Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if a person is born straight, attracted to the opposite sex emotionally. But PHYSICALLY they might be a little more built like the opposite sex. They might sound like the opposite sex when they speak.
Are those things by "choice" also? Did God make them normal, and they chose to be abnormal?
I can't and won't even try to defend that. If a woman is abused she needs to get out immediately, and do everything she can to work with the police to prosecute said abuser. I'll go a step further and say that if a pastor/preacher/elder/deacon/whatever simply tells a woman to pray harder and let her husband or boyfriend beat her, he needs to be held accountable as an accessory.
There is legal precedent for that. Unfortunately, that precedent exists in civil court rather than criminal court, but I'm sure a good prosecutor could make it work.
Because you're absolutely right -- if a person such as a pastor uses their authority to keep a person in immediate, clear and present danger, it's essentially the same thing as the pastor physically locking the woman in the same house with the abusive husband -- like a snake and a mouse thrown into a paper sack. It's only a matter of time before the mouse is eaten.
Fortunately the law is beginning to catch up in regards to "third party" culpability when a crime or negligent accident occurs.
I'm honestly surprised that this wasn't another Pat Robertson "foray into ignorance" -- that guy really needs yanked off the air.
Again, unfortunately, this country's body politic seems all too eager to flirt dangerously with fascism and Christian dominionism -- and trust me as a historian when I say we are going to pay dearly for this. Ergo, seeing more and more people brazenly and shamelessly coming out and advocating idiotic positions that harken back to two centuries ago will become increasingly common.
I just don't get it. How can it be excusable that women who are abused are told to pray, and stay. That is just so wrong, and yet, it seems, many Christians endorse leaders who make these statements.
Me calling Gandhi a pedophile has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with his practice of sleeping naked with young girls.
I would be right there beside you blasting Gandhi as well ... IF Gandhi were actually a pedophile.
Trouble is, just like with other words like "terrorist," "genocide," and "weapons of mass destruction," people lost sight of what "pedophile" actually means. I remember that, within a week of 9/11, a WMD became any weapon that killed more than one person. The word "genocide" came to mean any campaign of violence by one race against a different race even if the goal was not to eradicate the different race.
"Pedophile" is becoming just such a word. It actually means "someone who is sexually attracted to children."
Three points here:
First, what is the definition of "child?" Even in modern America, the age of consent varies from state to state from as young as 15 to as old as 18. Was Gandhi considerably older? Certainly. But even IF Gandhi had had sex with a teenager, that wouldn't make him a pedophile. At most, Gandhi would be looking at statutory rape -- and don't get me started on the problems with *that* law.
The further back in history you go, the younger you have to be in order to be considered a "child." Go back 75 years and children were working in coal mines, factories, and other dangerous places. Go back 150 years and children were going into battle as drummers, stewards, cabin boys, and other military roles. Go back 300 years and children were ruling nations.
Children by today's standards are pretty much coddled in the extreme -- for good or ill. Ergo, it's a bit on the ridiculous side to be an "historical timetraveller," someone who figuratively travels back in time and superimposes 21st Century American values onto a different time in a different country with a different culture.
Secondly, the fact that Gandhi did *not* have sex with any of the teens proves by default that he was *not* a pedophile. It is highly unlikely that a true pedophile could have resisted the temptation of a teenage girl in his bed -- one who is there voluntarily and would almost certainly would have allowed Gandhi to have his way with her.
Thirdly, India is not anywhere NEARLY as sexually oppressed as the United States -- a country so wracked by religious taboos regarding sex that it's a wonder any babies at all are conceived. As I've said so many times: Christianity is utterly worthless as a spiritual religion because 95% of this religion focuses on oppressive sexual rules, ridiculous taboos, and an over-arcing campaign to make sex evil, dirty, and sinful.
At any rate, the bottom line is this: Is sleeping naked with teenage girls on the weird side of eccentric? Sure it is. And you are free to disapprove. You are *not* free, however, to continue labeling Gandhi as a pedophile when there is ZERO evidence that he ever was one.
You can't throw around that lame argument unless you can cash the check your mouth just wrote.
Because everyone knows -- everyone who isn't brainwashed by religiously inspired bigotry -- that the "being gay is a choice" crap was invented to solve two things:
1) It solves the question of: "If homosexuality is a sin, why would God create homosexuals?"
2) It gives Christians free rein to be as nasty, cruel, oppressive, and bigoted against gays as they feel like being -- because it would be immoral to attack someone for simply being who they are. So the religious decided to do an end run around reality by claiming homosexuality is a choice so they don't have to feel that little tug on their conscience when they start bullying, oppressing, discriminating against, and insulting homosexuals. After all, it was their choice and therefore it was their fault! Just choose not to be gay, kiss God's buttocks for some lovin' forgiveness, and we Christians will stop hounding you!
I mean, seriously, no one is fooled by this -- and religion's motivation for inventing the "choice" argument is more transparent than a sheet of glass one atom thick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
But people love to smear and distort that reality though to slam Christianity.
Really? Wow! I mean, why on *earth* would anyone do that?
If a women came to me in a similar situation I would weigh facts.
Is she an obedient child of God ? If she is, then she should wait on God for the answer .
If she is a superficial believer, her faith is yet in man, not God .
Escape might be her best response . it does not solve the over all problem ( marriage issues)
It does not mean the problem cannot be solved another way It depends greatly on how much one values their life compared to another.
Weigh this fact: Wife-beaters never change.
Period.
Graveyards are filled with women who honestly thought their husbands would change. Prisons are filled with men who never did.
Any woman should be packing her bags 10 seconds after the first slap.
Because the violence is almost certain to escalate.
Oh sure, not every problem will be solved by escaping, but explain to me what problems will be solved by staying!
Once the hitting starts, the only "marriage issues" left to solve is deciding which divorce lawyer to hire.
And the same applies to battered husbands with abusive wives.
They don't change.
If the God of Love truly expects a woman to just sit there and suck up the abuse while waiting for God to do something, well, then he's not truly the God of Love.
However, if the abused woman needs help finding her car keys or if she wants her son's high school football team to win the state championship, God might be more amenable.
I always thought a "page" was one of three things:
1) A single piece of paper within a larger grouping of documents
or
2) An occupation involving running errands, fetching things, delivering messages, and the like
or
3) A verb meaning to notify, alert, or summon.
I always thought "Paige" was an awful name for a girl. Simply throwing an extra 'i' into the name doesn't make it any less uninspiring, bland, and mundane.
(Heh, no offense to anyone here who might be named "Paige" in real life -- my condolensces that your parents gave you that name. It's not your fault. No, really!)
Bless my heart - so basically telling me to eff off. That is that Christian love that I have come to expect from you.
Right back at you buddy. You are one of the most hateful,disgusting persons that I have ever come into contact with. You give your entire religion a bad name.
Yes. British atheist have an equivalent "Why don't you go forth and multiply?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
No. I'm displaying kindness. You should try it.
Which can be passed off with with transparent denial, like giving the middle finger and saying with injured innocence that you were merely checking your fingerprints hadn't changed overnight. You can tell someone to go screw themselves and score a double cheap point of being falsely accused and having Christian love rejected by the hateful atheists. It's a quite clever trick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
LOL.
Discerning eyes see through you.
As i say, a nice trick but I have a saying of my own; once you know how the trick works, you won't be fooled again. This is indeed saying 'eff off' every time he gets nailed, and the injured innocence card has been played too often. We see it for what it is and though he may feel very pleased with his little ploy, it ain't in fact doing him or his case or religion any good whatsoever.
There's a neat little dynamic going on here - personal cred over the cause. We see it time and again, where the initial argument for the faith becomes a fight to save face any way you can, and stuff the damage it does to the faith. It's what you can expect when the God you are fighting for is in fact your own Ego inflated to cosmic size.
I would be right there beside you blasting Gandhi as well ... IF Gandhi were actually a pedophile.
Trouble is, just like with other words like "terrorist," "genocide," and "weapons of mass destruction," people lost sight of what "pedophile" actually means. I remember that, within a week of 9/11, a WMD became any weapon that killed more than one person. The word "genocide" came to mean any campaign of violence by one race against a different race even if the goal was not to eradicate the different race.
"Pedophile" is becoming just such a word. It actually means "someone who is sexually attracted to children."
Three points here:
First, what is the definition of "child?" Even in modern America, the age of consent varies from state to state from as young as 15 to as old as 18. Was Gandhi considerably older? Certainly. But even IF Gandhi had had sex with a teenager, that wouldn't make him a pedophile. At most, Gandhi would be looking at statutory rape -- and don't get me started on the problems with *that* law.
The further back in history you go, the younger you have to be in order to be considered a "child." Go back 75 years and children were working in coal mines, factories, and other dangerous places. Go back 150 years and children were going into battle as drummers, stewards, cabin boys, and other military roles. Go back 300 years and children were ruling nations.
Children by today's standards are pretty much coddled in the extreme -- for good or ill. Ergo, it's a bit on the ridiculous side to be an "historical timetraveller," someone who figuratively travels back in time and superimposes 21st Century American values onto a different time in a different country with a different culture.
Secondly, the fact that Gandhi did *not* have sex with any of the teens proves by default that he was *not* a pedophile. It is highly unlikely that a true pedophile could have resisted the temptation of a teenage girl in his bed -- one who is there voluntarily and would almost certainly would have allowed Gandhi to have his way with her.
Thirdly, India is not anywhere NEARLY as sexually oppressed as the United States -- a country so wracked by religious taboos regarding sex that it's a wonder any babies at all are conceived. As I've said so many times: Christianity is utterly worthless as a spiritual religion because 95% of this religion focuses on oppressive sexual rules, ridiculous taboos, and an over-arcing campaign to make sex evil, dirty, and sinful.
At any rate, the bottom line is this: Is sleeping naked with teenage girls on the weird side of eccentric? Sure it is. And you are free to disapprove. You are *not* free, however, to continue labeling Gandhi as a pedophile when there is ZERO evidence that he ever was one.
I have certainly noted that a 'pedo' - accusation has become very, very handy to exploit emotional rejection of an individual or group with little effort or need to provide evidence.
I'll also mention that I used to enjoy the Judge Judy episodes, but there were a couple of events where she let herself down or was letting personal opinion override what the law said.
One was some Fonzy -type hamming it up a bit and she 'aped' his mannerism. Sure it was annoying but it did his case no good, and this slightly racist mockery did not reflect well on her.
The other was some teenagers getting together and Judge J. saying they were 'children'. Whether she had a point in saying that parental supervision up to 21 should have been in place, calling them 'children' at 17 was nonsense.
" statutory rape -- and don't get me started on the problems with *that* law." Yes indeed. I am sure though you are doubles a feminist and good for you, you would see the logic involved here. One UK politician damn' near had his career ruined because he did and Some women didn't agree, because they didn't want to.
"Paige" Yes, I'd always thought it a bit Fey to name girls after a president.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-04-2018 at 03:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
