Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/11/2008 01:41:37 PM · #1651

Originally posted by RonB:

It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

Well I certainly got punished for writing "I love dad" and "I love mom" all over the inside of our closet doors in crayon. I could come up with lots more examples of good ideas gone wrong, and my parents correcting me because of it. Punishment IS an opportunity to show the error one's way.

Even when my infractions didn't cause nearly as much damage as thoroughly scratching up an over $10K machine!

So, I guess any children I may have in the future SHOULD be afraid of doing the wrong thing even if their intentions are pure... it's traditional. That's how I learned right from wrong, and learned how complicated it can be to determine which is which.

Frankly, I weep for the spoiled kids who think they can do whatever they like as long is it's well meaning.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:43:17.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/11/2008 02:09:52 PM · #1652

Originally posted by RonB:

If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin.

Then, despite your contention that homosexual sex is biblically "bad", if it is done in the context of a loving relationship to express a deep and monogamous bond that ultimately transcends sex, it must be "good". Capiche?

12/11/2008 02:12:23 PM · #1653

Panel: N.J. should OK same-sex marriages

The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" that the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.

The commission concluded that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans.

"Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now," said the report, obtained by The Star-Ledger yesterday.

The 79-page report is the work of a 13-member panel created to evaluate the impact of the 2006 civil union law, which was supposed to provide the rights and responsibilities of marriage under another name. It will be forwarded to Gov. Jon Corzine and the Legislature.

"The report is a sweeping indictment of the failure of the civil union law," said commission vice chairman Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, which is campaigning to legalize same-sex marriage. "The report asks Governor Corzine and the Legislature: Do you want equality or not? If so, there is only one way to go."

12/11/2008 02:12:52 PM · #1654

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin.

Then, despite your contention that homosexual sex is biblically "bad", if it is done in the context of a loving relationship to express a deep and monogamous bond that ultimately transcends sex, it must be "good". Capiche?

Oh snap!

12/11/2008 02:13:01 PM · #1655

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin.

Sooo pretty much any atrocity commited in the name of God is okey dokey with you.

Of course not. You only serve to demonstrate ignorance by drawing such inferences. Just because something is done "in the name of" some entity does NOT automatically make it an act condoned by that entity - whether the entity is God, father, country, or anything else.

I'm sure that those who commit such atrocities do so "from faith" and do it for "righteous reasons".

On what basis can you be sure? Though you are probably correct that they are doing so from faith, just because they THINK that their reasons are "righteous" does not make it so. That, sir, is for another to judge - and that wouldn't be either you or me.

12/11/2008 02:15:44 PM · #1656

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by RonB:

I do not pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. I examine scripture to determine what Jesus would have me do or not do. It is not a matter of obedience, it is a matter of conscience. WHAT I do does not ultimately matter, but WHY I do what I do, does. Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin. The determining factor is whether what I do is from faith, and faith is dependent on knowing what is expected by the one to whom I am being faithful, and one of the ways to know Him is to read scripture.

That, right there, is some scary, scary stuff.

It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

How about the christian sniper with the crosshairs centered on a Doctor he believes to have performed abortions. He makes his decision to fire and kill from faith and for righteous reasons.

From faith, perhaps, but for righteous reasons? Says who? The sniper? Who is he to judge what is righteous?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

By your logic, that makes murder perfectly fine. Nice.

You're showing your ignorance again.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2008 02:27:10 PM · #1657

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by RonB:
It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

Well I certainly got punished for writing "I love dad" and "I love mom" all over the inside of our closet doors in crayon. I could come up with lots more examples of good ideas gone wrong, and my parents correcting me because of it. Punishment IS an opportunity to show the error one's way.

Even when my infractions didn't cause nearly as much damage as thoroughly scratching up an over $10K machine!

So, I guess any children I may have in the future SHOULD be afraid of doing the wrong thing even if their intentions are pure... it's traditional. That's how I learned right from wrong, and learned how complicated it can be to determine which is which.

Frankly, I weep for the spoiled kids who think they can do whatever they like as long is it's well meaning.

And I weep for kids who are afraid to show love for fear of being punished if they do it in the "wrong" way - a way that is kept hidden from them until AFTER they do it. They may not be "spoiled" but they are "damaged" ( in my opinion ).

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/11/2008 02:31:26 PM · #1658

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by RonB:

I do not pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. I examine scripture to determine what Jesus would have me do or not do. It is not a matter of obedience, it is a matter of conscience. WHAT I do does not ultimately matter, but WHY I do what I do, does. Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin. The determining factor is whether what I do is from faith, and faith is dependent on knowing what is expected by the one to whom I am being faithful, and one of the ways to know Him is to read scripture.

That, right there, is some scary, scary stuff.

It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

How about the christian sniper with the crosshairs centered on a Doctor he believes to have performed abortions. He makes his decision to fire and kill from faith and for righteous reasons.

From faith, perhaps, but for righteous reasons? Says who? The sniper? Who is he to judge what is righteous?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
By your logic, that makes murder perfectly fine. Nice.

You're showing your ignorance again.

Insults don't make your argument true.

If the sniper can't say his reasons are righteous, who can? If acting out of faith and for righteous reasons are the criteria for determining a course of action is sinful or not, and no one can judge what is righteous or not how can you say any act is righteous or not? How can you say the bible condemns homosexuality? or anything for that matter.

What a joke.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/11/2008 02:35:58 PM · #1659

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

How about the christian sniper with the crosshairs centered on a Doctor he believes to have performed abortions. He makes his decision to fire and kill from faith and for righteous reasons.

Originally posted by RonB:

From faith, perhaps, but for righteous reasons? Says who? The sniper? Who is he to judge what is righteous?

Well, there's an issue....you state that the reason has to be righteous by biblical dictate, so the murder of the abortionist isn't okay, right?

But the discrimination and/or harassment and torture of gays is?

What about Muslims?

By their holy rules, it's ENCOURAGED to snuff out the infidels.

Who's RIGHTER??????

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

By your logic, that makes murder perfectly fine. Nice.

Originally posted by RonB:

You're showing your ignorance again.

No, though snide, he's got a valid point.

Maybe not from the sniper/abortionist standpoint, but what about gay-bashing?

Is that a bad deed that will be condoned because of the tenuous righteousness of the intent?

I'm sure Matthew Shepard's parents would love to hear this answer.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 14:37:52.

12/11/2008 02:40:54 PM · #1660

More on the NJ commission's report, to preempt those who would sauggest it was biased because the comission itself contained gay members:

â��Iâ��m a pro-life Republican and past Director of Gloucester County Right-to-Life,â�� said Commission member AnnLynne Benson on the release of todayâ��s report, â��so I know the diversity of this Commission. Our report demonstrates in exquisite detail why amending New Jerseyâ��s law to extend marriage to same-sex couples is a necessity. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that â��denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantee and can no longer be tolerated under our State constitution.â�� Implementation of that ruling by the invention of a parallel status failed to deliver equality. It was like planting a toothpick and hoping a tree would grow.â��

12/11/2008 02:54:01 PM · #1661

Originally posted by Louis:

Your conclusion. But "bad" and "good" are in the eye of the beholder - that's why I put the words in quotes. And, for the record, I did not contend that homosexual sex is biblically "bad". I contended that the Bible condemns it. If condemnation equates to "bad" in your lexicon, so be it. I would rather use less ambiguous terms.

If there is a loving relationship that expresses a deep and monogamous bond the does NOT include sex, then it "can" be righteous ( in my opinion ), but if it includes sexual activities, then while the relationship may be righteous the activities are not ( in my opinion, based on my interpretation of scripture ).

Personally, I would be hard pressed to see how real love ( not infatuation, not lust, but real abiding love ) can be unrighteous.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/11/2008 03:04:38 PM · #1662

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

By your logic, that makes murder perfectly fine. Nice.

You're showing your ignorance again. [/quote]

Insults don't make your argument true.

If the sniper can't say his reasons are righteous, who can?[/quote]
No man. That's the problem.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If acting out of faith and for righteous reasons are the criteria for determining a course of action is sinful or not, and no one can judge what is righteous or not how can you say any act is righteous or not?

I can't. That's the problem.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

How can you say the bible condemns homosexuality? or anything for that matter.

Because it does. Do you need to see the passages yet again?

What a joke. [/quote]
Yeah. It's hell when you want to be your own god so you get to decide what is moral or immoral, what is right or wrong, what is righteous or unrighteous, and then someone comes along and says that they don't buy into that. So you have to dismiss their beliefs as a joke.

Me? I get to form ( hopefully informed ) opinions and do what I hope is pleasing to God - but if I fail, I know that He will forgive me - for wrong actions, for wrong motives, it doesn't matter.

It's like taking a pass/fail test that you can't fail because only the right answers count and a passing score is zero. All the rest is bonus.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/11/2008 03:06:17 PM · #1663

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin.

Then, despite your contention that homosexual sex is biblically "bad", if it is done in the context of a loving relationship to express a deep and monogamous bond that ultimately transcends sex, it must be "good". Capiche?

Your conclusion. But "bad" and "good" are in the eye of the beholder - that's why I put the words in quotes. And, for the record, I did not contend that homosexual sex is biblically "bad". I contended that the Bible condemns it. If condemnation equates to "bad" in your lexicon, so be it. I would rather use less ambiguous terms.

So the bible can condemn something "good"? Wow.

Originally posted by RonB:

If there is a loving relationship that expresses a deep and monogamous bond the does NOT include sex, then it "can" be righteous ( in my opinion ), but if it includes sexual activities, then while the relationship may be righteous the activities are not ( in my opinion, based on my interpretation of scripture ).

You'v contradicted yourself. You previously said a "bad" act -- wait, an act "condemned in the bible" -- could be committed wholesomely when done in a "good" -- or "condoned by the bible" -- way. How do you, a man who not five minutes ago said that people are incapable of determining what is righteous or not, manage to determine which "bad, condemned" acts turn into "good, condoned" acts, and which do not? You have a lot of exegetic 'splainin to do.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2008 03:12:36 PM · #1664

Originally posted by RonB:

Yeah. It's hell when you want to be your own god so you get to decide what is moral or immoral, what is right or wrong, what is righteous or unrighteous, and then someone comes along and says that they don't buy into that. So you have to dismiss their beliefs as a joke.

Me? I get to form ( hopefully informed ) opinions and do what I hope is pleasing to God - but if I fail, I know that He will forgive me - for wrong actions, for wrong motives, it doesn't matter.

It's like taking a pass/fail test that you can't fail because only the right answers count and a passing score is zero. All the rest is bonus.

And if your opinion is that putting a round through a Doctor's temple is pleasing to God it doesn't matter, does it?

How about strapping on an explosive vest and detonating yourself in a busy marketplace.

There's no difference really.

12/11/2008 03:38:02 PM · #1665

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How about the christian sniper with the crosshairs centered on a Doctor he believes to have performed abortions. He makes his decision to fire and kill from faith and for righteous reasons.

Originally posted by RonB:
From faith, perhaps, but for righteous reasons? Says who? The sniper? Who is he to judge what is righteous?

Well, there's an issue....you state that the reason has to be righteous by biblical dictate, so the murder of the abortionist isn't okay, right?

In my opinion, right.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But the discrimination and/or harassment and torture of gays is?

That's TWO separate points not one.
Point 1: Discrimination - not okay, BUT limiting marriage to one-man-one-woman is not discrimination against gays, in my opinion. To me it's like prohibiting me from joining the army, just because of my age. It's a limitation that is perceived by those in control as being warranted.
Point 2: harassment and torture - not okay.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What about Muslims?

By their holy rules, it's ENCOURAGED to snuff out the infidels.

Who's RIGHTER??????

You tell me - and then explain WHY who's righter is righter without relying on moral relativistism. From my perspective ( biblically based ) it is not righteous to snuff out infidels. I don't know who the other who is that you are referring to.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
By your logic, that makes murder perfectly fine. Nice.

Originally posted by RonB:
You're showing your ignorance again.

No, though snide, he's got a valid point.

Maybe not from the sniper/abortionist standpoint, but what about gay-bashing?

Is that a bad deed that will be condoned because of the tenuous righteousness of the intent?

Is it a bad deed? I think that it is.
Will it be condoned because of the righteousness of the intent? I don't think so. Because I don't think that excessive physical abuse with the intention of inflicting great pain, or even death, is ever righteous. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm sure Matthew Shepard's parents would love to hear this answer.

Please forward it to them, if you would be so kind ( since you must know them well enough to be sure that they would love to hear my answer ). I, unfortunately, don't have their email address.

12/11/2008 03:46:36 PM · #1666

Originally posted by Louis:

When you choose the lexicon, you get to use words however you see fit. But if you wish to be understood in civil discourse you need to choose a lexicon that others share - else you will find yourself, like now, being called out. It is YOU, not I who is equating "bad" with "condemned in the bible" and "good" with "condoned in the bible" - substitutions that I do not, and would not make. As such, I feel no obligation whatsoever to be 'splainin anything to you relative to your twisted misstatement of what I posted.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/11/2008 03:51:55 PM · #1667

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Yeah. It's hell when you want to be your own god so you get to decide what is moral or immoral, what is right or wrong, what is righteous or unrighteous, and then someone comes along and says that they don't buy into that. So you have to dismiss their beliefs as a joke.

Me? I get to form ( hopefully informed ) opinions and do what I hope is pleasing to God - but if I fail, I know that He will forgive me - for wrong actions, for wrong motives, it doesn't matter.

It's like taking a pass/fail test that you can't fail because only the right answers count and a passing score is zero. All the rest is bonus.

And if your opinion is that putting a round through a Doctor's temple is pleasing to God it doesn't matter, does it?

It matters a great deal to the doctor, his family and friends, his staff, and his patients.
It may or may not matter to the sniper. It may or may not matter to God. It's like the runaway train - you can divert it and kill one man, or not divert it and kill 20. Surely your action or lack of action will matter. But how much, and to whom?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

How about strapping on an explosive vest and detonating yourself in a busy marketplace.

There's no difference really.

Actually there is. But the subtlety would be lost on you.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/11/2008 04:04:47 PM · #1668

Originally posted by RonB:

When you choose the lexicon, you get to use words however you see fit.

Yes, I've noticed ...

Since you appear to be such an authority on linguistics, etymology, and all related (indeed, all known) fields, could you please enlighten me as to how the ordinary person is to interpret "condemned by" other than as "is considered bad by" -- when I looked at a dictionary, all the words used to describe/define it looked like pretty bad things to me.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com:

condemn

â��verb (used with object)
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment.
3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: "His acts condemn him."

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/11/2008 04:06:06 PM · #1669

Originally posted by RonB:

1) The passage I posted was from the New International Version. The King James says "Bring them out to us so the we can know them". The interpretation of "know" as being "carnal knowledge" ( have sex with them ) rather than intellectual knowledge is based on the immediately following verses which indicate first, that it would be a wicked thing, and second, by the fact that Lot offered up his daughters as a substitute - neither of which would apply if only intellectual knowledge was intended by the men of Sodom.

Hmmm...

Ezekiel 16:46-50 (New International Version)

46 Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. 47 You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

no homosexual. In fact, here they are women...

Isaiah 3.8,9
"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judas is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

still no homosexuals...

Jeremiah 23.14
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."

adultery! but not homosexuals...

Luke 17.26 - 29
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built. But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all."

Oh! They married, just like Noah! But still... no homosexuals...

Jude 1.4, 7, 8
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

Oh! fornication and strange flesh! but it could be adultery. Still no homosexuals...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/11/2008 04:11:02 PM · #1670

Originally posted by RonB:

It's like the runaway train ...

It's not at all like a runaway train -- the sniper is making a deliberate conscious choice to act to take a life, outside of the structures and strictures of the law of the land.

So, if I'd have happened along just as the sniper had locked onto his target, and stabbed him to death before he could pull the trigger, would I be justified? Morally right? Neighborhood hero or pawn of Satan?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/11/2008 04:20:21 PM · #1671

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Yeah. It's hell when you want to be your own god so you get to decide what is moral or immoral, what is right or wrong, what is righteous or unrighteous, and then someone comes along and says that they don't buy into that. So you have to dismiss their beliefs as a joke.

Me? I get to form ( hopefully informed ) opinions and do what I hope is pleasing to God - but if I fail, I know that He will forgive me - for wrong actions, for wrong motives, it doesn't matter.

It's like taking a pass/fail test that you can't fail because only the right answers count and a passing score is zero. All the rest is bonus.

And if your opinion is that putting a round through a Doctor's temple is pleasing to God it doesn't matter, does it?

It matters a great deal to the doctor, his family and friends, his staff, and his patients.
It may or may not matter to the sniper. It may or may not matter to God. It's like the runaway train - you can divert it and kill one man, or not divert it and kill 20. Surely your action or lack of action will matter. But how much, and to whom?

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How about strapping on an explosive vest and detonating yourself in a busy marketplace.

There's no difference really.

Actually there is. But the subtlety would be lost on you.

So, your God is OK with Murder? Oh, that's right, you have no way to know what God wants or doesn't want when it comes to murder, but you're certain about his position on other, obviously more important matters like homosexuality.

Both the sniper and the bomber murder out of faith and believe with their whole heart that their actions are what God wants. The only difference is in the level of commitment. The sniper will live out his days in prison and maybe get executed. The guy in the explosive vest is almost certainly going to his death. Of course both will receive great rewards in heaven.

12/11/2008 04:28:26 PM · #1672

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
When you choose the lexicon, you get to use words however you see fit.

Yes, I've noticed ...

Since you appear to be such an authority on linguistics, etymology, and all related (indeed, all known) fields, could you please enlighten me as to how the ordinary person is to interpret "condemned by" other than as "is considered bad by" -- when I looked at a dictionary, all the words used to describe/define it looked like pretty bad things to me.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com:
condemn

â��verb (used with object)
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment.
3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: "His acts condemn him."

While they may be "pretty bad things" to you, I don't see a single instance of "bad" in the definitions for "condemn". As I pointed out earlier, "bad" is in the eye of the beholder. But for reference ( good luck in finding any derivative of "condemn" in the following definition ):

[quote=Dictionary.com]bad
â��adjective
1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy.
3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient: a bad diamond; a bad spark plug.
4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use: bad heating; Living conditions in some areas are very bad.
5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: a bad guess.
6. invalid, unsound, or false: a bad insurance claim; bad judgment.
7. causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful: Too much sugar is bad for your teeth.
8. suffering from sickness, ill health, pain, or injury; sick; ill: He felt bad from eating the green apples.
9. not healthy or in good physical condition; diseased, decayed, or physically weakened: A bad heart kept him out of the army.
10. tainted, spoiled, or rotten, esp. to the point of being inedible: The meat is bad because you left it out of the refrigerator too long.
11. having a disastrous or detrimental effect, result, or tendency; unfavorable: The drought is bad for the farmers. His sloppy appearance made a bad impression.
12. causing or characterized by discomfort, inconvenience, uneasiness, or annoyance; disagreeable; unpleasant: I had a bad flight to Chicago.
13. easily provoked to anger; irascible: a bad temper.
14. cross, irritable, or surly: If I don't have my morning coffee, I'm in a bad mood all day.
15. more uncomfortable, persistent, painful, or dangerous than usual; severe: a bad attack of asthma.
16. causing or resulting in disaster or severe damage or destruction: a bad flood.
17. regretful, contrite, dejected, or upset: He felt bad about having to leave the children all alone.
18. disobedient, naughty, or misbehaving: If you're bad at school, you'll go to bed without supper.
19. disreputable or dishonorable: He's getting a bad name from changing jobs so often.
20. displaying a lack of skill, talent, proficiency, or judgment: a bad painting; Bad drivers cause most of the accidents.
21. causing distress; unfortunate or unfavorable: I'm afraid I have bad news for you.
22. not suitable or appropriate; disadvantageous or dangerous: It was a bad day for fishing.
23. inclement; considered too stormy, hot, cold, etc.: We had a bad winter with a lot of snow.
24. disagreeable or offensive to the senses: a bad odor.
25. exhibiting a lack of artistic sensitivity: The room was decorated in bad taste.
26. not in keeping with a standard of behavior or conduct; coarse: bad manners.
27. (of a word, speech, or writing)
a. vulgar, obscene, or blasphemous: bad language.
b. not properly observing rules or customs of grammar, usage, spelling, etc.; incorrect: He speaks bad English.
28. unattractive, esp. because of a lack of pleasing proportions: She has a bad figure.
29. (of the complexion) marred by defects; pockmarked or pimply; blemished: bad skin.
30. not profitable or worth the price paid: The land was a bad buy.
31. Commerce. deemed uncollectible or irrecoverable and treated as a loss: a bad debt.
32. ill-spent; wasted: Don't throw good money after bad money.
33. counterfeit; not genuine: There was a bad ten-dollar bill in with the change.
34. having the character of a villain; villainous: In the movies the good guys always beat the bad guys.
35. Sports. failing to land within the in-bounds limits of a court or section of a court; missing the mark; not well aimed.
36. Slang. outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him.
â��noun
37. that which is bad: You have to take the bad with the good.
38. a bad condition, character, or quality: His health seemed to go from bad to worse.
39. (used with a plural verb) evil persons collectively (usually prec. by the): The bad are always stirring up trouble.
â��adverb Informal.
40. badly: He wanted it bad enough to steal it.
â��Idioms
41. bad off, in poor or distressed condition or circumstances; destitute: His family has been pretty bad off since he lost his job. Also, badly off. Compare well-off.
42. go to the bad, to deteriorate physically or morally; go to ruin: She wept at seeing her son go to the bad.
43. in a bad way, in severe trouble or distress.
44. in bad, Informal.
a. in trouble or distress.
b. in disfavor: He's in bad with his father-in-law.
45. my bad, Slang. my fault! my mistake!
â��Idioms
46. not bad,
a. tolerably good; not without merit: The dinner wasn't bad, but I've had better.
b. not difficult: Once you know geometry, trigonometry isn't bad.
Also, not so bad, not too bad.
47. too bad, unfortunate or disappointing: It's too bad that he didn't go to college.
48. to the bad, in arrears: He's $100 to the bad on his debt.