- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipnot sure you are really tackling my point, it seems like more of general statement about your discomfort with modern times.simply not true. crime levels, divorce rates, drug abuse are all roughly the same regardless if you are an atheist or chritstian (globally they are lower if you are an atheist). so what evidence do you have that men give up on god so they can get rid of morality?
Some men give up on God so as to have no confrontation between their consc ...[text shortened]... t homosexuals. And I like that my wife can make good money at employment.
i would say this to you. when were things 'right'? the longer we live the further the more society changes and the stranger it seems to us. you rail dont like x or y because it aint like when you were a kid. but when you were a kid your grandpa would complain because things were better when he was a kid and his grandpa felt the same.
so when did we have it right? when were things better?
you complain because there is sex on tv. i see no immortality in sex on tv. your grandpa probably thought elvis shaking his hips was too much, did elvis corrupt society? did the beatles? his grandpa probably thought women wearing bikinis was corrupting society.
so where did it begin? is sex really corrupting society?
were the 60's good? racism, violence in the streets, civil unrest, vietnam, sexism? are things worse now because we can see boobs on tv?
pedophilia you mention. you could walk for miles as a child, we did in the 80's when i was a kid...........but its a myth that we were safe and its a myth that kids are unsafe now. because of the 24hr media looking for stories and real life tv shows and movies and dramas we are now way more aware of what can happen. the odds of being grabbed are minute...but nobody wants to be the crying parent on the news so we over protect our kids.
things are not worse, things are the same, fads come and go, everybody was sleeping around in the 60's.....read a book about the 20's or the 40's it may have been kept quiet but it was happening just as much, but the perception was different.
better days in the past is a hazy dream of old people who feel alienated by a modern culture and yearn for familiarality.
christians like to think the world is getting morally worse. but the truth is the complete opposite.
i dont have a problem with sonhouse complaining about the evils of religion. he's right. religion causes more problems than it solves. a world without religion will be a much better place.
we dont need god to have morals.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 13
1 edit
not sure you are really tackling my point, it seems like more of general statement about your discomfort with modern times.
Maybe you saw no response to your point. And I only have a little time now.
But I feel comfortable in ANY age. That is ANY age in which I can know the resurrected and available Lord Jesus Christ. The AGE doesn't matter because He said -
"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all nations ... And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age."
The passing of the ages for the last 2,000 some years have only gone to demonstrate the durability of the Gospel. I feel quite honored that in this modern age I can witness that the Gospel of Christ still prevails against attacks from within the church and from without the church, whether outward persecution by flame or inward welcoming party designed to dilute the faith meshing it into the world.
You assume that I long for another time in the past. I am merely noting the downward moral decline in many instances.
You know if you stay in a room full of people eating garlic eventually the stench will not bother you. Maybe you are simply desensitized to notice the moral rot going on in many areas around you. You got use to it.
i would say this to you. when were things 'right'?
Since the fall of man nothing has been completely right. Nice try.
Some things have been more right. And to be fair some things may have been made more right.
Since I am a bible believer I believe that God is keeping the lid on the can and sovereignly keeping things from going completely to pot. But one day His preventive hand will be withdrawn as in the days of Noah.
the longer we live the further the more society changes and the stranger it seems to us. you rail dont like x or y because it aint like when you were a kid.
In many cases X and Y ARE off kilter. A realist would recognize that.
How many cases of a guy busting into a school and unloading a machine gun on innocent little children did you have in say, 1920 ?
Do not take this to be a longing for the Good Old Days. Lynchings and gun play was also around in the earlier part of the 20th century. I think we can recognize the problems of that age and the problems of this age, which in some cases are more severe.
I am not teaching any golden age of innocence. But many of us can see the decline without excusing it with "boys will be boys".
but when you were a kid your grandpa would complain because things were better when he was a kid and his grandpa felt the same.
In my grand dad's day, even in my kids days, if you got into trouble the neighborhood friends of the family might scold you or tell your parents.
Today, the tendency is to mind your own business. And there is maybe only ONE parent - likely some single mom, to tell. And you BETTER not lay your hands on someone else's child.
A tragic story: I knew a kid whose mother refused to discipline. He got into trouble in school with the teachers all the time. But the mother would go down every time and fight with the teachers. To her that kid could do not wrong in any way. She never restrained him and it was always the fault of the other kids or teachers.
One day he brought a gun to school (true story now). They called the police. He runs with his gun. He fires his gun on one of the police.
The last thing the poor mother saw was her child riddled with police bullets dying in her arms. No one warned him that it was virtual suicide to shoot at a police officer. So she came to the school. Too late to discipline the poor kid now. Filled with bullets he grasps his last breath looking up into his protective mother's eyes.
I don't know. Maybe she had an overdose of Dr. Spock's permissivist child rearing.
My kids, who I rarely skanked, I made sure understood. I hit you on your butt. But if you go out here and mess up too bad, the cop isn't going to hit you on your behind. He's going hit you in the scull.
Sometimes I spanked on the butt son just so he might not get cracked in the scull latter by some cop for acting up.
so when did we have it right? when were things better?
Do not argue by going to the opposite extreme.
From the beginning I conceded SOME things I think are better now.
You are trying to push me into thinking about a problem free society in the past. We all know there is no such thing.
By now you should be able to tell me about mass shootings in public places like schools, colleges, movie houses 100 years ago.
Somehow, "Well, things have always be rough" doesn't make it all seem right.
you complain because there is sex on tv. i see no immortality in sex on tv.
Maybe you're too dulled to think anything is wrong with it.
Maybe you've been in the garlic room too long and the stench doesn't bother you. If you're expecting me to admire how unsanctimonious you are, I'm not going to be impressed.
your grandpa probably thought elvis shaking his hips was too much,
Elvis is my young days. My grand father would have been seeing Mr. Bojangles.
"Elvis the Pelvis" was a little foretaste.
Put aside for a moment the theatrics and consider just the lyrics of some of the pop songs and rap. Next I expect you to tell me that cop killing lyrics and degradation of women as hoe this and bitch that pouring into the highschooler's earplugs has always been.
Things have gone down hill in many areas of morality.
did elvis corrupt society? did the beatles? his grandpa probably thought women wearing bikinis was corrupting society.
Not single handedly of course. John Lennon wanted to help things along by publishing pictures of him and his wife in their most intimate moments in the nude. Even his band mate Paul McCarthy didn't agree with that.
You see the Woodstock movie? You see the guy from, I think, Country Joe and the Fish, screaming to hundred thousand young people -
"Give me an F! Give me a U! Give me a C! Give me a K! What's that spell !! What's that spell! What's that spell!! "
Awe. just a little innocent fun right ? Or was it an attempt to incite a huge orgy of proportions not seen since the degradation of the Roman Empire.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 13
2 edits
Starting at about 2:40 mins. Hank Hannagraff (in discussing Richard Dawkins who calls himself Darwinian Evolutionist) exposes the horrendous sexism and racism of Charles Darwin.
Is sonhouse outraged at Darwin's thoughts on the intellectual inferiority of women ?
26 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipOf course not. Doesn't that fit sunhouse to a T. The only thing he objects to is that God supposedly set man's value higher than a woman's. If man is the one setting the value, it is perfectly okay.
Starting at about 2:40 mins. Hank Hannagraff (in discussing Richard Dawkins who calls himself Darwinian Evolutionist) exposes the horrendous sexism and racism of Charles Darwin.
Is sonhouse outraged at Darwin's thoughts on the intellectual inferiority of women ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfazJOqeco
The Instructor
26 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipNice strawman. We all know Bobby Fischer was about as racist as they come, hated Jews, even though he was 100% Jewish. Does that stop you from enjoying going over his masterful games?
Starting at about 2:40 mins. Hank Hannagraff (in discussing Richard Dawkins who calls himself Darwinian Evolutionist) exposes the horrendous sexism and racism of Charles Darwin.
Is sonhouse outraged at Darwin's thoughts on the intellectual inferiority of women ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfazJOqeco
So CD was a horrible person, that may well be. I guess in your eyes you now rationalize that because a horrible person figured out evolution, the theory of evolution is bonkers.
Nice try but no cigar.
26 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are bonkers. Fischer was not racist. He was just angry at how he was treated and rightly so.
Nice strawman. We all know Bobby Fischer was about as racist as they come, hated Jews, even though he was 100% Jewish. Does that stop you from enjoying going over his masterful games?
So CD was a horrible person, that may well be. I guess in your eyes you now rationalize that because a horrible person figured out evolution, the theory of evolution is bonkers.
Nice try but no cigar.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 May 13
9 edits
Nice strawman. We all know Bobby Fischer was about as racist as they come, hated Jews, even though he was 100% Jewish. Does that stop you from enjoying going over his masterful games?
What does Bobby Fischer have to do with garbage that Darwin wrote in his disdain for the inferiority of Women ?
Why no condemnation of Darwin like your castigating Leviticus on 50 shekels verses 30 shekels ?
Where's your vehement denunciation of Charles Darwin, if your incensed about the devaluation of women ?
So CD was a horrible person,
CD huh? Can't bring yourself to write CHARLES DARWIN ?
According to YOUR standards by which you have trashed God because of certain things you read in Leviticus.
Why no diatribes on the sexism of Darwin and Richard Dawkins who proudly labels himself as "a Darwinian Evolutionist" ?
You're a POCRIT!
No more that than. You're a HYPOCRIT !
C'mon ! Dirty Darwin the monster against women. C'mon now.
Be consistent now.
that may well be. I guess in your eyes you now rationalize that because a horrible person figured out evolution, the theory of evolution is bonkers.
Nice try but no cigar.
BULLS EYE !!! I hit the mark exactly.
Bobby Fischer has nothing to do with this.
It is irrelevant to this matter of your consistency in denouncing sexism.
Nice strawman. We all know Bobby Fischer was about as racist as they come, hated Jews, even though he was 100% Jewish. Does that stop you from enjoying going over his masterful games?
Number 1, though there are some difficult passages concerning women there are not enough to label God as anti women.
And according to your own logic WHY should I trash theism or the Christian faith because of a few arguable cases that draw out your accusations of sexism in the Bible.
I acknowledge a few difficult passages concerning women in the 66 books of the Bible. Like you wouldn't give up chess because of Fischer, neither would I give up Christian theism because of a few passages.
You don't think MEN get their toes stepped on in a few places in the Bible ?
And here's a verse, a prophesy that says a new thing will happen on the earth - A WOMAN SHALL PROTECT A MAN.
SAME BIBLE -
"You are an unfaithful daughter.
How long will you ·wander before you come home [L waver]?
The Lord has ·made [created] something new happen in the land:
A woman will ·go seeking [or protect; or embrace; L surround] a man.”
Jeremiah 31:22 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth: a woman shall compass a man.”
Jeremiah 31:22 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
22 How long wilt thou go hither and thither, O thou backsliding daughter? for Jehovah hath created a new thing in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man.
Jeremiah 31:22 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
22 How long will you waver and hesitate [to return], O you backsliding daughter? For the Lord has created a new thing in the land [of Israel]: a female shall compass (woo, win, and protect) a man.
You be a HYPOCRIT sonhouse.
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by vistesdForgive me for not answering this before now, but my comings and goings on this forum are not regular, I could post voluminously for days, then not show up for a week, sometimes (sometimes often) I miss things. Sometimes I miss a lot of things.
Years ago, one of my priests and spiritual advisors was one of the first women Episcopal priests to be ordained in the south. She was intelligent (immensely), wise and gracious—and never seemed as dismissive of those whose paradigms were contrary to hers as you do. And I never recall anyone challenging her feminist “credentials”, earned in the crucible of ...[text shortened]... iscopalians. You, as I say, baffle me: I can’t tell which sort of Episcopalian you are . . . .
I do not worry too much about my theology or where I fit into my church's 'rainbow' of belief. I am not a student of theology. I know what I believe and what I don't believe, and as you say, I'm not one to brook much 'nonsense' about it. It did take me a little while to understand what you meant by the 'three pillars' thing, since in this wording, it is unknown to me. As I understand it, the 'three pillars' concept is more a Zen or Sikh concept (also found in Kabbalistic traditions). What you were talking about I know as the 'three-legged stool' concept (I know, basically the same thing, despite my jaded outlook, I am still a farmgirl at heart): scripture, reason and tradition. My personal outlook is that Faith trumps all. Jesus said we could all move mountains if only we had the 'faith of the mustard seed'. To me, anything or anyone who attempts to undermine my faith is a danger to me, and is to be shunned. I understand one's beliefs are their own, like my church, I have great tolerance for the beliefs of others, if they truly believe it. But using that as a reason to attempt to undermine my faith is the same as a physical attack on me and I cannot tolerate that.
Much of my faith is in a codified form (the Anglican Book of Common Prayer among others, which I know you must be familiar with) and so cannot be argued. It is what it is. But that's not all I am about. I have other, more fringe, ideas included in my personal faith, including a leaning towards annihilationism and a fundamental approach to the Book of Revelation. No, I am not big on what you call 'alternative theologies' even though I hold my own matters of faith that do not always walk hand in hand with my church's more didactic ideas. To me, an 'alternative theology' is one that I myself do not hold. And as such, you can have it, just don't try to convince me of it. Yes, my personal theology does lean towards the 'conservative' (I would call it 'traditional'😉 that translates toward a very 'liberal' social morality. In this way, my core belief system also has elements common to the Methodists. If I could not attend an Episcopal church, I would attend a Methodist service as replacement. In this view, it is not surprising that I tend to follow the ideas of John Wesley, and reject most ideas of John Calvin. I am thankful that my church embraces many people with minor differences of faith, because otherwise they might not accept me.
I hope this helps your bafflement. 🙂
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI have to keep my reply short for now. Thanks for that gracious response. One of the things that I valued about the Episcopalian church was that both you and I, with very different theological views could both fit in.
Forgive me for not answering this before now, but my comings and goings on this forum are not regular, I could post voluminously for days, then not show up for a week, sometimes (sometimes often) I miss things. Sometimes I miss a lot of things.
I do not worry too much about my theology or where I fit into my church's 'rainbow' of belief. I am not a stu ...[text shortened]... they might not accept me.
I hope this helps your bafflement. 🙂
02 Jun 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAre you one of those redneck women turned highfalutin?
Forgive me for not answering this before now, but my comings and goings on this forum are not regular, I could post voluminously for days, then not show up for a week, sometimes (sometimes often) I miss things. Sometimes I miss a lot of things.
I do not worry too much about my theology or where I fit into my church's 'rainbow' of belief. I am not a stu ...[text shortened]... they might not accept me.
I hope this helps your bafflement. 🙂
The Instructor
02 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipNice. You don't seem to get the idea of analogy. I mentioned Bobby Fischer because he was a stark raving mad racist and that is well known but his games are studied now and a hundred years from now.Nice strawman. We all know Bobby Fischer was about as racist as they come, hated Jews, even though he was 100% Jewish. Does that stop you from enjoying going over his masterful games?
What does Bobby Fischer have to do with garbage that Darwin wrote in his disdain for the inferiority of Women ?
Why no condemnation of Darwin like your c all compass (woo, win, and protect) a man.
[/quote]
You be a HYPOCRIT sonhouse.
The idea there being Charles Darwin may have been a woman hater, maybe he was even gay, I don't know anything about that part of his life, if you say he was then it is probably true.
But CD being a woman hater has nothing to do with the brilliance of his work.
Obviously, you want to discredit his work by discrediting the man.
Einstein was unfaithful to his wife and we now know that little tidbit but are we going to bring that up when we study relativity? Of course not.
Bobby Fischer was stark raving mad but his games will live forever.
And Charlie will be remembered for his work long after any mention of his alleged hatred of women.
He was BTW, deeply religious and I would not be a bit surprised to find his abasement of women to have religious overtones, specifically those damnable verses saying a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 30. That could very well be the underlying cause of his supposed hatred of women.
I tried to post the actual words of Bobby Fischer's rants for RJ but the auto censor shot me down so all I can do is post the link:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Fischer
Scroll down the the list labeled 'unsourced'. Wiki wants everything totally documented and I guess this article falls short but these are Fischer's words, the rants start about halfway down, starting with the comment about the US government just being the puppets of Jews.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Jun 13
Nice. You don't seem to get the idea of analogy. I mentioned Bobby Fischer because he was a stark raving mad racist and that is well known but his games are studied now and a hundred years from now.
I am not extensively read on Fischer's opinions. I realized he has some strong opinions. Yet I think Fischer was also a very troubled soul.
The idea there being Charles Darwin may have been a woman hater, maybe he was even gay, I don't know anything about that part of his life, if you say he was then it is probably true.
You should not simply take my word for it.
I do not expect you to just take my word for it when teaching the bible.
Now a lot of people had racial superiority ideas in Darwin's day, just as they had sexist concepts. I only highlighted him because of showing you that consistency would really demand that you criticize Darwin, I think, a lot more than you would the bible.
But CD being a woman hater has nothing to do with the brilliance of his work.
I don't think it was that brilliant. Someone else was about to publish a book on Evolution theory. I think he beat him to the punch. Why let someone else get all the credit and fame.
Scientist can be a very competitive lot of enviers you know.
Okay, let's say he's "brilliant" for exploiting that monkey's look somewhat like human beings. Let's say all his Galapagus Island studies were "brilliant."
A objective researcher I would not say he was. I think he has some cases he wanted to fix and some axes he wanted to grind - involving theology and race and probably sex too.
And he wildly appealed to a lot of people who had similar axes to grind coming out of Victorian society and embarking on the Industrial age. Imperialism needed a rational. Darwinism worked "brilliantly."
I have to go now. Not ignoring the rest of the post .... yet at least.
02 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThis is very true. You should hear some of the discussions we have after morning service when we discuss and question each others' "difference" beliefs. Some Sundays, they eventually have to tell us to "go home to dinner". 🙂
I have to keep my reply short for now. Thanks for that gracious response. One of the things that I valued about the Episcopalian church was that both you and I, with very different theological views could both fit in.