Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:08 PM
152 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 147 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Church spreading aids
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 143 (26416)
12-12-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by David unfamous
12-11-2002 5:13 AM


I can see my post has been misunderstood. Probably due to my wording yet again. I didn't mean to imply that immorality was the original cause of the Aids epedemic. I simply meant to state the very obvious that no matter what, the only sure fire solution to the problem is "keep your pants on". Of course I come by this view because of religious convictions, I believe these morals were set in place to help protect us from such things.

The HIV virus would exist wether or not people chose to live by such morality. However I do not think in a moral society (something I've never known to occur from my knowledge of history) we would have such a widespread problem with it. As far as I know the 2 main ways the virus is spread is through sexual contact and intraveinous drug use. These are both moral issues. I was attempting to point out that these things act like a wind on a forest fire. Not that immorality started the fire, more that it fueled it's growth.

Sorry I wasn't very clear on that.

------------------
saved by grace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by David unfamous, posted 12-11-2002 5:13 AM David unfamous has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 143 (26417)
12-12-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by funkmasterfreaky
12-12-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No it's not really clear on it.

You have got to be joking? Why is it that your current moral sentiments trump the morality illustrated in the book that is supposed to be your moral standard?

quote:
It doesn't say go ahead and mary 18 wives.

God made no bones about telling people what not to do, but this was never condemned, nor even poo-poo-ed just a little bit. NEVER. In fact, the number of wives a man had is frequently cited as a measure of his success.

quote:
Don't misrepresent things here.

Your quarrel is with the Bible, not with me. I am the one accepting what is written, and you are the one saying it ain't so. And curiously, all you can do is say it ain't so. You can't provide anything to illustrate the point. Tell me who is misrepresenting?

quote:
Just because something happens in the bible doesn't mean it's something God condones.

Right. Of course not. How do we know what God condones? hmmmm..... do we pick and choose the bits we like? Nope. That hardly seems right, since the Book is supposed to be a guide. So what do we do? Well, God punishes people for certain activities and God expressly forbids most of those same activities. We know those are condemned. What God doesn't condemn he condones. Simple. It isn't like God didn't know this was happening.

quote:
Though you would very much like to draw this conclusion for your continued blasphemy.

I don't personally care what the Bible has to say, funk. It carries no weight for me. It is a book of mythology.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 9:13 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1869 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 63 of 143 (26420)
12-12-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by John
12-12-2002 1:52 AM


What's wrong with polygamy? My view of it is this: when God allows it is fine, when God doesn't allow it nothing is wrong with it, except that it is against God's will. The Book of Mormon goes into this lightly, and warns against it except when proscribed by God. So far as I am aware, the only part of the Bible that suggests polygamy be avoided is 1 Timothy 3:2, the requirements of the bishop.

And what do you, as an atheist, care about polygamy? Do you not feel that banning it, when it is proscribed by religion, is more religious intolerance?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John, posted 12-12-2002 1:52 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:13 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 73 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 7:31 PM gene90 has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 143 (26423)
12-12-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by gene90
12-12-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
What's wrong with polygamy?

I don't have a problem with polygamy, provided that all consent.

Funk, however, does appear to have a problem with it.

quote:
So far as I am aware, the only part of the Bible that suggests polygamy be avoided is 1 Timothy 3:2, the requirements of the bishop.

That's the only proscription I found as well.

quote:
And what do you, as an atheist, care about polygamy?

Polygamy is a social structure, as such laws for or against it effect me. Why wouldn't I care?

quote:
Do you not feel that banning it, when it is proscribed by religion, is more religious intolerance?

Funny that you bring that up. Banning it is religious intolerance, or at least cultural intolerance, and has no place in the legislation of a free country, IMHO. Contrary to what you probably imagine, I am not for legislating against any particular religion or ethnic group. I am for the removal of legislation that is based on particular religious ideals. Large parts of US law is based on particular religious ideals. Marriage laws are an example. Government should not have this sort of power over its citizens.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 11:47 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 3:38 PM John has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 143 (26437)
12-12-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by John
12-12-2002 12:13 PM


Well I wasn't planning on getting into polygamy. I don't know anything about it, I never needed to know whether it was right or wrong. Now as I think about it, I don't recall God ever saying polygamy was wrong. Although he does show it to be undesirable. Any place in the old testament that a man married more than one woman, it was a guarantee that things did not go well. I don't really know of any place where it was encouraged by God. Of course I'm probably wrong.

You just stated that it was clearly acceptable to God. This I don't see anywhere. I don't see any place where he says it's right or wrong. So it's a subject I'm not sure about. I never needed to know what the bible taught about polygamy, I was never interested in having more than one wife. So I guess I shouldn't have opened my mouth about polygamy.

My apologies. However I still hold to the fact that a change in morality is the only sure solution to the Aids epedemic. Though a near impossible solution to apply.

------------------
saved by grace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:13 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John, posted 12-12-2002 11:19 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 143 (26466)
12-12-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by funkmasterfreaky
12-12-2002 3:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Now as I think about it, I don't recall God ever saying polygamy was wrong.

Nor was it made a requirement.

quote:
Although he does show it to be undesirable. Any place in the old testament that a man married more than one woman, it was a guarantee that things did not go well.

hmmm... you'd have a hard time making a case, since pretty much every major male player in the OT had multiple wives.

quote:
I don't really know of any place where it was encouraged by God. Of course I'm probably wrong.

No. It seems to be a non-issue in the OT to me. It was just the way things were.

quote:
However I still hold to the fact that a change in morality is the only sure solution to the Aids epedemic. Though a near impossible solution to apply.

An impossible solution is a death sentence for maybe 80 million people, if I recall the death toll estimates correctly. The thread was started because the RCC is pushing the impossible solution instead of a practical one.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 3:38 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 1:11 AM John has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 143 (26473)
12-13-2002 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by John
12-12-2002 11:19 PM


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although he does show it to be undesirable. Any place in the old testament that a man married more than one woman, it was a guarantee that things did not go well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm... you'd have a hard time making a case, since pretty much every major male player in the OT had multiple wives.


Yes I know there were quite a few (David and Solomon alone account for alot of wives ) in the old testament with multiple wives. What I was getting at was it didn't work well. The wives squabbled, the children of different mothers fought and bickered. It did not generally provide a positive outcome. The account of Jacob's life alone should discourage anyone from polygamy.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However I still hold to the fact that a change in morality is the only sure solution to the Aids epedemic. Though a near impossible solution to apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An impossible solution is a death sentence for maybe 80 million people, if I recall the death toll estimates correctly. The thread was started because the RCC is pushing the impossible solution instead of a practical one.


And at the beggining of this thread I pointed out that I thought the churches job was just to go and help the people, physically. To tend to their needs to feed and care for them as best they can. In short to bring the love of Jesus Christ. Not to preach doctrine at them.

However this said, the root of the epedemic (not the virus) is a moral issue. It's only sure solution, is a moral one. This cannot be forced on people it is something they must choose. So it's not the job of the church to preach but to love. Though the people need to make a decision to change things.

------------------
saved by grace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John, posted 12-12-2002 11:19 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John, posted 12-13-2002 11:17 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 143 (26499)
12-13-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by funkmasterfreaky
12-13-2002 1:11 AM


Funkie, buddie... something is going wrong with your posts. I can't reply-quote them. Only two lines show up in the response window. Thought you might like to know.

quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
What I was getting at was it didn't work well.

It worked quite well for, probably, thousands of years. That is why they did it. That's why the practise got started and that is why it was maintained throughout the OT.

quote:
The wives squabbled, the children of different mothers fought and bickered.

hmmm... people didn't get along then? Go figure

quote:
It did not generally provide a positive outcome.

Polygamy is cross-culturally ( historically ) the most common form of marriage. That would not be the case if it did not produce positive results in many circumstances. That last element is key.

quote:
However this said, the root of the epedemic (not the virus) is a moral issue.

How many diseases are moral problems, funk?

You've got a disease that intersects with your particular version of morality and so you ditch the fact that the disease is caused by a virus just like any other viral infection. The solution is behavioral, not moral. The rates among gay men in the US are lower than they were ten years ago. Why? Gay men are being more careful, though not careful enough. Is anal sex between men who use condoms not a moral problem? While it is a moral problem if the condom isn't used?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 1:11 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 2:52 PM John has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 143 (26516)
12-13-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by John
12-13-2002 11:17 AM


Oops I thought I was more clear on that post. I don't see how you say it worked well. It worked it guaranteed many sons. However the husband was always dealing with this bickering amongst his family. It caused division in the family unit. Not saying this is the only factor that can do this but never the less it did.

I see where you say it worked in many cultures. I guess if the main goal was to have many children (sons if possible) then it was a sure fire system. However as a family unit it generally did not function well. Though we here in North America can't make a family unit function with just two parents.

quote:
How many diseases are moral problems, funk?

You've got a disease that intersects with your particular version of morality and so you ditch the fact that the disease is caused by a virus just like any other viral infection. The solution is behavioral, not moral. The rates among gay men in the US are lower than they were ten years ago. Why? Gay men are being more careful, though not careful enough. Is anal sex between men who use condoms not a moral problem? While it is a moral problem if the condom isn't used?


Again I will state that I don't accredit immorality to the existance of the virus. I accredit immorality to the rapid spread of the disease. That said the only solution is a behaviour change. If you don't like the word moral. I hope my statement of the churches role doesn't get lost. I tried to be careful not to say immorality is the cause of the HIV virus. More that the immoral lifestyle is to blame for it's spread. I have had a burden laid on my heart for the people of Africa since this thread began, and I pray for them.

Yet again I do not condone the doctrine being brought to these people. The important doctrine is the love of the Lord Jesus and his saving power.

------------------
saved by grace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John, posted 12-13-2002 11:17 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by joz, posted 12-13-2002 4:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded
 Message 74 by John, posted 12-16-2002 7:36 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 143 (26527)
12-13-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by funkmasterfreaky
12-13-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I see where you say it worked in many cultures. I guess if the main goal was to have many children (sons if possible) then it was a sure fire system. However as a family unit it generally did not function well. Though we here in North America can't make a family unit function with just two parents.

I think you are taking to narrow a view of polygamy Funk, the term includes polyandry (one woman, multiple men) and to my mind also a situation where there are multiples of each sex....

You seem to be taking it that polygamy refers to one man multiple wives which is a polygyny, a subset of polygamy....

Polyandrys have obvious benefits in a society where women outnumber men, especially in a risky environment as the death of one husband while tragic does not leave a single mother trying to feed her children alone...

Come to mention it about every variation on marriage has pros and cons under various situations, polygyny is usefull in a society where there is high attrition of males (and primitive mysogynistic societal mores) as the extra women are married into a family and provided for....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 2:52 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 5:08 PM joz has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 143 (26530)
12-13-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by joz
12-13-2002 4:49 PM


Sorry Joz I never thought of that thanx for pointing it out. I was just thinking along biblical lines, where to my knowledge the reverse was not mentioned. (wife with multiple husbands)

Like I said earlier I have never spent much time pondering this as I never wanted more than one wife. I should not even be involved in a discussion about this because I don't know what I'm talking about. Though some would say I never know what I'm talking about.

------------------
saved by grace

[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by joz, posted 12-13-2002 4:49 PM joz has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 143 (26883)
12-16-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by gene90
12-10-2002 9:46 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]
quote:
"Just Say No", Gene?

quote:
That's right.

Unrealistic and naieve.

quote:
Tell an African woman whose main value as a wife is to produce children to refuse sex with her husband and see how far it gets you.

quote:
I'm not suggesting they refuse sex with their husbands. I'm suggesting that their husbands should have sex only with their wives, and vice versa.

But what if he didn't? Your answer is for her to refuse to have sex with him, isn't it?

quote:
You have of late let a very definite superior tone come through in your posts.

quote:
That's because, until as of late, you haven't been on the opposite end.

So are you saying that your superior tone was reserved for me now that I disagree with you? That doesn't make sense.

Or, are you saying that I never noticed it before now because we have often been on the smae side of an issue? That makes more sense, but I don't think this is the case.

I really think that you are becoming more self-righteous and condescending and that your debate quality is slipping. Poor debate practices that you nail other people on, you are guilty of yourself.

quote:
Since I actively began opposing you and others that I had not before, the tone of your posts have changed.

So have yours, Gene.

quote:
They are more condescending, more self-righteous, and arrogant. Apparently believing in God is a mark of intellectual inferiority, and I have been branded.

No, refusing to argue and debate the logical and skillful way you used to and your willingness to use poor debate tactics are a mark of becoming...I don't know what.

quote:
Plus I see that the "respect" I used to see for my posts amongst the old-timers was only skin deep.

No, it is the fact that you are using sloppy debate tactics more and more, and illogical arguments, and are becoming pretty snotty in some of your posts that is the problem.

I will own up to some pretty tenatious, blunt statements, and I have also been known to get pissed off every now and then.

quote:
It never was about the quality of my arguments, only whether or not I agree with you.

I strongly disagree.

quote:
I see this when we talk about God, politics, and anything which we disagree on. And when we talk about evolution even the other evolutionists have ceased to expound upon my ideas.

I haven't really noticed this, but you seem to spend almost all of your time in the Faith and Belief forum, so you might know better than me.

I still think you are feeling kind of put upon, but I don't think anyone here has been unfair to you.

quote:
Of course, this loss of respect works both ways.

Please show me where I have treated you disrespectfully, Gene.

quote:
I object to your constant moralizing. It is arrogant and irritating.

quote:
You're entitled to your opinion.

Yep. You are also entitled to whine about how nobody likes you any more, yet ignore the reason when it is shown to you.

quote:
You come across as a hard, unbending person.

quote:
Well that's unfortunate. The truth is hard sometimes.

Gee, is it difficult to know what the truth is all the time? It must be a terrible responsibility and SUCH a burden!

(see this is the arrogant thing I was talking about)

quote:
I'm only the messenger of common sense: that if you control yourself, you're a lot better off.

If you are EDUCATED, you are a lot better off.

quote:
I don't see anything uncompassionate about that, and I don't think I'm callous for but none of the dissenting opinions on my posts surprise me anymore.

You certainly come across as uncaring and seem to be saying that people with AIDS get what they deserve. That is heartless and distateful, to say the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:46 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 12:12 AM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 143 (26884)
12-16-2002 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by gene90
12-12-2002 11:47 AM


I don't see anything wrong with polygamy.

It is polyGYNY, which is what is actually practiced most of the time, and often involving (the coersion of) very young girls, that I object to.

What consenting ADULTS do with their living situations and lifestyles is up to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by gene90, posted 12-12-2002 11:47 AM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 11:57 PM nator has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 143 (26886)
12-16-2002 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by funkmasterfreaky
12-13-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I see where you say it worked in many cultures. I guess if the main goal was to have many children (sons if possible) then it was a sure fire system. However as a family unit it generally did not function well.

Funk, go get yourself some good books on cultural anthropology. No offense, but you are arguing from so much ignorance that it is painful to watch.

quote:
Again I will state that I don't accredit immorality to the existance of the virus. I accredit immorality to the rapid spread of the disease.

At least you don't make the "God made AIDS to punish fags" argument.

Still, a great many, perhaps all, infectious diseases are assisted by our behaviors, yet you don't make these behaviors and diseases moral issues.

quote:
That said the only solution is a behaviour change.

This is different from dogmatism.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 2:52 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1869 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 75 of 143 (26926)
12-16-2002 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
12-16-2002 7:31 PM


I disagree with that practice any time minors are involved. And not that I like polygamous behavior, I just think that people should be allowed to do what they feel they should.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 7:31 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019