salt. Based on your behavior in Nitcentral, I find it highly unlikely that you could be persuaded to think differently, much less learn something.:: Mikey

I was not automatically treated with hostility by all of them because I told them how I think about them honestly without mincing words. That's one reason I was willing to listen to them.

::We know you have. And you have said it in the face of ample evidence disputing that belief. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, by chance?:: Mikey

I'm not schizophrenic.

::But to say "God WOULD be that way" suggests the possibility that God COULD be that way. And that's blasphemous.:: Mikey

No, "would" and "could" are two different things. God can't be bad by His very nature of being perfect. That's why I said what I said about God. He would violate His nature if He made people born a certain way and say the way they are is a sin.

::Why, the hypocrites are in season! ***:: Mikey

Would you like me to leave?

::Although, what about the Holy Spirit, Jwb? First, do you believe the Spirit to be God, and if so, how does that fit in with your "God has no contact with humanity" belief?:: MikeC

The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, yes. That doesn't mean I believe that God talks or communicates with humanity anymore. I don't believe any part of Him does.

:: OK then. Please tell me how I misunderstood the context. How both Cornelius and Peter having visions means that God is no longer going to actively interfere in human affairs.:: TomM

and

::And tell me how I compared it with the wrong parallel verses. Where are the ones that show that God revealing Himself means He is "respecting persons.":: TomM

The times that those things were happening in were Biblical times and not afterward. That's the thing. After Biblical times, things between God and Man changed as far as communication. God did not talk to EVERYONE so there had to be a reason He found the people He spoke to worthy of being spoken to even if they were not perfect or paragons of virtue. That set them apart from humanity so there was something about them that was different. God, I believe obviously, thought of them differently since He chose to speak to them. They had something that God thought was worthy of using for His Divine ends. That's all I want to say about it.

::We also believe that the canon of scripture is not closed.:: Matt Duke

If revelation is not closed, then you have no hope of Salvation because there could always be something left out that God will say later maybe after you die. Oh, but then you have provisions for the dead which makes that able to be gotten out of anyway.... That's very convenient, isn't it? I think that it is simply misguided to think this way.

If revelation is not closed, then you have no hope of Salvation because there could always be something left out that God will say later maybe after you die. Jwb

I believe there are things God would like us to understand at this time, which we aren't yet ready to understand. The Lord gave a lesser law to the children of Isreal in Moses' time because they weren't yet prepared for the gospel that Christ brought.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:24-25)

By your logic, Jwb, all those people living before the time when the Bible was compiled, without access to all the revelations therein, will have no hope of salvation. The Isrealites didn't have all the knowledge of Christ that we have now, because they weren't ready for it, so what, are they all damned now? All those who lived the law of Moses to the fullest? Yes, it's true that these works of the law are insufficient to save them, without Christ's Atonement. So take your pick, were all of these people condemned upon dying without full knowledge of Christ, or did God accept the fact that they lived up to what he asked of them at that time? It stands to reason that they'd receive the fullness of the gospel after death.

We can't yet know everything there is to know about God. I believe God reveals more when we are ready for it.

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:9-10)

In any case, I also believe revelation serves multiple purposes. It reveals doctrines of salvation. If the intent of your statement was to say that with revelation incomplete, we'd be missing some such doctrines, and therefore have no hope of salvation, then I think I understand you. I believe God has revealed all the doctrines of salvation that are necessary for us to know at this time to gain salvation, though perhaps he may require more of us later. But revelation has other purposes. There are revelations recorded in scripture that were given as a specific event called for them, and didn't necessarily involve general salvational doctrine:

"Noah, build an ark..."
"Samuel, annoint that scrawny David kid..."
"Ananias, go put your hands on the head of this Saul guy and restore his sight...."
etc.

Forgive the paraphrasing, but my point is that God has always given revelations to his prophets and servants for the purpose of guiding them, sometimes in matters of temporal salvation, sometimes so his servants could act in specifc situations according to the Lord's will. I don't see any reason why that same guidence is not needed today just as much as it was in biblical times. Yes, yes, "we have the Bible to guide us now, so we don't need it," you say, but as new situations arise, God has reason to be explicit with us upon our course of action, more so than the Bible can be. I said the canon of scripture is not closed, because I do believe that God still has dealings with men, and new things to tell us as new situations arise. The last phrase in our Article of Faith 9 is referring in great part to the Lord's instructions for the building up of His church, which we need at this time, and will continue to need until the end.

Oh, but then you have provisions for the dead which makes that able to be gotten out of anyway... That's very convenient, isn't it? I think that it is simply misguided to think this way. Jwb

I thought I already made clear months ago that we don't believe the purpose of work for the dead is to "get around" God's laws, but simply to provide them the ordinances that they never had the opportunity to receive in life. And I don't think it's misguided to believe that people will be taught, after death, things they never had the opportunity to learn in life.

Mikey: ***Huh?

What the heck are you talking about? We're talking about subtext and statements having more than one meaning. What does that have to do with God being separate from humanity?

Does not compute! ***

Jwb52z: ***If I knew a different way to say it or explain it, I would. I just don't know another way. ***

Is there anyone on this board that feels that Jwb52'z response to that intial comment about subtext and meaning has any relation to the question posed? If I'm misinterpreting, please let me know.


Jwb52z: [re: the Parables] ***While they do have a meaning, I don't think they have MORE THAN ONE.***

You won't like my answer...

The whole point of the Parables (and symbolism) is that something has more than one meaning. But let's take the passage from Luke 8:10: ...he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." Sounds to me like even Jesus accepts that things have two meanings sometimes.


Jwb52z: ***In some ways that's right, but not like you intend it to mean or to make me look.***

Please don't attempt to identify my intent. Especially since you shouldn't read into more than what is written. And besides, "When someone says something they never have more than one meaning except in double entendres."


Jwb52z: ***It makes sense to me or I would not have said it. ***

But it needs to make sense to me in order for me to understand you.


Jwb52z: ***You asked me if I thought God would "never" talk to me and I answered that. ***

No, you didn't answer it. But you've answered it now...

Jwb52z: ***I do nto believe God would "re-establish" contact with humanity as you are asking me. ***

So why wouldn't he? And if you didn't entertain the possibility, why would you say that you would only change your belief if God told you?


Jwb52z: ***What evidence is necessary when I don't think something is worth answering or discussing? ***

The very fact that you feel that the matter is not "worth answering or discussing" when, as CO has already pointed out, you don't avoid other topics of conversation.

But because the allegation that the Bible endorses some kinds of slavery can be verified (or discounted) in a reference source that you cannot claim you have a difference of opinion with (such as a dictionary), you're avoiding it altogether. But dismissing it is not going to change the fact that you have misrepresented what the Bible actually says (if it even says anything on the matter).

besides, as a good Christian, shouldn't you educate us on the passages of the Bible? Or are you denying our help in the matter?


Jwb52z: ***Sometimes I start to say things one way and then decide otherwise and just leave certain things the way they are because I believe they sound right said the way I say them. ***

Which inevitably leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and eventual criticisms by you because we don't understand the way you think things in your mind.


Jwb52z: ***That's like asking, "What's the point of discussing anything?" It's pointless to answer. ***

No, it's simply pointless to discuss things with you. Because not only are you either incapable or unwilling to look at things from another person's perspective, but you are unwilling or incapable of expressing yourself in a way so that others can understand you.


Jwb52z: ***Why do you think I care which you believe? ***

Because you complained about CO making the accusation.

Because you cry whenever someone makes a Leader of the Borg joke.

And because "If it wouldn't most likely be seen as running away, I would stop posting. "


Jbb52z: ***If I cared what you think that much, I would tell you what you want to hear and kiss your rear end. ***

Thanks for the crude image (since people never say things that have two meaning, I guess you mean that you'll literally kiss my butt).


Jwb52z: ***When I answer questions from people, I am showing you the impression you give me by asking the things you do and saying things the way you do. ***

And when did I ever give you the impression that I doubt God? I doubt you. That's not the same thing.


Jwb52z: ***The answer is simply by not creating the ability for it to happen in the first place. ***

Then God cannot possibly answer prayers, according to your thinking.


Jwb52z: ***I was not automatically treated with hostility by all of them because I told them how I think about them honestly without mincing words. That's one reason I was willing to listen to them. ***

And you're not automatically treated with hostility by everyone here, either. And, speaking for myself, I'm only engaging you like this because I have grown tired of you continually instigating arguments just for the sake of having them, then crying that other people do the same.

You reap what you sow.


Jwb52z: ***I'm not schizophrenic.***

Again, you avoided the question. I asked whether you've ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, not whether you believe you are schizophrenic.


Jwb52z: ***No, "would" and "could" are two different things. God can't be bad by His very nature of being perfect. That's why I said what I said about God. He would violate His nature if He made people born a certain way and say the way they are is a sin. ***

You did it again. by say "If God did such and such..." you imply a belief that God COULD do such and such.


Jwb52z: ***::Why, the hypocrites are in season! ***:: Mikey ***

Please cite the correct author of that quote: Captain Obvious.


Jwb52z: ***Would you like me to leave? ***

I'd like you to stop being so argumentative and hypocritical. Have I not been clear on that?

::Here we go again. Confuse the general with the specific. Take a general principle and apply it to a specific situation where it doesn’t apply, or take a specific comment or belief by someone else, and over generalize it. Let’s try this again.:: Captain Obvious

::I don't have these distinctions and separations that you do in my mind.:: Jwb

And therein lies the problem. Your understanding of things is overly simplistic and exists mostly in absolutes, unless, of course, you’re criticizing someone else, in which case you have no problem recognizing such nuances. I wonder how hard it would be to look for some example of you making a distinction between distinct things elsewhere on these boards?

::Telling him that he was "anti-justice", simply because he held a belief in the issue as sincere as yours, is overreaching.:: Captain Obvious

This is an example of what I said about you telling me I can't say what I think because you don't like it. I believe it was appropriate because I said what I believe.

And I’m telling YOU that such a conclusion is flawed, and the thinking that goes into such a statement is simplistic to the extreme. If there are say, five different things that society can do to punish a criminal, and someone says, I’m against choice #3, but I’m all for choice # 1, 2, 4, and 5, it doesn’t make them "anti-justice", it just means that the specific punishment they’d choose isn’t yours. To call someone "anti-justice" sounds like they’d be against ALL the punishments in GENERAL, which Brian probably isn’t, and to talk this way to Brian has nothing to do with "impact", or "telling you what you can’t say." It’s simply condescending. The fact that you can’t see this may indicate that you simply lack the character or the ability to talk to other people in an equitable, polite manner. Confusing polite, non-condescending behavior with being told "what I can’t say" is another one of your signature tactics. You call everything said by other people you object to one thing, but call it something else when you do it. If we adhere to these principles EQUALLY, then when you say, "Why do you tear in to me and then joke about what I say", I can simply say, "Well, because that’s what I believe. I believe it’s appropriate to act that way to you, and I don’t see why you should tell me what I can’t say."

Let’s make it simple. You keep acting condescending towards others, we’re going to keep doing so with you. Stop calling it "tearing into me" when we do it to you, and "what you believe to be appropriate" when you do it. Deal?

::If someone in a conversation makes a ridiculous allegation, then you are obligated to provide an explanation of how you arrived at that if you want people to understand and agree with you.:: Mikey

::First of all, I'm not obligated to do anything for anyone that is a stranger under normal circumstances.:: Jwb

::So I guess the circumstances under which you told Keith Alan Morgan that he HAD to use smiley faces so you’d know he was joking were less than normal, eh?:: Captain Obvious

::Yes, because without them it might have been seen by someone to be a different kind of statement than is intended.:: Jwb

Wrong.

If people are obligated to jump the hoops YOU say they do, you have to do the same. It’s both or neither. These boards, and for that matter, the planet Earth, do not revolve around you, and we are not going to walk on eggshells around you, just because you feel we have to adhere to a standard of behavior that you don’t adhere to yourself. No one’s going to start putting smiley faces on posts just because a self-absorbed spoiled brat like you tells them to, when you refuse to acknowledge the similar suggestions by others.

::Why do you think I care which you believe?::

You do. Otherwise, you wouldn’t keep posting responses when we point out that you’re a liar and a hypocrite. EVERYONE cares about what others think, regardless of how much they claim they don’t. You yourself said you’d stop posting here if it didn’t look like "running away", so obviously you care about how you look to others, another example of you claiming to hold some broad principle, only to be tripped up later when you prove yourself not to hold it. You say what sounds good at the moment. You don’t however, seem to keep track of what you’ve said in the past or be careful of how your behavior in the future will trip you up, and it’s obvious to everyone.

::We know you have. And you have said it in the face of ample evidence disputing that belief. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, by chance?::Mikey

I think he once said he had some type of brain defect, or something. Perhaps arguing with him is just pointless.

::Hey, hear that chirping sound coming from outside?

Why, the hypocrites are in season!:: Captain Obvious

::ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:: Mikey

Thank you, Mikey, I’ll be here all week! Try the Buffalo wings!

::By your logic, Jwb, all those people living before the time when the Bible was compiled, without access to all the revelations therein, will have no hope of salvation.:: Matt Duke

That would be true if Christ didn't die for both sides of the time before and after his death.

::The whole point of the Parables (and symbolism) is that something has more than one meaning. But let's take the passage from Luke 8:10: ...he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." Sounds to me like even Jesus accepts that things have two meanings sometimes.:: Mikey

No, all that means is that the Apostles were meant to understand and know things that others were not in the same way. The Apostles were able to understand things directly being inspired by God and the rest of the people had to have it dumbed down.

::So why wouldn't he? And if you didn't entertain the possibility, why would you say that you would only change your belief if God told you?:: Mikey

I've already said why I believe God doesn't talk to anyone. It is the same reason here.

::But dismissing it is not going to change the fact that you have misrepresented what the Bible actually says (if it even says anything on the matter).:: Mikey

I don't believe I have done that.

::Then God cannot possibly answer prayers, according to your thinking.:: Mikey

Yes he can, it's just beyond human understanding. We can only guess.

::Again, you avoided the question. I asked whether you've ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, not whether you believe you are schizophrenic.:: Mikey

You asked me if I had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Consequently I say, "I am not schizophrenic." I thought that would tell you that I hadn't been diagnosed as such, but I guess I should have known better than to think that with you.

::I'd like you to stop being so argumentative and hypocritical. Have I not been clear on that?:: Mikey

You're asking me not to disagree with anyone except in some tired weak manner.

::You don’t however, seem to keep track of what you’ve said in the past or be careful of how your behavior in the future will trip you up, and it’s obvious to everyone.:: Captain Obvious

Ok, that's it. I don't care anymore. I am going to not say anything else on a topic where I disagree with people. All it does is cause my grief. I'm sure you all will have a much happier time that way.

::I'd like you to stop being so argumentative and hypocritical. Have I not been clear on that?:: Mikey

::You're asking me not to disagree with anyone except in some tired weak manner.:: Jwb

Here we go again. When are you going to get it through that thick skull of yours that DISAGREEING and being a HYPOCRITE

AREN'T THE SAME THING!!?

You are MORE than free to disagree with people; it's your right. Why do you keep insisting on drawing an equation between disagreeing and hypocrisy? Why do you feel that disagreeing with someone without being condescending or hypocritical is tired or weak?

LOOK AROUND YOU. Do you notice everyone else AGREEING with one another here? The people who frequent these boards are CONSTANTLY voicing opposing views; YOU'RE the only one who has this oh, so high and mighty attitude towards others when he does it. Telling people who are anti-death penalty that you're all for it, and disagree with them is FINE. (I'm for the death penalty myself.) Telling them that they must be "anti-justice" is ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY. It's condescedning and insulting.

EVERYONE who comes here disagrees with one another at one time or another. YOU'RE the only one, aside from Peter and Rene, who can't seem to do so without being so egocentric and self-absorbed about it, as if you alone are the final arbiter on what is the definition of a word, what is right and wrong, what people mean when they say one thing but mean another (but how you don't), how other people should behave at Nitcentral, all because what's "in your mind" or what makes sense "to you" is the be all and end-all of a debate, and all without adhering to these same standards yourself.

Captain Obvious: Shut up. Now. Your flaming of Jwb is as bad as his baffling debate technique.

That would be true if Christ didn't die for both sides of the time before and after his death.

I have you ask where you find Biblical support for this. Myself, I hope this is not true, because I'd hate to think that all the nice folk in the Old Testament are damned forever because they didn't believe in someone they'd never heard of.

Matthew, you misread what I said, I said, It would be true that they would be lost if Christ hadn't died for people on BOTH sides of the time before and after the crucifixion. Is that clearer?

That's quite a lot better, though I disagree with your saying that I misread you. There are many nuances to the written word, true, but getting something like what you just said out of what you posted before would be something on the order of telepathy, and I don't think the Internet's that advanced yet.

Whee, it's late and I'm rambling.

I understood it that way the first time. Does this mean I have telepathy?

God was just waiting for you to realize that it was something you should ask.
God, being omniscient and all, never waits, since he exists simultaneously in past, present and future. I thought you'd know that, J. I'm surprised at you.

I also maintain that there IS a truth, it is available, and we are not doomed if we accept this. I'm sorry if you don't respect this, but it's the truth.
Don't be sorry, I'm not bothered by it. It's your respective opinion and one that I respectively disagree on. At least that is till I find it out for myself, if it were to ever happen, but I doubt it. But that's just me.

I've considered the possibility of being born gay. It's an interesting hypothetical situation, but the facts are that (a) the Bible maintains that it's a sin, and (b) everybody is a sinner that needs Jesus. Before I really start examining all this "born-gay-nature" things, I have to remember that first things first--people need the Lord before anything can change.
Another respective opinion I respectively disagree with. I don't know, or doubt, if some people are born gay, but I don't see it necessarily as being hypothetical. And I also don't believe anyone "needs" the lord if there's no actual proof that he truly exists, not until his existance is and can be proven. Again, that's just me.

It is because God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Hmm. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Oh, wait...

Some things are just one way in my mind.
Hence the terms "narrowminded", "closeminded", "having blinders on" and "tunnel vision". Just because you only choose to see things one way doesn't mean that they are that one way. That goes for all of us, even us friendly neighborhood agnostics.

...I do think that nothing else is inspired by God.
Gee, not even hymns or gospel music that were written to praise God because they were--and I'm taking a big whoppin' guess here--inspired by their authors' beliefs in Him? For someone who thinks he knows a lot you sure don't know very much, dude.

Again... what about the Parables, which were simple stories which also had a symbolic meaning?:: Mikey

While they do have a meaning, I don't think they have MORE THAN ONE.
Which again doesn't mean that they don't, either.

And please, J, no more asskissing images, ok? Ain't it bad enough that too many people already do that figuratively?

Matt Duke, just curious (and please forgive if I've already asked this before but forgot), but are Mormons still required to tithe 10% of their income to the church or is it by choice now, and if so and you don't tithe then do fellow parishoners tend to look down on you? Not you yourself, but just generally.

Matt Duke, just curious (and please forgive if I've already asked this before but forgot), but are Mormons still required to tithe 10% of their income to the church or is it by choice now, and if so and you don't tithe then do fellow parishoners tend to look down on you? Not you yourself, but just generally. MarkN

I don't believe you've brought the subject up before, no. It's kind of tricky to answer the question, I think, because of the distinction you are apparently making between requirements and choices. I guess I'll put it this way, we are required to pay 10%, and we do choose to.

Better yet, I'll say it another way. Like with all commandments, we choose whether or not we'll comply with it. But we can't say, "I only feel like paying 5%", for example, and still be obeying. The Lord expects us to pay 10% of our increase to the church, but the church does not take disciplinary measures (excommunication, etc.) against anyone who fails to pay a full tithe. However, full payment of tithes is one requirement for temple attendence (not to be confused with church attendence), meaning we can't go to the temple if we don't pay our tithing.

Since payment of tithing is done privately, the only people who know whether or not a person pays full tithes are that person and his/her bishop, and the ward clerk. It's no one else's business.

I hope I haven't used any unintelligible LDS terminology...

One more time, Jwb: I never said that my understanding of Acts 10:34 precludes the assumption that Scripture is closed. There are many people who conclude the same way you do, but they use different verses to do so.

I said that this verse is teaching a different lesson. I explained the full context, and gave the example of parallel verses which clearly expanded on the same idea with the same words.

You simply said that I was wrong. You gave me no reasons why you feel that this verse supports your conclusion. And what little discussion you do give seems to (and it is possible you don't intend it to) imply that I attacked your conclusion rather than addressed the application of this verse to that particular conclusion.

BTW I would have let this drop a long time ago, but it seemed to me that instead of reading my posts and responding to the specific issue, you chose to imply that I am stup¡d, a liar, a devil, or all three. I was hoping that by continuimg the discussion, and clarifying my point that you would prove me wrong about your implications. Most honest and thoughtful people on this post will address the specific issue or admit that they don't know enough to contine the discussion. Even Peter was honest enough to admit that he didn't know the Bible well enough to discuss specific verses.

POINTS

1. Should we just go on a mini-sabbatical here? Temperatures are rising, and it takes fifteen minutes for this to scroll down all the way anyway. Why not just wait for a new chapter...if that ever comes?

2. Everybody take a deep breath and CHILL.

3. Matt, the Book of Mormon, as I understand it, conflicts with the Bible. Is this true, and if so, how do you resolve the differences?

4. Jwb, but the Holy Spirit's very nature implies that God is communicating to man (the Spirit gives the man the power to witness and preach)--unless we have different definitions of "communication."

Jwb52z: ***I've already said why I believe God doesn't talk to anyone. It is the same reason here. ***

So, again, why would you say that you'd change your beliefs if God told you to if you don't believe God will ever speak to you?

And I think it's rather presumptuous to believe that God will never choose to speak with you or anyone. Isn't that presuming you understand God's will? None of us speak for Him.


Mikey: ***But dismissing it is not going to change the fact that you have misrepresented what the Bible actually says (if it even says anything on the matter). ***

Jwb52z: ***I don't believe I have done that. ***

You'll forgive me if I doubt your belief and use the factual evidence of the Bible to form my opinion.


Jwb52z: ***You asked me if I had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Consequently I say, "I am not schizophrenic." I thought that would tell you that I hadn't been diagnosed as such, but I guess I should have known better than to think that with you. ***

Actually, it's because you have asked me to not read into anything you say, that I should just take a statement on its face. On its face, your response does not answer the question, but merely states your belief, not the belief of a psychiatric authority.

And you still have not answered the question.


Jwb52z: ***You're asking me not to disagree with anyone except in some tired weak manner. ***

No, I am asking you to impose the same standards on your posts that you require of others. Why are you trying to read into my statements? Especially in light of the fact that you say we should not do that.

Stop being argumentative, hostile, and hypocritical.

Simple.


Jwb52z: ***Ok, that's it. I don't care anymore. I am going to not say anything else on a topic where I disagree with people. All it does is cause my grief. I'm sure you all will have a much happier time that way. ***

And here we get another one of your choice roles: the Victim. You remind me of that manipulative girl on Big Brother 2, Shannon. (For the record, I only watched it twice). She'd be mean, antagonistic, and hostile towards the other people, then later she'd cry because all she wants is for everyone to get along. You're doing something very similar.

If you don't like how we're directing ourselves towards you, perhaps you should go back and reflect on the way you direct yourself to other posters. If you'll notice, all our complaints have a common thread. Find the common denominator and you'll solve the problem.

Not posting is not what anyone has asked for. We're demanding the same respect you (and rightly so) expect to be directed at yourself. We're all here to learn from one another. Let's disucss and disagree with civility. But that behavior has to come from both sides, not just ours.


Matthew Patterson: ***Captain Obvious: Shut up. Now. Your flaming of Jwb is as bad as his baffling debate technique. ***

I don't think that's fair. And I don't think it's flaming. CO is not simply trying to antagonize Jwb52z. CO is simply trying to demonstrate to him how it is that the rest of us perceive his posts.

I think CO is well within his right to call Jwb52z on this. CO has repeatedly asked him to stop being a hypocrite and to stop being condescening and insulting. Jwb52z has NOT ONCE responded to this with anything other than "I don't think I'm being insulting in my mind." And then the behvior continues.

Is it our fault that he can't take what he dishes out?

I, for one, would love to be able to engage in intelligent discourse without this nonsense. I remember when Rene did the exact same thing to Jwb52z for weeks on the Trek boards. But now Jwb52z is doing it to others. And I can't stand the hypocrisy.

Didn't Jesus teach us to do unto others as we expect to be done to us?

Matt Duke, how do the bishop and the ward clerk know if you're tithing? When you get a job, are you required to report your salary to the church, so they can inform you how much you are to tithe? It sounds a little like "Big Brother" to me. (I'm referring to the book version, not the TV show!)

Since this board is so darned large, I think I'll answer the questions from MikeC and margie over on the new Mormonism board. See ya.

::Gee, not even hymns or gospel music that were written to praise God because they were--and I'm taking a big whoppin' guess here--inspired by their authors' beliefs in Him? For someone who thinks he knows a lot you sure don't know very much, dude.:: MarkN

You hit the nail on the head. Inspired by the AUTHOR, not God. God did not tell the song writer what to write.

::4. Jwb, but the Holy Spirit's very nature implies that God is communicating to man (the Spirit gives the man the power to witness and preach)--unless we have different definitions of "communication.":: MikeC

You're still wanting it to be like it was with the Apostles with this kind of thinking. I don't believe it is that way anymore, otherwise I would not be disabled.

::Didn't Jesus teach us to do unto others as we expect to be done to us?:: Mikey

Following this, you should be toward me the way you want me to be toward you no matter how I act.

One final thing, you have all shown me that I am an utter and complete idiot. I know nothing. I'm always wrong. I accept that now. You have proven that. I have no reason to talk to anyone about anything remotely important or intelligent. You have all shown me that. You win.

It's a shame you feel this way, J. I would far prefer an EQUITABLE exchange of ideas, rather than a "war" where one person is forced to admit being an idiot, knowing nothing, being always wrong, etc., which no one here ever said. I'm really sorry it has to be such an absolute, black & white, opposite-end-of-the-spectrum, all-or-nothing proposition with you. Take care.

::Captain Obvious: Shut up. Now. :: Matthew Patterson:

Oh, gee, so many words…so many ways to respond to this…I know! How about…

No.

I will continue to speak my mind as I please. If you don’t like my words, leave.

::Your flaming of Jwb is as bad as his baffling debate technique.:: Matthew Patterson

Ouch.

I am not flaming Jwb. He asked if we’d like him to leave, and I said no, just don’t be condescending and hypocritical to others. A less enlightened, less forgiving person like Peter or Rene would simply say "Yeah, leave, good riddance!"

::I don't think that's fair. And I don't think it's flaming. CO is not simply trying to antagonize Jwb52z. CO is simply trying to demonstrate to him how it is that the rest of us perceive his posts.

I think CO is well within his right to call Jwb52z on this. CO has repeatedly asked him to stop being a hypocrite and to stop being condescening and insulting. Jwb52z has NOT ONCE responded to this with anything other than "I don't think I'm being insulting in my mind." And then the behvior continues.::Mikey

Thank you, Mikey.

There's no need for rampart sarcasm (from anyone)--I am interested in a discussion, not a flame war.

Jwb, I don't quite understand your answer to my question about the Holy Spirit, specifically the disabled part. What does your disability have to do with the Holy Spirit? Even during the days of the Apostles, there were disabilities and sicknesses (among Christians)--Paul's "thorn in my flesh," for instance. I think the Spirit played a role in healing people, and I'm not denying that couldn't be done today, but I'll admit that you're correct--things have changed, and now I think the Spirit's main purpose is to help man preach the Word of God to believers and unbelievers.

Mikey: ***Didn't Jesus teach us to do unto others as we expect to be done to us?***

Jwb52z: ***Following this, you should be toward me the way you want me to be toward you no matter how I act. ***

Well, I could always argue that I never claimed to follow that principle. But because you are such a firm believer in the literal word of the Bible, you should be a follower.

But I do believe in that principle, so I won't say that. Instead I will acknowledge that my expecting you to hold to that principle is slightly hypocritical of me. And I apologize.


Jwb52z: ***One final thing, you have all shown me that I am an utter and complete idiot. I know nothing. I'm always wrong. I accept that now. You have proven that. I have no reason to talk to anyone about anything remotely important or intelligent. You have all shown me that. You win.***

*sigh*

CO's response to this sums up my sentiments on the issue as well. So there's little sense in rehashing it.

But I will add that I hope this means that you will stop being condescending and hypocritical when you do post.

::Jwb, I don't quite understand your answer to my question about the Holy Spirit, specifically the disabled part. What does your disability have to do with the Holy Spirit? Even during the days of the Apostles, there were disabilities and sicknesses (among Christians)--Paul's "thorn in my flesh," for instance. I think the Spirit played a role in healing people, and I'm not denying that couldn't be done today, but I'll admit that you're correct--things have changed, and now I think the Spirit's main purpose is to help man preach the Word of God to believers and unbelievers.:: MikeC

I meant that the relationship between God and Man during the times that are written about in the Bible was different. God through the part of himself called Jesus, healed those who were disabled or what have you. It was a subtle point. I believe that if things were still that way as the Bible says things were during the Biblical times, I would not be disabled now because God would have healed me through a man he chose simply because I WOULD want it to happen. There is more to this idea, but I choose not to mention it because I feel it to be irrelevant.

::But I do believe in that principle, so I won't say that. Instead I will acknowledge that my expecting you to hold to that principle is slightly hypocritical of me. And I apologize.:: Mikey

Thank you.

::But I will add that I hope this means that you will stop being condescending and hypocritical when you do post.:: Mikey

As idiotic and ignorant as you have all shown me I am, I really probably have no place even posting among all of you intelligent people seeing as how I'm always wrong.

I hope I haven't used any unintelligible LDS terminology...

Not at all, Matt, and thank you for the info. It was very well done and easy to understand. I don't agree with the whole tithing bit, feeling that no church has the right to, for all intents and purposes, demand that you pay them a part of your hardearned money, and that it should only be your choice whether to give or not and without any repercussions, but all the same you've enlightened me on knowing more about it.

MarkN,
You're welcome,
Thank you,
Sorry you feel that way, and
Sure, anytime!

You're right, Jwb, things ARE different now. But I still don't see how the modern-day absence of healings (I think they're more subtle now, not an absence) connects to the Holy Spirit giving Christians the power to preach to unbelievers.

All the spiritual gifts were given from God and my group believes that all that stopped once the last Apostle died and all those who they had given the powers to after Christ was crucified seeing as how those who were given the power by the Apostles through God's power, could not pass it on.

But that's not to say that it wasn't passed on, J. Like you, I don't believe it was, but who's to really say, right? If God moves in mysterious ways then he would've been healing people for millenia, either directly or through some chosen people (i.e. doctors, but not those phony televangelists), long before and after biblical times, and of course even to this day. You don't have to believe he does it but that doesn't mean that he doesn't do it. It could also be cuz maybe he doesn't want you to know or believe it, either. But I don't question his motives; it's not my place.