Homosexuality is a mental illness.
-
ayoh dun pretend to talk about something else when u cannot refute an argument la. u're supposed to have some quality of intelligence one can?Originally posted by Icemoon:it is true what .. now that the role of CK in EH is diminished, SIS is here to take his place.
-
Uhh, maybe because I'm a psychologist, not a psychiatrist?Originally posted by Icemoon:why didn't you say psychiatrist at first? -
I refuted liao .. didn't I quote DVC to stun SIS?Originally posted by HENG@:ayoh dun pretend to talk about something else when u cannot refute an argument la. u're supposed to have some quality of intelligence one can?
DVC leh .. SIS must be a big fan of DVC. -
huh .. didn't you call them (the psychologists) the drug pushers?Originally posted by Gedanken:Uhh, maybe because I'm a psychologist, not a psychiatrist?
edited: opps .. i think i read wrongly. the drug pushers are the doctors and the witch doctors are the psychologists.
-
lidat also count?Originally posted by Icemoon:I refuted liao .. didn't I quote DVC to stun SIS?
u are far from stunning anything man. see yr standards have dropped afterall... -
let's see how he replies.Originally posted by HENG@:lidat also count?
u are far from stunning anything man. see yr standards have dropped afterall...
If he tears down DVC, then he will have less evidence to rely on in future.
-
I have surveyed each and everyone's abilities. The best person to counter SIS will be
1. Trex
2. plo
Plo is important, 'cos the evidence SIS used is Catholic. -
let's see how he replies.
If he tears down DVC, then he will have less evidence to rely on in future
Actually I don't even intend to reply about the dvc as I see no corelation between the 2 issues. It is like people talking about the weather then someone blurt out something about his wife. The popular old practise is tat women have to cover their heads and women have a low status compared with men. It has nothing to do with dvc or mary magdalene. -
It has to do with DVC 'cos DVC raises the status of woman tremendously.Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Actually I don't even intend to reply about the dvc as I see no corelation between the 2 issues. It is like people talking about the weather then someone blurt out something about his wife. The popular old practise is tat women have to cover their heads and women have a low status compared with men. It has nothing to do with dvc or mary magdalene.
Look .. Jesus even passed his church to a woman .. not high enough ah? -
liew, u damn MCP leh. dun think u got cedibility anymore.Originally posted by Icemoon:It has to do with DVC 'cos DVC raises the status of woman tremendously.
Look .. Jesus even passed his church to a woman .. not high enough ah? -
where got MCP?Originally posted by HENG@:liew, u damn MCP leh. dun think u got cedibility anymore.
I am just quoting the DVC. -
It has to do with DVC 'cos DVC raises the status of woman tremendously.
I am talking about the common popular practise of catholic/christainity. It has nothing to do with dvc or wat it had said because even if dvc is true, it still is not the common practise of christainity.
Look .. Jesus even passed his church to a woman .. not high enough ah? As such these 2 r different issues altogether. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
While SIS mulls over the relevancy of the DVC, here is my personal take on the issue:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article93.htm
U can see the statement is tis website about women and their head covers
Men should have shorter hair and should pray to God with their head uncovered. Women should imitate the Virgin Mary. Women should have longer hair and [b]should pray to God with their head covered. Women should wear a head covering while praying or attending Mass
Tis is really practise
Women should not have any role of authority, leadership, or teaching over any group that includes adult men. Women should not be extraordinary ministers of holy communion, nor ushers (collecting donations), nor altar servers. Neither should any woman be director of religious education. Such roles are intended by God for men, not women. Boys may be altar servers, but not girls, because boys and girls are meant to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any role of authority, leadership, or teaching in the Church, except over other women or children. For such is the will of God.
[/b]
Like what laoda said, women played important roles in the Scripture. Yes, there were naive women (like Eve who ate the fruit), just like there were irresponsible men (like Adam who pushed the sin to Eve after he took the fruit). In the book of Job, we read of how the wife asked Job to curse God .. and Job scolded his wife instead.
In the OT, we have Deborah the Judge. No prize for guessing her gender. In Esther, we have Queen Esther after whom a festival was named (Purim). Now tell me, how many Jewish festivals have a man as the main character? By the way, the Book of Esther does not mention God, why was it even included in the Bible?
Fast forward to the NT. We have Priscilla who, together with hubby Aquilas, was a mentor to Apollo. Who says woman cannot teach/instruct guys?
This "teaching" is not limited to explaining Scripture, IMHO. Women are often the bearer of faith (minus Job's wife .. haha). There was this non-Hebrew woman whom God praised after she rescued a Hebrew by killing his enemies. And in the case of Tamar who committed incest purposely (with her father-in-law), the bible did not condemn her, instead the father-in-law received harsher comments.
Fast forward to the NT. If you guys watch the Gospel of Judas or other Christian documentaries, they showed this woman who was made to sit on the very hot metal chair. She did not recant her faith and I think they killed her child also.
Therefore, I think we have more to learn from these women than the pre-ascension Apostle Peter. He might be the leader of the pack, surely qualified to lead and to teach, but his cowardly actons leave much to be desired. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
ok lor .. so you are talking about practical and not the theory.
I am talking about the [b]common popular practise of catholic/christainity. It has nothing to do with dvc or wat it had said because even if dvc is true, it still is not the common practise of christainity. As such these 2 r different issues altogether. [/b] -
What I'm wondering is what the devil happened to the original topic.
-
I think we have more to learn from these women than the pre-ascension Apostle Peter
So in short u reccomend part of the bible to be thrown away ? Why not throw away the part on homosexual as well ? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
The common popular practice of catholic christianity is that a woman has influenced mankind more than most other men. We learn more from her than other Catholic saints. How many people read Summa Theologica or can be bothered by Anslem's arguments for God?
I am talking about the [b]common popular practise of catholic/christainity. It has nothing to do with dvc or wat it had said because even if dvc is true, it still is not the common practise of christainity. As such these 2 r different issues altogether. [/b]
Her name? Mother Theresa.
-
nope, I don't.Originally posted by stupidissmart:So in short u reccomend part of the bible to be thrown away ?
IF the bible did not attempt to censor the cowardly action of the first "Pope", why should I? -
You want the Apostle Paul to roll over in his grave?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why not throw away the part on homosexual as well ? -
So in the end wat is your point ? Christians should all follow paul word regardless and made women wear head covers ? Or christian should not consider wat he had said at all and throw away watever he said.
Paul had said a lot of things about practises of christainity. Throw them away or keep all of them rigidly ? -
Neither.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Paul had said a lot of things about practises of christainity. Throw them away or keep all of them rigidly ?
Interpret them in context, according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics. Interpret them in spirit and in truth. -
Neither.
So the people of the past had interprete wrongly since they follow paul's word then while now they r interpreting rightly and completely ignore paul's words ?
Interpret them in context, according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics. Interpret them in spirit and in truth.
From your answer, u suggest interpreting the scripture so as to suit the taste of the common. In the past they interprete the scripture and follow the words of paul. Now it appears to be wrong so it undergo another interpretation and change the policy to suit todays time. Sound like buffet style to me. -
1. Actually what did Paul say and what's so bad about it?Originally posted by stupidissmart:So the people of the past had interprete wrongly since they follow paul's word then while now they r interpreting rightly ?
From your answer, u suggest interpreting the scripture so as to suit the taste of the common. In the past they interprete the scripture and follow the words of paul. Now it appears to be wrong so it undergo another interpretation and change the policy to suit todays time. Sound like buffet style to me.
2. Has our interpretation changed? -
Scripture has to be interpreted in spirit and in truth. One don't follow the commandments blindly.Originally posted by stupidissmart:From your answer, u suggest interpreting the scripture so as to suit the taste of the common. In the past they interprete the scripture and follow the words of paul. Now it appears to be wrong so it undergo another interpretation and change the policy to suit todays time. Sound like buffet style to me.
It is not so much about suiting the taste of the common. For example (this is my favourite example), there are 613 commandments or mitzvah for the Jews according to the Hebrew Bible. But no one can perform all the 613. Why? -
Actually what did Paul say and what's so bad about it?
U r going back one full cycle
1 corinthians 11
5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
1 corinthians 14
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 timothy 2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent2. Has our interpretation changed?
Do women go to church with head cover ?Scripture has to be interpreted in spirit and in truth. One don't follow the commandments blindly.
As said before, why does the people of the past follow tis practise and people do not do it now ? Who had interprete wrongly then ?It is not so much about suiting the taste of the common. For example (this is my favourite example), there are 613 commandments or mitzvah for the Jews according to the Hebrew Bible. But no one can perform all the 613. Why?
Even Jesus follow the customs of jews too but christian think they r above it now. If u ask me why, I can only say tat just chose to ignore the ones they do nto like while following the ones they like.