My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?
Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch!
My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?
Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch!
Thats what they all say.Originally Posted by isidro
My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?
Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch!
My "husband" used to be quite abusive actually. I'm not exactly entirely married. I guess, maybe, kinda. Umm...?
Unluckily for you though buddy, I'm not an easy catch!I'm confused, isidro, are you advocating free will or free love; because I don't think Jockey's kidding. Although, I wasn't aware they made Mormons in Scotland
Jocky is starting to make me wonder whether or not he is kidding actually.
Mormons, on a serious note that my conscience is making me say, had polygamy for several reasons, partly to protect women since at that time, they couldn't hold land, vote, etc without a man and when we got rid of it the women were quite upset. The men were afraid of it from the first and didn't want it. Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task.
I'm still not an easy catch. Take a number, pal!
Well they must because they are never done knocking at my door, especially when I am in the middle of my dinner. Luckily for them I am a man of peace.
And there is the added problem of multiple mother in laws.
: I don't know:
1. Do they ride bicycles even up the steepest mountain?
2. Are they only a few shades darker than their pefectly ironed
white shirts (that never wrinkle even in extreme heat)
3. Are there always two: one to put his foot in the door jam and
one to mesmerize you with his smile.
If you can not answer yes to all three of these questions;
then #1. The Irish have come to your village, in disguise, to
proselytize. or #2. The aliens who are doing the crop circles GPS
went wacky
Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task.; I might ask jocky...What do you think: Does jocky stand for his employment, his choice of clothing or his reputation with women?
Come out with it Jocky, inquiring minds want to know
The question does not arise as Atheist will do it like a shot. By inquiring minds do you mean nosy women?
Come out with it Jocky, inquiring minds want to know
Soundofmusic you will be delighted to hear that I have publicised your forthcoming bash on the Blokes Thread. It will be great all the guys will be there and will get to meet you and Isidro. Its not a bring your own booze affair is it?
The question does not arise as Atheist will do it like a shot. By inquiring minds do you mean nosy women?
Soundofmusic you will be delighted to hear that I have publicised your forthcoming bash on the Blokes Thread. It will be great all the guys will be there and will get to meet you and Isidro. Its not a bring your own booze affair is it?..You did tell them to leave their girlfriends (unless their willing to jump out of cakes or dance on the poles...other entertainment will be provided for the gentlemen, so Isidro and I can make our choice), children and religion at the door; Just bring their libido and choice of good Scottish liquor (Not that we're cheap, but Isidro and I both are "in the states" and if those strong Scottish men were exposed to our watered down American beer; they would think it was a dry town.)
I'm thinking there should be an age limit; unless the old fellows have alot of cash and no relatives: rolleyes:
Hey, you got me all excited and didn't answer: So what is it, boxers or briefs?
Jocky is starting to make me wonder whether or not he is kidding actually.
Mormons, on a serious note that my conscience is making me say, had polygamy for several reasons, partly to protect women since at that time, they couldn't hold land, vote, etc without a man and when we got rid of it the women were quite upset. The men were afraid of it from the first and didn't want it. Jocky, I am sure you can relate that one man having to put up with several women on their periods at the same time is no easy task.Do you consider yourself a feminist-mormon? You seem very strong-willed and self sufficient to me. Do you mean that polygamy protected the women from being homeless and penniless or from having their lord and master creep into their room every night.
If you log onto www.lds.org or look up "Mormon Messages" on youtube you will easily find how the modern leaders define femininity. I am in essence, a walking example of what they believe a woman should be and how they should behave actually. The leaders constantly put women on a pedestal and encourage them to learn, to stand up for themselves, not to take abuse, to educate themselves and above all to nurture their children and remember they are daughters of a living God.
Polygamy protected female legal rights and allowed them safety so that random "lords and masters" off the street didn't creep into their rooms at night. The women were under no obligation to physically submit to their husbands. It was advised, as it still is, that women be home loving and want to have children and take care of a family and house (which I love doing though you don't often see that side of me here). Women are to be respected and treated like goddesses in every respect.
And one more nod to Mormons. We are the life of the party without having to touch alcohol. Not allowed to drink, which means we are all that and a bag o' chips without having to down vodka to be that way! Hee, hee, hee. (I'm probably going to be thrown out of this discussion now....)
Last edited by isidro; 10-08-2009 at 02:23 PM.
Aw! Blushing at that compliment! And you can rest assured, I'll never touch your booze. All yours!!!!!
Do you think Jocky didn't tell me about the briefs or boxers because he runs free? Where's our sweet Atheist, it's just not a party
While I was enjoying all of our cleverness; a young chaste and celibate lady (or maybe man) told us our segways from religious texts were disgusting. While I have no doubt, in thirty years she will be exactly where we are; I suppose I'll come back to the religious thread a bit:mad
If one wants to believe in the God, Angels and Adam and Eve theory; then God created good and evil. Satan fell before the creation of Adam and Eve; and God was aware of his influence on them.
It is impossible to have free will with a creator who has the ability to see everything we are doing, punish us in excess of our deeds and change the outcome.
I don't believe in hell, because no creation warrants going there (in the christian concept of fire and pain); I don't believe in heaven because the materialism of the place (golden streets) is useless to a spirit; and I would get very bored singing and having no real activity all day. Plus, I'd then be stuck with my two husbands and their 4 wives, 3 mother-in-laws...it would be hell
What of the plagues against Egypt, done even while 'God hardened pharoah's heart', how is this free will? How is it justifiable also, in terms of a political history, that the Israelites slay and massacre whole towns of people on the orders of this God, while he only offers salvation to the Israelites. Even the Israelites commited many moral faults, and yet they are still given a chance while others are slaughtered outright. I tend to read the Old Testament as a political justification for the actions of the Israelites, written after the fact if in case these acts happened, justified by fear of an unbalanced and tempermental deity. When they ask for food in the desert because they are starving, Moses and God respond in vengeance, they send flaming snakes to to torture his own group (which he's trying to save technically right?)
New Testament problem: According to the Bible, God required the Jews to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. He then sent Jesus to be the last sacrificial lamb. Meaning, of course, Jesus was a sacrifice to God.
And if Jesus is God in the flesh, then that means Jesus sacrificed himself to himself.
Also, another question, why is Cain even pushed to the point of rage in the first place. What is bad about an offering of grain as opposed to a live animal sacrifice, you can even offer more to God through a harvest than the mass culling of animals couldn't you? It seemed like a perfectly good sacrifice, considering a harvest of grain will usually feed more than a lamb will, so its a bigger sacrifice.
BTW, Im approaching this from the view that the Bible is an exceptionally interesting piece of literature, and nothing else.
Last edited by KrakenRouge; 10-20-2009 at 12:35 AM.
The answer to this question I feel is: not if the good god is limited. An omnipotent good god would surely not create a bad world. As Epicurus pointed out:
Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?
I'm afraid if we have a bad world, and wish god to exist, then that god would seem to be either impotent or malevolent
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Perhaps it is that God is both able and willing but understands as a parent does more than a hysterical infant, the importance of eating one's vegetables, of learning to play nicely with other children, and the like. The fact is when we as humans discuss this we somehow seem to think that God should see exactly as we do and have only in immediate consequences in mind as we often do but if we limit God to that, what is there to worship worth worshiping? We worship God, those of us who do, exactly because God has a broader perspective than we do, has the ability to eventually make wrongs righted and the like. What we see in our one quick snapshot of a perspective as bad may and usually does prove a learning experience in the long run. The Inquisitions were very bad but they inspired various people and groups to move away from the Catholic Church and think more clearly for themselves and throw off the chains of servitude not only in the religious realm but the political, economic and social arenas as well. Define bad, therefore. Anyone who spends any time at the gym knows you get stronger, gain muscle and become a better person by meeting with difficulties and overcoming them. And perhaps God realizes that too.
Dignity and majesty I have seen but once, as it stood in chains, at midnight, in a dungeon in an obscure village of Missouri. Parley P. Pratt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
