Forum Post: Brainless Bumper Stickers
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 10, 2012, 3:45 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll
(13032)
from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Pregnancy is not an illness
I saw that one earlier today. I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. But lets face facts. Turning a woman's right to choose into a political issue is simply unacceptable.
It's as if these right wing whack jobs are completely unaware:
Global Population is estimated to be 7,044,827,502 people, on October 10, 2012 at 19:26 UTC
Don't these fools have a clue?
We have been fruitful
We have multiplied
We have multiplied
Like Fruit Flies
As if that isn't bad enough, 13.1 % don't get enough food.
We have enough food to go around, we simply lack the will to see to it that it does.
And these religious, right wing whack jobs want to whine about what, again? I mean, seriously. I just don't get it.
There isn't anything to get. It's all about freedom except for yours or in this instance mine.
the protest at the US embassies were NOT over a film that mocked islam
If you don't want a baby use protection.
I do not care to vote on the legality of abortions or think they should or should not be legal or illegal.
Freakonomics!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw
Instead of bombing 6 countries in 3 years, and extending the Bush cuts, perhaps this should have been a focus?
Nice presentation, ZD!
(Where are the instructions? I can't even post a damn pic!)
It's all about control. Control the women, control the herd. But the real reason NOW is to bang the crazy cage for election time Votes. Gays and terrorists and guns must be banging somewhere. The war on X-mas must be coming soon, too. I'll bet right after Godless Obama beats Holy Twit! Holy JeeeZaaaZ!
Here's my favorite.
Obama just got his ass kicked in a debate, because he's a lazy, ignorant liberal.
Do you think that it could have been a staged set-up? Lock pants on fire into a position - then throw fuel on the flames.
He's Black, so that's REALLY funny! "Lazy and ignorant." That's Blacks for ya. "Liberal," too! "Liberal" wit da Food Stamps!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Dat what it is, man! Your favorite.
If it's so unacceptable than why has Obama cut all the grants to pregnant teens?
"How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers."
A few others:
February 1997 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by the President and the First Lady. "What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."
"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Let's send all the babies to you. NO, that would be even more cruel to them.
"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"
Quit using Teresa's name in vain.
Psycho Tammy Faye Baker baby merchant.
To which quote from Mother Teresa do you object?
Any one you use!
Really! All of these:
"A life not lived for others is not a life."
"I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples."
"I can do things you cannot, you can do things I cannot; together we can do great things."
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.
"If we pray, we will believe; If we believe, we will love; If we love, we will serve."
"If you are humble nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace, because you know what you are."
"If you judge people, you have no time to love them."
"Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless."
"Life is an opportunity, benefit from it.
"Life is beauty, admire it. Life is a dream, realize it. Life is a challenge, meet it. Life is a duty, complete it. Life is a game, play it. Life is a promise, fulfill it. Life is sorrow, overcome it. Life is a song, sing it. Life is a struggle, accept it. Life is a tragedy, confront it. Life is an adventure, dare it. Life is luck, make it. Life is too precious, do not destroy it. Life is life, fight for it."
"Live simply so others may simply live."
"Peace begins with a smile."
"The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway."
"What can you do to promote world peace? Go home and love your family."
"When you don't have anything, then you have everything."
"Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin."
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat."
"Do not think that love in order to be genuine has to be extraordinary. What we need is to love without getting tired. Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies."
"I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love."
"If you can't feed a hundred people, then just feed one."
"It is a kingly act to assist the fallen."
"Joy is a net of love by which you can catch souls. A joyful heart is the inevitable result of a heart burning with love."
"Love is a fruit in season at all times, and within reach of every hand."
"One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody."
"We cannot do great things on this Earth, only small things with great love."
And you think a witch is going to come calling in black with a broom and a pointed hat?
Yes, a number of them, in about 20 days.
Oh, you sound ready. Don't eat or kidnap them TFB Psycho!
"Keep your rosaries off our ovaries."
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/
Just heard about this on Prog-Talk-Radio. Check it out and spread it around. I have to go.
Cool. See ya
Actually the right wingers are at the forefront of all efforts to feed the hungry; they have organizations all over the world.
Yeah, unfortunately they usually use our tax dollars and spread propaganda while they do it.
Ehh... I had a friend that was executed by guerrillas in Uganda last year; their mission receives no tax dollars, and I don't believe he was even capable of US propaganda. He was a "right winger" in the sense of evangelical but a definite "left winger" in terms of the humanitarian mission. A lot of people don't fit into any of the Left's labeling.
Telling others about your God, is nothing but a extension of your ego.
The ego is the enemy.
I disagree about the ego.
What separates us from a herd mentality?
Ego.
What makes us want to break away from despotic rule?
Ego.
What supposes we will triumph over evil?
Ego.
Ego is not a dirty word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UduuxKdPt9Q
thank you for the feedback
Are you a god-botherer?
If you haven't got an ego, you're toast.
I'm curious.
Is it "ego" that does those things?
OR
Is it self-awareness?
OR
Are they the same?
&
What is a god-botherer, a person of prayer?
So are you looking for a fight, or do you have something to say?
It would seem your understanding is somewhat constipated, have you read much on the subject?
On the pro-choice agenda?
Are you a god-botherer? Do you answer questions, or pick fights?
I'm pro-choice, don't pray, answer questions, and pick fights!
But how can these trivial distractions cloud your mind when we are about to have an election that may cause another civil war. If we have one we're sending the rebels to Australia this time.
We've got boatloads of "rebels" turning up every week. Running out of places to put them all. Latest "solution" is a little island way off the coast called Nauru.
Works for me. Active volcano? No room out back?
Nauru had lots of phosphate (bird shit) mining, looks a bit like a moonscape. Life for these "asylum" seekers was getting too appealing, so the gov had to come up with some deterrent, like shipping them to the middle of nowhere. Most of them are just country-shopping for the best deals.
Well we can't have our rebels just staying in the South again, too much nuance and cost. Gotta ship 'em out. Your Outback is no good?
Air drop them in the outback for sure.
If they can survive that, they'd be doing okay.
Sensationalize this election a little more, I think over 65% of the general election still doesnt care. Surely the threat of another civil war will get them to pay attention.
(or perhaps its idiotic soundbites like that that keep so many people distrustful and annoyed with politics)
What?
While ego may play a role it's actually an evolutionary extension of one's own safe boundaries. Personally you wouldn't catch me dead in Uganda. Why some volunteer to me is inconceivable - you don't see many African Americans volunteering to save Africa - and this friend benefited absolutely zero from government; it was a faith driven humanitarian mission and they put a bullet in his head. Saving the world from itself is just nutz - now THAT is an extension of ego.
I guess some people don't like being told what God to worship....
Well needless to say they're killing their own, too.
Most of the "evangelicals" get funding at the federal level and then go to these countries and talk about the evils of lgbt, birth control, etc.
Was he a kidnap/ransom victim?
Some of these organizations get the younger people to go in pay them little and then if they are kidnapped wait for the hemming and hawing of the insurance companies that may or may not pony up the dough.
I don't know how much they talk about American evils... do you think the orphaned aids victims of Uganda care? Not kidnapped, executed.
Considering the fact that Uganda has been infilterated by organizations such as The Fellowship that promote abstinance and anti-lgbt (propaganda) which has had an adverse effect on AIDS, maybe.
No offense but I think the aids epidemic was there before the orphaned children. And these people are definitely NOT anti-gay. The list of Christian martyrs in Uganda is actually pretty long, from various organizations. But I don't know of any leftist organizations that offer aid.
Yes, but Uganda addressed it aggressively and had quite a success story going on. However, this changed with the influx of new legislation that was not just anti lgbt but anti sex education (abstinance only) which was promoted by organizations such as The Fellowship.
I may never forgive myself for using a Wiki link but. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
Stupid question but how do you think Ugandan women get aids? And how do you suppose their male lovers get it?
I've often wondered if ancient Greece or Rome would have been so idolized had aids existed to cure them of their pederasty. What of Plato or even Socrates?
The same way (in part) that women in the US got hit in the 80s with it. Many of us in the US have defined all acts between those of the same sex as homosexual acts but we have only done this since the Kinsey Reports. This is not necessarily how it is perceived in the rest of the world. The person...........um............only on the receiving end would be considered the homosexual. The stigma against being gay is so horrendous that they do not get tested and may not even admit that they are engaging in our definition of a homosexual act. The lack of sex education drops but people are still engaging it and thus HIV rises. The men then go home and sleep with their wives. We have a pocket of men in the US that also think in these terms and the drop in sex education here has led to an increase in HIV.
Secondly, the men in Uganda will go out and have sex with women that may also be HIV positive and then go home and sleep with their wives. In many countries in Africa this is not something that the wife can control and doesn't have to be consensual.
Greece was only idolized because it was useful at the time. The reality of Greece and, specifically, the 1821 War of Independence and beyond kind of cured most people of that. If people moved beyond the tales of Augustus and Livia and Robert Graves and that moron Edward Gibbons then they might could see it as it really was. They had their fair share of sexually transmitted diseases.
Needless to say, it's those on the receiving end that are most susceptible. And you make a valid point regarding definition. In the US what we have now is a huge segment of our male population that is trisexual, as bisexual as a matter of convenience. What's most interesting about this is that is far more common amongst certain ethnicities (and no, I am not talking about African Americans). They essentially fall outside the typical LGBT parameters. IV drug use and prison populations, I believe, are also big contributors.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr3.html
^^^ Go ahead and look at that translation there. Simply because it has been said that it was written at 500 BCE does not mean that it actually was written during that time and it has been heavely edited since 322 BCE.
The Pentuach is quite different then what is OT. You can make comparisons on line.
Yes, those differences between the Christians and the Jews become really hard core. The divinity of Jesus which creates a schism will eventually give you your satan. John Chrysostom was anti semitic. That rat bastard Ambrose of Milan went out of his way to keep reparations from being made to a synagogue destroyed by a little group of Christians. The Christians were by and large Greek. Greeks didn't really have a problem with homosexual sex.
As a heads up, Paul seems to have quite a few psychotic breaks and tells you that he doesn't get along with anybody. Funny, what we remember of Paul, yeah? Paul was selling it to Gentiles because the Jews would not have any of it. The gentiles weren't going to do it if they had to do all of that other stuff, too.
So, this brings us to the celts. You are probably right. The celtic monostaries are not going to be like those found in Italy or Spain or France or Germany. Rome had already separated from Eastern Orthadox by the time it hit England. One more little tiff and that would seal the deal. But, I know nothing of their sexual habits before then. I can tell you about burning some shit to the ground. But, that doesn't allow me to make a comparison.
That site offers no translation of Leviticus 18 - 22. But it is of little consequence anyway since it would have certainly included these verses by the time my ancestors in the British Isles adopted Christianity some five hundred plus years later.
There is an interesting blend because the Celts retained belief in the spirit world, in very specific ways; death itself occupied a place of evil, likely due to very high mortality rates, but Satan was never edified. This was, quite literally, a tool of Roman Catholicism as a means to map church territory. Although it varies by location, I don't believe the Celts were ever fully Roman Catholic, or even fully Greek or Roman Christian; I think there was tremendous resistance, some of which carried over to the first few generations of the New World.
These are a separate people and religion is a malleable device.
As for former Christian antisemitism, this too is of little consequence in the US - all former belief was of little consequence; Calvin himself was essentially ignored.
With the birth of modern Protestantism in the late 1700s, what we have is an eventual religious blend that serves to inform later cultural opinion.
My question relates directly to the sexual habits of the Celts because to this day there exists this difference. And this is reflected in our public opinion along various, but agreeable, avenues.
I don't believe that intellectual pursuit in America through history is anywhere near capable of defining us as a people; I believe there are still tremendous avenues of pursuit. But most of these lie beyond the scope of our ability to subsequently educate.
I really want to finish this, but I do not have the time to devote to it. I really don't. It is one of the most interesting conversations that I have had on here.
Yea... Oh, I've gone back once again for recent studies on Celtic DNA. In my mind the expansion was always to the west; those that were most eastern, north to south, were Celtic. They resisted Rome and the Anglo-Saxons. To what extent the Celts initially settled this country, I do not know, but some in this country lived on the "outside" - they were Puritan and yet, it appears, they were outsiders. We can explore this through the DNA of descendants.
I believe this heritage comes into play as late as the witch trials because these were people who had retained Druid belief- the concept of wisemen itself, as those who sit in judgement, is Druid. So there is this effort to appease.
And I believe their headstones of slate are Celtic as re-symbolized, and definitely not in a Christian manner.
But to some extent, you have sent me back to my books. And reignited my interest in DNA studies. I want a piece of that because my paternal Puritan ancestors, I'm quite certain, were Celts.
No... it has nothing to do with ones health or one's status; while death may be honorable it is only honored due to perceptions of loss; to this day we devote countless resources to conquering death; in all that life entails, death is the most wicked act that life can impose on the living; it is therefore the ultimate evil.
Yet, your response is based on perception. When any individual dies for whatever reason, we don't know how they are perceiving it--'cuz they are dead. People do not mourn for the individual but for their loss in relation to the individual. Further, we also have a group of people that are seeking to end their own lives-euthanasia for example. Not evil.
It was not so much a fear of being damned, in the Catholic sense of hell as the consequence of mortal sin, as it was anxiety; get too close to the fire and one risks being burned; to become too much like Christ was to become one with Christ; to become one with Christ was to become god-like, perhaps even to perceive of one's self as Christ; this additionally, of course, had the effect of placing oneself above all that is temporal. When one finally came to the realization that they had achieved perfection, they were remanded, not to the world of the "damned," but to the world of the Un-Saved. And I think such sentiments actually reach a pinnacle amongst the Non Separatists and not the Separatists.
I disagree strongly. It is the same anxiety. The difference here is in the predeterminism. It simply means that it had already been decided and there was nothing that could be done about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles#Mitochondrial_DNA
My opinion is this: Start with what you know and work backwards. If you are attributing wankerness to a specfic group located in the British Isles then you have to take into account time of entry and differences between all of the little tribes. What if being a wanker is really specific to the group that was already there in 7000 BCE and the rest of the people think they are wankers based on something they have heard repeatedly and it is perception?
Hmmmm....ya know.....I think I am going to need some coffee.
You can disagree but you are not correct. It was not a fear of being "damned" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, but fear, concern, anxiety, depression, relative to the finality of this realization as "Un-Saved." This goes into Saving Grace, the Covenant, etc. And on the philosophical level it is a circular process with little possibility of success; the more deeply one analyzed, the greater the certainty of failure. And I've tried it on myself so I know exactly what they are talking about. But the Puritan did not believe in hell in the same manner that we view it, regardless of contemporary Roman Catholic perceptions.
Honestly, I was not aware of a Celtic specific genome. While I have always been aware that migrations appear to have been from northeast to southwest, I did not believe it possible to identify distinct clans; the question being, what exactly is a Celt? At what point do we assume a homogeneity that we label as Celt? Has the definition changed over time? And now I am wondering how analysis of halogroups compares to recorded history. The only attempt at gravesite identification that I am aware of was conducted by Germans relative to skeletal structure along the lines of Anglo-Saxon versus Roman or Mediterranean; these studies disregard accoutrement. (And so, "square one," and I go once again in search of.)
I only partially agree with your last paragraph; what I prefer to do specifically is start with what I know and then venture back to research forward. You yourself state this when you suggest we take into account time of entry and difference - we venture back to study forward; I don't believe history can be accurately approached in any other manner.
You know, obviously this is an exercise in futility but what if I am correct? What if this difference, of bisexual as a relationship of hetero convenience, versus a greater repugnance amongst those of the British Isles, goes beyond Mediterranean and African social norms - or perhaps even ancient tribal norms - to enter the area of genetic meme? It IS possible.
Death is absolutely the most wicked act that living can impose; it is therefore the ultimate evil.
Wouldn't that have depended on one's status/class? If you were a member of the warrior class, then to die would be honorable. What if we include those that were disfigured or those that had disabilities? We would not be judging by our standards today.
I am using Celtic as a blanket term to reference the descendants of Gaul.
I know. Stop it. At one end is to argue for exceptionalism and at the other is dismissing it To quote Caesar, "Fuuu they all look alike".
Since you use the term, "we in the US," or something to that effect I am assuming you are American.
Why, of course, I am American. English is my second language, can't you tell?
This Celtic descendants that initially migrate to the US had no consideration of Satan; death itself was a netherworld. We know this through their writings and their symbolism - gravestones, for example, that display the deaths- head skull, to later be replaced by more liberal minded, or death optimistic, families with the cherub. The wings that accompany both of these are not indicative of an afterlife; the Puritan did not believe in an afterlife - they are indicative of this duality of death as the ultimate evil, a dark netherworld, and as a release from life. They are not religious symbols but serve to address death specifically. And these monuments raised to the dead are Celtic in origin - it is reverence of the warriors of life, our personal "heroes."
The first group of Puritans were definitely separatists and the predeterminism is Calvinism. The problem was the concept of election. There are writings that indicate that many people struggled/flipped out simply because they had no idea if they were damned or not. My understanding is that the winged death image meant the ability to get through death itself.
There have been attempts in western Europe to identify what I here blanket label as Celt through bone structure, the structure of the feet specifically. To some extent, I support these findings. But in many cases it is difficult to determine who are "Celt" and who are not, what is indicative of a belief in an afterlife and what is not, through graveside adornment.
I thought that there was an identified genetic code. Many of the graves/tombs etc. can tell you who came when. In 300 BCE, the Gauls began to use cremation in France. The first one show up in England in something like 59 BCE. I think that these are very important because different time periods would indicate different types of contact, different world views, etc.
http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/arras.htm
(It amazes me that we continue to raise monuments to the dead and yet it occurs everyday in this country. But this points to the extent of influence as a predominant mindset which serves to greatly influence us to this day.)
Did these earlier Celts believe in an afterlife? Most certainly, if they had not it would not have been incorporated into Christianity. Religion to this day is viewed as a malleable device - it must incorporate and align with belief or it is discarded in favor of some other.
I agree.
Prolonged torture is worse than death.
No... it has nothing to do with ones health or one's status; while death may be honorable it is only honored due to perceptions of loss; to this day we devote countless resources to conquering death; in all that life entails, death is the most wicked act that life can impose on the living; it is therefore the ultimate evil.
It was not so much a fear of being damned, in the Catholic sense of hell as the consequence of mortal sin, as it was anxiety; get too close to the fire and one risks being burned; to become too much like Christ was to become one with Christ; to become one with Christ was to become god-like, perhaps even to perceive of one's self as Christ; this additionally, of course, had the effect of placing oneself above all that is temporal. When one finally came to the realization that they had achieved perfection, they were remanded, not to the world of the "damned," but to the world of the Un-Saved. And I think such sentiments actually reach a pinnacle amongst the Non Separatists and not the Separatists.
I have stood before thousands of slate headstones to study these carvings: life itself is a continuous battle of right versus wrong, or good versus evil, of yes versus no, of continuous adversity; we raise monuments to honor the warriors of life, they are not religious symbols. They are neither Celtic nor Puritan; the skull represents this perception of death as a dark netherworld which can never be known; the wings represent the flight of the spirit from the adversity of life; the cherub which begins to appear more commonly amongst certain families about the 1740s lends a childlike innocence; it is a reference to flight from adversity through death, as a return to childlike innocence and unconcern. This a Celtic monument re-symbolized and sentiments concerning death likely predate both Celtic Christianity, of any form, and Puritanism. Amazingly enough, we still raise these monuments as if by subconscious mandate; to those who have suffered death in the battle with life, as our compadres.
Celts genetically coded? I envision them as more a homogenous blend. I'm going to back to take another look. How do we define Celtic? As pre-Roman?
Exceptionalism as you know is an entirely different subject; utilized primarily by those who seek a diminutive. From my point of view it has no real relevance beyond the Puritan light which, incidentally, still burns.
What's interesting too with these headstones that contain early cherubs, is the religious direction the family takes in ensuing generations - they are more likely to become Methodists, for example. Which has led me to speculate, well, about many things.
death itself occupied a place of evil
Ok, what are you basing this on? Where did you get that it was considered evil? Or how could it be considered evil and yet have tombs with items to be used in the afterlife? Have a look see, http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ironagecelts/mortuary.php
I will address the rest when I have sleep and time.
Death is absolutely the most wicked act that living can impose; it is therefore the ultimate evil.
I am using Celtic as a blanket term to reference the descendants of Gaul.
Since you use the term, "we in the US," or something to that effect I am assuming you are American.
This Celtic descendants that initially migrate to the US had no consideration of Satan; death itself was a netherworld. We know this through their writings and their symbolism - gravestones, for example, that display the deaths- head skull, to later be replaced by more liberal minded, or death optimistic, families with the cherub. The wings that accompany both of these are not indicative of an afterlife; the Puritan did not believe in an afterlife - they are indicative of this duality of death as the ultimate evil, a dark netherworld, and as a release from life. They are not religious symbols but serve to address death specifically. And these monuments raised to the dead are Celtic in origin - it is reverence of the warriors of life, our personal "heroes."
There have been attempts in western Europe to identify what I here blanket label as Celt through bone structure, the structure of the feet specifically. To some extent, I support these findings. But in many cases it is difficult to determine who are "Celt" and who are not, what is indicative of a belief in an afterlife and what is not, through graveside adornment.
(It amazes me that we continue to raise monuments to the dead and yet it occurs everyday in this country. But this points to the extent of influence as a predominant mindset which serves to greatly influence us to this day.)
Did these earlier Celts believe in an afterlife? Most certainly, if they had not it would not have been incorporated into Christianity. Religion to this day is viewed as a malleable device - it must incorporate and align with belief or it is discarded in favor of some other.
Yes. Thanks for taking the receiving end in stride. I am not so sure that trisexual is a new thing. It may be more acceptable. What is missing is the sex ed. During the 80s and early 90s the public was hammered with information (bus adverts, media, school). It was the African American females during the 80s that had a huge increase in HIV. It was the small pocket of African American males that I was referring to. Religion is key here. I agree with drug use. It seems to be increasing instead of decreasing. A needle exchange program would do wonders. Least Harm. It is in prisons and jails that many inmates find out they are HIV positive and receive treatment for the first time. There needs to be a way to get in mandatory testing.
HIV is rising amongst women in the US. As for the trisexual male bisexuals my opinion is that it is more common in the US amongst certain ethnicities; the quote from the movie Trainspotting which asserts that the English (or Celts) are a nation of "wankers" is factual; the Celtic heterosexual is far less inclined to engage in same sex activities. I have wondered if this was the result of Christianity; what I suspect is that this attitude actually predates Christianity. To put this another way, both homosexual and bisexual activities at the time of biblical creation, were viewed as so prevalent as to be a societal problem; Christianity therefore incorporates an anti same sex bias.
Africa, in general, has had a huge problem with this. It was also relatively common amongst Native Americans. And probably relatively common in all ancient tribal societies.
As for heroin, it currently sells for 7 bucks a hit here, far cheaper than the crack of the 80s.
I don't know of what relevance the completion of the Septuagint is, either, as dated to 2 BCE, because Leviticus is said to have been completed by 322 BCE.
The Septuagint was written in Alexandria by Jews that were living in that Greek City and was supposed to be a translation. The Jews then turned around and abanded it and returned to Judaism. This is the OT and the reason that it has been kept is simply for a time line that creates authenticity.
So what I have wondered is if this Celtic same sex repugnance/ masturbatory preference/ is the result of Christianity, or of earlier existing belief, or even possibly an evolutionary meme. And as far out as that sounds it is definitely possible based on what we know of genetic memes.
Again, I don't know that.
This difference definitely exists. Even "kink" manifests itself differently along ethnic lines.
Is that right?
I think that I may need to see some stats on the English or Celtic as wankers. Bisexuals/ homosexuals and, even transvestites, were not labled in the same way as we do today-US specific.
I cannot refer to anything that would show the impact on sex in England from Christianity. I can do so with pre Christianity and early Christianity. Galen and other "medical experts" are not anti-homosexual and state not to engage in homosexual acts because they were to be considered more violent and one would become more tired. The loss of semen was a loss of energy/spirit. That said, this little group advocates against continence. I can go back further but it will work. Women did not have this same problem, just a roaming womb. The Stoics (small group) were more about reason over desire and all sex was a bad thang.
The early Christian era was comprised largely of Greeks and did not have a problem with homosexuality except for here and there. Christianity was very, very small-top down approach. Homosexuality doesn't become an issue until about the fourth century and this comes from the Desert Fathers (Egyptian). The Septuagint (the old testament) was pulled together about 2 BCE so it would have been rampant in "biblical times" but would not have been considered a social ill. Judaism did not have sexual pessism and did not pick up that whole Gnostic sexual asceticism crap which shoes up in the early Christian period.
I don't know if I would buy any part of that theory, primarily because Paul's Epistle is said to have been written to the Romans about 55AD; Galen was one of those prominent Roman Gentiles and appears somewhat later.
I don't know of what relevance the completion of the Septuagint is, either, as dated to 2 BCE, because Leviticus is said to have been completed by 322 BCE.
It would appear that the Jews and early Christians were far more critical of same sex activities than the early Romans were. But we all knew that, didn't we?
Bisexual activity amongst males in the US is overwhelming occupied by those of Mediterranean origin; the Celts really are wankers, they are far more likely to be repulsed by same sex activities and more likely to engage in masturbation; those who engage in same sex acts of convenience have less, or even little, need of masturbation.
Christianity, though, does not arrive amongst the Celts until sometime later; Henry the 8th himself was of Welsh Druid ancestry; it appears the English battled Druid resistance into the 17th century.
So what I have wondered is if this Celtic same sex repugnance/ masturbatory preference/ is the result of Christianity, or of earlier existing belief, or even possibly an evolutionary meme. And as far out as that sounds it is definitely possible based on what we know of genetic memes.
This difference definitely exists. Even "kink" manifests itself differently along ethnic lines.
I don't know if I would buy any part of that theory, primarily because Paul's Epistle is said to have been written to the Romans about 55AD;
I'm going to have to start from the beginning,The big JC allegedly died in or around 35 CE. We have no eye witnesses to his birth, he didn't bother to write anything down, and no one bothered to write anything he allegedly said/did or his death. None of his contemporaries mention him. The first mention comes from a letter attributed to Paul (disputed) in about 55CE. In his epistles and letters, Paul tells you that he never met the guy. He tells you that he saw him in a dream. He is writing how many years after the alleged death of JC? Secondly, Paul goes to the gentiles. Why? Because the Jews aren't having it. Why? It breaks the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
What's next-Jewish Revolt (4 year war) 66CE and then we have the firstest showing of a gospel in about 70CE Mark. Some 30-35 years after the death of JC. Then 85CE, we have another gospel Luke, then Matthew and then about 110 CE we finally have John.
So, basically you have a very small group of people that are Christians. None of them agree on anything and they all have differing beliefs. Then Montanism comes along and really ticks people off. Specfically, because he said that he had direct contact with God and the world was going to end in Phygeria. Montanism comes around 150 CE.
It isn't until Irenaeus of Lyons has a knipshit and decides that they better get texts that you start even pulling together anything remotely like the New Testament and there are texts that are not completed until the fourth century. Christology took eight centuries.
Point is Galen does fit very well here. That came across much sharper than I had intended.
Then how do you explain Leviticus, the third book in the Pentateuch, which is said to date from 500 BCE to 332 BCE? We actually have a copy, a "Dead Sea Scroll," which dates to 2 - 1 BCE that is said to include fragments from chapters 18 and 22.
As Paul states, we no longer live under the Law (of the Old Testament); the early church then defines itself in opposition to Judaism. And yet in John we find these words of Jesus, in referring to Moses: "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
I'm not arguing morality or even the words of Jesus - there are none - only that it does not appear to me that the early Christian church was ever neutral on the same sex issue.
I don't believe the early Celtic monasteries aligned well with what was to develop as Roman Catholicism, either - I see them as separately developing entities with the Celts incorporating much of Druidism. This becomes more obvious when we discover their absence from the Eastern Orthodox.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/int_rel22.htm
Why is feeding people an unfortunate use of tax dollars?
Rephrase your question into something deserving of a response, please.
It's unfortunate that religious groups force their religious views on people who don't want those views, And unfortunate that religious groups make charity contingent on their ability to spread their religious concepts.
Expecially unfortunate and damaging when they insist on only abstinence teaching and forbid condoms which allowsthe spread of aids.
That's what's unfortunate.
Religious groups regard the soul to be as important as the body. Saving both is a priority. For some Christians the use of anything except natural birth control threatens the soul. They look to abstinence as a compromise that protects both the body and the soul.
I don't subscribe to this view, but I understand it. They also do have a point that no sex is less risky than sex with a condom if avoiding AIDS transmission is the goal.
Condoms are not fail proof. Would you play Russian Roulette with a revolver that you were 70% sure was unloaded (NIH estimate of the effectiveness of condom use to prevent HIV transmission)?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9141163
To expend any energy trying to save make believe things (souls) is for children.
When the religious groups succeed at eliminating condoms from an area the rate of aids & pregnancy goes up.
Just like in America, the places where only abstinence is taught and condoms restricted, pregnancy/abortions go up.
Well, it is really not about how you expend your energy, it is about how the evangelicals expend theirs. They are motivated by their religion to do good works. Does the motivation really matter as long as the good works get done?
BTW, pregnancy and abortion are not up among those folks that practice abstinence, by definition.
Pregnancy/abortion is up where only abstinence is TAUGHT!!! . I didn't say "practiced"! That's you twisting what is clearly written.
Religion does bad work as well. That is MY point. So as a result they should stop doing BAD work.
We agree again. Discourage the bad works and encourage the good. That does BTW require some mutual agreement about what is good and bad.
Pregnancy and abortion are not up "where only abstinence is taught", it is up among those that have not learned.
Pregnancy/abortion IS up where only abstinence is taught, because people disregard that lesson and submit to the natural desire to have sex.
Not everyone, but some. And if for those few aren't educated about sex/pregnancy, & not have access to birth control they are gonna get pregnant and some will have abortions.
Sorry these are facts. Not my opinion. Truth.
I agree with you.
Is it your opinion that many young women that give in to that desire end up losing big time, much more than the men involved, even with proper education and available birth control?
Pregnacy/abortion is much lower when birth control is taught and available.
Again I agree, but it seems like women suffer disproportionately more than men as a result of all this widely available education and birth control.
Women suffer less when they are educated and have the freedom to use birth control.
Womens suffering from unwanted pregnancies/abortions occurs much more when sex education/birth control is restricted and the religious based useless abstinence is the only thing taught.
That's the problem with religion on THIS issue.
To which of these views do you object:
Love your neighbor as yourself
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
Turn the other cheek
Forgive those that offend you seventy times seven
You who are without sin may cast the first stone
Do unto others as you would have them do to you
".... I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."
These are concepts I believe in regardless of the bronze age fairytales that evil people misuse to oppress millions of people around the world, & make war on non believers.
Which of those concepts do you need bronze age fairytales to teach you?
So you don't object to religious groups spreading these concepts as part of their charitable work? See, we agree again.
We really have much more in common that we have in contention.
I have no truck with these concepts being propagated along with a nice story, as long as they are propagated.
I object to religious groups forcing their exclusionary views on other people. Object to religion in general. I object to religious people who misuse religion to oppress people and make war on non believers.
I don't need religion to know right & wrong. No one does. It's time we group up as a culture and remove this very potent reason for war.
Outlaw religion!
Among our liberties which others do you wish to outlaw along with freedom of religion? And if we allow some to take the freedom of others how can we protect any of our liberties?
Religion is just an excuse to oppress millions and make war. It is time to grow up and join the 21st century.
I take back my "outlaw" request.
But I would not object to ridiculing adults who spew those fairytales beyond 7 yr old children & pretending it is true.
Would you object to ridiculing school children > 7 years for repeating the beliefs that they learn from their parents to their classmates ? For wearing a shirt to school printed with the word "Jesus"?
Would you ridicule a child with a religious name like Muhammad? Would you ridicule a Jewish child > 7 yrs for wearing a Yarmulke to school on Rosh Hashanah?
Would you bully with ridicule all children > 7 yrs that express religious beliefs to their classmates?
I said & would support ridiculing ADULTS! Not children. Maybe their parents.
So a parent is to be ridiculed for teaching their child about their faith?
I believe atheists are believe in reality so what couldI ridiculethem on. I do not support ridiculing realistic beliefs.
talking snakes, living in a whale, walking on water, women from a rib, Earth only 6000 years old, rising from the dead.
These are fairy tales worthy of ridicule.
Why would we rdicule atheists who believe in reality?
No I don't support that.
I cut & pasted my comment from above so you don't have to keep asking questions I've already answered.
But I would not object to ridiculing adults who spew those fairytales beyond 7 yr old children & pretending it is true.
Listen we disagree! I am an atheist. I see much damage caused from religion. Maybe you don't. 'sok. I think it is childish, & misused to hurt people.
We don't have to keep going around like this.
Peace. Good luck in all your good efforts.
Believing in a religion, or not should be your choice. Do you favor the ridicule of atheists for espousing their views to children older than 7?
It's not, pay up, churches, too!
Pay what to whom?
"Why is feeding people an unfortunate use of tax dollars?" you said.
Taxes. IRS.
Why not pay the money directly to the people that need it?
Gov only manages to get $ 0.27 on the dollar to welfare recipients when a typical charity achieves $ 0.90.
One: You freaks can't be trusted
Two: Pay your taxes
Three: Tax the churches, this scam is too old
And ignore the poor at home. They don't have the brain to choose.
I heard this today in actual historical conversation: "You don't understand. That old nation of white people no longer exists, Today we're all about interdependency."
What this statement reflects is so much pure idiocy that it is almost inconceivable.
Seems naive. What was the context? Cooking school co-op?
It's extremely naive.
Talk to me
At the moment I have places to go and people to do. But it's a comment I hear a lot today; rather disturbing on the level of bizarre.
Bumper sticker suggestion!!!!!!!
The Barry Soetoro "Hope & Change" shit sandwich Hey, all you Obama voters, are you wising up yet ? Don't worry, you will........
We share no such hope for you.
your grammar sucks
It's English, not mine. It's Open Source, you may not know.
WTF is Barry S?
Do some research on it in google. Obama = Barry Soetoro
And u r mickey mouse