|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 174 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 68 of 174:
| 
Oct 2 20:27 UTC 2000 |
Given, and given that many religious and not-so-religious people are
a bit ignorant of their professed religion, and that it's not productive to
speculate as to who is and who isn't, let's stick to the facts at hand.
|
brighn
|
|
response 69 of 174:
|
Oct 2 20:49 UTC 2000 |
Yes. Given that credentials alone don't guarantee knowledge or ignorance.
Hence citations and such of other people, until the bulk of such citation
leads to what may be termed "majority opinion."
And so forth.
|
jazz
|
|
response 70 of 174:
|
Oct 2 20:53 UTC 2000 |
Or, since we're talking about exegesis, you might really go out on a
limb and support your opinions with scriptural quotes.
|
brighn
|
|
response 71 of 174:
|
Oct 2 22:28 UTC 2000 |
I've got some of those ready, personally...
Waiting for Rabbi Tod to do something other than yawn...
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 174:
|
Oct 3 00:13 UTC 2000 |
*covers mouth while yawning*
Shanah Tovah
|
brighn
|
|
response 73 of 174:
|
Oct 3 02:50 UTC 2000 |
Good morning, tod.
You were having a wonderful dream in which you knew what you were talking
about. Please, let us lolligagging not keep you from the pleasance of your
reverie.
|
jazz
|
|
response 74 of 174:
|
Oct 3 14:23 UTC 2000 |
Paul, have you had a chance to see the Canal film _Ridicule_? I do
believe you'd enjoy and appreciate it. :)
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 174:
|
Oct 3 15:13 UTC 2000 |
*snort*
|
brighn
|
|
response 76 of 174:
|
Oct 3 17:17 UTC 2000 |
I'll have to check it out, John. I'll put it on mute, since it's presumably
sub-titled, and we're trying to let tod get his beauty rest.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 174:
|
Oct 3 17:19 UTC 2000 |
Your statement about fornication being a sin in all religions was a broad
statement which I disagree.
|
brighn
|
|
response 78 of 174:
|
Oct 3 17:30 UTC 2000 |
Who made that statement?
,
|
jazz
|
|
response 79 of 174:
|
Oct 3 17:36 UTC 2000 |
He implied that your understanding of ancient Judaic marriage customs
and adultery was superficial and inaccurate, but didn't say where or provide
corrections at any point. Content was nil, process was significant.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 80 of 174:
|
Oct 3 17:44 UTC 2000 |
I always thought that fornication was what two unmarried (to anyone) people
did, and adultery was only when one partner was married.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 174:
|
Oct 3 18:02 UTC 2000 |
According to my sources, fornication is any illicit sexual behavior, and
adultery is when one partner is married. So adultery is a form of fornication.
I'd always thought, though, that it was as Twila states it, so my soruces may
be wrong.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 174:
|
Oct 3 18:15 UTC 2000 |
What fraction of jurisdictions still have laws on the books against
"fornication"? Since there is in most jurisdictions an "age of consent",
that would conflict with laws against "fornication" above that age.
|
brighn
|
|
response 83 of 174:
|
Oct 3 18:37 UTC 2000 |
Michigan's law is against sodomy and unnatural acts. I don't recall seeing
the word fornication in the code I'm familiar with.
It's illegal for me to seduce an unamrried woman in this state, too, since
I'm married and male.
|
jazz
|
|
response 84 of 174:
|
Oct 3 18:40 UTC 2000 |
Is that an often-enforced law, though?
|
brighn
|
|
response 85 of 174:
|
Oct 3 18:42 UTC 2000 |
Indeed, a Quick Search of Michigan's Compiled Laws for "fornicate" and
"fornication" turned up nothing.
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law
A very handy site for quickie questions. =} Consulte a lawyer for best
results.
|
swa
|
|
response 86 of 174:
|
Oct 5 04:37 UTC 2000 |
Re 82: Ooh, a question I know the answer to! I was actually just
reading about this recently.
According to my sources, six or seven states still have statutes against
fornication. Utah, Idaho, South Carolina, I believe, and... uh... a few
others. It's generally defined as sex between two unmarried people. I
don't have the wording here in front of me, though, and I doubt these laws
are very often enforced.
I'd try to point out that I was reading up on it recently for reasons that
really did make some sense at the time. But it's much more fun to allow
you all to think the worst of me. ;)
|
bdh3
|
|
response 87 of 174:
|
Oct 5 05:02 UTC 2000 |
How old was he?
|
birdy
|
|
response 88 of 174:
|
Oct 5 05:16 UTC 2000 |
<stitches a scarlet A to her jacket lapel>
|
bdh3
|
|
response 89 of 174:
|
Oct 5 05:58 UTC 2000 |
I remember one time a 15-year old I was banging threw me over for a
22-year old convict out of Jackson State who'd just got out and who'd
been banging her before I met her. I was 17 at the time. I didn't say
nothing and continued to bang her momma - unlike her daughter she had to
at least take a room at the motel-6 and buy cheap champaigne. Her daddy
- her momma's husband was a real piece of work. A stock borker who I
don't think ever had a clue and I used to deflate the right driver side
tire of the mercedes benz he drove every now and then after I banged
either his daughter or his wife just to make life interesting.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 90 of 174:
|
Oct 5 06:16 UTC 2000 |
This was before the whole AIDs thingy but even then I sorta cringed
when I saw that punk ass for the first time. He was too pretty by far
and had an usual expression on his face that you just had to punch off.
Man, I got connected with some same poon as he? I dint
like it and so I had some of me bros put him in a corn field down
towards Kazoo -its all nature not nurture...Not that I'm particularly
racist but I really didn't like the notion of that loose motha being out
instead of some being some inmate's bitch.
|
mary
|
|
response 91 of 174:
|
Oct 5 11:45 UTC 2000 |
All of this happened during his "I'm not wearing any
panties" period. I guess you had to be there. ;-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 92 of 174:
|
Oct 5 14:54 UTC 2000 |
bdh3's posts reminded me of an oooold convo in Co-op...
did we ever devise a way to ignore a specific user's posts in an item?
|