Discussion » Nonsense » Monogamous Sex or Not?

  • Shu Qi
    Shu Qi wrote:
    <p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva; font-size: small;">Who is up for the monogamous sex?</span></p>
  • Ms. Stephanie
    Ms. Stephanie wrote:

    be monogamous.. otherwise, be single..

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Welcome bk Ms Steph. We missed you

  • Ms. Stephanie
    Ms. Stephanie wrote:

    (⊙o⊙) I were out ? nah nah...

    I miss you guys too Priest...

     

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Did I see someone looking like u at the Bali Beach? I was confused and didn't want to call ur name. Salamat malamu

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Monogamy is a subversion of human nature.

  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    spoken like a true trooper

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Monogamous is the ideal, polygamous is evil!

    Amen!

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Oh Lord, have mercy on Afroman. U would say it's not evil in Afroland:)

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Oh my, your doctrine is different from our Universal church, where we believe that a man was created to have only one woman. That's why God took the rib from the man and formed a flesh called wife.

    An elephant can carry only two Ivories, if they are too may, it can't. So if u want ordiantion, u have to abide to this orthodoxy:)

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Oh Lord, with the pretty sisters and deaconesses I've got in my church, ordinating u would be bringing a lion into lambs cage:) U r dangerous:)

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    How so Shu Qi? It's a fact

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Who said when there's love it goes in the heart's room to live? I often wonder Shu Qi, can u help?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Waitasec.

    According to HP, homosexuality is evil because it is 'unnatural' and outlawed in the Bible, right? Yet polygamy is sanctioned in the Bible, and we have no reason to believe it's any less natural than monogamy. Yet monogamy is elevated to an 'ideal' and polygamy is evil.

    Personally, I reject both paradigms because they are anti-women. I can tolerate polyandry, however. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. I don't care. I just like sluts!

    But in China, polygamy is not considered unnatural at all. Before the revolution, it was the norm for rich Chinese dudes to have more than one wife. Wisely, this was wiped out by the communists not because they were pious religious moralists or defenders of traditional culture (quite the opposite!), but because at that point in history, imposing a monogamy norm ensured for a more egalitarian society and freed many women from the yoke of oppression. Many consider the abolition of polygamy and other misogynistic practices such as footbinding to be key in ensuring the success of the revolution because it mobilized so many women.

    It had absofuckinglutely nothing to do with nature or tradition. Revolutionary communists had no use for such concepts.

    Although I don't particularly agree with it, the general consensus about a man's 'nature' is that he wants to sow his seeds in as many fields as possible. Men only conform to to the monogamy norm because they fear being ostracized by moralists, losing face, and denied any sex at all for being a liu mang. Only rich dudes seem to be able to get away with having multiple partners because they can afford hotel rooms, renting second homes, and so forth.

    Monogamy offers certain advantages to couples, but if you buy this half-assed arbitrary morality about it being innately good, you're a fool.

  • Anna Rudashko
    Anna Rudashko wrote:

    Mister Dando Z, I have to admit it, I'm a fan of your comments, the "I just like sluts!" one made me spill all my coffee on the desk, no joke. Now I sit in the puddle of instant Nescafe/Milk combo, giggling! 

    Cheers!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Thanks Anna. Sorry about your coffee. It seems like your keyboard is okay, though.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Just a little bit of correction Dando, it's not according to me. It's according to the scriptures. No one, can prove biblically speaking that homosexuality is accepted and natural. No, one! It's clear about that. It's merely evil and u know that.

    As for polygamy, the bible doesn't directly talk about that. We see people like Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Jacob having more than one wife. But we see the consequence of having more than one wife is desastrous. We see how children of different wives hated each others, and you, it's the cause of the hatred between Jewish and Palestinians, who are originally coming from the same father!

    Let us not forget that, orginally, God created a man and a woman.  Then it's clear that a verse says. A man and a woman, shall leave their parents and shall become one flesh. There is a use of singular Dando.

    Although I don't particularly agree with it, the general consensus about a man's 'nature' is that he wants to sow his seeds in as many fields as possible.

    What do you mean here dear?

    If women were to be considered as field for man to be planting, Dando, are you advocating family planting here?

    High Priest

     

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    U need redemption, what's ur interpretation then? Give ur opinion instead of...

  • Simen Wangberg

    Dando: ruining keyboards across the land with his public displays of wit.

    I heard that's what the kids are calling "masturbation" these days.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Shu Qi, what about in the Brain?

  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:

    Monogamy  is a construct, primarily evolved (among other things) to ensure the smooth inheritance of property rights. As far as I can tell it has never existed anywhere; certain highly socialized men are able to give it a pop and often women too but it has never held its own as model nor is it likely to...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @HP,

    Just a little bit of correction Dando, it's not according to me. It's according to the scriptures. No one, can prove biblically speaking that homosexuality is accepted and natural. No, one! It's clear about that. It's merely evil and u know that.

    It's according to your interpretation of the scriptures, of which there are many alternatives. Now you claim to have THE ONLY valid interpretation of the scriptures, and you don't even read Greek. Arrogance is a sin, too.

    What I know is that you use an old book to justify hating people simply because of your disgust for something they do in private.

    This is what we call irrational intolerance.

    Now THAT is evil.

    As for polygamy, the bible doesn't directly talk about that.

    By that reasoning, the Bible only indirectly talks about homosexuality; the Sodomites only invited the men indoors "so that they may know them," and yet the name of their city is now synonymous with buttsex.

    There are more people with multiple wives in the Bible than there are references to homosexuality.

    We see people like Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Jacob having more than one wife. But we see the consequence of having more than one wife is desastrous.

    That is your opinion, and is not reflected in scripture. Polygamy was never specifically described as evil, and it is NOT outlawed in Leviticus. A number of Jewish patriarchs had multiple wives. Are you saying they are evil?

    As for the "one flesh" passage, Paul repeats that again in Corinthians: "Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.'"

    That is only a description of a physical union. Of course it's singular. How many people do you know of who can stick the same dick in two women simultaneously?

     

    @Scott,

    Does the kindness of a slavemaster justify slavery?

    So, Dando, you're essentially arguing that being a deadbeat father is completely natural and normal, and therefore acceptable... right?

    I believe I said:

    Although I don't particularly agree with it, the general consensus about a man's 'nature' is that he wants to sow his seeds in as many fields as possible.

    Emphasis added. HP can blame religion for his addle-mindedness. What's your excuse?

    natural =/= good

    Or do you think natural disasters are kinder, gentler disasters than the man-made kind?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Scott,

    By saying I love sluts, perhaps I'm showing contempt for the commodification of women's sexuality. You know, treating women objects, such as saying "a girl's virgin pussy is her most valuable asset."

    If I was a rude fucking cunt who claimed to have some sort of insight into what other people are "essentially saying," I would rhetorically slap you around for "essentially" being a patronizing misogynist right now.

    But I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're welcome.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Don't put words in my mouth and I won't call you names. If you're going to be rude and make shallow equivocations about my intentions, then I'm going to respond in kind.

    Obviously if I say "I love sluts" in the context of promoting polyandry (i.e., the female-dominant form of polygamy), I'm talking about a complete subversion of the present male-dominated society in a humorous manner.

    Do you get this?

    Can ya dig it?

    Are you picking up what I'm laying down?

    Marriage and monogamy serve a utilitarian purpose, but they are not the only systems capable of protecting kids. Sometimes it takes a village to raise a child, not just a mother and a father. If you say this is THE ONLY valid way of raising a kid, then what the fuck are we going to do with all these orphans? Do you know how difficult it is to legally adopt a child in China? Fucking impossible. It's taboo.

    And one can say the community alternative is "more natural" than monogamy, which is anthropologically speaking a recent invention of agricultural societies. Hunter-gather societies had little use for such an institution.

    It bears repeating: Monogamy offers certain advantages to couples, but if you buy this half-assed arbitrary morality about it being innately good, you're a fool.

    Emphasis added. Again. L2 reading comprehension.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Lee, what I was talking about was the sexual double standard. This is, a man who has multiple partners is considered to be successful, while a woman who has multiple partners is called a slut and a failure.

    The problem with this perspective is that it implies that sexuality is the only valuable thing women have, and that only men should find sex enjoyable.

    Being a feminist, I believe in the radical idea that women are people too. And people are valuable for what is between their ears. When I said "I love sluts," I was essentially saying that I respect strong-willed women with the balls eggs to stand up and say, "Fuck the double standard. I like sex, too."

    I will not deny that Scott is right in the observation that only economically liberated people are free to be promiscuous. Where he is wrong is in assuming that I wouldn't reform the economic system with the same zeal that I would reform the social system.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Scott,

    Do you remember when you said that Mormonism would appeal to traditional Chinese people, because Mormons don't smoke, don't drink, and are faithful to their spouses?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I ain't even mad. I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you haven't been around long enough to get the context, not to mention the beef I have with HP for daring to use an avatar of Desmond Tutu without concomitantly supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians. That's the fight I wanted to have when I entered the thread. Not this one. But you're a Worthy Adversary, so I don't mind.

    I've already bored plenty of folks with dry yet insightful feminist lectures exactly like yours. Nobody remembers because I didn't make any cheap jokes about how I like sluts.

    Do I deserve to have the piss taken out of me for it? Yeah. But could you be lulzy about it rather than accusing me of promoting mindless promiscuity? I think you can.

    y so srs, sir?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

     Dando, arrogance is evil as u said. I’ve never been labeled as such till today. I believe humility as a better way of living for human kind. Having said so, I don’t think sticking to some of my interpretation that can’t be proved wrong biblically would be arrogant.

    For you Dando, being feminist and socialist implies sharing your “slots” your male friends? I don’t how can this sound from those whom you claim you advocating. For me this makes them look like stick of cigarettes that some guys pass on to each other in some areas.

    Bible interprets itself, and this what I did in the most cases. No one, even the Pope himself, nor Desmond Tutu, can come up with a verse backing homosexuality as natural and moral for the society.

    By that reasoning, the Bible only indirectly talks about homosexuality; the Sodomites only invited the men indoors "so that they may know them," and yet the name of their city is now synonymous with buttsex

    The mention of homosexuality here Dando, doesn’t mean the Bible condemns this practice, but just told us and demonstrate to us how far human kind has gone as far as sin is concerned. Read it well, these people are from the Benjamin tribe who practiced this among the Jews

    So, What does the Bible teach about practicing homosexuality? It's in the Bible, Romans 1:26-27, NIV. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    Is practicing homosexuality a sin? It's in the Bible, Leviticus 18:22, TLB. "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."

    As for the polygamy, I said, this not direct ban on this issue in the bible. I agree with some statement from Scot. Just tell me one single polygamous in the bible whose family didn’t get affected from this practice?

    As for polyandry, a lot of societies saw the dark side of this practice, you are the only one promoting this practice today. 

    High Priest

     

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    For you Dando, being feminist and socialist implies sharing your “slots” your male friends?

    Women aren't possessions of mine, therefore they are not mine to give or share. That you would refer to them as "slots" and crudely identify them by a part of their anatomy is disrespectful.

    Bible interprets itself, and this what I did in the most cases.

    Except for the part where you said the Bible describes polygamy as evil. It does not. It is presented in clearer terms than homosexuality and is not always explicitly condemned.Yet you are calling it evil.

    It bears repeating that you don't read Greek. Somebody is interpreting the Bible for you and you're claiming that you have the only valid interpretation. There are in fact many disagreements between Biblical scholars about these and other issues. But you've never actually studied religion, so you don't realize just how complicated the process can be.

    No one, even the Pope himself, nor Desmond Tutu, can come up with a verse backing homosexuality as natural and moral for the society.

    Neither can you come up with a verse backing antibiotics, automobiles, or computers as natural and moral for society. So what? Do you need a Bible verse to tell you how to wipe your ass after you take a shit?

    The mention of homosexuality here Dando, doesn’t mean the Bible condemns this practice, but just told us and demonstrate to us how far human kind has gone as far as sin is concerned.

    How far? You missed the point; that passage is widely misread. There is no consensus on literal interpretations of the Bible.

    So, What does the Bible teach about practicing homosexuality? It's in the Bible, Romans 1:26-27, NIV. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    Note that this doesn't exclude the possibility of there being decent acts between men. If they want to get married and only fuck each other for the rest of their lives, just like straight people, that isn't lust. It's love.

    You're ignoring the simple fact that many heterosexual relationships are unhealthy. Are you going to blame the buttfuckers when straight people beat one another, cheat on one another, and get divorced?

    Is practicing homosexuality a sin? It's in the Bible, Leviticus 18:22, TLB. "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."

    Wearing polyester is also a sin according to Leviticus, as are a host of other things we do every day. Moreover, Leviticus was a part of the old covenant between the Jews and God. Jesus represents the new covenant and the hope that sins may be forgiven. Which is why the sinfulness of homosexuality is absolutely irrelevant.

    As for the polygamy, I said, this not direct ban on this issue in the bible. I agree with some statement from Scot. Just tell me one single polygamous in the bible whose family didn’t get affected from this practice?</em&

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    As for the polygamy, I said, this not direct ban on this issue in the bible. I agree with some statement from Scot. Just tell me one single polygamous in the bible whose family didn’t get affected from this practice?

    Can you tell me one single monogamous in the bible whose family did not get affected from this practice?

    As for polyandry, a lot of societies saw the dark side of this practice, you are the only one promoting this practice today.

    Wrong again. Polyandry is still practiced by some minority ethnic groups in China, like the Qiang and Musuo peoples. Look up Lugu Lake on wikipedia. Moreover, I've said it before and I'll say it again: marriage is a corrupt institution of ownership and social control. If I ever promoted polyandry, I did so mockingly.

    ...

    Let's summarize:

    Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as unnatural. Therefore it's evil. No gay marriage!

    Polygamy is not condemned in the Bible, nor is it described as natural. Many of the patriarchs and church fathers practiced polygamy. But it's still evil, because it affects families. No polygamy!

    Schools affect families. No school!

    Jobs affect families. No jobs!

    The economy affects families. YAAAY! COMMUNISM!

    There's no arguing with your logic, HP. It's impeccable.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

    In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

    In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

    In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

    Evil men, those Kings of Israel!

    There are MANY negative social consequences of polygamy, but they are NOT in the Bible.

    Polyandry, though? I don't think it's Biblically approved, but I'm okay with it. It might lead to the development of a matriarchal or matrilineal society, or at least an equitable and less patriarchal one. That'd be great! Instead of starting wars, heads of state would just gossip behind one anothers' backs!

    "Have you seen what the Prime Mistress of France was wearing? What a fat fucking cow!"

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    And I fucked up the HTML. Wo cao!

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    It bears repeating that you don't read Greek. Somebody is interpreting the Bible for you and you're claiming that you have the only valid interpretation.

    Why are u mentioning Greek here Dando? More verses and the Leviticus you and I mentioned were written in Hebrew. Let me inform you that only the New Testament was the one written using Greek as it was the lingua franca of that time.

    Who told you that someone is interpreting the bible for me? And how do you declare for sure that I can’t read Greek? Again we were in the Old Testament.

    My only notice is that in Dandoland there’s no sexual immorality.

    Summury

    Is practicing homosexuality a sin? It's in the Bible, Leviticus 18:22, TLB. "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."

    What does the Bible teach about marriage? Marriage is a permanent, committed partnership between a man and a woman. It's in the Bible, Matthew 19:5-6, TLB. "And that a man should leave his father and mother, and be forever united to his wife. The two shall become one—no longer two, but one! And no man may divorce what God has joined together.

    But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.1Corinthians 7:2

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    King Solomon, His father David, and all these examples u have given Dando, are the one that teach people to stay away from polygamy dear.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    God punished Solomon for idolatry, not polygamy. Polygamy is permissible according to the Bible. It's troublesome for plenty of sociological reasons, but it's not described as the root cause of anyone's downfall in the Bible.

    Plenty of Mormons and Muslims derived the practice from the same traditions.

    The Septuagint was written in Greek, too. If you gave a shit about Biblical scholarship, you might include the translation you are using.

    I already mentioned another verse in Corinthians showing that "one in flesh" refers only to a physical union. You just quoted a verse saying divorce is a sin, too. Should we make that illegal, too? Paul also says in Corinthians that marriage causes divided loyalties. Is marriage a sin too?

    Whether it's a sin or not is irrelevant. Everything is a sin. If you're a Christian preaching forgiveness of sins, you don't play sin accountant and tell the gays that they are extra super sinful.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    *facepalm*

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Whether it's a sin or not is irrelevant. Everything is a sin. If you're a Christian preaching forgiveness of sins, you don't play sin accountant and tell the gays that they are extra super sinful.

    Sin is sin, it's written, gay or priostitute, adulteress or whatever it may be, can be forgiven.

    Since u declare that polygamy is troublesome, why preaching people to get engaged into that mess? A role of a High Priest is to bring peace and harmony into member's lives.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    You unequivocally said that divorce is a sin. Should that be made illegal to protect the sanctity of marriage? No? Then why should homosexual marriage any different?

    "Since u declare that polygamy is troublesome, why preaching people to get engaged into that mess? A role of a High Priest is to bring peace and harmony into member's lives."

    You must be quite, high, priest. I didn't say any such thing. I said:

    "According to HP, homosexuality is evil because it is 'unnatural' and outlawed in the Bible, right? Yet polygamy is sanctioned in the Bible, and we have no reason to believe it's any less natural than monogamy. Yet monogamy is elevated to an 'ideal' and polygamy is evil.

    Personally, I reject both paradigms because they are anti-women. I can tolerate polyandry, however. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. I don't care. I just like sluts!"

    Why are you so careless with my words to say that I am promoting polygamy? Are you pathologically dishonest, or merely inept? And why should anyone give pause to consider your authority to accurately scripture that's thousands of years old when you can't accurately quote shit Dando said only a day ago?

    Polygamy is never mentioned in the Bible as a sin, yet here you are calling it evil, and monogamy the "ideal". Here's another part of Corinthians:

    "But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion... But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in both body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. (1 Cor 7: 8-9; 32-34)"

    If you want to bring peace and harmony into members lives, I suggest you bring peace and harmony into your own thoughts first.

    "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

    That's from Matthew and Luke. You'll note that while you rely on arcane ecclisiastical bullshit Leviticus and Corinthians, I'm using a direct quote from Christ Himself.

    This is what I mean. Arrogance. You think that your cherry-picked selection of Bible verses are the most important ones because they confirm your ideas.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "terms like "mother" become embarrassing dirty words."

    他妈的. That future is now.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    That's an endorsement of my ideas that I could live without.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    马克, Intelligent Design theory is a joke.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Dando, Here are answers not interpreted by me but by scriptures themselves.

    1. Divorce

    For how long is marriage supposed to last? It's in the Bible, Romans 7:2, NIV. "By law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage."

    Christ recognizes only one valid ground for divorce. It's in the Bible, Matthew 5:32, NIV. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

    If a spouse leaves a marriage for a reason other than adultery they must remain single. It's in the Bible, I Corinthians 7:10-11, TLB. "Now, for those who are married I have a command, not just a suggestion. And it is not a command from me, for this is what the Lord Himself has said: A wife must not leave her husband. But if she is separated from him, let her remain single or else go back to him. And the husband must not divorce his wife."

    Polygamy, I did repeat many times, there is no direct propaganda in the bible, and the verse you gave in Corinthians is irrelevant. From the experience mentioned about this subject in the bible, it discouraging to preach people to engage in polygamy. 

    Dando, what has wrecked religion today think that the bible is all prophetical. There some passages that concerned these topics we are talking about are just too clear that we don’t need our own interpretation. Let me tell you, being scholar doesn’t mean spiritual. When I see in some seminar scholars trying to make a new definition of Marriage to accommodate homosexuality, it proves me that some of them need redemption. 

    According to HP, homosexuality is evil because it is 'unnatural' and outlawed in the Bible, right?

    I stick to what I said as for your own understanding it’s not evil but spiritual and natural. For you, if something is mentioned in the bible, it means a licence to do that but not a way of showing people the mess which they need to stay away from. 

    Note that this doesn't exclude the possibility of there being decent acts between men. If they want to get married and only fuck each other for the rest of their lives, just like straight people, that isn't lust. It's love.

    What a theology, which reference are u backing this with? 

    Overall, picturing me arrogant makes me feel as u r trying to be humorous, as this should be direct to you. And, as for once in my life I’ve never been high as I don’t know which is weed.

    Are you pathologically dishonest, or merely inept?

    This one, take it for yourself as more often it’s easy for you to not double check ur verbs and its effects. I’m not good at this game though

    High Priest

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    You didn't answer my question about divorce. It's a sin in the Bible. Should it be illegal?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Accusing me of arrogance doesn't make you any less arrogant. That's an ad hominem logical fallacy.

    Further, I don't need theological reasoning to know the difference between love and lust. There are other books besides the Bible. I suggest you start with a dictionary.

    You admitted that you misquoted me because of your own ineptitude. I am satisfied with this answer. I am not satisfied with your yet another ad hominem fallacy where you justified your ineptitude by saying I also share the trait. Of course I do. But how useful is it for you to say so without giving a specific example? It's not useful at all. It's just a half-assed excuse for your own utter failure. Expect no apologies for my harshness. I didn't expect an apology from you, and I didn't get one.

    ...

    Every homosexual act in the Bible is evil for a reason unrelated to homosexuality. In Sodom and Gomorrah, it is rape. In Leviticus, it is idolatry. In Corinthians, it is adultery. Homosexual love and gay marriage are never mentioned.

    You admitted the Bible is not comprehensively prophetic, and that we must sometimes use our own moral lights to fill in the missing parts.

    That is exactly what must be done on the subject of gay marriage. We must use our own moral lights to find the way, because the Bible does not offer a completely comprehensive guide to morality. It just gives us some basic guidelines.

    You say you follow those guidelines, but you have trod down the path of intolerance. You hate the idea of homosexuality, and you have abused a few passages of the Bible to justify your hatred. Again, remove the log from your eye before you try to remove the speck from your gay brother's eye.

    I'm done with this topic. You're arrogantly unable to admit your own errors, and I don't even believe in this bullshit in the first place.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    You admitted that you misquoted me because of your own ineptitude.

    Don’t force me swallow your heresy, my throat is too narrow for that. Don’t let substitute your own ineptitude on me.

    You admitted the Bible is not comprehensively prophetic, and that we must sometimes use our own moral lights to fill in the missing parts.

    You didn’t get my point. The way you read a Daniel or revelation for instance is different from other books. Some passages explain themselves and don’t need computations or more exegesis. P.S. Marriage is clearly defined that we don’t need to prophesize about that. But today, scholars are trying to get it distorted…

    We must sometimes use our own moral lights to fill in the missing parts. 

    I fear your light will lead nation in the valley of shadow. You mean the light of passing on sluts in things? And you are trying to display this as a moral light we need to get from missing parts? Lord have mercy upon my soul! 

    Cheers! 

    High Priest

     

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I condemned polygamy in my second post. You claimed I promoted it. You fucked up, not me, not the little baby Jesus. So if you aren't inept, you're dishonest. In either case, you didn't apologize for your fuck-up, and you made excuses by reminding me that I'm not perfect. Of course I'm not. But that doesn't excuse you for fucking up.

    Nor does it help you to point out my own moral shortcomings. That's neither logical nor is it Biblically advised, as I mentioned upstairs in what remains the only reference to the Gospels in this whole thread. You know, that important part? The one with the shit Jesus actually fucking said? Sorry, dude, but when Jesus tells us directly in several different passages to judge not lest we be judged, I think that's slightly more morally actionable than a couple of scattered and indirect references to homosexuality. Priorities!

    As you have contrarily noted, marriage isn't so clearly defined. There are examples of polygamy that aren't explicitly condemned, remember? One man, one woman in one part of the Bible; one king, 700 wives, and 300 concubines in another. Or are you going to arrogantly claim that your interpretation of these ancient books is more authoritative than a bunch of Mormons and Muslims?

    I never said anything about "passing on" women like they are plates of food or objects to be used and discarded. You speak of women as property. Such shameless hypocrisy, to question my morals when you speak of someone's mother or daughter in such a way!

    A slut is just a person (of either gender) who accepts the premises that sex is fun and pleasure is healthy. Why do you degrade them by speaking of them as though they are mere things rather than human beings?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    As far as I know, we disagree with each other's concepts, it wasn't a fight. We are entltled to do so as we can agree sometime. Using statement like "Are you pathologically dishonest, or merely inept?" displays your intolerance when someone doesn't swallow ur ideas. I'd ask u to  take this one for urself as I for once never hurl insults or would like to offend verbally any fellow around.

    I repeat, there are point we disagree and each one of us clings to his interpretation or understanding we move on

    High Priest

     

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Sexydem, ha ha, monogamous sex! that's a nice one

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    "Using statement like "Are you pathologically dishonest, or merely inept?" displays your intolerance when someone doesn't swallow ur ideas. "

    It displays intolerance for people who mischaracterize what I had said. You did. Again, I'll quote you:

    "Since u declare that polygamy is troublesome, why preaching people to get engaged into that mess?"

    I never preached that people should practice polygamy. I said the opposite:

    "According to HP, homosexuality is evil because it is 'unnatural' and outlawed in the Bible, right? Yet polygamy is sanctioned in the Bible, and we have no reason to believe it's any less natural than monogamy. Yet monogamy is elevated to an 'ideal' and polygamy is evil.

    Personally, I reject both paradigms because they are anti-women. I can tolerate polyandry, however. Is that hypocritical? Maybe. I don't care. I just like sluts!

    But in China, polygamy is not considered unnatural at all. Before the revolution, it was the norm for rich Chinese dudes to have more than one wife. Wisely, this was wiped out by the communists not because they were pious religious moralists or defenders of traditional culture (quite the opposite!), but because at that point in history, imposing a monogamy norm ensured for a more egalitarian society and freed many women from the yoke of oppression. Many consider the abolition of polygamy and other misogynistic practices such as footbinding to be key in ensuring the success of the revolution because it mobilized so many women."

    If you're not inept or dishonest, then what is the reason for your confusion? Surely, if you can understand the geneology and moral teachings of an ancient desert tribe, you can understand poor crude Dando? Why should anyone believe in your authority to quote something written thousands of years ago if you can't interpret something I wrote just a few days ago?

    Pathetic. If anyone here took you seriously, you'd be in jail for illegal missionary activities right now.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc