On 7/8/2012 1:19 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/8/12 1:05 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 8, 12:01 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/8/12 12:54 PM, Tim wrote:









On Jul 6, 7:30 am, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/6/12 7:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...

On 7/6/2012 1:59 AM, thumper wrote:
On 7/5/2012 4:14 AM, X ` Man wrote:

In the end, I believe the majority of those who oppose abortion
are
trying to control women.

Especially those opposing contraception education. If they
truly wanted
to minimize abortion...

So, because you have taken the argument to it's shallowest level,
you
feel you have won and there is nothing more to discuss. How
typically
liberal.

It's been proven that abstinence doesn't work. But, you still
don't want
contraceptive education or abortion. You just want more of something
that doesn't work. How typically conservative.

D'uh. Abstinence works, dummy. What doesn't work is the typically
"church moral" *abstinence edu-ma-cat-shun.*

What is needed in the public schools is a comprehensive sex and
relationship education program that begins, probably, in the third or
fourth grade with the simple facts of life and builds progressively so
that by the time kids are in the sixth or seventh grade and really
curious and experimenting sexually, they know precisely how to prevent
pregnancies, how to prevent transmissions of STDs, and how to get
along
with others. Certainly, abstinence can be part of the teaching in
such a
program. The reality is that most kids are going to have sex by their
early teens and the best thing society can do is make sure they are
equipped to handle it responsibly.

I get a kick out of the religious prigs who preach the bible and
against
premarital sex. The bible is full of premarital sex and lust and among
the very young. Read the Song of Solomon, for starters. The prigs, of
course, interpret the bible to preach what they want, but what they
want
is not necessarily the same as what their "good book" says or means.

Probably not, but did you ever think that the Song of Solomon was a
relationship between he and one of his brides?

What? Solomon had marriages that went beyond ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN? And
it's in the Bible? Oh, the horror of it!

The fun part about the Bible is that it is sooooo easy to interpret in
many different ways. How do I know? The Bible tells me so.

multiple marriage was permissible in jewish society then. So what's
your point? And yes, ti's easy ti interpreet in many diffrent ways.
And some are very rude and sour, and can be perverted in the same
contexts of misinterpretation as the people of Westburo and the
Klanners.

So if you really want to take scripture out of context then obviously
your not alone.



So, polygamy was OK then in the Bible, but is not okay now, not because
it isn't in the Bible, because it is, but because we changed the rules?
I love it! What you are saying is that it doesn't really matter what the
Bible *says*, it only matters what we say and do now. What could be
funnier?

I view the Old Testament as a history of a people documenting their
history and their search for answers. Some of the history is correct, a
lot of it is guesswork or plain B.S., and much of it is arbitrary
compilation by those who came later. Same as the New Testament.
Therefore, "taking it out of context" is not a relevant activity. It can
have any context you like.

I guess Harry doesn't understand the meaning of context. Now that really
surprises me.