Not sensitive........... sm
Posted By: m on 2009-05-05
In Reply to: A little sensitive, aren't you? - AnudderMT
just refusing to back down on my beliefs. And I don't believe I slung any "petty digs/insults" as you put it. I simply stated my beliefs and that you probably, based on your prior post, would not believe the same. For what it's worth, it was not so much mentioning things that are mentioned in the Bible, it was the tone in which it was done. Rather sarcastic, I thought.
I don't think that normal behavior in humans can be defined by looking at the behavior in the animal kingdom, although there are animals, such as the wolf and swan, who mate for life. Nor do I believe that the sexual preference of the animal kingdom should be the guideline for human behavior. We are, after all, supposed to be higher thinkers than animals. Humans were created by God to live according to His principles while animals have no concept of, nor can they be taught, Biblical precepts. Should we take to living in caves like bears and wolves and stalking other humans as prey for our dinner?
I don't know what your religious preference is, or even if you have one, but I find it insulting that someone who, from all appearances, does not believe in the Bible should reprimand a Christian for what they percieve to "violating one of the tenents" of our faith.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
i am sensitive to voices too, but
find no 'shriek' in SP's voice...just wondered how in the world you can do the MT job if HER voice 'bothers' you :)
A little sensitive, aren't you?
How is pointing out other things that are noted in the bible suddenly taking a dig at Christianity? You have no idea of my belief system, but apparently when you don't have a good response to a valid point, the debate tactic of choice is to cast aspersions upon the character of the other debater.
For the record, the aunt I mentioned was my father's brother's wife. Per the bible, my father should have married her.
Again, I ask, why should you be determined the arbitrer of normal? 100 years ago, the idea of women having any function outside the home was abnormal, a belief in part supported by the bible. 40 years ago, the mixing of races was viewed as abnormal, a belief supported in part by the bible.
Does 'natural' define normal? Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Monogamy is seen much less in the 'natural order' of things...does that therefore make the notion of a lifetime union of 2 people abnormal? What does that do the whole concept of marriage?
'Normal' is an individual concept, and for almost everything that is defined is normal, there is a range that is still normal. Normal body temperature is 98.6, but there is a range around that which is still considered normal. Normal age for starting 1st grade is 6, but there is still a range around that which is still considered normal.
And frankly, I believe nestled somewhere in the bible which you seem to believe you should be ruled by, it says 'judge not lest you be judged', so slinging petty digs/insults, seems to be violating one of the tenets you claim to hold so dear.
|
