Hippy Flag burner Faces Patriotism from Fellow Students

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:57 am

I like the fact you are amused and understand typonese.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:36 pm

Heretic wrote:TC vilification is the normal these days even you take part in vilifying the people in the tea party or republicans and let us not forget the Christians you you are so afraid of that will take over the US and take away all your womanly rights.

You sound just like the standard garden variety bully who blames the victim when said bully gets caught in the act and called on the carpet. Whine, whine..."Billy made me hit him because I didn't like what he said!" Liberals can't win for losing. We're damned if we ★■◆● about what conservative "patriots" do in the name of God and Country or get stomped on if we don't. Well, liberals get fed up too. By the way Heretic, you misspelled Hippy. It's Hippie.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:56 pm

LOL you're funny maybe you should go back and reread some of this thread. You just did some vilifying of people in another thread and just now. Yes I did misspelled hippy as some one before you has pointed out. Typos happen in case you didn't know. The more people type the more typos you'll git and yes I just spelled git instead of get. I decided not to change it but I'm sure you never make mistakes

OMG He misspelled hippie let's use a little bullying to show how stupid he is. Nice!

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 22, 2011 2:10 pm

It's more fun to nitpick.

And if it wasn't for the 1960's, hippies, feminists and war protests, we women would still not have many rights to this day. Guess who was the dominant repressive force back before that time? Why, all those loving Christian patriarchs, that's who.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon May 23, 2011 8:56 am

tunnelcat wrote:...if it wasn't for the 1960's, hippies, feminists and war protests, we women would still not have many rights to this day.

Agreed. There's still a big gender difference in many areas (the numbers are quite clear about that), but the above movements, despite their drawbacks, certainly helped close the gap for the fairer sex.

tunnelcat wrote:...who was the dominant repressive force back before that time? Why, all those loving Christian patriarchs, that's who.

Disagreed. You've gone overboard here, tc. The culture of patriarchal power had elements within Christianity, but to put that all at the feet of one religion just doesn't fit. The male-power culture was (and still is in many places) ubiquitous, not just in churches. [If anything, the primary religion embodying patriarchal abuse would be Islam.]

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 23, 2011 2:59 pm

Foil wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:...who was the dominant repressive force back before that time? Why, all those loving Christian patriarchs, that's who.
Disagreed. You've gone overboard here, tc. The culture of patriarchal power had elements within Christianity, but to put that all at the feet of one religion just doesn't fit. The male-power culture was (and still is in many places) ubiquitous, not just in churches. [If anything, the primary religion embodying patriarchal abuse would be Islam.]

Perhaps I am overly linking patriarchy and Christianity, but the two sure go hand in hand in our culture's history. Although I think that Islam is the most overtly sexually repressive religion at present, Christianity is still not the squeaky clean religion that shines above all others when it comes to fairness for women. It has it's warts and the Bible is full of examples of hatred against women. The story of Adam and Eve essentially blames a woman for all of man's evil problems. Nice to get blamed for all our ills. Even God has a male gender in human writings, although I don't know why God would even need to have a gender. If that's not male dominant thinking, I don't now what is. And take a look at how most mainstream churches, but not all mind you, still have males in leadership roles. I think it will be a cold day in hell before we ever see a female Pope either.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon May 23, 2011 3:22 pm

Oh, I won't argue that Christians sometimes have a poor history when it comes to gender. Yeah, I still hear the Adam & Eve story or the masculine names for God cited sometimes by misogynists who call themselves 'Christian'. I'm well-aware of the problem within Christianity - I grew up in a subculture that is well-meaning, but ultimately assigns a lesser value to women.

But you're still making the mistake of assigning the primary blame to a single religion when the problem is culture-wide. Jerks abound, not just in the church.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 23, 2011 3:42 pm

Foil wrote:Oh, I won't argue that Christianity sometimes has a poor history when it comes to gender. Yeah, I still hear the Adam & Eve story or the masculine names for God cited sometimes by misogynists who call themselves 'Christian'. I'm well-aware of the problem within Christianity - I grew up in a subculture that is well-meaning, but ultimately assigns a lesser value to women.

But you're still making the mistake of assigning the primary blame to a single religion when the problem is culture-wide. Jerks abound, both inside and outside the church.

Yeah, I guess you're right. By the way, males haven't cornered the market on jerktitude either, females can be hormonal basket case biatches at times, moi included

, so I'll grant you your point. It's not God or Christianity that gets to me at times, it's what some of his followers do in His name that bothers me. I shouldn't label the whole religion based on what a few practitioners like to preach.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 23, 2011 4:15 pm

tunnelcat wrote:The story of Adam and Eve essentially blames a woman for all of man's evil problems.

People *misuse* the story of Adam and Eve to blame women. But if anything, the story places more blame on Adam -- Eve was lied to and tricked, but Adam was just plain rebellious.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon May 23, 2011 4:55 pm

Lothar wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The story of Adam and Eve essentially blames a woman for all of man's evil problems.
People *misuse* the story of Adam and Eve to blame women. But if anything, the story places more blame on Adam -- Eve was lied to and tricked, but Adam was just plain rebellious.

Genesis 3 wrote:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." 16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."

You know, I saw a movie the other day starring Sean Connery, and it depicted people in the Catholic church at a time in history regarding women as especially evil. It made we wonder just how historically accurate that attitude was. You certainly don't see any of that in the Bible; the New Testament specifically.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon May 23, 2011 5:36 pm

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon May 23, 2011 6:33 pm

Lothar wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The story of Adam and Eve essentially blames a woman for all of man's evil problems.
People *misuse* the story of Adam and Eve to blame women. But if anything, the story places more blame on Adam -- Eve was lied to and tricked, but Adam was just plain rebellious.

Agreed 100% Eve was deceived. Adam knew full well what he was doing.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon May 23, 2011 6:45 pm

Bettina wrote:There is only one scripture and one God separated as new and old testaments but women didn't fare well in either. ...

I would dispute your criteria for "faring well." But what I've said is true, despite your problems with Biblical family and church authority structure. I never said that women get their way throughout the BIble, I said that the notion that women are somehow uniquely evil is not found in the Bible.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon May 23, 2011 7:03 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I said that the notion that women are somehow uniquely evil is not found in the Bible.

No…that was Led Zeppelin.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:04 pm

Bet51987 wrote:women didn't fare well in either

Women in both the OT and NT had significantly more rights than in the surrounding cultures.

You should take anything said about gender in Corinthians with a grain of salt. Corinth was a weird, weird place with serious issues. It should be noted that a mere 3 chapters prior to your quotation, Paul mentions women both praying and prophesying in church -- and doesn't say anything about them being silent, only about covering their heads; elsewhere, he and others refer to specific women as prophets and apostles. Clearly, whatever he's talking about in chapter 14 is more nuanced and specific than you give it credit for.

I find what N.T. Wright's paper to be tremendously enlightening.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue May 24, 2011 2:51 am

Yeah I think what Paul is saying here is to keep following the general customs of the land so that the Gospel would not be hindered. Elsewhere it says this:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think gender in the bible is more a symbol of authority or hierarchy than actually what kind of parts your carrying around.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue May 24, 2011 6:07 am

Bet51987 wrote:

@TC. Don't forget the pope declared that women in the priesthood would be an abomination on the same scale as child molesters, gays, and lesbians.

Bee

Well the Catholic Church certainly is filled with gays and child molesters so might as well let women in to the priesthood.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue May 24, 2011 4:43 pm

Lothar wrote:People *misuse* the story of Adam and Eve to blame women. But if anything, the story places more blame on Adam -- Eve was lied to and tricked, but Adam was just plain rebellious.

What a weird coincidence. As I was walking through a store parking lot this morning, I saw someone's car that had a bumper sticker plastered on the back that read "Eve was framed".

woodchip wrote:Well the Catholic Church certainly is filled with gays and child molesters so might as well let women in to the priesthood.

What's wrong with gays? Molesters are bad, in any stripe and sexuality I agree, but gays in general? And women can be child molesters too, don't forget. In fact, if we had women priests, I'll bet a few altar boys would still learn about the birds and bees occasionally. Hormones still rule, even in religion.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:17 pm

I love how woody slipped in the word 'gays' in with child molesters there. the connection is kind of.. cute. in a backwards thinking way.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed May 25, 2011 12:56 am

tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with gays? Molesters are bad, in any stripe and sexuality I agree, but gays in general? And women can be child molesters too, don't forget. In fact, if we had women priests, I'll bet a few altar boys would still learn about the birds and bees occasionally. Hormones still rule, even in religion.

A just-released study on the sex abuse scandal found that only a small percentage of the offending priests were homosexuals, and indeed that the majority of them didn't fit the clinical definition of a "pedophile." Unfortunately, the causes weren't nearly as simple as pigeonholing a specific type of person.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:09 pm

Ferno wrote:I love how woody slipped in the word 'gays' in with child molesters there. the connection is kind of.. cute. in a backwards thinking way.

Heh, Ferny...you can be such a easy fall guy. Here, let me help you get your forward gear engaged. Since Catholic priests are all males, let see how one would view:

"The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002."

"The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:"

"Around 81 percent of these victims were male."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_s ... nd_victims

So Fernman, are you saying that the 80% molestations did not involve gay priests? I'm waiting to see how you spin or imply this into something what it does not appear to be.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:12 pm

Top Gun wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:What's wrong with gays? Molesters are bad, in any stripe and sexuality I agree, but gays in general? And women can be child molesters too, don't forget. In fact, if we had women priests, I'll bet a few altar boys would still learn about the birds and bees occasionally. Hormones still rule, even in religion.
A just-released study on the sex abuse scandal found that only a small percentage of the offending priests were homosexuals, and indeed that the majority of them didn't fit the clinical definition of a "pedophile." Unfortunately, the causes weren't nearly as simple as pigeonholing a specific type of person.

TG, after what I posted in reply to Ferny, would you mind linking your study as the wiki link I have would imply otherwise.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed May 25, 2011 1:31 pm

Here's a link to the actual study, though it's something of a hefty read. The figures I was citing were from a few news reports on the study's release. Regarding your reply to Ferno, I think it's important to make the distinction that a priest molesting a boy doesn't automatically translate to that priest being gay; indeed, according to the news reports I heard, greater ease of access was the reason this study cited for most of the abuse victims being male.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed May 25, 2011 2:07 pm

woodchip wrote:Heh, Ferny...you can be such a easy fall guy. Here, let me help you get your forward gear engaged. Since Catholic priests are all males, let see how one would view:

aaand out comes the condescending 'i'm smarter than you' reply. You just haven't figured out why I don't engage you, have you?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:23 pm

Top Gun wrote:Here's a link to the actual study, though it's something of a hefty read. The figures I was citing were from a few news reports on the study's release. Regarding your reply to Ferno, I think it's important to make the distinction that a priest molesting a boy doesn't automatically translate to that priest being gay; indeed, according to the news reports I heard, greater ease of access was the reason this study cited for most of the abuse victims being male.

I looked through the report and saw no citing of same sex molestation as not indicating homosexuality. Care to give Chapter/page number of where you saw it? I read plenty of psychological reasoning of why it may have occurred but nothing regarding the perpetrator not being gay. And it looks like my wiki link was using info from your link.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:25 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:Heh, Ferny...you can be such a easy fall guy. Here, let me help you get your forward gear engaged. Since Catholic priests are all males, let see how one would view:

aaand out comes the condescending 'i'm smarter than you' reply. You just haven't figured out why I don't engage you, have you?

aaaand out comes another excuse as to why you should not reply. Perhaps if you would reply in a more reasoned tone, I'd give you same in return.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed May 25, 2011 3:57 pm

You're missing the point woodchip. Not all gays are child molesters and not all child molesters are gay. There are plenty of hetero and bisexual child molesters out there. Perversions towards children is a separate trait that can affect both gays and heterosexuals, and since there are more heteros out there, there are far more hetero child molesters by proportion of the population.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 5:09 pm

tunnelcat wrote:You're missing the point woodchip. Not all gays are child molesters and not all child molesters are gay. There are plenty of hetero and bisexual child molesters out there. Perversions towards children is a separate trait that can affect both gays and heterosexuals, and since there are more heteros out there, there are far more hetero child molesters by proportion of the population.

Please re-read my reply and tell me where I used the word "all". I said the Church was "filled" with gays "and" child molesters. Somehow you skim read and got "gay child molesters". I will accept your humble apology with quiet dignity and forgiveness.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:43 pm

woodchip wrote:aaaand out comes another excuse as to why you should not reply. Perhaps if you would reply in a more reasoned tone, I'd give you same in return.

what do you expect would happen when someone tells you that you're an idiot?

christ dude, when will you admit you screwed up? you think i'm just gonna let you get away with that crap?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:19 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:aaaand out comes another excuse as to why you should not reply. Perhaps if you would reply in a more reasoned tone, I'd give you same in return.
what do you expect would happen when someone tells you that you're an idiot?

christ dude, when will you admit you screwed up? you think i'm just gonna let you get away with that crap?

What do you expect from:

"I love how woody slipped in the word 'gays' in with child molesters there. the connection is kind of.. cute. in a backwards thinking way."

What do you expect when someone calls you backward? Like I said, give me a reasoned reply and you will get one in return.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:29 pm

woodchip wrote:Please re-read my reply and tell me where I used the word "all". I said the Church was "filled" with gays "and" child molesters. Somehow you skim read and got "gay child molesters". I will accept your humble apology with quiet dignity and forgiveness.

You lumped the 2 together like they were related problems that should be dealt with the same. If you'd only said child molesters, then that would have been different.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:40 pm

I've tried to be reasonable with you woody. I've tried to give you reasoned replies. You don't respond to them. Instead, you push crazy.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:53 pm

Don't make me put on my moderator-hat, guys. Keep it on-topic and professional.

</warning>

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu May 26, 2011 6:31 pm

Woodchip was just using the statement that the Pope made, according to Bee.

Bettina wrote:@TC. Don't forget the pope declared that women in the priesthood would be an abomination on the same scale as child molesters, gays, and lesbians.

Bee

Woodchip wrote:Well the Catholic Church certainly is filled with gays and child molesters so might as well let women in to the priesthood.

And then everyone jumped on him for it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 27, 2011 7:49 am

tunnelcat wrote:
woodchip wrote:Please re-read my reply and tell me where I used the word "all". I said the Church was "filled" with gays "and" child molesters. Somehow you skim read and got "gay child molesters". I will accept your humble apology with quiet dignity and forgiveness.
You lumped the 2 together like they were related problems that should be dealt with the same. If you'd only said child molesters, then that would have been different.

Why are you trying to fixate on lumping the two together? I certainly am not. Thorne gets it in one, yet you are getting defensive about it. It is the Pope who is comparing women to gays and child molestors and calling them all abominations "AND" lumping them all together. Perhaps you should send a email to the Vatican venting your concerns instead of trying to cobble something together out of what I posted and then finding fault. I'm still waiting for the apology.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 27, 2011 7:51 am

Ferno wrote:I've tried to be reasonable with you woody. I've tried to give you reasoned replies. You don't respond to them. Instead, you push crazy.

Another dig Ferny? When have you been reasonable and I went all crazy?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 29, 2011 8:57 pm

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun May 29, 2011 9:26 pm

A grave lack of being saved or going to heaven, and gravely in danger of their own special bed of coals for causing one of the little ones that believes in Him (if indeed, from under the heel of the Catholic church, they do) to stumble.

You're talking about the Catholic church and Lothar is talking specifically about the Bible. The two are often at odds. Or do you recognize the Pope as the supreme authority on the scriptures while at the same time regarding them both as wrong?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue May 31, 2011 1:08 pm

Forgive the late interjection. I just wanted to X2 what Sergeant said.

That's one of the clearest explanations in this matter that I've heard in a very long time. It's the reason the Reformation started.

Anywho.. back on topic.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:57 pm

Bet51987 wrote:I have other quotes if you don't like Corinthians

Oh, I love Corinthians. My father in law is 17 sessions in to his sermon series on 2 Corinthians ( http://mscbc.org/sermons/index.htm ) and it's been great all the way through.

What I don't like is misunderstanding Corinthians. Especially when it comes from the Pope or any other widely respected leader in any part of Christianity. The way the Bible treats women, particularly women in leadership, is really quite interesting, and it's disappointing to see it reduced to a few misunderstood quotes and sound bites. If you'd be interested in a more systematic treatment of the topic, let me know and I'll write something up.