 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 3/3/2003 4:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | From the WSJ today. It probably isn't as harsh on Republicans as it could be, but it is flat out brilliant on the Democrats' viewpoint and how they got there. It brought tears to my eyes to see someone explain complicated ideas so well, especially viz. Vietnam and abortion.
Agree or not with its substance, I think it's an important piece.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003143
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/3/2003 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | She was Reagan’s main speechwriter… she is the man!
Thanks for the piece.
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/4/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry,
Awesome, awesome article. Have you been to the White House website? Here's the link.
www.whitehouse.gov/
There you can see a video in the "History and Tours" section where you get the sense that this President has a backbone. I really encourage everyone to watch it.
Ms. Noonan clearly spoke from the gut. That inner resolve. Of course because of the things she mentions ("politics as usual"), the Dems will probably not listen to her.
I loved when she said:quote:
And by the way, I'd like it if you started smoking again, at least for a while. Democrats were nicer when they smoked. Then they let all those Carrie Nation types in the party beat them to a pulp, and regular Democrats stopped feeling free to be regular flawed messy humans.
I thought of this in terms of when I have called certain females on these boards, "Hon." Yeah, though it may be disrepectful to some extent (not intended), let's let guys be guys! Let's not micromanage morality. People tend to look pharisical when that happens. I hope you get my drift.
Lastly, if you liked that article, then you will like this book on the Canadian side of things, "A Friendly Dictatorship":
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0771080786/qid=1046821254/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-0588787-1533626?v=glance&s=books
In Canada, our political system gives the impression of a democratic parliment, yet this PM (Prime Minister) has inoculated himself from ANY opposition. He has his backbenchers who's concern are more in keeping political clout than truly making rifts. There is a lesson here that even Americans can learn from. Simpson is speaking the sentiment of the people at present. After reading through a good portion of the book, it is no wonder that I haven't jumped into the Detroit River and swam across to the land of freedom...America (course I might get pick up by the Coast Guard these days). I highly, highly recommend this book as well as read the writer reviews at Amazon.com
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/4/2003 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Excuse me for interrupting this thread with a post that has nothing to do with politics but you addressed me:
quote:
Brandon: I thought of this in terms of when I have called certain females on these boards, "Hon." Yeah, though it may be disrepectful to some extent (not intended), let's let guys be guys! Let's not micromanage morality. People tend to look pharisical when that happens. I hope you get my drift.
No, I do not "get your drift." How was I, a woman, pharisical for asking a man, who was a complete stranger to me, to quit calling me hon?
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/5/2003 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs,
Apparently someone did not get my drift. I'm at fault for that. I don't think I was clear here at all and actually may have confused what I was trying to say by mentioning "some on these boards". We have discussed this before Springs. You and I. You are right. If I don't have a relationship with you, then I really have no right calling you "Hon."
IN SOCIETY, though, guys will be guys. And we have laws that micromanage EVERYTHING from the "small stuff" of staring, to smoking, to seat belts, to picking up dog doo doo, to jaywalking, to whistling at girls to the big stuff of housing regulations to gun control, to pollution control, to road and highway laws.
Some of this is purely PC. It is the micromanaging of morality. Now we say that guys can't be guys. They can't do what comes naturally to them. If I'm at a beach there is no doubt that I will notice a woman in a bikini or swimsuit and not think she has a nice body (well hopefully  )! I'm a guy! I'm thoroughly visual! I'm wired this way! Don't make a law against it for pete's sake! Shoot, the Dems in large part are the REAL morality police. And I think in a round 'bout way, Noonan is trying to convey that. Like "Lighten up boys! Yer more fun when you aren't being such moralistic snobs!"
Where I think I went wrong was by projecting political thinking on to a personal situation. For that I apologize. I'm sorry for not being clear on this. Let me know if you have any questions, thoughts or frustrations.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/5/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: Questions? Thoughts? or Frustrations?
In light of the fact that I just put up a thread on pornography perhaps you can get the drift of my reaction to the phrase, "Let boys be boys" personally or in society here it is:
FRICK!
Do your thing Adiaphora
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/5/2003 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Just forget it! 
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 3/5/2003 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said:
"I'm at fault for that. I don't think I was clear here at all and actually may have confused what I was trying to say..."
"You are right. If I don't have a relationship with you, then I really have no right calling you "Hon."
"Where I think I went wrong was by projecting political thinking on to a personal situation."
"For that I apologize."
"I'm sorry for not being clear on this."
"Let me know if you have any questions, thoughts or frustrations."
Semeia:
Thanks for your apology.
You and I have had this same issue (with the diminutive names), and I felt the same frustration as Springs at your reference to it on this thread, so I wanted to tell you I heard your apology and thank you for it.
I'm guessing Springs continued frustration may be that often a "guys will be guys" mindset has been used to justify all sorts of behavior that women find to be disrespectful or hurtful to them. One man's idea of an "appreciative look" at the beach may be one woman's idea of being lecherously leered at in a way that makes her uncomfortable and even frightened.
But that is just a guess, and I do not mean to speak for Springs.
I agree with you that legislation of these things sometimes goes too far, and in some cases is worse than what it is trying to prevent.
And I agree with you that people go too far in micro-managing morality - why some people even try to tell consenting, monogamous adults what they should or shouldn't be doing in the privacy of their own bedroom!
Thanks for apologizing for implying that a negative response to being called Hon is an example of a PC-style overreaction.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/5/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
I apologize. I appreciate the time and effort you took in trying to understand where I was coming from. I'm sorry I haven't afforded you the same grace today. I hope you will forgive me.
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/5/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, I felt rather hurt by your last post Springs. Most of the time I don't take ANY of this THAT serious. Some of these issues I am not as passionate about because I don't have a personal connection to them. But with some of them, I am a FREAK about. Sexual Ethics is one of them. I have ALWAYS been this way since grade school (age 13) when I began to try to think "Christianly" about divorce because of my own parents divorce. Until I became a Christian I really didn't think seriously about that matter. I just accepted it. "Everyone and their dog got a divorce," I thought. In time I learned that Christ didn't have as flippant an attitude as I and the world did. This lead me into the whole area of the "safe sex" which our culture espouses. Get this. Safe sex is from the pit of hell. I am very adamant on THAT point. Safe sex is a product of the sexual revolution which has not helped women in their struggle for equality, WHAT-SO-EVER. What it has done is make more women available for sex for men. You know who the real "winners" are in the sexual revolution? Yep. You got it! MEN. Know why? Because now they have more opportunities to "get a piece" because it has broken down barriers that once were in place to protect both men and women from the dangers of pre-marital/extra-martial sex. Do you get what I'm saying here? Men don't want the "relationship!" Something that women want (a very noble desire indeeeeed). Men get to fulfill their selfish secret ambitions! I said it before, and I'll say it again. Men play up to relationship for sex, while women will play up to sex for relationship. Now, though you MIGHT think that I am sexist, I hope you can understand that I am rather pro-feminist.
I hold to egalitarian views (properly understood). I am against pornography. Where are the feminists on THIS issue??? But I am not against pornography merely because it exploits women and children, as important as though reasons are. I am ultimately against pornography because it is the antithesis of God's ideal. And what was the other one....hmmm....Oh yeah....I can't stand the Southern Baptist's position of "the woman's place." Ok??? So please don't think that I am a male chauvanist. I sometimes get that from you. But I am not.
But after what I read what Terry on the "Argument stylistics" thread wrote, I came down really hard on myself and asked, "Am I really THAT shitty (<---opps!! Should I have even used that word?) of a communicator?" I really do blame MYSELF for not being clear in my posts. I don't blame the receptor, I blame the transmitter in MY case. ME. Ok??? So here, let me try to explain myself by using someone else's words, which I hate to have to do.
Remember that book I told you and Tom and Semeia to get in Instant Messenging? It's called, "Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective" it's by Stanley Grenz? Here's the link to it.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/066425750X/qid=1046912028/sr=1-16/ref=sr_1_16/103-6759290-0959046?v=glance&s=books#product-details
I highly recommend EVERYTHING by Grenz. I'm his number one fan. Have nearly all his books in my library. Anyhow, here is how what he says concerning this issue of "boys will be boys" has influenced my thinking.
In his chapter entitled, "Male and Female: The Nature of Human Sexuality" in the subsection, "The Expression of Sexuality," he says,
While being related to both, human sexuality is not to be equated with either physical sexual characteristics or procreative capacity for it is that dimension of human existence that lies behind physical features.
Digression: This is the reason I am more inclined to side with Semeia when she took issue with Terry and his thinking on the primary intention (?) of sex. It goes soooo much more deeper than what Terry seems to have wrote. End of Digression.
Sexuality comprises all aspects of the human person that are related to existence as male and female. Our sexuality, therefore is a powerful, deep and mysterious aspect of our being. It constitutes a fundamental distinction between the two ways of being human (i.e., as male and female). This distinction plays a crucial role in our development toward becoming individuals and our existence as social beings.
We give expression to the fundamental sexual dimension of our being in many ways. The most obvious, of course is through sexual attraction and sexually determined acts. Such acts include the way we speak and touch others especially those to whom we are sexually attracted, and ultimately in gential sexual relations.
Digression: This is a question of my own thinking. Can I be sexually attracted to someone without gential activity? Is that rad or what? End Digression.
But there are other ways of expressing our sexuality. These may range from the seemingly mundane--how we dress, comb our hair, etc.--to the more sublime--the appreciation of beauty, as well as cultural and artistic preferences and activities. The sexual aspect of our existence likewise forms the basis for our sensuousness. Letha Scanzoni aptly described this dimension as:
quote:
our capacity for enjoying and celebrating all kinds of bodily sensations, whether it be the fuzzy warmth of a new blanket, the bracing splash of summer rainshower, the tender hug of a friend, or the playful nuzzling of a puppy.
In a sense, our sexuality pervades all our relationships. We constantly relate to others as male and female. And our relationships to persons of the same sex differ from our relationships to the opposite sex. This relation-pervading aspect of human sexuality forms the basis for the development of societal understandings of sex roles and of proper and improper sexual behavior. Such social mores, in turn, give rise to the task of expressing our sexuality in positive, beneficial ways.
Do you see that last part I highlighted? There are proper and improper ways (contexts) that "boys will be boys." This is why I apologized for calling you, "Hon" time and time again. In my understanding, that was improper based on two strands of my thought, (with some help from you Springs)
A. If you are not in relationship, don't call someone diminutive names or percieved (by the receptor) diminutive names.
B. Context. At work, I call some ladies, "Hon," and I don't have all that of a relationship with them. But we are both of the understanding of what we are talking about here. In some contexts, it is simply not appropriate to refer to someone as, "Hon." In others it is simply no different than for example, when I was a child and one of my mothers friends (who wanted me to dance with her) said, "Come here dear!" or "Come and dance with me baby." It's all in sweetness and innocence.
When I say that "boys will be boys," I, by no means, am justifying ALL of their behavior. But there are some areas that are not so cut and dry. Pornography is NOT one of those. That is pretty obvious. But as we move toward the periphery of ethical debate, sexual or otherwise,(but sexual debate can be rather sticky, as per what has happened here) we definitely need to have more discernment. Is it really all that wrong to have an "appreciative look" at the beach? What constitutes that "appreciative look" as being noble and what constitute it as being sinful? What about Michaelangelo's sculpture of David? Is that pornography or what? What about pictures of Mary and the Christ Child where she is breastfeeding Christ. Does "revealing her boob" constitute pornography on ANY level? Is saying "revealing her boob" more brash than saying, "revealing her breast?" Do you see what I'm saying here? Some areas of sexual existence are not soo clearly laid out. A negative response to being called "Hon" may be an example of PC-style overreaction. It may NOT be too. Hence, this is one reason I probably get into the trouble that I do.
Again, please forgive me if I have not been clear, Springs. I realize that I, the transmitter, may not be working all that well, and am in need of some adjustment.
At the same time, EVEN I amaze myself at how "in tune" I'm am with my own sexuality. 
By the way, Semeia? Thank you for your post. Springs? No hard feel'ns? Peace? White flag?
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/5/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Brandon,
One of the things I really appreciate about you on here is your sense of humor. Man oh man do I get tired of some of the curmedgeonie ways we talk on this forum. Thank you for keeping it light sometimes. I have a rather boisterous sense of humor irl and I like it when people are free to be themselves. Sometimes on this board I'm like, "Can't we just be human to one another!??"
And on the topic of micro-management in society, I agree it gets totally out of hand. Especially when it comes to laws surrounding youth...youth get escorted out of public spaces all the time just for "hanging out" and there are very, very few places youth can go in our society where they are not held in suspicion. The whole, "let boys be boys" thing definitely applies to our youth, along with those slightly *ahem* older boys. ;)
And btw, I really liked this article Terry posted...I agreed with most of it even though I fall closer to the middle politically.
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/05/2003 11:13:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/5/2003 8:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
I will never doubt you again!  Thanks for the great post!
Even God appreciates beauty. As long as we don't lust on the beach we're good to go. 
thanks,
Springs
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/6/2003 5:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, thanks Miss E. Love ya in Jeeeeesus...when yu and Josh com'n over here? Let's do dinner. Springs? Preciate your understanding. See ya soon. Semeia? I think that is cool how you pointed out my apologies. Shoot I didn't realize I did it that much. Totally Canadian.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon said: quote:
Hey, thanks Miss E. Love ya in Jeeeeesus...when yu and Josh com'n over here? Let's do dinner.
Yeah, still plannin on meeting up with you at some point! At the moment weekends are busy but I'll give you a holler when things slow down.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|