Demonizing people

Jesus H Christ... that is insanity right there. Those two "parents" need to be fast tracked to the electric chair so they NEVER have the chance to hurt their surviving kids, or anyone else, again.
 
(Q),

You are not expressing an opinion, you are expressing homophobia.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


If you had an opinion on it, you would educate yourself, first. The Bible is not an education.
Click to expand...

???


That is because religions cause good people to do bad things. I suspect you are a good person, but your religion causes you to be homophobic, for example.
Click to expand...

What is my religion?


No, you are homophobic because of your opinions. There isn't anything better than that as proof.
Click to expand...


I'm not homophobic, and my opinions do not express homophobia.
I think you're required to label me as such because my opinions do not agree with yours, and others regarding this subject matter.

jan.
 
Bells,

Here's a tip for you Jan.

Don't try to copy me, because when I ask for proof about something, I only do so with absolute knowledge of the subject matter. When people like Roger make extraordinary claims that homosexuality is an "unnatural vice", then he has to be able to back this up with scientific proof.. Which I am still waiting for...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip Bell's.
Absolute knowledge eh? Impressive.

Q's claim, for which you attempted to copy me and demand scientific peer reviewed proof like I did with Mr Pearse, is one that is widely known and understood (you'd only have to have read Freud to know the history behind religious belief being connected to mental illness..).. The plethora of papers which discuss mental illness and its connection to religion and vice versa available online.. really, you actually ask for proof for something that is so easily found?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

jan.
 
Kittamaru,

You are joking, right? You are saying that, because the bible gives us all these horrible, terrible ways a woman can be considered married to a man (rape, sexual perversion through selling the body, slavery, etc) that we should consider all THOSE perfectly fine, but the one they don't mention at all is somehow "wrong"? That is... well, beyond words to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that marriage is between man and woman, male and female.

jan.
 
@ Jan,

What is your spiritual practice? Do you attend church? If so, what denomination? What is your education background? What part of the US did you grow up in?
 
quinnsong said:
@ Jan,

What is your spiritual practice? Do you attend church? If so, what denomination? What is your education background? What part of the US did you grow up in?
Click to expand...

I would prefer to keep that information to myself, if that's alright with you.

Thanks
jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I would prefer to keep that information to myself, if that's alright with you.

Thanks
jan.
Click to expand...


I understand more than you know. That is why I asked. Great way to not get pinned down in any argument or to remain seemingly above it all. Just jabbing but landing no real punches, so to speak. Do you really even believe what you say (slippery speak) or do you just like to argue.
 
spidergoat said:
It's a little more complex than that, even if we only limit our view to the Bible...


1. Polygynous Marriage

Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

2. Levirate Marriage

When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
3. A man, a woman and her property — a female slave

The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

4. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines

The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

5. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war

Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

6. A male rapist and his victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

7. A male and female slave

A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

and of course …

8. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage

What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.
Click to expand...

This is a very informative post SG.
If you are quoting a source, or have got much of the information from it, could you please add a link.
If it is your own, I'm impressed.
A powerful argument against anyone who believes that the traditional Christian view of marriage, springing from Biblical sources,
only accepts heterosexual and loving relationships.
Many of these examples of marriage are a record of institutionalised repression and abuse,
many of which now which would be seen as rape,
with women being seen as sexually defined property rather than individuals.


@anyone
(casually throwing a spanner into the machinery)
What part do you feel that promiscuous sexuality plays in the average homosexual lifestyle?
Is such promiscuous sexuality harmful?
That's quite a provocative subject isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
I'm not homophobic, and my opinions do not express homophobia.
I think you're required to label me as such because my opinions do not agree with your and others.

jan.
Click to expand...

YOUR opinions? That's a good one, Jan. My sides are splitting.

You're just going around in circles now, Jan. You really need to give your head a shake and try to understand that what other people do with their lives is not something you deny them if you yourself wish to have the same level of respect for living your life. If you don't wish for any respect, that's fine, but don't demand it from others and don't expect any in return.

Do you understand this at all, Jan?
 
This seems to be the sole basis on which the reductionist condemns the criticism of behavior as a demonizing of the individual. It is simply a false assumption that their own reductionist context has any real bearing on the holistic opinion. We might surmise that this is an inability to fathom philosophically opposing context or that people are actively "playing dumb" as justification for hyperbolic rhetoric.
Click to expand...

No it isn't the sole basis of anything. People regularly condemn behavior and so condemn the person performing the behavior. Behavior is simply an expression of who one is. It is inseparable from their identity. If I morally condemn a person's behavior, I am axiomatically making a moral judgement about that person doing and thinking certain things. There is no condemnation of a behavior in a vacuum, as if behavior could exist without the person performing it. If I morally condemn the addictive behavior of an addict, I am also condemning the addict as well. If I morally condemn a person's sexual behavior, I am also condemning that person as well. There is simply no moral condemnation of behavior without condemning the person as the agent of that behavior. Moral or immoral behavior assumes the moral culpability of the person themselves.
 
(Q) said:
YOUR opinions? That's a good one, Jan. My sides are splitting.

You're just going around in circles now, Jan. You really need to give your head a shake and try to understand that what other people do with their lives is not something you deny them if you yourself wish to have the same level of respect for living your life. If you don't wish for any respect, that's fine, but don't demand it from others and don't expect any in return.

Do you understand this at all, Jan?
Click to expand...

No I don't. Can you explain it?

jan.
 
NOTE FROM A MODERATOR

[Q]: haven't you spent enough time in Coventry lately? I realize that this mishmash barely qualifies as a "discussion," but you're just making it worse. If someone asks you a question, please answer it instead of writing something cute and snarky that stops the exchange dead in its tracks. That is, after all, a textbook example of trolling, which is against the rules.

If the other person is also breaking the rules, we'll figure out what to do with him/her too. That's not your job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top