I love superheroes. I don’t particularly like superhero comics, you understand. I do love superheroes, though. I love watching cartoon superheroes with my step-son and in the process I’ve learned the truth of that thing my husband always used to say: “The great thing about having kids is that you can do all this kid stuff and get away with it. People even think you’re a really cool parent if you spend time with your kids. I can play video games and watch cartoons now. I can even go to Chuck-E-Cheese’s without anyone thinking I’m weird.“
Turns out he’s right. I hijack my step-son’s Playstation all the time when he’s away at his mother’s house. I play with him when he’s here all the time. We also watch lots and lots of cartoons. I find I very much enjoy cartoons, more so than most adult t.v. programs usually. Cartoon Network gets more play around here during the week he is home than any other channel. I tend to gravitate over there when I have the house to myself as well, especially when (as so often is the case) there isn’t anything worth watching on the other 1,001 channels. Our favorites? The superhero stuff. Teen Titans, Ben 10, Kim Possible (love that one, natch), Fantastic Four, Justice League and so on…pretty sure the Kids Next Door qualifies as well.
This all leads me to some points I feel compelled to rant about a bit. First, Marvel comics. I’ve come to despise Marvel comics a bit. I love most of the heroes as they’re presented outside the comics themselves, mind you. Loved the movies. X-men, Spiderman, Avengers (1 and 2), etc. Have all those and more on DVD. I have read just enough of the actual comics to have decided that I don’t want to read the comics though.
Colossus is gay? Are you serious? Sigh.
Now my son, as previously mentioned, has a Playstation. It shouldn’t surprise you that we own three different X-Men games (X-Men Legends, X-Men Legends II and X-Men “the official game”). We also have Ultimate Alliance, which I think is cool. (I like playing Storm. She rocks.) We’ve also seen (and own on DVD) all three X-Men movies. Watching those movies for the first time I didn’t know much of anything about the Marvel superheroes or the X-Men specifically. After the first movie I was hooked. I love the X-Men now.
Of course, I really got the impression throughout all three movies that they were trying hard to correlate mutants with homosexuality without actually flat out saying it, though. That really irritated the hell out of me. Still, awesome movies nonetheless.
And don’t get me started on Nightcrawler either. Seriously. A Christian superhero who mutilates himself…with angelic script…one for each sin…sigh. I don’t even want to bother pointing out how fundamentally un-Christian that whole concept is. But then have I ever been impressed with any attempt to cater to the Christian demographic by anyone who hasn’t the vaguest notion what we’re all about? Why, no. No I have not. Nightcrawler’s a rant for another day.
Here’s what really, seriously, totally ticked me off about X-Men right off the bat. The Jean Grey, Wolverine, Cyclops thing. That totally pissed me off in like the first two minutes. Then I find out this has been pretty much going on in the comics, too. (I got that second hand though, having never actually read the comics.) Then I see in the video games much is made about this little love triangle as well. Apparently, it’s just awesome.
My first reaction? Cyclops is a total idiot. He’s should dump that slut and let her go have her fling with Wolverine. Seriously. Screw her, she’s a total “ho”. Cyclops can do much, much better. Better yet, he needs to snatch her aside one good time and make it perfectly clear that the drooling over Wolverine is unacceptable. Either drop the fantasies about Wolvie or hit the road. Bottom line. Just how damned much more disrespectful and flat out insulting can you be to your spouse than that? Other than actually cheating on them and making no secret of it, you can’t be!
You do not get married and then go around flirting with every good looking guy that comes along. Especially the “bad boys” who you find so exciting precisely because you know they wouldn’t have the first problem with violating your marriage! Wolverine would jump in the sack with Jean Grey in a half second and wouldn’t care if Cyclops knew it or not!
I was shocked still further to see Wolverine wax romantic about Jean Grey in the Ultimate Alliance video game after she died. What a total jerk! Do I need to explain why he’s a jerk here? If so, you have a very serious problem you need to look into very soon. I recommend counseling. I really hope you’re not married.
I hate all three of these boneheads. Cyclops is an idiot for not laying down the law with Jean Grey the second her interest in Wolverine became apparent. Jean Grey is a fool for playing with Wolverine when she’s married. Wolverine is just a whore and really needs Cyclops to blast him in the face a couple dozen times to get the message across.
All three need a good, solid smack upside the head.
Side note: Did you know that during the Ultimate Alliance vieo game there’s a point where you have to choose between Nightcrawler and Jean Grey dying? You can’t save both, one has to die. My step-son decided to save Nightcrawler (which is why we got to see Wolverine talking about her after she was dead, you know). Why did he choose Nightcrawler? Because Jean Grey was a “ho”, that’s why. Nightcrawler was one of the good guys. Jean Grey was…not one of the good guys. When I asked my step-son why how he figured Jean Grey wasn’t one of the “good guys” he looked at me like I was nuts. “She’s cheating on Cyclops!“, he said.
There yah go. Even a 12 year old boy can see what most adult women these days are completely blind to. That’s pretty discouraging. To most adult women these days Jean Grey is just awesome. They aspire to Jean Grey-ness. God help the men they manage to hoodwink into a relationship with them.
I am so very, very, very sick and tired of every movie, t.v. series and every other conceivable media confusing romance with fornication and adultery. Especially adultery! Good grief, and with the stupid, stupid, stupid women out there who eat that stuff up with a spoon. You flippin’ morons!
The Bridges of Madison County made me furious and sick to my stomach. And that’s considered a wonderfully romantic movie! It tops so many top ten lists of wonderfully romantic movies! There are women who watch this damnable piece of trash with their husbands! Unfaithful (Diane Lane and Richard Gere) came on t.v. recently, too. It made me physically ill. I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Now, I admit I was fascinated with the movie and kept flipping the channel back to see what happened, mainly wanting to see exactly when Diane Lane’s character realized what she was doing was maybe, possibly not an awesome thing. How could that point have possibly eluded her at all?! And yet it does! For nearly half the movie we’re treated to her unabashed grinning at how wonderful and fulfilling it is to screw around on your husband! Was I disappointed at the end of this movie, hoping that the character would display some redeeming quality somewhere (anywhere!) in the story? Why, yes. Yes, I certainly was.
According to Hollywood (and Marvel comics, apparently) women are all whores. The worst ones? The ones that are married. I absolutely hate that with a driving passion. Even more so all those women out there that don’t seem to get that’s the message being presented.
Or worse, get it and don’t even disagree with it.
You disagree? Then name one movie where a husband cheats on his wife and it’s considered “romantic”. Go ahead and take your time. I’ll wait.
This whole message seriously pisses me off. Not only is it romantic, wonderful and fulfilling to cheat on your husband but men are worthless scum when they do it. Wickedness is bad enough. Hypocritical wickedness is just so much worse.
So how does the Jean Grey, Cyclops, Wolverine thing wind up in the movies? Well, Jean Grey goes nuts, murders Cyclops and ends up getting stabbed in the chest by Wolverine.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
Let me close this minor rant with a reaffirmation of my conservative Christian fanatic status. I believe adultery should be outlawed (as in “against the law”). Further, I believe it should be a capitol crime. Jean Grey is whore and should be stigmatized as such. Both women from Bridges of Madison County and Unfaithful should have been arrested, convicted and put to death.
Publicly.
On television.
The same television that currently spews out show after show, movie after movie glorifying adultery.
That would be a good thing.
88 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 17, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Brandon Allen
Sup, Mary? This is Lighthouse. I got this link on a sci-fi blog site where they wrote about superheros who get laid all the time. After last week writing about the ones who can’t have sex, or bad things will happen.
June 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Anonymous
So you say that you’re a Christian, and that adultery should be a capitol offense? In the words of Christ when faced with the capitol punishment of an adulterous woman, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”
June 17, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Mary Contrary
Hey, Brandon! Now that’s pretty funny. Weird what the cortex will link you to, eh?
June 17, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Mary Contrary
Anonymous, have you considered there may be more to that story than meets they eye? If you were to research the matter just a bit you’ll quickly find that this had very little to do with adultery or the punishment for it. In fact, the story itself as told in the bible makes that fairly clear already.
Besides all that, when did Christ ever revoke any Mosaic law? Didn’t He quite consistently uphold those laws? Didn’t He even use the most difficult to accept laws to castigate the Pharisees for not keeping them? Point blank, I think you’ve been sadly misled as far too many Christians have been as well. Christ not only did not repeal any law, ever…He wrote those laws and gave them to Israel. Have you forgotten that?
I strongly recommend you research before you form such off-the-cuff opinions on such important matters.
June 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Chris Fairfield
“Hypocritical wickedness is just so much worse.”
You just summed up my whole argument against the majority of your post.
June 17, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Chris Fairfield
As a followup to your comment directed at Anonymous. Does this mean that you don’t eat shrimp, don’t let your husband trim his beard, don’t eat pork, don’t eat any meat that is cooked less than well done, don’t let your husband have /any/ sort of physical contact with you while you’re on your period?
June 18, 2008 at 9:46 am
Mary Contrary
Chris Fairfield:
1) Naturally, I’m disappointed that you didn’t point out where I was hypocritical. Why in the world would you not do so? Maybe you just don’t care. That’s sad.
2) I eat shrimp, my husband trims his goatee nearly every day, I like my steak rare and the rest ain’t your business. But then you knew all that already, I bet. Nor do you care why this is so, because the truth of the matter is not your concern. Being snide is.
June 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Nateous
Hey Mary, Similar to anonymous, I too was directed from a sci-fi blog. I just thought i would share my two-cents on this whole jean-grey is a whore theory. Firstly, i am only fairly competent in the lore and history that is x-men, and so i could be wrong. but it is my understanding that Wolvie, despite the hollywoodize movies, has never had an affair with Jean (under normal circumstance, i.e. scott still alive, alternate-dimension aside) In fact, it is not infatuation or lust he feels with jean but genuine love. That and the fact that IMO he follows(or used to) a strict honor code (being former samurai). Now i would agree that adultury is romanticized in current media, but maybe, just maybe relationships (as depicted in comics) are gross hyperboles of real life. the love triangle that exists between the three could be descrbed as an internal conflict that mirrors are own lives. Scott= good, wolvie= bad, and jean = nuetral though possessing the capacity for both i.e. pheonix. although thats a bit more philosophical that even i can wholeheartedly fathom. Basically, all i am saying is that there maybe more to it that what you are aware of, essentially calling Jean grey a “ho” is rather harsh, especially without taking into account the decades of character development that has gone on regarding this matter.
June 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Mary Contrary
Nateous, a good friend of mine (Brandon, above) was kind enough to point out that my take on the comic book version of all this was off the mark a good bit soon after I posted this. As I said in the page itself, I hadn’t read much of the comics at all and I have, in fact, read even less concerning Cyclops/Jean/Wolverine in the comics specifically.
Naturally, he took umbrage, being a Marvel fan, so I have no problem saying I was wrong on that. I haven’t actually researched the comics part of all this, so I’m going by his word (and yours now too, it would seem). Honestly, I may be one of those odd Christians who actually believes in judging but I’m also usually quick to point out one must have something reasonable to judge by. Not being familiar with the comics and judging them harshly only by association with what I saw in the films and video games was a poor judgment, simple as that.
I suppose I could have edited or made another page clarifying this point but since most of this concerns the movies and the video games, the things I am very familiar with, I decided to let it stand. On those points my position remains the same, harsh though it may be. In retrospect, I should have corrected this point.
I am however, quite willing to retract a good lot of my ire towards Marvel comics, though. Since I haven’t actually done that yet I’ll do it now, here. In short, from what I saw in the movies and the games, she’s total ho’ and a relationship with her is not something I’d wish on anyone. In the comics, from what I gather secondhand, this seems not to be the case. Yeah, I know that sounds disingenuous but I am honestly trying to be specific.
Thanks also for your sincere correction. It’s much appreciated.
June 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Chris Fairfield
You believe in capital punishment against adulterers because Leviticus 20:10 tells you so, then you are a hypocrite. You are knowingly ignoring the other rules setup in the same book. For example, eating meat that still has blood in it (Lev 19:26), your husband trimming his beard is a violation of Lev 19:21, you eating shrimp is a violation of Lev 11:9-12. I’m not trying to be snide, but it really bothers me when people pick and choose from the bible what they should believe in based off of convenience and personal bigotry.
In addition to adulterers, homosexuals should be punished with death (Lev 20:13), would you rather have been put to death than get a chance for redemption and recovery from your homosexuality?
June 18, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Brandon Allen
Chris-
You need to understand that just because Christ never repealed any of those laws while He was on Earth, it doesn’t mean a great many of them were not repealed later. But the one on adultery never was. And it also stands to reason that any law regarding behavior that is wrong should still be regraded as a code to live by, even if it is not a law of the land. And then there’s the fact that even then many of those laws should be laws of the land, no matter the land you live in. I advocate the execution of murderers. Do you have a problem with that, since I eat shellfish and pork?
Or are you genuinely willing to accept that my reasoning for believing that such a law should be is not because it’s in the Bible, but because it’s a good law that just happens to be in the Bible?
June 18, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Chris Fairfield
@Brandon: To address your last point first, you’re arguing a different point than I am. You’re saying that you believe in capital punishment because it’s a good idea, not because the bible says so. Therefore your willingness to follow the other laws of the bible do not factor in to this. However, Mary is saying that /because of her christian faith/ she believes that adulterers should be put to death. This is a different argument altogether. Also, the bible never repealed the laws regarding homosexuality, so my last point I made to Mary still stands.
To address another one of your points, can you cite verses of the bible that repealed the laws I mentioned? I’m honestly just curious if all of those got repealed and I missed it. But that is a moot point. The real problem with your argument is the phrase:
“And it also stands to reason that any law regarding behavior that is wrong should still be regraded as a code to live by, even if it is not a law of the land.”
That doesn’t ’stand to reason’ at all. And this is why: Define “wrong”. It’s wrong in India to eat beef. It’s wrong in China to dissent against the government. There is no universal “wrong”.
June 18, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Thresh
HAHA! Mary got cheated on! XD
June 19, 2008 at 1:40 am
contrarymary
Chris Fairfield: Basically, what Brandon said. But also…
1) Mary (that’s me) isn’t saying she believes adultery should be a capitol crime because of her Christian faith. Her Christian faith does lead her to see the bible as reliable and trustworthy, so I’m open to question of whether this is a good law when I see it laid out for Israel in the Mosaic law. Otherwise, I’d probably dismiss it out of hand without any consideration. Having considered it, yes I do think it is a good law. So it’s not a different point. And, as Brandon pointed out, there’s no “pick and choose” “based off of convenience and personal bigotry”. These are your assumptions and they are simply false.
2) Yes, there are universal wrongs. Murder is universally wrong, as is adultery. Homosexuality as well, which leads us to…
3) Yes. If homosexuality were outlawed as a capitol crime (which is something else I support, btw) and I committed that crime under that law, I should be put to death. Also, yes, I suspect your response will likely be to rail against the death penalty itself because it denies one the opportunity to be redeemed or seek recovery. If you’re prepared to make that argument I invite you to come on over to TheologyOnline.com and make it. I’d love to debate the point with you.
I can only assure you I’ve given these matters a great deal of thought. There’s no bending them for convenience’ sake nor bias of personal bigotry. I’m sure that’s easier to believe but it just ain’t so.
Thresh: I almost deleted your comment but then I figured if you don’t mind portraying yourself as an idiot, then I don’t mind either. I think it’s an odd decision but…whatever.
June 19, 2008 at 6:23 am
bored in the morning
“Yes, there are universal wrongs. Murder is universally wrong…” Universal wrong? Don’t be ridiculous. Who are you, Ayn Rand? Everything is conditional. Murder to save a life is not wrong.
I think you’ll find if you actually take the time to question your beliefs (which you should, it’s a healthy process) and apply logic (not gut feeling) and accept that some of your basic assumptions could be wrong, you’ll find that this strict interpretation of the bible and trying to condemn an action without knowing the conditions that preceded it is silly.
If you can’t back off of this fundamentalist stuff, at least accept this. Your own belief system has a punishment structure built into it. So, if the crime/sin is hurting no one but the parties involved (ala homosexuality), than the death penalty for that is extraneous. They will be punished for eternity if that is what their sins have warranted. You deciding to do what you think or believe is God’s will is both arrogant and extraneous.
You all need to stop projecting.
June 19, 2008 at 6:29 am
Mary Contrary
Murder to save a life? Would that still be murder, doofus?
And I think you’re thinking skills need polishing, considering the glaring assumptions you’re making all throughout the rest of that comment. If you have a question about how I came to any particular conclusion, ask it. If you’re going to generalize to the point of stupidity I’ll return the favor and just assume you’re an idiot.
June 19, 2008 at 7:36 am
Brandon Allen
Chris-
Bottom line is you’re an idiot. Eating beef is not universally wrong, as we all know. And anyone who thinks it is is even stupider than you. Beyond that there are universal wrongs. And murder, adultery, theft…are such. There’s no way around that.
And, as Mary said, we don’t believe these laws should stand solely because they are in the Bible. However, if they hadn’t been there, we would not believe they should be laws. The fact that they were there is what led us to take a look at those laws.
As for the repealing of certain laws, the dietary laws specifically are shown to be repealed in Acts, in the story of Peter’s vision of the unclean foods. And there is further reference in Paul’s writings, especially Romans, explaining that the law no longer plays a part in man’s relationship with God. So then you must take a look at the various laws and see which ones are still good rules to live by, and which are obviously ceremonial and not necessary for any reason in this new dispensation of no law. And after that, the ones we should live by you can then look at which ones should be laws of the land, in any land. This is where murder falls. It should be illegal to murder, in every law. And execution for murder is also the proper punishment.
bored-
Are you really that stupid? If you kill someone to save a life in imminent danger from the person you kill, that is not murder. Not by the definition of the law of man, nor by the definition of the law of God.
And homosexuality hurts more than those involved. Trust me.
June 20, 2008 at 4:04 am
Anonymous
Wait, how does homosexuality hurt more than the… ahem…involved parties?
Also, how is “take a look at the various laws and see which ones are still good rules to live by, and which are obviously ceremonial and not necessary” not picking and choosing?
June 20, 2008 at 10:28 am
contrarymary
poobah103, I actually found your comment fairly humorous and would have left it alone, even offered my own rebuttal, if you had managed to express yourself without referencing masturbating over corpses. So you’re comment has been deleted (a first around here, actually). Try again if you like but be warned, if you can’t express yourself any better than that, you’re not welcome here.
Anonymous:
1) “Wait, how does homosexuality hurt more than the… ahem…involved parties?“
Brandon stated, “homosexuality hurts more than those involved“, meaning it hurts others than just those who are involved, not that it hurts more than heterosexual fornication.
Although, in fact, now that you mention it, it does. It’s unnatural, it’s more unhealthy physically (depending), much more unhealthy spiritually and requires, even demands, every even tangentially related moral or social issue bend to accommodate it’s acceptance. Which typically destroys any solid moral standing on those issues as well, leading into the larger social implications of accepting homosexuality in others or oneself.
It’s just plain wicked, no matter how you cut it, which alone would make it abusive to all involved. The fact that it’s more destructive to society as a whole and requires far greater perversity individually than “mere” heterosexual fornication should be fairly obvious…to anyone without a vested interest in painting it as normal.
2) “Also, how is “take a look at the various laws and see which ones are still good rules to live by, and which are obviously ceremonial and not necessary” not picking and choosing?“
I guess it depends on whether or not you’re twisting your use of “picking and choosing” here away from the manner in which you first used that phrase. Initially, you said “it really bothers me when people pick and choose from the bible what they should believe in based off of convenience and personal bigotry“. So, if we don’t “pick and choose” based on convenience and personal bigotry”, then we don’t “pick and choose” in the manner you claim we are.
In other words, we have a good reason to pick and choose as we do and it’s based entirely on what is good and proper, not for convenience nor out of bigotry.
I don’t know how else I can say this to make it clear. Or why you have difficulty grasping it.
June 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Brandon Allen
It’s also based on what the Bible itself says, explicitly. Like when the Bible says the Sabbath is a covenant between God and Israel. And also we are later told, by Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, that we are not under the law, and that we do not need to observe the Sabbath.
We do not pick and choose what laws are good for all, in regard to our salvation. All laws are bad in that regard, because none of them save us. But it is clearly obvious to even an atheist that murder is bad, period. But circumcision is morally neutral.
June 20, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Mary Contrary
Brandon continues to rock! Awesome.
June 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Koa
I’m sorry. So is Jean Grey a whore or not? Oh and I don’t know if this helps or not but Jean and Scott weren’t married in the X-Movies (or even engaged for that matter) they were simply an “item/together/dating” whatever you want to call it. As for the X-Men legends games the time line represented in the games is out of whack and combines both the main Marvel Universe and the Newer Ultimate Marvel Universe line, so no direct timeline 1:1 comparison can be placed upon those games in contrast to either the movies or the comics. The choice to build those (and the Ultimate Alliance) games on both Marvel Universes was simple marketing to get the fans of both to enjoy the games and possibly cross pollinate them into interest in the other line of books.(oh and Mary if it makes you feel any better Colossus isn’t gay in the main Marvel Universe but he did just lose the love of his life Kitty Pride when she sacrificed herself to save the world, which Colossus also did a similar thing a few years ago and injected himself with a deadly virus that “killed” him and removed him from the main Marvel Universe so that a cure could be made for the rest of the worlds mutants and humanity.)
Just here to help.
June 23, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mary Contrary
Well, she’s a ho’ in my book. But I gotta admit, I have a new found interest in superhero comics. It’s starting to sound more and more like Days of our Lives with super strength, psychic powers and radioactive eye beams.
Cool! I may have to start investing some free cash in comics…
June 24, 2008 at 10:38 am
Matt A.
No it doesn’t.
Not really, no.
How so?
Please explain this ‘far greater perversity’ that you speak of.
Please define ‘good and proper’. Because to me (a Christian, BTW, ‘good and proper’ doesn’t include killing people for sleeping around.
June 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm
contrarymary
Matt A.
Yes, it does. No really, it does.
You’re really suggesting that homosexuality isn’t more perverse that heterosexual fornication? Seriously? Then you’re an idiot, at least on this topic. And if you’re a Christian then you really have no excuse.
Finally, who’s advocating killing people for sleeping around? That’s murder. I’m talking about death penalty crimes and all that this entails. Much as God instituted for Israel in the Mosaic law. I’m sorry you’re having trouble keeping up but the burden is on you to know what you’re talking about when you speak.
June 24, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Peter F.
contrarymary
but you still hadn’t explain the ‘far greater perversity’
no,seriously, i grew up in a fairly liberal comunity, and i never quite understood that “homosexuality is horrible and perverse” thing (well, nor the “fornication is horrible and perverse” thing, for that matter, but that’s another point), and i always wondered about it. well, blame my parents and educators if you think i’m stupid because of that.
thing is, each time there is some argument about that precise subjects, everyone tends to assume that these are the most intuitive concepts ever, but they aren’t
so, it’d be a great help if you (or anyone else, really) just tried to clarify that, just a bit. Please
June 24, 2008 at 10:57 pm
contrarymary
Sorry, Peter F. I’m not buying it. I wasn’t born a Christian so don’t go assuming you’re dealing with someone who never lived in the world. I’m quite sure you’re capable of understanding fornication as a perversion of what sex should be. I’m also sure you can understand homosexuality as a greater perversion as well. I don’t expect you’ll agree with either of those concepts but feigning confusion doesn’t sell with me.
June 25, 2008 at 10:03 am
Peter F.
that’s what they always say…
June 25, 2008 at 10:18 am
Mary Contrary
So take a hint, get a clue and catch wise, Pete. Pretending you’re incapable of understanding the concept of perversity doesn’t accomplish anything but making you look foolish.
June 25, 2008 at 11:02 am
Peter F.
nonono, i understand perfectly the concept of perversity, what i fail to understand is why you (and many other people) think homosexuality is perverse, and that’s exactly what i’m asking you to explain.
but if you can’t believe my moral code is different from yours, just pretend it is and show me where you think i am wrong.
i’m not asking you to change your view, i’m not attacking you, i’m not even asking you to defend you view; i’m just asking you to show me your points. i’m just curious with those who thinks different from me.
June 25, 2008 at 11:56 am
Matt A.
Hey Peter F., let’s make out.
Mary, you’re the one who said people should be put to death for sleeping around.
See?
June 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm
contrarymary
Peter F.
Honestly, I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from. I’ve never met anyone who actually can’t grasp the idea that homosexuality is perverse. Clearly the human body isn’t designed for it. It’s plainly pointed out as a perversion in the bible, even abominable. You are aware of what “perverse” means, right? So I guess it boils down to just what you believe sex is and what it’s purpose is.
I’d wager that’s the point where our disagreement originates. I believe sex exists almost exclusively for procreation and to strengthen the foundation of marriage. Anything beyond that is a perversion of it. Thus adultery, fornication, bestiality, homosexual, etcetera…all perversions of sex.
If you believe sex exists just to feel good, then there’s no point in us arguing any more. Nothing is perverse or unacceptable to you, so long as it’s enjoyable. I hope that’s not what you believe but if it is that’s pretty sad.
Matt A.
I never denied it. I simply expect you to be accurate in what you say, rather than insinuate I advocate something I don’t.
So, now that you’ve clarified…what’s your point? You say, “to me (a Christian, BTW), ‘good and proper’ doesn’t include killing people for sleeping around.”
So, then…was it not “good and proper” for God to give Israel a law commanding that very thing? Point blank, did God do an evil thing giving them this law?
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
You apparently disagree with God here. Let’s hear your defense.
But then again…I don’t think you’re a Christian at all. “Hey Peter F., let’s make out.” Hmm…I’m betting not. Christians don’t typically get a kick out of wickedness, quite the opposite.
June 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Matt A.
On what do you base your idea that sex exists ‘almost exclusively’ for procreation and strengthening marriage? A few weeks ago there was a couple denied a church wedding because the paraplegic man is impotent and they can’t procreate. Do you agree with that decision? If so, what of marriages of older women who are past child bearing age? Should they be denied the sacrament?
I don’t think that homosexuality is wicked. In fact, I’d say that if you’re looking at the most accurate translations, the Bible doesn’t even speak of homosexuality as we define it today.
I DO know that Jesus spoke directly to the sleeping around thing. Something about casting stones.
[Gayness removed by MaryContrary. Guess what? You're on my turf, Matt A.]
June 25, 2008 at 1:34 pm
S.D.
Mary, tell me if you can clear this up for me.
“I believe sex exists almost exclusively for procreation and to strengthen the foundation of marriage.”
“almost exclusively”? What are your exceptions? And, more to the point, do those exceptions coincidentally happen to apply to your life? Because, of course, that would be hypocritical, I hope you realize.
June 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Peter F.
wow, first of all, “I’ve never met anyone who actually can’t grasp the idea that homosexuality is perverse”? seriously? noone? i mean, i can grasp the idea that some people nowadays still believes that homosexuality is perverse, but you never met… nevermind, we sure come from really different backgrounds
Ok, let’s see where we disagree:
“Clearly the human body isn’t designed for it”. Well, in fact, the human body isn’t designed for a lot of things. It isn’t designed for swimming, but we do it. It isn’t designed for drinking milk after the childhood, but i still love it. It’s obviously not designed for sexual abstinence, but it is in some religions’ moral code, so it’s practiced by lots of people. In fact sexual abstinence seems to be the most anti-natura thing ever, since every single living being’s only pourpose in life is to procreate. but, “natural” is not the same than “good”, right? i mean, cancer is a natural thing, but most medicines aren’t; rain in your holiday trip is a natural thing, but an umbrella isn’t; and sexual promiscuity is mostly a natural thing, but abstinence isn’t; and i don’t see people advocating ones over the others just because “these are natural”. But, if you want to go that way, wikipedia says: “homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them” so, yep, it’s pretty natural.
Appart from that, thinking that “sex is the most powerfull, intimate and forging experience that a loving couple can have; but can also be used for a relaxing meaningless diversion from time to time” and thinking that “sex exists just to feel good” is not the same. Much less “Nothing is perverse or unacceptable so long as it’s enjoyable”. Like, in summer days i love to go to the beach and have a large strawberry ice-cream cone, not because it’s full of calcium and vitamines, but because it’s delicious. Is this perverse? well, it can be considered gluttony, a deadly sin. so, am i death-penalty-worthy? if we could only do necessary, meaningfull things, how empty would life be?
also, you say “It’s plainly pointed out as a perversion in the bible, even abominable”, but a few comments early you seem to agree with something Brandon said, something like living by some rules that are in the bible, not because they are in the bible, but because they are good things that happen to be in the bible, right? (that’s what i interpreted, but excuse me if i got anything wrong). Acording to that, the “it’s in the bible, it must be true” argument seem… well, ‘flawed’.
Same thing for killing adulters. You suggest that going against it is going against God, because it appears in the Leviticus, but your housband still trims his goatee nearly every day, and you look fine with it. And, ok, some rules could be revised after they were first wrote, but that raises the question “if both Leviticus and Paul’s letters are Word of God, and they contradict, wich one have preference?” Paul’s, just because it was written latter? what happened there, He changed His mind? seems improbable, since He is infallible and all, so… you know, “it’s in the bible, it must be true, and if you are against it you are against god” is somewhat flawed too.
[Gayness removed by MaryContrary. Enough, guys. You want to flirt, email each other. Once more and I'll delete your comments and block you. This is my blog, not yours. Deal with it or get lost.]
June 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm
contrarymary
Matt A.
“On what do you base your idea that sex exists ‘almost exclusively’ for procreation and strengthening marriage?”
The bible. Corinthians 7:3-5, Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7, Hebrews 13:4, Genesis 2:18, Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 John 2:16, Ephesians 5:31-32, John 3:29; Matthew 22:1-14; Revelation 19:7-9.
Not to mention the entire Song of Solomon.
Of course you can’t believe that and follow your homosexual desires so I can understand why you reject God on this matter.
“A few weeks ago there was a couple denied a church wedding because the paraplegic man is impotent and they can’t procreate. Do you agree with that decision? If so, what of marriages of older women who are past child bearing age? Should they be denied the sacrament?”
No, no and no. As would be apparent to you if you’d actually read the sentence you quoted.
“I don’t think that homosexuality is wicked. In fact, I’d say that if you’re looking at the most accurate translations, the Bible doesn’t even speak of homosexuality as we define it today.”
Bull. I’m very familiar with those arguments and they hold no water. I know it’s important to some to pretend they make any kind of sense at all but we prefer dealing with reality around here. The reality is that homosexuality is consistently reviled as the height of sexual immorality throughout the bible. It’s even placed on the same par as murder, rape and adultery. Truth hurts, I know, but only a fool denies the truth.
“I DO know that Jesus spoke directly to the sleeping around thing. Something about casting stones.”
You apparently didn’t read the story very carefully. If you had you’d realize it’s more about evil men attempting to twist the law to trap Jesus. His reaction to that not only doesn’t undermine the very law He wrote and gave to Israel, it upholds it. This mob was acting against the authority of the Romans who occupied Israel and it wasn’t even a trial to begin with. It was a mob. Where was the judge? Where was the man who this woman committed adultery with? If you’re going to use scripture to make your point you should pay attention to what it says.
The reason why Christ can say that only those without sin can cast the first stone is because only God has the right to determine guilt or innocence. And that’s something He’s delegated to the rightful authority of government only, not to mobs in the street, nor to you and I: Romans 13:3-5
Need I point out that this is the same Jesus who slammed the Pharisees for not keeping the law that says rebellious sons should be executed? How does that gel with your characterization of this event?
Also, I editted out your flirting with Peter F. You’re in my house and that don’t fly around here. If you flame out in my blog, you get escorted to the door.
June 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm
contrarymary
S.D.
“Mary, tell me if you can clear this up for me. ‘I believe sex exists almost exclusively for procreation and to strengthen the foundation of marriage.’ “almost exclusively”? What are your exceptions? And, more to the point, do those exceptions coincidentally happen to apply to your life? Because, of course, that would be hypocritical, I hope you realize.”
Really? Are you sure? Wouldn’t that only be so if I based my opinion on what is convenient for me rather than an objective assessment? Otherwise I’d expect you to call Matt A. above a hypocrite as well. According to what I see on his blog, he’s gay. Is he also a hypocrite? I happen to think he probably is but I’m open to the possibility that he actually believes as he does based on an objective assessment. This is why one normally applies the term “hypocrite” to someone who acts contrary to their condemnation of others. Determining someone else’s thoughts turns out to be pretty hard to do.
Have I done that? Acted contrary to my condemnation of others, I mean? Please point it out if so.
Regardless, this rather nicely fails to the address the point. Am I right or wrong? That’s the point. You can’t determine if I’m a hypocrite on or not (in the way you apply the term) but even if you could it would be completely irrelevant in this case. If I had based what I believe on what’s convenient for me I could still be right.
In short, this is thoughtless.
As for possible exceptions, I have no idea. It’s a caveat to cover whatever I haven’t thought of or been confronted with yet. I can’t think of a thing nor have I been confronted with anything yet that fits the bill. I can remove “almost exclusively” and be pretty comfortable with the statement. If it really bothers you just say so and I’ll do it. Doesn’t matter much to me.
June 25, 2008 at 4:07 pm
contrarymary
Peter F.
“wow, first of all, “I’ve never met anyone who actually can’t grasp the idea that homosexuality is perverse”? seriously? noone? i mean, i can grasp the idea that some people nowadays still believes that homosexuality is perverse, but you never met… nevermind, we sure come from really different backgrounds
Ok, let’s see where we disagree:
“Clearly the human body isn’t designed for it”. Well, in fact, the human body isn’t designed for a lot of things. It isn’t designed for swimming, but we do it. It isn’t designed for drinking milk after the childhood, but i still love it. It’s obviously not designed for sexual abstinence, but it is in some religions’ moral code, so it’s practiced by lots of people. In fact sexual abstinence seems to be the most anti-natura thing ever, since every single living being’s only pourpose in life is to procreate. but, “natural” is not the same than “good”, right? i mean, cancer is a natural thing, but most medicines aren’t; rain in your holiday trip is a natural thing, but an umbrella isn’t; and sexual promiscuity is mostly a natural thing, but abstinence isn’t; and i don’t see people advocating ones over the others just because “these are natural”. But, if you want to go that way, wikipedia says: “homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them” so, yep, it’s pretty natural.”
Wow. This is pretty stupid. Is that intentional or do you really not mean to come across that way? Are you going to present with anything other than “I’m too stupid to understand what you’re saying”? If not, don’t bother commenting further. There are real idiots aplenty in the world, you know. It’s not like anyone’s asking for volunteers to shore up the numbers.
“Appart from that, thinking that “sex is the most powerfull, intimate and forging experience that a loving couple can have; but can also be used for a relaxing meaningless diversion from time to time” and thinking that “sex exists just to feel good” is not the same.”
More “duh…drool”, I see. Yawn.
“Much less “Nothing is perverse or unacceptable so long as it’s enjoyable”. Like, in summer days i love to go to the beach and have a large strawberry ice-cream cone, not because it’s full of calcium and vitamines, but because it’s delicious. Is this perverse? well, it can be considered gluttony, a deadly sin. so, am i death-penalty-worthy? if we could only do necessary, meaningfull things, how empty would life be?”
You seem to have trouble following one thought to it’s logical conclusion. You’re all over the place. This is blather. Should I just go ahead and delete this or is there an actual point in there somewhere that makes this worth leaving in place?
“also, you say “It’s plainly pointed out as a perversion in the bible, even abominable”, but a few comments early you seem to agree with something Brandon said, something like living by some rules that are in the bible, not because they are in the bible, but because they are good things that happen to be in the bible, right? (that’s what i interpreted, but excuse me if i got anything wrong). Acording to that, the “it’s in the bible, it must be true” argument seem… well, ‘flawed’.”
Because you’re not paying attention.
“Same thing for killing adulters. You suggest that going against it is going against God, because it appears in the Leviticus, but your housband still trims his goatee nearly every day, and you look fine with it.”
Still not paying attention. Brandon addressed this.
“And, ok, some rules could be revised after they were first wrote, but that raises the question “if both Leviticus and Paul’s letters are Word of God, and they contradict, wich one have preference?” Paul’s, just because it was written latter? what happened there, He changed His mind? seems improbable, since He is infallible and all, so… you know, “it’s in the bible, it must be true, and if you are against it you are against god” is somewhat flawed too.”
Odd that you didn’t present any contradictions there to support your argument. I have a good idea what you’re talking about (more than you, I suspect). I’d recommend not presenting such contradictions. Because I’d be compelled to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about and show as much. But, hey. If you’re brave and can accept correction then feel free.
Also, take note of the warning I gave in your post. Continue with the homo flirting and you’ll get booted. This is my house, my rules. Don’t like it, hike it.
June 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Peter F.
i wasn’t supporting any argument, just pointing out your contradictions
June 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm
contrarymary
Try again, Pete. Without the confused babbling.
June 25, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Peter F.
ok, i’ll stop babbling. just this last comment and i’ll go
just answer me these easy questions:
1)why do you think that “clearly the human body isn’t designed for homosexuality”? post any example of things the human body is clearly designed for
2)how is having sex just for fun different from eating something just because it’s tasty?
3)do you live by a rule just because it appears in the bible? why?/why not?
4)between, say, Leviticus and Paul’s Letters, which one has preference? why?
just that. and, please, no more “this question is so stupid i won’t answer it” answers. i’m sure you are better than that
June 25, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Annoyed
The biggest “perverts” in my book are those who– like you, and like the Westboro Baptist Church– destroy a religion based on LOVE and twist it into something revolving around hatred and killing.
And if the human body isn’t designed for homosexuality, what’s up with the location of the prostate?
Homosexuality is not an ACT; it’s based on what gender an individual is attracted to.
And if you’re a conservative Christian, you should lock yourself inside your house and cut the power, because it’s a changing world and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.
June 26, 2008 at 9:07 am
contrarymary
Peter F.
“ok, i’ll stop babbling. just this last comment and i’ll go
just answer me these easy questions:”
Awesome.
“1) why do you think that “clearly the human body isn’t designed for homosexuality”? post any example of things the human body is clearly designed for”
Peter, this is just plain stupid. How many times can I say this before you bother to take a second look at what you’re saying? What the heck do you think I mean when I say this? It isn’t obvious to you that the human body is not designed for this? So what if you can actually pull it off anyway? What the heck does that prove?
This makes about as much sense as claiming the human body is designed to interact well with poison ivy because the body’s response to the urushiol the plant produces is already in place. Clearly the human body is designed for rolling around in poison ivy! It’s God’s will! We should all go flop about in some poison ivy right away!
If you said such a thing I’d react with exactly the same, “are you stupid?” response.
I’m not going to play along with this ridiculous notion that the human body is designed for homosexual acts. That’s completely moronic and if it’s the best argument you have then you have no argument.
“2) how is having sex just for fun different from eating something just because it’s tasty?”
You can’t tell the difference? Really? That’s pretty freaky.
You want a biblical answer or an answer from plain common sense? I get the impression one matters to you and the other doesn’t. The biblical response is pretty straight forward: there’s no death penalty for gluttony in the bible but there sure are for several sex crimes.
Let’s try this on for size in the common sense department. Maybe it’ll manage to get through: Let’s pretend that you’re right. Eating something just because it tastes good is no better or worse than having sex because it feels good, right? Now, tell me which of these two approaches you would take with a child and explain why both are acceptable in such a case. Would eating tasty things with a child be as acceptable to you as having sex with a child? What’s the difference, Pete? They’re both the same, right? Both perfectly harmless, right?
“3) do you live by a rule just because it appears in the bible? why?/why not?”
Can’t think of one. There are plenty of ideas in the bible that I never considered objectively until I saw them there but there’s nothing I can think of that I follow blindly “just because it’s in the bible”. I honestly can’t imagine how one would go about doing such a thing. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the question.
“4) between, say, Leviticus and Paul’s Letters, which one has preference? why?”
Be specific. Provide some contradictions. Are you aware of any? I get the impression you have no idea and that you’re just going on something you heard here.
“just that. and, please, no more “this question is so stupid i won’t answer it” answers. i’m sure you are better than that”
What exactly do you suggest I do with stupid questions, then? “That’s stupid” is as good a response as any in such a case.
June 26, 2008 at 9:26 am
contrarymary
Annoyed
“The biggest “perverts” in my book are those who– like you, and like the Westboro Baptist Church– destroy a religion based on LOVE and twist it into something revolving around hatred and killing.”
My God values both love and hatred, recognizing the proper use of both. This is illustrated throughout the bible and displays a God truly worthy of worship. Your hippy god is a joke to me. Sorry.
Don’t claim my God is the flaming idiot that false parody of Christianity portrays Him as. Them’s fightin’ werds.
“And if the human body isn’t designed for homosexuality, what’s up with the location of the prostate?”
The prostate generates a liquid that activates sperm as it is ejaculated. Where do you think it should be located? The nose?
But that’s not you’re real question. You’re question is probably more along the lines of “How can it be wrong when it feels good to me?” That’s a pretty foolish question and I’ll leave it alone for now. If you can’t get it, feel free to repeat it and I’ll point out how foolish that is.
“Homosexuality is not an ACT; it’s based on what gender an individual is attracted to.”
So? What’s that got do with anything? You really can’t intuit that I’m talking about the act? It’s not the government’s concern what you want to do, rather what you actually do. They don’t (or shouldn’t) care if you have the desire to commit a crime. They’re job is to deter you from committing a crime. You can want to all you like.
You’re wanting to in the first place is between you and God. We’re not talking about Big Brother and Thought Crime here. And if you think we are you need to go catch your breath, check your pulse rate and come back when you’re maybe not quite so hysterical.
“And if you’re a conservative Christian, you should lock yourself inside your house and cut the power, because it’s a changing world and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.”
Yawn. You feel better now?
June 26, 2008 at 9:34 am
contrarymary
Matt A.
Despite repeated warnings you insist on taking wicked delight in posting your perversion on my blog for all to see. That don’t fly here, as I’ve already said.
Your post has been deleted. You’re officially uninvited to participate here.
Post again on this blog and I’ll entertain myself altering your post to say all manner of interesting things. That’s your fair warning.
June 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Brandon Allen
If God said it that should be final for anyone who wears His name. But we should never leave it at that, because we need to be ready with an answer, when asked. We need to know why God said it, so when others ask, we can tell them. And we also need to know if God later changed His mind. And the best way to know that is if He told us He did. And then there are the things He said to certain people only. Which we are also told.
July 1, 2008 at 9:12 am
RK
So is the human body somehow designed for (permitted) heterosexual anal or oral sex, but not for homosexual anal or oral sex? Or should those be subject to capital punishment too?
Also: when you reject arguments based on real information, you look like a fool. You dismiss arguments about imperfect translation, but they are clearly important. For instance, the Hebrew word “to’evah” is generally translated as “abomination” — but its in-context use shows that the best modern translation would be “taboo” — ritually inappropriate because it is the custom of another sect. Similarly, all of the terms that refer to homosexuality are in-context references to practices of other sects, NOT to a generalized morality.
As for later authorities revoking Levitical law: for Christianity, there is no later authority.
July 1, 2008 at 9:13 am
RK
And, oh, yeah: Jean Grey and Scott Summers were never married. Never ever.
July 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm
MadamCod
Oh Hell’s Teeth Mary! I am a Christian and am stunned at the content of this post. Do you have *any* idea what damage you are doing to the Christian religion as a whole with this kind of stuff? It’s *not* standard belief folks to have adulterers and homosexuals put to death, only that of a few who have to lend themselves to extremism to justify their own insecurities.
Ok, so you are entitled to your *own* opinions, but please don’t make out that you represent the majority of Christians who would hold that forgiveness and tolerence are an important part of our religion.
Besides, what did these poor *fictional* characters ever do to you? Calling for their extermination is a bit…shall we say..nuts?
July 1, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Liam Patterson
Jean and Scott were Married in Xmen #30. Look it up.
However, and I say this to you Mary with all the Christian love my mother bestowed upon me, You are about as far from anything resembling a Christian as you can get. In the light of God’s Love you would know without a doubt that YOU are not the judge. It is not up to you to cast judgment on these (fictional, I might add) people. Calling for the death of any other human being is not Christian. You are forgetting the single most important document in the Christian religion, the ten commandments. As a Christian it’s not your job to judge or to condemn. God never gave you those rights.
I would also say that much of your language is very unChristian as well. “Screw her” “He’s a ho” and “That pisses me off” doesn’t sound at ALL like a Christian or a representative of God’s Love.
If anything “Mary”, you should be ashamed of this writing and the face you put on Christianity. I’ll pray for you.
July 1, 2008 at 1:37 pm
JC
So, yeah. I’m gay and *I’m* irritated at the gay Colossus thing. I mean, I guess they have to reinvent these characters to keep them fresh for new readers, but c’mon. His awkward romance with Kitty Pryde way back when was one of the most touching and poignant threads in that comic book.
Regarding your other points, Mary, the idea of making Jean Grey torn between her feelings for two different men makes her a bit more than a 2-dimensional character. These things happen in real life. I’m not saying it’s good, but it’s human. Our emotional lives are messy and awkward and unfortunate and often don’t end up the way we want them to.
If these three were real people, I would feel sorry for them. I’d leave the condemnation to those who are without their own flaws.
July 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
contrarymary
RK:
“So is the human body somehow designed for (permitted) heterosexual anal or oral sex, but not for homosexual anal or oral sex? Or should those be subject to capital punishment too?”
Is the human body designed for sticking pencils up your nose? I would argue “no”. Most people with a brain would agree with me. Is the design of the body such that a pencil can be stuck up the nose? Sure. Again, most people would agree.
So let’s not twist the meaning of the word “design”, hm? The human body is not designed for homosexual sex. Period. This tired argument is wholly dishonest, pretending any conceivable use of a thing was specifically built into the design. What a bunch of bunk. The human body’s design for sex is obvious.
“Also: when you reject arguments based on real information, you look like a fool. You dismiss arguments about imperfect translation, but they are clearly important. For instance, the Hebrew word “to’evah” is generally translated as “abomination” — but its in-context use shows that the best modern translation would be “taboo” — ritually inappropriate because it is the custom of another sect. Similarly, all of the terms that refer to homosexuality are in-context references to practices of other sects, NOT to a generalized morality.”
I reject the “real information” in this case because it’s false. You look to the original Hebrew, take the most non-applicable use and then twist the clear meaning of the verses in question to mean something ridiculous. And that proves what? That you’re willing to present a lie to support your position? Then I agree. That is indeed proven.
And what of the apostles? What did they say of homosexuality and all other sexual immortality? Did they misunderstand this “real information” as well?
“As for later authorities revoking Levitical law: for Christianity, there is no later authority.”
Huh? Christ fulfilled the law, therefor it no longer applies to us as Christians. We are not under the law. Don’t go confusing laws for righteousness with criminal law. I’m talking criminal law here.
July 1, 2008 at 2:37 pm
contrarymary
MadamCod:
“Oh Hell’s Teeth Mary! I am a Christian and am stunned at the content of this post. Do you have *any* idea what damage you are doing to the Christian religion as a whole with this kind of stuff?”
Good. I don’t much care for the Christian “religion”. It can use being harmed a little. Or a lot. Or being done away with completely, in fact. I’m not a big fan of religions. Christ had to sacrifice Himself to give us a way out of those deadly things. Pardon me if I have a particular dislike for the religion that calls itself by His name.
“It’s *not* standard belief folks to have adulterers and homosexuals put to death, only that of a few who have to lend themselves to extremism to justify their own insecurities.”
Never said it was. And what method did you use to determine the motivations of everyone who advocate for these to be criminalized? You clearly indicate that it’s “insecurity”. Care to lay out how you came to that conclusion?
Or is that just an insulting presumption?
“Ok, so you are entitled to your *own* opinions, but please don’t make out that you represent the majority of Christians who would hold that forgiveness and tolerence are an important part of our religion.”
Never said I did. God forbid that I ever be such a wuss that’d I’d deny His righteous judgment, focus only on His love and mercy, twist both of those out of all proportion and pretend he’s a hippie to everyone.
“Besides, what did these poor *fictional* characters ever do to you? Calling for their extermination is a bit…shall we say..nuts?”
When did I call for their extermination? In case you missed it in your “shock”, I called for adultery as a capitol crime. Jean Grey is just used as an example of an adulterer. Sort of.
Because, you see, mostly I was just ranting about how adultery and fornication are romanticized in media. Adultery as a capitol crime was almost a side point.
July 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm
contrarymary
Liam Patterson:
“However, and I say this to you Mary with all the Christian love my mother bestowed upon me, You are about as far from anything resembling a Christian as you can get. In the light of God’s Love you would know without a doubt that YOU are not the judge. It is not up to you to cast judgment on these (fictional, I might add) people. Calling for the death of any other human being is not Christian. You are forgetting the single most important document in the Christian religion, the ten commandments. As a Christian it’s not your job to judge or to condemn. God never gave you those rights. “
So let me get this straight. It’s not Christian to judge, right? And therefor I’m “about as far from anything resembling a Christian as you can get”? That’s your judgment of me?
Hey…wait a second…hmm. Call me crazy but I sense a contradiction in there somewhere. Can you find it?
Flat out, Liam, you just judged me. Something you claim is un-Christian. So is it my judging Jean Grey that you condemn or the actual judgment itself (that she’s a ho’)? Clearly it’s the judgment itself that you condemn.
So, before I can accept this condemnation you should prove she’s not a ho’. Once you’ve done that, we’ll have established that my judgment is wrong and I’ll retract it. I’ll be happy to, in fact. I don’t like being wrong.
“I would also say that much of your language is very unChristian as well. “Screw her” “He’s a ho” and “That pisses me off” doesn’t sound at ALL like a Christian or a representative of God’s Love.”
Granted. Crudity is definately a weakness of mine that needs work. Believe it or not, I’ve improved quite a lot in this area but I still get crude when I get snippy. No excuse really but I am working on it at least.
“If anything “Mary”, you should be ashamed of this writing and the face you put on Christianity.”
Prove me wrong. As it stands I’m pretty sure I’m right. These aren’t my own inventions and I didn’t twist scripture to say something I’m comfortable with. I was quite uncomfortable with both these truths when they were revealed to me but I accept them because I love God and I love truth. Truth, as it happens, is sometimes uncomfortable and harsh. That’s just the way it is.
If you reject all truth that isn’t warm and fuzzy, you live in a lie. It won’t profit you.
“I’ll pray for you.”
If you’re going to pray that I become nicer and more lovey-dovey, don’t bother. There are times when being harsh is useful and I don’t want to lose that ability nor do I think God would to take it away from me because you ask. I’d rather you pray for wisdom for me. That way, if I’m wrong I’ll see that. If I’m right, no loss, right?
Pray for wisdom for yourself while your at it. I’ve found seeking wisdom first to be good advice. How can we even know what to pray for without it?
July 1, 2008 at 3:10 pm
contrarymary
JC:
“So, yeah. I’m gay and *I’m* irritated at the gay Colossus thing. I mean, I guess they have to reinvent these characters to keep them fresh for new readers, but c’mon. His awkward romance with Kitty Pryde way back when was one of the most touching and poignant threads in that comic book.”
No kidding. That ticked me off, too. There are times when I think I’m the only one in the world who thinks these politically correct injections aren’t awesome and rather come across as completely artificial. As an insult, even. I’m glad I’m not the only one.
If you want your comic book world to reflect the modern world then there will be a few homo heroes. Of course. Big whoop. Making an well-known, established character gay is a concession to political correctness and a slap in the face.
“Regarding your other points, Mary, the idea of making Jean Grey torn between her feelings for two different men makes her a bit more than a 2-dimensional character. These things happen in real life. I’m not saying it’s good, but it’s human. Our emotional lives are messy and awkward and unfortunate and often don’t end up the way we want them to.”
Of course. But what does these characters DO about it? You know, like the rest of us DO when we are confronted with these messy, awkward and unfortunate situations?
Does Jean avoid Wolverine? Break it off with Scott? Go on vacation and get her head together? Anything? Something? Nothing. She just lets the situation go on. In the movies, in fact, she clearly gets a big kick out of it and cares not a whit for anyone else.
And what do the two guys DO about this situation? Does Scott get wise and boot Jean to the curb? Does Wolverine EVER say, “Whoa, not going there”? Nope, they act like morons.
Everyone (talking about what I know of, the movies, here) is completely unconcerned with everyone else’s feelings and motivated purely by selfishness.
This is what I’m talking about. In the real world, you do the right thing or the wrong thing. All three do something wrong. None of them do the right thing. And the drama of this is held out for our entertainment.
“If these three were real people, I would feel sorry for them. I’d leave the condemnation to those who are without their own flaws.”
Then you’d be useless to them. I’d point out to all three how idiotic, selfish and immoral they were all being. I’d either tick them all off or, hopefully, knock some sense into someone. It would only take one of them to realize their role in the situation and repent to correct the mess.
If I ticked them off and the situation continued, well guess what? I least I did the right thing.
July 1, 2008 at 3:22 pm
MadamCod
“Good. I don’t much care for the Christian “religion”. It can use being harmed a little. Or a lot. Or being done away with completely, in fact. I’m not a big fan of religions. Christ had to sacrifice Himself to give us a way out of those deadly things. Pardon me if I have a particular dislike for the religion that calls itself by His name.”
So I am to assume then that you have the only ‘true’ take on Christianity and on My Saviour’s work and Sacrifice? Sounds more like you have taken something and have twisted it towards your own ends. I’m glad that you make it clear that you don’t like the Christian religion (In all it’s forms or just the bits you don’t like? – but then you are a contrary person by nature, so it’s to be expected I suppose)
“Never said it was. And what method did you use to determine the motivations of everyone who advocate for these two crimes? You clearly indicate that it’s “insecurity”. Care to lay out how you came to that conclusion?
Or is that just an insulting presumption?”
Just because I don’t call for adultery and homosexuality to be capitol crimes, and have human beings denegrated for tham, doesn’t mean to say I advocate for those acts, in particular adultery which is very much a choice. But your harsh condemnation is just that. Harsh and not yours to make. Disagree all you want and yes, you have support from other groups (heck, some of ‘em ain’t even Christian! Adulterers, unwanted women and gays in certain parts of the world have been torured and executed for their crimes for years! We’ve been using their oil for ages now!). I just think that My Saviour made a different point when He said ‘Let those without sin, cast the first stone..’
When my Saviour said to the woman ‘go and sin no more’ I think he meant that she would suffer consequences such as unwanted pregnancies and uncompasiionate people who would consider her less than an amoeba, that ultimately we have to take a part in our own salvation by avoiding that which would hurt us, otherwise, well we would keep on being hurt and also hurt the next generation, which must have happened to you.
Y’know, I was the product of an adulterous act and my mother has being paying for that for years in terms of guilt etc. But she understood what she had done wrong, especially when she wound up pregant with me (she was unmarried at the time) so I guess she should have been stoned after being found guilty of sleeping with a married man and have the condom break? You would have had one less person to disagree with you then. (Durn it! Woulda worked too!) But she eventually found that Christ is forgiving and repented. I don’t agree with what she did, but it’s in the past and I have to admire the fact she took responsibility for her actions and raised me in a time when single mothers were definately *not* the norm, rather than give me up for adoption, which would have been so easy for her to do. She’s one of the greatest women I know.
If I am guilty of compassion, and try my best to be understanding of these ‘adulterers and gays’, then so be it. I stand guilty as charged and am not ashamed of that fact. It’s a pity that you lack the same ability for compassion, and do so using My Saviour as a reason. Of course there is much to be wary of in the media, as it does have a huge influence. But I don’t see the same being written here about violence in the media, just sex. It goes back to what someone said sometime ago about violence being ok in this culture with the liberal showing of blood, guts and bombings etc on T.V, but God forbid a nipple being revealed!
Anyway, live and let live that’s what I say, and do your best by your fellow man. No, I don’t agree with cettain things and will say so, but not without compassion and love. I will read with interest other replies.
July 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm
contrarymary
“So I am to assume then that you have the only ‘true’ take on Christianity and on My Saviour’s work and Sacrifice? Sounds more like you have taken something and have twisted it towards your own ends. I’m glad that you make it clear that you don’t like the Christian religion (In all it’s forms or just the bits you don’t like? – but then you are a contrary person by nature, so it’s to be expected I suppose)”
You don’t believe you have the “only ‘true’ take on Christianity? Or rather, you aren’t secure in what you believe? I’m quite willing to admit I don’t know everything I should and I’m almost certainly wrong on some point (or several) somewhere. You act as if having confidence in the truth is a bad thing. Perhaps you think it is. I don’t think that.
And, again, what have I twisted? Point it out, if you’re going to accuse.
“Just because I don’t call for adultery and homosexuality to be capitol crimes, and have human beings denegrated for tham, doesn’t mean to say I advocate for those acts, in particular adultery which is very much a choice. But your harsh condemnation is just that. Harsh and not yours to make. Disagree all you want and yes, you have support from other groups (heck, some of ‘em ain’t even Christian! Adulterers, unwanted women and gays in certain parts of the world have been torured and executed for their crimes for years! We’ve been using their oil for ages now!). I just think that My Saviour made a different point when He said ‘Let those without sin, cast the first stone..’”
First off, still no defense of the “insecurity” thing. I suppose that was just an attempt to discredit my position with an ad hominem insult after all.
Second, read that story again. This isn’t Jesus teaching that no one should judge. If that is what He were teaching there then you should now be calling for the abolition of all laws, courts and the entire criminal justice system itself. No one but He can judge, yes? As I’ve already said, it was clear that no one who is without sin can implement the penalty for any sin. THAT is the point Christ was making. And since He delegated the matter of criminal law to the government, the government then can and should then do so, in His name. Not only does our government fail to give Him the glory in it’s duty but Christians like you won’t even let them enforce the law correctly.
Third, no you clearly don’t advocate for those acts, you simply don’t do a thing to discourage them. As a Christian, as the “salt of the earth” and “the light” you are utterly failing in your duty. You should be out there, condemning what is evil and praising what is good. Where are the lost to get their notion of what is good and what is evil? From the wicked! Because of Christians like you, they’re the only ones left to turn to! They champion their pet projects and social progress, with none to oppose them…because you’re too busy being acceptable to mankind to be bothered defending what is right for God.
“When my Saviour said to the woman ‘go and sin no more’ I think he meant that she would suffer consequences such as unwanted pregnancies and uncompasiionate people who would consider her less than an amoeba, that ultimately we have to take a part in our own salvation by avoiding that which would hurt us, otherwise, well we would keep on being hurt and also hurt the next generation, which must have happened to you.”
I don’t care what you think on this issue if it’s not true. I care what the truth is, what Christ intended and what He taught. There is zero scriptural support for your suppositions here. None.
Quite the opposite, in fact. The bible quite clearly condemns evil, evil people and people who don’t condemn evil and evil people. All throughout the bible. Even the New Testament.
Even Christ.
Try reading ALL of the bible, not just a handful of select quotes.
“Y’know, I was the product of an adulterous act and my mother has being paying for that for years in terms of guilt etc. But she understood what she had done wrong, especially when she wound up pregant with me (she was unmarried at the time) so I guess she should have been stoned after being found guilty of sleeping with a married man and have the condom break? You would have had one less person to disagree with you then. (Durn it! Woulda worked too!)”
First, let’s jump to the end and I’ll point out you’re assuming I’d advocate a pregnant woman being executed for adultery (and the baby thus being killed too). I think you know full well, or at least should suspect, I do not. So that makes this dishonest.
Second, yes. If that were the law when she committed adultery then yes, she should have been put to death. What’s your point? Let’s not forget that your mother, if that had been the law at the time, would have been aware of that and would have been consciously choosing to commit a capitol crime. So, why would this change my opinion?
“But she eventually found that Christ is forgiving and repented. I don’t agree with what she did, but it’s in the past and I have to admire the fact she took responsibility for her actions and raised me in a time when single mothers were definately *not* the norm, rather than give me up for adoption, which would have been so easy for her to do. She’s one of the greatest women I know.”
That is completely awesome. Your mother rocks! I doubt my opinion (you seem to assume I’m some idiotic lunatic judging from the context of your comments) matters at all but I’m impressed.
“If I am guilty of compassion, and try my best to be understanding of these ‘adulterers and gays’, then so be it. I stand guilty as charged and am not ashamed of that fact. It’s a pity that you lack the same ability for compassion, and do so using My Saviour as a reason. “
What does compassion have to do with crime? You can (and should) have compassion on those that commit these crimes and those that suffer because of it. Why do you assume I reject compassion? Compassion doesn’t mean absolving the guilty of their guilt, unless they repent. And even repentance doesn’t absolve one of the punishment for a crime, either.
Of course I have compassion for all involved! Why do you think I advocate criminalizing these things! Because it would deter the vast majority of the behavior and prevent the harm in the first place! Even in those cases where it fails to do so, the punishment certainly wouldn’t fail to deter others.
That’s MY compassion. You’re compassion leads you to pretend there’s no harm and to stifle your objections when others do harm to one another. And, thus, you encourage it.
“Of course there is much to be wary of in the media, as it does have a huge influence. But I don’t see the same being written here about violence in the media, just sex. It goes back to what someone said sometime ago about violence being ok in this culture with the liberal showing of blood, guts and bombings etc on T.V, but God forbid a nipple being revealed!”
Which is worse? Do you even know?
“Anyway, live and let live that’s what I say,”
Live and let die, you mean.
“and do your best by your fellow man. No, I don’t agree with cettain things and will say so, but not without compassion and love. I will read with interest other replies.”
I do my best by others and that most certainly does not include staying silent when evil is done. I harshly denounce evil and wickedness while praising and encouraging righteousness. As any Christian worthy of the name should.
It is you who assigns some lack of compassion to me unjustly and only because it allows you to discredit my position without actually offering any evidence. And to make yourself feel better about your own refusal to acknowledge God’s truth.
July 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm
contrarymary
MadamCod, I’m going to post something in just a moment on the subject of “judging”. Give me a few minutes to do so, if you please. I think you desperately need an adjustment on your perspective in that area.
Okay, done. I’ve got to run for a while so take your time responding, if you intend to. I’ll do my best to get back to this by tomorrow.
It’s the newest page but here’s a link for convenience.
(Actually, I changed my mind and the post to something more relevant. No more changes and I’m off now, promise.)
July 1, 2008 at 6:42 pm
MadamCod
Obviously you and I will never agree on this topic.
You accuse me of not doing anything to discourage sin, so does this mean I have to sit here and write page after page of what it is I *do* to discourage sin to justtify myself to you (I’m only going to do that in a few paragraphs anyway, then I need to get on with my life). The fact that you have not dismissed me outright is interesting, because I have possibly touched a raw nerve somewhere.
I have acknowledged God’s truth for many years, and have seen first hand the damage done by people to people and sadly, you have been damaged in your life too, being abused, living as a lesbian – I think the correct term for the type you have been is referred to as a ‘Bulldyke’? – and I feel sorry that you have suffered so.
Whilst I am delighted that you have turned away from that life, you still harbour a lot of anger and a need to justify yourself with being better, more righteous and more right than the rest of us and will invite controversy to justify your stance against the rest of us who ‘have not got the knowledge’ that you have , which is something you don’t have to do. You have made the transition, well done, but you don’t then have to enhance that by a lot of angry fundamentalist speeches denouncing anyone who does not fit to what you would consider ‘faithful’.
I have and will carry on standing up up for what I believe and know to be true. I will meet opposition, but that’s ok, it’s a fact of life and who knows? Maybe someone might actually be inspired to turn the corner by my actions and find Christ? Even at the last minute before drawing breath? I don’t know. Again, you have no right to call me unworthy or unable to do right by God. Because you talk of crime and justify that as a matter for the civillian courts, to deal with adultery and homosexuality, does not make that particular position right. (Anyway, since when have the civillian courts always been a place of pure justice? Some of the Judges and Govt. Officials have been more corrupt than those standing in the dock!). Again, there are societies that do that today and I am sure that, if they were ‘Christian’ you would welcome their cultures.
So what is this ‘evidence’ that you need? I have cited scripture, but that does not please you? Are you a genuine expert in the scriptures and are personal of God and are offended by this world or are you another sad soul just needing a reason to argue and justify your stance? Is this just about comic book characters and the media (In answer to your earlier question, actually a nipple in it’s proper context is preferable, as it is designed to feed and nurture, as well as to bring pleasure) Am I unwittingly feeding your need for anger and desire to be right by providing you with the ‘evidence’ you need to be right? If you were that secure in your faith, you would not need to be so ‘in your face’ with all us blasphemers (let’s not mince words here) as we term it here in SinLand.
I am not attacking you personally, nor actually judging you as a person, because by judging you, I would be implying that you are possibly unworthy of God, who has no right to their feelings and opinions. And as I have not personally met you, I would not do that anyway. Your opinion is interesting and how you view Christ is interesting too, and I am glad you have found some piece in that. But I totally disagree with the harshness of your opinions and am sad none the less that you see Christ only as an avenger, and not as the whole perfect being that he is and the endless measure of his compassion. But again, that is your belief.
But it will never make you any more right or better than anyone else in God’s creation. And that is not a judgement, just fact.
And the fact is, you do *not* know me and what *I* have seen in my life as a result of sin. I see nearly every day what drugs, alcohol, poor social standards, lack of morality and discipline, abuse (you should be familiar with that one, being a victim), and what I deal with every day in trying to sort these things out as a part of my work. The people I have met, the uncaring, the violent, the angry, the homeless, the unemployed, those who society spit on because they are not the same, the publicans, whores, liars and criminals. I work in health care and have been cleaning up after the human race full time for the past 28 years of my life, and have quite often come across those who have suffered as a result of crimes, and of whom the perpetraitors society cannot be bothered to punish, as I try to bring some semblance of normality back to their victims.
I’ve worked in Genito-Urinary medicine in the past too, seen the results when an adulterius man gave his wife syphillis, and it was bloody difficult to treat as she was allergic to the medication used against this illness. Also Young girls who have been infected with clamydia and who will have problems conceiving as a result. I have seen the results of young men and women prostituting themselves for want of food, a place to sleep, drug-money or even for just company. I have dealt with abuse victims such as yourself, and that to me is the worst crime of all, passing destruction to the next generation. And have delt with a lot young people who have no idea that having sex can be actually quite bad for your health in more than one way, who have no idea of the word ‘no’ and that their bodies don’t have to be used by all and sundry, and who have no idea what a stable home life is about, and children having children etc, and I quite often have to deal with their families too.
My job is to bring health and hope to the weak and marginalised and ancouragement to do the right thing as well, and I try to live the straight life, so that they can see that it *is* possible to have a happy marriage to the same person, that you don’t need booze and drugs to enjoy life, that going to Church or having a faith isn’t a dirty word or something weird because ‘it’ll make you mad and cause wars’ which is what most people interpret as having a belief means.
I teacch adults in Sunday school, about the consequences of sin and how a good life starts in the home, to not be afraid to camapaign for a more lawful society to live in, and how we must work to discourage sin. But I also hate social injustice and those who will have a pretense at thinking they are better than I. And I would rather die than live in a world without the gift of Free Agency that our Father in Heaven gives us, so that we can learn right from wrong and bear the consequences, and advance as His children. And you will never convince me otherwise that your self righteous angry stance at the world is the only ‘good christian way’ to believe.
I will, of course, pray for you and hope you will find happiness one day.
God Bless.
July 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Liam Patterson
I won’t argue with you about who should and shouldn’t judge whom. Like they say, arguing on the Internet is like running the Special Olympics – Even if you win you are still a retard.
I just think that someone who spews as much hate and hypocrisy as you do should be ashamed of calling themselves Christian. Then again, just looking around at today’s world, many wear the face of Christian when in fact they are much more Lion.
And I do leave it up to God to sort it out. I wasn’t judging, I was simply saying that for someone calling themselves a child of God, you are acting like anything but. That’s not judgment, that’s reminding you of his teachings and his words. Interesting that you choose to “attack” back just as vehemently to the Christians as you do the others. What’s it like being on the outside of everyone else? Must be awful lonely out there.
I agree with MadamCod. You have issues. I am sad for you and I hope you find light in your life. Obviously this phase has you attacking anonymous people on the Internet and you feel that it’s working something out, otherwise why would you continue? But honestly I wish you wouldn’t work out these issues in the name of a religion that you don’t represent. Just like the crazy televangelists who are caught in the bed of whores and sinners, you are doing nothing but horribly tainting that which you claim to embrace. You don’t deserve the hate flung at you. You deserve our pity.
July 1, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Mary Contrary
MadamCod:
MC, I appreciate everything you’ve said but you simply assume too much about me based on a rant on a blog. If you want to address my expressing anger and frustration here then there’s no point. That’s exactly the purpose of this blog. [Well, I post nice, fuzzy things and even poetry sometimes but you get the point.]
I can only say that I’ve come to conclusions I have in as objective a manner as possible. Having accepted that criminalizing adultery and homosexuality would benefit our society, how can it be wrong to revile those as crimes? I don’t praise nor even accept murderers or thieves as such and for the same reasons. You choose to believe I’m full of bile and hatred for this though and this is what has prompted my beliefs in these areas. That’s unfortunate only because it makes it so unlikely that you’ll ever consider the point at all. In the end, that’s up to you whether to consider it or disregard it out of hand.
I can’t see anything else I should do here. This page was never about any of the issues addressed so far. It was about the romanticizing of adultery in certain media (all media, really). That angers me and I’m not about to apologize for that. I think that anger is both justified and appropriate. If that’s what turns your head on these other matters then you should consider the whether or not that’s where the anger I expressed here is aimed. It isn’t.
July 1, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Mary Contrary
Liam Patterson:
I hate evil and I rebuke those that practice. That won’t change. And I challenge you to support your accusation of “hypocrisy”. That claim was made here already and likewise wasn’t supported or defended. Otherwise I’ll assume, as in the prior case, that it’s just a meaningless word tossed out to discredit with no regard for whether it’s justified or not.
“I wasn’t judging, I was simply saying that for someone calling themselves a child of God, you are acting like anything but.”
If you claim you weren’t judging me for judging others then I’m confused as to what the heck you consider “judging” in the first place. The two concepts don’t seem to match up when between when others practice it and you do.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not offended that you judge me. Because the whole point in the first place was that people judge one another. It’s unavoidable and in point of fact, necessary and usually good. The trick is to judge rightly.
I suggest you haven’t judged rightly and that your whole position that Christian’s shouldn’t judge is wrong. You offer nothing to support your position. Case closed, then?
“I agree with MadamCod. You have issues. I am sad for you and I hope you find light in your life. Obviously this phase has you attacking anonymous people on the Internet and you feel that it’s working something out, otherwise why would you continue? But honestly I wish you wouldn’t work out these issues in the name of a religion that you don’t represent. Just like the crazy televangelists who are caught in the bed of whores and sinners, you are doing nothing but horribly tainting that which you claim to embrace. You don’t deserve the hate flung at you. You deserve our pity.”
This is all a bunch of bunk to make yourself look good and feel better. A second glance at it reveals it for what it is. You can keep your pity, most especially the insincerity of it and even more especially because it simply serves to cover a refusal to address the issues you raised.
As a Christian I not only should judge, I should judge rightly. So, if you truly were concerned in that regard you’d correct my judgment where I’m wrong. You haven’t.
You take exception to my anger and the harshness of my judgments, calling that un-Christian. Yet you won’t show why that’s wrong or un-Christian. I can support my position and am willing to do so. You don’t seem to want to and I suspect you can’t. So I don’t see how I can value anything you’ve said so far.
July 2, 2008 at 1:41 am
Dinah Cancer
OMG! Are you really so uptight? I mean your husband was married before, obviously, and he’s probably cheating on you right now. And what’s wrong with the correlation between mutants and gays? They are people too and I believe your religeon asks you not to judge, but you sound completely judgemental. You are so afraid of gays having a legal relationship, yet more straight people get divorced and cheat than that of loving same-sex couples. Maybe you should be re-reading your bible and asking for forgiveness for being so cruel and judgemental to your fellow man instead of watching so much cartoons and playing playstation. That in and of itself makes you sound like a loser or a pothead!
July 3, 2008 at 9:59 am
Mary Contrary
Dinah Cancer:
So, you don’t have any comment on the actual article itself, you just don’t like me personally. Gotcha. Sorry to hear that.
One comment did get my interest, though. Straights divorce and cheat more often than “loving same-sex couples”? Seriously? And who told you this? What did they base this assertion on?
More to the point, why did you ever accept this ridiculous (and obviously false) statement as fact, confidently enough to post it here openly?
July 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Annoyed
I’ve been away for a bit– cabin in the woods sans l’internet– so I’m not going to go back to my argument and your argument and argue away. I’m trying to relax. But I’d just like to say that despite my gender-neutral post and name, you chose to assume that I was a gay man. I’m a straight woman.
My point in the post was to ask why men have g-spots in their anuses, if the body is not designed for homosexual sex.
July 7, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Mary Contrary
Annoyed:
I actually had to go back and look for my response to see where I suggested you were a guy. I’m assuming the “it feels so good to me” thing? I honestly assumed you were female, actually. Don’t ask me why, though. I was referring to the very bad habit many people have of determining what is right based on what feels good. That’s a pretty horrible way to determine the right or wrong of anything.
But as to the g-spot thing…does it qualify as a “g-spot”? Or is more of an erogenous zone would you say? Regardless, if I were going to accept this argument I’d then have to address all the problems anal sex causes as well. There are problems you know and bad enough to discredit this idea completely. And it doesn’t address the fact that anal sex isn’t even a requirement for gay sex (male homosexuality) anyway. Arguably not even inherent.
But all that aside…cabin in the woods. Congrats! That’s sounds just lovely. Was there, perchance, a lake involved here? If so, I may be tempted to jealousy.
July 7, 2008 at 9:05 pm
The Question
John 8:3-11
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11″No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
July 8, 2008 at 9:50 am
Mary Contrary
The Question:
So should I go now to our judges and tell them they can no longer judge the criminals that are brought before them? Should I go now to our legislators and tell them our laws must all be abolished because there is no one without sin who is qualified to judge? Are Christians forbidden to even form an opinion on what laws we should have or the punishments for them?
TQ, with all due respect, John 8:3-11 has nothing to do with anything under discussion here. Here’s a couple of verses that are relevant, though.
Leviticus 20:10
10And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
John 7:24
24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
And here’s one for you, TQ:
1 Corinthians 6:2
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
July 9, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Wow. You are Scary
If you had done a lick of the research you preach about you’d know that Jean Grey and Cyclops (pssst..His name is Scott Summers) are in fact NOT married.
And dayum. You are one scary freak, lady.
July 10, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mary Contrary
Wow:
So what? That matters? If they’re not married then they’re fornicating AND cheating, which is even worse isn’t it? Or is it not cheating if your aren’t married? No matter how you cut it it’s even worse, so what’s your argument?
And besides, this has already been pointed out. Thanks anyway.
And scary freak? Freak I guess I can’t really argue. Scary, though…well, I guess you’re just easily frightened. Grow a spine!
July 15, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Ed ("Jack Norris")
The only death penalty offenses can only ever be murder or worse (meaning mass murder or genocide), simple as that. Only taking a life can ever justify taking a life. Period. Regardless of one’s feelings about adultery or homosexuality, to place them on the same level as murder is beyond all reason.
July 16, 2008 at 9:24 am
Mary Contrary
Ed, what do you base this on? Your personal opinion? Then you should support it or we haven’t any reason to give it any credit beyond that.
But I’ll respond to your point and say that I generally agree with you. The thing is, these things are outlawed as capitol crimes in the mosaic law precisely because they are viewed as actually being the source of a lot of death among the people. So they are responded to as dangerous, deadly crimes. So if you and I were going to argue here it would be over whether or not these things lead to death to the extent that they require the same response that such singular violence as murder does.
July 27, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Disappointed
At first I was impressed by your tenacity in battling homosexuality and adultery, until I read that your current “marriage” is born from a divorce and thus, you are in fact, an adulteress yourself. Everyday you and your “husband” live together in sin, you are committing a perverse abomination in God’s eyes. With each act of fornication you mock the sanctity of a real Christian marriage.
You call yourself a Christian and yet a divorce and remarriage is condemned by Jesus himself in Luke 16:16-18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” It doesn’t matter if you or your husband were a Christian or not, a divorce is a slap in the face to the Lord. The only reason to divorce is in the case of adultery – but even then, there is no permission for remarriage. This “marriage” may make you “feel good” or be “happy”, but this adulteress lifestyle is wicked and immoral. It is perhaps even more perverse than the gays.
You need to separate from this man you call your “husband” and hope for reconciliation between the real spouses and if that is impossible, you should both live a chaste life of celibacy. Please repent of your sins before you bear and infect illegitimate children with your spiritual corruption. Its sad, because it seems like you have deluded yourself into thinking that your evil ways are somehow righteous. I pray for your restoration.
July 27, 2008 at 7:53 pm
contrarymary
Disappointed:
At first I was convicted at your correction and then I realized you’re an idiot who hasn’t the first clue what you’re talking about. Okay, honestly, no. I wasn’t convicted at all. Your idiocy was obvious before the end of the first sentence. I doubt you’re even a Christian. If you are, you’re not very good at it. If you aren’t…you’re still not very good at it.
The biblical perspective on marriage, adultery and remarriage is spelled out fairly well. It’s not nearly as complicated as you seem to assume.
Matthew 19:9 (King James Version)
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
If I had to bet, I’d bet you’re someone angry at the things I’ve said on other issues but smart enough to realize you have no argument. So you concoct this because you believe Christians are all obviously stupid and irrational, so of course I’ll accept what you say if you present yourself in this caricature of Christianity.
Which makes you a real tool.
Of course, there is a slim chance that you actually are a Christian. In which case I would call you an utter fool and tell you that you should ever, ever, ever judge someone so harshly from such total ignorance.
I have no problem with a fellow Christian telling me when I’m wrong but I expect them not to be completely ignorant when they do. Don’t you dare speak to anyone on such an important matter when you haven’t even bothered to look into the matter first.
Either way, don’t post here again until you either cease being a complete tool or you know what you’re talking about. Or both.
Kthxbye.
July 28, 2008 at 12:56 am
Disappointed
You probably will delete this, which is fine – I just hope you’ll first read it with a prayer and perhaps open hands. I’m sorry I was so rude. I’m sorry I was a tool. I was trying to get your attention and it may have been overboard. Hopefully you will see that I’ve both ceased being a complete tool and do know what I’m talking about.
I read through these posts and saw that you only seemed able to hear pain, bitterness, and brokenness and respond in kind. You covered your ears to every other whispered word of reproof and love. So, I went for the extreme. I yelled condemnation. Was it sensational? Sure. But to a woman who is “the red-headed Irish tree-killing, meat-eating barbarian with the bible in one hand and a knobby club in the other standing at the gate and calling you out to fight” it seemed par for the course.
You speak of longing for correction, but it seems you never hear it. I hoped perhaps I could get your attention by shouting my way in, but looking back it was not done in love or peace – I’m sorry.
But please, please, please continue reading and use your knobby club to lean on instead of braining me while I speak to you for real now, prayerfully, and hopefully, with your full attention.
Biblically speaking, yes, divorce and remarriage are considered adultery.
Biblical verses on divorce:
“… I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel …” – Malachi 2:16
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” – Luke 16:16-18
“A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” – 1 Cor. 7:10-11
These are pretty straightforward and not difficult texts to unpack. They aren’t complicated at all. A few have attempted to reinterpret that Matthew 19:19 gives a spouse who has been cheated on grounds to remarry but Jesus never says that. He says that it gives them grounds to divorce not remarry. In a nutshell: God hates divorce, the only reason to get divorced is marital unfaithfulness and it is not okay to get remarried from a divorce in the eyes of God.
Does what I’ve said sound outrageous? Perhaps in today’s day and age. 60 years ago, it would have been a different story. People cherished marriage in a different manner.
And I have looked into this matter. Obviously, I do know what I’m talking about (despite your counter that I didn’t), but I was being a jerk in the manner I approached it – purposefully as a shock tactic, but a total jerk none-the-less. I am truly sorry, if my harsh words on something that is so important to you and close to your heart hurt you.
God says divorce is wrong and remarriage is adultery. I don’t think anyone can get around that, no matter how much they want to or how much they try to reinterpret the verses. There are quite a few of them in the New Testament on the subject (certainly more than your other hot button topic, homosexuality). That being said, God is also gracious and wants His children to live in the freedom of his grace.
Now, let me completely amend everything I said in my previous post: there is freedom from the slavery of the law and that is in the grace of Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether you sinned in marrying your husband, God loves you and wants you to be in relationship with Him. He wants to bless your life and have you enjoy it. He wants to take your broken soul and mold into something He can use. But He doesn’t want your hatred and anger.
I want you to take a real good look at the harsh words you have used against others on this page and realize your words may have hurt too. That there are matters that are important to other people that you used your tongue (take a look at the book of James chapter one to see the wickedness of the tongue) to burn deep wounds in their hearts as well. Truth should be spoken in love.
You say you long for correction and for growth, but when wisdom is given, you shun it. You call it foolish. And sometimes you completely ignore it and attack people personally. That is not the way of the wise. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. But instead of fearing the Lord, you’re trying to be the *one* people fear.
Your rough past does not give you the permission to hate. And your sins of divorce/remarriage (and ultimately adultery in God’s eyes) is just as ugly as the sins of others. More importantly you don’t even accept your sins as sin. Those are things you have to accept. Stop throwing the first stone Mary, Jesus wants to protect you from the stones too, but can’t when you’re lobbing them at his children. What you do to the least of these, you do to Jesus.
Fruits of the Spirit sum up the nine visible attributes of a true Christian life. Galatians 5:22-23, these attributes are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. None of your posts that I have read reflect any of those attributes. You speak of judgement and rebuking, of vindication and retribution – I see none of those things on that list. Where is the joy? The peace? The longsuffering? Where is the love that Paul and Jesus both speak so highly of?
I hope you’ve carefully and thoughtfully read all the way through. I hope you don’t just knobby club my post to death, eat it up and spit out the bones. I pray that you truly and wisely read through this. I hope, that regardless of the inappropriate way I began this (and I hope you’ll forgive me), I’ve planted a small seed in your heart and you have a few fruits of the spirit grow there.
July 28, 2008 at 2:00 am
Mary Contrary
Disappointed:
Too much to respond to. I mean, sheesh. So I’m going to cut and paste this comment on it’s own page and respond to it there.
Sound good? Great. Meetcha there.
July 28, 2008 at 2:20 am
Disappointed
Sounds good
September 3, 2008 at 12:09 am
contrarymary
Bdub, you’re pointless post was deleted. Sorry you didn’t have anything better to do but that’s not my problem.
September 29, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Michelle
Is anyone going to mention Emma Frost? Or that out of scott and jean scottis the ONLY one to have had an affair. He is a total douche and at one point i believe he married her clone because he apperently doesnt give a crap about who hes with.
October 19, 2008 at 3:38 pm
contrarymary
Michelle: “Is anyone going to mention Emma Frost? Or that out of scott and jean scottis the ONLY one to have had an affair. He is a total douche and at one point i believe he married her clone because he apperently doesnt give a crap about who hes with.”
I’m beginning to get the impression that it’s somehow become standard for our modern day heroes to be flawed. In fact, flawed beyond even your average person. Which strikes me as a little stupid.
Now, I can certainly understand showing a hero overcoming his/her own limitations and shortcomings. Even significant personal flaws that have to be overcome. That’s good stuff. It’s inspiring. The things is…I don’t see these heroes overcoming these things. At all. It’s accepted.
Which does not encourage me at all. That’s just not heroic.
But again, as I’ve said before, this article isn’t about the Marvel super-heroes. Or any heroes in general. It’s about the general media portrayal of adultery and the moral issues inherent in intimate relationships. The Jean Grey/Cyclops/Wolverine is just given as an example of that.
December 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Brandon Allen
Scott’s always been a douche. Why do you think James Marsters played Cyclops as if he were Tom Cruise?
December 16, 2008 at 9:57 am
guess
Note to Guess: This is such a long comment that I’m not sure it even qualifies as such. I nearly cut-n-pasted it to its own post and deleted it from the comments section. But I’ll just slip in my comments and responses here and there as needed. Mainly you seem to just assume so much about me based on a pretty clearly predjudice against Christians in general.
Frankly, the only reason I didn’t just delete is because it’s so long. It represents a nice chunk of time and effort, though I have doubts there was much thought put into it. Oh, well.
Hi there! First of all, I simply must say, you HAVE to check out Stephen Colbert. If I may proffer a guestimate as to your level of exposure to our culture (and I’ll go ahead and do that), you probably haven’t yet discovered this conservative icon (Papa Bear says the jury’s out on him).
Mary responds: For example. Why the assumption I’d never heard of Stephen Colbert? Of course I have. Have you examined why you need to believe I have little “exposure to culture”? Try not to be startled by this but not everyone believes what you do. Some people even have radically different views. And not always because they’ve not been exposed to your culture.
Yes, I know. Shocking. But true.
I always enjoy reading posts by people such as yourself. I must say, I read your entire article before making up my mind that you were actually serious and not doing a Stephen act yourself. That being said, when you preface it with such a long-winded, hyperbolic bit of grandstanding as that, the punch-line sort of delivers that itself.
Mary responds: Good. Thanks. long-winded, hyperbolic grandstanding was pretty much what I was shooting for. Glad you found it entertaining.
There are probably more than a billion people on this planet that call themselves Christians, and you do not represent all of them, nor do you know what they’re thinking.
Mary responds: So? Who said I did? Are you assuming I believed that I did? Good grief, why?
X-men came out of the late 60’s and was always intended as metaphor for the struggle of ALL groups fighting for civil rights, acceptance, etc. I’m sure the original Stan Lee comics were supposed to more directly correlate to the struggle of minorities in this country, but the issues of women, the disabled and others was also explained at length. Also, (director) Bryan Singer is gay. He came out of the closet around the same time as Chuck Palaunick, the author of Fight Club, from which you nabbed your snarky little “Jack’s complete lack of surprise” line. I’m tellin’ ya, I read that and thought surely this is satire.
Mary responds: Sure, there’s some satire there. I enjoy chuckling at myself as much as anyone. And yes, I understand the metaphors in the X-men series. It’s hardly subtle. Again, are you assuming I don’t understand this or do you believe it makes you look insightful to point it out?
I read a very insightful and funny article once, entitled “A who’s who in Hell.” It was about all of the Jews, atheists agnostics and other nonbelievers who are, undoubtedly to you, burning in Hell right now. It was a long list of people without whom we wouldn’t live in the same world. Something to think about when we march those naughty little pillow biters to the town square to chop off their heads.
Mary responds: I’m sure that means a lot to you. But, as you’re clearly unwilling or unable examine this from anyone else’s point of view (mine being the obvious one here) you don’t see that…I just don’t care much. I’m simply not all that impressed by these people’s lives or their contributions to the world. As a Christian I realize the grand influence on the world by these individuals doesn’t really amount to much. And from God’s perspective it’s really less than nothing. He’s really not impressed. So I see no reason that I should be.
How many souls did these people save from hell? None? Not even their own? Then I don’t really care what grand accomplishments are attributed to them or what effect their lives have had on the world. The world is still corrupt, people are still wicked and they haven’t even managed to secure their own eternal souls (despite the fact that it takes exactly zero time or effort to accomplish). From the big picture point of view…it’s not at all impressive. Which is why these folks presumably went right to hell and God didn’t have to ponder it much before laying down that judgment.
Of course, you think that gay people are all strange little perverts who hang out in dungeons and wear masks like the gimp in Pulp Fiction.
Mary responds: I do? How did you come to that conclusion?
That’s why you were so in favor of proposition 8:
Mary responds: I was? Are you sure? How so?
if we can keep them from entering into union as we do, we can still think of them as weirdos who spread about disease and have thirty new sex partners a week.
Mary responds: That’s what I think? Really?
As for whores, Hell, whores are people too.
Mary responds: What’s that got to do with anything? What rights or protections do you think being “people” imparts to you? I’d guess you assumed if I see them as “people” I’ll hesitate to judge them. Not at all. Quite the opposite. I don’t generally assign moral responsibilities to non-people.
And quite a few of them are out there right now, this very morning, having more fun than perhaps you or I ever will.
Mary responds: So? Because they’re having fun…that makes it acceptable? Weird way of looking at things. Not very healthy, really.
But what makes one a whore?
Mary responds: You’re seriously having trouble with that one? Look it up.
I’ve felt for some time that it delivers a far greater sting to refer to someone as a whore in the social sense than in the sexual. For instance, Robert DeNiro, Kate Winslet, Wes Anderson and others making commercials for American Express, one of the greatest economic tyrants in history, well, Damn! Sunny Lane ain’t got (crap) on these people. Friggin’ Charles Barkley trying to sell me a car.
Mary responds: Well, that’s dumb. Seriously. I’ll go out on a limb here and say no one agrees with you on that one. In fact, I don’t really believe even you believe it would hurt worse to be called a “social” whore rather than a “sexual” whore.
Just so we’re clear, Jean and Logan are SUPPOSED to have feelings for each other, and while they’re not SUPPOSED to end up together, they are SUPPOSED to make mistakes. This makes their story compelling, because it’s a struggle that’s very real. If you like your characters all pristine and white-washed, I suggest you ditch Marvel for DC (Batman aside, of course. But I already know you think Rachel Dawes is a whore). Personally, I don’t think there’s anything more compelling in literature than a man and a woman who want each other, perhaps are meant to be together, but cannot.
Mary responds: I don’t think you read my article quite as attentively as you pretend you did.
Also, Brett Ratner’s one of what BILL HICKS would call Satan’s little helpers, a talentless hack who makes family-friendly pg-13-rs you can bring your kids to, as long as you check your brain at the door. As the director, we have to hold HIM responsible for the crass and unrealistic timing of Wolvie and Jean’s little tryst. Bryan Singer may have jumped the shark, but I don’t think he would’ve ok’d these two hooking up in the middle of Wolverine interrogating Jean about one of his missing teammates.
Mary responds: The article was about how adultery and such are presented in the media, Jean and Wolvie being just one example. Try to keep up.
As to capital punishment for gettin’ freaky, cheating on your husband (who in many instances may be a drunk/tweeker/wife beater) and other such offenses, nice grandstanding, but I think this may be the one thing in your post you don’t actually believe. See, I came to this conclusion because you’re obviously smart enough to compose a post that’s this freakin’ long yet never ceases to be compelling. All of your arguments are well thought out. A logical person such as yourself couldn’t possibly actually think we should just go around killing people for cheating or doing the naughty with a same-sex partner. Why, then, are you lying? Is it because you’re writing emotion and not thought? Which serves which, and which is privileged? That’s right, let’s get deconstuctive, mofo.
Mary responds: Well, you’re wrong. I think it’s because you refuse to accept that anyone above the level of intellectual mongoloid could ever honestly believe differently than you. And I think that is because you’ve been told what to think. You have little or no familiarity with examining an issue thoughtfully, objectively and coming to you own conclusion.
But you don’t have to worry about all that. As a person who lives her entire life in submission to her husband, you don’t have to concern yourself with your own opinion, because you’re not allowed to have one! Which, in a more social since, makes. . .you. . .a. . .
Mary responds: Hm. I think I may be onto something here. I admit, I kinda feel sorry for you. I really hope you learn to think for yourself.
December 16, 2008 at 4:10 pm
guess
Sorry, but I’s got’s more. . .
I just read your little exchange w/ “disappointed” and let me tell you, as the grandson of a pentecostal preacher and brother of an ostracized atheist. . .
God gave Job a new wife. Does that mean nothing to you people? Do you really think remarriage is so godawful?
Mary responds: Okay, let’s take your comment about Job, at face value, as accurate. It isn’t (as Brandon points out, Job’s wife died. She wasn’t “replaced”). Even accepting it like that…it utterly fails to have anything to do with this. But here’s my response to that anyway:
God can do that. He’s…you know…God. How does that mean that everything else he said on the issue is voided?
So…you have proof that God can give a man a new wife. You have an example of that. Whoopee. Has nothing to do what we’re talking about.
But, to reiterate, God didn’t switch wives on Job. His first wife died. You can remarry after that kind of things happens. Duh.
What if (and I know this seems far fetched) mommy turned out to be an emotionally and verbally abusive person who was prone to dating the wrong guy and daddy turned out to be a journal-keeping peeping tom pedo who woke his 9 year old daughter up one night while rubbing ben gay on her bare back? I only ask because it happened to my parents. I wonder if your christian compassion is about to shower me with warm and fuzzies. . .
Mary responds: Nope. No warm fuzzies here. Sorry. If he molested (raped) his 9 year old daughter then he should be tried and executed. And, just to bring this around to the topic, the mother would naturally then be free to remarry.
The point is, with all the pressure you crazy fundamentalist put on your hormone-addled teens to “do it god’s way” and GET MARRIED NOW, don’t you think there’s something to be said for admitting you’ve made a mistake?
Mary responds: I don’t advise teens to GET MARRIED NOW! I’d advise the opposite. Rather strongly. I would advise not to fornicate, though. I think you’re confusing those two or something.
And, again, to bring this back around to the topic, there’s nothing wrong with divorce (or rather there is but it’s at least acceptable under certain circumstances). My husband is divorced. But let’s toss the question right back at you sideways. What’s wrong with encouraging others not to make that kind of mistake?
Also, leave “the gays” alone. If you wanna protect marriage, see the above paragraph and persuade your daughters and sons to try before they buy, and stop divorcing at a greater than 50 percent rate. Gay, bi and transgendered people account for a trifle of the amount of violent crime, just so ya know. Also. . .
Mary responds: I contend that our “try before you buy” mentality is precisely why the divorce rate is so high. Surely this has been explained to you. You really can’t fathom that? Or are you having trouble disagreeing with something you understand and, therefore, have to…well…not understand it…so you don’t accidentally accept it.
Sheesh, you’re giving me a headache. How can you think in such a convulted way? Must suck.
There are 2 different (disparate) (conflicting) accounts of the creation story at the beginning of Genesis.
Mary responds: No, there aren’t.
There are 4 different (disparate) (conflicting) accounts of Jesus’ life.
Mary responds: No. There aren’t.
Every time you clock in for work or purchase a good or service, you pay for a conflict which kills thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq. Our boys and girls have had to buy their own body armor, and they are going through Hell to get their VA benefits, AND their debt is not forgiven. So you may wanna think about re-prioritizing.
Mary responds: I agree. Our government is screwy and they do screwy things with our tax dollars. But I think that’s because we, as a people, are screwy. And, since the government is made up of people from among “we the people”…well, the screwy just naturally follows. So I point out the screwy stuff here amongst “we the people”.
Makes sense to me.
“Whore” is only an acceptable term to me (aside from the aforementioned social relevance) when two heterosexual human beings are having proper sex.
Mary responds: Well, that’s not what the word means. So, why do you feel good about altering the meaning of a word like that? Do you think that really has any effect on reality?
Ester was awesome.
Mary responds: Agreed.
Ann Coulter is one of the percentage of women Dr. Drew believes cannot experience an orgasm.
Mary responds: So?
December 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Brandon Allen
First off, “guess,” Job’s wife was dead. Getting married again after that has never been considered wrong in Biblical Christendom.
And most of the divorced couples out there all had sex before getting married. In fact, I doubt any of them did not.
Also, in case you missed this, Mary used to be a lesbian. She knows what she’s talking about.
December 25, 2008 at 7:18 am
guess
That’s right, she’s “in recovery.” Which, according to her belief system (and yours?), is not good enough; she should be put to death anyway so she can fly up to heaven with all the other judgmental lunatics.
Mary responds: That’s not what I believe. Where’d you get that?
Popularity determines morality in the belief system of no logical person, including the authors of the Bible – “be ye not of the world.”
Mary responds: What’s that got to do with anything?
I fathered an aborted child once. Does this give me carte blanche to assail the character of anyone else who does it, because I “know what I’m talking about?” No, it means that I did something once and lived to regret it. The fact that Mary now regrets realizing that she, like me and like the majority of human beings, is attracted to the undeniable beauty that is woman is not a credential.
Mary responds: What are you on about? Of course it does. You have personal experience with abortion. You really think that has no effect on your opinion?
December 27, 2008 at 12:34 am
Brandon Allen
You don’t know her belief system, or mine. She’s not in recovery. She’s in victory. Victory in Jesus. Her Savior, forever.
The only thing that gives anyone the God-given right to rebuke sinners is repentance of sin. I.e. removing the speck from one’s own eye, so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. I am not a homo, and I am the very righteousness of God in Christ. And you?
Abortion is murder, and anyone who willingly takes part in one is a murderer.
January 2, 2009 at 7:17 am
guess
I see a strange parallel between you and those who spout Aristotle and Hume and Kant because they think philosophy is nothing more than a collection of overburdened polysyllibics whose sole function is to make them look smart. I say this because you quote rhetoric from “bible scholars” and from the good book itself, and you state such theory as fact. Telling me that Jesus said so is not scientific evidence even if Jesus was imperfect and never told anything but the truth, because you don’t have any evidence that Jesus said so. Or Paul. Or Constantine. You have only the supposed word of people who died millenia before you were born, and the interpretations of people who (you just have to take their word for it) have spoken with the almighty on how to interpret the bible. But I suspect you really don’t care about that.
Mary responds: Where did “scientific evidence” come from? I suspect you had a point but got sidetracked by your compelling need to reject the bible or Christianity as truth.
I could illustrate that by suddenly veering off and attacking your assumption that Aristotle, Hume and Kant ever really said the things attributed to them and your lack of “scientific evidence” that they did so…but that would be dumb. And it would make me look dumb.
You don’t care (in my opinion), because like all other people, there are two “you’s:” the you who observes, and the you who is observed. Whenever we speak to another person or mutter a curse under our breath when someone cuts us off in traffic and think, “that felt good,” we are communicating with our other self as well. I suspect that your conversations on religion, politics and homophobia / sexuality-phobia are more about your communication with your other self than with other people. I suspect you’re telling the self that observes that you’re being a good little lemming – er, christian – so he can congratulate the self that is observed.
Mary responds: I suspect that this is a fairly accurate illustration of how you think. And if so, then it would rather explain why you seem incapable of understanding anything you’ve read on this blog.
And I believe I DO know her belief system. I’ve gotten thousands of words in discourse on her belief system right here, directly from the maw of thine horse.
Mary responds: Well, you’re wrong. You’ve been pretty wildly wrong just about every single time you’ve commented on my beliefs. Which is really weird because, as you pointed out, you’ve thousands of words in discourse on my belief system right here.
Finally, the “recovery” comment was a quote from the very top of this page.
Mary responds: He was pointing out a biblical concept. Probably to encourage you to go examine that concept. I’m fairly confident he’s aware I refer to myself as “recovering” at the top of the page. I know that I’ve certainly used that phrase while talking to him directly so I’d be surprised if he was unaware of it.
No no, one more. . . Care to explain how you are the embodiment of immaculate purity that is Jesus Christ? Sounds like blasphemy to me but hey, what do I know, I’m just a homo-huggin’ baby-killer.
Mary responds: Again, another biblical concept. Either take the time to look into it or don’t. Probably shouldn’t make yourself look dumb by pretending you understanding. That (as here) usually doesn’t work out.
May 23, 2009 at 5:44 am
Brandon Allen aka Lighthouse
What am I supposed to guess here? Your IQ?
Ima go with 2.