A REALLY hot girl knocked on my door...

Post Reply New Topic

Mmmm, I don't think you can say that. Hehe, but see, you're pivoting on a tricky word there: "societal". EVERY human matter is somewhat societal in some sense. But one can hardly say, "If you think you're black, and your friends think you're black, then you're black!" I think that would be an offensive, and indeed inaccurate simplification of the issue. There are some people who view what society says as pure truth, simply because society says it, but I believe truth does not change at all through shifts in our collective thoughts, AKA the passage of decades.


As I indicated, it was an object lesson in how you and others take my statements out of context, and make me into who-knows-what, out of your fertile imaginations.

I may respond to the rest of your post later -- but you'll understand the length has gotten rather taxing on my time. ... Now, back to Ann Coulter's new book! I'm already to page 100, and I only bought it last night!

Sure. But anything involving interaction
is such, by it's very nature. And thus more
fluid than evolutionary changes.



Actually, it's pretty close to that. Once a community
accepts a label, and it's ramifications, it's difficult
to overcome. Hence, the definition of 'black' as being
even 1/16th of African decent, at one time.



Ah, to the epistemology! I've seen no proof of
any 'truth' at all. I have my perceptions, which
give me some insight into possible others' own
claims. Not much more. Glad that you have such
a grounding that you are actually in touch with
the absolute reality, instead of filtering it, as humans
do.





Horribly taxing. But, 'tis all in the name
of spreading the word of the church of
Ragtime, what could be more important?

i never tell you WHAT to say... i do like to pose things at you which are hard to answer.... which you generally back down from... i wouldnt say you've ever responded to all my points... you're just using this angle to ONCE AGAIN not answer things... you always have some excuse: i didnt see the post... oh my blackberry... oh i was purposefully not making sense cause i felt like it....

and i do say you dont answer the important points... CAUSE YOU DONT

which is why you've already forgotten the post that i'm responding to now


sometimes i call you "chicken lil" to myself

Then, I think you're talking about interracial dealings, not race itself.


But there's genetic race, not just societal "race".



I know, that's why I brought it up.

I'm glad too.

God is Ultimate Reality, and I'm in touch with Him.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Ya, I call you things too.

Perhaps we should poll the audience to see if they have any idea what points you're currently wanting me to answer.

And it was you who left the thread for a while, not me, so I don't know why you're saying I "wait" until the thread gets convoluted...

Plus, you're famous for *missing* my clear, simple statements in your responses, so don't start with your hallucinated claims of my failure to answer.

Church of Ragtime? I guess you live under a bridge Calandale?

RLY?

Race is a meaningless term, except where
it is differentiated. So, of course. I tend only
to deal with what has meaning, rather than
some proposed ideal.



Barely. There are few genetic differences
which are clearly noted within any one supposed
'race'. Now, if you break race down to the point
where there are MANY more such critters, well
yes. But this is not the standard usage of the term.
I don't remember how many hundreds of races you
require, for there to be a real genetic grouping.



Though, there is a difference here.
You noted that there are those who
believe truth is DEPENDANT on society.
This presupposes truth. I see no proof
that the concept is reified (ok, cheating
there, but there are some things which
English is simply unsuitable for).




In that case, you can CHANGE him, no?

Ah, I see another bird has appeared,
but spouting meaningless noises, with
no arguments.

Parakeet, if you can't manage any sense,
don't expect an answer. I don't respond to
mere trolling.

Ah, when you're the one insulting my friend? Church of Ragtime? What's that suppose to be? A compliment? And that bit about killing children, Christians are against abortion and view it as murder.

Much better.

1. Raggy seems to have his OWN faith
(no problem here) which he prostrates
for. Really, his main purpose in entering
these debates, according to him. Any
problem that you have with that, I'm
afraid you should take up with him.

2. Ah, a mere jibe at any supposedly
benevolent God who thinks 'tis a good
joke to ask this of a parent. Real prankster,
no?

Ah, so here is where the Liberals first got angry with you (on this thread at least.)

It says:

אל־האשׁה אמר הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרנך בעצב תלדי בנים ואל־אישׁך תשׁוקתך והוא ימשׁל־בך׃

But since I'm barely able to pronounce that:


"and thy desire8669 shall be to413 thy husband,376 and he1931 shall rule4910 over thee. " Genesis 3:16b

H8669
תּשׁוּקה
teshûqâh
BDB Definition:
1) desire, longing, craving
1a) of man for woman
1b) of woman for man
1c) of beast to devour
Part of Speech: noun feminine

H413
אל
l'e / 'êl / 'el
BDB Definition:
1) to, toward, unto (of motion)
2) into (limit is actually entered)
2a) in among
3) toward (of direction, not necessarily physical motion)
4) against (motion or direction of a hostile character)
5) in addition to, to
6) concerning, in regard to, in reference to, on account of
7) according to (rule or standard)
at, by, against (of one’s presence)
9) in between, in within, to within, unto (idea of motion to)
Part of Speech: preposition

H376
אישׁ
'îysh
BDB Definition:
1) man
1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
1b) husband
1c) human being, person (in contrast to God)
1d) servant
1e) mankind
1f) champion
1g) great man
2) whosoever
3) each (adjective)
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H1931
היא / הוּא
hû' / hîy'
BDB Definition:
1) he, she, it (pronoun third person singular)
1a) himself (with emphasis)
1b) resuming subject with emphasis
1c) (with minimum emphasis following predicate)
1d) (anticipating subject)
1e) (emphasizing predicate)
1f) that, it (neuter)
2) that (with article) (demonstrative pronoun)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition

H4910
משׁל
mâshal
BDB Definition:
1) to rule, have dominion, reign
1a) (Qal) to rule, have dominion
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to cause to rule
1b2) to exercise dominion
Part of Speech: verb

Without more knowledge of grammar I cannot say for certain, but I leave the facts for review.



At least in my family, up until he died, my dad was a nonbeliever. So it was better for my mom to be the head of the house.



That's true anywhere: if you're not the leader, you will be a follower. Equality is a joke, but independence is lonely.



Individual characters are different, but no the curse for men isn't one.

No. Try going up to a Chinese man and tell him, "There's nothing significant or special about your heritage, except when you're with people of different backgrounds."



See my theories on the dimensional hierarchy ... I was going to link it for you, but WP's word search has been disabled. It's in the Philosophy section, from way back.
But anyway, a being in a higher dimension can reach down into and affect lower dimensions without being detected, while something that exists in a particular dimension cannot reach upward into a higher dimension, in any way whatsoever.
Think: an ant crawling accross a sheet of paper. Imagine he's only a 2-dimensional creature. Also imagine he's intelligent. Well, since you are a 3-dimensional creature, you could reach down and affect the ant. But this hypothetically intellgent ant would have no idea from where your interference came -- since he would have no concept of up. Nor, then, would he be able to reach upward to any degree, into that third dimension.
That's the way it is with God and us. He IS the highest dimension. That's why He's everywhere and everywhen. It's also why He's omnipotent -- any being existing either in, or as, the highest dimension would by definition be omnipotent over the rest of the universe. Every slight, casual action such a being took would be immutable upon the rest of the universe, having a power/potency of infinity.
And again, such a being would also, naturally, be everywhere and everywhen -- simply by existing in (or as) the highest dimension.
That's why I termed Him "Ultimate Reality".

Last edited by Ragtime on 04 Oct 2007, 10:23 am, edited 4 times in total.

Then what r u doing on Wrongplanet?

Last edited by Ragtime on 04 Oct 2007, 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Then compare with the last part of Genesis 4:7. The Hebrew wording is exactly the same as in Gen 3:16, when 4:7 describes sin's "desire" unto Cain.

There's no place for logic in this argument. It all boils down to whether you think the Bible is truth or not.

Rags thinks women should submit to their husbands for the same reason he won't eat shellfish or wear wool/linen blends: Because the Bible says so.

Reason ain't gonna change his mind.