TheMeekShall Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Good one. Nail her on sexism. While you're at it, find out if she's followed a Biblical marriage. ------------------------------ A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21).... -------------------------------- Edited January 28, 2006 by TheMeekShall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 LOL meek! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredl Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I've tried to read all the responses to this issue, but found my eyes glazing over as I did and unable to read everything carefully. However, I will say what occurred to me as I read the question:the thought that immediately occurred to me was, "Why would anybody want to?" My take on Fundamentalists is that they, just like everybody else, have Human needs that they try to satisfy as best they can. They find shelter in their religious beliefs just as many others do. If someone else has a better solution for their needs than Fundamentalism does, I'm sure they'll recognize and act on it, just as many other former Fundamentalists have done. I just don't think that when it comes to Religion, "One size fits all" and I think it's presumptuous to imagine that we have what they need and something must be WRONG with them if they don't recognize it. Maybe they are all as dumb as fenceposts. If so, is it not likely that folks as dumb as fenceposts need something different from what the intellectual elite need? Maybe they have come from disfunctional families; well, is it not likely that they have special needs? And, so on. There is a reason that people turn to Fundamentalism and it is just as valid a reason that others turn to other religious persuasions. In these kinds of Forums, I have found myself, more than once, defending Fundamentalists. Once, as a kid, I found myself turning in rage on a group of my friends who were taunting another kid who was mentally deficient. It enraged me to see their treatment of this fellow human being. Taunting, ridiculing, baiting of Fundamentalists never fails to create this very over-emotional response in me. Which on 2 or three other forums had the effect of me being branded as a Fundamentalist myself. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 The problem with that is it assumes that fundamentalism is essentially harmless. It is is not. Take the viewpoint and change to those who are racist. Does it still fit? Could it be that maybe some people need their racism? That the belief that all people are created equal is not for all people? That for some racism is okay? The answer is obvious. While I would not try to "convert" someone who is a fundamentalist, I also do not believe the beliefs are okay. Sure, some are, but many are dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I think there is a line between defending the right to be, vs upholding and supporting stances made by fundies. Yes, I think some of them are dangerous and some of them are so not 20th century it's not even funny-- irrational in some cases. I heard a woman today who was opposed to companies patenting human cells (I am too but for totally different reasons, though they are moral ones). She went from human cells to human life in a single jump But it is one thing taking a stance vs irrationality and the right of free speech by someone who's views we don't like. I also don't think anything is gained and much lost by bashing anyone over the head, even metaphorically :-) (I just love putting that word here :-)). There is also a line re: the racist stuff. I would not want to see here, for instance, arguments against gays like I did on UCC online based on the Bible. I think it creates an "unsafe" space for gays. But if someone wants to argue the virgin birth or something I'm not too fussed. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I would not want to see here, for instance, arguments against gays like I did on UCC online based on the Bible. I think it creates an "unsafe"space for gays. But if someone wants to argue the virgin birth or something I'm not too fussed. Exactly. There is no harm (that I can see) in the belief of a virgin birth, but beliefs that call gay people sinners and say they are going to hell is another thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I think there is a line between defending the right to be, vs upholding and supporting stances made by fundies. Yes, I think some of them are dangerous and some of them are so not 20th century it's not even funny-- irrational in some cases. I heard a woman today who was opposed to companies patenting human cells (I am too but for totally different reasons, though they are moral ones). She went from human cells to human life in a single jump But it is one thing taking a stance vs irrationality and the right of free speech by someone who's views we don't like. I also don't think anything is gained and much lost by bashing anyone over the head, even metaphorically :-) (I just love putting that word here :-)). There is also a line re: the racist stuff. I would not want to see here, for instance, arguments against gays like I did on UCC online based on the Bible. I think it creates an "unsafe" space for gays. But if someone wants to argue the virgin birth or something I'm not too fussed. --des <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One of the definitions of tolerance speaks to the conscious refusal to negate "the other" while retaining the reciprocal right to speak out and not be negated by the actions of others. In other words, negation generally leads to more negation. Less often, respect will be reciprocated with respect. The difference between the two can be overcome, and this seems to be the challenge. minsocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMeekShall Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sometimes I envy dumb people; ignorance may not be bliss, but it may be easier to deal with the world. I've decided not to get too worked up about fools, if I don't calm down, I'll explode right now. Maybe I can learn to sleep through their bs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Sometimes I envy dumb people; ignorance may not be bliss, but it may be easier to deal with the world. I've decided not to get too worked up about fools, if I don't calm down, I'll explode right now. Maybe I can learn to sleep through their bs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My favorite saying: Ignorance may be bliss but only to those who are ignorant. An aside: I actually consider ingornant simply being uniformed. For example, I'm ignorant about how my car works. Given the right teacher I could learn, at least to some degree. Stupidity is something else, it is not being willing to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 How about - stupid is unable to learn. Willful ignorance - is the refusal/unwillingness to learn. Rampant today!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I like the term Christian Enlightenment as a movement to bridge the gap that exists between Christians and Fundamentalist. Enlightenment is a concept which means being illuminated by acquiring new wisdom or understanding. While Fundamentalist go on the path of Inquisition, Christian Enlightenment will take the road of silent contemplation. I see it as a spiritual journey through the mountains, valleys, jungles and deserts of our minds. A journey to Christ consciousness beyond time, space and words so it can't be described with words or what Fundamentalist see as facts from scriptures so we will have to hint at the different levels of consciousness that can be reached spiritually. Looking into the meanings of scripture I think we can form a new concept of life, which helps form a new humanity on the individual, Christian and community level. http://thinkunity.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 How about - stupid is unable to learn. Willful ignorance - is the refusal/unwillingness to learn. Rampant today!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No one is unable to learn. It simply takes some longer than others. (I'm a teacher, I believe that all people can learn). Willful ignorance (in my own personal dicitonary) is knowing what is true and refusing to admit it. I'm splitting hairs there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystictrek Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm less concerned about the "Atheists/Humansists Left" simply because I find they are more socially active and more like to follow Jesus' teaching even if they don't believe in God. My concern with the Right is that they aren't doing what is right for those in the world who are most vulnerable and for the world itself. I've seen some who are atheists who are right wing politically (which really blows my mind!) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't underestimate the potential for evil among Secular Leftists. I believe Stalin was more of a ruthless murderer than Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm less concerned about the "Atheists/Humansists Left" simply because I find they are more socially active and more like to follow Jesus' teaching even if they don't believe in God. My concern with the Right is that they aren't doing what is right for those in the world who are most vulnerable and for the world itself. I've seen some who are atheists who are right wing politically (which really blows my mind!) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wouldn't underestimate the potential for evil among Secular Leftists. I believe Stalin was more of a ruthless murderer than Hitler. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure by what standard Stalin is considered a Leftist. I don't really consider those who are out to hurt the poor, etc. to be left. That is the job of the right. But I'm not much of a modern historian. I also don't underestimate the evil that religious people are capable of doing. It isn't unique to people who are secular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Well I wouldn't consider Stalin a leftist any more than I would consider Hitler a right winger. At a certain point, tyrants meet at some point at the fringes. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Well I wouldn't consider Stalin a leftist any more than I would consider Hitler a right winger. At a certain point, tyrants meet at some point at the fringes. --des <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was more or less my husband's comment when I asked him. He is more of a modern historian than I am! And so are you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Well I wouldn't glorify my historical knowledge, but saying I am any kind of historian. But I do know a bit about politics, having lived in Chicago for much of my adult life. :-) (In Chicago, politics is almost like a sporting event or something. :-)) And I do know a bit about tyrants of the world--enough to say that I don't think it much matters if a tryant is on the philosophical right (like Hitler) or the philosophical left (like Stalin). Where there is a fringe they all meet up somewhere and would have some kind of party where everyone gets annilihated eventually. Nice group. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.