Comments for tiribiv http://tiribiv.wordpress.com The Pursuit of the Nature of Things Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:00:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Rant On Proposition 8 by Ryan http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/rant-on-proposition-8/#comment-111 Ryan Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:00:20 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-111 I don't think that you understand; as we have made marriage an institution which is put out by the courts, there's no way that you could justify changing the definition, which states that a man and a woman are a married couple. Not to sound like the pragmatic pain that I am, a coupling of a man and a woman is the natural formation of a family unit, and is the only conceivable means by which a child can be reproduced (although my science may be fuzzy on that). As such, the state should consider that they are essentially re-defining the institution which produces their voters and residents, and as such, should probably take great pains to ensure that there are voters to re-elect them. On a less tangential note, your main argument is that the bearing of children from wedlock being made illegal is of the same nature as 'illegalizing' the idea of homosexual marriages. Some thoughts: -If the state is to not care in the slightest about who you are, then is it not useless to our cause? If the state cares not at all whether you have a continuing tendency to kill people, doesn't this spell the end of the civilized world as we know it? -If the state is, however, to be pragmatic about how it approaches the idea of marriage, and treat every couple only as it applies to the state, shouldn't the state enforce the mass endorsement of fertility treatments, ban gay marriage, and encourage large families? This would make for a much greater taxable population. - In short, if the state is to be disinterested in who you are, then shouldn't it deal mostly in terms of what you can provide as a result of being in this marriage? In the case of a homosexual couple, this would be zero; nothing changes; no children are produced, no stabilizing families are produced; the list continues . . . However; do I encourage Dobson's moralistic, therapeutic, deism? No. This is not my reason for agreeing with the decision of California. Do I hold with Osteen's prosperity gospel, believing that the whole world will be happier and more affluent is gay marriage is opposed? No. Do I believe in any of the swill which has been bandied about during this debate? No. My reason for agreeing with the decision of California is simple; to change the definition of marriage would be like changing the definition of a zucchini because some people didn't find that it suited their taste. Even apart from the Biblical issues associated with marriage, to rearrange a vital institution simply because a minority of the population want VISITING RIGHTS!?!?!? I'm sure that Valentine is not only rolling over in his grave right now, but probably crafting a strongly-worded letter of rebuttal to your overly-liberal hate rant against a moral scheme which brought about civilization, which God put in place. [www.glyph42.wordpress.com], everyone! I don’t think that you understand; as we have made marriage an institution which is put out by the courts, there’s no way that you could justify changing the definition, which states that a man and a woman are a married couple. Not to sound like the pragmatic pain that I am, a coupling of a man and a woman is the natural formation of a family unit, and is the only conceivable means by which a child can be reproduced (although my science may be fuzzy on that). As such, the state should consider that they are essentially re-defining the institution which produces their voters and residents, and as such, should probably take great pains to ensure that there are voters to re-elect them.
On a less tangential note, your main argument is that the bearing of children from wedlock being made illegal is of the same nature as ‘illegalizing’ the idea of homosexual marriages.
Some thoughts:
-If the state is to not care in the slightest about who you are, then is it not useless to our cause? If the state cares not at all whether you have a continuing tendency to kill people, doesn’t this spell the end of the civilized world as we know it?
-If the state is, however, to be pragmatic about how it approaches the idea of marriage, and treat every couple only as it applies to the state, shouldn’t the state enforce the mass endorsement of fertility treatments, ban gay marriage, and encourage large families? This would make for a much greater taxable population.
- In short, if the state is to be disinterested in who you are, then shouldn’t it deal mostly in terms of what you can provide as a result of being in this marriage? In the case of a homosexual couple, this would be zero; nothing changes; no children are produced, no stabilizing families are produced; the list continues . . .

However; do I encourage Dobson’s moralistic, therapeutic, deism? No. This is not my reason for agreeing with the decision of California.

Do I hold with Osteen’s prosperity gospel, believing that the whole world will be happier and more affluent is gay marriage is opposed? No.

Do I believe in any of the swill which has been bandied about during this debate? No. My reason for agreeing with the decision of California is simple; to change the definition of marriage would be like changing the definition of a zucchini because some people didn’t find that it suited their taste.

Even apart from the Biblical issues associated with marriage, to rearrange a vital institution simply because a minority of the population want VISITING RIGHTS!?!?!? I’m sure that Valentine is not only rolling over in his grave right now, but probably crafting a strongly-worded letter of rebuttal to your overly-liberal hate rant against a moral scheme which brought about civilization, which God put in place.

[www.glyph42.wordpress.com], everyone!

]]> Comment on Something that annoyed me today by Ryan Van Schubert http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/something-that-annoyed-me-today/#comment-106 Ryan Van Schubert Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:27:06 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=126#comment-106 I don't know, Jon; you should check your 'accepted truths' more carefully here; Osama is one of the key figures in supplying morale to terrorist insurgents; with him dead, a sense of invulnerability under 'Allah' is lost, and therefore, decreases threat. And, of course, there is the surprisingly gratifying notion of seeing the bugger bite the big one; he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, and, even if you argue that he's not, has taken responsibility for it. Although God may judge him at the End, it's our job to make sure that he doesn't repeat such deeds again with the only permanent punishment besides making him wait for the light at Essa and Mapleview; he off the bastard. I don’t know, Jon; you should check your ‘accepted truths’ more carefully here; Osama is one of the key figures in supplying morale to terrorist insurgents; with him dead, a sense of invulnerability under ‘Allah’ is lost, and therefore, decreases threat.

And, of course, there is the surprisingly gratifying notion of seeing the bugger bite the big one; he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, and, even if you argue that he’s not, has taken responsibility for it. Although God may judge him at the End, it’s our job to make sure that he doesn’t repeat such deeds again with the only permanent punishment besides making him wait for the light at Essa and Mapleview; he off the bastard.

]]> Comment on On Writing, Speech, and Meaning by Ryan Van Schubert http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/on-writing-speech-and-meaning/#comment-105 Ryan Van Schubert Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:21:22 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=121#comment-105 Umm . . . John? You seem to have slipped beyond rationality with this post. What you're saying is that there can be no meaning unless the process by which we define meaning is defeated, and thus is a self-defeating process. Which, to someone who isn't so nihilistic that they haven't cut themselves too badly yet, sounds pretty depressing, because you're preaching abject subjectivity. Which is crap, by the way. Umm . . .

John?

You seem to have slipped beyond rationality with this post. What you’re saying is that there can be no meaning unless the process by which we define meaning is defeated, and thus is a self-defeating process. Which, to someone who isn’t so nihilistic that they haven’t cut themselves too badly yet, sounds pretty depressing, because you’re preaching abject subjectivity.

Which is crap, by the way.

]]> Comment on On Truth by John http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/on-truth/#comment-104 John Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:26:01 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=114#comment-104 Except that is exactly what I was attempting to argue in the last section - that truth-in-itself doesn't exist. This doesn't mean it's content-less or inaccessible, but nobody can claim they "have it", as it isn't meaningful without relationship with God. Thus truth doesn't have value per se, but only as a pointer to God first, and as context for that relationship afterward. Except that is exactly what I was attempting to argue in the last section – that truth-in-itself doesn’t exist. This doesn’t mean it’s content-less or inaccessible, but nobody can claim they “have it”, as it isn’t meaningful without relationship with God. Thus truth doesn’t have value per se, but only as a pointer to God first, and as context for that relationship afterward.

]]> Comment on On Truth by Ryan Van Schubert http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/on-truth/#comment-103 Ryan Van Schubert Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:32:27 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=114#comment-103 Well, there seems to be some good, solid thinking here. It's a pity that you never extrapolated the value of truth in and of itself, but rather just assumed that only God could ever understand it . . . Well, there seems to be some good, solid thinking here. It’s a pity that you never extrapolated the value of truth in and of itself, but rather just assumed that only God could ever understand it . . .

]]> Comment on Thanksgiving (see Gloating) by Clark Bunch http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/thanksgiving-see-gloating/#comment-102 Clark Bunch Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:11:27 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-102 This may be a departure from the topic of your blog post, but the irony of Haiti is that it shares an island with the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic has wealthy hotels, developed beachfronts, and is doing quite nicely for itself. Meanwhile thier neighbors, the Haitians, do not have clean water to drink and raw sewage runs in the street. In reference to all that we are blessed with, the Scriptures warn that "to whom much is given, much shall be required." This may be a departure from the topic of your blog post, but the irony of Haiti is that it shares an island with the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic has wealthy hotels, developed beachfronts, and is doing quite nicely for itself. Meanwhile thier neighbors, the Haitians, do not have clean water to drink and raw sewage runs in the street.

In reference to all that we are blessed with, the Scriptures warn that “to whom much is given, much shall be required.”

]]> Comment on The Long Dark Coffee-Time of the Soul by Ryan Van Schubert http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-long-dark-coffee-time-of-the-soul/#comment-100 Ryan Van Schubert Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:24:04 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=43#comment-100 Shalom? No wonder you have trouble finding peace in chaos; it has to be in Hebrew. Shalom? No wonder you have trouble finding peace in chaos; it has to be in Hebrew.

]]> Comment on CRC Synod 2008: Agenda Part 2 by Attentiveness http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/crc-synod-2008-part-2/#comment-84 Attentiveness Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:30:21 +0000 http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/?p=49#comment-84 Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway ... nice blog to visit. cheers, Attentiveness . Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Attentiveness
.

]]> Comment on About by John http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/about/#comment-78 John Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:29:33 +0000 #comment-78 Ryan: May you have an unpleasant encounter with a televangelist sometime in the near future. Ryan: May you have an unpleasant encounter with a televangelist sometime in the near future.

]]> Comment on About by Ryan Van Schubert http://tiribiv.wordpress.com/about/#comment-77 Ryan Van Schubert Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:12:52 +0000 #comment-77 I know this guy fairly well, and I think that I can vouch for his lack of knowledge in anything other then Synod agendas and policies. Other then that, i like to think that I keep up with the relevant decisions of Synod, as opposed to the scheduling and agendas. (although, I'm no longer a high school student) I know this guy fairly well, and I think that I can vouch for his lack of knowledge in anything other then Synod agendas and policies. Other then that, i like to think that I keep up with the relevant decisions of Synod, as opposed to the scheduling and agendas. (although, I’m no longer a high school student)

]]>