|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2014 8:40:35 GMT -5
I believe one reason why there was never any scandals surrounding Billy, was because he made the decision early in his ministry never to be alone with any woman except his wife Ruth. And sex with someone other than his wife is the only possibility of scandal? It seems any discussion of immoral behavior always has its major focus on sex. Maybe it is just a reflection of the bible writer's fascination with sex and condemning those involved. Or an early lesson proving the old saying "Sex sells!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 4:27:01 GMT -5
I believe one reason why there was never any scandals surrounding Billy, was because he made the decision early in his ministry never to be alone with any woman except his wife Ruth. And sex with someone other than his wife is the only possibility of scandal? It seems any discussion of immoral behavior always has its major focus on sex. Maybe it is just a reflection of the bible writer's fascination with sex and condemning those involved. Or an early lesson proving the old saying "Sex sells!" Old saying amongst some bikers, "no rules other than: don't steal another bro's bike and don't take another bro's woman."
NOTHING can get you into trouble faster than illicit sex. The bible didn't focus upon sex for the sake of prurience.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 21, 2014 8:03:40 GMT -5
And sex with someone other than his wife is the only possibility of scandal? It seems any discussion of immoral behavior always has its major focus on sex. Maybe it is just a reflection of the bible writer's fascination with sex and condemning those involved. Or an early lesson proving the old saying "Sex sells!" Old saying amongst some bikers, "no rules other than: don't steal another bro's bike and don't take another bro's woman."
NOTHING can get you into trouble faster than illicit sex. The bible didn't focus upon sex for the sake of prurience.
The Bible is the product of a male-centric culture. Is it a surprise that the values and priorities of the men of that culture are written into it?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 21, 2014 8:19:09 GMT -5
Old saying amongst some bikers, "no rules other than: don't steal another bro's bike and don't take another bro's woman."
NOTHING can get you into trouble faster than illicit sex. The bible didn't focus upon sex for the sake of prurience.
The Bible is the product of a male-centric culture. Is it a surprise that the values and priorities of the men of that culture are written into it? I wonder who wrote the circumcision bit!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 21, 2014 8:25:07 GMT -5
Old saying amongst some bikers, "no rules other than: don't steal another bro's bike and don't take another bro's woman."
NOTHING can get you into trouble faster than illicit sex. The bible didn't focus upon sex for the sake of prurience.
But what makes it illicit? Isn't that heavily influenced by the bible? Although there is some research involving evolution of humans pairing that posits it is beneficial to long term survival. As far as prurience - to make the point was it necessary to describe the size of the genitals and the volume of the ejaculate in Ezekiel?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 21, 2014 8:51:20 GMT -5
What former churches are you referring to? Just how many of them are you aware of? I only know of one 'church' that is referred to, and Paul continued to uphold his vows from his former church, continued to meet with and speak in his former church. Maybe we should all go read about what Paul actually did in spreading the gospel, rather than trying to claim that he started a new religion with a bunch of new rules that aren't listed in the bible. You aren't going to read about it in any history of the Christian Church written or vetted by the Catholic Church - but "back then", reading between the lines, we can see all sorts of breakaway churches. People who "loved this present world" or "left us because they were never a part of us" or found the preachers "bodily presence weak" or rebelled against the authority of the workers and were not "spared" etc. - they usually went about to establish rival churches.Why is it that people who support the 2x2 ministry get bitter and twisted over anyone starting a local church? Churches have been breaking away for hundreds of yrs. Do you think god is only in the hearts of the friends and workers? Can you not see the kingdom of god is spread far wider than one group of believers?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 21, 2014 8:57:37 GMT -5
The Bible is the product of a male-centric culture. Is it a surprise that the values and priorities of the men of that culture are written into it? I wonder who wrote the circumcision bit! Great question! The ritual permanantly marked the newly born member of the tribe and elevated the penis to a primary physical indicator of tribal membership. (Back then, anyway.) Hmmmm...that seems like a guy thing to me!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 21, 2014 10:06:41 GMT -5
I wonder who wrote the circumcision bit! Great question! The ritual permanantly marked the newly born member of the tribe and elevated the penis to a primary physical indicator of tribal membership. (Back then, anyway.) Hmmmm...that seems like a guy thing to me! Wearing a school tie is one thing. This, at least to me, seems somewhat different. But I can see it is the same. Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 21, 2014 17:02:45 GMT -5
Old saying amongst some bikers, "no rules other than: don't steal another bro's bike and don't take another bro's woman."
NOTHING can get you into trouble faster than illicit sex. The bible didn't focus upon sex for the sake of prurience.
The Bible is the product of a male-centric culture. Is it a surprise that the values and priorities of the men of that culture are written into it? Exactly. The Bible is the reason some men still think women are property. Therefore, not free to have sex with anyone they don't approve of.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 21, 2014 17:03:41 GMT -5
The Bible is the product of a male-centric culture. Is it a surprise that the values and priorities of the men of that culture are written into it? I wonder who wrote the circumcision bit! The enemy? Actually their God was a tad sadistic so...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 21, 2014 17:06:07 GMT -5
I wonder who wrote the circumcision bit! Great question! The ritual permanantly marked the newly born member of the tribe and elevated the penis to a primary physical indicator of tribal membership. (Back then, anyway.) Hmmmm...that seems like a guy thing to me! From what I have read it was just one more way to be different from the 'others'. The Hebrews weren't alone with that kind of thing for male rites of passage though. Look at what some of the African tribes put their young men through to prove they are men.
|
|
|
Post by noellaalan on Oct 22, 2014 8:37:47 GMT -5
I first heard a Billy Graham telecast in our home when I was a child, and remember listening too him on a sunday morning in the summer of 1981. What he preached impacted me , those certain moments in your life that are like bookmarks. I admire what he has tried to do with his life and am thankful that listening to him that sunday morning set me out on a journey too discover more about who Jesus was....aand is.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Oct 22, 2014 9:53:52 GMT -5
From what I have read it was just one more way to be different from the 'others'. The Hebrews weren't alone with that kind of thing for male rites of passage though. Look at what some of the African tribes put their young men through to prove they are men.
Very true !
And what is even more deplorable is how tthousand of women are robed their sexuality by sexual mutulatiation
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 22, 2014 11:08:48 GMT -5
From what I have read it was just one more way to be different from the 'others'. The Hebrews weren't alone with that kind of thing for male rites of passage though. Look at what some of the African tribes put their young men through to prove they are men. Very true ! And what is even more deplorable is how tthousand of women are robed their sexuality by sexual mutulatiation Yes, so why do men think it's okay to do this stuff?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 22, 2014 12:31:56 GMT -5
From what I have read it was just one more way to be different from the 'others'. The Hebrews weren't alone with that kind of thing for male rites of passage though. Look at what some of the African tribes put their young men through to prove they are men. Very true ! And what is even more deplorable is how tthousand of women are robed their sexuality by sexual mutulatiation Not thousands - millions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 22, 2014 22:27:47 GMT -5
Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Isn't this also true for male genital mutilation? Nor for boys and men. Isn't it possible that some of these statistics could be driven by the location where FGM is widely practiced? Same age for male genital modification. Circumcision is a violation of the human rights of boys and men. I believe that routine non-medical circumcision is indeed a violation of the basic human rights of the child involved. While the procedure on females is more involved and severe then the usual circumcision of males in both cases it is genital modification.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 22, 2014 23:56:28 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 4:19:33 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation. correct in most cases circumcision doesn't hinder sexual gratification whereas female genital mutilation does hinder gratification...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 4:32:47 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation. correct in most cases circumcision doesn't hinder sexual gratification whereas female genital mutilation does hinder gratification... ...and menstruation, urination, childbirth, and everything else that goes on around there.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 8:36:21 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation. Here is one thing they have in common - non-diseased living tissue is removed from the genital area in both cases resulting in a permanent change to the individual involved. As in the case of CSA, there is a wide range of things that are all grouped under a single heading. The ethical consideration for circumcision, male and/or female, should not depend on on the severity of the procedure. Would you support female circumcision that involved only the removal of the clitoral hood, roughly the equivalent of removing the foreskin of a male?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 8:43:29 GMT -5
I think male circumcision is nothing compared with female genital mutilation. correct in most cases circumcision doesn't hinder sexual gratification whereas female genital mutilation does hinder gratification... So you see the issue as to whether the victim can still enjoy sex? Sort of like saying that removing the earlobes of infants is OK because they can still hear. Actually, you can remove the whole external ear because in most cases people will be able to hear.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 8:55:28 GMT -5
correct in most cases circumcision doesn't hinder sexual gratification whereas female genital mutilation does hinder gratification... ...and menstruation, urination, childbirth, and everything else that goes on around there. Again, the long term results depend on the extent of the procedure. Shouldn't the ethical consideration be in regards to removing healthy tissue for no medical reason? Would it be OK to cut off just the tip of an infant's finger?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 10:57:03 GMT -5
correct in most cases circumcision doesn't hinder sexual gratification whereas female genital mutilation does hinder gratification... So you see the issue as to whether the victim can still enjoy sex? Sort of like saying that removing the earlobes of infants is OK because they can still hear. Actually, you can remove the whole external ear because in most cases people will be able to hear. the premise last i knew was to remove the female genitals to prevent gratification therefore prevent cheating they don't remove them to prevent reproduction or any other physical reason that i am aware of..maybe you know something i don't?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 23, 2014 12:59:30 GMT -5
...and menstruation, urination, childbirth, and everything else that goes on around there. Again, the long term results depend on the extent of the procedure. Shouldn't the ethical consideration be in regards to removing healthy tissue for no medical reason? Would it be OK to cut off just the tip of an infant's finger? The WHO recommends male circumcision at least in some circumstances but opposes FGM. If cutting the tips off fingers was a ceremonial religious practise I wouldn't lump it together with the Islamist practise of cutting off heads. I say deal with the most damaging practise first. More than 125 million girls and women alive today have been cut in the 29 countries in Africa and Middle East where FGM is concentrated. The challenge is to convince people that their religious leaders are giving them bad advice.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 23, 2014 15:20:26 GMT -5
From my pov religious leaders give very bad advice in all religions. I do happen to agree that in the case of FGM it is very bad advice. However, I also agree that circumcision is also bad advice. It was a Hebrew practice/ritual that got carried over into Christianity and likely other groups. It has been routinely done and there was no need for it.
|
|
bulsi
Junior Member
WHAT WE DO IN LIFE ECHOES IN ETERNITY !
Posts: 197
|
Post by bulsi on Oct 23, 2014 15:23:26 GMT -5
Interesting Facts about Albert Einstein / The Absentminded Genius •Einstein was absentminded, in fact, he became an “icon for distractedness.” While travelling on a train in Germany, the conductor approached him, so Einstein started searching his pockets for the ticket.
The conductor recognized the famous physicist and told him he could ride the train for free. “Thank you," Einstein told him. "But if I don´t find my ticket I won't know where to get off the train.”
•A few days after the young Einstein stayed at his friend’s house, his friend’s mother rang Einstein’s mother.
“I am sorry to say that your son will never amount to anything," she told Einstein's mom. "He always forgets his things. I have his suitcase, if you're wondering.”
•He had a hard time remembering birthdays, including those of girlfriends and family members. In a letter he wrote to then girlfriend Maric, Einstein said, "My dear little sweetheart ... first, my belated cordial congratulations on your birthday yesterday, which I forgot once again."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 15:36:34 GMT -5
So you see the issue as to whether the victim can still enjoy sex? Sort of like saying that removing the earlobes of infants is OK because they can still hear. Actually, you can remove the whole external ear because in most cases people will be able to hear. the premise last i knew was to remove the female genitals to prevent gratification therefore prevent cheating they don't remove them to prevent reproduction or any other physical reason that i am aware of..maybe you know something i don't? The issue, as I see it, is not dependent on the severity of the procedure but the fact that healthy tissue is being removed from a healthy individual when there is no medical reason to do so. This applies to both male and female circumcision. The genitals are being modified, a procedure that will be with the individual for the rest of their life. The modification is for religious/social reasons.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2014 15:54:56 GMT -5
If cutting the tips off fingers was a ceremonial religious practise I wouldn't lump it together with the Islamist practise of cutting off heads. Of course you wouldn't. You have made it clear that it is not the removal of healthy tissue for no medical reason that you find to be morally offensive. You have focused on only the removal of healthy tissue from females to be morally offensive. Personally, I think genital modification, male or female, for no medical reason, without the consent of the owner, is unethical.
|
|