Originally posted by Dekron " Anways, how is that different than Chrisitianity teaching that homosexuals and woman are second class?" I'm not sure where that came from. I never said I was a Christian. Just because one does not agree with the gay lifestyle doesn't mean they are Christians.
YES IT DOES!!!! lol j/k
I am a conservative agnostic, go figure.
Now, no hard feelings guys as it is just my own opinion.
It's all good.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Anways, how is that different than Chrisitianity teaching that homosexuals and woman are second class? And in the early years Chrisitians kept black people as slaves and were pioneers in keeping the free black men from marrying white people, so how is this different from homosexuals today?
I think Christianity will once again evolve in the future and allow homosexuals to be treated as equals.
I've heard hours of Christian teaching, and never once have I heard that homosexuals and women are second class. It's not Christianity that doesn't allow homosexuals to be treated as equals. I'm sure there are Christians who may not, and I'm sure there are non-Christians who may not.
Anways, how is that different than Chrisitianity teaching that homosexuals and woman are second class? And in the early years Chrisitians kept black people as slaves and were pioneers in keeping the free black men from marrying white people, so how is this different from homosexuals today?
I think Christianity will once again evolve in the future and allow homosexuals to be treated as equals.
I've heard hours of Christian teaching, and never once have I heard that homosexuals and women are second class. It's not Christianity that doesn't allow homosexuals to be treated as equals. I'm sure there are Christians who may not, and I'm sure there are non-Christians who may not.
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
It doesn't treat that they are second class, neither homosexuals nor women. It teaches that homosexuality is wrong but that we should love our neighbors. As for women, gender roles are clearly defined in the Bible, and there is nothing at all "second class" about a woman's role in a biblical relationship. Women have a place of honor in Christianity, just because a couple of retards in the past have treated thm as second class doesn't mean that is what the Bible teaches. For someone who called Dekron on the carpet for using isolated examples rather than the norms, Alex sure seems to be good at doing it himself.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Anways, how is that different than Chrisitianity teaching that homosexuals and woman are second class? And in the early years Chrisitians kept black people as slaves and were pioneers in keeping the free black men from marrying white people, so how is this different from homosexuals today?
I think Christianity will once again evolve in the future and allow homosexuals to be treated as equals.
I've heard hours of Christian teaching, and never once have I heard that homosexuals and women are second class. It's not Christianity that doesn't allow homosexuals to be treated as equals. I'm sure there are Christians who may not, and I'm sure there are non-Christians who may not.
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
If Christian history is troll bait then yeah. Christianity in general view women as second class. It's better today than it was decades and centuries ago, but that could be because of a more secularist nation we live in and political correctness.
Just look at the time period of "I love Lucy" (not to mention the thousands of years before that). Women were second class because of beliefs that people had and if you think about the fact that Christianity was the main religion then you just connect the dots.
Here are some Chrisitian wedding vows. If you look at the women's part you will see that they regard their husband to be above them in a "Headship" role.
God is almost always referred to with masculine pronouns.
Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. Interpreters often consider this to indicate a natural inferiority of women within the creation story of the religion
It was Eve that ate the apple and was weak.
"Wives, submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man." (I Cor. 11:3)
Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood these because they aren't in context.
Regardless of what the Bible says, what matters is how people interpret it, and women have been treated like second class and if you deny that then you are denying a large part of history and i'm sure women would be displeased.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
Why do they do this and constantly defend, glorify and submit to the demands of the followers of Islam - in particluar the radical Islamists who state women are their property, women have no rights, women are allowed to be beaten and they will kill all gays?
It is just baffling. Such is the case with Nancy Pelosi and even Barbara Boxer (a Jew none the less that supports the radical Islamists).
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
The brutality of the Catholic church is precisely what kept them in power for so long and the same holds for the radical Muslim clerics in places like Iraq...
Fortunately for us, the majority of Christians adopted a degree of secularity... which some of us would take a degree further.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
Shariah Law is going to be implemented in the US? Where? You do realize that the people in office are mostly Christian, right? That would happen when hell freezes over. Besides, even if we were to get a huge influx of Muslims, they could never influence our federal government, which pulls all of the strings.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No. Sorry I misunderstood. I don't know how liberals try to appease islam. I probably wouldn't be surprised, but it never occured to me so if you wouldn't mind expanding.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca. Shariah Law is going to be implemented in the US? Where? You do realize that the people in office are mostly Christian, right? That would happen when hell freezes over. Besides, even if we were to get a huge influx of Muslims, they could never influence our federal government, which pulls all of the strings.
Check out the agenda of CAIR and the far-left appeasment of Muslims. If Democrats take presidency, it may be a possibilty. This is not saying shariah would replace our court system; what the goal is to do is to implement shariah law to replace US law when dealing with Muslims. Do you know that taxpayer money is now paying for footbaths in airports and other public places for Muslims? Did you know that Shariah implementation is actually being considered in Britain? And finally, did you know Mickey Mouse is now being used to promote radical Islam http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200705/INT20070507b.html ?
I have never heard it argued that same sex parents should be worse then any other.
In fact, from were I stand adoptive parents and yes, even the same sex kind have always been considered "better then average" parents.
For many obvious reasons one being that adoptive parents goes through a rigorous screening process and in the case of gay parents a child takes some effort to get as well.
These things both make up for parents that are REALLY into parenting, and in consequence do it better.
This has never, to my knowledge, been the issue to the gay adoption discussion.
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you'd all be glad if you had 2 fathers boinking each other. I'm sure you'd have a great time telling all your friends. I'm sure they'll be very understanding and won't call you names at all.
Anways, how is that different than Chrisitianity teaching that homosexuals and woman are second class? And in the early years Chrisitians kept black people as slaves and were pioneers in keeping the free black men from marrying white people, so how is this different from homosexuals today?
I think Christianity will once again evolve in the future and allow homosexuals to be treated as equals.
I've heard hours of Christian teaching, and never once have I heard that homosexuals and women are second class. It's not Christianity that doesn't allow homosexuals to be treated as equals. I'm sure there are Christians who may not, and I'm sure there are non-Christians who may not.
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
If Christian history is troll bait then yeah. Christianity in general view women as second class. It's better today than it was decades and centuries ago, but that could be because of a more secularist nation we live in and political correctness.
Just look at the time period of "I love Lucy" (not to mention the thousands of years before that). Women were second class because of beliefs that people had and if you think about the fact that Christianity was the main religion then you just connect the dots.
Here are some Chrisitian wedding vows. If you look at the women's part you will see that they regard their husband to be above them in a "Headship" role.
God is almost always referred to with masculine pronouns.
Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. Interpreters often consider this to indicate a natural inferiority of women within the creation story of the religion
It was Eve that ate the apple and was weak.
"Wives, submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man." (I Cor. 11:3)
Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood these because they aren't in context.
Regardless of what the Bible says, what matters is how people interpret it, and women have been treated like second class and if you deny that then you are denying a large part of history and i'm sure women would be displeased.
Your post was in the present, not in the past.
If we're talking history, then it's hardly reasonable to suggest that Christianity was to blame for the way society has treated women across the world and through the ages. There are plenty of cultures, and not just religious ones, you can look at which oppress women.
I don't really see how masculine pronouns for God has any great bearing on this, and as you say, the creation story is all about interpretation, and some Christians' interpretations does not Christianity make. Adam ate the apple too, after all.
I will concede that Christians who follow Paul's epistles to the letter, would teach that women's role in a marriage is to be subject to the husband, which is not the same as saying that in society they are second class. Many Christians take Paul's letters in the context of the times they were written, though. Actually for the time, some of Paul's teaching was really pretty radical in regards to women in a society that did hold women as second class.
Certain Christians in the past, or certain denominations, or Christians fundimentalists, or some Christians, or whackos in the news twisting the bible to support their views, or a corrupted Medeival Church struggling to hold onto power is NOT Christianity.
I have never heard it argued that same sex parents should be worse then any other.
In fact, from were I stand adoptive parents and yes, even the same sex kind have always been considered "better then average" parents.
For many obvious reasons one being that adoptive parents goes through a rigorous screening process and in the case of gay parents a child takes some effort to get as well.
These things both make up for parents that are REALLY into parenting, and in consequence do it better.
This has never, to my knowledge, been the issue to the gay adoption discussion.
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
That's pretty much the way I see it too. Children can be extremely cruel to eachother.
Hey let them have at it,they can get married for all i care too and they can deal with divorce and alimony and their kids not doing what they are told as well.
They can have all the right and responsibilities they want.I am more than willing to let them have everything a man and woman have when they get married.Even the taxes that come along with it.
But if they get everything they want i only want 1 thing to go away.I want an end to gay pride parade's.I want an end to gay pride rally's and festivals.It is the only "sect" (for lack of a better word) in current society that has a parade /festival based on it's sexual orientation.
I should no more be forced to explain this to my kids anymore than why Timberlake ripped off Janet Jacksons top on national tv.If they can be a good parent great!!If they can take timmy to the ball game and pick up susie after school im all for it.But the last time i checked there was no "heterosexual pride parade".
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din. This Is where Orthodox Jewish people go to settle matters of trade desputes religius qaurrels and the such here in the uk. It does not stray into to criminal law and all parties who attend these are there on a volentary basis. All outcomes of these tribunals have to stay within british criminal law.
But your are correct there are groups pushing for the whole package. And well that path would lead to god knows what kind of outcome. So should not even be slightly considerd, nor do I think it will be. I could be wrong and if it is seriusly being considerd Im moving country before all hell breaks loose.
Certain Christians in the past, or certain denominations, or Christians fundimentalists, or some Christians, or whackos in the news twisting the bible to support their views, or a corrupted Medeival Church struggling to hold onto power is NOT Christianity.
So this begs the question: After i've chosen the correct religion out of the many out there and suppose I chose Christianity...which denomination is the real Christian faith? Would the Christian God send me to Hell for choosing the wrong denomination of Christianity?
Sorry all, for the off-topicness about women.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
That's pretty much the way I see it too. Children can be extremely cruel to eachother. That is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. The problem is not at their end, it's the narrow minded, disrespectful and cruel society. The gay people shouldn't be punished for it. Society has to change.
It's like saying heterosexuals shouldn't have kids because someone could bully them in school. That is just stupid.
A child should be given to the people best fit to take care of the child. If they are gay, heterosexual and religious etc doesn't matter.
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din.
Uhh, no, it is not. Shariah has laws such that if your wife cheats on you, you can stone her to death. Not even close.
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance
Tolerance: "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
The above definition of tolerance is not relevant with conservative Christians.
If Christians had their way you could say bye bye to Las Vegas. Do you really want that? =P
and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
I don't care about that stuff very much. You're probably right though.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din.
Uhh, no, it is not. Shariah has laws such that if your wife cheats on you, you can stone her to death. Not even close.
If that kind of sharia law is actually being considerd I think the road is seriusly going off a cliff here. No way will people accept a paralel legal system.
I'm sure you'd all be glad if you had 2 fathers boinking each other. I'm sure you'd have a great time telling all your friends. I'm sure they'll be very understanding and won't call you names at all.
Yeah...
So what exactly is your point? Should we ban same - sex parents because kids might go "Name calling"? ohh, lets take away kids who have a father with a poorly paid job, because the other kids might call those children names! the horror! or people who have ugly parents! Think of all the name calling!
I'm sure you'd all be glad if you had 2 fathers boinking each other. I'm sure you'd have a great time telling all your friends. I'm sure they'll be very understanding and won't call you names at all.
Yeah...
So what exactly is your point? Should we ban same - sex parents because kids might go "Name calling"? ohh, lets take away kids who have a father with a poorly paid job, because the other kids might call those children names! the horror! or people who have ugly parents! Think of all the name calling!
My point is you're all talking about how healthy and good it would be. My point is that I'm pretty sure I'd have a hard time accepting that, and I'm sure the mocking from people around would get to me.
Comments
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
It doesn't treat that they are second class, neither homosexuals nor women. It teaches that homosexuality is wrong but that we should love our neighbors. As for women, gender roles are clearly defined in the Bible, and there is nothing at all "second class" about a woman's role in a biblical relationship. Women have a place of honor in Christianity, just because a couple of retards in the past have treated thm as second class doesn't mean that is what the Bible teaches. For someone who called Dekron on the carpet for using isolated examples rather than the norms, Alex sure seems to be good at doing it himself.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
If Christian history is troll bait then yeah. Christianity in general view women as second class. It's better today than it was decades and centuries ago, but that could be because of a more secularist nation we live in and political correctness.
Just look at the time period of "I love Lucy" (not to mention the thousands of years before that). Women were second class because of beliefs that people had and if you think about the fact that Christianity was the main religion then you just connect the dots.
Here are some Chrisitian wedding vows. If you look at the women's part you will see that they regard their husband to be above them in a "Headship" role.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2436
God is almost always referred to with masculine pronouns.
Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. Interpreters often consider this to indicate a natural inferiority of women within the creation story of the religion
It was Eve that ate the apple and was weak.
"Wives, submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man." (I Cor. 11:3)
Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood these because they aren't in context.
Regardless of what the Bible says, what matters is how people interpret it, and women have been treated like second class and if you deny that then you are denying a large part of history and i'm sure women would be displeased.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Here is what amazes me. Far- Left Liberals, and yes, I will group them, point at Christianity as a religion of non-tolerance and do everything they can to ban all things Christian (i.e. memorials, crosses, etc.).
Why do they do this and constantly defend, glorify and submit to the demands of the followers of Islam - in particluar the radical Islamists who state women are their property, women have no rights, women are allowed to be beaten and they will kill all gays?
It is just baffling. Such is the case with Nancy Pelosi and even Barbara Boxer (a Jew none the less that supports the radical Islamists).
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
The brutality of the Catholic church is precisely what kept them in power for so long and the same holds for the radical Muslim clerics in places like Iraq...
Fortunately for us, the majority of Christians adopted a degree of secularity... which some of us would take a degree further.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
Shariah Law is going to be implemented in the US? Where? You do realize that the people in office are mostly Christian, right? That would happen when hell freezes over. Besides, even if we were to get a huge influx of Muslims, they could never influence our federal government, which pulls all of the strings.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No. Sorry I misunderstood. I don't know how liberals try to appease islam. I probably wouldn't be surprised, but it never occured to me so if you wouldn't mind expanding.______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Check out the agenda of CAIR and the far-left appeasment of Muslims. If Democrats take presidency, it may be a possibilty. This is not saying shariah would replace our court system; what the goal is to do is to implement shariah law to replace US law when dealing with Muslims. Do you know that taxpayer money is now paying for footbaths in airports and other public places for Muslims? Did you know that Shariah implementation is actually being considered in Britain? And finally, did you know Mickey Mouse is now being used to promote radical Islam http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200705/INT20070507b.html ?
What myth?
I have never heard it argued that same sex parents should be worse then any other.
In fact, from were I stand adoptive parents and yes, even the same sex kind have always been considered "better then average" parents.
For many obvious reasons one being that adoptive parents goes through a rigorous screening process and in the case of gay parents a child takes some effort to get as well.
These things both make up for parents that are REALLY into parenting, and in consequence do it better.
This has never, to my knowledge, been the issue to the gay adoption discussion.
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...
...or was this just Troll bait that I fell for?
If Christian history is troll bait then yeah. Christianity in general view women as second class. It's better today than it was decades and centuries ago, but that could be because of a more secularist nation we live in and political correctness.
Just look at the time period of "I love Lucy" (not to mention the thousands of years before that). Women were second class because of beliefs that people had and if you think about the fact that Christianity was the main religion then you just connect the dots.
Here are some Chrisitian wedding vows. If you look at the women's part you will see that they regard their husband to be above them in a "Headship" role.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2436
God is almost always referred to with masculine pronouns.
Eve was created out of the rib of Adam. Interpreters often consider this to indicate a natural inferiority of women within the creation story of the religion
It was Eve that ate the apple and was weak.
"Wives, submit yourself unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything" (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man." (I Cor. 11:3)
Your post was in the present, not in the past.Now go ahead and tell me how I misunderstood these because they aren't in context.
Regardless of what the Bible says, what matters is how people interpret it, and women have been treated like second class and if you deny that then you are denying a large part of history and i'm sure women would be displeased.
If we're talking history, then it's hardly reasonable to suggest that Christianity was to blame for the way society has treated women across the world and through the ages. There are plenty of cultures, and not just religious ones, you can look at which oppress women.
I don't really see how masculine pronouns for God has any great bearing on this, and as you say, the creation story is all about interpretation, and some Christians' interpretations does not Christianity make. Adam ate the apple too, after all.
I will concede that Christians who follow Paul's epistles to the letter, would teach that women's role in a marriage is to be subject to the husband, which is not the same as saying that in society they are second class. Many Christians take Paul's letters in the context of the times they were written, though. Actually for the time, some of Paul's teaching was really pretty radical in regards to women in a society that did hold women as second class.
Certain Christians in the past, or certain denominations, or Christians fundimentalists, or some Christians, or whackos in the news twisting the bible to support their views, or a corrupted Medeival Church struggling to hold onto power is NOT Christianity.
Sorry all, for the off-topicness about women.
What myth?
I have never heard it argued that same sex parents should be worse then any other.
In fact, from were I stand adoptive parents and yes, even the same sex kind have always been considered "better then average" parents.
For many obvious reasons one being that adoptive parents goes through a rigorous screening process and in the case of gay parents a child takes some effort to get as well.
These things both make up for parents that are REALLY into parenting, and in consequence do it better.
This has never, to my knowledge, been the issue to the gay adoption discussion.
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
That's pretty much the way I see it too. Children can be extremely cruel to eachother.They can have all the right and responsibilities they want.I am more than willing to let them have everything a man and woman have when they get married.Even the taxes that come along with it.
But if they get everything they want i only want 1 thing to go away.I want an end to gay pride parade's.I want an end to gay pride rally's and festivals.It is the only "sect" (for lack of a better word) in current society that has a parade /festival based on it's sexual orientation.
I should no more be forced to explain this to my kids anymore than why Timberlake ripped off Janet Jacksons top on national tv.If they can be a good parent great!!If they can take timmy to the ball game and pick up susie after school im all for it.But the last time i checked there was no "heterosexual pride parade".
Flame on.....
What is your physical limit?
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din. This Is where Orthodox Jewish people go to settle matters of trade desputes religius qaurrels and the such here in the uk. It does not stray into to criminal law and all parties who attend these are there on a volentary basis. All outcomes of these tribunals have to stay within british criminal law.
But your are correct there are groups pushing for the whole package. And well that path would lead to god knows what kind of outcome. So should not even be slightly considerd, nor do I think it will be. I could be wrong and if it is seriusly being considerd Im moving country before all hell breaks loose.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
...
That issue is how OTHERS, childrens and adults alike treat a child in such a family, probably not the same way as a child from a "normal" family.
And allthough I am not against gay adoption I think it should weigh heavily against when deciding to whom a child should be adopted.
Yes its societies faulth lots of people are narrow minded and it isnt rigth to let gays suffer for this fact, but nor is it the childs and its well being must always takes precedence.
That's pretty much the way I see it too. Children can be extremely cruel to eachother. That is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. The problem is not at their end, it's the narrow minded, disrespectful and cruel society. The gay people shouldn't be punished for it. Society has to change.It's like saying heterosexuals shouldn't have kids because someone could bully them in school. That is just stupid.
A child should be given to the people best fit to take care of the child. If they are gay, heterosexual and religious etc doesn't matter.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din.
Uhh, no, it is not. Shariah has laws such that if your wife cheats on you, you can stone her to death. Not even close.
LOL. This is what baffles me! Again it was pointed out about Christianity (which I wasn't defending, just making a point), but the main point of my question about Islam was ignored. So, by that definition of tolerance, would you say that Islam is a tolerant religion?
No, obviously not. People seek to appease the Muslims, because they are scared of them and their willingness to blow themselves to smithereens.
Well, personally I would rather die fighting the implementation of shariah law (hope you brits know that this is happening in your country. and you thought Bush was bad, look what Blair accomplished!) instead of bowing to mecca.
I have heard about this. From what Little I have read, it is simply an islamic version of Beth Din.
Uhh, no, it is not. Shariah has laws such that if your wife cheats on you, you can stone her to death. Not even close.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm. Yes I know bbc very left wing but it was the best I could find at this moment.
If that kind of sharia law is actually being considerd I think the road is seriusly going off a cliff here. No way will people accept a paralel legal system.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
My point is you're all talking about how healthy and good it would be. My point is that I'm pretty sure I'd have a hard time accepting that, and I'm sure the mocking from people around would get to me.