Satenza
-
Posts
3718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Satenza
-
-
Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.
But just on the point of Matthew 19:11-12, the author of the article writes "It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles." I don't read Matthew 19:11-12 as saying anything about Eunuchs having a loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.
Well that's because you have to study the entire Bible to get the context right. I mean there are verses in the Bible in Proverbs stating "Food is better stolen. Steal your money and let loose your sexual inhibitions, these are indeed great things" (Or something along the lines of that, forgot the exact verse.) But when taken in context with the entire chapter it's frowning upon all of those things. This is also why I have a problem with Churches, Pastors in general tend to do that as well. Not take context in mind, or use all the wrong context.
I agree, perhaps the man who wrote that commentary should be reminded of this. Especially since Jesus is saying the exact opposite of all that he has written regarding that verse.
-
Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.
But just on the point of Matthew 19:11-12, the author of the article writes "It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles." I don't read Matthew 19:11-12 as saying anything about Eunuchs having a loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.
-
Except the problem with this is that the British Labour Party were at the forefront of the solution to the Global Recession. All the actions to combat it taken by Brown in the end turned out to be correct because the UK economy saw steady growth. Now with the Coalition's austerity measures most economists are talking about the dangers of slowing down. I agree that public services should be evaluated and cut according to necessity, but that economic investment is the best path to recovery.
Brown's recovery package was a brave piece of politics which in my opinion was entirely the right thing to do. But to say that his economic policies caused the recovery or saved us from the recession is (I think) giving them a bit too much credit. Initial stimulus, yes, but Labour's proposal to continue massive investment in public services and the economy completely ignored the deficit problem, which in the long run is a lot more serious problem than this recession if left unchecked. That's why the Tories are cutting so much, it's not for the sake of it (although a bit of fiscal prudence makes a nice change from "throw money at it and hope" Brown), it's to get a hold on the deficit.
I agree with you here, almost entirely. I think cuts should be made where necessary but should go hand in hand with further investment where necessary. For that reason I can acknowledge that cuts made by the Conservatives are to an extent the right policy to pursue as long as they are directed at services that are in some sense expendable. There are a number of issues, firstly the areas that are being cut, secondly the investment that will be made in the economy and thirdly the fairness of the cuts on the working classes.
And I think it's unfair the way a lot of Lib Dem supporters are labelling Nick Clegg a traitor. It's one thing to be a minority party of perfect principle but to actually take the opportunity for power and the ability to govern is something entirely different which he should be applauded for. He's trying to make changes that he thinks are right, and is in a better position to do so than any Lib Dem for many years.The problem is that as a party they have to respect that fact that they were nominated on a certain platform. If you saw Question Time recently with Vince Cable, it became quite obvious that he had flipped on many of the key principles that he stood for, wrote about and campaigned for on the hustings. We may admire Clegg's willingness to take the bull by its horns and lead his party into a coalition where he may have the ability to soften the Conservatives' policies, but in and of itself his position isn't one that most liberal people who gave him their vote wanted.
-
Eh, how much do you guys think a computer simulation actually costs? :unsure: And you read that this is all part of a greater study? "The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges."
You make it sound like they got a government grant for (dis)proving Biblical miracles.
Oh, I really just thought this article was interesting because I once had a debate a long time ago on this forum. And they had aid if there was proof that the miracles could have happened scientifically, then they'd believe. I think the user stopped coming here a while ago, but its still some nice food for thought.
Which leads to a question for Saru: How can you take the Bible literally, but be homosexual?
It isn't a case of being homosexual that is the problem. The problem instead would be if he were to actually have sex with another man.
He also understands the limits of it. I think he's said that Leviticus, which is the main book openly against homosexuality, was intended to be a set of guidelines for an ancient society wandering in the desert.
That is right. Leviticus outlines a very specific set of laws and it is odd that Leviticus 18:22 is still given with such authority in the Christian churches as a passage against homosexuality. That being said, in the New Testament there are few places where Jesus mentions homosexuality, but whether he explicitly does is up for consideration. Usually he will speak in general about sexual impurities and it is left ambiguous as to what he encompasses in that term. Some will say you must therefore go back to Leviticus to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sexual impurity and he means to encompass it in that term, and others that it is important simply to read what Jesus actually speaks of in the New Testament. There are other places that speak of it too, but then translations from ancient greek and hebrew become important. It doesn't really matter anyway because it is quite clear in the Bible that sex should only take place in marriage, and since that is between man and woman, if sex between male and male is not considered sin through it being homosexuality, it would nevertheless be considered sin because it is out of wedlock.
Edit, I was browsing the webs and found this. (off topic in a sense of the central OP, but relating to my 2nd to last post)
I read it! In fact I read Matthew 19:11-12 in four different translations. I can't see how it illustrates the authors point.
It is also a strange article in all honesty. The Eunuch tradition and the role they played in society has continued in some places up until the late 19th century, so I struggle to understand how Eunuch could have been synonymous with homosexual.
-
-
Which leads to a question for Saru: How can you take the Bible literally, but be homosexual?
It isn't a case of being homosexual that is the problem. The problem instead would be if he were to actually have sex with another man.
He also understands the limits of it. I think he's said that Leviticus, which is the main book openly against homosexuality, was intended to be a set of guidelines for an ancient society wandering in the desert.
That is right. Leviticus outlines a very specific set of laws and it is odd that Leviticus 18:22 is still given with such authority in the Christian churches as a passage against homosexuality. That being said, in the New Testament there are few places where Jesus mentions homosexuality, but whether he explicitly does is up for consideration. Usually he will speak in general about sexual impurities and it is left ambiguous as to what he encompasses in that term. Some will say you must therefore go back to Leviticus to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sexual impurity and he means to encompass it in that term, and others that it is important simply to read what Jesus actually speaks of in the New Testament. There are other places that speak of it too, but then translations from ancient greek and hebrew become important. It doesn't really matter anyway because it is quite clear in the Bible that sex should only take place in marriage, and since that is between man and woman, if sex between male and male is not considered sin through it being homosexuality, it would nevertheless be considered sin because it is out of wedlock.
-
Which leads to a question for Saru: How can you take the Bible literally, but be homosexual?
It isn't a case of being homosexual that is the problem. The problem instead would be if he were to actually have sex with another man.
-
Spiritual and mental freedom? Lol.
Wherever I have had weed, which is not much and which I do not do anymore, the major effect is that it makes me a blabbering idiot unable to comprehend conversations.
-
Labour spend the money and make us go into debt -> conservatives sort out the mess and get a horrid reputation from the people in return.
The vicious cycle which is UK politics.
Except the problem with this is that the British Labour Party were at the forefront of the solution to the Global Recession. All the actions to combat it taken by Brown in the end turned out to be correct because the UK economy saw steady growth. Now with the Coalition's austerity measures most economists are talking about the dangers of slowing down. I agree that public services should be evaluated and cut according to necessity, but that economic investment is the best path to recovery.
-
Indeed. When the austerity measures are implemented by the Coalition the country will be banging on Downing Streets doors. The Liberals will be out of power for decades once more and Labour will push to the left hopefully. With that push those union members on the streets and all the people out of work will hopefully see Labour as the party it once was, a step removed from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the assaults it conducted on Civil Liberties. Ed Miliband is perhaps not the greatest candidate in terms of charisma, but hopefully he will be strong enough to kick aside all the New Labour politicians.
-
After a tight race with his brother David, Ed managed to come out on top. In my opinion he was probably the best of a bad bunch, but he is a terrible speaker and has little charisma. At least we hopefully will not see the continuation of New Labour like we would have had under David Miliband. So for that I am quite happy!
-
I rob people.
-
Most women wears this by choice, and not just for religious reasons (which is why comparing it with religious symbols is incorrect), but because of tradition. It is a harmless tradition as long as it is volunteer, and the women I have spoken to who wears niqabs are proud of their veils - and women who "just" wear scarves are wondering what will be next. I have traveled a lot and lived with families where both niqabs and scarves were common, and at no time was it expected of me to cover my head or face - except of course if visiting holy buildings or places.
I don't buy the tourist argument, and while I agree that having your face covered on an ID or forcing or pressuring someone to into wearing anything to covering their face or even their head should be punishable, those are separate issues and do not warrant a downright ban. I worry about the consequences this will get for the rest of Europe, and fear that it will increase the unjust hatred that already is being expressed more and more openly towards muslims.
Yes I agree with this. I also don't buy the argument that it may free these women from oppression, because that assumes firstly that they are being oppressed and if they are that this will somehow alleviate their oppression. I think if someone was being oppressed in this manner and was forced to wear the Niqab whist outside or in front of certain people that with the ban all that will happen is that these women will not be able to go outside or see anyone who they previously could see only whilst wearing the Niqab. All that will happen is those who freely choose to wear it will feel discriminated against, those who are forced to wear it will live in further oppression by being forced to remain indoors and the attack on muslims becomes more overt. I hope it doesn't spread to the UK, although a lot of people are already calling for something similar!
-
Hm, I'm reading The Old Man and The Sea. I bought yesterday and will probably finish today because it is such a small book. It is interesting but not as gripping as Hemingway's previous works.
-
-
September 11 should have been the biggest wakeup call to the American administration and the western world. The consequences should have been an engagement with the Muslim world that was not predicated on control, but on mutual interests and respect. 9 years later the world is far more dangerous because it didn't serve as a wakeup call but simply as an excuse to more overtly pursue a doomed foreign policy, and one that has been operating for hundreds of years.
-
Opinion is certainly not the base of philosophy I am sorry to say.
-
Except many philosophers quite easily challenge the basics of psychology and the evidence from which it draws its conclusions.
-
But one thing can write about another thing critically without being the thing it is writing about.
-
I prefer Psychology. It is like Philosophy, but with more answers.
Philosophers like Foucault and Merleau-Ponty tend to completely destroy the very basics of Psychology though. You can not destroy the basics of Philosophy.
-
If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these things you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.
From A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway.
-
Yes
-
These are all superficial problems of a state-ran healthcare system. The fact people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford medication would get treated far outweighs the few who may get treated for self-induced problems. Then again these people would have paid for it anyway, though taxation, should be able to receive the healthcare they require.
-
3rd Age/Spirit shields/Phats Discussion
in General Discussion
Posted
Meh, Sanders got a pretty good deal there.