|
|
Bill celebrates being "free and clear" from Roman, but the Prophet's meddling might not be over. Nicki drops a bombshell on Bill, hoping for forgiveness but fearing the worst. Don falls hard for a woman named Betty. Bill vents to Sarah after a run-in with the law. A vote-obsessed Margene leaves a "Chad" hanging.
|
Posts:
432
Registered:
4/18/06
|
|
(698 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 15, 2006 10:05 AM
|
> >
> > Urb,
> >
> > Your response only shows that you will use any
> kind
> > of rationalization to try to defend your position.
>
> > Paul -- a man who never knew Jesus, and did not
> even
> > write everything that is attributed to him --
> could
> > not be considered to have been inspired by God
> when
> > "he" wrote in support of slavery and the
> suppression
> > of women.
>
> Paul knew Jesus very well. He met him on the road to
> Damascus.
Yeah, and NORAD tracks Santa every year. This is a matter of faith, not fact.
>Jesus in a way much deeper and more profound than many >who lived with the Savior during His earthly life. >Augustine, Aquinas, Francis of Asisi and billions of >other Christians never met Christ physically. So what?
I am trying to focus on the actual words and deeds of Jesus, not anyone who brought their own prejudices into their interpretations.
Augustine believed ALL sex was evil, since it was the method by which Original Sin was passed on.
> What is your proof that Paul didn't write the
> portions of the New Testament attributed to him?
Serious biblical scholars have known for centuries that Paul did not write everything that is attributed to him, but there is nothing wrong with that. That was a very common practice of the time.
> scribe may have committed his teaching to paper but
> the teaching itself is canonical. "Suppression" is
> your loaded feminist agitprop word; I reject its use
> in this context. I deny that Paul preached the
> inferiority of women.
Ok, whatever, but what have you to say about slavery?
Is that sanctioned by God?
> > Considerring that the gospels were written after
> the
> > writings attributed to Paul, including his sparse
> > comments about unnatural acts, certainly if
> > homosexuality were an issue it would have been
> > mentioned somewhere in the gospels themselves. My
> > point remains: Jesus spoke about the issues that
> > were of importance to him -- the poor, the
> alienated,
> > the outcasts. No mention of boys kissing
> (although
> > they did speak of the one he loved best...).
>
> In law, there is a false maxim of construction
> "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (to
> express one thing is to negate everything else). It
> is universally criticized as inept and inaccurate
> when it comes to interpreting the meaning of written
> texts. You are arguing "Expressio unius" here
> (because Christ expressed himself as condemning
> certain things he must have approved of everything He
> didn't mention).
Blah-blah-blah-blah...you know, maybe you are a lawyer, because you are completely twisting my meaning.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. There is no evidence to support that Jesus approved OR condemend homosexuality. My question to you is why are you so obsessed with demonizing something that was of so little importance to Jesus instead of focusing on the issues that did matter to him?
>This is simply untenable. Christ
> was very direct and succinct in describing those
> parts of the Judaic law of His time which were not
> valid. The condemnation of homosexuality was very
> clear. Christ would have spoken against the teaching
> against homosexuality if it was wrong. It is the
> fact that He did NOT speak in favor of homosexuality
> that evinces his agreement that it is damnable.
There is not enough evidence to support or deny that JESUS denounced, promoted, or practiced homosexuality. My point is about YOU. You believe yourself to be a strong Christian, and you use that as the basis for your hatred. You have said again and again that only about 2% of people are homosexual. Well, 12.5% of Americans are living in poverty. Which issue do you think was more important to Jesus?
Oh, and whoever it was on this board who said that homosexualtiy was not an issue back then, let me just say that they are terribly misinformed. Homosexuality was rampant back then, and Paul's (very limited) denunciation of it was in response to the Greek influence in the area.
> > You yourself said: The orientation is not
> sinful,
> > the behavior is.And yet you continue to
> insult
> > those of the orientation with childish names. No
> one
> > would assume that you are Pro-gay just because you
> > stopped hurling insults. In fact, except in
> regards
> > to the "outing" of a character, you have been the
> > only poster constantly to bring up the topic of
> > homosexuality. These boards would be virtually
> gay
> > free without your input.
>
> I contest the militant hyenas who are out to turn our
> culture on its head. I have no brief with any man or
> woman who struggles with their sexual orientation in
> his or her own life. They are entitled to privacy and
> freedom from government harassment. They are not
> entitled, however, to the satisfaction of their
> demands: societal affirmation that homosexuality is
> "good" or "natural" or "no different than"
> heterosexuality. I think of militant hyenas as
> two-pack-a-day smokers who are trying to get the
> government to promote smoking as a social good.
Beyond being obsessed with this issue, you call ANYONE you even suspect as being gay a "hyena." Jesus was all about inclusion. He even embraced the eunuchs and the prostitutes.
> > The very idea that homosexuality is "contagious"
> is
> > too ludicrous to even entertain.
>
> This is not so. There is plenty of literature on the
> subject. Some people can become active in the
> homosexual lifestyle through environmental influences
> combined with a genetic predisposition which, in and
> of itself, is not outcome (no pun intended)
> determinative.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that homosexuality is contagious and, in fact, all studies have proven the opposite.
Now, if you are talking about, let's say, someone who may go to Scotland and try haggis out of curiousity, I might grant you that; but after trying it, they would most likely find it distasteful and never do it again. OF course, if they are in prison and there is nothing else to eat except haggis, they may go ahead and eat is just to feel sated, and then never eat haggis again once they are out.
This certainly does not make them Scottish!
> > I can only wonder what must have happened to you
> to
> > make you so incredibly paranoid.
>
> Paranoid is your loaded agit-speak. I reject the
> description as anything but rhetorical cant.
I am not using the term to be offensive. I just have never come into contact with anyone so obsessed with something that he feels is so detestable. And, plus, you seem to live in fear that there are dark homosexual forces at work trying to turn you gay -- and that they could succeed! Either you are paranoid, or you are not resolute in your own sexual orientation.
--
If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains,
but do not have love, I am nothing. ~ I Corinthians 13:2
|
|
|
Posts:
66
Registered:
4/7/06
|
|
(697 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 15, 2006 7:50 AM
|
"May Bill's great-grandfather had a negro wife or two and they named the kid Taneesha to honor the tarbaby in the lineage. That might explain calling her Tansy or Teeny, no?"
You racist scum.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(696 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 14, 2006 11:24 PM
|
> Schwinnggg!!!
That was sad. Ben didn't even seem to enjoy it. The girl's behavior is weird, too. I think she pushed the issue in order to prove he's not gay or something. And I sure hope they used a condom. That was weird.
|
|
|
Posts:
19
Registered:
4/29/02
|
|
(695 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 14, 2006 10:43 PM
|
|
OMG teenage sex!!
|
|
|
Posts:
19
Registered:
4/29/02
|
|
(694 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 14, 2006 10:42 PM
|
|
Schwinnggg!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,536
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
(693 of 698)
May 14, 2006 10:05 PM
|
>
> Oh, let's. Let's start with the ones who are
> indifferent to teen suicide, and who don't recognize
> any of the many benefits of tolerance.
I believe in tolerance, not acceptance.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,536
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
(692 of 698)
May 14, 2006 10:04 PM
|
> > > Urbie:
> >
> > This just supports what I've been saying all
> along:
> > homosexuality, gender confusion, AIS are all
> > l defective conditions.
>
> So, if we are going to practice social eugenics, can
> we start with closed minded bigots? Cast them out of
> our society? Point out their sinfulness and
> excommunicate them from social discourse?
I don't know what you're talking about by the term "social eugenics." I'm not talking about controlling breeding, etc. You are. I'm also not a "closed minded bigot." You are using loaded words to obscure the debate.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(691 of 698)
May 14, 2006 8:33 PM
|
> So, if we are going to practice social eugenics, can
> we start with closed minded bigots? Cast them out of
> our society? Point out their sinfulness and
> excommunicate them from social discourse?
Oh, let's. Let's start with the ones who are indifferent to teen suicide, and who don't recognize any of the many benefits of tolerance.
|
|
|
Posts:
235
Registered:
8/15/05
|
|
(690 of 698)
May 14, 2006 8:01 PM
|
> > Urbie:
>
> This just supports what I've been saying all along:
> homosexuality, gender confusion, AIS are all
> l defective conditions.
So, if we are going to practice social eugenics, can we start with closed minded bigots? Cast them out of our society? Point out their sinfulness and excommunicate them from social discourse?
|
|
|
Posts:
235
Registered:
8/15/05
|
|
(689 of 698)
May 14, 2006 7:58 PM
|
|
Titianna - I know, you are right. Repressed individuals have too much to lose by opening their insights. ~sigh~
|
|
|
Posts:
235
Registered:
8/15/05
|
|
(688 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 14, 2006 7:56 PM
|
>[...]I didn't see any discussion
> about the symbolism with the trash and Nicki.
Ah! I don't think we have actually looked for foreshadowing and symbolism in much of the show. Now that you mention it, there is Adalene and her Lladro - loving devotion to inanimate objects that cannot love her back - and her disassociation from her children. There is Roman's devotion to a guitar - he would redeem the guitar and revenge it's honor but not that of his children. There is Bill taking a working polyhgamist marriage in a single house and dividing them up into three homes - and placing Nikki in the house furtherest from the one he treats as home (Barb's, from whence he makes his departures and arrivals each day.) There is Roman draining Joey's fish tanks ...throwing the baby out with the bath water? Hmmm....
|
|
|
Posts:
17,840
Registered:
4/21/03
|
|
(687 of 698)
May 14, 2006 7:50 PM
|
perm, you're going down the same road with Urb that I've been down. Your links are good, your facts are true and well-presented, and you're wasting your time.
Goddess bless you.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,536
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
(686 of 698)
Re: Episode 09: "A Barbecue for Betty"
May 14, 2006 7:29 PM
|
>
> Where is that line drawn where two people oriented in
> a certain way cross over into sin?
Any contact between the two expressly for the purpose of sexual stimulation/orgasm is sinful.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,536
Registered:
8/6/05
|
|
(685 of 698)
May 14, 2006 7:24 PM
|
> Urbie:
>
> Here's some food for thought. It is only ONE example
> of the complexity of gender development and identity.
> After you read and look further, I want you to think
> k about whether such an individual is a homosexual if
> such a one pursues male partners or if such a one
> pursues female parnters.
>
> http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/
>
> There are a host of other issues that result in
> gender confusion, this is just one such spectral
> disorder. Note the personal stories of parents and
> children and how they feel about the gender.
This just supports what I've been saying all along: homosexuality, gender confusion, AIS are all defective conditions. They are not "healthy" or "normal" and therefore should not be promoted as such. I don't want midgets as police officers or fire fighters (I prefer the term firemen but I'm trying!) either. We can't pervert our social health simply to boost artificial feelings of self-esteem among poor souls who suffer with mental and/or physical defects and diseases. We must always be compassionate and charitable to such individuals but that doesn't mean we have to let them drive the boat.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,816
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(684 of 698)
Re: Something to look forward to - NOT
May 14, 2006 7:23 PM
|
> Thanks for the info. I had no idea that "Tansy"
> meant anything, just thought it was a very strange
> name. And why do they call her Teeny? It's not like
> it's shorter than her actual name.
>
> Since it was used a way to abort a pregnancy, was
> that their little inside joke that she was an
> accident or something?
My guess is that both Tansy and Teeny are nicknames, and that her given name is something else. Tansy may be a shortened version of her real name, or a joke as above, and Teeny may be an affectionate nickname from when she was a "teeny" baby, which they use when they are being particularly affectionate. My parents had a "baby" nickname for me that I remember being used when I was a little girl.
--
----------------------------
Click here to see what's new in "Marion's New York."
http://www.marionsnewyork.com/Whats%20New.htm
|
|
|
|
|
