Actually, if you think about it, Al Qaeda does have more in common with conservatives in this country than liberals. Each does, in fact, loathe cultural diversity. Each still views women as being second class/cattle with Al Qaeda being worse of course. Each jails homosexuals (or would like to) and views them as evil.
Each has a fervently nationalistic view bordering on paranoid jingoism with any wavering from the established norms and ideas as being heresy. Both Al Qaeda and the GOP have purity tests.
Yeah, exactly the same, except for… well… everything.
For example, on the "women as cattle" meme, have you even read the Bible? Try Ephesians 5:25-30 and Proverbs 31:10-31 for starters. How about Song of Solomon?
Yet another case of asking yourself the right questions instead of actually observing reality.
The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Women have been subservient throughout time and while our culture has gotten better over the years, the Bible is pretty clear and is quite similar to Al Qaeda's view of women. I have many more quotes if any of you need them. So, if you believe what the Bible says...:)
Ed, it all comes down to whether or not you think a zygote or embryo is life. Abortion rights do not think it is life and abortion opponents do. I think both are pretty arrogant because I sure don't know. That's above my pay grade:) But we do have the Bible!
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22)
"And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." (Numbers 5:27-28)
For Thor's sake, are we really debating the vaginally tolerant eschatological mindset of the supposed writers of "His Word"?
In the first century CE, Asia Minor's society was patriarchal. Get over it. Choose a different religion if you don't like your current one. Sun worship has been around forever, go with that. Or find some hot druidess and attempt some fertility rites. The end result will be the same.
Now shut the fuck up about your bible verses that prove nothing, and go back to your megaphone. You were saying... Hannity is Satan, or Metatron... or something...
The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home.
But I thought it was evil Libertarians that were the backbone of the Cult in your mind. You know, the people that actually believe in smaller govt - not the Republicans who only use that line to get laid, I mean votes.
Look here for a libertarian ass-kicking of Hannity.
Great link JI, I enjoy listening to Hannity, and I've even telephoned Mark immediately after a particularly humorous ass kicking Hannity took from a caller. It was painful to hear Hannity struggle so obviously. He is entertaining though.
"Can't wait to hear your take on the Rolling Stone article."
Actually, what is interesting is how similar McChrystal's comments are to Shinseki's. What happened to Eric Shinseki after he made the comments about Iraq?
He got appointed to several evil-corporation boards?
Shinseki has served as a director for several corporations: Honeywell International and Ducommun, military contractors; Grove Farm Corporation; First Hawaiian Bank;[10] and Guardian Life Insurance Company of America.
ooooo, good one Mark. I hadn't thought of that. Similar to Shinseki, McChrystal is betting his well-timed remarks will pay off in the next Republican administration with a nice Cabinet post as Sec of Vet Affairs.
Well played sir. An insightfulness I'd started to forget you possessed.
Only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is portrayed as having strongly backed Gen. McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan, is singled out for praise by the general's aides.
Lemme square away my tinfoil hat, set aside my fake moon landing pictures, and say "hmmmm".
The rioters in Greece, who burn people alive in their houses because they didn't get what they want... they are just like the SEIU is here. Same thing, no difference.
Now I know why liberals loathe financial or legal accountability.
...it all comes down to whether or not you think a zygote or embryo is life. Abortion rights do not think it is life and abortion opponents do. I think both are pretty arrogant because I sure don't know. That's above my pay grade:)
So you support abortion rights because it might not be a human life? You could use that same line of argument to justify grabbing a gun, going into the woods and blasting anything that you hear moving.
Ask any hunter (or anyone who lives in woods, for that matter) what they think of someone who kills what they cannot identify.
At least the far left, openly anti-American and anti-military "I support friendly fire" types are honest. The abortion supporters can't even claim that much.
I find it interesting that Mark quoted Exodus 21:22, but only half of the law stated there. Here's the whole thing:
"When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely [the Hebrew words here literally translate as "comes out"] but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound." (Exodus 21:22–25 HCSB)
In fact, that seems to be his whole schtick. As a "Christian" he picks and chooses what he wants to believe and ignores the rest as if it wasn't even written. ("For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires," —2 Timothy 4:3) This is just one example.
He also frequently applies this partial hearing to what he thinks others believe. Conservative views of women are just such another example. Notice what Marxaphasia said after I had referred him to Proverbs:
" The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home."
Yet compare his claim to what the Bible says:
"She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings." (Proverbs 31:16 HCSB)
"She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants." (Proverbs 31:24 HCSB)
This is just part of the description of the perfect wife. Among her many attributes (Yes, many are home oriented. Someone has to do it, and there are only two parents.), she also runs multiple businesses (a vineyard and clothing manufacturing and sales, apparently among others).
And look at his claim that we treat women "as cattle". For his "evidence", he quotes verses that say the husband is to be the head of the household. (The Greek words in 1st Corinthians 11:3 mean both man and husband, and woman and wife. In the full context of scripture, "husband" and "wife" fit better than "man" and "woman".) But having the man as the tie-breaker in a decision where there's disagreement is not the same thing as treating them like cattle.
In fact, notice that Marxaphasia "conveniently" ignored my reference to Ephesians 5 when he did his out-of-context quoting. Here's what the whole thing:
"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband." (Ephesians 5:22–33 HCSB)
So what is the wife supposed to submit herself to and respect? A husband who does anything necessary to care for his wife, up to, and including dying for her if necessary. Who would die for cattle?
dw is right about the times being a patriarchal society, not just in Israel, but everywhere, especially in Roman society. That's what makes the Bible's treatment of women even more surprising.
For example, women were the first to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty. If you wanted to write "credible fiction" at the time, you simply wouldn't write that because women were generally treated as worthless at the time.
When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman at the well, the disciples were surprised to find Him talking with her when the returned. It turns out that their surprise wasn't due to the fact that she was a Samaritan, but because she was a woman. Jesus' actions in talking with her were not Politically Correct.
Nor was Jesus' explanation of theology to Martha, Lazarus' sister. (See John 11:21-27)
Ruth and Esther had their own books which are considered fully scriptural. In fact, Ruth and Rahab (the prostitute who helped Israel in Joshua 2 and 6) are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1. Again, these violate the patriarchal culture.
In fact, this verse is the ultimate violation of a patriarchal view:
"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28 HCSB)
This is a statement of straight up equality, not of situation, but of value and status in God's eyes. The Bible does not teach that women are less than men, just different. (If you haven't noticed that men and women are different both physically and psychologically, there's something wrong with you.)
dw, I'm sorry you don't like my use of the Bible in this context. However, I chose it for a couple of reasons. First, since even conservative atheists sometimes use Mark's attack, it's clearly directed at Christians like me. Second since the attack is based on a distortion of what the Bible teaches, it's much simpler to prove the distortion by simply quoting what the Bible actually says, rather than trying to argue what some ill-defined and amorphous group of conservatives ("the cult") believe. Third, Mark claims to be a Christian, therefore, by definition, the Bible is supposed to be authoritative for him. And finally, the differences between Islam and Christianity/conservatism are easiest to demonstrate on this topic, showing Marxaphasia's complete lack of discernment between two essentially opposite worldviews. Is that reasonable enough?
One final comparison to show that Mark's "just like Al Qaeda" claim is complete rot (I've spent too much time here as it is):
Divorce:
Al Qaeda: "Divorce Initiated by the Husband saying or writing the words, "I divorce You," or some variation thereof, is the first step to initiating a divorce in Islam, if it's done by the man. This can be done for any reason, whether he's unhappy or just doesn't want to be married to the woman anymore."
Christianity: "Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?”
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,”
and He also said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”" (Matthew 19:3–9 HCSB)
Yeah, maybe there is something to this religion thing. I can dig a religion that has:
A virgin birth of the 'only begotten son' of God. Born of royal descent and announced by an angel. Heralded by a morning star, and witnessed by shepherds. As an infant, the son of God was threatened with death by the reigning king. The story of his life takes a long break between the ages of 12 & 30. The poor dude that baptised him was beheaded.
But I'm talking about Horus. The only begotten son of Osiris. He had a couple thousand years on Christianity.
Another guy was both God and the Son of God, sent to earth in human form as the second person of the trinity. His adoptive Father was a carpenter, but his real Father was a holy ghost. Of royal descent, the baby was visited by wise men who were guided by a star. The child was without sin, and went on to perform many miracles including healing diseases. The Savior gathered his disciples and celebrated a last supper with them before he descended into Hell. But after his resurrection, he went back to Heaven.
Yessir, that Krishna had one hell of a life 3000 years before Jesus.
So believe whatever you want. Your religion might make you feel better, and sometimes feelin' good is good enough.
dw, will you finally be the person to earn $1,000 by providing actual evidence for your claims? Such claims have been around for a while, and I've never seen anyone offer reliable evidence for any of them.
Prolly not. Judging by his website, he won't accept any evidence accessible to me. My ability to read cuneiform has degraded with non-use over the years, and my written Arabic translation has never been that good.
By the same standards, I would give $10,000 to anyone that can prove that Jesus of Nazereth was the son of God. Referencing the Bible is not allowed.
Of course, since I don't buy into the various God myths, (except maybe the Church of SubGenius) and don't feel the need to have an imaginary friend as my conscience, I'm not basing my actions on mythology. Those of you who do, however, certainly have proof that your God is real though, right?
I could do that, but I wouldn't deserve the money because Gary Habermas has already done it. He tracked down twelve facts that most historians agree on, even skeptics of Christianity. The most skeptical historians rely more on non-christian and anti-christian sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliney the Younger.
BTW, why would it be appropriate to rule out the Gospels (which were eyewitness accounts, plus the work of an excellent historian—Luke), especially when archeology routinely confirms the things written there?
Now, could we get back on topic?
I've explained why Mark is wrong about our view of women from my perspective. I think it would really help show just how far off base Mark's "treat women like cattle" accusation is if you could show that he's wrong from a conservative atheist basis; especially given our obvious disagreement over Christianity.
Fine. Truce. But understand that I believe an exclusionary religious belief system goes against all logic.
I don't know if you know Mark, Ed, but I'd like to debate religion with you over an endless procession of shots of Jack Daniels. I expect us to part at an impasse, and both of us considering some interesting research needed before we meet again.
"if you could show that he's wrong from a conservative atheist basis"
What's to argue? He made the claim, but can't produce the slightest shred of evidence in favor of his arguement. Jumping from his assertation against 'Conservatives', to biblical verse (as he did), is only worth attention if his opponent is a fellow Christian.
I dismiss his argument without thought. The refutation of his "religion", you & I can discuss later. I'm looking forward to it.
It's true that Mark's claims are obviously wrong, especially when he pulls out "The Cult". But it seems to me that too many people believe such demonization anyway, and therefore it's important to make our case for those who haven't decided what to believe yet, or who currently agree with Marxy but actually care about the truth.
Besides, I'm kinda curious about you would approach his "women as cattle" meme.
But I did read this in the Apochrypha (or something):
Adam says to God, "Dude, I'm lonely and hungry. Can you come up with someone else to talk to?"
God says, "I have created the ultimate companion for you. She is Woman. She will cook for you, clean for you, have sex with you, do everything you tell her to, and never say a cross word."
Adam thinks that sounds pretty good... "How much will that cost me, God?"
God says, "An arm and a leg."
Adam winces... then thinks for a second, then says "What can I get for a rib?"
I thought M only got his panties twisted up about religious conservatives (Christian most of all, then Muslim, but apparently no heartburn over Jewish conservatives - or Conservative Jews).
Mark seems to include all conservatives in "The Cult". Over at The Smallest Minority, he routinely says we're all part of "The Cult" even though most there are atheists. But he also apparently considers those of who are Christians and actually believe the whole Bible to be "The Ultimate Cult" or something, which is pretty ironic considering he also claims to be a Christian.
Ed, demonization? That's pretty laughable coming from you. I'm simply pointing the similarities between Al Qaeda and the current form of the GOP (aka The Cult). There are many starting with the obvious one that each believes they are ordained by God and only they know "The Truth."
If, as you have said, that you interpret the Bible literally, than you must view women as being subservient to men in the same way that Muslims view women as being subservient. This is but one example. We could also discuss the selling of daughters and sisters into slavery.
As far as your interpretation of the Exodus quote goes, it's quite clear that the "life for a life" means if the mother dies, not the child or the "fruit."
And, remember, Christ did away with all that when he said to turn the other cheek which, btw, must make your head explode on a regular basis. Doesn't that mean that Our Savior is a "weak and naive liberal?"
" each believes they are ordained by God and only they know "The Truth.""
You claim to be a Christian, therefore, this definition also fits you. How do you then claim that you are not part of "The Cult"?
"than you must view women as being subservient to men in the same way that Muslims view women as being subservient."
How the hell can you take a DIRECT BLANKETY-BLANK CONTRADICTION between "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" and Muslims treating women as cattle, and magically crush them together to mean the same exact thing? It's idiotic through and through!!!!
Do you see Christian women walking around in Burkhas or something similar? Where?
Are Christian women given clitoridectomies? Where?
Are Christian men marrying up to 4 women at a time, including ages 6 and up? Where? (Mormons teach a "different gospel" than the Bible and are therefore not Christians. See Gal 1:6-9)
Do you see married Christian men giving their wives to their fathers-in-law? Where?
Does the Bible teach easy divorce ("I divorce you" times 3)? Where? (Yes, many Christians divorce, which violates the Bible's teachings, which I've already quoted; Matt. 19:3-9. )
Are Christian women denied educations? Where?
Are Christian women restricted to the house unless accompanied by a male relative? Where?
Are Christian women sent back into fires because they're not "dressed right"? Where?
Are Christian men free to rape any non-christian woman whenever they want? Examples?
Are Christian women killed because they've been raped while the men get off scott free? Where?
Do Christian men use women (and children) as human shields in war? Where?
Are Christian men free to beat their wives as if they were beating a camel? Evidence?
"it's quite clear that the "life for a life" means if the mother dies, not the child or the "fruit.""
Really? Read it again:
"“When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound." (Exodus 21:22–25 HCSB)
Both times when "injury" is mentioned, where is the phrase that ties that injury to a specific person (as in the mother)? I'll give you a hint, it's not there. It's injury. Period. Meaning it applies to both mother and child.
Finally, your last claim will take longer to address and I'm out of time and comment space. For now, just look at how this section starts:
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Matthew 5:38 HCSB)
What does the phrase "You have heard that it was said," mean or refer to?
Re-reading the Book of Matthew. Man he can capture a parable. This caught my eye, and I question if a better description of a tele-evangelist exists.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
You're right. That does sound a lot like most televangelists.
He also literally threw out those selling sacrificial animals (the ones brought in from the outside where never quite "good enough") and exchanging money (for "temple currency") at outrageous exchange rates. A long time ago, someone pointed out to me that he grew up doing carpentry, and at that time, it was all manual labor. He would have had roughly the strength of a blacksmith. ("I'm not gonna stop him. You do it!")
Jesus' harshest words were for those peddling religion for their own benefit and profit. The Levites' job was to serve the people by offering the sacrifices that the people brought, and their support was supposed to come out of those sacrifices. Instead, they abused their position to extort more money out of the nation than was rightfully theirs and set themselves up as the masters. In fact, they killed Jesus because he threatened their gravy train and position of authority:
"If we let Him continue in this way, everyone will believe in Him! Then the Romans will come and remove both our place and our nation.” … So from that day on they plotted to kill Him." (John 11:48,53 HCSB)
Interesting parallels with our modern civil "servants", eh?
Men are corruptible. What can you do? Power brings the thirst for power. No better power over a person then the power to grant them eternal life. I can understand why a priest would get corrupted.
You know, just like they decide that black conservatives like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Alfonzo Rachel aren't real black people. Maybe they're only 6/10 of a real black person.
What's up with that? Is it not racism or sexism when you do it?
Well, what about it Brave Sir Robin? Where's your _E_V_I_D_E_N_C_E_ that Christians (or even just conservatives) treat women exactly the same as Al Qaeda? I even gave you a handy list!
Or will you admit that you're just full of it on this one? 'Cause that's what your pained silence says!
48 comments:
I admit I had to look up Al Shabaab. It's nice to actually learn something here.
So Sean Hannity has been out murdering famine relief workers? Sean Hannity is tied to suicide bombings?
Sean Hannity supports the public whipping of women who wear bras?
Your cab driver sounds as uninformed and obtuse as you. Although, that could be your new tagline:
"I'm Markadelphia and I know as much about everything as your average Somali cab-driver."
It's got a nice ring, no?
dw
It was more along the lines of world vision and propaganda similarities.
Or perhaps more along the lines of idiocy. Comparing a radio entertainer to a marauding band of sharia-law scumbags that murder innocent civilians.
World vision and propaganda? And somehow that leads into "The Cult" loathes cultural diversity?
You are hitting the bottom here Mark. Really. Step back and read what you write.
dw
Actually, if you think about it, Al Qaeda does have more in common with conservatives in this country than liberals. Each does, in fact, loathe cultural diversity. Each still views women as being second class/cattle with Al Qaeda being worse of course. Each jails homosexuals (or would like to) and views them as evil.
Each has a fervently nationalistic view bordering on paranoid jingoism with any wavering from the established norms and ideas as being heresy. Both Al Qaeda and the GOP have purity tests.
Should I go on?
Yeah, exactly the same, except for… well… everything.
For example, on the "women as cattle" meme, have you even read the Bible? Try Ephesians 5:25-30 and Proverbs 31:10-31 for starters. How about Song of Solomon?
Yet another case of asking yourself the right questions instead of actually observing reality.
::: walks away shaking head sadly :::
Oh please do. It's almost laughable how you spew the exact same thing over and over, regardless of how often you get smacked down.
Conservatives loathe cultural diversity. Conservatives hate women. Conservatives want to jail homosexuals.
Honestly dude, you sound like an ass.
Liberals hate America. Liberals are all faggots. Liberals want the right to have sex with goats.
See how stupid it sounds?
dw
Hate speech, labeling and dehumanization...
That's your ground state, isn't it Mark?
Conservatives "view women as being second class"...
Liberals "believe in murdering babies"...
Those two statements are precisely equal in accuracy, for precisely the same reason.
"Liberals "believe in murdering babies"..."
In what way is that not accurate?
The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Women have been subservient throughout time and while our culture has gotten better over the years, the Bible is pretty clear and is quite similar to Al Qaeda's view of women. I have many more quotes if any of you need them. So, if you believe what the Bible says...:)
Ed, it all comes down to whether or not you think a zygote or embryo is life. Abortion rights do not think it is life and abortion opponents do. I think both are pretty arrogant because I sure don't know. That's above my pay grade:) But we do have the Bible!
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." (Exodus 21:22)
"And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." (Numbers 5:27-28)
For Thor's sake, are we really debating the vaginally tolerant eschatological mindset of the supposed writers of "His Word"?
In the first century CE, Asia Minor's society was patriarchal. Get over it. Choose a different religion if you don't like your current one. Sun worship has been around forever, go with that. Or find some hot druidess and attempt some fertility rites. The end result will be the same.
Now shut the fuck up about your bible verses that prove nothing, and go back to your megaphone. You were saying... Hannity is Satan, or Metatron... or something...
dw
The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home.
But I thought it was evil Libertarians that were the backbone of the Cult in your mind. You know, the people that actually believe in smaller govt - not the Republicans who only use that line to get laid, I mean votes.
Look here for a libertarian ass-kicking of Hannity.
Great link JI, I enjoy listening to Hannity, and I've even telephoned Mark immediately after a particularly humorous ass kicking Hannity took from a caller. It was painful to hear Hannity struggle so obviously. He is entertaining though.
dw
The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home.
Followed by multiple verses from the Bible to illustrate the point.
Fine and good, except for one small detail: You're the Christian here, I'm the atheist.
Can't wait to hear your take on the Rolling Stone article.
Why can't you wait? It will be the fault of the cult like everything else is in his world.
"Can't wait to hear your take on the Rolling Stone article."
Actually, what is interesting is how similar McChrystal's comments are to Shinseki's. What happened to Eric Shinseki after he made the comments about Iraq?
He got appointed to several evil-corporation boards?
Shinseki has served as a director for several corporations: Honeywell International and Ducommun, military contractors; Grove Farm Corporation; First Hawaiian Bank;[10] and Guardian Life Insurance Company of America.
(wikipedia)
ooooo, good one Mark. I hadn't thought of that. Similar to Shinseki, McChrystal is betting his well-timed remarks will pay off in the next Republican administration with a nice Cabinet post as Sec of Vet Affairs.
Well played sir. An insightfulness I'd started to forget you possessed.
dw
OK, enough about your incogitable cab driver story. Post something else.
Post something about religion, or gun control, or the "Lord of the Flies" caption that was quickly taken down at Drudge. You know, 'Important Stuff'.
dw
Only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is portrayed as having strongly backed Gen. McChrystal's plan for Afghanistan, is singled out for praise by the general's aides.
Lemme square away my tinfoil hat, set aside my fake moon landing pictures, and say "hmmmm".
The rioters in Greece, who burn people alive in their houses because they didn't get what they want... they are just like the SEIU is here. Same thing, no difference.
Now I know why liberals loathe financial or legal accountability.
...it all comes down to whether or not you think a zygote or embryo is life. Abortion rights do not think it is life and abortion opponents do. I think both are pretty arrogant because I sure don't know. That's above my pay grade:)
So you support abortion rights because it might not be a human life? You could use that same line of argument to justify grabbing a gun, going into the woods and blasting anything that you hear moving.
Ask any hunter (or anyone who lives in woods, for that matter) what they think of someone who kills what they cannot identify.
At least the far left, openly anti-American and anti-military "I support friendly fire" types are honest. The abortion supporters can't even claim that much.
Nice analogy Anon! Thanks!
I find it interesting that Mark quoted Exodus 21:22, but only half of the law stated there. Here's the whole thing:
"When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely [the Hebrew words here literally translate as "comes out"] but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound."
(Exodus 21:22–25 HCSB)
In fact, that seems to be his whole schtick. As a "Christian" he picks and chooses what he wants to believe and ignores the rest as if it wasn't even written. ("For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires," —2 Timothy 4:3) This is just one example.
He also frequently applies this partial hearing to what he thinks others believe. Conservative views of women are just such another example. Notice what Marxaphasia said after I had referred him to Proverbs:
" The conservative line has always been that the woman's place is in the home."
Yet compare his claim to what the Bible says:
"She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings."
(Proverbs 31:16 HCSB)
"She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants."
(Proverbs 31:24 HCSB)
This is just part of the description of the perfect wife. Among her many attributes (Yes, many are home oriented. Someone has to do it, and there are only two parents.), she also runs multiple businesses (a vineyard and clothing manufacturing and sales, apparently among others).
And look at his claim that we treat women "as cattle". For his "evidence", he quotes verses that say the husband is to be the head of the household. (The Greek words in 1st Corinthians 11:3 mean both man and husband, and woman and wife. In the full context of scripture, "husband" and "wife" fit better than "man" and "woman".) But having the man as the tie-breaker in a decision where there's disagreement is not the same thing as treating them like cattle.
In fact, notice that Marxaphasia "conveniently" ignored my reference to Ephesians 5 when he did his out-of-context quoting. Here's what the whole thing:
"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband."
(Ephesians 5:22–33 HCSB)
So what is the wife supposed to submit herself to and respect? A husband who does anything necessary to care for his wife, up to, and including dying for her if necessary. Who would die for cattle?
dw is right about the times being a patriarchal society, not just in Israel, but everywhere, especially in Roman society. That's what makes the Bible's treatment of women even more surprising.
For example, women were the first to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty. If you wanted to write "credible fiction" at the time, you simply wouldn't write that because women were generally treated as worthless at the time.
When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman at the well, the disciples were surprised to find Him talking with her when the returned. It turns out that their surprise wasn't due to the fact that she was a Samaritan, but because she was a woman. Jesus' actions in talking with her were not Politically Correct.
Nor was Jesus' explanation of theology to Martha, Lazarus' sister. (See John 11:21-27)
Ruth and Esther had their own books which are considered fully scriptural. In fact, Ruth and Rahab (the prostitute who helped Israel in Joshua 2 and 6) are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1. Again, these violate the patriarchal culture.
In fact, this verse is the ultimate violation of a patriarchal view:
"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
(Galatians 3:28 HCSB)
This is a statement of straight up equality, not of situation, but of value and status in God's eyes. The Bible does not teach that women are less than men, just different. (If you haven't noticed that men and women are different both physically and psychologically, there's something wrong with you.)
Here is a comparison of Islamic and Christian positions on women. And here is an article which discusses the effect the Bible's teachings had on the treatment of women and others. Be sure to read both for the full contrast.
dw, I'm sorry you don't like my use of the Bible in this context. However, I chose it for a couple of reasons. First, since even conservative atheists sometimes use Mark's attack, it's clearly directed at Christians like me. Second since the attack is based on a distortion of what the Bible teaches, it's much simpler to prove the distortion by simply quoting what the Bible actually says, rather than trying to argue what some ill-defined and amorphous group of conservatives ("the cult") believe. Third, Mark claims to be a Christian, therefore, by definition, the Bible is supposed to be authoritative for him. And finally, the differences between Islam and Christianity/conservatism are easiest to demonstrate on this topic, showing Marxaphasia's complete lack of discernment between two essentially opposite worldviews. Is that reasonable enough?
One final comparison to show that Mark's "just like Al Qaeda" claim is complete rot (I've spent too much time here as it is):
Divorce:
Al Qaeda: "Divorce Initiated by the Husband saying or writing the words, "I divorce You," or some variation thereof, is the first step to initiating a divorce in Islam, if it's done by the man. This can be done for any reason, whether he's unhappy or just doesn't want to be married to the woman anymore."
Christianity: "Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?”
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,”
and He also said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”"
(Matthew 19:3–9 HCSB)
Yeah, maybe there is something to this religion thing. I can dig a religion that has:
A virgin birth of the 'only begotten son' of God. Born of royal descent and announced by an angel. Heralded by a morning star, and witnessed by shepherds. As an infant, the son of God was threatened with death by the reigning king. The story of his life takes a long break between the ages of 12 & 30. The poor dude that baptised him was beheaded.
But I'm talking about Horus. The only begotten son of Osiris. He had a couple thousand years on Christianity.
Another guy was both God and the Son of God, sent to earth in human form as the second person of the trinity. His adoptive Father was a carpenter, but his real Father was a holy ghost. Of royal descent, the baby was visited by wise men who were guided by a star. The child was without sin, and went on to perform many miracles including healing diseases. The Savior gathered his disciples and celebrated a last supper with them before he descended into Hell. But after his resurrection, he went back to Heaven.
Yessir, that Krishna had one hell of a life 3000 years before Jesus.
So believe whatever you want. Your religion might make you feel better, and sometimes feelin' good is good enough.
dw
Horus
Krishna
dw, will you finally be the person to earn $1,000 by providing actual evidence for your claims? Such claims have been around for a while, and I've never seen anyone offer reliable evidence for any of them.
Prolly not. Judging by his website, he won't accept any evidence accessible to me. My ability to read cuneiform has degraded with non-use over the years, and my written Arabic translation has never been that good.
By the same standards, I would give $10,000 to anyone that can prove that Jesus of Nazereth was the son of God. Referencing the Bible is not allowed.
Of course, since I don't buy into the various God myths, (except maybe the Church of SubGenius) and don't feel the need to have an imaginary friend as my conscience, I'm not basing my actions on mythology. Those of you who do, however, certainly have proof that your God is real though, right?
dw
I could do that, but I wouldn't deserve the money because Gary Habermas has already done it. He tracked down twelve facts that most historians agree on, even skeptics of Christianity. The most skeptical historians rely more on non-christian and anti-christian sources such as Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliney the Younger.
BTW, why would it be appropriate to rule out the Gospels (which were eyewitness accounts, plus the work of an excellent historian—Luke), especially when archeology routinely confirms the things written there?
Now, could we get back on topic?
I've explained why Mark is wrong about our view of women from my perspective. I think it would really help show just how far off base Mark's "treat women like cattle" accusation is if you could show that he's wrong from a conservative atheist basis; especially given our obvious disagreement over Christianity.
Fine. Truce. But understand that I believe an exclusionary religious belief system goes against all logic.
I don't know if you know Mark, Ed, but I'd like to debate religion with you over an endless procession of shots of Jack Daniels. I expect us to part at an impasse, and both of us considering some interesting research needed before we meet again.
Mark will be our designated driver.
dw
"if you could show that he's wrong from a conservative atheist basis"
What's to argue? He made the claim, but can't produce the slightest shred of evidence in favor of his arguement. Jumping from his assertation against 'Conservatives', to biblical verse (as he did), is only worth attention if his opponent is a fellow Christian.
I dismiss his argument without thought. The refutation of his "religion", you & I can discuss later. I'm looking forward to it.
Peace Out
dw
"I dismiss his argument without thought."
It's true that Mark's claims are obviously wrong, especially when he pulls out "The Cult". But it seems to me that too many people believe such demonization anyway, and therefore it's important to make our case for those who haven't decided what to believe yet, or who currently agree with Marxy but actually care about the truth.
Besides, I'm kinda curious about you would approach his "women as cattle" meme.
What's to argue? He made the claim, but can't produce the slightest shred of evidence in favor of his arguement.
You may have noticed a pattern. When pressed M will dredge up some link and claim it as evidence, whether it supports his point or not.
"Besides, I'm kinda curious about you would approach his "women as cattle" meme."
Old Testament, New Testament, or both?
dw
But I did read this in the Apochrypha (or something):
Adam says to God, "Dude, I'm lonely and hungry. Can you come up with someone else to talk to?"
God says, "I have created the ultimate companion for you. She is Woman. She will cook for you, clean for you, have sex with you, do everything you tell her to, and never say a cross word."
Adam thinks that sounds pretty good... "How much will that cost me, God?"
God says, "An arm and a leg."
Adam winces... then thinks for a second, then says "What can I get for a rib?"
dw
a conservative atheist basis
I thought M only got his panties twisted up about religious conservatives (Christian most of all, then Muslim, but apparently no heartburn over Jewish conservatives - or Conservative Jews).
When did he wave his cudgel at us atheists?
Mark seems to include all conservatives in "The Cult". Over at The Smallest Minority, he routinely says we're all part of "The Cult" even though most there are atheists. But he also apparently considers those of who are Christians and actually believe the whole Bible to be "The Ultimate Cult" or something, which is pretty ironic considering he also claims to be a Christian.
TV, reality, whatever.
And the opposite:
Strawberries, chocolate, whatever.
dw
Ed, demonization? That's pretty laughable coming from you. I'm simply pointing the similarities between Al Qaeda and the current form of the GOP (aka The Cult). There are many starting with the obvious one that each believes they are ordained by God and only they know "The Truth."
If, as you have said, that you interpret the Bible literally, than you must view women as being subservient to men in the same way that Muslims view women as being subservient. This is but one example. We could also discuss the selling of daughters and sisters into slavery.
As far as your interpretation of the Exodus quote goes, it's quite clear that the "life for a life" means if the mother dies, not the child or the "fruit."
And, remember, Christ did away with all that when he said to turn the other cheek which, btw, must make your head explode on a regular basis. Doesn't that mean that Our Savior is a "weak and naive liberal?"
" each believes they are ordained by God and only they know "The Truth.""
You claim to be a Christian, therefore, this definition also fits you. How do you then claim that you are not part of "The Cult"?
"than you must view women as being subservient to men in the same way that Muslims view women as being subservient."
How the hell can you take a DIRECT BLANKETY-BLANK CONTRADICTION between "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" and Muslims treating women as cattle, and magically crush them together to mean the same exact thing? It's idiotic through and through!!!!
Do you see Christian women walking around in Burkhas or something similar? Where?
Are Christian women given clitoridectomies? Where?
Are Christian men marrying up to 4 women at a time, including ages 6 and up? Where? (Mormons teach a "different gospel" than the Bible and are therefore not Christians. See Gal 1:6-9)
Do you see married Christian men giving their wives to their fathers-in-law? Where?
Does the Bible teach easy divorce ("I divorce you" times 3)? Where? (Yes, many Christians divorce, which violates the Bible's teachings, which I've already quoted; Matt. 19:3-9. )
Are Christian women denied educations? Where?
Are Christian women restricted to the house unless accompanied by a male relative? Where?
Are Christian women sent back into fires because they're not "dressed right"? Where?
Are Christian men free to rape any non-christian woman whenever they want? Examples?
Are Christian women killed because they've been raped while the men get off scott free? Where?
Do Christian men use women (and children) as human shields in war? Where?
Are Christian men free to beat their wives as if they were beating a camel? Evidence?
"it's quite clear that the "life for a life" means if the mother dies, not the child or the "fruit.""
Really? Read it again:
"“When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound."
(Exodus 21:22–25 HCSB)
Both times when "injury" is mentioned, where is the phrase that ties that injury to a specific person (as in the mother)? I'll give you a hint, it's not there. It's injury. Period. Meaning it applies to both mother and child.
Finally, your last claim will take longer to address and I'm out of time and comment space. For now, just look at how this section starts:
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
(Matthew 5:38 HCSB)
What does the phrase "You have heard that it was said," mean or refer to?
Or put more simply, you sound exactly like Tavis Smiley.
Dude, you just gotta stop listening to the voice in your head (asking yourself the right questions…) and start looking at the real world around you.
Re-reading the Book of Matthew. Man he can capture a parable. This caught my eye, and I question if a better description of a tele-evangelist exists.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
That's good stuff.
dw
dw,
You're right. That does sound a lot like most televangelists.
He also literally threw out those selling sacrificial animals (the ones brought in from the outside where never quite "good enough") and exchanging money (for "temple currency") at outrageous exchange rates. A long time ago, someone pointed out to me that he grew up doing carpentry, and at that time, it was all manual labor. He would have had roughly the strength of a blacksmith. ("I'm not gonna stop him. You do it!")
Jesus' harshest words were for those peddling religion for their own benefit and profit. The Levites' job was to serve the people by offering the sacrifices that the people brought, and their support was supposed to come out of those sacrifices. Instead, they abused their position to extort more money out of the nation than was rightfully theirs and set themselves up as the masters. In fact, they killed Jesus because he threatened their gravy train and position of authority:
"If we let Him continue in this way, everyone will believe in Him! Then the Romans will come and remove both our place and our nation.”
…
So from that day on they plotted to kill Him."
(John 11:48,53 HCSB)
Interesting parallels with our modern civil "servants", eh?
Men are corruptible. What can you do? Power brings the thirst for power. No better power over a person then the power to grant them eternal life. I can understand why a priest would get corrupted.
dw
Each still views women as being second class/cattle...
And yet it's the left, not the right, that thinks a woman who disagrees with their ideology isn't fully a person.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/full-frontal-stalinism-decidin
You know, just like they decide that black conservatives like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Alfonzo Rachel aren't real black people. Maybe they're only 6/10 of a real black person.
What's up with that? Is it not racism or sexism when you do it?
Well, what about it Brave Sir Robin? Where's your _E_V_I_D_E_N_C_E_ that Christians (or even just conservatives) treat women exactly the same as Al Qaeda? I even gave you a handy list!
Or will you admit that you're just full of it on this one? 'Cause that's what your pained silence says!
Post a Comment