OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 05:42:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: This "the prophet is off limits" is getting WAY out of hand!  (Read 5913 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« on: April 14, 2006, 10:25:55 PM »

NEW YORK (AP) -- Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

The comedy -- in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians -- instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.

Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Mohammed, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.

-----

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/13/southpark.muhammad.ap/index.html
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2006, 12:12:07 AM »

There is a lot I could say, but I very much like their reasoning: "concerns for public safety." I wonder why everyone is so afraid of being more open about this real reason in public.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2006, 12:19:48 AM »

In a way it is hypocritical on the part of Infantile Central*. However, on the other hand I sort of enjoy this. South Park makes their living off of offending people. It's nice to see them get the sharp edge every once in a while.


* Though I'll admit that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are pretty funny.
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2006, 12:21:42 AM »

Ummm….yeah….
Gee, that’s a great point made by Troy and Parker…..Defending our “God given right” to blaspheme…..
And what a wonderful way to get this obviously “un-self-serving” message of their's across- δefending their right to blaspheme Islam by blaspheming the God worshipped by the Christians……
I used to like South Park until Troy and Parker attempted to become social commentators and have since shown that they are intellectually challenged politically and socially.
In the same article, it says:
Quote
A frequent "South Park" critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.
"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central -- that's their decision not to show the image of Mohammed or not -- it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."
I probably wouldn't have put it as tastelessly, but I agree with Donohue's sentiment here.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2006, 09:04:08 AM »

Nothing should be off-limits for parody in a free society. Absolutely nothing.

Re: Statement by William Donohue

"In an interview with the Associated Press, William Donohue of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights -- who totally didn't get the point -- went after Parker and Stone over the Jesus bit, but not Comedy Central"
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2006, 09:14:29 AM »

Nothing should be off-limits for parody in a free society. Absolutely nothing.

Including the Saviour?.......During Holy Week?......
Blasphemies will be forgiven, but it takes a man with no balls to blaspheme The Son of God during the week we commemorate His Suffering and Death for our Salvation. If you want to fightfor the right to have no balls, then go ahead. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2006, 09:33:34 AM »

And if our "right to free speech" is so much more sacred to us than the God we claim to worship, then isn't praying "Hallowed be Thy Name" yet more empty words in our "free society" which is already brimming with false smiles and lip-service?
"In God we trust- but we claim the inalienable right to treat Him like something we scrape off our shoe."
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 09:41:36 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2006, 09:59:31 AM »

I love South Park, those guys rule! They should have been given free reign to do whatever they wanted to do with the image of Mohammed. We don't live in Saudi Arabia, so who really cares as long as they make millions of us laugh.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2006, 10:02:04 AM »

Freedom of Speech does not only include speech that we find tasteful. In fact, one's support for this freedom can be measured by how tolerant (and supportive of the right) they are of speech that they find most abhorrent. The true problem was the prohibition of the show with Mohammed, our freedom of speech is far more important and significant than any degree of safety, security, or world peace.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2006, 10:09:05 AM »

our freedom of speech is far more important and significant than any degree of safety, security, or world peace.
.....or even our God apparently....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2006, 10:16:16 AM »

.....or even our God apparently....

Yes. Because God gave us the right of Free Will. Whether we use it to our salvation or condemnation is each individuals personal choice. I would say that it is AGAINST God's will for us to forcefully impose it on others, but I have read the Old Testament - so I know that He has no problems ordering the slaughter of innocents.

The Old Testament God is the God of the Jews and the Islamics. As Christians we need to understand that we serve another God.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 10:19:08 AM by TomS » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2006, 10:31:49 AM »

As Christians we need to understand that we serve another God.
And exactly how does depicting Him as defecating on your President and Flag "serve Him"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2006, 10:39:52 AM »

And exactly how does depicting Him as defecating on your President and Flag "serve Him"?

Answer: It doesn't.
It merely serves the false idol of "free speech" which you have raised to a status higher than the Living God Whom you are prepared to blaspheme in serving your chosen "god" of "free speech".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2006, 10:41:35 AM »

And exactly how does depicting Him as defecating on your President and Flag "serve Him"?

My point was speaking about followers of Christ, not about those who choose to not follow him. It is not our right to impose our beliefs on others.

It merely serves the false idol of "free speech" which you have raised to a status higher than the Living God Whom you are prepared to blaspheme in serving your chosen "god" of "free speech".

I guess my opinion is that when we are talking about religious beliefs, a free people should be able to ridicule beliefs.

« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 10:42:22 AM by TomS » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2006, 10:45:12 AM »

I guess my opinion is that when we are talking about religious beliefs, a free people should be able to ridicule beliefs.

I know that's your opinion, but think about it Tom: by this definition, the only "free people" are the truly godless- those without a God.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2006, 12:48:51 PM »

I think it's sad that people will show respect to Islam (even if it is entirely out of fear rather than true respect) but will not extend the same treatment to Christianity. Those people were aware this part of the cartoon was offensive. So offiensive that it put people's lives at risk, so what did they do, remove that part of the story? improve it? nope, they put Jesus Christ in the offensive role instead of Mohamed. Not to make it less offensive, it obviously doesn't, but just to save their own backsides.
This is really unacceptable, but what can we do about it without resorting to the kind of violence and flag burning that put them off insulting Islam?!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2006, 01:10:16 PM »

I think it's sad that people will show respect to Islam (even if it is entirely out of fear rather than true respect) but will not extend the same treatment to Christianity. Those people were aware this part of the cartoon was offensive. So offiensive that it put people's lives at risk, so what did they do, remove that part of the story? improve it? nope, they put Jesus Christ in the offensive role instead of Mohamed. Not to make it less offensive, it obviously doesn't, but just to save their own backsides.
This is really unacceptable, but what can we do about it without resorting to the kind of violence and flag burning that put them off insulting Islam?!

The solution is to change the American mindset, to make Islam as hated in this Country as the West is in Islamic countries, once we engender such a hatred of Islam in the American Populace we should hopefully have sufficient popular support to begin a campaign for the unconditional eradication of Islam. The problem here is not free speech, it's Moslems, the solution to this problem is not restricting free speech, the solution is the total eradication of Islam by all means necessary.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2006, 01:29:36 PM »

Those people were aware this part of the cartoon was offensive. So offiensive that it put people's lives at risk, so what did they do, remove that part of the story? improve it? nope, they put Jesus Christ in the offensive role instead of Mohamed. Not to make it less offensive, it obviously doesn't, but just to save their own backsides.

No, they did not use Jesus to "save their own backsides". They did it to show that there is a double standard.
Logged
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2006, 01:46:04 PM »

The solution is to change the American mindset, to make Islam as hated in this Country as the West is in Islamic countries, once we engender such a hatred of Islam in the American Populace we should hopefully have sufficient popular support to begin a campaign for the unconditional eradication of Islam. The problem here is not free speech, it's Moslems, the solution to this problem is not restricting free speech, the solution is the total eradication of Islam by all means necessary.

Hm, so you think the Christian solution is MORE hatred and LESS respect overall? Well, thanks for sharing, that's what free choice is all about. May I ask why you think free choice should only be extended to those who make choices similar to your own? That doesn't sound very free to me.
Logged
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2006, 01:47:29 PM »

No, they did not use Jesus to "save their own backsides". They did it to show that there is a double standard.
If this is actually the case, will they now withdraw that episode and not allow it to be aired ever again?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2006, 01:57:41 PM »

Hm, so you think the Christian solution is MORE hatred and LESS respect overall?

Nothing inherently wrong with the hatred of evil and there has never, in the history of the world, been a purer form of Evil than Islam. Nothing is gained either by the respecting of either Islam or Moslems; it's either us or them, there is no room for compromise, there never has been and there never will be.

Quote
Well, thanks for sharing, that's what free choice is all about. May I ask why you think free choice should only be extended to those who make choices similar to your own? That doesn't sound very free to me.

Actually I am a strong supporter of our freedoms and liberties in this country and would oppose any attempt to restrict even the rights of Moslems who are Citizens of this Republic. However, these protections and rights do not extend beyond our boarders and we are perfectly within our rights to forbid Moslems from entering our lands and to wage relentless and total war against them wherever else they are to be found in the world.

Furthermore, I dont insist anyone hold views similar to me, I simply insist that they hold ANY view other than Islamic ones.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2006, 01:59:18 PM »

Hm, so you think the Christian solution is MORE hatred and LESS respect overall? Well, thanks for sharing, that's what free choice is all about. May I ask why you think free choice should only be extended to those who make choices similar to your own? That doesn't sound very free to me.

Hatred of individuals is unChristian, but hatred of false beliefs is a Christian duty. The Church fathers used very harsh words in describing the early heresies, and strove to make their flocks rise up and erase every trace of anything that opposes orthodox Christianity. If you'll been around for a while, you'd know that GiC often makes the correct distinction between the two in his words against Islam.
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2006, 02:00:31 PM »

Double post. Please delete.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 02:00:54 PM by CRCulver » Logged
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2006, 02:23:55 PM »

Hatred of individuals is unChristian, but hatred of false beliefs is a Christian duty. The Church fathers used very harsh words in describing the early heresies, and strove to make their flocks rise up and erase every trace of anything that opposes orthodox Christianity. If you'll been around for a while, you'd know that GiC often makes the correct distinction between the two in his words against Islam.

No, I don't think that is the case; perhaps you have not read the post where GiC said that Moslem countries of 90% Moslem population should be carpet bombed because '90% of the time' we could be assured of hitting 'legitimate targets'?
Logged
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2006, 02:27:50 PM »

Nothing inherently wrong with the hatred of evil and there has never, in the history of the world, been a purer form of Evil than Islam. Nothing is gained either by the respecting of either Islam or Moslems; it's either us or them, there is no room for compromise, there never has been and there never will be.

Actually I am a strong supporter of our freedoms and liberties in this country and would oppose any attempt to restrict even the rights of Moslems who are Citizens of this Republic. However, these protections and rights do not extend beyond our boarders and we are perfectly within our rights to forbid Moslems from entering our lands and to wage relentless and total war against them wherever else they are to be found in the world.

Furthermore, I dont insist anyone hold views similar to me, I simply insist that they hold ANY view other than Islamic ones.

No greater evil? How about Satanism? How about people who take enjoyment in killing or abuse of other people? Who are you to judge?
As to your second point, only Americans deserve free choice, it is offensive not to mention stupid.
And lastly who are you to insist anything of anyone else?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2006, 02:46:16 PM »

No greater evil? How about Satanism? How about people who take enjoyment in killing or abuse of other people? Who are you to judge?

There is no greater evil than Islam, while things like Satanism may be Satanic in form, they are not in Essence, and other things are Evil in Essence but not in form, Islam is Evil and Satanic in BOTH Essence and Form. Not only do they worship a demon-god in form, they serve him with the very fiber of their being, producing pure evil and no good.

Quote
As to your second point, only Americans deserve free choice, it is offensive not to mention stupid.

Not at all, the responsibility of any State is to their Citizens, that is the reason social contracts and eventually states were formed, for the well being of their members. It is absurd to claim the American Government has the same responsibility towards and Iraqi as they do towards and American Citizen.

Quote
And lastly who are you to insist anything of anyone else?

Alone, I am not much, but I am only one amongst millions. And if we can convince others of the Rightness of our Cause we can gain even more influence. What I, and ever other Citizen of the Republic, can do is cast my vote for a Representative, Senators, and a President that will use the might of our arms to wage war against Islamic states as our current president has. So while alone I can do very little, in greater numbers we can wield the greatest and most powerful force that the world has ever seen. And every time something absurd like what was posted above happens, the American people become more and more disgusted with Islam, with every kidnapping, with every suicide bombing; and, Lord willing, this will result in more and more concentrated attacks against Islam until we can bring the fullness of our might to bear against them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2006, 03:06:42 PM »

Not only do they worship a demon-god in form, they serve him with the very fiber of their being, producing pure evil and no good.

You know full well that there is no such thing as "pure" evil.  Or perhaps your hatred has blinded you so much that you now embrace this heretical idea?  Outrageous.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2006, 05:21:46 PM »

Punish the Beekeeper not the bees.  If killer bees are stirred up and let loose, then the guys who did this should be punished, not the bees alone.  Look at the cause behind militant Islam -yes there are peaceful forms of it (rare but real). Unfortunately nobody is going to the punish the guys behind the scenes.  Our 'Christian' tolerance has blinded us to the truth.   Who are these guys?  It is forbidden to name them - if you do, you end up in jail in Europe.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2006, 05:54:41 PM »

Quote
Punish the Beekeeper not the bees.  If killer bees are stirred up and let loose, then the guys who did this should be punished, not the bees alone.  Look at the cause behind militant Islam -yes there are peaceful forms of it (rare but real). Unfortunately nobody is going to the punish the guys behind the scenes.  Our 'Christian' tolerance has blinded us to the truth.   Who are these guys?  It is forbidden to name them - if you do, you end up in jail in Europe.

This post makes no sense. Islam has been on a violent rampage since the 8th century. They are currently responsible for most of the conflicts around the world now. Your analogy is wrong, they are both the beekeepers & killer bees. The 'religion of peace' (that's what the jackals in the media call it & other people with their heads in the sand) that knows no peace.... Roll Eyes
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2006, 06:04:44 PM »

I don't think I'm ever watching Southpark again.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2006, 05:01:01 AM »

There is no greater evil than Islam, while things like Satanism may be Satanic in form, they are not in Essence, and other things are Evil in Essence but not in form, Islam is Evil and Satanic in BOTH Essence and Form. Not only do they worship a demon-god in form, they serve him with the very fiber of their being, producing pure evil and no good.

Not at all, the responsibility of any State is to their Citizens, that is the reason social contracts and eventually states were formed, for the well being of their members. It is absurd to claim the American Government has the same responsibility towards and Iraqi as they do towards and American Citizen.

Alone, I am not much, but I am only one amongst millions. And if we can convince others of the Rightness of our Cause we can gain even more influence. What I, and ever other Citizen of the Republic, can do is cast my vote for a Representative, Senators, and a President that will use the might of our arms to wage war against Islamic states as our current president has. So while alone I can do very little, in greater numbers we can wield the greatest and most powerful force that the world has ever seen. And every time something absurd like what was posted above happens, the American people become more and more disgusted with Islam, with every kidnapping, with every suicide bombing; and, Lord willing, this will result in more and more concentrated attacks against Islam until we can bring the fullness of our might to bear against them.

Firstly, If you are talking about real moslems here, (not the angry bitter murderers who commit crimes out of sin and pretend that it is for religious purposes) they worship God, they try to do good. That's not evil in anyone's book. Being wrong is not the same as being evil.

Your second arguement is muddled. This is not the point. We are not talking about to whom the USA has an obligation of protection, this is obvious. What we are talking about is everyone's (Jews, Greeks, Arabs ...EVERYONE'S) God given right to freedom of choice. You (you personally and you collectively, the US) are nobody to take that away from someone else just because you think they are wrong. God gave that right to everyone, you are not God; you do not have the right.

And your third arguement is again entirely off point. My question was regarding what gives you the right to insist that other people submit to your beliefs: this is hypocrisy, surely you can see that? I did not ask what MEANS you had to spread your arrogant and obnoxious views, I asked what RIGHT you had OVER other people. Why SHOULD only you or only America have freedom of choice and nobody else? And even if it was right that you should have more freedom than anyone else, (which I do not believe is the case) why do you have the right to remove or lessen other people's freedom?
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2006, 05:50:31 AM »

The above post would make sense if the argument was framed within the confines of those that actually live in a civilized society and the 21st century to boot. Since it's not argued within that context, it's pretty much a moot point. Yes we have freedom of choice, but what's the point if certain groups of people *cough like women, christian and jews cough* are not even accepted as real dignified human beings by most islamic societies? At this point in time, these people don't deserve to have these freedoms so they can abuse others and bully their neighbors around like they have been doing the past 1000 years. They will continue to do this until we take over all their lands and sit them down in some classrooms or lecture halls and teach them how to be good little boys & girls. Hate to say it, but the world would probably be much better off without these kind of people with 8th century sensibilities. I'm only stating what the 'silent' majority already beleives.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 05:54:04 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2006, 05:57:23 AM »

At this point in time, these people don't deserve to have these freedoms
Nacho, you are doing the same thing annaspencer is talking about.
By what virtue can you make this moral assesment and impose it on others?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2006, 06:06:29 AM »

Nacho, you are doing the same thing annaspencer is talking about.
By what virtue can you make this moral assesment and impose it on others?
In other words, rather than just repeatedly telling us what you morally believe, tell us why.
Muslims, through no fault of their own, are brutalised in Islamic countries- why do you believe these people don't deserve to have freedoms?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2006, 04:50:43 PM »

Firstly, If you are talking about real moslems here, (not the angry bitter murderers who commit crimes out of sin and pretend that it is for religious purposes) they worship God, they try to do good. That's not evil in anyone's book. Being wrong is not the same as being evil.

The so-called 'real moslems' are just as guilty as the extremists, I dont see these so-called 'real moslems' marching in the street for the equality of women. And while we often see them rioting because they hate the west or because a Christian was not executed, we never see them protesting sharia law or intolerance in Islamic society. I'm sorry, but I fail to observe this artificial distinction you claim exists. It seems to me that 'the angry bitter murderers who commit crimes out of sin and pretend that it is for religious purposes' are not the exception but the rule in Islamic societies.

Quote
Your second arguement is muddled. This is not the point. We are not talking about to whom the USA has an obligation of protection, this is obvious. What we are talking about is everyone's (Jews, Greeks, Arabs ...EVERYONE'S) God given right to freedom of choice. You (you personally and you collectively, the US) are nobody to take that away from someone else just because you think they are wrong. God gave that right to everyone, you are not God; you do not have the right.

I dont believe I am muddling anything, rather you seem to be. There are two distinct issues here, intersocietal relations and intrasocietal relations:

Every society's primary duty is to the well-being of its members, accordingly it must value it's own members' lives, liberties, and properties above the lives, liberties, and properties of members of other societies. Thus, while I would never support the reduction of the liberties of a citizen of our Republic for the security of either individuals or of the Republic, because we must place the well-being of our society first (a government is formed for the express purpose of seeing to the well-being of a given society) it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the liberties (or security) of others in an effort to increase the the security (or liberty) of the Citizens of this Republic.

Next we come to intrasocietal relations; within a given society the expectation of the freedom of choice is most reasonable, but it is not an absolute right. One's freedom of Choice must, at the very least, not infringe upon the rights of other Citizens. Accordingly, we would say that one does not have the freedom to choose to murder someone because that infringes upon the rights of the one who is murdered. Likewise, one could be said to be free to choose their religion, but if as a result of this choice they kill people who 'apostatize' from their religion or deny equality in freedoms to women then their choice of a religion infringes upon the rights of others and can be forbidden for the same reason that murder is forbidden.

Of course, this is an argument from enlightenment philosophy; from the perspective of Monarchy the argument is more straightforward, these nations (or people within your nation) profess beliefs that are at odds with those of our Lord (or Lady) and Sovereign and if our Sovereign, who rules by divine right, decides that they are a threat, or that their defeat would serve the state, we have a duty to our Monarch and to God to pick up arms in defence of and for the advancement of the Crown.

Quote
And your third arguement is again entirely off point. My question was regarding what gives you the right to insist that other people submit to your beliefs: this is hypocrisy, surely you can see that? I did not ask what MEANS you had to spread your arrogant and obnoxious views, I asked what RIGHT you had OVER other people. Why SHOULD only you or only America have freedom of choice and nobody else? And even if it was right that you should have more freedom than anyone else, (which I do not believe is the case) why do you have the right to remove or lessen other people's freedom?

We as a nation, like any nation, have a right to make war upon any nation or peoples that we view as a threat to our liberty, security, or way of life...and Islam is a threat to all three. How could any nation regard itself as sovereign if it were to be impotent in the face of such threats? And while in the 19th Century it could successfully be be argued that the only real manifestations of these threats were foreign invasion, corrupted governments, and domestic insurrection, no longer is that the case. A government or, as we have found out, a religion can threaten our citizen's liberty, security, and way of life from half a world away without making even preparations for an invasion. But though they lack the means to invade we cannot say that Islam and Islamic countries are any less dangerous; and, thus, it cannot be argued that our right to defend ourselves against this threat is in any way diminished.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
new guy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2006, 10:25:37 PM »

I totally agree I cant recall seeing any riots in the mid east when our civilians heads were cut off in Iraq
Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2006, 10:57:08 PM »

Unfortunately I have to agree with GiC's earlier post. South Park should be free to do and say whatever they want on television as long as it doesn't violate FCC guidelines. If they want to put Mohammed on TV, they can. If they want to put Jesus Christ on TV, they can. The last time I check there were 2 major points in the US that are always referred to:

1) Freedom of Speech

2) Separation of Church and State

South Park doesn't show favoritism to one religion or another. They've hit every religion out there, Issac Hayes recently quit from his role as Chef because of their skit against the church of Scientology. THe fact is that they are not showing favoritism and they are doing these in good fun not to be blatently disrespectful. You have to understand the context in which things are used and presented. For example, are you going to say that It is improper for Swearing to occur in the Play "Grease"? In the 1950s, that was an accurate representation of High School life. Much like the president who is the leader of the US (or God of the US to make a relation to the church) is able to be written about and made fun of and the butt of jokes and political cartoons, so should any other figure, real or religious.

To end, here is a quote from Voltaire:
"I may dissaprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it!"

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2006, 10:58:12 PM »

double post
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 11:01:58 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2006, 11:00:43 PM »

We as a nation, like any nation, have a right to make war upon any nation or peoples that we view as a threat to our liberty, security, or way of life...and Islam is a threat to all three.
"Have a right"? Is this a "God-given right"? Is it a "moral right"? Is it a "right" granted through international agreements?
If this is a "right" of all nations, then it is an Islamist nation's right as well, and according to Islamists, all infidels are a threat to them. It therefore follows that the Ottomans "had a right" to seize Constantinople and destroy the Eastern Christian Empire.

How could any nation regard itself as sovereign if it were to be impotent in the face of such threats?
Do you therefore not recognise the soveriegnty of the tiny island nation of the Kingdom of Samoa since it would be impotent to defend itself against threats? Does might alone make right? If it does, then once again the Ottomans were "right" to seize Constantinople.

I'm afraid we are just going to have to come up with better moral arguments than these to defend our "rights". Otherwise "rights" are determined by who has the greater military strength at any given time, and if history has shown us anything, it is that this variable constantly changes.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 11:10:55 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2006, 11:16:35 PM »

Quote
Nacho, you are doing the same thing annaspencer is talking about.
By what virtue can you make this moral assesment and impose it on others?

We are not imposing anything. The rest of the world just wants to live in peace without the constant looming threat from the Islamist. What's the point of having equality in modern societies if we do nothing about a real threat that wants to do away with this? I would rather see this threat neutralized to ensure that people are afforded these basic human rights so we can continue to all live in peace amongst each other. It's too bad Islamic countries and their citizens at large don't believe in such things. They truly are in a way the new neo - nazis in headscarfs that oppress and murder the innocent among them. When such evils are taking place, I can't ignore these facts and just act like some politically correct retard and say things like 'but what about freedom of choice!' Sorry, but when you have a country like Iran that has promised to blow Israel to smithereens once they develop their nukes, at that point those so called freedoms fly out the door. It's time for another bombing campaign in my opinion, because once again the world is in dire threat from an out of control radical fundamentalist religion.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2006, 11:36:37 PM »

the world is in dire threat from an out of control radical fundamentalist religion.
Don't the skeptics, atheists, agnostics, ex-Christians etc also say this about Christianity?
Isn't Christianity a threat to people's way of life if that way of life includes greed for wealth, fornication, adultery, abortion...etc...? Don't these people therefore have a right to defend themselves against Christianity?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2006, 11:57:44 PM »

"Have a right"? Is this a "God-given right"? Is it a "moral right"? Is it a "right" granted through international agreements?
If this is a "right" of all nations, then it is an Islamist nation's right as well, and according to Islamists, all infidels are a threat to them. It therefore follows that the Ottomans "had a right" to seize Constantinople and destroy the Eastern Christian Empire.

From a secular perspective it can probably be argued quite objectively that the Empire was a threat to the Turks and thus they did have a right to go to war to defend themselves. Of course, it is reasons like this that I have always prefered the system of Christian Monarchy. With such a philosophy we do not have to yield to objectivity, we can simply say that Moslems should be exterminated because they are Moslems, regardless of how they behave themselves; for, indeed, any non-Orthodox Christian could properly be regarded as a threat to the Empire.

Quote
Do you therefore not recognise the soveriegnty of the tiny island nation of the Kingdom of Samoa since it would be impotent to defend itself against threats? Does might alone make right? If it does, then once again the Ottomans were "right" to seize Constantinople.

Because of Alliances they have made I would not regard Samoa as impotent, they could defend themselves by diplomacy, letting others fight on their behalf. A similar situation exists in Israel, on their own they would be helpless, but because of deals they have made with the united states for supplies and direct military aid they have actually become quite secure, provided they do not allow radical Islamic states to gain nuclear weapons. However, I seriously doubt that the United States can expect some other country to God to war on our behalf.

Quote
I'm afraid we are just going to have to come up with better moral arguments than these to defend our "rights". Otherwise "rights" are determined by who has the greater military strength at any given time, and if history has shown us anything, it is that this variable constantly changes.

It is not the 'right' that is determined by who has the greater military strenght, but rather the potential outcome of exercising said right.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2006, 12:00:16 AM »

Don't the skeptics, atheists, agnostics, ex-Christians etc also say this about Christianity?
Isn't Christianity a threat to people's way of life if that way of life includes greed for wealth, fornication, adultery, abortion...etc...? Don't these people therefore have a right to defend themselves against Christianity?

Last I checked most Christian Countries don't outlaw any of those things. We may preach against it, but we clearly don't force our beliefs or morals on anyone. Now, if this were the 18th Century you might have a valid argument.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2006, 12:16:47 AM »

I have always prefered the system of Christian Monarchy
Believe me, so do I GiC. What I have a problem with is morally justifying imposing my preferences on others. Do I really have a moral "right" to eliminate a religion I disagree with, simply because that would be my preference?
And more importantly for me personally- is waging military war to eradicate a false religion "justified" in the eyes of God? I know the State has a duty to defend it's people, but at present, I can only see war as a choice for a lesser moral evil, and not a moral good, or even a "right".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2006, 10:41:50 AM »

Something to consider.  here in the US, Islam is taking another approach.  When I see educated blond females (Anglo) converting to ISlam, I want to puke.  yet more and more women, that are decidedly Anglo converting to a religion that holds women as nothing but objects of sexual usage (both here and again  over and over in the life to come) I want to shake them.
Islam is moving into rural parts of our US and setting up communes and such.  Not only do they attract American born and voting capable females, they breed them.  They may not be able to overrun the US by sheer numbers yet, at least not with might.  But they can infiltrate our land, convert people that obviously don't have any sense but have reproductive parts, and slowly take over that way.  It's a long shot, but as long as the US holds military might it can be considered more insidious to do it this way.
And Christians are on the stupid BC pill chemically aborting  up to 8 months out of 12 every year. (ever read the insert on how those things really work?)  they are surgically aborting their offspring just as much as their secular counterparts.  And, they are considering childbearing to be a burden that removes all their fun in life.  Orthodox Christians are just as likely to have the same mindset.  I haven't met many that have more than 1 or 2 children, which basically just replaces one parent.  Protestant Christians have a greed nature just like their worldly counterparts, and don't want to have their bikini line ruined with stretchmarks. I know that one first hand, I got brutally attacked verbally all the time because my life made others uncomfortable.
so Islam grows right under our noses. We have a commune of sorts right here in our southern agricultural rural state.  The FBI has told local law to stay out of anything that goes on there.  And since they are American born converts and their offspring, they can vote and run for office.  Its' going to get really interesting in the next few decades.

Islam is evil and always has been.  it does't matter if those following it are extremely fanatical or murderous, the whole religion espouses death to everyone that doesn't adhere.  some are just higher up on their most hated list.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2006, 11:06:51 AM »

And Christians are on the stupid BC pill chemically aborting  up to 8 months out of 12 every year. (ever read the insert on how those things really work?)  they are surgically aborting their offspring just as much as their secular counterparts.  And, they are considering childbearing to be a burden that removes all their fun in life.  Orthodox Christians are just as likely to have the same mindset.  I haven't met many that have more than 1 or 2 children, which basically just replaces one parent.  Protestant Christians have a greed nature just like their worldly counterparts, and don't want to have their bikini line ruined with stretchmarks. I know that one first hand, I got brutally attacked verbally all the time because my life made others uncomfortable.

The high use of birth control (and even abortion) is because our Culture has developed a respect for women and sees them as more than reproduction machines. Were we to reverse this cultural trend we would become no better than the moslems. We dont need to throw our Cultural developments back a 1000 years to combat Islam, we simply need to take the threat seriously and use the one great asset we do have, our military, to eradicate the islamic threat. It would take them hundreds of generations to 'out breed' us, but, if devoted, we could wipe them from the face of the earth in just a few generations. It is apathy and a desire for a false peace, not our failure to breed, that will eventually be our downfall.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2006, 02:45:37 PM »

GiC: You still have not explained why you think God gave free choice only to those who chose to be Christian, and why you think you are able to sentence people to death for making the wrong choice, with the freedom that God gave them. Your arguement is simplistic to the degree of being idiotic. Yes of course if we killed everyone else, we would have 'won' in a sense. (Although we may have caused our eternal condemnation in the process). However does this mean it is right for us to do this? Why? - You don't like Muslims because you think too many of them are agressive, however you won't find many Muslims talking about wiping Christians off the face of the earth, as you so about them - so in what way are you even different from them, let alone 'better'?
I think it's about time you stopped your ill thought out, childish and offensive rants on this issue.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2006, 05:34:10 PM »

GiC: You still have not explained why you think God gave free choice only to those who chose to be Christian, and why you think you are able to sentence people to death for making the wrong choice, with the freedom that God gave them.

God gave free choice to everyone to either serve or reject him; however, he also gave nations and peoples the right to defend themselves against clear and present threats; and there is no more clear a threat to the west than Islam. Decisions have consequences and if you make a decision that is threatening to the Western world, it is perfectly reasonable that you will have to defend yourself from those seeking self-preservation.

Quote
Your arguement is simplistic to the degree of being idiotic.

It seems to me to be simplistic to the degree of being self-evident...unfortunately, though everyone sees the problem, the bleeding hearts would rather undermine our very civilization than do what everyone knows needs to be done.

Quote
Yes of course if we killed everyone else, we would have 'won' in a sense.

Well, that's one approach, and in this Nuclear Age it's probably a feasible one as well. Of course, that is not the solution to this problem that I have advocated, as I'm sure you are aware from past discussions on the matter. While I will admit that to enact the solution that I propose there will be casualities on both sides, that is an inevitable part of war. However, I do not advocate genocide, even though a nuclear genocide would probably solve the problem with fewer American casualities I believe the eradication of Islam without the complete destruction of the Middle East would serve us better in the long run. So what do I advocate? Well, for what must be the tenth time, I suggest we invade and conquer Islamic countries, install military governments, and begin a propaganda campaign that will last a few generations to eradicate Islam. Forbid Islam, of course, shutting down their mosques and converting their cultural centres to other purposes, though not forbidding it under pain of death, rather under threat of financial hardship, exorborant taxes, disqualification from government programmes and aid, etc. We should also initiate programmes to destroy the Islamic culture and give women preferences in employment and government.  That should take care of all but the most radical Moslems. Also, we must realize that the future is in the Children, so take the Children from their parents at a young age, educate them in a secular (or anything non-moslem) school, and teach them to mock and despise Islam. The only people we would have to kill are terrorists and those who harbour them. And, in the end, this solution I propose would be a far greater victory than simply killing our enemy, for we would have ultimately reformed them in our own image.

Quote
(Although we may have caused our eternal condemnation in the process).

I'll take the risk.

Quote
However does this mean it is right for us to do this? Why?

Because we have an inherent right to self-defence.

Quote
You don't like Muslims because you think too many of them are agressive,

That's part of it, but only a small part. The fact that they are agressive AND threat to western civilization if of greater concern.

Quote
however you won't find many Muslims talking about wiping Christians off the face of the earth,

You sure about that? You have heard the rhetoric comming out of Iran lately haven't you? And one thing I can say with considerable certainty is that you will hear many moslems saying such things in relation to the Jews.

Quote
as you so about them - so in what way are you even different from them, let alone 'better'?

I am better than them because I stand to protect a superior culture, society, and way of life .

Quote
I think it's about time you stopped your ill thought out, childish and offensive rants on this issue.

The threat of Islam will only grow, regardless of whether I vocally oppose it or not. And as it grows more and more people will realise the fundamental threat Islam poses and will demand action against this threat; people will demand that we secure ourselves, our society, our civilization against this threat. It's either us or them, there can be not middle ground, all that I am saying is that if we are not the first to strike, we will be the first struck.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2006, 09:36:05 AM »

The high use of birth control (and even abortion) is because our Culture has developed a respect for women and sees them as more than reproduction machines.

This is categorically untrue.  Birth control today was created by men, and it enabled them to fulfill their lusts without fear of a pregnancy (and ensuing responsibility) to cramp their style. It increases risks of bloodclots, hemorrhage, and hormonal problems because its messing with our already functioning systems.  And it's 3-4 "fail-safe" fall back mechanisms are designed to do WHATEVER it takes to prevent implantation of an already living zygote.  That's respect?  Our culture has no respect for women.  We objectify them, we demand large bosoms and scrawnier bodies, we plaster their bodies on screen with little to cover them just for titillation.  
BC has be used historically, but mainly by pagans.  It's been around for centuries in one form or another.  Prostitutes and roman women were well versed in it's use.  Now women today can enable themselves to be used sexually and experience sex separated from responsibility as well.  Wow, what an advancement!

I have lived as a woman, which means to live as prey.  don't tell me how we respect women now.  And I am most certainly NOT a breeding machine any more than the Theotokos was!  How foul!

The entire point was that muslims here aren't using BC because, for the time being they can't blow us all away.  We are still to strong. I have seen this mentioned by them, though it's not reported on ABC news at night.  BC is not used in the islamic faith because it's considered vile.  It USED to be considered vile in the Orthodox faith, but most O's don't take that part seriously.
Funny how much you guys "respect" Pamela Anderson and not just somebodies mommy in the grocery store.  How will O's change the world or even effect it when we look at children as a burden and those that have them as "breeding machines"
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2006, 12:04:39 PM »

This is categorically untrue.  Birth control today was created by men, and it enabled them to fulfill their lusts without fear of a pregnancy (and ensuing responsibility) to cramp their style.

While it may help some men avoid a few headaches, it is ultimately the woman's choice to take birth control and will ultimately be of the most benifit to her; there can be little argument about the fact that the woman is affected by a pregnancy to a far greater degree than the man.

Quote
It increases risks of bloodclots, hemorrhage, and hormonal problems because its messing with our already functioning systems.

Ultimately side effects are rather limited and only manifest themselves in a small percentage of those who take the prescription; no medicine is perfect, but what they all have in common is that the benifits far outweigh the risks. As the old DuPont slogan used to say 'Better living through Chemistry.'

Quote
Our culture has no respect for women.  We objectify them, we demand large bosoms and scrawnier bodies, we plaster their bodies on screen with little to cover them just for titillation.

No culture is perfect, we are sexual beings after all, it is the urge to made that allowed our species (and every species that today exists) to survive, grow, and develop through hundreds of millions of years of evolution, reproduction is the most ancient of biological imperative and hence the desire to mate could be rather difficult to completely overcome. However, while society has presented its ideal of beauty it does not ostracized or legally punish those who do not meet this physical ideal (which is the overwhelming majority of the population), though it appears that in your Sharia Law-based Dystopia those who are not like you and disagree with your social posistions would be ostracized and perhaps even punished by the law.

Quote
BC has be used historically, but mainly by pagans.  It's been around for centuries in one form or another.

There was a time when you could have said that about indoor plumbing...Bring Back the Outhouse, the Symbol of Orthodoxy!!! Roll Eyes

Quote
Prostitutes and roman women were well versed in it's use.  Now women today can enable themselves to be used sexually and experience sex separated from responsibility as well.  Wow, what an advancement!

YES, it is an advancement, traditionally only men could (and often did) engage in sexual experiences without consequences, birth control has leveled the playing field. That doesn't make indiscriminate sexual intercourse right or good but it does make things equal and fair so that one gender does not have to bear disproportionate consequences for the act.

Quote
BC is not used in the islamic faith because it's considered vile.  It USED to be considered vile in the Orthodox faith, but most O's don't take that part seriously.

Our culture seems to have advanced while there's is still stuck in the middle ages; a return to their primitive and barbaric thought would benifit nobody. You are not suggesting we overcome Islam, you're essentially suggesting that we become Islamic.

{aside}
Is it that difficult to type out 'Birth Control' or 'Orthodox'? Or you could even hit a few more keys and give your statements some rhetorical flare; about 25% of a good argument is made by the content, perhaps even less, 75% or more comes from the style in which it is presented. Just some advice, take it or leave it. However, with that said, I do like the word choice of 'vile.'
{/aside}

Quote
Funny how much you guys "respect" Pamela Anderson and not just somebodies mommy in the grocery store.

You seem to have this obsession with media culture, which tends to demean anything it touches, not only women. Of course that is now that I was refering to when pointing to the great advances of women, and accordingly the respect they have gained, in our society. Women today are doctors and lawyers, professors and entrepreneurs, and generals and admirals, they have obtained great success in politics including top congressional leadership and cabinet posistions in the US and even Prime Minister in the UK...frankly, I dont see this level of progress in the Islamic societies you seem to idolize.

Quote
How will O's change the world or even effect it when we look at children as a burden and those that have them as "breeding machines"

Interesting how I am the one to disparage reproduction, yet you are the one who is approaching it as a strategic asset...you, the Moslems, and, everyone's favourite, Benito Mussolini. We dont need to turn reproduction into a strategic weapon, that's why we we have the UGM-133A Trident II which can release 8 little baby W88 Mark 5 425kt warheads with first-strike accuracy. One of these Trident D5's along with her children W88's can neutralize about a thousand years of Moslem breeding, now THAT is Strategic Reproduction.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2006, 06:14:09 PM »

Quote
It USED to be considered vile in the Orthodox faith, but most O's don't take that part seriously.

Surely not! There are a lot of old moral beliefs that Orthodoxy doesn't take seriously anymore, such as arranged marriages made primarily for worldly/political gain, blaming the mother for miscarriages and excommunicating her for a year, making a young man marry the girl he coerces into having sex with him, and so forth. How much exactly do you want to bring back, and how much do you want to leave off? I think the Orthodox are going in the right direction...
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 06:16:21 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2006, 11:03:23 AM »

God gave free choice to everyone to either serve or reject him; however, he also gave nations and peoples the right to defend themselves against clear and present threats; and there is no more clear a threat to the west than Islam. Decisions have consequences and if you make a decision that is threatening to the Western world, it is perfectly reasonable that you will have to defend yourself from those seeking self-preservation.

It seems to me to be simplistic to the degree of being self-evident...unfortunately, though everyone sees the problem, the bleeding hearts would rather undermine our very civilization than do what everyone knows needs to be done.

Well, that's one approach, and in this Nuclear Age it's probably a feasible one as well. Of course, that is not the solution to this problem that I have advocated, as I'm sure you are aware from past discussions on the matter. While I will admit that to enact the solution that I propose there will be casualities on both sides, that is an inevitable part of war. However, I do not advocate genocide, even though a nuclear genocide would probably solve the problem with fewer American casualities I believe the eradication of Islam without the complete destruction of the Middle East would serve us better in the long run. So what do I advocate? Well, for what must be the tenth time, I suggest we invade and conquer Islamic countries, install military governments, and begin a propaganda campaign that will last a few generations to eradicate Islam. Forbid Islam, of course, shutting down their mosques and converting their cultural centres to other purposes, though not forbidding it under pain of death, rather under threat of financial hardship, exorborant taxes, disqualification from government programmes and aid, etc. We should also initiate programmes to destroy the Islamic culture and give women preferences in employment and government.  That should take care of all but the most radical Moslems. Also, we must realize that the future is in the Children, so take the Children from their parents at a young age, educate them in a secular (or anything non-moslem) school, and teach them to mock and despise Islam. The only people we would have to kill are terrorists and those who harbour them. And, in the end, this solution I propose would be a far greater victory than simply killing our enemy, for we would have ultimately reformed them in our own image.

I'll take the risk.

Because we have an inherent right to self-defence.

That's part of it, but only a small part. The fact that they are agressive AND threat to western civilization if of greater concern.

You sure about that? You have heard the rhetoric comming out of Iran lately haven't you? And one thing I can say with considerable certainty is that you will hear many moslems saying such things in relation to the Jews.

I am better than them because I stand to protect a superior culture, society, and way of life .

The threat of Islam will only grow, regardless of whether I vocally oppose it or not. And as it grows more and more people will realise the fundamental threat Islam poses and will demand action against this threat; people will demand that we secure ourselves, our society, our civilization against this threat. It's either us or them, there can be not middle ground, all that I am saying is that if we are not the first to strike, we will be the first struck.

This is why so many people hate America. You don't understand what you're talking about, your arguements don't make sense, your 'solutions' are illogical and stupid and despite all of this you're under the illusion that you're really great, or that an American life is worth more than anyone else's. Well maybe in is in financial terms, especially if you run a McDonalds, but I don't think God puts the same value to life as Mc Donalds somehow.
To address, once more, some of your more idiotic of points, before I stop wasting my time:
Just because you think something is a threat and just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.
Neither 'Self-preservation' nor 'self-defense' have anything to with invading a load of countries, banning their faith steeling their children away from them, and killing anyone who rises up against these kind of hostile actions. Who would put up with another country doing this to them? - Nobody, you would create more terrorists and more force than you ever thought possible.
Leaving someone else alone and minding your own business undermines nothing. You should try it some time.
Have YOU heard rhetoric coming out of Iran? From whom? The media's job is to make things more interesting than they really are to make money, not to tell the truth. Iran is saying leave us alone, we want nuclear power. It's not that scary is it? Or are you confused because a country is trying to use LESS fossil fuel and waste LESS energy?
Why do you consider yourself at risk of being the 'first struck', you're too late for this. Muslims who hold a grudge against Jews usually do so because of the situation in Israel, where some of their land was taken and given back to the Jews, then the Jews invaded the Palestinian lands a few times and got more and more of their land. OF COURSE they're a bit annoyed about how their muslim brothers have been treated. Especially when because the Jewish vote is so powerful in America, Israel never gets told off for what they've done wrong, and the Palestinians feel persecuted. So how would persecuting them some MORE help the situation?

{aside
If you're going to tell someone how to argue, you should be good at it yourself, try not confusing there with their, for example. Also you could try making some sense. Maybe YOU base only 25% of your opinion on the facts (and it shows, in fact, I'd think 25% seems rather high for you) but most people are capable of having a considered opinion based entirely upon the facts of the matter and the evidence.
aside}
Logged
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2006, 11:32:51 AM »

I am hardly suggesting that we live in Sharia like society.  I AM suggesting we give more respect to women that have given of themselves to bring forth life rather than sleeping their way to the top of some corporation.  Is this really even a comparison of women's roles from a Godly perspective?
If you saw yourselves as created in the image of God rather than slowly oozing from slime into slime with legs, then you could see that God isn't all that interested in a woman's desire to be president of "Globodyne"  Think in terms of the bigger picture.  He isnt' concerned all that much with men or women's career climb, He's interested in what they did in this life for HIM.

Somehow the fact that I believe motherhood is a sacrificial pursuit makes me a throwback to Edwardian times (at least) Good think Mary didn't think of it in such lowly terms. Intelligent people know the chemical concoctions they they put into their temples.  It's always wise to know the side effects of anything, needed or wanted, that we swallow or inject into ourselves.  And BIRTH CONTROL effects every women eventually.  I know several women that have had early cancer scares only to find out they were only supposed to have been on the pills a max of 5 years. No one bothered to tell them that in the beginning.
I am not suggesting muslims have it right at all.  But if at any point chemical BIRTH CONTROL prevents a living being from being born, then it's simply murder for convenience. Same as surgical abortion is.   We can't pick and choose our terms, and then sugar coat the uncomfortable ones.  Sure, if a woman is going to sleep around to get where she wants to be in life, those little pills sure are handy.  And since they are so readily accepted in society she has not moral qualms about how they work.

Not sure how many you have taken, or if you have read the inserts, the background of their invention and deposit into mainstream America.  Interesting read really.  My own mother nearly died from the first release of the things to the general public.  Many women did die.  
It's all too easy to believe that we are just lowly animals, then we can behave like them.
Logged
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2006, 01:29:29 PM »

Calli, in your arguement for motherhood you seem to be employing a lot of unecessary insults. hy do you assume women who work sleep around to get to the top? Many women work so that they can afford children, and are ambitious (and hard working) so that they can better provide for their children. Is it better to be lazy and never work and have 20 children you can't afford, so they starve to death or the family has to live off of benefits? That's not fair for the family or the taxpayers. I'm NOT advocating the pill here, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying stop woman bashing, having a job is not a sin!
Logged
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2006, 03:37:29 PM »

Of course having a job isn't wrong, whether a lady works from home or out in the job market.  That wasn't the point of the previous conversation.  I do get a lot of flack for having any children at all, let alone the number that I do.  Like I checked my brain at the door of maternity ward or something. There is always that catfight between SAHM and Working MOms, and in truth I do find a lot of selfishness in their arguments a lot of the time.  But not always.  The whole career feminist mantra gets under my skin, it doesn't line up with Scripture or church Fathers anyway.  
I personally think our society has it all backwards as far as priorities.  But that said, I was a single mother working and going to school not too long ago.  BTDT.  I am not denigrating working in general, so you know.  And trust me, I work constantly and would sometimes LOVE to have cut and defined hours to clock out and be done.  I envy my husband in that area. Wink

Please forgive any offenses.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2006, 05:38:36 PM »

This is why so many people hate America. You don't understand what you're talking about, your arguements don't make sense, your 'solutions' are illogical and stupid and despite all of this you're under the illusion that you're really great, or that an American life is worth more than anyone else's. Well maybe in is in financial terms, especially if you run a McDonalds, but I don't think God puts the same value to life as Mc Donalds somehow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is the duty of EVERY Country to put the well-being of their own Citizens over the well-being of other nations and their citizens. And I would even take it a step further and say that we have a responsibility (as does every nation) to value their allies, and their allies citizens, more than non-allied nations.

Quote
To address, once more, some of your more idiotic of points, before I stop wasting my time:
Just because you think something is a threat and just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.
Neither 'Self-preservation' nor 'self-defense' have anything to with invading a load of countries, banning their faith steeling their children away from them, and killing anyone who rises up against these kind of hostile actions.

You are most certainly right, which is why the United States should have openly condemned and broke off trade relations with the evil British when they declared war on Germany, who had not only not invaded Britain but had also made overtures for peace on many occasions, even after the clearly unjustified British declaration of war; heck, the fact that we didn't declare war on Great Britain after such a stunt is clear evidence of the decadence of the American nation. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes ...You dont have to wait until you're invaded or attacked to perceive that there is a threat to the well-being of your nation and, accordingly, to have the inherent right to strike in self-defence. Or would you have had the British Government wait until German Panzers were rolling down Downing Street before responding to the German threat? Sprechen Sie Deutsches? You would, had the British government followed your foreign policy.

Quote
Who would put up with another country doing this to them? - Nobody, you would create more terrorists and more force than you ever thought possible.

Resistance is expected, but that's what our military is for.

Quote
Leaving someone else alone and minding your own business undermines nothing. You should try it some time.
Have YOU heard rhetoric coming out of Iran? From whom? The media's job is to make things more interesting than they really are to make money, not to tell the truth.

Well, let's look at some quotes I dug up from everyone's favourite radical, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

'There is no doubt that the new wave of attacks in Palestine will wipe off this stigma from the face of the Islamic world. Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury [and] is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.'
[Hmmmm...we recognize Israel...but surely Iran would never want to hurt the United States]

'As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.'
[now that's not a threatening statement, threatening to wipe America's primary middle eastern ally off the map...and you think we should let this guy develop the means to create nuclear weapons?]

'The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.'
[Could there be a clearer statement about the hostile intentions of Islam in general and Iran in particular?]

'Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.'
[In the light of the previous statements, I dont think so...this goal must be stopped at ALL costs)

...perhaps you'd like to find a few quotes where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks of an era of peace and prosperity between Iran, Israel, and the United States...good luck.

Quote
Iran is saying leave us alone, we want nuclear power. It's not that scary is it? Or are you confused because a country is trying to use LESS fossil fuel and waste LESS energy?

No, what Iran is saying is that we demand that the means to make nuclear weapons (the west offered to help subsidize the development of these nuclear power plants, provided they were located in Russia and the power sent down to Iran...interestingly Iran rejected this offer that would have saved them billions) AND that they want to wipe a close American ally off the map AND begin a world-wide Islamic revolution.

Quote
Why do you consider yourself at risk of being the 'first struck', you're too late for this. Muslims who hold a grudge against Jews usually do so because of the situation in Israel, where some of their land was taken and given back to the Jews, then the Jews invaded the Palestinian lands a few times and got more and more of their land.

Correction, a Colony of the British Crown (which was not taken from the Palestinians but rather taken from the Ottomans, who took it from the Arabs, who took it from the Empire) was given to the Jews...no one took anything from the Palestinians.

Quote
Especially when because the Jewish vote is so powerful in America,

From where, exactly, are you getting your news? Neo-Nazi Conspiracy Theorist websites? You wouldn't happen to be a member of the BNP would you? (of course they think Labour is controlled by Jews as well...heck, they'd probably say the same thing about the Conservatives and Liberals if pressed)

Quote
Israel never gets told off for what they've done wrong, and the Palestinians feel persecuted. So how would persecuting them some MORE help the situation?

The situation would be improved by removing Islam and the Islamic world view from the map...which is exactly what I have proposed. Of course, it is not easy to eliminate a world-view held by 1.3 billion people, so naturally some of my suggestions may sound a bit harsh, though I have chosen to advocate the most humanitarian of the two methods I of which I can think, but I'm open to different methods of destroying Islam if you have and effective one to present.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 05:39:16 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2006, 07:25:51 PM »

I am hardly suggesting that we live in Sharia like society.  I AM suggesting we give more respect to women that have given of themselves to bring forth life rather than sleeping their way to the top of some corporation.  Is this really even a comparison of women's roles from a Godly perspective?

I believe men and women should be free to choose whatever path they wish, while you would force them down predetermined paths that fit only with your (rather outdated) philosophy.

Quote
If you saw yourselves as created in the image of God rather than slowly oozing from slime into slime with legs, then you could see that God isn't all that interested in a woman's desire to be president of "Globodyne"

First, I do not see the Orthodox Theological understanding of Man and his relatinship to God to be at odds with the well-established Theory of Evolution.

Secondly, though I do not know what 'Globodyne' is, I am presuming it is a company; if that is the case, I really dont see why God could not be glorified by a woman having a successful career and becoming a captain of industry.

I fear there is more to both life and marriage than procreation; infact if we read St. John Chrysostom, he explicitly states that procreation isn't even a valid reason for marriage; he basically says that the only reason for marriage is to allow sex in a legitimate context to prevent those involved from falling into the sin of fornication (On Virginity, Chapters 18 and 19). It would seem to me that the use of birth control could quite nicely fit into this clearly patristic understanding of procreation and marriage.

Quote
Think in terms of the bigger picture.  He isnt' concerned all that much with men or women's career climb, He's interested in what they did in this life for HIM.

Then you'll be happy to know that I support the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood in the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Intelligent people know the chemical concoctions they they put into their temples.  It's always wise to know the side effects of anything, needed or wanted, that we swallow or inject into ourselves.  And BIRTH CONTROL effects every women eventually.  I know several women that have had early cancer scares only to find out they were only supposed to have been on the pills a max of 5 years. No one bothered to tell them that in the beginning.

Prescription medications can have side effects...so what? Everything we do involves a risk, even driving a car carries with it a considerable risk (probably a greater risk than birth control), but taking a risks here and there to improve your standard of living is what makes life worth living.

Quote
I am not suggesting muslims have it right at all.

No, you just seem to be upholding their social structure as an icon of perfection.

Quote
But if at any point chemical BIRTH CONTROL prevents a living being from being born, then it's simply murder for convenience. Same as surgical abortion is. ÂÂ  We can't pick and choose our terms, and then sugar coat the uncomfortable ones. ÂÂ Sure, if a woman is going to sleep around to get where she wants to be in life, those little pills sure are handy. ÂÂ And since they are so readily accepted in society she has not moral qualms about how they work.

Birth control works by increasing the levels of natural and already existing hormones, which prevents ovulation and, accordingly, ensuring that there is no egg to fertilize. There is a small chance of failure, in this case there may be a chance that the elevated hormone levels will prevent the fertilized egg from implanting uterine wall (though the effects of the increased hormones may actually be negligible at this level, for doses required for emergency contraception are generally 8-10 times higher than the daily dose of most modern birth control pills). Of course the exact effects are unknown as this is rather difficult to measure, especially considering the low failure rate of birth control and the fact that that as many as 50% of all pregnancies will end in a (generally undetected) miscarriage at this stage anyway.

Of course, all this talk about various medical hypotheses isn't really relevant to the subject at hand, because these are simply potential side effects IF the medication fails in what it's designed for, the prevention of ovulation. The fact that the medicine is not perfect and without potential for failure or side-effects really isn't relevant for this is the case with ALL medicines. If a blood pressure pill carries with it the chance for kidney failure in a small percentage of the population would you argue that it too should be banned?

Quote
Not sure how many you have taken,

Well, none...seeing how I have no desire for a sex change I really don't need to be taking female hormones.

Quote
or if you have read the inserts, the background of their invention and deposit into mainstream America.  Interesting read really.

I've read a fair amount for the purpose of past debates on this very issue. I may believe that the primary value of an argument is in its style, but that doesn't mean I don't learn the facts.

Quote
My own mother nearly died from the first release of the things to the general public.  Many women did die. ÂÂ

As I said before, there are risks with many things...there is a sizable risk taken when you get in an automobile. But we take risks to improve our lives, nearly all social revolutions and upheavals are dangerous and bloody affairs, though the great advances of feminism over the last century have fortunately been far more peaceful, the introduction of contraceptives was a great victory in this battle for social equality and, objectively speaking, the victory far outweighed the costs.

Quote
It's all too easy to believe that we are just lowly animals, then we can behave like them.

You do know that there are uses for birth control other than making it easy to commit fornication? Perhaps a married couple that is not in a posistion to have children will take them within the context of marraige, which, considering what Chrysostom in the aforementioned treatise, shouldn't be an issue since sex is far more important than procreation in marriage.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 07:26:12 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2006, 09:09:24 AM »

"I believe men and women should be free to choose whatever path they wish, while you would force them down predetermined paths that fit only with your (rather outdated) philosophy.

First, I do not see the Orthodox Theological understanding of Man and his relatinship to God to be at odds with the well-established Theory of Evolution."


GC,
We are going to have to agree to disagree here.  My philosophy only seems outdated to people to those that want to live life according to whatever society says is current.  I am just not concerned with current thinking, as it's become more depraved in the last several decades. And I haven't even had my 20 year reunion for high school, so I am not too old to see it.  But God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  I can't think of one woman in scripture that was honored for being the head of some multinational corporation or head of government.  There have certainly been women in those positions, and God can use anyone in any position he placed them in. I just don't define a woman by being just like a man.  Our career is but a tool we use to accomplish our tasks in life.  Same goes for men there, but society has deemed that men are defined by what career they have.  So fathers lose track of their children while working their lives away.  we as women have defined roles, just as men do.  We have to try to fulfill our calling without abandoning those roles or rewriting them for our comfort level.

And as far as the common theories of evolution, we will have to disagree there as well. ÂÂ There is a current theory that it's perfectly artistic to pose for Hustler as well. ÂÂ Or a common theory that sex is to be experienced with anyone and everyone you wish. ÂÂ There are lots of theories, usually in total defiance of Godly laws and statutes. Evolutionary theories are just something mankind made up to self-deify. ÂÂ  It's utterly grotesque to me even if academicianst run to it like pigs to ÂÂ sop. ÂÂ But that is me, and I will stand accountable for me-not you.

Blessings
« Last Edit: April 26, 2006, 09:29:34 AM by calligraphqueen » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2006, 10:08:33 AM »

We are going to have to agree to disagree here.  My philosophy only seems outdated to people to those that want to live life according to whatever society says is current.  I am just not concerned with current thinking, as it's become more depraved in the last several decades. And I haven't even had my 20 year reunion for high school, so I am not too old to see it.  But God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Oh, I agree that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and, accordingly, I believe any philosophy that undermines the equality of women and men and denies either equality in society is wrong, it was wrong yesterday, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong tomorrown, in an absolute sense; however, I will allow that those who practiced or advocated such philosophies out of ignornace  in past ages did not sin by doing so, for they could not reasonably be expected to know otherwise, but today nobody has any excuse.

Quote
I can't think of one woman in scripture that was honored for being the head of some multinational corporation...

That's because there were not multi-national corporations, they were a bunch of goat herders, their society and economy had so little in common with ours it's not even comparable. And it was far from perfect, thus we see Christ attacking various cultural norms that were well-established traditions amongst the Jews, but contrary to the teaching of His Gospel.

Quote
And as far as the common theories of evolution, we will have to disagree there as well.  There is a current theory that it's perfectly artistic to pose for Hustler as well.  Or a common theory that sex is to be experienced with anyone and everyone you wish.  There are lots of theories, usually in total defiance of Godly laws and statutes.

O.K....I really dont have time to go into what a theory is, but let's just say that your above mentioned examples are NOT scientific theories, heck, they're not even scientific hypotheses; I fear your argument is a complete non sequitur.

Quote
Evolutionary theories are just something mankind made up to self-deify. ÂÂ  It's utterly grotesque to me even if academicianst run to it like pigs to ÂÂ sop. ÂÂ But that is me, and I will stand accountable for me-not you.

Evolution is a well established scientific fact (though I use the term lightly, as someone trained in theoretical mathematics I do realize that, objectively speaking, there is no such thing as a true fact...but that's a discussion for another day), evolution has produced tangable results in biology, biochemistry, computer science, pharmaceuticals, and medicine...regardless of what you think of it, the fact of the matter is that it works. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that you're actually qualified or capable of objectively assessing the theory (though I must admit, while I have spend a fair amount of time studying various elements of evolutionary theory, I'm not really qualified on that front either, though I have come to realize the overwhelming amount of data and evidence in support of the theory, so much that I do not see how any reasonable person who has spent any time studying even part of the theory could possibly dismiss it)
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Brigidsboy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian
Posts: 342



« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2006, 04:19:11 PM »



Then you'll be happy to know that I support the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood in the Orthodox Church.


GIC:

If what you said above is true, then you are not Orthodox, but, rather, a liberal Protestant.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2006, 04:22:30 PM »

GIC:

If what you said above is true, then you are not Orthodox, but, rather, a liberal Protestant.

But if I was a liberal protestant rather than an Orthodox Christian, would I not be concerned with the ordination of women in the protestant churches rather than in the Orthodox Church?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2006, 04:22:49 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2006, 04:25:14 PM »

But if I was a liberal protestant rather than an Orthodox Christian, would I not be concerned with the ordination of women in the protestant churches rather than in the Orthodox Church?

But you are not...unless you have been lying to us all this time.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2006, 04:31:08 PM »

But you are not...unless you have been lying to us all this time.

No, I haven't played devil's advocate on this issue yet...though I did change my posistion from an opposistion to the ordination of women for practical reasons to a supporting of the ordination of women on account of theological reasons about six months ago, after assessing my pragmatic argument as unacceptably weak.

The issue hasn't come up too much, but I do believe I was engaged in one debate on the subject matter.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2006, 04:31:40 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Brigidsboy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian
Posts: 342



« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2006, 04:32:42 PM »

Even a cursory glance at how the ordination of women has ripped apart every church body where it has been introduced should be enough of a warning to us to stay away from it.

There is no foundation for it in Scripture, or the Tradition of the Church, as you must be well aware.

To dissent publicly from the teaching of the Church makes anyone a Protestant, by definition.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2006, 05:03:30 PM »

In his article 'Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ' His Grace Bishop Kallistos Ware states, 'One point deserves to be underlined at the outset. On the subject of women and the priesthood, there exists as yet no pan-Orthodox statement, posessing definitive ecumenical authority' (the emphasis is His Grace's, not mine)...considering his posistion as both a Bishop and well respected theologian of the Church, such a statement is quite telling; and essentially undermines your appeal to authority argument.

Also, I would strongly recommend the above article, for while His Grace is unwilling to openly advocate for the immediate ordination of women, he does essentially dismiss all the arguments against the Ordination of Women (all of which are quire weak), but cautions that prudence and objectivity should be used in moving forward on the issue.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2006, 05:04:13 PM »

I can't think of one woman in scripture that was honored for being the head of some multinational corporation or head of government.

Well, that would be an anachronism since there weren't any men heading "multinational corporations" as we have now. And as to head of government how many of those were there either? So how can this apply?  How many men are honoured in the Bible for the things you mentioned?

Quote
 There have certainly been women in those positions, and God can use anyone in any position he placed them in. I just don't define a woman by being just like a man. ÂÂ

"Just like a man" in what way please?  What functions are you thinking of as specifically male or female beyond a very few (pregnancy for example.)

Quote
Our career is but a tool we use to accomplish our tasks in life.  Same goes for men there, but society has deemed that men are defined by what career they have.  So fathers lose track of their children while working their lives away.  we as women have defined roles, just as men do.  We have to try to fulfill our calling without abandoning those roles or rewriting them for our comfort level.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you on the idea of "women".  There is no "women" as a class. There are billions of individuals with diferent gifts and callings. (There is also not "Society" but many 'societies' depending on time and country, but that's another topic maybe)  Admiral Grace Hopper was good at mathematics and instrumental in early computer languages and education.  How was she not following *her* calling by not having children?  What "defines" the roles you think of as proper for women please?

You wrote that a "career is but a tool we use to accomplish our tasks in life".  And what about people using the gifts and interests and talents that God gave them? What if the "career" is the main task in life?  Why could it not be that God intended one woman to do an important piece of medical research, or surgery or writing or other work.  There have been many who do that and have had children.  

Quote
And as far as the common theories of evolution, we will have to disagree there as well. ÂÂ There is a current theory that it's perfectly artistic to pose for Hustler as well. ÂÂ Or a common theory that sex is to be experienced with anyone and everyone you wish. ÂÂ There are lots of theories, usually in total defiance of Godly laws and statutes. Evolutionary theories are just something mankind made up to self-deify. ÂÂ  It's utterly grotesque to me even if academicianst run to it like pigs to ÂÂ sop. ÂÂ But that is me, and I will stand accountable for me-not you.

This is not using "Theory" to mean the same things.  The "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific hypothesis and is based on acquired and interpreted hard data.  The other "theories" you write of are opinions for something someone likes/wants.  

One might consider that God might have *used* evolutionary processes to make everything?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,394



« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2006, 05:07:01 PM »

No, I haven't played devil's advocate on this issue yet...though I did change my posistion from an opposistion to the ordination of women for practical reasons to a supporting of the ordination of women on account of theological reasons about six months ago, after assessing my pragmatic argument as unacceptably weak.

The issue hasn't come up too much, but I do believe I was engaged in one debate on the subject matter.

Intriguing. Would it be possible for you to tell us the lines of thought that you went though in this change please?  If you prefer to not say in public, I apoligize for asking.  But it is interesting to read that such an occurance happened.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2006, 05:30:59 PM »

Intriguing. Would it be possible for you to tell us the lines of thought that you went though in this change please?  If you prefer to not say in public, I apoligize for asking.  But it is interesting to read that such an occurance happened.

Well, at the time I was convinced of the weakness of the theological arguments against the Ordination of Women (I mean the theological arguments against it really are quite weak as most theologians, regardless of what side of the issue they take, will admit) and, thus, to me the issue came down to one thing: it is the responsibility of the Church to see the salvation of souls and part of this is the prevention of unnecessary scandal. For quite a while I presumed that the Ordination of Women would create this 'unnecessary scandal' and for that reason should be avoided for the time being.

But as I time went on and I more closely assessed Modern Orthodox Cultures, especially Greece but also Russia to a degree, what I really began to notice is that the Church is becoming a joke to many in the younger generations (under 30); it is viewed as a socially out of touch institution that, if having any impact, is detrimental. With this objective look at Modern Orthodox Cultures I came to the conclusion that our failure to embrace egalitarian ideals has become a far greater and more dangerous scandal than our embracing of them would ever be. Does this mean the Ordination of Women is a magic bullet to solve all the problems with youth and the Church in Orthodox cultures? No, of course not, but it is certainly a start and would demonstrate that the Church is a living and growing institution, which while connected to the past and steeped in tradition is not enslaved by past cultures and customs.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we Ordain a woman and place her in a rural Greek village that is still dependent on horse-drawn transportation or a remote town in the desert of Syria. But the integration of women into the Ordained ministry would be appropriate at female monasteries as well as in certain communities in larger cities such as Athens that would be more receptive. Would there be some schism? Sure, but it would probably be comprable to the Old Calendarists movement, something of minimal concern, in the long run it would probably do far more good than damage in that it would help restore the confidence of many Orthodox Societies in the Church.

Now after this pragmatic realization I have come across and better developed some theological arguments, specifically anthropological, that compel me to accept the Ordination of Women on theological grounds (rather than being neutral from a theological perspective), but it was the practical side of the equation that convinced me to switch my posistion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Brigidsboy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian
Posts: 342



« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2006, 05:58:06 PM »

I would not be comfortable with someone holding your views as my parish priest.
I would not be comfortable with someone holding your views anywhere in any position of responsibility in the Church.

His Grace, Bishop Kallistos is entitled to his opinion. That does not make it either correct, or a definitive word on the issue.

If such a deviation as this were introduced into the GOA today, we would witness a membership hemorrhage comparable to what the Episcopal church has experienced since 1976. That is something else than a "minor" schism such as that of the Old Calendarist movement.

If you wish that kind of division on the Church, then you must be mad.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2006, 06:12:13 PM »

I would not be comfortable with someone holding your views as my parish priest.
I would not be comfortable with someone holding your views anywhere in any position of responsibility in the Church.

You're entitled to that posistion.

Quote
His Grace, Bishop Kallistos is entitled to his opinion. That does not make it either correct, or a definitive word on the issue.

No, what he says is not definitive, but it does demonstrate a lack of consensus in the Church; contrary to what you were suggesting.

Quote
If such a deviation as this were introduced into the GOA today, we would witness a membership hemorrhage comparable to what the Episcopal church has experienced since 1976. That is something else than a "minor" schism such as that of the Old Calendarist movement.

If you wish that kind of division on the Church, then you must be mad.

I disagree, I dont believe that the overwhelming majority the faithful in our Archdiocese would even know about the ordination of women for quite a while and when they did find out they wouldn't be all that concerned. This kinda reminds me of a discussion a friend of mine (who was recently ordained, AXIOS) had with his father. My friend was talking to his father about his friends at seminary and told his father some of our names, his father replied by saying that the names did not sound Greek, my friend replied that we were not Greek, his father was quite surprised and said that he didn't know that non-Greeks could be priests in the Greek Church, my friend told him that yes, non-Greeks could be ordained, his father replied that he thought the idea of non-Greeks being priests was a bit strange but that it kinda made sense, no big deal. With the exception of a few radicals here and there I believe that would be the general response to the Ordination of Women; I'm even guessing that there may be a handful of communities in our Archdiocese that would be more open to a Woman Priest than to a non-Greek Priest.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2006, 06:47:39 PM »

Correction, a Colony of the British Crown (which was not taken from the Palestinians but rather taken from the Ottomans, who took it from the Arabs, who took it from the Empire) was given to the Jews...no one took anything from the Palestinians.

From where, exactly, are you getting your news? Neo-Nazi Conspiracy Theorist websites? You wouldn't happen to be a member of the BNP would you? (of course they think Labour is controlled by Jews as well...heck, they'd probably say the same thing about the Conservatives and Liberals if pressed)

The situation would be improved by removing Islam and the Islamic world view from the map...which is exactly what I have proposed. Of course, it is not easy to eliminate a world-view held by 1.3 billion people, so naturally some of my suggestions may sound a bit harsh, though I have chosen to advocate the most humanitarian of the two methods I of which I can think, but I'm open to different methods of destroying Islam if you have and effective one to present.

Thanks for this drivel, I printed it off. I am keeping a copy next to the toilet in case of emergencies.

Yes, the Iranian president is a bit mad, but Iran is not the only country to have it's president's intelligence questioned is it? As I explained lots of Muslims are agressive toward the west because of events they see all the time, where muslims are persecuted by the west and its allies. SURELY this is not so hard for you to understand?
Thanks for the 'correction' however I must point out one glaringly obvious flaw ...you're wrong. You think the land wasn't taken from the Palestinians, even though it was originally Arab land? Hm, and what would you class Palestinians as, please, if not Arabs?
Your insinuation that I am anti Jewish is ignorant, arrogant and offensive. I am simply pointing out that things are not fair in Israel, and I am suggesting a reasonable reason why the US, apart from having a few too many people of you level of 'inteligence' is always coming down on the wrong side, making things worse both there and the world over.
I don't know what the BNP think about Labour, it does not interest me, they are a bunch of racist idiots, I think you should make friends, if you're not already a member. However as YOU seem to be so interested in the BNP you may be interested to know that they are pro Israel rather than pro palestinian as they also feel threatened by islam. I think they would be impressed by your stance on Germany's part in WW2, also as you seem to be a little 'unfortunate', you'll fit right in.
In YOUR opinion the situation can be resolved by wiping islam off the map. In the president of Iran's opinion, it can be solved by wiping Israel and its allies off the map. Where's the difference? If you both have your way there'll be nobody left on the planet!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2006, 07:04:21 PM »

I disagree, I dont believe that the overwhelming majority the faithful in our Archdiocese would even know about the ordination of women for quite a while and when they did find out they wouldn't be all that concerned. This kinda reminds me of a discussion a friend of mine (who was recently ordained, AXIOS) had with his father. My friend was talking to his father about his friends at seminary and told his father some of our names, his father replied by saying that the names did not sound Greek, my friend replied that we were not Greek, his father was quite surprised and said that he didn't know that non-Greeks could be priests in the Greek Church, my friend told him that yes, non-Greeks could be ordained, his father replied that he thought the idea of non-Greeks being priests was a bit strange but that it kinda made sense, no big deal. With the exception of a few radicals here and there I believe that would be the general response to the Ordination of Women; I'm even guessing that there may be a handful of communities in our Archdiocese that would be more open to a Woman Priest than to a non-Greek Priest.

This may be true, but if it happens, I can almost guarantee that the rest of the Orthodox world will excommunicate the whole Greek Archdiocese for allowing a bishop to ordain a woman priest.  The GOA just cannot act alone on this issue without affecting her communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2006, 07:35:04 PM »

This may be true, but if it happens, I can almost guarantee that the rest of the Orthodox world will excommunicate the whole Greek Archdiocese for allowing a bishop to ordain a woman priest.  The GOA just cannot act alone on this issue without affecting her communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy.

And I'm not suggesting that the GOA does do this, I believe the person who should preform the first ordination of a woman should be a Patriarch, preferably the patriarchate of Constantinople unless the political situation prohibits it, and even then only with a good basis of support amongst a few of the other Churches. But we're really getting ahead of ourselves, for the time being I'm simply arguing that the ordination of women would be benificial to the Church, there's a ways to go before we start working out the logistics of how to best implement the policy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.236 seconds with 100 queries.