You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   44-68   69-93   94-118   119-143   144-168   169-174   
 
Author Message
25 new of 174 responses total.
brighn
response 69 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 00:13 UTC 2000

*covers mouth while yawning*
Shanah Tovah
brighn
response 73 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 15:13 UTC 2000

*snort*
brighn
response 76 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 17:30 UTC 2000

Who made that statement?
,
jazz
response 79 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 18:40 UTC 2000

        Is that an often-enforced law, though?
brighn
response 85 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 05:02 UTC 2000

How old was he?
birdy
response 88 of 174: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 05:16 UTC 2000

<stitches a scarlet A to her jacket lapel>
bdh3
response 89 of 174: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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?
nephi
response 93 of 174: Mark Unseen   Nov 13 00:32 UTC 2000

Here is a position document from:

  http://www.scouting.org/excomm/positions/unitedway.html

For the web-challenged, it says:

  ---

As a founding agency of the United Way, the Boy Scouts of America 
greatly appreciates the support that has been extended to Boy Scout
councils across the country. For many decades, United Way funding has 
helped the BSA bring the Scouting programs to underprivileged youth, 
introduce new programs, and broaden the existing program.

In our pluralistic society, the strength of local United Ways has been 
their ability to bring together and support a mosaic of community needs. 
These needs are best met through a comprehensive mix of agencies, many 
of which serve exclusive constituencies. 

The United Way does not implement a specific policy of nondiscrimination 
for individual charities so as to avoid conflict with charities that
serve only specific segments of the population, including all-women's 
shelters, programs for persons of a certain age group, or programs for
persons of specific cultural communities.

In its more than 90 year history, the Boy Scouts of America has served 
more than 100 million members and their families as a consistent
platform for the values upon which America was built. We remain 
committed to providing these values to future generations.

A core value of the BSA is respect. Scouting respects those with ideas 
and customs that are different from our own and expects the same
respect from those who may disagree with Scouting's position. Tolerance 
for a diversity of values and ideals does not require abdication of
one's own values. 

As a values-based educational movement, the Boy Scouts of America asks 
its members to subscribe to the tenets of the Scout Oath and Scout Law. 
Inculcating moral and religious values in young people benefits all of 
society. 

Scouts are at work in our communities everyday - collecting food, 
recycling, visiting nursing homes and hospitals, and in thousands of 
other ways living out the Scout Oath and Law.

The BSA aims for the United Way to realize Scouting's value to the 
potential, dignity, and worth of all people, regardless of their 
background.

  ---

The BSA's position on gay people in positions of leadership appears to 
be:

  ---

We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values 
espoused in the Scout Oath and Law. 

Boy Scouting makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any 
person. Scouting's message is compromised when prospective leaders 
present themselves as role models inconsistent with Boy Scouting's 
understanding of the Scout Oath and Law. 

Scouting's record of inclusion is impressive by any standard. However, 
we do ask all of our members to do their best to live the Scout Oath
and Law. Today, boys from every ethnic, religious, and economic 
background in suburbs, farms, and cities know and respect each other as
they participate in our program.

  [ . . . ]

In a support brief filed by three of Scouting's largest chartered 
organizations, they addressed why Scouting has been so effective for 90
years: "Scouting's program for character development is effective 
precisely because it teaches through both precept and concrete examples 
of its adult leaders ... Scoutmasters exist not only to espouse the 
ideals of Scouting, but more importantly to live and embody them; they
are the role models of the Scouting movement."

  --- 

I got this exerpt from

  http://www.scouting.org/press/000628/index.html

Here are a couple of exerpts from email messages I sent to a way right 
wing Christian when he sent me a message about the fallout from this 
matter:

  ---

I feel grateful for the many years that I spent as a boyscout, and while 
I may think the BSA has a misguided policy towards gays, I don't want to 
see any kids denied the scouting experience -- especially in times like 
these where parents are too busy chasing after the Almighty Dollar to
take responsibility for raising their own kids.

  [ . . . ]

At any rate, the presedential debates got me thinking about the BSA
again.  Somehow the topic made its way to leadership, and I thought
of the ways in which our country trains children to be leaders.  The
BSA is the only organization I know of that teaches leadership to
children.  The schools certainly don't, nor do the churches.  None
of my other extracurricular activities provided any real training at
all for being a leader, all the way through high school.  I shudder
at the thought of having a country full of zombie followers, and it
scares me to think that the BSA might ever go away or become less
influential in our society.

It was in the Boy Scouts that I gained an appreciation and love for
nature.  I also learned about cooperation, teamwork, and respect as
a Boy Scout, among myriad other things.

  [ . . . ]

I wish I knew what was the right answer here.  I wish the BSA
would not have such a misguided policy.  I wish the gay groups
would not have considered the BSA their enemies.  I wish that
organizations and companies wouldn't have made the decision to
stop donating to the BSA.  I wish that people wouldn't threaten
to withdraw their support of those organizations and companies.

Instead, I wish that the BSA would have known that men who like
men aren't a threat to the boys in their organization.  I wish
that those gay groups would have worked in good faith to spread
understanding and good-will within the BSA, such that they would
have more enlightened policies.  I wish that people who like the
BSA would enlighten companies like RR Donnelley about all the
good the BSA has done and continues to do, such that they would
increase their support for the BSA.

I see our great country becoming like Israel and Bosnia, and I
feel powerless to stop it.

  ---

I really am troubled by all the divisiveness I see around me these 
days, or what some call the "Balkanization" of the U.S.  Why can't we 
work towards productive dialogue rather threats and retaliation?  Other 
scouting organizations around the world don't have the same restrictions 
regarding homosexual leadership that are found in the BSA, and its only 
a matter of time before the BSA see's the light.  In the mean-time, 
should they be attacked and forced to retrench in defense of a policy 
that they might be inclined to change with some persuasive arguments and 
gentle prodding?  Should the BSA be forced out of business because they 
are not yet perfect and are stubbornly refusing to see things our way?
Should we really work to bring harm to those with whom we disagree?  

And what should we do about the myriad other organizations that don't 
include everyone?  Should we bar support of battered women's shelters 
because they don't cater to men as well?  Should we bar support of 
football teams that don't allow non-athletes play?  

Sorry about the very long response . . . 
 0-24   25-49   44-68   69-93   94-118   119-143   144-168   169-174   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss