mamajag Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ok. I don't mean I don't believe the PP (or you). I'm just shocked at the ridiculousness. I run in Christian circles to some extent, and it's NOT the kind of thing I've ever heard--or could imagine hearing--from any of the Christians I interact with. I also would never speak that way myself. Christianity does not equal fundamentalism, and I think that's where a lot of the judgy-judgy speak-before-you-think stuff comes from. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't believe it. It's just that your response is very typical and used around here a lot to mean that Christians aren't rude to me because those guys aren't actually Christian so the religion is blameless totally. I live in the Bible Belt. Yes, we're saving to move to a more diversified area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 No one was trying to settle anything. Being ignorant of something is excusable. What you (general) do with new knowledge shows your true character. Just as being rude and judgmental versus giving people the benefit of the doubt shows one's true character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenNC Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 How KIND of Alberta to permit parents to still impart their religious beliefs so long as it is not part of "instruction". "According to McColl, Christian homeschooling families can continue to impart Biblical teachings on homosexuality in their homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic program of studies and instructional materials.†Whatever. I see lawsuits on the Horizon. How would they ever separate that out? And how do they DARE get into the family's business. If I'm not mistaken, homeschoolers in Alberta (or is it other areas of Canada?) have at least the option to have the government subsidize their schooling in various ways, which would give the government the right to "get into the family's business" of what they were using those funds to purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I cannot keep up with you people. :tongue_smilie::D Literally. I'm not a bad typist (coherent thought is my problem), but I'm scratching my head at some of these people... on both fronts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I agree. In my area I feel that Christianity is discriminatory to the extent of legislating religion and committing to law things that I feel are wrong. I do not think Jesus would be ok with killing women in case she might end a pregnancy to save her life. States are passing laws giving Drs free passes to lie to women, even if her life is in danger. To me that is evil. Our health care should be better, not worse. I no longer feel this state is a safe place to raise a daughter. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 How KIND of Alberta to permit parents to still impart their religious beliefs so long as it is not part of "instruction". "According to McColl, Christian homeschooling families can continue to impart Biblical teachings on homosexuality in their homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic program of studies and instructional materials.†Whatever. I see lawsuits on the Horizon. How would they ever separate that out? And how do they DARE get into the family's business. Yup. Freedom of religion. If I'm not mistaken, homeschoolers in Alberta (or is it other areas of Canada?) have at least the option to have the government subsidize their schooling in various ways, which would give the government the right to "get into the family's business" of what they were using those funds to purchase. But, we also have seperate school boards, which are religious and receive gov funding. As far as I know, AB is the only one w/funding, but I did hear BC might, not sure. And if it's a matter of funding, then easy enough...I didn't use funding to purchase our Bible. Funding is reimbursement, up to a set dollar amt. Some families choose not to access it at all, so just b/c its *available* to them, but they don't use it, should they still have to be under this shadow? I'm still waiting for them to define what, exactly, we're not allowed to 'teach'. Is it just homosexuality is a sin? What about all the other sins? And, since our hsing isn't a straight M-F 9-3 pm thing, how can it be determined if I'm actually 'teaching' or 'discussing'? Fwiw, I'm already w/a Christian school board, not public/secular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) :confused: I was in earnest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/kansas-abortion-bill-sales-tax_n_1327301.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/wrongful-birth-bill-arizona-senate-abortion-bill_n_1335117.html?ref=mostpopular Edited March 10, 2012 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I see that quote as having to do with divorce. Remarriage is bad, ok... What does that have to do with homosexuality, again? As to Levitical law, I do find it interesting how different the Jewish stance is on this. Well if we are going with Levitical law then I'm going to hell. I had shrimp for dinner. ;) I would like to try some logic here: The ten commandments state that taking the Lords name in vain is a sin. A sin is the same as a law for those who are Christian. In Sweden (where I happen to live) spanking a child is against the law. I believe that this law is right. Because I believe that this law is right I think that people who spank their children are breaking a law, even when those people don't live in Sweden. Ergo all those who spank children must be punished. I think this is what we call post hoc ergo propter hoc. I firmly believe that (general) you can believe what you want as long as it harms no one else nor interferes with how someone else lives their life. I believe that a marriage is a contract between two people and only those two people. If someone wants to have their union blessed/sanctioned by their church then that is fine. But the legal side, who gets benefits, who gets to make medical decisions for whom is a matter between the individuals in the marriage. Not anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Just as being rude and judgmental versus giving people the benefit of the doubt shows one's true character. See, that's where you're wrong, MM. Find my post where I don't give folks the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, I don't even say a word IRL. And where was I rude? My whole point is: many people will go OUT OF THEIR WAY not to offend others of non-Jesus religion. But let someone mention that a word/phrase is a euphemism for Jesus the Christ and that they dislike hearing it, and all of a sudden, she's out of touch, what about Shakespear (again!) languages change, and on and on. To the point of others using them on purpose to insult. If you want to use words that bother others even after you know they bother them, that's your call. If you think it's rude of me to think it's rude for someone to do that, I guess I'm rude :tongue_smilie: Edited March 10, 2012 by dmmosher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 See, that's where you're wrong, MM. Find my post where I don't give folks the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, I don't even say a word IRL. And where was I rude? My whole point is: many people will go OUT OF THEIR WAY not to offend others of non-Jesus religion. But let someone mention that a word/phrase is a euphemism for Jesus the Christ and that they dislike hearing it, and all of a sudden, she's out of touch, what about Shakerspear (again!) languages change, and on and on. To the point of others using them on purpose to insult. If you want to use words that bother others even after you know they bother them, that's your call. If you think it's rude of me to think it's rude for someone to do that, I guess I'm rude :tongue_smilie: Bless your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I was in earnest. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/kansas-abortion-bill-sales-tax_n_1327301.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/wrongful-birth-bill-arizona-senate-abortion-bill_n_1335117.html?ref=mostpopular I'm against abortion, but even that section (withholding medical information from a patient) doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Here was my first post about "Jeez"-- #101 [The only "judgment I made was about how surprised I am that people didn't know what the word meant]. Well, before this thread gets closed I'll go on the record to say I'm shocked how many people didn't know that Jeez (yes, you can change it to a "G", if you must) is a euphemism for Jesus the Christ. It is offensive to many. But from my experience here, the truly conservative folks stay out of these threads. They almost always turn into mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 See, that's where you're wrong, MM. Find my post where I don't give folks the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, I don't even say a word IRL. And where was I rude? My whole point is: many people will go OUT OF THEIR WAY not to offend others of non-Jesus religion. For example? What? But let someone mention that a word/phrase is a euphemism for Jesus the Christ and that they dislike hearing it, and all of a sudden, she's out of touch, what about Shakerspear (again!) languages change, and on and on. To the point of others using them on purpose to insult. If you want to use words that bother others even after you know they bother them, that's your call. If you think it's rude of me to think it's rude for someone to do that, I guess I'm rude :tongue_smilie: Mentioning that it was once intended as a euphemism for Jesus is one thing. *Insisting* that it *still* carries that *same* meaning *and* that it "speaks to your character" if you continue to use it when you are disabused of your ignorance is quite another thing. Having a difference of opinion does not mean that anyone else is of lower character than you. Saying that it does is rude and judgmental in my opinion. You can think likewise, it has no affect on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Here was my first post about "Jeez"-- #101 [The only "judgment I made was about how surprised I am that people didn't know what the word meant]. Did I say your first post was judgmental? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 You can think likewise, it has no affect on me. Same here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Here was my first post about "Jeez"-- #101 [The only "judgment I made was about how surprised I am that people didn't know what the word meant]. Well, before this thread gets closed I'll go on the record to say I'm shocked how many people didn't know that Jeez (yes, you can change it to a "G", if you must) is a euphemism for Jesus the Christ. It is offensive to many. But from my experience here, the truly conservative folks stay out of these threads. They almost always turn into mockery. You are right. Most people do simply remain silent and off threads like this. But once in awhile...you have just had enough of all the misinformation (not about what geez means, just in general) and you speak up. I guess I do that too much and should just remain silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) About 2nd commandment / taking the Lord's name in vain - I thought the Jewish/Christian God does have a name, and that it was not to be spoken, and that's why we use the generic term "God" or "the Lord". (Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness). "God" is not God's name... just sayin'. ;) (and playing a bit devil's advocate, this technicality just occurred to me as I was reading this thread and thought I'd through it out there for consideration - now I'll :leaving:). And I guess if you don't take the commandment literally, but consider things like "gosh" to be offensive, then that point is moot... Edited March 10, 2012 by matroyshka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 About 2nd commandment / taking the Lord's name in vain - I thought the Jewish/Christian God does have a name, and that it was not to be spoken, and that's why we use the generic term "God" or "the Lord". (Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness). "God" is not God's name... just sayin'. ;) (and playing a bit devil's advocate, this technicality just occurred to me as I was reading this thread and thought I'd through it out there for consideration - now I'll :leaving:). Hmm. That is true. Interesting thought. (And now I'm thinking about it, and it sure does make me feel a little better about when an 'Oh, my God!' does pop out of my mouth...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 You are right. Most people do simply remain silent and off threads like this. I wonder if there should be a poll: "If you have lived most of your life in the USA, did you know 'jeez' is a shortened form of the word 'Jesus'?" I'm mostly kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 You are right. Most people do simply remain silent and off threads like this. But once in awhile...you have just had enough of all the misinformation (not about what geez means, just in general) and you speak up. I guess I do that too much and should just remain silent. Yeah. If I could only, in good conscience, post my PMs :001_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 But once in awhile...you have just had enough of all the misinformation (not about what geez means, just in general) and you speak up. I guess I do that too much and should just remain silent. It's the misinformation that usually gets me too. I get so many false emails in my inbox that it just about makes me insane at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) I don't actually believe "Taking Lord's Name in Vain" has anything to do with saying his name. I believe it is putting words in his mouth or trying to "speak for" Christ, such as "God hates fags" and other things like that. I believe that is a sin. So no, I am not offended by "God's Beard!" (one of Queen Elizabeth I's) I am offended when someone gives me God's opinion on something like so many Evangelists do today. The other commandments, murder, stealing, adultery, mouthing off to your dad are all pretty big ones. I don't think "Jeez" quite lives up to be a commandment. Edited March 10, 2012 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 About 2nd commandment / taking the Lord's name in vain - I thought the Jewish/Christian God does have a name, and that it was not to be spoken, and that's why we use the generic term "God" or "the Lord". (Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness). "God" is not God's name... just sayin'. ;) (and playing a bit devil's advocate, this technicality just occurred to me as I was reading this thread and thought I'd through it out there for consideration - now I'll :leaving:). And I guess if you don't take the commandment literally, but consider things like "gosh" to be offensive, then that point is moot... Right. They didn't take it literally in Shakepeare's day. That's why you could get fined for using the Lord's name in vain, but not for saying, "God's blood!" This is what I was saying. If you try to make every interjection a swear word, well, then you're going to lose that battle against society, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 About 2nd commandment / taking the Lord's name in vain - I thought the Jewish/Christian God does have a name, and that it was not to be spoken, and that's why we use the generic term "God" or "the Lord". (Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness). "God" is not God's name... just sayin'. ;) (and playing a bit devil's advocate, this technicality just occurred to me as I was reading this thread and thought I'd through it out there for consideration - now I'll :leaving:). True. You know, I first came across the "minced oath" thing with a semi-cultic anabaptist group that used a lot of Rod and Staff material. Like Jack Chick, there were a lot of claims, but no real evidence that a+b=ghij Proof that gee means Jesus more than my saying flibbity-jibbit means Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Very, very interesting how cursewords frequently involve some invocation of Jesus or God, isn't it? You never hear anyone say, "Mohammed D&%m it!" or "Effing Vishnu!" etc etc. I am sure if you listen to angry Hindus and Muslims you will hear something, but probably not those, because they don't really make sense. Here are some religious curses in Arabic: http://thearabicstudent.blogspot.com/2010/11/cursing-in-arabic.html It's my understanding that there are plenty of curses around the world that don't involve God or Jesus or religious terminology. I think Jesus-related terms are also uncommon outside of Christian areas. I always thought there was something in Mandarin about turtles that is pretty rude. I think a better question is why do people use mother f*er as a swear word. It's got nothing to do with God, but is generally seen as extremely rude. Where's the thread about all the racist discrimination against white people? I'm sure it will be next. And then how we should stand up for the rights of the oppressed wealthy people of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
susankenny Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I guess I do that too much and should just remain silent. Well, I for one enjoyed what you had to share. I'm glad you chimed in.:) Susan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I don't actually believe "Taking Lord's Name in Vain" has anything to do with saying his name. I believe it is putting words in his mouth or trying to "speak for" Christ, such as "God hates fags" and other things like that. I believe that is a sin. So no, I am not offended by "God's Beard!" (one of Queen Elizabeth I's) I am offended when someone gives me God's opinion on something like so many Evangelists do today. That is a really interesting take on it, one I hadn't come across or considered before. You know, I do think there's merit to this idea. Hmmmm. Good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Well, I for one enjoyed what you had to share. I'm glad you chimed in.:) Susan Thanks. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) If you try to make every interjection a swear word, well, then you're going to lose that battle against society, imo.Sounds like a great premise for a John Cleese movie. Edited March 10, 2012 by nmoira typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 The other commandments, murder, stealing, adultery, mouthing off to your dad are all pretty big ones. I don't think "Jeez" quite lives up to be a commandment. Well, mouthy teens were supposed to be stoned to death (with rocks, not weed). Maybe I take back my position on whether we should take The Bible literally. I've had a hard time this week with my 16 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 About 2nd commandment / taking the Lord's name in vain - I thought the Jewish/Christian God does have a name, and that it was not to be spoken, and that's why we use the generic term "God" or "the Lord". (Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness). "God" is not God's name... just sayin'. ;) (and playing a bit devil's advocate, this technicality just occurred to me as I was reading this thread and thought I'd through it out there for consideration - now I'll :leaving:). And I guess if you don't take the commandment literally, but consider things like "gosh" to be offensive, then that point is moot... I guess this would apply if the particular name you are talking about were the name people actually use (at least mentally) to refer to God. Do most Americans in the Judeo-Christian tradition even know what name you are talking about? (I'm not sure myself, as there are multiple names of God in the Bible and its different translations.) Anyhoo, I'm really talking more about mutual respect than theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Well, mouthy teens were supposed to be stoned to death (with rocks, not weed). Maybe I take back my position on whether we should take The Bible literally. I've had a hard time this week with my 16 year old. Ahhhhhhhh, stoned to deaaaaaath, dude... like, that would be siiiiiick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I don't actually believe "Taking Lord's Name in Vain" has anything to do with saying his name. I believe it is putting words in his mouth or trying to "speak for" Christ, such as "God hates fags" and other things like that. I believe that is a sin. So no, I am not offended by "God's Beard!" (one of Queen Elizabeth I's) I am offended when someone gives me God's opinion on something like so many Evangelists do today. The other commandments, murder, stealing, adultery, mouthing off to your dad are all pretty big ones. I don't think "Jeez" quite lives up to be a commandment. I hadn't thought about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I just reread some posts and I think one of the problems is that some folks think the word IS a euphemism and others think it WAS a euphemism. Makes a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Oh my. That's hilarious. "Jesus spoke of man and woman. He did not exclude other pairings"? REALLY? I had to read that a couple of times because I couldn't believe you actually said this. SO....only men and women who married each other had any sorts of restrictions/regulations. Any other sexual thing you wanted to do in this culture was fine and dandy? Is THAT your argument? Wow. To quote that great theologian, Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." If you can't engage with me on issues and content, and without snark, please use your ignore feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I just reread some posts and I think one of the problems is that some folks think the word IS a euphemism and others think it WAS a euphemism. Makes a big difference. Right. This is what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Well, mouthy teens were supposed to be stoned to death (with rocks, not weed). Maybe I take back my position on whether we should take The Bible literally. I've had a hard time this week with my 16 year old. I know right? My eleven year old about wore me out this week. Effing Vishnu, I am tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Maybe I take back my position on whether we should take The Bible literally. I've had a hard time this week with my 16 year old. And on this, I can totally relate. More than you will ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I am sure if you listen to angry Hindus and Muslims you will hear something, but probably not those, because they don't really make sense. Here are some religious curses in Arabic: http://thearabicstudent.blogspot.com/2010/11/cursing-in-arabic.html Thanks! And then how we should stand up for the rights of the oppressed wealthy people of the world.Well, they are in the minority. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Well, mouthy teens were supposed to be stoned to death (with rocks, not weed). Maybe I take back my position on whether we should take The Bible literally. I've had a hard time this week with my 16 year old. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I know right? My eleven year old about wore me out this week. Effing Vishnu, I am tired. :lol: You are bad, bad, bad! And, hairyfrickingonadsofagoldendonkey, my 10yo did the same to me. No offense to donkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I looked in the OED to see the etymology of "gee." It says Etymology:* Probably a shortening of Jesus! (or Jerusalem!) That does not seem very conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Wow. WOW. What is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Right. This is what I'm saying. Right. And just because I believe it IS one doesn't mean I insist you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I don't actually believe "Taking Lord's Name in Vain" has anything to do with saying his name. I believe it is putting words in his mouth or trying to "speak for" Christ, such as "God hates fags" and other things like that. I believe that is a sin. So no, I am not offended by "God's Beard!" (one of Queen Elizabeth I's) I am offended when someone gives me God's opinion on something like so many Evangelists do today. The other commandments, murder, stealing, adultery, mouthing off to your dad are all pretty big ones. I don't think "Jeez" quite lives up to be a commandment. This is the way I understand it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Ignore. Huzzah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Wow. If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. ~Mahatma Gandhi Or if you need something more Biblical, "God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Wow. I'm sure she was being dramatic! What...you really think she is advocating stoning? Though the other kind of being stoned might just get me through these rotten years....hmmmmm. (Kidding!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I know right? My eleven year old about wore me out this week. Effing Vishnu, I am tired. :lol: I don't know how I missed this thread until now, but I about spat coffee on my computer when I got to this! I have to say, fascinating read. Had a similar week with my 11 year old! How do we get in on the stoning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts