"Christian feminist" is an oxymoron

Christianity has evolved and been re-invented again and again throughout it's history. Practitioners pick and choose, add to and subtract from manuscripts that make up the books of Christianity and extract interpretations liberally to fit whatever populist moral movement of the day best attracts new Christians to donate their time and money.

No one has the authority to claim what Christianity must or must not be: if someone insists on being a Christian, then more power to them if they want to practice a "feminist" version of it.

What no mention of McCain not even knowing how many houses he owns, as he said yesterday? (I'd link it, but really, You can find it). So Obama slams him on it, McCain responds, and when McCain responds, he inadvertantly calls obama middle class (Makes $4 million a year, and remember, $5 mil is "rich").

It's a great political comedy going on.

"Christian feminist" is an oxymoron

Christianity has evolved and been re-invented again and again throughout it's history. Practitioners pick and choose, add to and subtract from manuscripts that make up the books of Christianity and extract interpretations liberally as fitting to the collective morals of the day.

No one has the authority to claim what Christianity must or must not be: if someone insists on being a Christian, then more power to them if they want to practice a "feminist" version of it.

Re: Sluts deserve cancer.

Butterfliesandwheels is being unfair. The Catholic Church agreed to a deal whereby virginal girls could get their HPV vaccinations - just so long as none of the girls receive "accompanying advice on the need to use condoms to protect themselves from other sexually transmitted diseases." Therefore, they don't think that sluts deserve cancer. They think that sluts deserve HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea - but not cancer.

Re: Rise of High School Math

Uh, oh - this also smacks of sexist calculus. Next thing you know,some blowhard will enlighten us with the knowledge that high schools are teaching calculus "to get better scores from females".

Bush is a joke and we're the butt.

I think the argument from Butterflies was BUT for the compromise the message was let the sluts get cancer.

How can Catholics hate on the sluts? Isn't that self hatred?

Should we worry? If people come to believe that they don’t have free will, what will the consequences be for moral responsibility?

I have never understood questions like this. If it really is true that people have no 'free will', and if they find out about this, then it was inevitable anyway that they found out, since by supposition every event is strictly determined according to the one that came before it. And so there is no way to avoid it, and nothing to do in response to such information but what was already determined to happen anyway. So the question is empty.

I have never understood the question of so-called free will. If, on the one hand, the supposition is that our actions originate from a non-material cause that is not affected by antecendent events, then what is being postulated is something magical and mysterious. If, on the other hand, the implication is that we somehow act in purely 'blind' and mechanical fashion, in a manner in principle no different from the way a rock falls according to gravity, then it seems to me obviously false of our everyday experience and observation, not simply of humans, but of most animals. Rather, natural selection, life history, and, in some cases--especially humans--training and socialization have enabled animals to act responsely and flexibly to any number of environmental conditions, not just "blindly". There is, assuredly, a biological basis for that, but to insist that biological animals are "just blind matter" is to oversimplify the very particular kind of matter they are, and the kind of ways they behave. But more generally, I see nothing deflationary about the simply acknowledgment that human beings are just animals, albeit highly complex ones, and subject to the same constraints, although with vastly greater powers, among other things, of controlling and manipulating their environments, due largely to their vastly larger neo-cortex. And if freedom amounts, more or less, to the ability to control the environment around us, then I don't see why we need some metaphysical sky-hook, or should worry whether we're just 'blind', predictable matter.

I think the argument from Butterflies was BUT for the compromise the message was let the sluts get cancer.

I'm not sure I can swallow this, but that may be because my tongue is too far into my cheek.

I have never understood the question of so-called free will.

Well, if you don't believe in a god then really every action is free, but then again every thought we have is a result of a lot of biological and evolutionary constraints, so not really free.

My interpretation has always been that "free will" is consciousness. so a salmon doesn't get to choose to swim up stream, but we can meet a mate and have offspring in a whole variety of ways. And we get to think about it before during and after.

Seems a separate issue as to whether or not there are multiple possible futures or one determined future. We still make choices in a singular timeline, its just a matter of when we made them.

In a singular timeline all history is determined all at once and one might argue that out perception of time as linear is actually an illusion of our limited perspective.