glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, Danoh is quite the prince in his own mind. :chuckle:
Societal hypocrisy?
- Thread starter nikolai_42
- Start date
Yep, Danoh is quite the prince in his own mind. :chuckle:
Now, now, that is not only uncalled for, but not needed - you have the victory of Romans 6 over that.
Try Romans 5:7,8 as your perspective towards one and all - and before "some jerk" gets to you - and the "some jerk" sense of them - will not even be your sense of reality.
Only then can you say you are objectively looking at someone.
After all, Romans 5:7,8 are a good enough lens for God; it should be more than good enough as your bias as you look out at one and all.
Works for me towards you and others.
WizardofOz
New member
Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler is the one I would be taking a look at. He jumped to Roy Moore's defense, evoking the bible:
| "Take the Bible: Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance," Zeigler said. "Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There's just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual." |
:doh:
It certainly would have been illegal. Is Mr. Zeigler of the opinion that the age of consent is too high? What a strange analogy. He perhaps should have waited for the story to develop as Mr. Moore's strategy is to deny, deny, deny (or, 'I don't recall' or 'it wouldn't have been typical' :vomit
.Now we're hearing about Mary and Joseph and how Clinton did bad things too in an effort the change the narrative in an important senate race.
Politics :sigh:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Sending kids up to clean out chimneys (like that was a normal event) is a hell of a lot better than teaching them they can choose their own gender and sexuality. And, God forbid, women should not be treated like men. We seemed to get along just fine before you societal "fixers" came in to mess with everyone's lives, sowing discord and discontent. You're creating a wonderful world, aren't you smarty....you and your liberal lame brained do gooders who only succeed in making things worse?
You say "molesting" without it having been proven. Figures. If he's telling the truth, dating with the parent's permission is only frowned upon in recent times. It was common practice all throughout history. You can blabber on til the cows come home, but you're simply showing your lack of common sense.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Uh,a lot of children died doing such and lived in abject poverty to boot so good to see your usual christian compassion in action...Sorry the Suffragette movement allowed women like yourself to have a voice as well.
lain: If he's guilty of it then would you condemn his actions? Or will you just pull an aCW stunt and deflect away from it? What about Phil Robertson? Are you okay with his comments about getting girls when they're 15?
That's your bias.
I feel it was high time.
You seem to be biased that you are the one doing that instead of me.
I know you haven't noticed, because you are a robot with tunnel vision, but it ain't working out for you towards me.
You get nastier and nastier with your lies about my intents and motives and what I believe.
Nevertheless, Hubba Bubba.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Uh,a lot of children died doing such and lived in abject poverty to boot so good to see your usual christian compassion in action...Sorry the Suffragette movement allowed women like yourself to have a voice as well.
Yes, a lot of children died of lots of things, but at least they had a chance at life, unlike the millions of babies that are ripped from their mother's womb before they can draw a breath. Don't talk to me about Christian compassion. Hypocrite. And the "suffragette movement" has brought many horrors with it, including the break up of the family. I've watched it happen, so I don't put women's "rights" on a pedestal like you libs do.
I have no clue what Robertson actually said....I'm sure it wasn't "getting" girls when they're fifteen. If Moore was only trying to date underage girls, FORTY YEARS AGO, then, no, I wouldn't condemn his actions. Our society was totally different back then. And, it was forty years ago. There are no reports it's been an ongoing problem.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, how compassionate of you. You'll be all glib about the pain and death of children treat like crap in draconian times past but all self righteous about abortion as if it's something new...It happened back then as well. You sure wouldn't have the right to air your pompous spittle without movements fighting for your right to do so as a woman so hey, you wanna thank the likes of Pankhurst instead of berating them, even though you should have had the exact same to start with.
Really? Well here's an education for you then:
Oh, and molestation is just that, regardless of how many years have gone by...
lain:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, it was as my last reply to you showed with his putrid comments caught on video but your stance as regards Moore is actually more disturbing come to think more on it. You won't condemn the guy for dating underage girls because it was forty years ago? So, it was more acceptable to do that back then was it? Prey on underage girls? Yet you and your ilk blather on about how society has yet to reach the pinnacle of depravity et al in the current age when such isn't tolerated? Yet you wouldn't condemn the guy's actions...
Says it all.
From what I see I don't think animal behavior is usually the basis for defending homosexuality. The defense is primarily about non-harmful consensual relationships. If animal behavior comes into play I think it would be more about the choice/biology question. Not being a choice can be a factor in defending homosexuality but I'd still say it's secondary.
Here - a simple "compass" for knowing when you are wrong - just about anytime GD high-fives you - and vice versa :chuckle:
nikolai_42
Well-known member
That I understand. I was trying to anticipate a certain argument and it still seems inconsistent to me that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are considered okay but an older man and a (for argument's sake) 14 year old girl are not. Why (the argument goes) can't a minor consent? Especially in light of the fact that minors are being given the opportunity to choose (or invent!) their own gender (on any given day!). If their own sexuality is in their hands, isn't the next step to legitimize adult-child "relationships"? See, I think the line is becoming so blurred, people are having trouble seeing where it is anymore and they are scrambling to draw a line in the sand (that will eventually be blown away by the relativism inherent in society now). Unless there is a dramatic reversal and homosexuality, homosexual "marriage", so-called gender equality and all sorts of "free choice" (including abortion) are seen for what they are - idolatry of self - it won't be long at all before that boundary is obliterated as well. Unfettered moral anarchy is the path we are on as a society and there ain't nothin' stoppin' it short of a wholesale wakeup call. Renewal, repentance and revival.
This is one step removed from the "Mary and Joseph" argument - as a lawyer holding a position of public trust in the District Attorney's Office, Moore's behaviour should have been above reproach, not cruising and being banned from the local mall for soliciting teenage girls!
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Better than getting a "thanks" from Rusha like you do. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Does Danoh's logic hold water?
Let's see.
Danoh's "logic"?
Sorry, does not compute.
Nevertheless.....
He's still scratching his head.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think he spends his time peeking through the blinds trying to catch a glimpse of 'the club'.Maybe he's studying it out....step by step.