The God thread

[sox4lifeinPA]

Now, I don't think you'll be shocked Alex to find out that I'm a huge feminist. I've never actually burned a bra--but really only because it's quite cost prohibitive.

 

I'm not at all put off by stay at home moms. In fact, I think that feminists that say EVERY WOMAN MUST WORK don't get it either. The point is, women should have the choice. Men should do. At this point in my life I don't know if I want to get married or have children. Maybe I don't want to do either--maybe I'll want to do one. Maybe my husband will want to be the one to stay home. But the point is--that I have the right to make that choice for myself. I have the right to apply for graduate schools and to sit through interviews and NOT be asked about when I want to start a family. Or if I have a boyfriend. Or if I want children. Your significant other has the right to want to stay at home with wee ones. And she has the right to want to go to work when she wants to, if she wants to.

 

Essentially, that's all the liberal movement, as I see it is--creating those equal opportunities. So, I'm not belitting choices made by other women--I may not understand them. But they may not understand my choices either. Some men may not understand stay at home dads--but stay at home dads may not understand men that don't want to chill with their kids.

 

Hope that helps.

and I am TOTALLY in agreeance with you Chisoxy. I watched my mom manage finances, kick around 4 boys, have a part-time job, fit in house cleaning, and have her personal time somwhere in all of that.

 

I think that staying at home parenting is a honorable and challenging job. her choice is one I appluad and dont think i could do.

 

I should discuss this in a different thread, sorry.

[Flash Tizzle]

Now, I don't think you'll be shocked Alex to find out that I'm a huge feminist. I've never actually burned a bra--but really only because it's quite cost prohibitive.

 

I'm not at all put off by stay at home moms. In fact, I think that feminists that say EVERY WOMAN MUST WORK don't get it either. The point is, women should have the choice. Men should do. At this point in my life I don't know if I want to get married or have children. Maybe I don't want to do either--maybe I'll want to do one. Maybe my husband will want to be the one to stay home. But the point is--that I have the right to make that choice for myself. I have the right to apply for graduate schools and to sit through interviews and NOT be asked about when I want to start a family. Or if I have a boyfriend. Or if I want children. Your significant other has the right to want to stay at home with wee ones. And she has the right to want to go to work when she wants to, if she wants to.

 

Essentially, that's all the liberal movement, as I see it is--creating those equal opportunities. So, I'm not belitting choices made by other women--I may not understand them. But they may not understand my choices either. Some men may not understand stay at home dads--but stay at home dads may not understand men that don't want to chill with their kids.

 

Hope that helps.

Couldn't resist posting this site.

 

http://maddox.xmission.com/femnazi2.html

[Soxy]

Couldn't resist posting this site.   

 

http://maddox.xmission.com/femnazi2.html

I usually agree with Maddox--but hm, well, I have to disagree with him here. And come on "feminazi"--when was the last time feminists murdered 11 million people? AND, men can be feminists too. Several of my male friends--and previous boyfriends, have been feminists. In fact, I bet there are a few feminist men lurking around here too... Sigh, have you hugged a feminist today?

 

I won't even mention the, uh, fringe benefits of loving feminists either...

[southsider2k5]

Q is only postulated that it must have existed.  There must have been a Q - but it remains the unknown. I surely thing there was a Q long since lost.

 

Interesting you like Gospel of Thomas, and of the canonicals, Mark, more than me. Of the 4, Matthew is my favorite Gospel, I guess, although Luke sure has its moments!

The gospel of Thomas was only found relatively recently right? Wasn't it found in a vase or jar, within the last century?

[Soxy]

The gospel of Thomas was only found relatively recently right?  Wasn't it found in a vase or jar, within the last century?

For where it was found go here (weird, I seem to have remembered it was found in a garbage can--guess I'm getting senile in my old age):

 

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/thomas_poxy.htm

 

For a more general stuff go here:

 

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

[sox4lifeinPA]

while I'm always skeptical of this stuff, I try to keep an open mind. And with this, I did.

 

here are some thoughts:

 

I think it's a great insight on somethings that Jesus said. I would agree that it probably predates the big 4. I can understand why this is not in the bible though. I liken this information to a kid in a college class taking notes and writing down things that stick out to him and clearly there are things where Jesus is emphasizing. "Those with two good ears better listen!"

 

overall, I think it was ***** who said it would be beneficial to use the GTh for scholarly use only. I don't think there's enough fluidity to what is written to take anything as "gospel".

 

anyway, I think it's fascinating....I haven't looked into this stuff before. Thanks to the God Squad for this thread.

[doubleM23]

actually scientist have found fish fossils high up on the peaks of the himalayas..i cant give you a link but i remember reading that somewhere about 10 years ago..like  in newsweek or something...so there was a time when almost or all of the earth was under water...now i cant remember if they were able to date how far back this event happened..but that could be used as corroberating evidence..

 

the OT  also talks about the bitterness and the hatred between the jews and the muslims..and that they would bitter enemies until the end of time...they have been just that for thousands of years...its kinda wierd when you think about it..

 

there was an interesting article in a south bend paper about two weeks ago..it talks about the bible and science coming together...there was a story about how the east end of jeresalem is build on very unstable ground...and something like a 6.0 earthquake could wipe out the entire area with all the building destroyed and fire everywhere...the bible talks about jereselum burning to the ground..if im reading my map right the east end of town is where alot of the temples were located in jesus' time..which would be the part of jereselum the bible talks about burning down..

 

kinda cool if you think these things through...glad this topic was started..good way to discuss our differences on the afterlife  without it becoming politcal..

Ever heard of plate tectonics?

[doubleM23]

Right around noon that day, too, if I recall correctly...

9:30 AM, to be precise.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Ever heard of plate tectonics?

yeah, their debut album was great, but I'm not sold on their latest stuff....

[FlaSoxxJim]

the OT  also talks about the bitterness and the hatred between the jews and the muslims..and that they would bitter enemies until the end of time...they have been just that for thousands of years...its kinda wierd when you think about it..

 

there was an interesting article in a south bend paper about two weeks ago..it talks about the bible and science coming together...there was a story about how the east end of jeresalem is build on very unstable ground...and something like a 6.0 earthquake could wipe out the entire area with all the building destroyed and fire everywhere...the bible talks about jereselum burning to the ground..if im reading my map right the east end of town is where alot of the temples were located in jesus' time..which would be the part of jereselum the bible talks about burning down..

Baggio, I got so wrapped up in responding to the mountain fossil part of your post I really did not pay enough attention to the rest of it.

 

If you have a version of the OT that talks about hatred between Jews and Muslims, you had best chuck it and get a more accurate translation. Mohammad's first revelation did not occur until 610AD, and the Muslim calendar does not begin until 622AD, the year of the Hijra (emigration) from Mecca. There was no Islam and hence no Muslims in OT times. If your version of the OT says something about animosity between Jews and other Semitic tribes, that is another matter.

 

Your reference to much of the Holy land being located on major fault lines is true enough. There is actually some serious investigation into the realities of Sodam (sp?) and Gamorah (sp??), the whole pillars of salt business, etc., and the geologic activity of the area figures prominently. The presumed location of these two fabled cities on the banks of the Dead Sea makes the pillars of salt pretty easy to explain. Odd, organic-looking salt formations appear quite rapidly in and around this hypersaline water body, and someone happening upon a roughly human-shaped salt pillar could have been the beginning of the story. The fact that the area is also tectonically and volcanically active is also important, because the biblical "rains of fire" then become accounted for, right down to the presence of good, sulpher-smelling brimstone rocks to be found by letecomers to teh scene. Add to that the known history of the area in which very advanced and prosperous merchant civilizations pretty much disappeared almost over night (likely due to exodus stemming from bad runs of luck including earthquakes, droughts, etc.), and you do have the key ingredients for the stories about the Holy destruction of the two fabled wicked cities.

 

There was a great PBS production on the shrinking and imperiled Dead Sea I caught about a month ago that went into a lot of this. Good stuff.

[BrandoFan]

Yes, yes, absolutely yes!  Surviving long enough to leave the most progeny is what it is all about in teh living world.

So would you say the most successful person is one with the largest testicles?

 

While it's hard to argue with (but easy to ignore!) all the fascinating theories you briefly summarized, I have to side with 1549 on one sub-issue: human understanding of success/egocentric view of existence is WAY cooler and vastly preferrable to anything else.... Empty, pointless unverse is not something I wanna inhabit and when I die you goddamn right the universe ENDS-- afterall I AM the culmination of anything and everything that has ever existed or not existed or yet to exist.....as far as I am concerned. YMMV.

 

A question: Since the universe is 15 billion years old, why on Earth do we look down on people who like guitar music from 40-70's as though they should be commited to a museum? A few decades is nothing in the grander scheme of things. A nano-second that blinked.

 

Ok, that's enough pedestrian non-sequitory for one morning.

[BrandoFan]

If we cure cancers and raise the average American lifespan to 100 years, we then have an even bigger, older, longer lived social crisis, as health care costs to fight the other diseases and keep worn out bodies going skyrockets. Human vessels were designed to wear out and, yes to succumb to dread diseases as well. But evolution has succeeded in moving most of these life-threatening illnesses into our senescent years after we have made our reproductive contributions to future generations. That is all you can ask selection to do, and by artificially increasing life expectancy we only open new cans of worms in terms of the other illnesses scheduled to erupt in these hitherto rarely experienced advanced years.

 

Oooh, I love this "society-friendly" rhetoric....That is, until the person who is the most vocefirous and philosophical and non-chalant about it finds out he/she has cancer.........Then, it's no longer the "cancer patients should understand the facts of life and make peace with death without grabbing for my dollar", but RATHER "I want the cure, give me the cure, why isn't there the cure, spend the entire GDP on the cure goddamnit.... AAAHHHHHHH!!"

 

Would you tell your parent(s) "hey, you must die so as to not needlessly overburden society and/or to teach ME how to not take life for granted"?

 

This is WHY there is much need for perfecting the system of government , for better public education and for more efficient wealth/resource distribution: the world/society can easily FEED/ACCOMODATE everybody for many centuries to come (especially now with food technology and all) , but certain expoloitative b****es are hogging everything, thinking a few extra inheritances/brain cells/hours of study all of the sudden make them worth more than 100s millions of less fortunate people of the Third World.

 

Imperfect economic system and a few (hundred million) un-cooperative individuals are ones to BLAME.....NOT the science that tries to cure cancer/AIDS, "artificially" extending average age and expanding population.

 

(Incidentally, worst comes the worst, I wouldn't be against a child max quota, with severe monetary/legal penalties for who want the luxury of, say, 5+ kids)

 

And before I hear how overpopulaiton is spinning out of control....hey, guess what? One nuclear war, one large enough asteroid, one currently uncurable virus/bacteria epidemic or an ozone-related gaffe......and we're back to 5000 BC population levels JUST.LIKE.THAT-- very possibly in OUR lifetime.

 

Be careful what you wish for in other words.

[BrandoFan]

But, I think it's unfair for you to blanket label "family values" as biggoted if someone doesn't necessarily agree with the current downward trends of the family and society.... however I think  the "if you don't think like us, then you're a biggot" mantra is a close relative to the "if you don't think like us you're either a masochist or a chauvinist" feminist movement in the 60-70s that emasculated an entire population of males

 

 

HAHAHA!

 

That's why you're the second funniest comedian, PA.

[1549]

Oooh, I love this "society-friendly" rhetoric....That is, until the person who is the most vocefirous and philosophical and non-chalant about it finds out he/she has cancer.........Then, it's no longer the "cancer patients should understand the facts of life and make peace with death without grabbing for my dollar", but RATHER "I want the cure, give me the cure, why isn't there the cure, spend the entire GDP on the cure goddamnit.... AAAHHHHHHH!!"

 

Would you tell your parent(s) "hey, you must die so as to not needlessly overburden society and/or to teach ME how to not take life for granted"?

 

This is WHY there is much need for perfecting the system of government , for better public education and for more efficient wealth/resource distribution: the world/society can easily FEED/ACCOMODATE everybody for many centuries to come (especially now with food technology and all) , but certain expoloitative b****es are hogging everything, thinking a few extra inheritances/brain cells/hours of study all of the sudden make them worth more than 100s millions of less fortunate people of the Third World. 

 

Imperfect economic system and a few (hundred million) un-cooperative individuals are ones to BLAME.....NOT the science that tries to cure cancer/AIDS, "artificially" extending average age and expanding population.

 

(Incidentally, worst comes the worst, I wouldn't be against a child max quota, with severe monetary/legal penalties for who want the luxury of, say, 5+ kids)

 

And before I hear how overpopulaiton is spinning out of control....hey, guess what?    One nuclear war, one large enough asteroid, one currently uncurable virus/bacteria epidemic or an ozone-related gaffe......and we're back to 5000 BC population levels JUST.LIKE.THAT--  very possibly in OUR lifetime. 

 

Be careful what you wish for in other words.

Considering I have lost a very close loved one to cancer I will never quite understand Fla's argument. Overpopulation can be the burden of the next generation, in the meantime lets just enjoy life.

 

As Brando stated there are plenty of other ways for a population dip. If say the Chicken Flu ran circles around China, the death toll would be horrific, so you can't just say lets try to keep life span's low, so we don't overpopulate, nature finds other ways, and often times humans find other ways. China invades Taiwan, death tolls would be catastrophic.

 

And the age old question of not if but when will an asteroid hit? Last year that Asteroid narrowly missed the Earth and we didn't see it until it passed. What if that had landed right in NYC? I would be f***ed, but 20 million other people would go down with me, and the US would not be over populated.

 

So I say lets cure what we can and let disasters and human stupidity take care of the rest.

[cwsox]

"if you don't think like us you're either a masochist or a chauvinist" feminist movement in the 60-70s that emasculated an entire population of males

 

 

I would love to see one piece of proof that that quote is actual, that it was ever said by anyone in the women's movement, let alone anyone at all, in the 1960s and 1970s

 

also I would like stats on what "the entrie population of males" were that were emasculated were - since I lived throuigh that era and I have no recollection of mass emasculations let alone that of an entire population of males, I am curious as to what I missed, or didn't miss, as the case may be

 

anyone here get emasculated back then?

[southsider2k5]

Oooh, I love this "society-friendly" rhetoric....That is, until the person who is the most vocefirous and philosophical and non-chalant about it finds out he/she has cancer.........Then, it's no longer the "cancer patients should understand the facts of life and make peace with death without grabbing for my dollar", but RATHER "I want the cure, give me the cure, why isn't there the cure, spend the entire GDP on the cure goddamnit.... AAAHHHHHHH!!"

 

Would you tell your parent(s) "hey, you must die so as to not needlessly overburden society and/or to teach ME how to not take life for granted"?

 

This is WHY there is much need for perfecting the system of government , for better public education and for more efficient wealth/resource distribution: the world/society can easily FEED/ACCOMODATE everybody for many centuries to come (especially now with food technology and all) , but certain expoloitative b****es are hogging everything, thinking a few extra inheritances/brain cells/hours of study all of the sudden make them worth more than 100s millions of less fortunate people of the Third World. 

 

Imperfect economic system and a few (hundred million) un-cooperative individuals are ones to BLAME.....NOT the science that tries to cure cancer/AIDS, "artificially" extending average age and expanding population.

 

(Incidentally, worst comes the worst, I wouldn't be against a child max quota, with severe monetary/legal penalties for who want the luxury of, say, 5+ kids)

 

And before I hear how overpopulaiton is spinning out of control....hey, guess what?    One nuclear war, one large enough asteroid, one currently uncurable virus/bacteria epidemic or an ozone-related gaffe......and we're back to 5000 BC population levels JUST.LIKE.THAT--  very possibly in OUR lifetime. 

 

Be careful what you wish for in other words.

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. you make me happy when skies are gray. You'll never know dear, how much I love you. Please don't take my sunshine away.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I would love to see one piece of proof that that quote is actual, that it was ever said by anyone in the women's movement, let alone anyone at all, in the 1960s and 1970s

 

also I would like stats on what "the entrie population of males" were that were emasculated were - since I lived throuigh that era and I have no recollection of mass emasculations let alone that of an entire population of males, I am curious as to what I missed, or didn't miss, as the case may be

 

anyone here get emasculated back then?

*****,

 

while many great things have come out of the women's movement, it's clear that men in the early 1900s and men in the late 1900s are completely different. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but I feel as though it's looked down upon if a man and a women accept their traditional gender roles. I think there's a segment of the population that believe a woman accepting the supportive and more passive role and the male taking on the leader position as the head of the family is thought of as archaic and even ignorant.

 

I believe that men and women are very different and while we can choose to force the "women can do everything that men can do" mantra down our throats, any guy on this website could physically take down any women. There are differences, physical and non-physical.

 

I think it was Gloria Steinman who said that "women are either feminists or masochists"

 

sorry for my blanket statement in response to a blanket statement

[Queen Prawn]

while many great things have come out of the women's movement, it's clear that men in the early 1900s and men in the late 1900s are completely different. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but I feel as though it's looked down upon if a man and a women accept their traditional gender roles. I think there's a segment of the population that believe a woman accepting the supportive and more passive role and the male taking on the leader position as the head of the family is thought of as archaic and even ignorant.

The thing I found funny is how men feel like less of a man if 'their woman' makes more than them. Not all men are like that (I am marrying one that was, by his own admission like that, but has changed his mind since meeting me) granted, but I have known many men that thought that way and often said they would never date a woman who makes more money than they do.

 

Brian says that for him, it was a self-esteem thing - but he realized that because I make what I do doesn't make him less of a man (and now because he received better raises than I have, thanks to a union contract, he makes $1.50 an hr more than me).

[southsider2k5]

The thing I found funny is how men feel like less of a man if 'their woman' makes more than them.  Not all men are like that (I am marrying one that was, by his own admission like that, but has changed his mind since meeting me) granted, but I have known many men that thought that way and often said they would never date a woman who makes more money than they do. 

 

Brian says that for him, it was a self-esteem thing - but he realized that because I make what I do doesn't make him less of a man (and now because he received better raises than I have, thanks to a union contract, he makes $1.50 an hr more than me).

Angie makes a bunch more than I do. To me it doesn't matter. If that bothers someone they have real self-esteem issues that go way deeper than that issue.

[Queen Prawn]

Angie makes a bunch more than I do.  To me it doesn't matter.  If that bothers someone they have real self-esteem issues that go way deeper than that issue.

That's pretty much what Brian told me. My only point with that post is that there will always be someone to 'look down' or take issue with a situation.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Angie makes a bunch more than I do.  To me it doesn't matter.  If that bothers someone they have real self-esteem issues that go way deeper than that issue.

yeah, I don't think a guy should worry about that at all. Dude, i WANT a sugar-momma. Seriously though, my point is that men like Robert Duval and Kevin Costner in "Open Range", Sean Penn in "Mysitic River", Vigo Mortenson in "LOTR", Jude Law in "Cold Mountain", or Russell Crowe in "Master and Commander" (all of which would be in the top 10 movies of last year) don't exist in todays society. You have to be touchy feely and sensitive (all of which ARE great things...trust me, I'm an emotional guy by most standards) however, I think we've forgotten, or rather had that ability taken away, to stand up and fight for our family's, friends, and country. (see the draft debate). I think my kid's generation needs to learn both sides of things. I pray for a revival in true family values in America, if not for my friends and my family.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Considering I have lost a very close loved one to cancer I will never quite understand Fla's argument.  Overpopulation can be the burden of the next generation, in the meantime lets just enjoy life.

I have also lost family members to cancer, and can readily empathize with any who have. And I concede that the self interest perspective on the issue is a real part of all of us. The "somebody else's problem" rationale is no good though, because those "somebody elses" are my kids, your kids, their kids, etc.

[Soxy]

*****,

 

while many great things have come out of the women's movement, it's clear that men in the early 1900s and men in the late 1900s are completely different. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but I feel as though it's looked down upon if a man and a women accept their traditional gender roles. I think there's a segment of the population that believe a woman accepting the supportive and more passive role and the male taking on the leader position as the head of the family is thought of as archaic and even ignorant.

 

I believe that men and women are very different and while we can choose to force the "women can do everything that men can do" mantra down our throats, any guy on this website could physically take down any women. There are differences, physical and non-physical.

 

I think it was Gloria Steinman who said that "women are either feminists or masochists"

 

sorry for my blanket statement in response to a blanket statement

But to consider women's rights emasculating must mean that there was something wrong with masculinity in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want to be defined by something that meant someone MUST be in a subordinate position to me. And often times THAT is what traditional gender roles meant--the woman COULDN'T work. Often because once she was married she was FIRED. The women's lib movement FOUGHT to have that changed. FOUGHT HARD. Women honestly did lose their lives. And while your girlfriend is CHOOSING to stay home it is just that A CHOICE and not something that is taken for granted. I'm also assuming that you have an equal partnership. That you aren't the only one making decisions. That you'll help out around the house. That you'll change some diapers. That you'll not consider it your right to beat your wife. That once your marrid you won't consider sex a marital right. These are ALL tennenant of the feminist movements. If men find them emasulating I have to wonder what kind of men they are in the first place. The feminist movement only says that all people are equal regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, class, etc. And that all people should have equal opportunity to the same kind of living conditions and life opportunities as anyone else. I really encourage you to look at some honest to goodness REAL history of the feminist movement--not just what you hear. Try reading Feminism is For Everybody by bell hooks. Feminism isn't about emasculating--that's the opposite. It's about EQUALITY.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Brando, I'm sending a too-looong reply to you on medical ethics, human overpopulation and, yes, even large testicles because it is getting off the God track (not that you shouldn't feel free to share it and respond here, just trying not to hijack...). Certainly it is worthy of a thread of its own, and should one begin I'm sure I'll be chiming in.

[Soxy]

I pray for a revival in true family values in America, if not for my friends and my family.

I have a more and more sneaking suspicion that the family values that were praciticed in my family were not your family...And that the family values my uber-Christian parents pray about might be more than a tad different than yours...So, I guess the question is how do we know that the "real" family values are?