Jump to content

Menu

Smarmy self-righteousness? Check!


unsinkable
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really don't get the point of half of most of the last couple of pages in this thread. Even those claiming "logic" seem to mainly use personal opinion and ad hominem attacks to make their points instead of actual data or information.

 

I agree. I guess this thread has come full circle.  Right back to smarmy self-righteousness.   :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get the point of half of most of the last couple of pages in this thread. Even those claiming "logic" seem to mainly use personal opinion and ad hominem attacks to make their points instead of actual data or information.

 

Can you share an example of an ad hominem attack used to support the use of logic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get the point of half of most of the last couple of pages in this thread. Even those claiming "logic" seem to mainly use personal opinion and ad hominem attacks to make their points instead of actual data or information.

:iagree:

 

Maybe they just like to fight.

 

I sort of lost track of the whole argument a couple pages back, anyway. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's the circle of...liiiiffffe!"

*happi duck stumbles off the karaoke stage almost spilling her cocktail*

"I'm ooookaay!"

 

Would the opposite of happi duck be sad swan?  glum goose?

 

Totally off topic (not that it matters in this thread at this juncture  ;) ), but I love karaoke!  A WTM karaoke night would be a hoot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this guy saying that not only must 'round parts' be covered but they must be so obscured that one is unable to detect their 'roundness'? This is the burka slippery slope. The problem is not lack of covering, but the fact young women have female bodies to begin with. Trying to get young men to never think about sex is a thankless job I would never put on anyone, especially a young woman.

In Mrs. Hall's post, it sounds like the young ladies were covered, just not sufficiently obscured. The only semi-naked people involved were her own sons.

 

Awww, RATS!  Had some computer issues and just checked in today to catch up here and I wanted to post a reply from about a zillion pages back...  this topic got off on all sorts of tangents, but since I just spent too much time reading and catching up, I'm going to post my replies anmyway.

 

:hurray: to the bolded above!  Not every girl who is clearly female-shaped is trying to show off for the boys. Not all clothing can hide the female form.

 

OK, one more "catch-up reply" from me... stay tuned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you aren't the one actually making this argument, but I'm using your post as a jumping off point.

 

But I think it had a VERY specific meaning that people are missing. In fact, by imposing the idea on girls that they must keep boys from sinning? They would be totally and completely getting the point of Jesus wrong. In this passage Jesus is talking about food rules. He is explaining that sin doesn't come from eating the wrong thing. He is saying that sin starts in your heart-on the inside. Sin doesn't start with *anything* external. http://biblia.com/books/esv/Mt15.8

 

The passage you are talking about is here: 

 

It doesn't read as anyone who has a sexual feeling is sinning. It says "everyone who looks at a woman with *lustful intent* has already committed adultery with her in his heart." What does that mean? Lustful intent? To me, it means *exactly* what this mom is (and maybe her sons are, but who knows?) doing. They are assigning lustful, impure thoughts to photos of girls who may (we don't know, we haven't seen the photos and don't know the girls) have not been meant to be sexy and alluring. Trying to get a gaze down a girl's shirt or peering intently at her behind as she bends over, thinking about how you can get with her, coveting another person-those are things that fall under lustful intent. It isn't arousal that falls under lustful intent, IMO. Assigning impure thoughts to girls providing external stimuli is the *opposite* of how Jesus says that sin happens. 

 

YES! :hurray:   Not all "impure" thoughts are truly lust! If a guy thinks "Oh hey look- a female-shaped human!" that is not the same as thinking "Oh hey a female shaped human here is a list of what I'd like to do to it!" :001_tt1:

 

OK, I'm all caught up now.  Remind me to never again take a few days off, OK? :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...