19 May 13
3 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneYears ago, one of my priests and spiritual advisors was one of the first women Episcopal priests to be ordained in the south. She was intelligent (immensely), wise and gracious—and never seemed as dismissive of those whose paradigms were contrary to hers as you do. And I never recall anyone challenging her feminist “credentials”, earned in the crucible of the institutional prejudice (often backed by scriptural exegesis) of the church. Nor did she ever deny the role of those prejudices of longstanding in suppressing women.
Go tell that to Katharine Jefferts Schori, the current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the first female Primate in the Anglican Communion. I'm sure she'll have a hearty chuckle.
You seem to brook no argument at all, based on logic or otherwise, of your particular beliefs—seemingly assuming that none of it dare be wrong (I wonder how you do with alternative theologies, even within the Anglican Communion generally—how do you view Bishop Spong? Or, earlier, John Robinson? Or, hell, Marcus Borg?). Your response to opposing views (e.g. theist/nontheist) seems always equally (and snarkily) dismissive, whether your interlocutor has first been just as snarky and dismissive, or has mounted a sustained logical presentation (e.g., googlefudge) that ought to be addressed on its points and merit.
You baffle me, because I was for some good (and fond) years an Episcopalian. My principal spiritual counselor held theological/philosophical views vastly different from my own (which were even then nondualistic—under the heading of panentheism), but he explained that my own views also had a long and venerable tradition within the church (e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa), and there was none of this “true Christian™” crap over such theological differences. It was, for me, one of the refreshing things about the Episcopal Church (based on the “three pillars of the faith”, with which I am sure that you are familiar). He, like you, had a fairly “conservative” theology (dualist/personalist/supernaturalist) that translated into a very “liberal” social morality (he once said that, bottom line, everything has to be pushed through agape).*
This may well be a presumptuous post (and surely unwelcome)—but, as I say, you baffle me. There are alternative theologies at play in the collection of writings called “the Scriptures” (OT and NT), despite denials from some; there are alternative soteriologies expressed (e.g., the juridical and the therapeutic—the latter being, as Irenaeus once put it, literally a soteriology of soterias); there has always been an oral tradition alongside the written (“scripture” ), despite Luther and more modern “sola scripturists” (who belie their own arguments when arguing for what said scripture “really means”, drawing on the exegesis/hermeneutics of this or that church or theologian or theory, even if unwittingly).
Then again, I have baffled folks on here for years: crossing paradigms fairly easily for the sake of argument, expressing basic nondualism in multiple forms—Zen, Taoist, Jewish, humanist, even Christic (I will use that word to avoid the “true Christian™” stuff). Whatever I happen to call myself in a particular context, people seem to subsequently assume is the whole of it.
One can certainly be a non-supernaturalist and be an Anglican (Episcopalian) in good standing. One can certainly be a non-dualist and be an Anglican in good standing. One can view “god” as a term for the non-supernatural ground-of-being (Robinson, Tillich—though the latter was not Anglican) and be an Anglican of good standing. One can agree with Gregory of Nyssa on both the incarnation and the resurrection (as apokatastasis) and be an Anglican of good standing. One can agree with what Justin Martyr (one of the earliest post-apostolic Christians) on what the word “Christian” means and still be an Anglican of good standing (nor does one need to swallow Justin whole to be so). One can adopt a theological view of “original blessing” (Matthew Fox), as opposed to “original sin” and be an Anglican of good standing. These are not personal views, but statements of fact about the Anglican Communion itself, historically and as presently constituted. Surely you know all this?
Well, this has turned into a pretty (euphemistically) rant. I was able to be an Anglican of good standing in the eyes of my feminist-priest friend, and my more conservative priest friend. I was able to express questions and doubts without censure or bald threat of eternal condemnation. I have also encountered more “fundamentalistic” and dogmatic Anglicans/Episcopalians. You, as I say, baffle me: I can’t tell which sort of Episcopalian you are . . . .
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 May 13
3 edits
Well Gee, why does it just HAPPEN that men are on top in religion and women are seldom allowed entrance into the upper circles?
In many of the so-called "upper circles" of religion in the Canaanite cultures the women were cult prostitutes.
Some of the laws of God limiting women's involvement with the temple or tabernacle were aimed at protecting them from becoming sacred whores for the sake of some fertility beliefs about gods and goddesses having sex.
And I see the verses about adultery as just throwing a bone to women to try to calm them from that terrible verse about worth.
You are still ignorant. While the surrounding nations were cultivating young girls to be temple prostitutes for their fertility rites Israel was forbidding adultery and fornication.
Have you told us yet how many women you have dumped to get a new one since your adolescent days ?
You seem to think because other cultures treat women worse that makes it ok for the rules of the bible.
I think when I look at women they remind me of God because God said He created man - male and female in the image and likeness of God.
So when I see women I am reminded of God.
And in the midst of cultures of patriarchal societies I am impressed with the movement towards a more just society as concerns women is seen in many of the laws from Sinai.
For example God knew that because of surrounding enfluence some men would have multiple wives, but NOT by the command of God.
Concerning a movement towards a more fair society we read this.
If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him son, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, and the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the right of the firstborn. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
So we see God working with a bad situation and moving His theocracy towards a more just society concerning WOMEN. The unloved wife's son cannot be usurped as the firstborn by the husbands preference for the son of his favored wife.
And other such laws of God reveal the same kind of protection legislated towards women.
It is NOT ok and it is atrocity for other cultures to treat women the way they do, blaming the women no matter what.
So then why don't you spend the time railing against the other ancient societies ? The reason is that you need rationalizations to distance yourself from the God of the Bible. Baal is not bother to you. But the God of the Holy Bible you need to go after with greater animosity.
That is my point, that is such an example of anthropomorphic behavior, it just tells me it was codified in the bible and did not in fact come from some god talking to Mo.
Part of this "anthropomorphic" custom is that women were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) for God created them male and female - in His image.
God even describes Himself in Genesis as the "Big Breasted" God because the word picture of Genesis 17:1 of the word translated "All-sufficient God" is a God with large mammary glands. So "All sufficient God" is a feminine word picture of a woman with large breasts.
"And when Abram was ninety-nine years of Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him, I am the All-sufficient God; Walk before me and be perfect."
In other words God is has within Himself all that man needs to live perfectly. And this all-sufficient grace and supply is conveyed to us in a symbol of a mother with large mammary glands to nourish children.
You find things to choke on here and there in the Bible. You're bias. And just as many quite favorable images and instructions are there to convey a more balanced picture of God freed from your bigotry.
It was Mo's personal bias coming out, pure and simple, and the people bought it all hook line and sinker.
How come the five daughters of Zelophehad were able to convene and get Moses to amend the law of God ? These five women got Moses to amend the Law of God for a property rights in the case when no male children were in the family.
Legal advice, concerning the inheritance rights and obligations of the daughters of Zelophehad, is given twice in the Biblical account. On the first occasion, the topic is about inheritance when there are no male children, while the topic of the second occasion is levirate marriage, and property inheritance remaining within a clan (not the tribe). The daughters are mentioned a third time, in the Book of Joshua, where they are simply portrayed as being given land in the territory of Manasseh, to which their inheritance entitled them;[24] the text is unclear in regards to which part of Manasseh's territory they were granted land, except that it wasn't in Gilead.[25]
How come Moses didn't tell the five women to take a hike and it was too bad if there were no male descendants to inherit the family real estate? The man of God realized that it was just, fair, and of God that the law be made fair towards the women.
Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't want to read the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Zelophehad
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipIn many of the so-called "upper circles" of religion in the Canaanite cultures the women were cult prostitutes.Well Gee, why does it just HAPPEN that men are on top in religion and women are seldom allowed entrance into the upper circles?
In many of the so-called "upper circles" of religion in the Canaanite cultures the women were cult prostitutes.
Some of the laws of God limiting women's involvement with the temple or tabernacle were aimed ...[text shortened]... to read the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Zelophehad
Some of the laws of God limiting women's involvement with the temple or tabernacle were aimed at [b]protecting them from becoming sacred whores for the sake of some fertility beliefs about gods and goddesses having sex.[/b]
i dont know if you noticed but the world is a big place with many cultures. the world is also going to exist for a long time. how rather narrow minded and small of god to create a bunch of rules for women that would only be applicable for a tiny fraction of time and only relevant to a tiny amount of the worlds cultures.
as good god would right laws for women that could be used forever and relevant to everybody.
how odd that in many other threads you will bang the drum for the bible, telling people how it tells us how to live our lives......yet when its something that shows how obviously dated the bible is and how sections of it just dont work in our time....suddenly the bible is historical and the laws were needed for that time and its not god being sexist, its just how things needed to be.
nonsense, you are arguing that god was bound by the minds of the men of the time, he had to base his laws regarding women on what would help women a bit but not cause to many problems or adjustments for the men of the time. like he needs to tiptoe around trying to make everybody happy.
ooohh but when you need him to he turns into but kicking god that says its his way or the high way!!!! so why not take that approach at the time, why not say women are equal in all ways, they can work the can be in charge, they are not just cooks and mothers, any unequal treatment of women will be a sin.
why not do that? he did it for plenty of other things.
your examples of non sexism in the bible are pathetic...its like a man making lots of racist comments but then saying its okay because he has black friends.
19 May 13
"So then why don't you spend the time railing against the other ancient societies ? The reason is that you need rationalizations to distance yourself from the God of the Bible. Baal is not bother to you. But the God of the Holy Bible you need to go after with greater animosity."
That would be because there are BILLIONS of victims of religion now, codified gender bias, and in Islam, death for women if convicted of adultery, innocent or guilty, while the man gets a slap on the wrist. That is here and now, not some ancient culture dead and gone.
I've said it before, the sooner we rid the planet of the scourge of religion, the sooner the human race can actually grow up instead of running around like a bunch of angry 12 year olds touting their version of religion.
I heard on the short wave band one of the most disgusting religious talk shows I ever heard. This radio religious right wing world class assshole said that people of other denominations of Christianity should not be allowed to LIVE.
So you would say, that is just one person ranting. The problem there is the same as the old KKK leaders who say, I never said to kill those ugly niggers, I just want to live apart from them. Like sure, they just make little suggestions and let their henchmen do the dirty work.
So just how many people got killed by that radio talking religious right wing total assshole? Oh, wait, he was not a REAL Christian, he was just another evil person. Of course if you asked HIM if he was a real Christian you would get another answer.
20 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you view religious Christains as ugly niggers that you what to live apart from and be free of it seems. So now, am I an ugly nigger that you want to be free from?
"So then why don't you spend the time railing against the other ancient societies ? The reason is that you need rationalizations to distance yourself from the God of the Bible. Baal is not bother to you. But the God of the Holy Bible you need to go after with greater animosity."
That would be because there are BILLIONS of victims of religion now, codifie ...[text shortened]... person. Of course if you asked HIM if he was a real Christian you would get another answer.
The Instructor
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 13
i dont know if you noticed but the world is a big place with many cultures. the world is also going to exist for a long time. how rather narrow minded and small of god to create a bunch of rules for women that would only be applicable for a tiny fraction of time and only relevant to a tiny amount of the worlds cultures.
I noticed multicultural aspects of the world probably before you did.
The "bunch of rules for women" is window into the heart of the human Creator. Knowing that surrounding societies were a testimony of idolatry, demon worship, and exploitation of all kinds Yahweh established an anti-testimony of another way to have a society.
And if you didn't notice, not much is accredited to the Philistines and the Hittites and the Jebusites these days. But much of the world realizes the dept owed to the "Judeo / Christian" ethic.
Now I have to go. But when I return we can talk about another problem of man - KEEPING the law of God.
And then we can talk about how GRACE came in Jesus Christ because all have sinned and broken the law of God. Cannot chat now.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 13
6 edits
That would be because there are BILLIONS of victims of religion now, codified gender bias, and in Islam, death for women if convicted of adultery, innocent or guilty, while the man gets a slap on the wrist. That is here and now, not some ancient culture dead and gone.
I am not an apologist for Islam. I am examining some of your harsh statements about my faith in the Christian Gospel. This includes the Old and New Testament.
So let's keep things straight and not try some shot gun scatter blast condemnation. That is intellectually dishonest if you lay the sins of all sects at the feet of the Christian Gospel.
I respect someone wanting to assess the matter soberly and honestly from more than one angle. I am willing to discuss some cases in OT I might consider problematic. But first I intend to pull against your one sided slanderous bigotry.
I've said it before, the sooner we rid the planet of the scourge of religion, the sooner the human race can actually grow up instead of running around like a bunch of angry 12 year olds touting their version of religion.
Am I suppose to be impressed with this diatribe ? The one running around the Spirituality Forum like an angry pre-teen is a guy named sonhouse. I guess he's trying to macho his way to the top of the list of regular Forum atheists, as the most fierce.
Dr. Rodney Stark a Socialologist whose specialty is religions describes himself as not an atheist but incapable of religious faith:
In their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge describe themselves as "personally incapable of religious faith".[4] While reluctant to discuss his own religious views, he stated in a 2004 interview that he was not a man of faith, but also not an atheist:From Wikipedia
In a 2007 interview, after accepting an appointment at Baylor University, Stark indicated that his self-understanding had changed and that he could now be described as an "independent Christian." In this interview Stark recollects that he has "always been a “cultural” Christian" understood by him as having "been strongly committed to Western Civilization." Of his previous positions he wrote: "I was never an atheist, but I probably could have been best described as an agnostic
Dr. Stark's professional opinion about the rise of Christianity, is stated in the article thusly -
Stark has suggested that Christianity grew because it treated women better than pagan religions
How come the New Testament enfluence caused "better" treatment to women sonhouse ? I thought God and Jesus are your arch sexist deities.
Looks like over 2,000 years your "billions" of females found "better" treatment from cultures enluenced by the Christian Bible.
You hope to sloppily sweep them under the same blanket as Islam and maybe no one will notice ?
I heard on the short wave band one of the most disgusting religious talk shows I ever heard. This radio religious right wing world class assshole said that people of other denominations of Christianity should not be allowed to LIVE.
So you went out of your way to find some disgusting talk. And for that reason you wrote off the Christian faith.
You can hear some disgusting talk from Rock musicians too. Did you chuck all your albums and CDs in the dumpster ?
Some movie stars talk quite a bit of trash. Do you stop going to the movie theater in disgust ?
Its a free country in the US. Anybody but anybody can purchase air time and preach whatever they want in the name of freedom of speech.
I like to start with going to the source document of my faith - the Bible to see what OUGHT to be among my fellow believers.
The above complaint is not too impressive to me. Besides, when I became a disciple of Jesus I specifically asked God to lead me to those fellow Christians who would ENCOURAGE my faith rather than DISCOURAGE my faith.
While you may be hunting for immature believers I am hunting for mature believers.
So you would say, that is just one person ranting. The problem there is the same as the old KKK leaders who say, I never said to kill those ugly niggers, I just want to live apart from them. Like sure, they just make little suggestions and let their henchmen do the dirty work.
So its the KKK now that you want to blame on Jesus ?
Why do you think they love to BURN the cross? I think it indicates that they actually HATE the symbol of Christ's redemptive death in love for all men. So the BURNING of the cross suggests that they HATE His love and His reconciliation of people to God and more importantly to one another.
You can site shocking examples of religious bigotry as much as you want.
You cannot lay the blame of the wickedness of the scribes and Pharisees upon Jesus. And you cannot lay the blame for the KKK at the feet of Jesus Christ.
Let's see what the New Testament said about oppressive social stratification non-Jew against Jew, freeman against slave, male against female -
"For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:27-29)
So why don't you write your local KKK headquarters and ask them about this verse ?
Dear KKK guys with the cross burnings and white hoods. While you guys are breathing out hatred and threats against Blacks and Jews and bemoaning the by-gone days of slavery my New Testament says this:
"For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There CANNOT be Jew nor Greek, there CANNOT be slave nor free man, there CANNOT be male and female; for you all are one in Christ Jesus."
Are you guys basing your movement on this same New Testament book ? Something doesn't seem to add up here."
Tell me what they write back to you with.
And the CROSS which they want to ignite, the Apostle Paul definitely uses as a symbol bringing TOGETHER Jew and Gentile and ending the enmity between them rather than engendering enmity:
"But now in Christ you [Gentiles] who were once far off have become near in the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity, abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace.
And might reconcile both in one Body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity by it." (Ephesians 2:13-16)
The New Testament speaks of the cross as the place Christ created "one new man" - a new humanity indwelt with the Spirit of God, slaying the enmity between Jew and Gentiles and making PEACE in His new covenant church between the two groups.
Maybe that is why the KKK want to BURN crosses because they HATE the reconciling work that the Bible teaches is embodied in that symbol. They don't want peace. But God in Christ wants peace between man and God and peace between Jew and Gentile.
I don't see the answer to the KKK problem is to stomp on the New Testament Gospel but rather to more embrace it.
And where were you when the millions of unborn WOMEN were being terminated in the mother's wombs ? Did you have a similar sense of outrage at the genocide against females generated by yearly millions of abortions, not to mention the wounds of psychology inflicted upon the women as a result of killing their own children (often times female children).
I do not say the back alley abortion avenue is the answer. I do question your selective outrage.
But you respect women way over what a Bible believing theist like me would do. You seem to me to be a typical young generation male of the modern times. Tell me.
About the whole issue of unwanted pregnancies now -- How do you feel about having intimate sexual relations with a girl outside of marriage ? That is putting some young woman in a position that she might be found with an unwanted pregnancy because of a fling some steamy night after a movie.
Is recreational sex part of your hip out-to-date modern morality sonhouse ? It seems to me that if you have the moral high ground in regard to not abusing and using women you would have desired to find ONE and make ONE happy for the rest of her life in marriage.
I know I need the blood of Jesus to wash away my sins. I was brought up in the loose and licencious 1960s. "What ever is good to you is good for you." "Trust no one over 30." "Greatful for being DEAD." "Free Love."
I'm a modern man. I'm a modern man who also knows that he needs the blood of Jesus Christ God's Son to wash away his sins. Thank God He gave me the ability to believe the Gospel.
Do you really think your peers have all guided you into a life more respectful of the opposite sex just because you can pump your fist and say "Go Girl" at Women's Lib ?
A lot of males could pump their fist as if they are one with Women's Rights but delight to just as much USE this new "liberated" girl with no danger of commitment in true love. That alone - the casual recreational sex activity would cut down on millions of unwanted pregnancies.
You can't tell me that all these modern guys are Oh So much more respectful to women than Bible believers like me.
One of the reasons Evolution Theory is such a hit is that it encourages some people to consider themselves just animals.
[quote] "Why do people believe in evolution?" I heard Julian Huxley replied to this question of the Merv Griffin show - "The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't wan...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 13
5 edits
cont.
"Why do people believe in evolution?" I heard Julian Huxley replied to this question of the Merv Griffin show - "The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores."
X Atheist Lee Strobel wrote -
"I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints."
And I wager that the majority of American males born in the last 60 years know in their hearts that this is so. The New Morality of the late 20th and early 21rst century (in this area of Sex) in the Western world is to a large part simply the Old Immorality of 100 years ago.
Forgiveness, Redemption, and Regeneration with Sanctification in Jesus Christ is relevant. I KNOW I need forgiveness. I KNOW I need the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. I'm not better. I need the Son of God's spiritual life in me to transcend the rising tide of amoral flooding flowing over and breaking down the dikes of civilization.
I know I need the God of the Bible's grace and mercy. You're fighting against Him in some delusional sense of moral highground. And that just because the sense of underdog in your politics is cheering on some women's liberation groups.
I'm liberal in some of my politics. I like to see the underdog get ahead too.
I have no delusions about needing to trample the Holy Bible and Jesus.
Better embrace His example and Gospel more firmly in this flood of anarchy.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipso why did god just make the rules for women relevant to one society at one point in history, but make the majority of the bible relevant to the whole of time?i dont know if you noticed but the world is a big place with many cultures. the world is also going to exist for a long time. how rather narrow minded and small of god to create a bunch of rules for women that would only be applicable for a tiny fraction of time and only relevant to a tiny amount of the worlds cultures.
I noticed multi ...[text shortened]... CE came in Jesus Christ because all have sinned and broken the law of God. Cannot chat now.
I noticed multicultural aspects of the world probably before you did
what an odd thing to say.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipAnd I wager that the majority of American males born in the last 60 years know in their hearts that this is so. The New Morality of the late 20th and early 21rst century (in this area of Sex) in the Western world is to a large part simply the Old Immorality of 100 years ago.
cont.
"Why do people believe in evolution?" I heard Julian Huxley replied to this question of the Merv Griffin show - "The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof, is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores."
X Atheist Lee Strobel wrote -
[quote] "I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an ex ...[text shortened]... esus.
Better embrace His example and Gospel more firmly in this flood of anarchy.
simply not true. crime levels, divorce rates, drug abuse are all roughly the same regardless if you are an atheist or chritstian (globally they are lower if you are an atheist). so what evidence do you have that men give up on god so they can get rid of morality?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 May 13
2 edits
simply not true. crime levels, divorce rates, drug abuse are all roughly the same regardless if you are an atheist or chritstian (globally they are lower if you are an atheist). so what evidence do you have that men give up on god so they can get rid of morality?
Some men give up on God so as to have no confrontation between their conscience and the Holy Spirit. But to be clear, some men, embrace religion and God, like say David Koresh, if they find some way to attach divine ordination to their greediness.
"David had multiple wives. David was in the Bible. That must mean that God wants ME to have multiple wives too."
If you think you are more even handed about it then go argue with sonhouse for trying to blame theism for all the evils. Why selectively jump on me a theist for statistics ?
If you see no difference, then why didn't you go hound sonhouse that he is not being objective ? Go argue with sonhouse for awhile about his bigotry claiming religion has made all the problems. Then maybe I'll notice that you're a tad more objective at the blame game, and we can talk about it.
I'm going to muse here now from personal experience and consider objectively my experience.
The old saying is that there are three kinds of lies:
A lie,
A damn lie,
And a Statistic.
I am not going to argue how we interpret statistical surveys in the blame game. I will consider my experience of growing up in the USA in the last 60 some years.
I would agree that in some areas, in my country at least, (the US) has made some improvements in toleration. I gladly acknowledge some aspects in which more respect is had for one another. And for that I am thankful. And a lot of that has been because of the activism of religious groups.
Having said that, I would compare my childhood days to today.
When I was in Third and Fourth Grade, my parents would allow me to hitch hike several miles on the local highway in case I missed the school bus.
Do you think, do you think I would allow a elementary school child today to get out on a US street or highway and hitch hike ? Would you today put let your child hitch a random ride several miles ? We're talking 1950s something a parent might think it safe. Not today. Odds are AGAINST the safety of it.
Now in some areas, Yes, I think we're more sensitive to each other. But is some other areas we have become Neanderthals. You cannot trust people because some modern psycho may think that to molest a solitary child is perfectly Okay. They may reason that they probably wanted it anyway.
Don't waste your breath arguing with me. Even in the 60 the song "What's Going On?" captured the moral decline of the modern age.
I am not talking about any "Good Old Days" here. I am just speaking the real situation.
What is Prime Time entertainment on the TV today would have been X Rated 50 years ago - not even the stuff of after 12:00 TV. You would have to go to an all sleazy night adult movie house to see some of the explicit sex which today is the regular staple of daytime TV.
The X Rated even the XX Rated of 60 years ago is the norm of screen entertainment today. (No, I do not spend a lot of time on TV). But I know.
Divorce rates in US are about 50% today.
People get married probably with an expectation that it may not last.
We also found out about all the Free Love proclaimed that it turned out to be not so free after all. How "free" are millions of kids with no two parent families to grow up in?
I am not espousing some conservative "Good Ole Days". Times have always been hard for some portion of the public. But let's be realistic. The New Morality in many ways is the Old Immorality of yesteryear.
And I don't see that much difference between the NRA and Planned Parenthood. It seems they both are in pursuit of the most efficient way to eliminate a human life.
And fornication knows no political affiliation. And GOP could just as easily stand for "Get One Pregnant" as far as that goes.
And ACLU to me could stand for Anarchists Creating a Licencious Utopia.
Seriously. I don't agree to mob violence against homosexuals. And I like that my wife can make good money at employment.