Couldn't have written it better myself. A little bit on Mr. Harvey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/paulharveycommentary.htm
Err... Good for you... ::)
rharpe, do you really want to discuss this? Cause if you do, I'm ready to do so...
Paul who?
I'm really not clear if this is supposed to be in support or against Mr Harvey. Whoever he is.
A quick ask on #ags elicited the reply "A right wing nut job"
Please dont do this rharpe! The only thing you will cause with this is a "rharpe vs. everyone else" discussion...
Rharpe, are you really in support with it? If so, then probably there will really be a "rharpe vs. everyone else" discussion... At least I know I would be against you.
(By the way; I hope the people, who thinks that abortion is evil, have a handicapped or sick baby.)
I can't say that everything in there is absolutely wrong. There are fair points to be made.
And actually mr. Harvey has the right to look things in this bizzare twisted way...
Only half of these "I would..." are based fundementaly on Christianity and God and religion and the like. The rest have nothing to do with it and even I could've writen them...
Can you really tell me Gord that you disagree with every single one of these "I woulds"
QuoteBy the way; I hope the people, who thinks that abortion is evil, have a handicapped or sick baby.
Read this again. Think about it. Feel free to edit it out of your post.
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 04/02/2006 20:23:03
Can you really tell me Gord vict0r that you disagree with every single one of these "I woulds"
I would say that i disagree with most of them.
Kudo's Damien, you saved me a post or two.
Paul Harvey is basically an opinionated extremist that makes his living off of saying in your face things without ever having to back up his opinions. Not saying I disagree with everything there, but nothing is as simple as he states, ever. It's really not worth reading this kind of stuff though....
Quote from: Damien on Sat 04/02/2006 20:27:46
QuoteBy the way; I hope the people, who thinks that abortion is evil, have a handicapped or sick baby.
Read this again. Think about it. Feel free to edit it out of your post.
Why?
Because it is a horrible and childish thing to wish upon someone who disagrees with his statement.
Phew! Good thing there's no such thing as the devil then!
Quote from: Squinky on Sat 04/02/2006 20:33:52
Because it is a horrible and childish thing to wish upon someone who disagrees with his statement.
Let alone upon the child.
"I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the
minds of every family member for my agenda..."
I think this one is pretty funny considering the fact that the guy is a radio broadcaster.
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 04/02/2006 20:23:03
Can you really tell me Gord that you disagree with every single one of these "I woulds"
Actually I must say that I agree with some of them a bit (like "I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world"), but it always makes me angry when an over-conservative people tells me what to do or not to do (as long as I'm not harming anyone else). I can discuss this topic more, but guess I should stop now.
Quote from: Damien on Sat 04/02/2006 20:27:46
QuoteBy the way; I hope the people, who thinks that abortion is evil, have a handicapped or sick baby.
Read this again. Think about it. Feel free to edit it out of your post.
Many sick children are born in a year (well, my parents said I was too weak and almost miscarried when my mother was pregnant, but she didn't want to abort, guess it's the reason why I was born with a vocal chord handicap).
If I were the devil, I'd invent the internet so that religious fundamentalists could constantly shove their beliefs down the throats of others, no matter where they're from.
Also, I'd pretend to be Brad Pitt and make it with Angelina Jolie!
I didn't say anyone had to agree with any of it. Paul Harvey is no saint, but he raises some very valid points.
But being that most of you don't even believe in God or the Devil, you probably could care less to what Mr. Harvey or really anyone says concerning morality and the like... Why? Because you do as you please, when you please, how you please, according to you and no other. Life is only about you, and the angels that guide you. (Good or bad)
Ok sorry but, blah blah blah, one can't be moral without god...
if that's what you want to believe then go ahead.
Congratulations humans are weak and stupid and all they want to do is rape and steal. Which is why that's all I do, all day every day... Anyone else?
Those are all excellent points, rharpe. I'll start with the first step first thing tomorrow.
Don't you know? "Atheism" is a polite word for "nihilism".
also, in all seriousness then, Rharpe, please
http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
explain those people then.
I'll give you Abe Lincoln because he might have been gay...
Quote from: rharpe on Sat 04/02/2006 20:44:10
Why? Because you do as you please, when you please, how you please, according to you and no other.
Yep! Instead of those mindless zombie christians who follow no other than their wicked leader called
The Priest![violin]Daaa! Dadadadadduuuudiididididididiidiiiiid![/violin]
I feel sorry for the guy. He apparently lives in a self-proclaimed hell and he seems to be afraid of anything that differs from himself.
This topic is bound to just piss people off. Instead, how about we talk about swinging and "getting it on"?
You guys are SO going to hell. :P
;D
Quote from: Albert Einstein
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
Heh. Good one ;D
EDIT: To help squinky's suggestion: [sing]
You can leave your hat on![/sing]
If I were the Devil
By Patrick “Squinky†Sullivan
I would make vampires real. And Smexy like. I would most likely model them after
trendy movies like the Lost Boys or Once Bittten.
I would also make giant bigass spiders, that give 35 experience points each if you kill them. If you were lucky you could get a shortsword +1, but you would only have like a 10% chance of that....
I would get myself a rocking guitar and hangout in an intersection somewhere in a cool-ass desert and challenge Ralph Machio to the greatest guitar duel of all time.
Then we would have some sort of crazy montage with him practicing karate.
I would be in Miss Jones.
I would have a skeleton made of titanium. And be able to beat everyones ass with an old axe handle. I might grow my hair real long too, but I'm not sure on that one yet, I wouldn't want to be judged by people because of it.
THEN I WOULD END MY ARTICLE IN CAPS TO HELP DRIVE MY POINT HOME!
Quote from: MrColossalhttp://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
An interesting read. I didn't realize that site had every registered atheist... not as many as I thought. ;)
A post I expected, there's nothing you have to say that there are american presidents on that site, some of which are founding fathers?
That means nothing at all?
"I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;"
so if there were some nonreligious founding fathers I guess you can assume that the devil took control of the US when it was a baby, not when it was the most powerful.
Quote from: MrColossalA post I expected, there's nothing you have to say that there are american presidents on that site, some of which are founding fathers?
That means nothing at all?
You're right, I didn't know they were atheists... I was taught they were Freemasons. Actually, most of the American presidents were. Is there a difference? Either way both are set out to destroy Christianity.
Atheists do not set out to destroy Christianity. They just don't believe in God, gods or any gods of any religion whatsoever.
Christianity is obsolete, much like other religions that are based on the fear of the unknown.
Do you really need the bible to separate the wrong from the right?
Besides how did it help us grow. If we all followed it's dogmas blindly, the Earth would still be a flat board which sun rotates around.
I think most were Diest...
So, if you say that there were people set out to destroy christianity [apparently] and they helped write the constitution, whenever you hear anyone say that we should base legislature off the intent of the framers of the constitution when it comes to gay marriage, that would mean that there is no religious reason to be against it, right, so gay marriage is ok as far as the constitution is concerned?
This is a little off topic but it's important
Quote from: ildu on Sat 04/02/2006 20:52:10
I feel sorry for the guy. He apparently lives in a self-proclaimed hell and he seems to be afraid of anything that differs from himself.
I don't think he needs you to be sorry. And I'm pretty sure that he's sorry for you right now. Who's right and who's wrong?
What I find wrong with religion (and not God) is that it's old... I think I've said it elsewhere, but still society goes on and religion should go on along. Otherwise this is what you get.
Question: Do we have anybody in these forums that don't believe in God, the christian way, but believe in Bhuda or Allah or whatever. Cause Iwould be very interested to hear his opinion on Pauls , truly close minded, broadcast while abusing the power of the internet and the power of his own name...
Quote from: rharpe on Sat 04/02/2006 21:15:21
Is there a difference? Either way both are set out to destroy Christianity.
Christianity has already been destroyed by over-zealous closed-minded religious nutjobs (read: Christians) who seem to have trouble identifying with reality.Ã, Kind of makes sense that open-minded thinkers would choose to ignore it, doesn't it?
*sigh* I tend to avoid these "Religious" types of debates / arguments, and with good cause. But I'll just briefly mention that, I consider myself a Christian, and I believe there is a God and a devil, a Heaven and a Hell. However I try to respect other people beliefs and freedoms-of-choice without "preaching morals" to them or "beating them over the head with a Bible".
Apologies if the following seems a "rant" and it's certainly not my intention to "preach" to others here. But, I've sat back a long time and watched so many of these types of arguments discussions and I've kept silent. So, I figured this time I would speak up and share some of my personal opinion if anyone cares to listen. (And ya know the saying about opinions: "Opinion are like assholes... everybody's got one." Ã, :P )
When it comes down to it, the whole "Religion" thing turns-me-off! I mean, look at all the wars, torture, hate, killings, discrimination, racism, etc... and most times in the name of "Religion" or "For my God" or "My God is Stronger than your God", or "What? You don't believe the same thing I do? Then you must perish!"... Ã, going back thousands of years right up to current times. It seems that mankind tends to use "Religion" as a type of "Weapon" as a means to try and force their beliefs on others, or to "Justify" doing terrible acts to others, Ã, for starting wars, for gaining Political "Power", to sometimes thinly hide their atrocious acts of "Greed" and "Corruption". Ã, And I see that the world we live in is such a mess with so many problems, and overshadowing it all, and the cause behind so much of the problems and sufferings we see in the world today, seems to be related to "Religion".
I consider myself more "Spiritual" than "Religious", and the Bible is sort of like a "Guideline", and philosophy that I can try to implement into my life, but really it's up to ME as an Individual human being to discover what the message of the Bible means to me. Ã, In my many years of "soul-searching", I've read the Bible, as well as many books about philosophy, Ã, books about Buddhism & Taoism and other similar such works. Ã, And really, I don't see the overall message from being so different from one concept, "belief" or "way" than the others. Ã, Most of them I see share a very similar message, Examples might include similarities between different beliefs such as "Be good to others. Love others. Respect Others. Respect and appreciate life." type of messages. Ã,Â
Ã, For me, my relationship with the Lord is a personal matter for me, and I don't like for others to tell me how to have my relationship with the Lord. That's my business!
Ã, I think it's up to each individual person to discover what's the right path for them, and as far as I'm concerned, as long as people are NOT hurting others, then regardless of what their beliefs are, I will respect their beliefs. Ã, I mean, why am I any "better" or "worse" any more "right" or "wrong" or "deserving" or "undeserving", than someone else simply perhaps because of where I was born, the culture I grew up in, what morals and beliefs were taught to me in family, school, church, society, etc... Just because I grew up in a certain area where I'm "taught" certain beliefs, does that automatically mean perhaps that a different country, in which the culture, society, education, beliefs, etc.. that are different than mine, that perhaps they are all "wrong" or "bad" or "evil"?
Ã, Bullshit I say! No one is any better than anyone else because of their race, religion, what country they were born in, their culture, etc... We're all human beings and share the same planet, the same sky, the same moon, sun and stars. We're all "Brothers and Sisters", so I say this: "Have an open mind! Learn to respect others, regardless of some obvious differences, and we can learn and grow together as human beings by sharing with each other." Ã,Â
Ã, As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad the good Lord made us all a bit different, otherwise it would be a very boring world indeed. Ã, Still that being said, it's a nice notion to hope for peace for humankind regardless of differences amoung us. Ã, ;)
I'm definitely thinking same with Barbarian.
QuoteQuestion: Do we have anybody in these forums that don't believe in God, the christian way, but believe in Bhuda or Allah or whatever. Cause Iwould be very interested to hear his opinion on Pauls , truly close minded, broadcast while abusing the power of the internet and the power of his own name...
I'm Muslim (but I'm more freethinker than other people in some Muslim countries). I've just already told a few things that I believe; but don't hesitate to PM me if you wonder/discuss something.
Quote from: rharpe on Sat 04/02/2006 20:44:10
But being that most of you don't even believe in God or the Devil, you probably could care less to what Mr. Harvey or really anyone says concerning morality and the like... Why? Because you do as you please, when you please, how you please, according to you and no other. Life is only about you, and the angels that guide you. (Good or bad)
Yup, I do as I please, luckily what pleases me is just to be a decent person.
Agreed Barbarian.
(For the record I consider myself agnostic)
It is irrelevant, but have you seen what Paul Harvey looks like? (I think I found the right Paul)
http://www.paulharvey.com/
WARNING: Don't look if you value your eyesight!
Meh, I'll be cruel to this bastard because I consider him to be evil or misguided, myself.
(http://www.tvacres.com/images/newhart_devil_small1.jpg)
"I am right. You are wrong."
Personally I find these kinds of debates pointless. They will not lead to any change and will possibly upset many people. However, over the last few months I have been more involved on american dominated forums and I must say that I could never even imagine that a nation like the Unitded States still takes religion seriously. I mean, in the way that it dictates their lives and clouds reason. And the huge underlying hypocrisy aswell. And the intolerance aswell. Sure, homosexuality may be wrong, but are you any better HATING people for it? Read the ten commandments if you will and see which ones christians are breaking in anti-gay campaigns.
To clarify I'm not religious, but I do follow christian morals and usually put others before myself.
QuoteI consider myself more "Spiritual" than "Religious", and the Bible is sort of like a "Guideline", and philosophy that I can try to implement into my life, but really it's up to ME as an Individual human being to discover what the message of the Bible means to me. In my many years of "soul-searching", I've read the Bible, as well as many books about philosophy, books about Buddhism & Taoism and other similar such works. And really, I don't see the overall message from being so different from one concept, "belief" or "way" than the others. Most of them I see share a very similar message, Examples might include similarities between different beliefs such as "Be good to others. Love others. Respect Others. Respect and appreciate life." type of messages.
We are alike, Barbarian.
Also. Anytime a religious person comes up to me and asks me if I believe in God and if I think I'll goto Heaven i answer "I will find out soon enough. And even if you are trying to convert me I say that if I'm ever going to convert then I will do so in my own due time and not by scare-tactics or advertising." and then I walk away. Not that this has happened a lot. Once... In Britain. That was a funny situation.
Quote from: Haddas on Sat 04/02/2006 22:02:00
Sure, homosexuality may be wrong, but are you any better HATING people for it? Read the ten commandments if you will and see which ones christians are breaking in anti-gay campaigns.
So even though you think it's wrong, you don't dis-respect people for it, is this correct? If so, we may have a difference in opinion but I'll have respect for you if you're not telling people they should be heterosexual.
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 04/02/2006 21:30:26
What I find wrong with religion (and not God) is that it's old... I think I've said it elsewhere, but still society goes on and religion should go on along. Otherwise this is what you get.
Question: Do we have anybody in these forums that don't believe in God, the christian way, but believe in Bhuda or Allah or whatever. Cause Iwould be very interested to hear his opinion on Pauls , truly close minded, broadcast while abusing the power of the internet and the power of his own name...
Well, I'm a Baha'i (http://info.bahai.org/article-1-2-0-1.html). Does that count? (I believe in God and am not Christian; however, I believe that the Judeo-Christian God, Allah, Buddha, and what have you are one and the same, and that different religions were revealed at different times according to the needs of humanity at said times.)
In any case, here's what I think:
Quote"If I Were The Devil" by Paul Harvey
First of all, let me clarify that I think of such concepts as "Hell" and "The Devil" in a strictly metaphorical sense; in other words, they represent such things as feeling far away from God and suffering the consequences of one's actions. General unhappiness. That sort of thing.
QuoteI would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;
Personally, it bothers me how power has historically been the most important value that our society strives toward. What about cooperation? Unity? Peace? Also, I don't believe in nations and all that crap. A common Baha'i quote is "the Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens", which I wholeheartedly agree with.
QuoteI would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man's effort, instead of God's blessings;
This is a half-truth. I believe that God has blessed us with the ability to do and create extraordinary things. However, actually using this ability requires that we exercise it, rather than sit around and expect that God will magically do great things for us.
QuoteI would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;
I agree with this.
QuoteI would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;
The point is not to stop gambling. Along with power, money is another thing that's overrated in our society. If we stop wanting material prosperity above all other things, then we will stop gambling, simple as that.
QuoteI would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;
Again, I bring it back to the whole want for power. Still, character is important when dealing with anyone.
QuoteI would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;
Again, a Band-Aid solution to a much bigger problem. It's not the abortions we should be concerned about, but the fact that people are having sex way too early and are way too uneducated about its consequences.
QuoteI would make it socially acceptable to take one's own life, and invent machines to make it convenient;
We should be working to make the world a better place to live in so that no one will feel the need to commit suicide.
QuoteI would cheapen human life as much as possible so that life of animals are valued more than human beings;
Ha! Tell that to an animal rights activist, why don't you?
QuoteI would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit;
What use is belief in God if it is forced upon another person? Belief in God is much more effective and useful to the human soul if it is a personal choice.
QuoteI would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;
I'm against the consumption of alcohol and drugs, and think that the world would be a much better place if they didn't exist. I guess this means I agree with this particular point.
QuoteI would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the minds of every family member for my agenda;
I'm not very happy with many of the things that the media promotes. However, I wouldn't say that its messages are the product of one person or organization trying to hoist its agenda upon innocent people; they are, instead, a reflection of the values our society has collectively accepted over the centuries. If the world as a whole changes, then the media will change as well.
QuoteI would attack then family, the backbone of any nation. I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;
I think families are important. I don't think divorces should be made easy; I think marriages should be made harder to get into. That being said, the Leave It To Beaver ideal of a family isn't all that great either. It's a bit too patriarchal for my tastes, and I believe in the equality of men and women.
QuoteI would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movies screens, and I would call it art;
Again, the media is a reflection of the society we live in. The fact that art is depraved signifies that our society is depraved.
QuoteI would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;
I have issues with homosexuality being considered genetic; genes have little if any effect on behaviour. I have even more issues with the concept of a fixed, inborn sexuality; recent studies and past experiences seem to suggest to me that sexuality is more of a fluid, dynamic thing. Furthermore, I have issues with the concept of "the homosexual" (or "the heterosexual") as a specific type of person; contrary to popular belief, this sort of reasoning is very recent, coming into being in the 18th century at a time when the scientific community took an obsessive interest in abnormal sexual behaviour and sought to categorize it. Before that, sex was seen as merely an act, and didn't seem to define you as a person the way it does now. (I could talk about this subject all day if anyone was interested, but I probably should get back to the point at hand...)
That being said, I am completely against being prejudiced against homosexuals. Then again, I'm also completely against prejudice against ANYONE.
QuoteI would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agendas as politically correct;
It is unfortunate that many religious leaders are not concerned about the well-being of the human race, but about having power and influence over others. That being said, it doesn't mean that all morality should be thrown out the window.
QuoteI would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, the Bible is for the naive:
Out of date, well, yes. Christianity was started two thousand years ago. Many of its teachings were specifically targeted for people who lived two thousand years ago. Our world is a dynamic and ever-evolving one; why should we expect that everything that was applicable to humanity two thousand years ago is applicable to us now? When you reach adolescence, do you have the same privileges and responsibilities as you did when you were a child? When you reach adulthood, are you not governed by a different set of laws than you were as an adolescent?
The Christians among you might recall that God promised Abraham that He would never leave Man alone. In this case, it simply doesn't make sense that God would send a Messenger once and forget about us. Even Christ Himself said that He would return. (Personally, I believe that He already has, but still, that's up to each and every individual to decide on his or her own.)
That being said, the Bible is not necessarily naive. Much of what Jesus had to say still applies today; we should still try our best to love one another, after all. The problem of naivety, I find, tends to come when we people read the Bible in a literal sense, rather than in an allegorical sense.
QuoteI would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;
Prayer IS important. So is faithfulness and obedience. If they are forced on a person, however, they are utterly useless.
QuoteI GUESS I WOULD LEAVE THINGS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY THEY ARE!
Okay, I get it. The world we live in today leaves much to be desired. I agree completely. But could you please stop yelling? It's making my head hurt.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 04/02/2006 22:13:07
Quote from: Haddas on Sat 04/02/2006 22:02:00
Sure, homosexuality may be wrong, but are you any better HATING people for it? Read the ten commandments if you will and see which ones christians are breaking in anti-gay campaigns.
So even though you think it's wrong, you don't dis-respect people for it, is this correct? If so, we may have a difference in opinion but I'll have respect for you if you're not telling people they should be heterosexual.
Actually what I meant is that some might see homosexuality as being wrong. I mean, I don't see homosexuals as any lesser people than others. If I were, I'd have to stop talking to my oldest cousin. One of the nicest guys in the family. A very LARGE yamily at that.
I'm really proud of the church system in Finland. Like other Lutheran countries, it isn't there to cram anything down anyone's throat. It's more of a social establishment. I support the church (by paying the church tax) for one sole reason: They do some awesome work on the social front. They have support programs for the poor, the handicapped, the young and the old of which I'm truly proud of. I haven't been in a church for some 8 years now and I probably won't start even when I get kids either. I'm not sure if I'll even have a church wedding or baptize my children, but if I do, it will be purely traditional, not religious.
And I do respect those who have faith. Religion can definately be a source of strength and a base for morals and values. Still it's more about the values than it is about heaven, hell, Jesus or God. Unfortunately, some modern countries still divulge in the arcane idea from the Middle Ages that religion overpowers individualism. It's simply irresponsible, unfair and lazy to fully contribute what you are and what you do to a power other than yourself.
Yesh! Teh homos is teh 3v1L!!!
No... Not really. My cousine is actually gay, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with him. I want to know why christian extremists (looking for rharpes opinions especially) think that being gay is being evil. What have they possibly done to cause people any harm?(other than the harm everyone do all the time) Actually, gay people do more good than bad! Just look at all the designers and hairdressers.( ;D)
I agree mostly with Barbian, along with the way he treats people and respects others and life itself, but I feel as though God is indeed also worshipped by other religions, and that he has sent different messangers to teach people about him, and they have all accepted or not accepted him in different ways, creating "different" and "diverse" religions, when really we're all looking up at the same face. Ã, Only our eyes mask our judgement. Ã, I believe that as long as you: respect others, don't cast down others becuase they believe in things you don't, and realise that your opinion is neither better nor worse than anyone elses as long as neither involves hurting others in any way- then you have acheived enlightenment to some degree, and are indeed a good person.
..........I feel sorry for poor Paul Harvey.....
-Regards, Glacies Akumayo
Excellent Post Stranger.
I am a church going person myself, and I go pretty much for the reasons ildu mentions. It is social, gives my kids a good place to hang out, and I have gotten to do some good things there. Giving gifts to children at x-mas,fixing up peoples houses, paying some on kids college, stuff like that. I used to be in law enforcement and got to see the bad side of humanity, so it was good for me to see people helping others.
I, of course, will let my children make their own choices and love them the same. Like inqusitive stranger says, it means nothing if it is forced.
Not every christian is forceful and crazy though guys, most of the ones I know really try to respect other opinions, in fact most of the time when people find out that I am religious it opens me up to ridicule and arguements.
About the gay issue, I know that at my church it isn't that big of a deal. The old timers get all nuts about it, but I don't see why. I used to work with a gay woman that went to church and I don't think God hates her, so why should I? She is a good person, if not a bit troubled by the combination of her sexaulity and religion sometimes conflicting.
But regardless of your faith, you have to have a sense of humor and an open mind.
There is no devil.
There's only Keyser Soze.
P.S. Why's everyone debating rharpe on this? Don't you know already he's stark raving bonkers? Rharpe, we get it. You love Jesus and hate the devil. Now be quiet and let us heathens get back to our jizz-tacular orgies!
Quote from: DGMacpheeRharpe, we get it. You love Jesus and hate the devil.
I just posted the link because I agreed with it. Who said anything about a debate. Everyone knows where I stand on these issues... there really is nothing to debate.
Quote from: vict0rI want to know why christian extremists (looking for rharpes opinions especially) think that being gay is being evil.
If you would like to know my view on this subject, PM me.
Quote from: Squinky on Sun 05/02/2006 00:04:44
Not every christian is forceful and crazy though guys, most of the ones I know really try to respect other opinions, in fact most of the time when people find out that I am religious it opens me up to ridicule and arguements.
Ironically enough, I often feel that telling people I'm religious is as nerve-wracking as coming out of the closet. I'd even go so far as to say that being gay, these days, is more accepted than being religious, especially if you're a university student living in a rather liberal area of the world.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 00:31:14
P.S. Why's everyone debating rharpe on this? Don't you know already he's stark raving bonkers? Rharpe, we get it. You love Jesus and hate the devil. Now be quiet and let us heathens get back to our jizz-tacular orgies!
I don't think he's stark raving bonkers. Some of the points he makes are valid. Free speech isn't limited to liberal-minded people, after all.
Quote from: rharpe on Sun 05/02/2006 01:22:03
Who said anything about a debate. Everyone knows where I stand on these issues... there really is nothing to debate.
There isn't? Well, poo.
What about discussions? Can we have discussions?
I think the main point here is the title of Mr. Harper's piece.
If I was the Devil. Not if you were the Devil. Or If they were the Devil.
What he's doing is seperating out his own moral code, all the things that he finds morally acceptable/unacceptable and polarising them into self/not-self categories. One thing is good, the other is not. Once he's done that, he's grafting it onto his ingrained Christian framework, which is handily pre-polarised into good and evil.
All he's doing is telling us about things that piss him off (a number of which are perfectly valid) using Christian metaphors to do so. Don't be duped into thinking he's talking objective truth just because he mentions God. It's a bit of paint on a soapbox is all.
If you really want to get into it, it's actually a bit temple and marketplace.
Apart from that, not too sure what he's trying to achieve. There's a lot of undesirable things going on in the world, sure. But what about the rest? Surely one should be identifying and empowering the postitive things in life, instead of brooding on everything that's wrong. That'll never do anyone any good. And it'll give you indigestion.
If I were the Devil, I'd create butterflies and rainbows and wee fishies and creativity and jokes and dancing and basic, common, honest-to-goodness human decency.
I GUESS I WOULD LEAVE THINGS PRETTY MUCH THE WAY THEY ARE! etc. etc.
Rhape, and all the other "Christians"* out there:
You're s'posed to Love Thy Neighbour, right? Does that mean forcing your beliefs onto people who don't want them? Ã, What kind of a reward do you get for a conversion? Ã, I have my own beliefs, and I only explain them if other people ask me. Ã, I don't stand on street corners preaching to people. Ã, I don't bring it up in as many posts and threads as I possibly can.
Fact: Most wars are about religion. Ã, Take this forum, for example. Ã, You mention religious beliefs, and you're bound to get people arguing both sides. Ã, Why can't people see that everyone is entitled to live their life how they want. Ã, (Free Will, a common aspect of most religions). Ã, I don't go telling people what their favorite color is, or whether or not they should like mustard. Ã, Why should they tell me I'm going to suffer enternal damnation for not believing exactly the same thing as them. Ã, Beliefs should be a personal thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone who's religious is a zealot. Ã, I just can't see why the zealots can't let other people live their lives in peace, without telling them how to live. Ã,Â
Morals is another thing, but that's got nothing to do with religion. Ã, (Some priests molest children. Ã, Most Satanists don't.. Ã, Which is right?). Ã, Morals come from your upbringing and your surroundings. Ã, The undiscovered tribes in the rain forests didn't have Bibles, or Qo'rans (sp) or any other mainstream religious texts. Ã, That doesn't me they were running around being mean to everyone else.
Hopefully, this is the last "I believe this.." thread I see in this forum, because to tell you the truth, I'm sick of hearing about how good or non-existent God is. Ã, Let people decide for themselves.
Also, as to the original post, I personally agree with several points this Paul Harvey made.Ã, And to conclude my own, he didn't force anyone to agree with him.
EDIT:
*I forgot this originally. The asterisk is because you can't pin a person down to just being a "Christian", it's always something more precise.
Morals is another thing, but that's got nothing to do with religion. Ã, (Some priests molest children. Ã, Most Satanists don't.. Ã, Which is right?).
Quote
I agree with some of what you're saying here spleen. But that's a bit of an unexamined statement. That could just as easily be rephrased (Most preists don't molest children. Some Satanists do.. Which is right?).
Also don't confuse Satanism and Devil-worship. They are two distinctly different things. Satanism itself doesn't actually have a whole lot to do with either side of Christianity.
There's been more paedophile priests in the news over the years, and since it's happened in predominently Christian areas, I'd assume the news is accurate. It a Satanist touched a choir boy, the western world would be all over it like a fat kid on a cup cake.
As for "Satanist", it was just an example of a non-mainstream religion that is. on the whole, considered to be a good religion. Devil-Worshipping or Paganism would have been adequate substitutes.
I am getting so incredibly sick of people going on about how you can't live a fulfilling life without God. I am without God, and have always been. I can honestly say that I live a life that is perfectly fine, and I don't need a shepherd, I don't need a guide to find that heavenly place after death.
If I'm meant to be there, I'll be there. If not, tough. If there's something after life, that's a whole new adventure to deal with. If there isn't, then I guess that by that time I'll just be done and over with.
I am a reasonable person, and I don't hate anyone for what they believe in. I respect those who believe in God, Allah or whatever God they've put their hope and faith in. I accept that some have different beliefs than I do, and I expect them to do the same. But if people get in my face and start telling me I'm going to hell because I don't embrace the word of God, then by golly, fuck off.
Respect for one another is one of the most important principles I live for. Prejudice is a foul thing, and hating somebody because of what they believe in, or because of what colour of skin they have, or even what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom is just arrogant and childish. As if, because one knows God, the absolute truth has permeated every inch of their body. As if, because of the faith one has in God, you are suddenly his chosen medium to communicate with the world.
What is it with all of those Christians who feel they need to convert every non-believer? Are they truly so thick in the mind that they think they're the ones responsible for fixing what can't be fixed?
If God exists, and all the stories the Bible tells us aren't stories, then this is his own fault. How can someone be infallible if he creates mankind, then gives them free will but punishes them when they use it to do something he doesn't like? It's like a father telling his son he'll support him in whatever career he chooses to follow, but tosses him in a pit in the backyard when he hears his son has chosen to be a pornstar. That's just retarded logic.
Satan was created by God. Satan didn't agree with God. God cast him out. Oh, boohoo, Satan is running amuck amongst the silly mortals! The silly mortals, who are God's favourite, who he punished for showing free will (eve taking the apple, against God's wishes), and then punishes even more in regular life, for the things HE has made possible for us to do? If God hadn't intended us to sin, we wouldn't even consider sinning. Given the fact that EVERYONE sins from time to time (everybody tells lies, however small they are, and everyone has coveted something from someone else, however small the coveted subject was), and the fact that if this is all Satan's work, he's got (by now) more of a stranglehold on humanity than God does, what does this say?
God is a perverse character, who punishes those he loves the most for things he allowed them to do in the first place, and is letting one of his ex-disciples take over humanity's world without lifting a single finger.
Nah, that don't fly for me. It's all too random and too all-encompassing. There's no way any sane entity would allow this situation to exist. And if an entity that does allow this to exist, is real, he or she, maybe even it, is not sane at all, and definitely fallible.
This whole debate is ridiculous. What are we arguing about?
Oh, and this:
Quote(Some priests molest children. Most Satanists don't.. Which is right?
It's easy to reverse that... Some isn't most and Most isn't all... I believe in god, I pray when I do something wrong... I don't rape children... my family, also who believe in god never have done so either... My friends, their parents, ect. ect. Most religeous people aren't child molesters... Satanists put their trust in what is considered the most evil entity ever to have existed.
I would like to believe we all get what we deserve in the end, and I hate to think there's nothing after. Any time something like that crosses my mind I'm depressed the rest of the day. Mind you, I've never read a word of the bible ever.
Another thing though:
Enough with the insulting of christians! Not all christians are fanatics. Not all fanatics are christians. Enough is enough! I know many christians, not one has said to me "You're greek catholic, your going to hell because of the slightest of differences between the names". It's bothering me more and more whenever someone says "Christiants... :-\" or something to that extent. I'm not saying that no christians are fanatics. But theres plenty of other kinds.
QuoteI believe in god, I pray when I do something wrong... I don't rape children... my family, also who believe in god never have done so either... My friends, their parents, ect. ect. Most religeous people aren't child molesters...
I don't believe in god, and I don't pray when I do something wrong... I don't rape children... my family, also, of which some believe in God have never done so either... My friends, their parents, etc. etc. Most non-religious people aren't child molesters.
I like it better this way. Christians aren't bad people. Duh. They're people, who have inherent flaws and good points, and they just happen to be Christians. Christians can be serial killers, just as non-Christians can be serial killers. Rapist come in all forms and shapes, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pastafarians, it doesn't matter.
Religion is a set of belief one has for himself. It's a very personal thing. I think that's fine. I've got no problems whatsoever with someone believing in God. It's the whole organised religion thing that sometimes gives me the heebie-jeebies. Because then religion isn't a very personal thing anymore. It's something you share with people - people who are fallible. People who make mistakes and say the wrong things. When you've got your own set of principles, and they're Christian principles, all is well.
But if someone comes along and tells you that he views those principles in a different way, interprets the bible slightly differently, and hence comes to the conclusion that thing
- is evil, because in a way, the Bible sort of maybe kind of says so, and people follow them, it's a scary thing.
Religion doesn't mean turning off your conscious thoughts. Be religious - fine, that's your own thing, and if you get faith and hope from it, which in turn makes you feel more secure, knowing that there's more, then I can only say I'm happy for you that you have something that I seemingly don't. But don't ever dare to assume that those who do not embrace God are by definition not good people.
We have principles too. And going by the ten commandments, I break a fair few. I don't believe in the existence of God, since I don't believe in him I'm unable to comply to the wish to not have any gods beside him, because he's not my God, I sometimes take the name of God in vain and sometimes I do covet things that happen to or belong to another.
But I also uphold a fair few of them (the sensible ones, imnsho), like not murdering, not committing adultery, not stealing, honouring my father and mother, remembering the Sabbath day (while perhaps not keeping it holy, but I respect the sunday and how some few it).
I'm not a horrible person, and definitely not so because I'm not a Christian. My grandparents are Christian. When my grandfather died, I went to the church service, recited along with the rest of them, but didn't take the hosti or communion wine. Why? Because I would feel like a hypocrit. Because I respect my family's feeling for taking the hosti and communion wine being a part of their belief and didn't want to make a false statement of belief.
Respect. I've mentioned that before, haven't I? :)
Quote from: iamus on Sun 05/02/2006 02:04:45
I think the main point here is the title of Mr. Harper's piece.
Mr. Harper? The new Prime Minister of Canada?
Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 03:23:55
If God hadn't intended us to sin, we wouldn't even consider sinning... God is a perverse character, who punishes those he loves the most for things he allowed them to do in the first place, and is letting one of his ex-disciples take over humanity's world without lifting a single finger.
So, what would you rather have, a God who hands us everything on a silver platter, without making us work for it? A perfect world where everyone's happy and nothing bad ever happens to anyone for any reason? If that were to happen, then what would we learn? How would we grow as human beings?
Quote from: Lord Nipper on Sun 05/02/2006 03:48:57
This whole debate is ridiculous. Ã, What are we arguing about?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm having a great time. This debate is not ridiculous. It is interesting. I'm learning a lot from what people have been saying in this thread and others, and I hope people are learning something from what I have to say. A lot of people here only care about being right. I don't. I like to debate because it gives me a chance to test the strengths of my beliefs about the world and change them if necessary. I honestly don't understand why you people are getting so annoyed.
-nods slowly-
Words of wisdom, you speak.
Continue this debate, we should.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sun 05/02/2006 04:15:29
Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 03:23:55
If God hadn't intended us to sin, we wouldn't even consider sinning... God is a perverse character, who punishes those he loves the most for things he allowed them to do in the first place, and is letting one of his ex-disciples take over humanity's world without lifting a single finger.
So, what would you rather have, a God who hands us everything on a silver platter, without making us work for it? A perfect world where everyone's happy and nothing bad ever happens to anyone for any reason? If that were to happen, then what would we learn? How would we grow as human beings?
I'd rather have that God would make his point clear. That is, provided He has one. We grow as human beings through our inquisitive nature. Every human has an innate need to figure things out - to learn. This is seperate from religious beliefs, as one might find something he or she wants to find in it, but there are many out there who don't search in religion, and therefore don't (necessarily) need it.
I'm not saying I want a perfect world, where everything gets spoon-fed into your mouth and being pre-chewed. I'm saying that it's entirely possible to lead a fulfilling life, a life in which you're there for your fellow man/woman in a positive way, without finding God. The impossibility of nothing bad ever happening is in itself a problem, but it's one we cannot live without.
Hardships focus a person's mind. It makes them fight harder to overcome it, or they will succumb to it. If I'm in a tough spot, I'll rethink my strategy and try harder, better and I will get out of the predicament. I know I'm not the only one who views things in this way, but as I can only talk for myself, I'll not assume that others know what I mean.
What I was trying to say with that specific paragraph was that God isn't as infallible as we're told. Not in my mind, that is. The religion you're a part of, the one you linked. There were some valid points there, and it seems that they've certainly taken a more realistic stance on what's going on in the world and how that links up to their God.
That makes sense to me. Being archaic in your beliefs and refusing to change along with the world is only going to limit your life, not enrich it.
Everyone calm down. This is not a debate but a post for me to share something I felt I could agree with myself. My initial intention was for all of you to write down what you would do if you were the Devil... (in the same format/style as Mr. Harvey.) This debate came like wildfire because many people here are hostile towards morality in general. Then religion is tagged on, rharpe's an extremist, blah, blah, blah!!!
I always find it humorous when people tell me what my intentions are, when they have no clue! They interpret my intentions about as bad as they interpret the Bible.
(At least some of you caught on...)
If I were the devil I would incite hatred and ignorance.
I would make lists were I blamed on myself several random things fundies seem to dislike.
I would put the options on that list on retarded dicotomies that make the reader choose between being mindless drones who must follow blindly what their church tells them or either they would be on the side of evil.
I GUESS I WOULD PRETTY MUCH BE PAUL HARVEY!
OR AL PACINO!
EVEN IF HE OVERACTED IN THAT MOVIE!
BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE KEANU REEVES AS A SON!
BECAUSE HE CAN'T ACT AT ALL!
Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 04:29:47
What I was trying to say with that specific paragraph was that God isn't as infallible as we're told.
How do you define infallibility? I, personally, think that God is infallible. He could make all the problems of the world disappear if He really wanted to. However, He doesn't, because doing so would be detrimental to our growth as human beings. Doing good things out of free will, after all, means a lot more than doing good things because you're being forced to. That's what I was trying to get at.
I agree with a lot of what you just said, by the way.
Quote from: rharpe on Sun 05/02/2006 05:40:47
Everyone calm down. This is not a debate but a post for me to share something I felt I could agree with myself. My initial intention was for all of you to write down what you would do if you were the Devil... (in the same format/style as Mr. Harvey.) This debate came like wildfire because many people here are hostile towards morality in general. Then religion is tagged on, rharpe's an extremist, blah, blah, blah!!!
You never mentioned the goal of your post originally, hence the confusion. And I'm totally not hostile toward morality... am I?
That being said, if I were the devil (assuming that the devil existed) I'd outlaw all genres of music except disco. There, happy?
Grrr.
You know, the reason there are so many atheists in the world today is because there are so many Christians. It's a zen balance, you know: group A pisses off group B to the extent to which group B decides to distance itself from group A as far as they can go. Group B doesn't hate morality, they hate GROUP FRIGGIN' A!!!! I am a Christian, but I have stopped calling myself that because I hate Christians, in general. Christians who have the intelligence to think for themselves and act like regular human beings instead of cogs in a machine get my every respect. Some of you know how I was kicked out of seminary on charges of "witchcraft," which translates to "having my own thoughts and ideas." I almost became an atheist. I decided, nah... God is cool, it's these jokers that follow Him that aren't. There's no reason to ditch God because people are stupid.
Here's some things for Christians to think about... posted by a Christian, mind you.
1) When Jesus was alive on this earth, He NEVER EVER ONCE said anything about Hell to non-Christians, unless asked about it specifically.Ã, He didn't say "believe in me or you're going to Hell." He didn't ever say "repent of your sins, you freakin' homo!" He never once ever said anything negative to a non-believer. He saved that for the religious crowd, calling them vipers, asps, telling them they were of their father, the Devil, and at one point in time (in the temple) becoming violent with them... For non-Christians, He didn't shove anything down their throat... He showed them He genuinely cared about them, and when they accepted that He was the Messiah,Ã, then He said, "You know, it would be nice if, since I'm going to die for you, if you could lay off the sin..." This is definitely not the attitude of Christians today. You know, if every one who ever went through a church and "got religion" were actually counted among the numbers of Christianity, the whole friggin' world would be saved. Unfortunately, I've seen assmasters like Billy Graham say "Okay, everybody, come say a prayer and you're all saved now..." I've seen a friend of mine who was a Wiccan go to church and have her ass handed to her by counsellors until she faked a conversion, ran outta there, and never looked back...
2) Although Romans 1 and the Pentateuch speak of homosexuality as being a sin, the man Jesus said had more faith than anyone else he'd ever met was a Roman centurion who came to Jesus to ask if He could heal his 13 year-old male sex slave. Jesus, I don't think, would have been altogether too happy with
these uncle fuckers.
(http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html)
3) Christianity + anything else = war. Christianity + Islam = the Crusades. Christianity + a few gossipping bitties in the church = The Salem Witch Trials. Christianity + people thinking for themselves = The Inquisition. Speaking of the Inquisition, why was Galileo Galilei considered a heretic for saying something that not only is scientifically correct, but can also be found in the Bible? (You know, the Bible DOES say that when it is day on one side of the earth, it is night on the other, and speaks of the "circle of the earth" being "hung from nothing" in the firmament.")
4) And about people thinking for themselves... THIS is what I'm on about. Ask any Christian why they believe something. Either the answer is "The Bible says it," or, "My pastor/priest said it." Here's some things we may be overlooking...
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth. --2 Timothy 2:15
"Sanctify the Lord god in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to
any man who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you, with humility and fear." --I Peter 3:15
"Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." --Acts 17:10
Until I can talk to a Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist who is on my level, and is capable of thinking for themselves, what reason do I have to bother listening to them? What reason do any of us have to listen?
What would you do if you were the devil? Pffft... who cares. I'd rather know what you'd do if you were Batman.
Quote from: rharpe on Sun 05/02/2006 01:22:03
Quote from: DGMacpheeRharpe, we get it. You love Jesus and hate the devil.
I just posted the link because I agreed with it. Who said anything about a debate. Everyone knows where I stand on these issues... there really is nothing to debate.
Well, duh, there's nothing to debate. That's not the point. I'm guessing practically 99% of links you post are some Christian element you agree with, such as how God is missing from schools or how Paul Harvey is a super spy, etc, etc, etc.
My point is this: Move on. Try posting something that doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or God or the Christian Ninja Society. Please, please, PLEASE, I will send you ten internet dollars if you shut up about religion.
Quote from: modgeulator on Sun 05/02/2006 09:02:36
What would you do if you were the devil? Pffft... who cares. I'd rather know what you'd do if you were Batman.
If I were the devil, I would become Batman.
If I were the devil... hmm...
I'd kill angel and cherub, I'd impale the head of archangel michael on his own fiery sword and ground it in the earth where I once had fallen.
I'd plague the race of man with three thousand tortures, and I'd turn the skies black with suffering. The sun would no longer rise to greet that battlefield.
If I were the devil I'd rape the bastard nazarene.
If I were the devil I would spit in the face of god, my creator and blame him. I am his son and he created me to do these things, he knew exactly from the beginning of time where everything leads. I'd blame him and laugh.
QuoteMr. Harper? The new Prime Minister of Canada?
Weeeeeellll......have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time?
Quote3) Christianity + anything else = war. Christianity + Islam = the Crusades. Christianity + a few gossipping bitties in the church = The Salem Witch Trials. Christianity + people thinking for themselves = The Inquisition.
That's not of Christianity
per se as I'm sure you're aware from what you say above. War and
true Christianity are irreconcilable concepts. It's money and power dressed up in religion, just one of the long list of excuses we've come up with to run each other through, ever since one monkey looked at another a bit funny. Pick any other religion (ermm.......Zen Buddhism?) and you can see it happen too. It's only because "Christianity" has been so prominent and widespread that it looks like it's the cause of so much crap.
Since
I'm having fun too and this thread is thouroughly derailed anyway, I'm going to ramble a bit. Apologies in advance, and yes, this is nothing but a personal point of view.
See, the problem I have with most of this talk of Good and Evil and what God intended is that I don't think Creation is quite as clear cut as that. It's a particularly human point of view. "Sin" is just a concept we apply to things we do that we know we shouldn't, that are detrimental to the growth of ourselves and society. It's not a tangible, set in stone thing that was forged at the beginning of time by a pantheon of cosmic dwarves with really huge hammers made of stars or anything.
As a living, thinking being, you're always standing at the same point observing the world around you. In order to fuction, you have to make order out of all the infinite number of things that are going on at once. You have to put stuff in boxes of Good and Evil so you can understand how they relate to each other and then by extension how
you relate to
them. That's how we learn how to live and fuction with all those things. Same process as studying for school, solving a huge maths problem. See how each bit interects with the other and then intigrate them into a working model you can understand.
Really, all the labels we put on things are just different names for the same stuff. Out there in the world are infinite experiences like "finding a ten pound note in the street" and also "tripping up and breaking your back". These are things that just happen. Neither is inherently Good or Evil except in how they relate to you and those around you. In this case, one buys you a nice bag of Fish and Chips, the other puts you in traction for half a year.
To say that God has a plan. To say that s/he wants us to do one thing or the other is grafting a human way of thinking onto a process that is definitely
not human. God is all of the things you see around you and inside you. As much a part of everything as anything else. Think of the whole of creation as the one big brain, putting out neurons that look like human beings and trees and office buildings and the whole spectrum of Gods that we build for ourselves. All are alive in their own ways, and they all experience the world differently. Where they meet, we get communication. Evolution.
There's not so much a "plan" as there is "growth".
Bloody hell. First thing on a Sunday and I'm not even out of bed yet.
Yes, I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is why the hell you are eating fish and chips out of a bag...
Quote from: rharpe on Sun 05/02/2006 05:40:47
This debate came like wildfire because many people here are hostile towards morality in general.
Where are you getting this rharpe? I would like you once and for all to define morality. I just don't see how not being Christian or religious makes a person immoral.
Quote from: rharpe on Sun 05/02/2006 05:40:47
I always find it humorous when people tell me what my intentions are, when they have no clue!
(I find humour in that as well, right here and now to be specific :D.) I imagine I would say something like this to Paul Harvey should I ever meet him. I breaks my heart to believe that someone can hear a few things about me or anyone really, and from that have a detailed opinion of them without taking the time to really understand/meet them.
This is the second fastest growing thread i've ever seen.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sun 05/02/2006 07:00:39
Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 04:29:47
What I was trying to say with that specific paragraph was that God isn't as infallible as we're told.
How do you define infallibility? I, personally, think that God is infallible. He could make all the problems of the world disappear if He really wanted to. However, He doesn't, because doing so would be detrimental to our growth as human beings. Doing good things out of free will, after all, means a lot more than doing good things because you're being forced to. That's what I was trying to get at.
I agree with a lot of what you just said, by the way.
And I agree with a lot of what you've been saying as well. We're on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean we can't think alike :)
I see your point in allowing sins and doing bad things, as a contrast to doing good things out of free will. As a test, it's a lot more useful to weed out the bad apples. But concerning that select few Christians who keep on going "the world is doomed, you've forsaken Christ!", I keep wondering what it is that's brought them that far. I mean, they believe in a God that's all-mighty, infallible and kind. If He truly is out there, he wouldn't allow the world to turn to shit without having some bigger plan, would He? So if that's true, why have they lost faith in that? Why're they talking about everything going bad, and from that doing detrimental deeds (that have wasted a lot of credibility of the faith. Think televangelists) if they're supposed to believe in Heaven and God and all that encompasses?
My reaction to this topic was because of what Rharpe makes me feel like. Every time I see him post, I get this feeling in my gut, and I just want to let it slip. I've done so before, but really, it's not just here it's happening. This is, however, one of the few places where it happens and there's actually a fairly reasonable discussion between those who do, and those who don't.
Which is admirable :)
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sun 05/02/2006 01:32:31
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 00:31:14
P.S. Why's everyone debating rharpe on this? Don't you know already he's stark raving bonkers? Rharpe, we get it. You love Jesus and hate the devil. Now be quiet and let us heathens get back to our jizz-tacular orgies!
I don't think he's stark raving bonkers. Some of the points he makes are valid. Free speech isn't limited to liberal-minded people, after all.
Got nothing against free speech for all. I just think people should quit posting the same retarded garbage you find in spam e-mails where if you don't send it to ten people in the new five minutes you won't get good luck for TEN WHOLE YEARS! Coupled that we already get the fact that rharpe thinks that we, the stupid heathens, have wished God out of existence from the Western World (read his past posts, as examples). Sure, got nothing against free speech. It's just when it becomes the same speech again and again and again and again and again... It becomes annoying.
But let's take a closer look at what rharpe has posted -- "If I Were the Devil" by Paul Harvey. All it proves is that Paul Harvey pretty much would do the same sort of shit the devil (if you do believe in a little red guy with a pitchfork waaaay below us) does. Paul Harvey is, therefore, a BASTARD!
If I were the devil, I would make it rain cupcakes in third world countries. I would also use my devil powers to erase the concept of "war" from human existence. I would also get rid of all Rob Schneider movies.
These are just a few of the things I'd do. God isn't doing them cause he's a lazy old coot. And Paul Harvey is a dick cause he'd do the same things our current devil would do. End of story!
Sooo... Let me get this straight:
Christians are stupid because they believe in something that may not exist.
Aetheists are stupid because they don't believe in a certain diety, but of course they believe in something else they have no idea about.
Christianity is dying because "super science" has some credible theories against creationism. (Though their theories still break the law that something can't come from nothing... hmm) And also because right-wing, close-minded extremist Christian nuts ruined the name of every sane Christian so that every non-Christian will think they're crazy and ignorant and persecuting the human race 24-7.
Aetheism is in because it's cool not being "told what to do." I mean, honestly, what Godless person has morals? They just do whatever gives them the most pleasure. Right?
Aetheists are trying to destroy Christianity, yet Christians are trying to destroy aetheism. They're efforts together only result in long ass threads that end up no-where.
Is that about right?
So what are we saying here? Eat more bananas and everything will be okay?
Wow I love reading this topic's posts.... so many opinions... I disagree, I agree, and I just ponder... but I've already said my two cents, so I'll sit out until something really infuriates me... which is unlikely...
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 14:55:06
But let's take a closer look at what rharpe has posted -- "If I Were the Devil" by Paul Harvey. All it proves is that Paul Harvey pretty much would do the same sort of shit the devil (if you do believe in a little red guy with a pitchfork waaaay below us) does. Paul Harvey is, therefore, a BASTARD!
Hey wait I'm confused... when he put at the end of his stupid speech, "I'D LEAVE IT PRETTY MUCH THE SAME WAY IT IS NOW!!" or whatever, was he not trying to say that all the stuff he just mentioned is happening in reality? That he thinks the opposite to everything he just put, really? That for example, he actually thinks that gay people should be informed that it's not a natural thing to like the same sex? (In his flawed opinion)
Aetheism??
Not that far opposite I think Helm.... or were you talking of something else? I can't keep up...
Aetheism and agnosticism, and of course, devilism!
If you were saying that aetheism isn't an actual word..?
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 05/02/2006 15:15:16
Hey wait I'm confused... when he put at the end of his stupid speech, "I'D LEAVE IT PRETTY MUCH THE SAME WAY IT IS NOW!!" or whatever, was he not trying to say that all the stuff he just mentioned is happening in reality? That he thinks the opposite to everything he just put, really? That for example, he actually thinks that gay people should be informed that it's not a natural thing to like the same sex? (In his flawed opinion)
Oh I get he was trying to be "ironic", but it came out "retarded".
I'm saying his concept of God and the Devil is flawed. If he became the devil, shouldn't he try and use his devil powers for good?
And if God is so great, how come there's a shitload of stuff that should be done but isn't being done, as I demonstrated?
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 15:25:41
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 05/02/2006 15:15:16
And if God is so great, how come there's a shitload of stuff that should be done but isn't being done, as I demonstrated?
I think Stranger discussed and showed a good point of view on why this is done earlier in the thread.
I think "aetheism?" from Helm was a jab in the direction that if aetheism exists, it is an occultic practice dealing with the Seven Aethyrs, because the act of not believing in any deity is known as "atheism," from the Greek a- meaning without, and "theos" meaning "god."
I also think I want to go get some fish and chips now... but in one of those neat sealable styrofoam containers that you Brits don't seem to have, as you eat your shit out of bags.
Oh, by the way, if Christianity were 100% true and accurate, rharpe is still on the wrong course. Trying to make the whole world be good and nice to each other is like trying to put a band-aid on cancer. It's not the friggin' TV stations that are making our kids kill and boink each other, it's the kids themselves. The only reason TV stations play violent and sexual television is because that's what people want to see. You want the youth of America to stop being corrupted? Don't take away "Miami Vice" and "Space Invaders," punch the kids in their mouths.
Preferably while employing brass knuckles.
Quote from: esper on Sun 05/02/2006 15:48:18punch the kids in their mouths.
Preferably while employing brass knuckles.
;D
yeah I have no idea what aetheism is, lgm. Explain.
QuoteAetheism is in because it's cool not being "told what to do." I mean, honestly, what Godless person has morals? They just do whatever gives them the most pleasure. Right?
Aetheists are trying to destroy Christianity, yet Christians are trying to destroy aetheism. They're efforts together only result in long ass threads that end up no-where.
Is this sarcasm?
I should hope that it is... mostly the top part, that's a pretty strong statement:
Quote
what Godless person has morals?
I should hope that it is sarcasm...
I like Rob Schneider movies and I don't care who knows it! "European Gigoló" had its fair share of funny moments! And he was the only watchable thing of "50 first dates"!
*POSTER WAS BANNED FOREVER BECAUSE OF THIS POST*
QuoteYes, I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is why the hell you are eating fish and chips out of a bag...
Good God man! You've never had fish and chips wrapped up in newspaper, so that all the chips get covered in newsprint and the paper gets so soaked in grease that the plastic bag they're in gets wet and everything spills out onto your kitchen table so that the salt and the vinegar and the hot, hot fat get
EVERYWHERE?
I lament the passing of the time when consumption of fish and chips was innocent and free. Before the fall from grace. Before mankind learned to synthesise styrenes, and God wept.
IF I WERE A STYROFOAM CONTAINER ......
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 14:55:06
I would also get rid of all Rob Schneider movies.
Good. Goooood. While you're at it, get rid of all Adam Sandler movies as well, except for maybe the Wedding Singer and Anger Management.
Quote from: [lgm] on Sun 05/02/2006 14:56:39
Aetheism [sic] is in because it's cool not being "told what to do."
Actually, atheism stopped being "in" at the end of the twentieth century. "Spiritual but not religious" seems to be the new trend these days.
Quote from: Glacies Akumayo on Sun 05/02/2006 15:33:32
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 15:25:41
And if God is so great, how come there's a shitload of stuff that should be done but isn't being done, as I demonstrated?
I think Stranger discussed and showed a good point of view on why this is done earlier in the thread.
Thank you! Now there'll be no need for me to repeat myself... will there?
spiritual but not religious? Hey, that might be me!
But then, not only do i think I may have seen ghosts as a child, but it's far more comforting to think that my lost loved ones are still out there is some form or shape, and not just gone.
Quote from: voh on Sun 05/02/2006 14:49:09
I see your point in allowing sins and doing bad things, as a contrast to doing good things out of free will. As a test, it's a lot more useful to weed out the bad apples. But concerning that select few Christians who keep on going "the world is doomed, you've forsaken Christ!", I keep wondering what it is that's brought them that far. I mean, they believe in a God that's all-mighty, infallible and kind. If He truly is out there, he wouldn't allow the world to turn to shit without having some bigger plan, would He? So if that's true, why have they lost faith in that? Why're they talking about everything going bad, and from that doing detrimental deeds (that have wasted a lot of credibility of the faith. Think televangelists) if they're supposed to believe in Heaven and God and all that encompasses?
Ah. Well, many Christians are waiting for the return of Christ, AKA Judgement Day, and many still believe that it will happen literally according to what the Bible said would happen (i.e. a trumpet blast heard by the whole world, and Jesus coming through the clouds, and all the Christians getting to go to heaven and the heathens left to burn in hell). The thing is, that's scientifically impossible, and anyone with a rational mind would agree that true science and true religion should not conflict. Delving into my personal beliefs, I think the Christians are waiting for something that's already come and gone a couple of times, but in a way that no one really expected. A popular analogy used is that of a thief in the night, who most people don't realise has been there until he's already come and gone.
In short, I actually do still think that there's a bigger plan in store for us. The world is changing and maturing. Some liken it to the maturation of an individual human being; millenia ago, humanity was in a state of childhood, but over the past few centuries, as we've made scientific discoveries and learned that God and heaven aren't fairytales who live up in the sky, we've been going through adolescence. And as anyone who's been a teenager would know, adolescence, by default, is filled with a lot of turmoil and strife; you start rejecting your parents and wanting to assert your independence, and get yourselves into all sorts of trouble, but in the end, it's all a part of growing up. The same is happening in our world today; there's a lot of pain and suffering, but in the end, it'll bring us on the road to adulthood.
Once again, I admire the reasonable discussions we're having. Keep them coming, people! (And while we're at it, I'd really like to know whether rharpe honestly thinks I hate morality...)
I think you hit the nail right on the head there, Stranger.
I second that entirely!
And if I may ask, why maturity is something that the Christians will like?
Why can't the human maturity be a hospital like life, controled at all, with DNA theories blooming and life forever through cloning? That sounds likely to happen sometime later on and I don't think that this is what the Christians would consider mature or nice or whatever.
Man they don't even like condoms! That is 1 thing that I can't even begin to understand.
The world has changed and religion is the last one to know!
I haven't been in church for a lot of years.
I pray only when I'm in need and never ever any other time.
I swear like a pig!
I haven't stolen, cheated my wife, beaten my children up, killed (of course), and I actually think that I'm one of the nicest persons around.
I think for myself, most of the time and this is what makes me a person and not just people.
I'm not a sheep and I don't follow orders that don't make sense. Not even laws! (As discussed in a much older thread I don't speed because it makes sense and not because I will get a ticket. It makes sense because I might kill myself or even worst I might kill my family or even even worser (!!!!) I might kill someone else). And for some reason if I try (not so hard here in Britain, but very hard in Greece, and even harder in Syria), I find reasons for the laws to exist. And thus I remain lawfull...
I rely on my own brain (which of course has been created with the geens of my father and mother and my grandparents and so on... and it has been trained by them and by the school I was and by friends and by religion, yes it's true). But now I try to keep an open mind to everything and everyway (either religious and I actually like rharpe and a lot of private discussions we had, and other kind)...
Anyway after this great post I have to say that I'm a great guy!
But I will probably go to Hell! And I won't change!
Spoiler
I want to believe that death is like sleeping forever. If you have been good (no matter what this means) you will have good dreams and have a nice sleep. If you have been bad (no matter what this means) you will have nightmares. And the kind of nightmares that you cannot awake from
Quote from: Nikolas on Sun 05/02/2006 19:10:54
Why can't the human maturity be a hospital like life, controled at all, with DNA theories blooming and life forever through cloning? That sounds likely to happen sometime later on and I don't think that this is what the Christians would consider mature or nice or whatever.
Man they don't even like condoms! That is 1 thing that I can't even begin to understand.
I'm a Christian (an unconventional one, but nonetheless) and I believe that DNA theories are the future, and have no problem with them. And I really have nothing against condoms whatsoever! I think they're a great way to keep down the population and prevent accidental kids (which generally grow up in a divorced, split family, and therefor have a harder childhood)
But, according to you, becuase I'm a Christian, I think that DNA is evil, condoms are evil, birth control in any way is evil, and I'll bet you think that I believe that abortion is evil.
All of which, would be incorrect!
...I don't mean to sound angry, I'm not really angry, I'm just making a point. I wish people would stop generalizing, it would make this thread progress much faster.
I'm actually pretty sure that official christianity (the paupe) condemn the use of condoms. I may be mistaken on this but I'm still pretty sure.
You yourself say that you are an unconventional one (and actually my birthcard and my identity card both state that I'm an orthdox christain myself), so... I'm actually speaking about anyone who takes the words of the paupe as "imposible to errer"!
You're right though. I was generalising and I corrected it now (hopefully)
Thank you! ;D
Quote from: Glacies Akumayo on Sun 05/02/2006 19:18:40
think they're a great way to keep down the population and prevent accidental kids
As for gay people!
Three cheers for condoms and gay people!
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 05/02/2006 19:51:50
Three cheers for condoms and gay people!
And we have to thank rharpe for this post, as his is the first post in this thread! ;D
Hip-Hip-HOORAY
Hip-Hip-HOORAY
Hip-Hip-HOORAY
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Sun 05/02/2006 18:33:13
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 14:55:06
I would also get rid of all Rob Schneider movies.
Good. Goooood. While you're at it, get rid of all Adam Sandler movies as well, except for maybe the Wedding Singer and Anger Management.
!!!
If you did this, you would truely be the devil....Then I would have to off myself. And not go to heaven....
But, even as a christian type person that I am, I am not that interested in heaven. It sounds so darned boring....My heaven wouldn' t have all those streets of gold and perfect life.....my heaven would be:
1. Filled with Giant Big-ass spiders that give 35xp. And shotguns to battel them with, maybe even a Baldwin brother to help out...
2. I would have titanium bones and be able to eat shitloads of hamburgers.
3. Everybody would yell "Rockout" way too much.
---Edited out a stray number....
I've been reading this thread for some time, feeling a bit too flooded with opinions and so it was difficult for me to form a proper post. It still is, as my mind is swarming with thoughts, but here's my bit:
I'm a Jew, but not religious. I suppose you could call me "spiritual but not religious" as I believe in some paranormal phenomena and, in general, in ghosts or souls. I admit fully that my belief in life after death is based largely on the need to feel like there is something else. I am not currently in the point in life when I can accept that at some point it will stop entirely, I won't think, won't remember, won't feel. It's a scary thought, and a few years ago I was rather terrified by it. I find comfort in the thought that maybe there is something else out there, that it doesn't just end.
One reason I'm so scared of that thought is that I really love my life, I've noticed lately that I love every minute, good or bad, joyful or depressing.
Now, I consider myself a good person. I also know that most people think I'm a good person aswell. I believe in having morals, and in principles, and it's not always principles that follow the rules of the system I live in (school for example). I comply with the system, but feel a need to fight for my beliefs when it's really important. And, I'm not religious, and I don't believe in god. I've had points in life where I did believe, in my own way, and points where I didn't, but if true belief in god has to be unocditional and absolute, then obviously I don't truly believe.
That said, I'm begining to think that I believe in fate, not, perhaps, in the form of a plan, but in small things that were meant or not meant to happen. For example, today I was hoping to meet someone I havn't seen for half a year and it didn't work out, and although it seems coincidential I have this nagging feeling that that's how it was supposed to be today.
Anyway, a little about Jewish religion (I don't know every detail so I'll only write what I'm pretty sure about) - Jews, as far as I know, don't believe in Hell. There is also the notion that because we are "the chosen people", converting many people was never an issue, and it's actually quite difficult, or was in past times, to convert. It required studying the bible, and all of the jewish laws and accepting them. There is even a story about three people who wanted to convert, and each of them came to a person and asked to be converted for this-and-that reason. One I recall, only wanted to study the written "bible", and not the spoken one. All three were refused the conversion, at least at first.
As some of you know, bible studies are mandatory in israeli schools, and we even have final tests (for the high school diploma) on the subject. Mine is this year. It's nothing about forced religion, it's actually studying the bible as a historic text, and understanding the different tools used to help pass the messages. For example, often we learn about the bible writer (the one writing the part we are learning at that point obviously, as the bible was written by many people) having a certain belief that caused him to descibe the events the way he did. If he believed that the king of that time was sinning because of the way he sacrificed to god, the written chapter would show this through his description of the king and such. So, in schools at least, we don't take the bible as god'd word, we accept that it was written, after all, by man, and man cannot be completely objective, and isn't garaunteed to be right.
Another thing I've noticed is that sin is never associated to anyone but man. No mention of the devil making people do bad things, it's always the same pattern (god gives man a chance, man sins, god is angry, god punishes man, time passes, and the cycle restarts). Man is given free will and is expected to use it to do good. By the way, there hasn't been one king or religious figure in the bible who hadn't sinned. King David, who is considered the best king the jews ever had, never sinned against god, but he coveted another man's wife, and more than that, he sent that man to battle in the front to ensure his death in battle, which worked, and he took his wife. King Solomon, who was considered very wise, had a thousand wives, many of them not jewish, and at some point was affected by their beliefs and worshipped other gods.
I choose to live my life according to morals I consider right. I don't hate anyone, and don't wish ill upon anyone. More importantly, I don't judge people because of what they believe or who they are. I don't need religion, and I don't even need the law, to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
Of course, one might argue that the surrounding in which I grow up forms my beliefs about right and wrong, and my morals, meaning that because I live in israel the laws here are part of my concept of good and evil. But that's a whole other discussion I guess. Still, there are laws I agree with, and laws, however large or however small in scope, that I disagree with. Free thought and free will allow me to consider for myself which laws I find correct, and often the issue is raised in classes or lectures, wether we agree with a certain law or not. Today we had a lecture about drugs, and he asked us, with all seriousness, if we believe that drugs like marijuana should be legal in israel, and controlled by the government (there is a group in the government that one of the their suggestions for if they are elected is making drugs legal). I can see many bad sides to it, and I can see some good sides too.
Perhaps, if I was born in an african tribe with a completely different moral system, my beliefs on many matters would be different. But I would still have the ability to question those beliefs that surround me and decide, with myself, if I agree with them or not.
If anyone wants to discuss the old testament and talmud etc, feel free to PM. I'm starting to find that I remember a lot of the material from last year's talmud lessons, considering I tried my best not to be present at as many as possible, and not to listen in those I was present at. I'm enjoying this debate very much, it's a great read!
Excellent insights, Ginny!
Questioning is good. If it doesn't make you change your beliefs into what makes more sense, it'll surely end up strengthening your existing beliefs. I find that those who have rarely or never questioned their beliefs tend to have weak arguments supporting them, causing me not to take them seriously. This applies to non-religious people as well as religious people, of course.
Rock Out!
What's that Stephen? Oh, Jesus, shut up up..Ã, You're barely qualify as a brother as it is..
EDIT:
I also like to say that most "Christians" believe God is everywhere, and is in everyone.Ã, And I'll also like to mention the fact that we're all, suppoedly, part of God.Ã, So, if we go to hell..
What happens?
Do we, and a part of God die completely?Ã, Or does it mean that part of God goes to hell, and in part becomes not infalliable and entirely good.Ã, According to most religions that believe in God and believe that God is everywhere, Hell is techinically part of God.Ã,Â
Now, seriously, if God can be as mean as to have a part of him/her/itself being hell, does that really me he/she/it is so benevolent and kindly towards humanity?Ã, Surely that means as more and more people die, God becomes more and more evil, or more and more dead.
If Hell is not part of God, then God is not everywhere.Ã, Therefore God is not infalliable and omnipotent.Ã, If those two basic beliefs are possibly discounted, then what others can be?Ã, If it's down to part of God dying a little with every human, how many must die before before we considered God to not be infinite?
I understand that infinity means never ending, but taking one away means that it's inifinity-1.Ã, Which is not infinity.Ã, Not unless you're going to take a ridiculous leap of faith and negate every ounce of logic you have left.
God created Hell...
..And since God created everything, and everything is part of God..
God is Hell.
EDIT:
Ergo, God created Satan, the ruler of hell.Ã, Satan is evil.Ã, Satan, as part of "everything", is evil.Ã, As part of everything, Satan is part of God.Ã, Henceforth, God is part evil.
If God isn't part evil, then something exists outside of God, therefore God isn't what everyone thinks "He" is.
EDIT:
Lilly's a hardcore Christian, and we've had discussions on religion before. I respect his belief in those, but in no way would I agree with him and in no way would he agree with my views. That said, he's statement only backs up my point. God created Hell, therefore God created something that's viewed as "Evil". Considering God is everything, God made a part of himself evil. God is not ALL good.
Yes. But the real term of "evil" is basically anything that goes against God. Satan came from God, yes. He was also an angel named Lucifer before he was banished to hell, his PRISON.
I'd suggest not trying to define God by man-made logic. God gave us everything he wanted to give us, not everything that he himself has. Christians who say we are "a part of God" don't know anything. Nobody knows anything. God created us in his image. That doesn't mean we are God or have to be anything like him.
I wouldn't call myself Hardcore. I don't burn books or lead lynch mobs... I dunno, I'm not up to fully explaining my beliefs because they'll just ultimatey be mocked. I'm Christian, but not in the manner most non-Christians assume. I have my own core belief system based off of the bible an what I've been taught and what I think myself.
If you want to know my opinion on things, I'd love to have a chat. I won't try to convert you or anything. You can only save the willing!
P.S. And yes, I was being sarcastic earlier. Most Atheists I know are quite nice, really. Not much different than myself, really... They just don't have a God to believe in. The ones I don't like are those that think they're "knowledge" is more infallible than anything on the planet. That really chops my chin.
Quote from: Spleen on Mon 06/02/2006 04:11:53
..And since God created everything, and everything is part of God..
God is Hell.
EDIT:
Ergo, God created Satan, the ruler of hell.Ã, Satan is evil.Ã, Satan, as part of "everything", is evil.Ã, As part of everything, Satan is part of God.Ã, Henceforth, God is part evil.
If God isn't part evil, then something exists outside of God, therefore God isn't what everyone thinks "He" is.
EDIT:
Lilly's a hardcore Christian, and we've had discussions on religion before.Ã, I respect his belief in those, but in no way would I agree with him and in no way would he agree with my views.Ã, That said, he's statement only backs up my point.Ã, God created Hell, therefore God created something that's viewed as "Evil".Ã, Considering God is everything, God made a part of himself evil.Ã, God is not ALL good.
Actually, some Christians suggest that hell is being seperated from God, and thus inferring utter oblivion, while heaven is "merely" being with God and being able to continue living. This gets around your issue with God creating hell.
As for God creating evil, well what God created was free will. If we did not have free will we would be robots and unable to have this discussion, really. If God has given us something like free will but without the option of doing something other than what he wanted, then we would not have free will at all. It's quite simple, yet many people have problems grasping this.
Quote from: Glacies Akumayo on Sun 05/02/2006 15:33:32
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/02/2006 15:25:41
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 05/02/2006 15:15:16
And if God is so great, how come there's a shitload of stuff that should be done but isn't being done, as I demonstrated?
I think Stranger discussed and showed a good point of view on why this is done earlier in the thread.
Hey, that's great but you got the names all mixed-up. And yes, I read Stranger's post, but I think I've got a few better ideas as to what that lazy goofball God SHOULD be doing!
People quite like my "abolish Rob Schneider movies" idea. In fact, they likes it way more than my "abolish war" idea.
Quote from: Spleen on Mon 06/02/2006 04:11:53
Ergo, God created Satan, the ruler of hell.Ã, Satan is evil.Ã, Satan, as part of "everything", is evil.Ã, As part of everything, Satan is part of God.Ã, Henceforth, God is part evil.
If God isn't part evil, then something exists outside of God, therefore God isn't what everyone thinks "He" is.
I think the way to look at this is that the Christian view of God and Satan is only
one of many cultural lenses through which human beings view the world. The world is structured in such a way that anything you want to find, you can find provided you look at it the right way. That's the nature of it. It is everything.
A predominant way of looking at the world (including Christianity's) is to see it as how the two polar opposites of Good and Evil interact in the world around us, which is seen metaphorically as a battle for souls between God and the Devil. Satan can only exist in tandem with God. They both need each other or the structure falls apart. In a monotheistic religion like Christianity you have God, who stands for absolutely everything that's loving and moral. Satan is byproduct. Created through the need for somewhere to put all the dark things that are left over.
You can't have Good unless you have Evil, because neither concept can exist without the other. How do you define Peace, if you don't have War to contrast it against? You can't. Without war there is no such thing as peace, and vice versa. Without European there is no African, only Human.
But it's how we build up our concepts and beliefs and use them to interact with the world around us that's important. Across the world, there are an infinite number of Gods for infinite different purposes, some more specialised than others.
As I said above, the Christian God stands for
everything loving and moral. Worship of the Christian God is to devote yourself to these things, to become a vessel for spreading those influences into the world around you. To make yourself as most like God as is possible in the physical world.
It works the same way for other, polytheistic Religions. But they don't have things seperated into two such distinct categories. They have Gods of Compassion, Gods of Mischief, Gods of War etc. etc.
Worship of these Gods is to invite their influence into your life, for you to be a conduit for their mysteries. Worship the Chinese Kuan Yin and you devote yourself to spreading Her influence, to bring compassion to all you see, even those who perhaps don't deserve it. But her remit doesn't cover everything we would label "good", she has many counterparts to cover those areas.
Really, the Gods that we worship are as much vessels as we are. Since this is the AGS forum, I'll use that as a metaphor. They are the front-end interface. They appear in forms we can understand and interact with, and through them we can influence and be influenced by all the code that churns away behind the scenes.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger(And while we're at it, I'd really like to know whether rharpe honestly thinks I hate morality...)
Not at all! I respect the posts you have made. They tend to be the most heart-felt. (Not saying that everyone elses are not....) I can't completely agree with everything you have said... but you are genuine in what you believe which is what I respect about you.
Stranger: I'm a classic type of guy. My morality is closer to the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal, (maybe even more strict.) I was taught with traditional values that are very rare in our world today. If you would like to PM me regarding my moral views, you may. (People here tend to jump all over me for my moral stature.)
Unlike the way you jump on other people...
But anyway, so why do I hate morality?
I for one would love to hear what you have to say here, Rharpe.
As long as you're showing a willingness to honestly listen to others and compare, contrast and integrate their worldviews with your own (like your last post makes it sound), then that's all that can be asked of anyone. I'll extend the same courtesy.
You're entitled to your say just as much as anyone else is entitled to theirs.
Quote from: MrColossalUnlike the way you jump on other people...
I guess you're right. Sometimes defending my faith and beliefs means I need to rough'n some people up.
Quote from: MrColossalBut anyway, so why do I hate morality?
Because you are immoral... and you like it that way. (That's my guess.) ;D
I don't believe in god therefore I have no morals therefore I am only out for myself and don't care about others. This is your claim right? Then explain to me how you know who I am and what I do in a day to warrant this belief that I am out for myself only.
Also, it's ok for you to attack people but people can't attack you?
Also, did you know no one went to the bathroom on leave it to beaver... I fear your household!
Quote from: rharpe on Mon 06/02/2006 15:40:42
Quote from: MrColossalUnlike the way you jump on other people...
I guess you're right. Sometimes defending my faith and beliefs means I need to rough'n some people up.
I remember when Jesus said that....Oh wait, He didn't. Because he wasn't crazy.
I was just starting to feel a bit bad for you, but then you type this crazy garbage. If your really concerned about people jumping all over you, try not to write such inflammatory things...
Edit---Eric, everyone knows the book of leviticus states in chapter nine that those who subject themselves to such amorality as bathroom breaks shall burn in hell with John Candy for all eternity.
Quote from: MrColossalI don't believe in god therefore I have no morals therefore I am only out for myself and don't care about others. This is your claim right?
Note the happy face... this means i was joking.
Quote from: MrColossalThen explain to me how you know who I am and what I do in a day to warrant this belief that I am out for myself only.
I only know you by what you write. If you are in total contrast with what I write, then you sir, are just what you say you are.
Quote from: MrColossalAlso, it's ok for you to attack people but people can't attack you?
I don't attack, but defend my beliefs and faith.
Quote from: MrColossalAlso, did you know no one went to the bathroom on leave it to beaver... I fear your household!
Nice one! ;)
Quote
I'd say you attacked Alynn in his thread you say you defended your beliefs, however your beliefs weren't brought into question, no one asked for them either. The same with the Lennon thread.
Ok, so if you say that because someone doesn't believe in god they have no morals, and I say I don't believe in god then that means I have no morals... Then what am I doing with all these morals?!
Also there are more people here who believe you are a crazy fundamentalist with an awkward view on the world than believe me to be amoral, are you exactly as they say you are?
In a less antagonistic fashion....
Do you still think this Rharpe?
Have your opinons changed at all from what you've been reading since?
SSH: Thanks for saying what I mean to say.
And rharpe: Morals are very hard to define. If a person generally knows the difference between that set ideal of right and wrong, but they slip up a few times.. That doesn't make them immoral. It just means they're human. Just because a person doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they don't have morals.
Quote from: MrColossalI'd say you attacked Alynn in his thread you say you defended your beliefs, however your beliefs weren't brought into question, no one asked for them either.
I found the request inappropriate, therefore I made a stance. The mods OKed the thread and let it continue after I requested them to bury the thread. At least I gave my opinion.
Quote from: MrColossalThe same with the Lennon thread.
Again, I made a comment and everyone attacked me. I was not on the offensive, but the defensive.
Quote from: MrColossalOk, so if you say that because someone doesn't believe in god they have no morals, and I say I don't believe in god then that means I have no morals... Then what am I doing with all these morals?!
What morals do you have? Do you know what morality is? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.
rharpe, don't play the victim.
Quote from: Squinky on Mon 06/02/2006 15:45:46
Quote from: rharpe on Mon 06/02/2006 15:40:42
Quote from: MrColossalUnlike the way you jump on other people...
I guess you're right. Sometimes defending my faith and beliefs means I need to rough'n some people up.
I remember when Jesus said that....Oh wait, He didn't. Because he wasn't crazy.
Or did he? John 2:12-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31)
but surely time-travelling is against nature, Eric, therefore you are amoral!
One thing I like about Jesus, as described in the Bible, is that he hung out with those the religious authorities thought amoral and he didn't try and stone them, as others did. He also kicked some butt in the temple when he was annoyed.
If I were the devil I'd make the self-righteous make fools of themselves and their religion...
How would you like me to define my morals to you?
I can't possibly list every situation in which I would have to make a moral choice and give you the response so...
also, that means that some of the founding fathers of the US had no morals, you'd be hard pressed to sell that to anyone.
Isn't christianity against prejudices? Prejudices like all non christians being immoral, for example.
You are lucky your God is forgiving. ;)
Quote from: Squinky on Mon 06/02/2006 15:45:46
Edit---Eric, everyone knows the book of leviticus states in chapter nine that those who subject themselves to such amorality as bathroom breaks shall burn in hell with John Candy for all eternity.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/SANTAELBURRITO/sinner.jpg)
It's difficult to support the assertion that all people who don't believe in God also don't have any morals. This can be proven wrong with a counterexample. I think it is unfair to say that Eric has no morals; over the six years or so I've known him over the Internet, I've always found him to be a really nice guy with a cute sense of humour. I highly doubt he'd ever kill anyone, or molest children, or anything extreme like that... and that requires morals.
What would be a more accurate statement to make would be that people who don't believe in God don't have all of the same morals as people who do believe in God. After all, there's a subset of morals that only really apply to those who have a worldview that involves God, including, but not limited to, faith and obedience.
Now, I take rharpe to be a clever and rather open minded guy (<-for his bieliefs and where he stands...)
I would imagine that it would be severelly stupid to try and judge somebody (and actually condemn, or if not decide), over the internet...
Can somebody define morals in a subjective way, in a way that hasn't got to do with religion or the place you live, or where you grew, or your family? Cause I can't, thus morals are generall a little different for everyone. So, at least I, I feel it impossible to judge...
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Mon 06/02/2006 18:38:37
I highly doubt he'd ever kill anyone, or molest children, or anything extreme like that...
And you just keep on saying that whenever the police come by and we won't have a problem!
SSH: great example. I do think one thing is funny, though. Jesus never once, in the entirety of the New Testament, EVER EVER EVER attacked anyone who did not already profess to be religious. He tore the crap out of the Pharisees, and the Suducees, and the people who were trying to make a profit in the temple, but whenever he came across the "amoral" people of the world, he didn't try to kick them in the nuts... He treated them with every respect and won them to himself by showing them he genuinely cared about them.
Jesus hates religion, too....
Quote from: esper on Mon 06/02/2006 21:16:13
Jesus hates religion, too....
Nah, I'd say He hates the abuse of power disguised as religion.
What is religion but the abuse of power?
Quote from: MrColossal
How would you like me to define my morals to you?
I can't possibly list every situation in which I would have to make a moral choice and give you the response so...
also, that means that some of the founding fathers of the US had no morals, you'd be hard pressed to sell that to anyone.
Just answer the following questions:
1.) Do you think pornography is wrong?
2.) Do you think fornication is wrong?
3.) Do you think cheating is wrong?
4.) Do you think adultery is wrong?
5.) Do you think immodesty is wrong?
6.) Do you think erotism is wrong?
7.) Do you think polygamy is wrong?
8.) Do you think sodomy is wrong?
9.) Do you think hedonism is wrong?
10.) Do you think incest is wrong?
The fact that you feel you need to ask these questions seems pretty insulting. Do you really think Eric is an Incestual Child Humper?
---edited because I spell incestual all dumb like....
He's not saying I'm an incestual child humper, he's seeing if I'm ok with incenstual child humpers... I'll answer them in a second, I
have to go poop.
Pooped:
1.) Do you think pornography is wrong?
Well, a dictionary definition of pornography is:
"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal"
So let's take that first: If a man takes a sexy photo of himself and gives it to his wife I don't see how that is wrong. Do you?
You probably ment the porno industry that creates tapes and images and websites full of naked people and sex acts [some bizarre] and
usually charges for them... No, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong with the industry is when someone does something
illegal. When someone is forced to do something they don't want to do or is coerced with drugs into it. That's wrong, but it isn't
limited to just the porno industry.
2.) Do you think fornication is wrong?
Dictionary:
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
Well now you have to take the word marriage into account. There are tons of cultures with different takes on marriage and I don't know
them all so let's assume that marriage usually means 2 people together forever [or until divorce]. That being said, I am not against
people who aren't married making love. And marriage has more to do with governmental laws than it does religion so I don't see how this
applies to god. After all "By the power vested in me by the state of Kansas." Shouldn't it be "By the power vested in my by the lord god
and with some help from Kansas."?
3.) Do you think cheating is wrong?
Cheating on a lover or spouse you mean? [are these all about sex?] I personally would never cheat on Jess. And I'm not talking about
this "If you ever look at another woman and find her attractive, you're cheating!" deal, I mean sleeping with another woman or man.
4.) Do you think adultery is wrong?
Dictionary:
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.
I see this as different from cheating because you appear too also or you'd have only listed one of them. Cheating appears to be without
the spouses knowledge, this could be with the spouse in the room! If everyone involved is ok with it and having a good time, I don't see
why not.
5.) Do you think immodesty is wrong?
Even looking at the dictionary I don't know how to take this word. Someone who wears a short skirt or a bikini? I'm confused.
6.) Do you think erotism is wrong?
Again, I'm sure you'd agree [maybe not!] that in the context of a marriage, sex and eroticsm is super! Tie your husband to the bed and
slather him in honey for all I care. Between unmarried couples and in the world in general? What's the problem? Erotic images and
writing and feelings aren't evil. They have their place in a society, you don't put nipples on school buses but in a book or media ment
for those of legal age? Why not?
7.) Do you think polygamy is wrong?
I don't know. I don't know enough about it. But like with everything there are people who do just fine with it and people who are hurt
by it, I'm sure.
8.) Do you think sodomy is wrong?
Dictionary:
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality
Trick question unless you only ment anal sex. If you only ment anal sex then I say no, nothing wrong with it. As long as both parties
are cool with it. There are tons of unnatural forms of sex [natural being defined as vaginal intercoure with a penis] and as long as
it's legal and the people are consenting adults, go for it.
9.) Do you think hedonism is wrong?
Dictionary:
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses
I'm guessing this is again related to sex since all the others are, but it's too vague and meaningless to me. I can't think of this word
in relation to the world and people in it.
10.) Do you think incest is wrong?
Yup!
************************************************************
Well, that was a whole lot of sex! Frankly, I'm pooped!
If after answer 10 questions about sex you can say I'm amoral then that opens the floodgates to more questions, does that mean I have no
qualms with killing people? Stealing TVs? Eating people? Beating up old women? Scratching my name in cars? Setting fire to hospitals?
Dictionary:
Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
If because I have no problem with someone taking it up the pooper in a consenting fashion means I don't care about right or wrong, the
world probably has about 150 moral people in it, and they're all under the age of 1.
Now, I have one for you, just one really...
1.) Do you think it's wrong to steal?
Eric
*I only quoted the dictionary so that we could maybe agree on a definition before discussing the word, if you have another definition you prefer for a word, please say so!
For Pete's sake... What does it even matter? Where is this even going? You know, I can think of several serial killers I've read about that killed because they thought the things on that list were wrong... I'm not a big fan of any of those things. I have some Wiccan friends who would agree with me, and some atheist friends, and my brother, who is a Shinto monk, is feverishly against all that and more.
I also knew of a man who was songleader in the church down the street who was carted off to jail for feeling up little girls on the church bus. I know for a fact, working in the hotel industry, that whenever there is a preacher's meeting in town, the amount of pornography rented in the in-room movies doubles. I'm also keenly aware that priests all over America have been grabbing little boys by their buttocks, ripping them apart, staring lovingly inside and then inserting their heads in roughly up to the shoulders, and the church officials are covering it up.
I also think you fail to notice that the Bible says if you are guilty in one point of the law, then you have offended in all points. Have you ever told a lie, or worn gold? Has your wife ever braided her hair, or worn clothes of mixed fabrics? Oh, dear! I gues that means you're guilty of the entire list you posted!
"For Pete's sake... What does it even matter? Where is this even going?"
I asked Rharpe a question and he answered it, it matters because I asked a question. Where this is going is Rharpe will tell me he feels I'm amoral and hopefully he'll answer my question and we'll have a conversation. If you tire of the thread you don't have to read it.
hey eric, i think rharpe has won this round. you'd better give up because his obviously superior defense of his beliefs is all-powerful compared to your logic and facts.
I'm not talking about the "ten questions," or your answering of them. I'm not tired of the thread. I always enjoy an oportunity to discuss these things. If you had read my post, rather than just picking something that you felt you can easily piss on like you normally do, you might have seen I explained what I found to be going in no reasonable direction. If you want to have a personal conversation with rharpe, do so in PM. However, since this is a public forum, let people talk without vomitting on them. I see no reason why, unless I'm breaking the rules, that what I said should be a problem. Not to mention, I'm agreeing with you (mostly).
Now then, as I was saying, these ten things have nothing to do with morals, or whether one is all koshered up in the sight of God. Like I also said, there are some "evil" people that would hold to this code of morals very closely, and alot of "good" people that might deviate here or there, or everywhere. Adolph Hitler probably adhered to these things pretty closely. And like I said, whenever the preacher's conference is in town, the printer on my desk at work spits out "Anal Slaves IV: Latex Lovers" all night long.
Here's a list of questions for you...
Is it wrong to force a 13-year girl old to marry a 40 year old man? Is it wrong for that man to be in some way related to her? Is it wrong for you to have sex with a girl and claim that that is your "marriage?" Is it wrong to be a polygamist?
Read the Bible. Mary was very young, probably 13-15. If you read the geneologies of Jesus given in two different gospels, you will see they are slightly different, but not too terribly different. The reason for the difference is because one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. The ancient Hebrews' "marriage ceremony" was simply a promising of the girl to the man. They weren't married until they had sex, as is evidenced by the bringing of bloody sheets to the parents. Mary was most likely only one of Joseph's wives, as they were still doing the polygamy thing that happened so frequently in the Old Testament at the time...
Vomit and piss, eh?
I didn't say this was a private conversation and I didn't say you couldn't post, all I was saying is that if you think this is going in "no reasonable direction" then you are wrong and I told you why. "What does it even matter?" It matters to me, the first of what you wrote was insulting to me, I guess I don't get the right to comment on that then without pissing or vomiting.
Now please, continue disliking me if you want! Big mean ol' eric! RRR!
Or how about we just chalk this up to a misunderstanding and forget about it? My personal choice.
-Sigh- I'm not a religious person, but my morality derives from the one that most of the western civilizatiion (including non-fundie religions) has nowadays: good old humanism.
Basically it's a moral system based on reason, logic and the natural empathy we are able to feel for others. One of its tenets is, of course, not harming other people. Having consensual sex with another adult is harmful to any of us? Is there a logical reason not to?
Then it's alright.
Another tenet is not really caring for race, religion, or, of course, sexual preference of other people. In that case I would consider myself, humanistically, more moral than a homophobe.
I would be, of course, in a paulharveyan way, less moral than him. But basically I win because my moral derives from logic and his from... craziness, I guess.
Cool. I meant no initial insult. My entire meaning was that rharpe wasn't helping his argument out with that list, since I could be a murderer and a proponent of celibacy at the same time.
Did I already point you to www.godhatesfags.com? I can assure you, those people are against everything rharpe listed, but if there is a god, he will be kicking them all squarely in the nuts one day.
1.) Do you think pornography is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalno
Quote from: rharpeyes
2.) Do you think fornication is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalno
Quote from: rharpeyes
3.) Do you think cheating is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalyes
Quote from: rharpeyes
4.) Do you think adultery is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalno
Quote from: rharpeyes
5.) Do you think immodesty is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossal???
Quote from: rharpeyes
6.) Do you think erotism is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalno
Quote from: rharpeyes
7.) Do you think polygamy is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossal???
Quote from: rharpeyes
8.) Do you think sodomy is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalno
Quote from: rharpeyes
9.) Do you think hedonism is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossal???
Quote from: rharpeyes
10.) Do you think incest is wrong?
Quote from: MrColossalyes
Quote from: rharpeyes
Quote from: MrColossal...the world probably has about 150 moral people in it, and they're all under the age of 1.
If you are a parent to any of them, I'd bring down that number. By that statement are you admitting to being immoral?
Quote from: MrColossalNow, I have one for you, just one really...
1.) Do you think it's wrong to steal?
Yes. Taking something, that is not yours, from another is wrong.
I like how you've reduced eric's thought out responses to simple yes or no answers. It shows that you are indeed a very open minded person and that eric is the most immoral person in existence.
Quote from: Pesty on Tue 07/02/2006 07:10:07
I like how you've reduced eric's thought out responses to simple yes or no answers. It shows that you are indeed a very open minded person and that eric is the most immoral person in existence.
Yeah, especially since rharpe seems to think that 'it depends on the situation' does mean 'no, it isn't wrong'.
Things aren't black & white in the real world.
Well, Rharpe. We all kind of guessed that your answers to your own questions would be yes. If you'r not willing to give any thought or explanation as to why you hold these views, especially after MrColossal took the time to engage you, then it's no wonder you're getting "jumped on".
Also, it's becoming clear from the questions you asked that this isn't really about religion, is it?
My God! Do these people really excist? Is there alot of these people in america?
A haiku about Rharpe
By DG
Rharpe is full of shit
He talks about Jesus lots
And deserves asskicks
That's assuming "Rharpe" is a one syllable name. Rharpe, can you please tell me how many syllables are in your nickname so I can complete my masterpiece? Thanks!
Quote from: Haddas on Tue 07/02/2006 08:54:51
My God! Do these people really excist? Is there alot of these people in america?
Yes. But there are also a lot of people who have a lot of sex, so I guess it balances out.
Quote from: Pesty on Tue 07/02/2006 10:07:41
Yes. But there are also a lot of people who have a lot of sex, so I guess it balances out.
I'm never gonna complain about my country again...
Seriously, rharpe, what the fuck do those questions have to do with morality? To me, moral mean not hurting other people, not abstaining from sex-related activities banned by your particular religion.
For me, morality means playing with adorable puppies instead of eating them.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 07/02/2006 14:05:47
For me, morality means playing with adorable puppies instead of eating them.
Oh man, what if that adorable puppy turned out to be the anti-christ and your stomach acid was the only way to destroy him? WHERE ARE YOUR MORALS THEN DG
I would then ask myself, "What would Jesus do?"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/SANTAELBURRITO/JesusEatingAPuppy.jpg)
At first I was gonna write my c-level thesis on Graham Greene, but heck, maybe I'll just go for DG's haiku instead.
Could you whip up a four stanza heroic couplet on Rharpe as well? That's iambic pentameter with rhymes.
Thank you.
He came from parts unknown to peach the Lord
The words he typed upon the board ignored
He blamed the mob for lack of high conduct
But young DG told him to go get fucked
It's a start...
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 07/02/2006 14:05:47
For me, morality means playing with adorable puppies instead of eating them.
Hmmm, puppies.
Yes... why were all of Rharpe's questions about sex? Is that all he ever thinks about? :P
I think it's a kind of "don't think about polar bears" scenario.
Quote from: rharpe on Tue 07/02/2006 06:55:14
Quote from: MrColossal...the world probably has about 150 moral people in it, and they're all under the age of 1.
If you are a parent to any of them, I'd bring down that number. By that statement are you admitting to being immoral?
By your standards I highly doubt there is even 1 moral person in this world. I'm sure you'll say your family is totally 100% moral and right though.
Quote from: MrColossalNow, I have one for you, just one really...
Quote
1.) Do you think it's wrong to steal?
Yes. Taking something, that is not yours, from another is wrong.
Ok then hypothetical:
You live by the ocean and a hurricane floods your city, freak of nature or act of god, whichever you want to think. You are trudging through waist high filthy water and sewage with one of your children on your back. She hasn't eaten for 5 days. In front of you is a supermarket full of food. Some of it is destroyed, some spoiled but there are tons of canned foods on higher shelves. The moral thing to do in this situation is let your child go hungry and die?
This is a moral choice to me, not taking a picture of my nipples and giving them to my girlfriend. And this is where black and white does not work.
Also, thanks for, as has been noted, taking all of my answers and boiling them down to yes or no. I didn't know you thought in binary, it would have saved me the trouble of even writing them out like.
Quote from: Pesty on Tue 07/02/2006 10:07:41
Quote from: Haddas on Tue 07/02/2006 08:54:51
My God! Do these people really excist? Is there alot of these people in america?
Yes. But there are also a lot of people who have a lot of sex, so I guess it balances out.
You don't have to beat around the bush, go ahead and just put my name in next time, it's cool.
I do find it rather odd how, when christian morals are brought into the discussion, the ones mentioned more than anything are the morals about sex. What about murder and stealing and other such things?
And what about war? War=killing people, after all, kinda goes against "Thou shall not murder". And yet people go to war because of religion all the time. In the bible, wars were often if not always about defending your god, and the pride of your god. Wait, pride? Is that all it's really about? Isn't god supposed to be for modesty and against pride? Does he have a big ego that needs defending through war?* Doesn't sound too moral to me.
I asked my ex bible teacher yesterday, out of curiosity, if the Old Testament, our bible, mentions anywhere that homosexuality is wrong. I wasn't sure if it was from the new testament. Turns out, it is in our bible, and what I found interesting is the verse: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13). So, lesbians are allowed? I'm aware that the bible never really showed the woman as capable of independant decisions, women are always presented as belonging to man and hardly ever on their own. Still, though, you can't deny that this verse only speaks of male homosexuals. I am mildly amused by this :P.
My teacher also confirmed that to her knowledge, there isn't a bible figure who hasn't sinned, in the Old Testament.
* Don't mean to offend anyone, just making a point.
Because the bible was written by men, and most guys are cool with lesbians....because, their hot.
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 15:59:35
I do find it rather odd how, when christian morals are brought into the discussion, the ones mentioned more than anything are the morals about sex.
Well it's almost always extreme sexual repression that creates fanatacism in the first place.
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 15:59:35
My teacher also confirmed that to her knowledge, there isn't a bible figure who hasn't sinned, in the Old Testament.
This is why Jesus was the Paschal lamb: everybody has done something at some point that hurt someone else. Christianity is supposed to be the "good news" that we're forgiven, not that we are perfect. But then loonies get carried away about what it is exactly that we're supposed to be forgiven for:
"I need to be forgiven for my homosexuality"
"no, I'm gay and I find it offensive that you think that that is a sin"
but you're forgiven for it, anyway.... so why do you need to ennumerate exactly every little thing that you screwed up on? This is why I'm not a catholic, 'cause it just doesn't make sense...
Those were some questions to start off with... I notice everything I do is just not enough. This is ok though, Eric answered all the questions to my satisfaction. I just translated them for those of you who did not want to read his whole explanation.
I take it none of you are happy by this either?
Why is consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults wrong?
(http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/7384/jesus2zg.png):P YEAH!
Quote from: rharpe on Tue 07/02/2006 16:42:01
Those were some questions to start off with... I notice everything I do is just not enough. This is ok though, Eric answered all the questions to my satisfaction. I just translated them for those of you who did not want to read his whole explanation.
I take it none of you are happy by this either?
I just want an answer to my new question. I want to know if that is a yes or no situation that fits into your moral code.
1.) Do you think pornography is wrong?
No. Pornography is awesome.
2.) Do you think fornication is wrong?
No. Fornication is also awesome.
3.) Do you think cheating is wrong?
Yes. Cheating is kind of lame.
4.) Do you think adultery is wrong?
Isn't adultery cheating? If it is, then by god, it's lame.
5.) Do you think immodesty is wrong?
Immodesty is equally awesome.
6.) Do you think erotism is wrong?
I think your spelling is wrong. It's eroticism. And again, it's fucking awesome!
7.) Do you think polygamy is wrong?
I personally think it's not a very good thing. True love is between two people. It makes fornication just that bit better!
8.) Do you think sodomy is wrong?
Personally, I think it's disgusting. Other people can decide what they think.
9.) Do you think hedonism is wrong?
It's a great song. I'm still sad that Skunk Anansie broke up :(
10.) Do you think incest is wrong?
Of course I do. Only retards think incest is a-okay.
Your questions are based on your own views. Because you think pornography is wrong, people who think otherwise aren't moral compared to your moral views. I can understand that, but it's also kind of childish to go around saying "Because you disagree with me, you're not moral.
I'd just like to add that pornography is awesome. Did I mention this before? Fornication rocks too. Both do, really. I like sheep, anyone with me?!
I've always thought Christian morality existed more like the scientific "laws" of the universe. When something strays from the "law", a consequence (predictable pattern) is suffered, similar to karma. (Insert verses about ill-gained riches, and money that sprouts wings and flies away, etc.)
Christianity shouldn't be a rulebook that's impossible to live by (the best you can do is get close). There are a lot of Christians that censure those who dance or bowl. Those familiar with the Old Testament realize that God gave the Jews many holdiays (some lasting for weeks, filled with drinking and dancing). I don't think there's anything wrong with celebrating humanity, or expressing your joy to be alive with others. I think that can be done without losing sight of our Creator. (Calvinism directly opposed this, and played upon people's self-righteous indignity, leading to narrow-minded fundamentalism)
It's not so much that every action can either be "moral" or "immoral", but that it can fall within a range of God's will. I say range, because God's will isn't a binary state. It's like a target where there's a bullseye, the ideal mark. But, like a target, it's not either bullseye or out-of-bounds. There are several areas that get closer or farther away. This would be God's grace.
I think as soon as we start saying "such and such" is WRONG, we end up fighting a battle of definitions, something that leads to the religious legalsim exhibited by the Pharisees. They were proud of the fact they had embellished upon the 613 laws of the Torah, specifying exactly what could be done on the Sabbat before it was considered "work" (even as far as restricting how much you could walk on this holy day).
Jesus had a more holistic apporach. He didn't reject anyone because of who they were or what they did. He emphasized the intention (or spirit) of the law, rather than its exact interpretation. His goal was not to prevent us from having fun. but to prevent us from destroying ourselves in the process.
So would God want us to use that vein for heroine? Although the Bible doesn't specifically say anything about smack, I would say probably not. Giving yourself an opportunity for addiction would interfere with other priorities. However, I can't say that heroine use in itself is morally WRONG. God looks at your motives.
big brother: That was an interesting bit you wrote. I don't totally agree with every point, but some make a little sense. Thanks!
Also, I use these questions to see where Eric stood on the issue, and if others would like to reply to these questions, by all means... let's see where you stand.
It gives us all a chance to see what we all agree and disagree on.
Would you like to answer my question, rharpe?
Or mine, cheesy pleasey?
I answered 10 of yours
big brother:
I think I've heard of those 613 laws of the Torah. They're called "Tarya"g Mitzvot" which means 613 commandments (nothing to do with the 10 commandments). As a side note, it's said that every Pommegranate (which is traditional to eat at the start of the Jewish year) has exactly 613 seeds. But I digress.
Anyway, if we're talking about morals, why not ask a few more questions (these are for anyone who wants to answer, and I'm interested in what any of you think on the subject):
1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
[I recall a certain thread where someone said a child growing up without a father or in another "abnormal" family would be doomed. This person was a christian. As far as I know, abortion is considered wrong by orthodox or fundamental (sorry if the wording is inaccurate) christians. But then, what is right, to let a child be born into a situation in which they'd be "doomed"?]
2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?
I can't think of more at the moment, maybe later.
---------------------
P.S. I just found a quote somewhere that says it's forbidden (That's right, forbidden), in some holy text, i don't think it's the bible, but some other holy text, to teach a goy (non jew) the torah. So, unlike in chritstianity, it's wrong to pass on your beliefs to someone who is not already jewish, even if they want them. I don't think it's a very good rule, personally, but it also means you shouldn't force your beliefs on someone.
My questions haven't been answered either. It seems I asked them the longest time ago.
Becky, I'll answer your question from a Christian perspetive. Well, from a Catholic perspective first: because if you do it, God hates you and you will burn in Hell, because the Bible says not to.
From a Christian perspective: God set things in motion not because he is a giant asshole who takes advantage of his position as God, but because he set all the laws of nature in motion as well and therefore understands what may or may not be good for us. Consensual sex between two unmarried adults could very well lead to illness. It could lead to heartbreak, if you give yourself to that person and think you will be with them forever, but they leave you. If you remember who the Bible was originally received by, you can aso understand there were more problems then just that for them. Marriage and sex to the OT Jews was specifically for continuing family lines, which means if you just had sex with whomever you wanted, your family line would be tainted, and your entire family would probably insert fiery torches into your buttocks.
And here's ANOTHER question I know I've asked before: If you were in Nazi-occupied Poland and were hiding Jews in your home, when the Nazis came to your dor looking, would you lie to them and save the Jews, but damn your soul (and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone) or tel the truth, saving yourself but damning the Jews? There are, as was discussed last time, more than one way around this, but as rharpe showed us with Eric's questions, everything can boil down to one of two courses of action...
All marriage is is a tradition. The real way God had in mind in the Bible is that when you had sex with someone, you stayed with them. The wedding ceremony wasn't actually the same as it is today... it was more of a giving of the girl to a man by the family so that man would be assured he could continue his family line. The only reason marriage exists the way it does today is because, although the Catholic church possesses most of the world's money, they don't want you to possess any. That's (one reason) why people of all religions and non-religions have to have a clergy member perform their ceremony.
Quote from: Becky
Would you like to answer my question, rharpe?
Sorry Becky, what was your question?
Quote from: ginny1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
[I recall a certain thread where someone said a child growing up without a father or in another "abnormal" family would be doomed. This person was a christian. As far as I know, abortion is considered wrong by orthodox or fundamental (sorry if the wording is inaccurate) christians. But then, what is right, to let a child be born into a situation in which they'd be "doomed"?]
2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?
(1.)yes (2.)yes (3.)yes (4.)yes, not sure. (5.)yes, yes, yes... lying white or not is wrong. (6.)yes, but by speech... not by action. (express is a very vague word.)
Eric, if I were to take the food to feed my child, I would pay for it somehow.
I love you rharpe. I will follow you blindly anywhere.
Bt
Rharpe, it was this:
QuoteWhy is consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults wrong?
So you believe god would punish you for feeding your child?
If you say yes then I think that's all that needs to be said ever again until the end of time.
Esper's Nazi question is pretty interesting also. Would god punish you for saving the lives of people from an insane government? If I understand you correctly then no matter the situation you will be punished in some way for disobeying a religious law. So while you've just saved the lives of your child, your baby girl, or the lives of complete strangers who are only guilty of being alive [as per Esper's question] you will be punished.
So then what is the absolute right and absolute wrong in these situations. What is the correct way to act?
"Eric, if I were to take the food to feed my child, I would pay for it somehow."
But would you, would you steal to save the life of your dying child? And if you would... If you admit that you'd do that to save your child, are you a moral person because you have the potential to do bad?
I thought you could do pretty much whatever you like aslong as you ask for forgiveness later. You know, since we can't help to be sinners, no matter what.
But this is probably already covered somewhere in the thread.
Damn, this thread is growing faster than I can reply to it!
Quote from: esper on Tue 07/02/2006 04:12:11
What is religion but the abuse of power?
It's easy to make this assertion, considering that all we see of religion today is the abuse of power. However, how many of us have seen Christianity in its heyday, during the time of the Roman empire? How many of us have seen Islam bringing knowledge and prosperity to the Persian empire? How many of us were there to see Judaism empower the Israelites to overcome slavery?
It wasn't always about power, at least I don't think it was. But I think we can all definitely agree that it shouldn't be about power.
Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 07/02/2006 04:53:35
And marriage has more to do with governmental laws than it does religion so I don't see how this applies to god.
To a religious person, marriage has a lot to do with religion and little or nothing to do with the government. To a non-religious person, marriage is pretty much meaningless.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 16:11:59
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 15:59:35
I do find it rather odd how, when christian morals are brought into the discussion, the ones mentioned more than anything are the morals about sex.
Well it's almost always extreme sexual repression that creates fanatacism in the first place.
And might I add that contrary to popular belief, the sexual repression is not created by Christianity or any religion, but is a result of the ever-increasing obsession that Western society has had with sexuality since the industrial revolution.
Quote from: Becky on Tue 07/02/2006 16:46:28
Why is consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults wrong?
I typed up a long reply to this, but esper ended up beating me to many the points I tried to make. I'll leave what I had to say anyway.
First of all, consent isn't always as clear-cut as it may seem. A lot of times, someone will consent to sex in the heat of the moment, and come to regret it later. Other times, you may have someone who initially does not want to have sex, but after repeated coaxing from their partner, pressure from friends, and exposure to all the sexual imagery displayed in the media, they'll change their mind.
Second, safe sex doesn't exist. No method of birth control or STD protection is 100% effective. Duh.
However, safety is, comparatively, the least of my worries. The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you. Usually, when unmarried people have sex, chances are that they haven't gotten to know one another very well beforehand; spontenaiety is seen as romantic in our culture. As a result, there is more of a risk of breaking up. Sexual chemistry is not enough to sustain a relationship, after all. Neither is love. For a relationship to last, you need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.
Some of you may ask "well, what about casual sex?" I have to admit that I wonder if casual sex even exists; more often than not, when I hear stories about it, one or more people get emotionally attached in the end. This leads me to believe that we are naturally inclined to love and care for those we are sexually intimate with. In the cases where casual sex works, I hypothesize that it is a result of a person's heart getting broken so many times that they just don't feel it anymore.
An alternate hypothesis is that casual sex is more beneficial to men than it is to women. This is supported by evolutionary theories as well as personal experience; it's usually the women who get emotionally attached. In this case, I would say that women who like casual sex are trying to be like men; in a patriarchal society such as ours, this is called "empowerment", and is seen as a good thing. Obviously, I have problems with this.
So, moving back to marriage. For religious people, marriage is a very serious thing to get into; you're stuck with the same person for the rest of your life, so to speak. As a result, it's imperative to really really get to know a person before you marry him or her. If you don't have sex during this time, then (given what I've said about being naturally inclined to love whoever you're having sex with) you'll presumably be able to examine the person's character without being clouded by desire. In my religion, we also have a law of parental consent to marriage. I find this useful (assuming that you have a good relationship with your parents and that they have your best interests at heart) because they provide additional objectivity as to whether your marriage would work.
If you can get married and stay married to the same person for life, then you'll undoubtedly be spared much of the emotional scarring that you'd get if you had sex with more than one person.
Going back to your question: does this mean that people who aren't married can't stay together for a long time and have fulfilling relationships? Not necessarily; Eric, you've been with Jess for what, five years? However, I'd say that forming good, non-heartbreaking relationships outside of marriage is mainly a game of chance; sometimes, you might get lucky and find someone who's perfect for you, but that's relatively rare. Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.
Just wanted to quickly add before I have to really go back to work...
I like the idea that stealing is wrong morally being brought up on an Adventure Game forum when all you did in every adventure game is steal everything that isn't nailed down...
Quite funny in my opinion!
Heheheheh...
Anyway...
I want to ask a new question, since it seems my other quesions are never going to get answered, as they are religiously incriminating...
Why is swearing wrong, and what Bible verse can you use to show me it is? Be warned before you answer... You don't really know why it's wrong. You only think you do...
QuoteA lot of times, someone will consent to sex in the heat of the moment, and come to regret it later. Other times, you may have someone who initially does not want to have sex, but after repeated coaxing from their partner, pressure from friends, and exposure to all the sexual imagery displayed in the media, they'll change their mind.
Well, that can happen within marriage too. I was just trying to put across the idea that it wasn't rape ;)
QuoteSecond, safe sex doesn't exist. No method of birth control or STD protection is 100% effective. Duh.
What about sterilisation? And if both partners have been tested for STDs and have clean results and are faithful to each other, the chances of contracting an STD are so small it is negligable.
QuoteFor a relationship to last, you need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.
Why isn't that possible without marriage?
QuoteGoing back to your question: does this mean that people who aren't married can't stay together for a long time and have fulfilling relationships? Not necessarily; Eric, you've been with Jess for what, five years? However, I'd say that forming good, non-heartbreaking relationships outside of marriage is mainly a game of chance; sometimes, you might get lucky and find someone who's perfect for you, but that's relatively rare. Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.
Surely you can get just as heartbroken in a marriage where the partners who thought they were compatible turn out to not be? In fact, wouldn't that be worse? How does marriage ensure that you find the perfect person for you in the first place?
A lot of the arguments against sex out of marriage I see could just as easily take place inside the confines of a marriage situation. If a couple are devoted to each other and compatible in every way, why is it still immoral for them to have sex even though they do not have the legal status of marriage?
Now, it's question-answering time!
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 18:59:22
1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?
1) Not necessarily in circumstances involving life or death. However, the vast majority of abortions are a result of people having sex before they're ready to deal with its consequences; like I said in response to Paul Harvey, it's not a matter of stopping abortions, but a matter of stopping careless sex.
2) I think swearing is uncreative. Punctuation marks and censor bleeps are way funnier.
3) I think all kinds of violence are wrong. Sticks and stones only break bones; words have the power to shatter the soul.
4) Eh, just try to make the best of what you have.
5) I guess it depends on the situation, as well as the person. Some people will rather hear a lie that brings a smile than the truth that hurts. I'd rather have the truth that hurts, in all circumstances. However, there are many different ways you can tell the truth, and some are easier to take than others.
6) Only to the extent that you aren't deliberately trying to hurt, insult, or slander anyone.
While I'm at it, I think I should share my views on pornography as well. I, personally, think it's wrong because it degrades and objectifies women. "But what about pr0n made for women?" you ask. Well, that bothers me too because no matter what, the woman is almost always the object, the beautiful, vulnerable one trying to pleasure her big, powerful man. Even in regular old magazines you see this happening; both the women's magazines and the men's magazines have a scantily-clad woman on the cover; the women's magazines have tips on how to please your guy, and the men's magazines have tips on how to get what you want. Grr.
Quote from: Becky on Tue 07/02/2006 20:05:52
A lot of the arguments against sex out of marriage I see could just as easily take place inside the confines of a marriage situation.Ã, If a couple are devoted to each other and compatible in every way, why is it still immoral for them to have sex even though they do not have the legal status of marriage?
Remember: I'm talking about marriage in the religious sense, not in the legal sense. Legal marriage doesn't really mean much, as Britney Spears would attest. As for your questions, I've already addressed them in my post. Read it over again if you want answers. I hate repeating myself.
If you're not religious, I should probably mention that none of what I say on marriage applies; there's no significant reason to get married if you're not religious and don't hold the same system of beliefs that most religious people do. In this case, I'd still advise trying to get to know your significant other as well as possible before sex0ring them.
There are very few women in gay porno, Stranger... Explain!
also, there are TONS of reasons to get married legally!
Power of attorney being one huge one, anyone remember the whole food tube removal fiasco?
http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status
1,049 reasons to get legally married...
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 07/02/2006 19:40:20
However, safety is, comparatively, the least of my worries. The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you. Usually, when unmarried people have sex, chances are that they haven't gotten to know one another very well beforehand
Sweeping generlisation, poppycock of the highest degree.
Quote
As a result, it's imperative to really really get to know a person before you marry him or her. If you don't have sex during this time, then (given what I've said about being naturally inclined to love whoever you're having sex with) you'll presumably be able to examine the person's character without being clouded by desire.
Speaking from experience, this is utter nonsense.
Quote
If you can get married and stay married to the same person for life, then you'll undoubtedly be spared much of the emotional scarring that you'd get if you had sex with more than one person.
Pish.
Quote
However, I'd say that forming good, non-heartbreaking relationships outside of marriage is mainly a game of chance; sometimes, you might get lucky and find someone who's perfect for you, but that's relatively rare. Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.
Utter hogwash.
If you're basing these opinions off of personal experience, you have had an unfortunatly skewed introduction love, sex and relationships, and it doesn't really reflect the experiences everyone else in the world is having. If you're basing these opinions off of anything else, I'd suggest looking at a wider range of data or test results or whatever.
As someone who is in a mature, consentual and responsible relationship and not yet married I can safely assure you that most of what you have stated in the post you made is nonsense.
I shall now generously offer you my answers to Ginny's questions, despite how I don't really care for this thread to any extent. I will not pay any attention to rharpe's questions, because I think they're mostly irrelevant and/or ill-defined.
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 18:59:22
1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
I haven't given this issue as much thought as perhaps I ought to, but I think I'll say definitely not. The argumentation against it, that I've heard, hasn't really convinced me. (In fact, I cannot at the moment recall any arguments that are not based on other moral axioms that I do not consider doubtlessly true.)
Quote2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
I assume we're discussing some sort of moral universals here, as opposed to culturally enforced rules of conduct? If so, no, not really.
Quote3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
Yes.
Quote4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
I firmly believe that, in general, nobody should be punished for anything. This is something of a cornerstone in the way I view life. That said, I do think that jealousy is genuinely
not good, and should be avoided.
Quote5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
This is a very difficult question, and I have to admit that I simply can't answer it very well here. Generally, though, I guess (yes, guess--I'm not really sure) I take something of a utilitarian approach here (you know, Bentham's "maximum happiness" thing). The easiest answer is, of course, that it depends on the circumstances. What I can assure you of is that I do not think that
anyone is going to suffer God's punishment when or if the trumpet calls us before his throne on the day of wrath. This is the most important thing I have to say on this issue.
Quote6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?
The short answer is
yes. The long answer is that it depends on what you mean by freely, but essentially also
yes.
Also, I'd like to throw in a couple of words on the topic of pornography. Merriam-Webster Online (sorry, I don't have access to the
OED right now) tells me that it means
the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I see no reason why this in itself would be wrong. The argument that usually comes up, about it degrading women and so forth, is
fallacious, as pornography in itself is a much broader concept, and not by definition degrading. This is a textbook example of an association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 07/02/2006 20:21:12
As for your questions, I've already addressed them in my post. Read it over again if you want answers. I hate repeating myself.
Using your original post as answers provides no concrete reasons for not having sex outside of marrige, just bias, hokey logic and infactual statements. You haven't really addressed the questions Becky has asked in a convincing or fulfilling way at all.
How about this one... Sorry about the nastiness of what folows, but I believe it is necessary to get my point across.
I don't want to put my penis somewhere where another guy's has been, and where it has been randomly spewing smee about. I especially don't want to put my mouth there. If I were a girl, I wouldn't want to have some guy dipping his junk in me when it's been in a ton of other girls. I may speak solely for myself, but here's the dilly-o: When I get married, I don't want to think I was just one stop along a broad buffet line.
QuoteWhen I get married, I don't want to think I was just one stop along a broad buffet line.
Why does sex outside ofmarriage imply that you must be to some extent "promiscuous" and have had sex with more than one person?
And only when it comes to sex? What about if your wife to be made out with the entire football team? Doesn't matter? Or what about handjobs? Are those ok? Strip teases? Masterbating in front of guys?
But mostly the making out part... If you find your wife to be has gone out with 20 guys and kissed a majority of them from goodnight to make out, would you refuse to kiss them?
Or what about, heaven forbid, love, or some similar sort of emotional stuff? Why is it that these Christian moral rules of conduct tend to value sex as more relevant than anything else? I find it amusingly contradictory.
Quote from: voh on Tue 07/02/2006 17:32:32
I'd just like to add that pornography is awesome. Did I mention this before? Fornication rocks too. Both do, really. I like sheep, anyone with me?!
No one semeed to pick up on the fact that Voh went from pornography to sheep in two sentences & one easily affordable monthly payment! Have you been looking through AGA's image collection again?
Anyway, carry on with your.....religion & such.
1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
No. Abortion is a valid way of keeping a baby from being born into a world he or she would not benefit from. Sometimes it's better to prevent people from having painful childhoods and horrible lives by preventing them from becoming sentient. Though adoption has my preference, I do think there is a time and place for abortions.
2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
No. Swearing has its place. It can be an outlet of frustration, yelling "Shit!" when you stub your toe, for example. Swearing can go too far, but that's the case with everything.
3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
Sometimes it's all that's left. If somebody is about to exact physical violence upon you, do you just stand there and end up in the hospital, or do you do what your instinct tells you to do - fight back and save yourself. Violence is something that's ingrained in every living being. But again, there's a specific time and place where violence is allowed and condonable. In general, violent people suck.
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
Jealousy can be a very healthy thing. It can make one wonder about why person x has what he has, but you don't. This might inspire one to go and fix that wrong and improve his chances of getting that as well. Jealousy as a way of hating people because they got "lucky breaks" is sad. Jealousy where you limit your partner from living their life because you're too scared of losing him or her is also really sad.
5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
It depends. If lying keeps you out of trouble and the repurcussions are little if found out, then why not? I use white lies from time to time. I don't tell big lies, never any lies that would seriously influence life (either my own or others). Lying in general is not as good a choice as telling the truth is.
6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?
Yes. Though with care.
If I had to choose either yes or no, without nuancing my responses, I would change my answers to reflect that. But life isn't black and white. It's a range from black to white, with many shades of gray in between. If people live in a yes or no world, they're limiting themselves.
That's my opinion :)
Also, sheep are awesome. Did I mention this before? ;)
I think you should hang around Helm a little more often. Goats and sheeps do resemble you know ;)
Are you saying I should hang around with goats?
You're sick, man :-\
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 07/02/2006 20:11:33
Quote from: Ginny on Tue 07/02/2006 18:59:22
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
4) Eh, just try to make the best of what you have.
That's very true, but doesn't solve the fact that just about everyone covets something, even if not openly, at some point in life. You know someone who has an awesome job you'd like to have. I'm not talking about having their job specifically, but suppose you envy their occupation. Or suppose you envy someones nice handwriting. None of this neccesarily shows that you aren't happy with what you have, it's the human nature, and it's part of what causes us to make progress, because we are, though happy, not fully content with what we have or what we know. This can lead the power hunger and other bad things, and it can lead to progress, both personal and general.
A better question might be, though, do you think that a person should be punished for doing something they don't have control over?
A rather heavy moral question really, and I'd like to adress it to rharpe aswell.
It raises a problem - what can we consider uncontrollable? Some people can't control things that other people can. And anyway, I've always wondered how the bible interprets this issue - are thoughts considered a sin? Apparantly, god can read our thoughts, otherwise how could he know if we are coveting something etc. Somewhere I think I read god sees into our hearts, our intentions. So, is lying or stealing for a good cause ok? (See Eric's and esper's questions) If a person doesn't think what they're doing is wrong, is he still punished? And all sorts of moral questions like that? These don't just apply to religion, I'm actually thinking of the law and the court system in regards to some of them.
On the subject of lying, I believe lies, or even sometimes false tales can be useful in certain cases. I might lie to avoid a conflict that would only (to my knowledge) result in bad consequences for both sides, though I tend to prefer the honest approach. I might tell a lie that will later cause a person to be happy, or otherwise to prevent someones disappointment. I'm sure most people have at least one secret that they would lie about if asked by some people. They might tell the truth to one person and a lie to someone else, for numerous reasons. Finally, I would certainly lie in the situation esper brought up, though you have to consider it's also a risk to your life if you lie and the Nazis find out you lied. But I'm not exactly objective on this particular subject, being jewish I know what I'd like someone to do in such a situation, and so that's what I'd do. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.* It could just as well have been other people, not Jews, in the situation, but I still think I'd do the same. In the end, such decisions are made in a moment, and depend on many details of the situation.
*I quote the bible more than usual in this thread, because I feel it's appropriate to the discussion.
Funny, when I'm given bible homework I'm too lazy to bother with them, but when a religious discussion interests me I actually opened my bible and looked through some verses.
I don't want to be bothered going back and quoting stuff, so, for everyone who responded to the last statement I made: That's just me... I probably WOULDN'T want to put my tongue somewhere another man's tongue would be. I wouldn't want a girl to slap my ass and call me "cutie-pie" if she's done that to another man. It isn't religious preference, as I have no religion. It is a simple matter of wanting to be the most important thing in the world to someone, not simply "backup important thing" because "primary important thing" didn't quite work out.
What I'm about to say has nothing to do with religion, or faith, or anything of the sort.. It is simply me, being an overly romantic idealistic fool. I have been in love with the girl I'm going to marry since the day I became cognizant of what love is, even though I've never met her. I thought I had... several times... I've told one too many people I loved them, and now, when I meet the person I'm going to want to spend the rest of my life with, I am not telling them "I love you with all my heart," I'm essentially saying "I love you with the part of my heart that's left over from the other people I've said this to."
I'm all embarassed now.
EDIT, as an afterthought... Ginny, I'm only, like .0000004% Jewish, but I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd lie, too, and if the Nazis saw through my lie and went on to find the Jews, I'd probably try to kill the bastards with my bare hands before I let them take the Jews. and you know what? I think God would buy me a pizza for doing it.
I'm going to take up a few of Stranger's points on sex here too.
QuoteAnd might I add that contrary to popular belief, the sexual repression is not created by Christianity or any religion, but is a result of the ever-increasing obsession that Western society has had with sexuality since the industrial revolution.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think the ever-increasing obsession with sex in the Western world is just a more direct symptom of sexual repression, not the cause. The way we portray sex in the media nowadays,
is grossly out of whack, but not in the way you might think.
Sex and sexuality is the very cornerstone of life. Without sex we have no society. Without sex, there is no us. It's
the most important part of who we are and how we got here Like it or not, whether directly or indirectly, it drives everything we do.
I think the the predominant view we have on sexuality these days is pretty adolescent, but sex is something to be celebrated. It's the act of creation.
QuoteFirst of all, consent isn't always as clear-cut as it may seem. A lot of times, someone will consent to sex in the heat of the moment, and come to regret it later. Other times, you may have someone who initially does not want to have sex, but after repeated coaxing from their partner, pressure from friends, and exposure to all the sexual imagery displayed in the media, they'll change their mind.
Perfectly true. But many times somebody will agree in the heat of the moment, and it will be something that makes a hugely positive impact on their lives. It has the potential for good and bad, in that sense it's no different from any other situation. The only problem with sexual imagery in the media is that there's too much titilation, not enough education. The problem would be multiplied if there wasn't a willingness to display and discuss sex. The likeyhood of somebody then finding themselves in a compromising situation they don't understand is much greater.
QuoteSecond, safe sex doesn't exist. No method of birth control or STD protection is 100% effective. Duh.
Safe walking down the street doesn't exist. There's risk in everything we do. Often, the riskier something is, the more worthwhile it is.
QuoteHowever, safety is, comparatively, the least of my worries. The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you. Usually, when unmarried people have sex, chances are that they haven't gotten to know one another very well beforehand; spontenaiety is seen as romantic in our culture. As a result, there is more of a risk of breaking up.
Well, depending on how early somebody has sex, the possibility of emotional scarring over a positive experience is dependent on many other factors. Sex would only be the catalyst to the reaction. The possibility of breaking up may be greater, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. We learn from and intigrate bad experiences. It's the only thing that really makes us stronger.
QuoteSexual chemistry is not enough to sustain a relationship, after all. Neither is love. For a relationship to last, you need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.
You'll find no argument from me here. But not everybody is cut out for relationships like that. Not everybody should be.
QuoteSome of you may ask "well, what about casual sex?" I have to admit that I wonder if casual sex even exists; more often than not, when I hear stories about it, one or more people get emotionally attached in the end. This leads me to believe that we are naturally inclined to love and care for those we are sexually intimate with. In the cases where casual sex works, I hypothesize that it is a result of a person's heart getting broken so many times that they just don't feel it anymore.
Again. This varies from person to person. For a lot of people the emotional connection and the sexual connection can be two very different things. Some people may be covering up some deep emotional pain by having casual sex, but I'd wager there's just about as many who just plain like it that way, Male or Female. Nothing wrong with that if that's what works for them.
QuoteAn alternate hypothesis is that casual sex is more beneficial to men than it is to women. This is supported by evolutionary theories as well as personal experience; it's usually the women who get emotionally attached. In this case, I would say that women who like casual sex are trying to be like men; in a patriarchal society such as ours, this is called "empowerment", and is seen as a good thing. Obviously, I have problems with this.
I do have something to say here. I think.
Might have to stew on it a bit longer though.
QuoteIf you can get married and stay married to the same person for life, then you'll undoubtedly be spared much of the emotional scarring that you'd get if you had sex with more than one person.
That is a bit baseless, tbh. Sex is when we are at our most unguarded, but that gives it equal potential to be an empowering experience and imprint positively on personality. Somebody with sexual confidence extends that confidence into all areas of life, because so much of our unconcious processing when dealing with either gender, is, at the root, determined by sex. It's just a fact of being an animal. No getting round it. Much as you can get on top of it, you can't really control smells and instinct.
QuoteMarriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.
I don't want to be protected. Let it shine when it wants to and rain when I least expect.
When was this thread renamed :"6 to 10 questions about morality and sex, or why you are not moral"?
As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb. The same sentence could very well fit to the next thread about Mohhamed cartoons.
Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.
And btw, why has everyhting got to do with sex? I'm innocent, and 10 years ago I was sinless (and a virgin!)! Heck, what does sex got to do with things. And Stranger, I'm in love with my wife and make love with her, not sex (just because you think that people confusse love and sex...)
Quote from: esper on Tue 07/02/2006 22:25:44
It is a simple matter of wanting to be the most important thing in the world to someone, not simply "backup important thing" because "primary important thing" didn't quite work out.
Well I don't know, Esper. I think that's dependent on the one scenario and leaves out a lot of others. Why couldn't you be the most important person in somebody's life, just because they've been in a relationship before? People get in and out of relationships, they learn the kind of people they are compatible with and who they aren't compatible with.
Somebody could've been in many different relationships and then BANG! as soon as they meet you it all falls away and they devote themselves entirely. Maybe somebody was in a bad relationship, and you represent everything that was missing from that.
QuoteI wouldn't want a girl to slap my ass and call me "cutie-pie" if she's done that to another man
And seriously, I'm not taking the piss or anything, but what if she'd gotten all exhausted and sweaty from enjoying a really good game of tennis with another man? Would that make you look a a raquet differently? What's the difference between the two situations?
What can I say... I'm one jealous guy.
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 07/02/2006 22:42:53
When was this thread renamed :"6 to 10 questions about morality and sex, or why you are not moral"?
It wandered it a bit. You don't find it interesting?
Quote
As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb.
Then discussion and possible education can only be a good thing.
QuoteOf course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.
You never know. Nobody
expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:54:42
It wandered it a bit. You don't find it interesting?
Yes, I do actually. But what I find most interesting is the fact that sex, instead of the necessity to keep the species alive (along with being beautifull, and everything else. I love making love to my wife... And lot's of other things too), it is pinted down as a sin (mostly). And is discussed as such.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:54:42
Then discussion and possible education can only be a good thing.
Of course. This is what I meant...
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:54:42
You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.
Again we agree...
Quote from: Nikolas link=topic=24927.msg312231#msg312231
Yes, I do actually. But what I find most interesting is the fact that sex, instead of the necessity to keep the species alive (along with being beautifull, and everything else. I love making love to my wife... And lot's of other things too), it is pinted down as a sin (mostly). And is discussed as such.
I agree with you. That would be the whole Guilt issue. I'm trying to discuss
around it.
I grew up with Catholic Guiltâ,,¢.
I decided it wasn't for me.
First of all, Adamski, I'm very well aware that not all of what I've said is always true in all cases. Our beliefs are coloured by our own personal experiences, and we all have very different personal experiences. Bias is inevitable; it is lessened by looking at the different views of different people, but can never be avoided completely. My goal in this discussion is not to convince anyone that I'm right; it is to learn from others and hopefully have people learn something from me as well. I have not learned anything from your rebuttals to the points I have made; in fact, they are not even rebuttals, but insults. It would be a lot more help to me if you provided some actual well-thought-out counterarguments. I always welcome them. (Unless, of course, you consider your own personal experience to be an appropriate counterargument, in which case, why should I take someone else's personal experience over my own?)
Also, might I ask what makes you think you know exactly what "experiences everyone else in the world is having"? I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in the heads of every denizen of the world...
Now, time for some more fun...
Quote from: EldKatt on Tue 07/02/2006 20:40:55
Also, I'd like to throw in a couple of words on the topic of pornography. Merriam-Webster Online (sorry, I don't have access to the OED right now) tells me that it means the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I see no reason why this in itself would be wrong. The argument that usually comes up, about it degrading women and so forth, is fallacious, as pornography in itself is a much broader concept, and not by definition degrading. This is a textbook example of an association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).
Let me clarify, then: Pornography, by its very nature, objectifies
something. Whatever is depicted to cause sexual excitement serves the sole purpose of exciting someone: this is objectification. I shall rephrase my previous statements to say that the object is not always a woman; however, this does not erase the fact that women are significantly more present in pornography than other creatures are. (This is a problem having to do with the general status of women and the concept of femininity in our society, not necessarily an argument against pornography itself.)
Objectification is a form of degradation; it reduces a human being into something whose only use is the pleasure of others. This is why I find it wrong. Sorry for making unclear statements before; I was in class and trying to take notes and reply to this thread at the same time. Uck.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:35:13
I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think the ever-increasing obsession with sex in the Western world is just a more direct symptom of sexual repression, not the cause. The way we portray sex in the media nowadays, is grossly out of whack, but not in the way you might think.
Repression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much? Read "The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault for more on this.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:35:13
I think the the predominant view we have on sexuality these days is pretty adolescent, but sex is something to be celebrated. It's the act of creation.
I celebrate the act of creation. I don't celebrate the predominant adolescent view. Does that clarify things?
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:35:13
Safe walking down the street doesn't exist. There's risk in everything we do. Often, the riskier something is, the more worthwhile it is.
It's a matter of deciding whether or not something is worth the risk, then, isn't it?
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:35:13
Well, depending on how early somebody has sex, the possibility of emotional scarring over a positive experience is dependent on many other factors. Sex would only be the catalyst to the reaction. The possibility of breaking up may be greater, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. We learn from and intigrate bad experiences. It's the only thing that really makes us stronger.
That is true. However, one also shouldn't seek bad experiences for the sake of having bad experiences.
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:35:13
That is a bit baseless, tbh. Sex is when we are at our most unguarded, but that gives it equal potential to be an empowering experience and imprint positively on personality. Somebody with sexual confidence extends that confidence into all areas of life, because so much of our unconcious processing when dealing with either gender, is, at the root, determined by sex. It's just a fact of being an animal. No getting round it. Much as you can get on top of it, you can't really control smells and instinct.
I don't want to be protected. Let it shine when it wants to and rain when I least expect.
Well, good for you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, though, thank you for your constructive insights. :)
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 07/02/2006 22:42:53
As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb.
So... is life only one shade of grey, or varying shades of grey?
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 07/02/2006 22:42:53
Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.
Agreed. I'm definitely doing this all for fun, and I'm definitely not trying to change people's minds. I hope everyone knows that.
Like I said earlier, I do enjoy learning from other people, but learning from others does not necessarily mean agreeing with them.
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 07/02/2006 22:42:53
And btw, why has everyhting got to do with sex? I'm innocent, and 10 years ago I was sinless (and a virgin!)! Heck, what does sex got to do with things. And Stranger, I'm in love with my wife and make love with her, not sex (just because you think that people confusse love and sex...)
Huh? We're talking about sex because rharpe brought it up. I think. As for why everything in general has to do with sex, we're already discussing that. I think. As for your last point, are "love" and "making love" the same things?
Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 07/02/2006 23:04:36
Quote from: iamus on Tue 07/02/2006 22:54:42
You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.
Again we agree...
As do I!
I do differentiate between loving someone (I also love my parents and brother and children, although all in a different kind of love than the way I love my wife), and the physical act of love...
Now if I may ask, why a picture of a nude woman (and there are more pictures of nude women than donkeys (<-creatures), fortunately), objectifies her? And why is it wrong for something, or someone to be there only for the pleasure of others. Like clowns, or funny pics, or comics, or sex? Would it be because sexual pleasure is a baaaaad thing? Cause I still don't get why you are allowed to have pleasure with your wife (and by doing so, you are not sinning, thus having pleasure is not sin, and anyway because sin is not the idea here, you don't object to that), but when doing it with a pic and your handfull then you are wrong because you take pleasure for something, and thus you objectify it...
And let me clarify because by reading the previous paragraph, I myself am confused.
I take pride for the beauty of my wife.
I take pleasure from my wife.
By NO means I ever ever objectify her!
But for pornography there is a problem, and the problem is not that the girl (or any creature you want ;D is there), but the fact that I make here into an object. ???
Honestly I'm confussed...
I'm noticing something here. Ã, All the questions being thrown about, all this battle between what's immoral, moral, and amoral, it all boils down to about 10% of our difference. Ã, To explain:
-We all agree that it is wrong to brutally murder random people for random or nonexistant reasons
-We all agree that it is wrong to rape someone
-We all agree that we shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, etc solely for our own personnal gain
-The list goes on and on and on
We agree, it seems to me, on about 90% of our morals. Ã, We all share a common ground for what is right and what is wrong. Ã, We all understand the morality of being human. Ã, It seems though, that this 10% difference in our beliefs is fueling a totally unnecessary investigation into one anothers personall opinion. Ã, I mean to say that we are no longer discussing morality at this point, but opinion, this reflects what Stranger just addressed I believe.
I'm not saying we should end this discussion, 'cause it's very interesting, I'm just putting into perspective the fact that dispite our different opinions non of us are truly immoral or amoral
When someone becomes a rapist child molesting serial killer, I'll call them immoral. Ã, But by all means, continue!
-Regards, Glacies Akumayo
Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 08/02/2006 00:16:26
Now if I may ask, why a picture of a nude woman (and there are more pictures of nude women than donkeys (<-creatures), fortunately), objectifies her? And why is it wrong for something, or someone to be there only for the pleasure of others. Like clowns, or funny pics, or comics, or sex? Would it be because sexual pleasure is a baaaaad thing? Cause I still don't get why you are allowed to have pleasure with your wife (and by doing so, you are not sinning, thus having pleasure is not sin, and anyway because sin is not the idea here, you don't object to that), but when doing it with a pic and your handfull then you are wrong because you take pleasure for something, and thus you objectify it...
I never said sexual pleasure was a bad thing in and of itself. If you are using the image of a person solely for your pleasure, you are denying their humanity. You are essentially denying the fact that they are intelligent, rational (and spiritual, if you believe in that) creatures. With your wife, however, I'd imagine that it's different; obviously, you love her for more than just her body. You also respect her right to choose when she wants to have sex with you, and it's not only your pleasure you're concerned about, but hers as well. Does that make more sense?
Entertainment forms such as comics, funny pictures, and yes, even adventure games don't really objectify anyone (they can, but don't have to). Clowns are just plain scary. As for whether cartoon porn is okay, well, I wonder, who gets turned on by cartoon porn, anyway?
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 00:00:03
I shall rephrase my previous statements to say that the object is not always a woman; however, this does not erase the fact that women are significantly more present in pornography than other creatures are.
(This is a problem having to do with the general status of women and the concept of femininity in our society, not necessarily an argument against pornography itself.)
I agree. I was going to go into this in more detail, but some aspects of it are a bit sensitive for a board with the age range this one has.
I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much, except maybe the last statement I made.
QuoteRepression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much?
That's kind of my point. It's a feedback loop. The more you repress something, the more obsessed you become by it. The more obsessed you are, the more you repress it. Eventually it begins to bubble and blister to the surface. First it's something you talk about in whispers. Next, you overcompensate and talk about it too much (which is where I think we are now).
QuoteI celebrate the act of creation. I don't celebrate the predominant adolescent view. Does that clarify things?
Mostly, yes. So you do think there is a place in the media for expression and celebration of sex and sexuality?
QuoteIt's a matter of deciding whether or not something is worth the risk, then, isn't it?
Again, my sentiments exactly.
QuoteThat is true. However, one also shouldn't seek bad experiences for the sake of having bad experiences.
Not at all! But neither should one shy away from things that provide the
possibility of bad experiences if they also provide the possibility of good ones. Deciding if it's worth the risk again.
QuoteWell, good for you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, though, thank you for your constructive insights. :)
No bother at all. It's a pleasure to have someone to bounce off of. :)
QuoteHuh? We're talking about sex because rharpe brought it up. I think.
Indirectly he did, with his questions. It was a repression as obsession thing. Ã, ;D
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 00:38:29
I never said sexual pleasure was a bad thing in and of itself. If you are using the image of a person solely for your pleasure, you are denying their humanity.
Hmmmm. Are you objectfying the image or the person? Where do they seperate? I could go off on a massive tangent here, as I've been working through something related to this thought. I won't though.
Stranger: A woman (or man) has a choice whether or not to pose for a nude photo shoot. If he or she opts to go even further, and star in a porn movie, it is still their own choice. Well, hopefully. But assuming it is, how can it be a bad thing to objectify someone if they've chosen to be seen as an object in the first place?
If you allow yourself to be photographed in the nude, you gotta bear the consequences. It's kind of backwards to blame the viewers for doing something the person being viewed knew could happen.
Though I see your point here Stranger, I'm gonna have to agree with voh... they brought it on themselves, they can't feel bad for it. As for the person doing the... "acts" and objectifying, are they really objectifying if the photo/picture is MEANT as an object? This is a difficult subject... so many angles to glance at the topic...
I must say, rharpe, for the sake of every non-bigot, non-hypocritical, "my poo don't stink" Christian out there... Please shut your wafer-hole. It is "Chrstians" like you that really ruin it for every sane one out there. I don't mean to be judge or be harsh to you. I can understand and respect the fact that you really are trying to be a good soul. But gosh darnit, you really need to sew that mouth shut.
As a Christian with almost a totally opposite view than rharpes's, I will answer both sets of questions that have been asked in this thread.
Quote1.) Do you think pornography is wrong?
2.) Do you think fornication is wrong?
3.) Do you think cheating is wrong?
4.) Do you think adultery is wrong?
5.) Do you think immodesty is wrong?
6.) Do you think erotism is wrong?
7.) Do you think polygamy is wrong?
8.) Do you think sodomy is wrong?
9.) Do you think hedonism is wrong?
10.) Do you think incest is wrong?
1.) It's not so much wrong as it is tasteless. Sex should be a private affair, but it is also the object of much curiosity and speculation. It is also a means of pleasure for more people than one would think. Do I look at porn? Yes I do. Am I proud of it? No, I'm not. But hey, that's the beauty of Christianity. I can ask for forgiveness from God when I know I've done wrong, and He still loves me. So if I say sorry and repent, I'm not damned to Hell forever. Sounds like a good deal to me. (But of course, if I sin purposely, knowing full well I can just repent later... That's a little dodgy. The line is very thin in that instance.) Also, I think pornography really perverts people's outlook on sex. They come to expect things that shouldn't be expected, or will and should never happen between to people.
2.) Do I think sex before marriage is wrong? Yes, yes I do. But do I think someone is immoral for doing it? No, not really. They're human. God gave us the hormones for sexuality, some people wait longer to use them than others. If someone is not a Christian, why should they believe they should have to wait before marriage to have sex? Abstinance is a choice that isn't necessarily rooted in religious beliefs. It is a choice for people who want to wait for the right person. If a person is Christian, then their reason to abstain is because the Bible says their body is like a temple. It is, in essence, a place for God to "live in." If this their a way of thinking, would they want to put someone's love juice all over their body? I believe that God created sex not only as a means of pro-creation, but also as a gift to humans. A gift to those that have found someone to spend their life with and to love forever. In my opinion, someone's "first time" should be with their one and only partner. It's sort of anti-climactic (haha, get it?) if either partner has had sex once, twice, or many times before. But that's just the way I think. I want my first time to be very special. I want it to be a new discovery with someone I know will be with me the rest of my life.
3.) Cheating is technially lying. And lying, by definition of the Ten Commandments, is a sin. Sin is wrong, so cheating is wrong. Yes. If a person can't stay commited to another, they shouldn't bother dating at all.
4.) See above. But I must say that adultry in itself is covered by a whole other commandment. Again, if someone can't stay with one person, why "take the plunge" at all and emotionaly harm the involved?
5.) Boasting is just stupid. It's not necessarily wrong, it's just not smart. When someone boasts, generally nobody likes them. I'm sure David boasted about killing Goliath the the local ladies, but he's not rotting in Hell, is he?
6.) I don't know what is meant by eroticism. Do I think a woman dressing in lacy lingerie a sin? No. It's damn sexy! But, to elaborate on that I do think it's rather seedy and lucrative to fantascize about the opposite sex. While it's fun at the time one is doing it, it's also pretty demeaning and mind-warping after "prolonged use."
7.) I think Polygamy can be likened to greed. If someone is taking up all the women for their own, there won't be any left for the other guys. That would be sad indeed, and it's almost like stealing. And stealing is mean-spirited and wrong. (Unless of course it is necessary for survival. *nods to Eric*)
8.) I think God has assigned every body part for a specific purpose. The mouth is for talking and eating, the bum is for excretion, and the stuff on the other side is meant for pro-creation and "the ultimate of pleasures." But hey, some people like to experiment. While it's not the best practice, I don't think on should be doomed to hell for trying it.
9.) I think it's wrong if it seperates a person from God. God should be a part of their life, but if He gets tossed out and replaced by a Playstation 3... Then that might constitute as a sin. A pursuit of pleasure is okay, as long as one still gives some time and thought up to God every once in a while. And not just when they need more money to buy the next Metal Gear sequel and think praying to God for help will do any good.
10.) Duh. It's very wrong. That's the most "binary" question you can ask. There should be no rationalization for incest. Unless you are in love with your third cousin... Then she's fair game. ;)
Quote1.) Do you think abortion is wrong?
2.) Do you think swearing is wrong?
3.) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
4.) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
5.) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
6.) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech)?
1.) If it is the only solution to the pregnancy, then yes. (For example, if the woman is surely to die in child birth, or she neets a new kidney to live, but cannot have the operation because of the baby.) Abortion should not be used as a so-called "get out of jail free" card. A person can't just take their child's oppurtunity at a life away just because they screwed up. Who knows.. Maybe in nine months their mind will change. There's ALWAYS the chance of adoption, too. But I think pride and reputation take the biggest role in this situation. So yes, in 98.674% of the cases, abortion is wrong.
2.) I think taking the Lord's name in vain is wrong. But saying "fuck" or "shit" is just naughty, but not Hell-inducing foolery. Swearing is just a sign of unoriginality and un-intelligence. If one has to reduce to using swear words, they really don't have anything important to say in the first place.
3.) In most cases, yes. Self defense is the big exception in this. A person can't just let someone kill them or severely injure them because they don't believe in hurting anyone. Also, to bring up a question raised earlier: is killing in war constituted as a sin? From what I've read and what I've been taught in the bible, whatever laws are made on Earth are honored in Heaven. Unless of course they un-justifyingly harm someone or are purposely damaging. In war, soldiers are allowed to kill the enemy in order to protect themselves and they're "squad." This constitutes as self-defense. But "collateral damage" killings (the killing of innocent bystanders in the process of destroying the enemy) and torturing of hostages I think is wrong and very evil. All in all I think one should only kill and harm others when it is necessary to their survival or the survival of others. Not because they've had a bad day.
4.) A person should be thankful for what they have, but it's very easy to be jealous of what others have. It's never an intentional thing to be jealous, and it really isn't very bad in itself. But sometimes jealousy turns to violence or other very bad things. Anyone ever seen/read Shakespeare's "Othello?"
5.) Lying for the sake of lying is wrong. Simple. Deception is just a waste of time and never helps anybody. But lying to protect someone is usually the right thing to do. Though it's not honest, I think God will be more pleased that you helped someone by making a lie than by saving your own soul and telling the truth, but harming others. But sometimes lying to protect someone only harms them more in the end. For instance, if you lie to spare their feelings, you're giving them a false hope or a false understanding of yourself. That's bad.
6. Of course. As long as lying, stealing, cheating, or any other "sin" covered isn't involved in the process. The use of free spech and self-expession shouldn't incite hate or harm to any person. That can be constituted as violence. And calling someone bad names is never self-defense.
I apologize for the enormous size of this reply. It took forever to answer, but this is where I stand as a Christian and I felt I'd share my beliefs to show that not every Christian is a total nutjob. As for other questions in this thread, I believe Big Brother and SSH have beautifully stated my same beliefs for me.
Basically, I believe it is not my place to judge others. I shouldn't point any fingers, nor should I try to force my beliefs upon them. I can only pray for better things to happen for myself and others. I can only try to be as best I can, but I know I will always slip up. But that's what prayer is for. I know God will forgive me for whatever I do, as long as I am sincere in my apology.
P.S. The reason sex is brought up alot in morality discussions is because most normal people involved in those discussons usually aren't sociopath psychotics who murder, rape, molest, or steal expensive things.
I really love Nik's point of view on most things. You know, part of the reason for that is because he doesn't overthink things. No offense there ^_-
That and he accepts many people living in many different ways is fine.
I see no problem with porn in itself. Are you telling me, TIS (and I don't expect you to answer this, I don't want you to divulge personal things here) that you've never gotten a little hot and bothered by seeing a boy you have a severe crush on in high school or something? In that case, you could claim you're still thinking of him as a person. So, coming away from that, have you ever just seen a guy (sorry, I'm assuming heterosexuality here, if not, just change the 'he's to 'her's) you thought was really good looking and gotten a little red in the cheeks?
Porn is just an extension of that. I know what it's like to go through periods where you just don't need or particularly want sex. I've been through periods like that where I was completely happy just being myself and learning to enrich myself as a human being in every other way; learning, having fun with friends, relaxing, experiencing the world...
But I also know what it's like to be where I am now, and where I've been in many periods of my life like now. That is to say, I LOVE sex. I think about it more times during the day than is probably normal ^_^ But I certainly don't feel dirty (in a bad way) or wrong in any way whatsoever. It makes me happy.
A lot of the time, I'm thinking about how much I love my fiance and the amazing times we've shared together (we live apart temporarilly now so it's just thinking about it for the time being). That's what I would call making love and that's the most fulfilling and wonderful things in the world because the act goes beyond the physical enjoyment and is just a very intense expression of our love and bond.
I'm not always thinking about that though :P Sometimes it's just sex - in general. We all have bodies that enjoy (immensely!) physical pleasure, and that is never just physical, we always enjoy it mentally too. Those endorphines alone shoot to the brain, as well. Aside from that, it can make us just feel incredibly alive and attractive! Even without a long-term bond with the person you're having sex with, both people can just have an amazing time pleasuring themselves and each other, and then leave the next morning feeling very fulfilled and happy with themselves.
I personally think that's a beautiful thing and I'm jealous of anyone who has experiences like that often. I also don't call that objectifying at all, at least not in a bad way. I've been attracted to many people -while- being in a very fulfilling relationship at the same time. I'm sure many people in happy long-term relationships have thought about sex with another person, even if it's a movie star or an imaginary person, or... dare I say it, a cartoon character. It could be someone you know or it could be some really hot person you see strutting down the street one day.
As long as whatever you do (I'm including thinking in that statement) doesn't hurt anyone, I think that's still a beautiful thing. To be able to enjoy our minds and bodies, be it on our own or with a loved one or a complete stranger. If everyone's happy, it's ultimately just enriching your life more, really.
Now, getting back to porn, like I said, that's just an extension of what I said before... if you can get all hot and bothered seeing a cute guy/girl on the street, porn is just another way for people to get that feeling. They can take it as far as they like on their own or... with a friend. Whatever. Porn is just (usually) seeing two (or.. whatever) other people have sex (or whatever), to help turn yourself on, for the purpose of enjoying your body, or even just for enjoying mentally if you like that. Enjoying it in whatever way you want.
Not everyone can just go out and find someone to have sex with, also. Not everyone can find a girlfriend/boyfriend, or even just a one-night stand. But they probably still want to feel sexual, and enjoy themselves, and porn is a safe way of doing that. Believe me, extreme sexual tension with no fulfilment can drive a person to do crazy things, and I think THAT is a bad thing.
Now, of course the porn -industry- isn't without many, many faults. If I had my way, there would be absolutely no animal porn or kiddie porn whatsoever. I abhore both and a lot of other things like snuff (I'm not really sure if 99% of that is real or not though) or anything that resembles rape. I'm fairly sure most people would agree with me there. In those cases, the subjects involved are NOT both willing participants, and NOT both reasonably mature adults who understand what they're doing. Of course, there are also a lot of people in the porn industry who are being terribly taken advantage of, are there out of severe desperation and really don't want to be there at all. That is also a terrible thing, but these are faults with the industry, not with porn itself.
There's LOTS of porn out there where the subjects understand what they're doing VERY well, and they bloody well like their job. I've seen them with my own eyes, and they're usually very well rounded people. It's not always like that, but it often is and that's the ideal.
So don't be hating porn ^_^ It has a place in a healthy society just like many controversial things, when you understand it properly and know that it can have many good points too.
I love seeing a beautiful woman, or a sexy guy. It makes me happy. But my last few paragraphs aside, I think the most important points I made were in my first few about sex. It's not something to be overthought and studied, but it is something to be smart about, mature about, knowledgable about and then enjoyed the HECK out of!
EDIT: I realise I didn't use a very important word in my post at all, so I want to mention it here: PASSION. The good kind. It's one of the things that makes life wonderful and it can be passion for anything, but certainly sex is another way for people to experience that insense feeling. I myself get turned on a lot just by seeing an intense passion in another person, be it for their hobby or a good cause or ... I don't know, maybe just enjoying a good sandwich @_@ Passion is one of the many spices of life, but I think it's the best one. Passion is what keeps me going in life, and I think most people get depressed or sad when they go for long periods without it.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
be smart about, mature about, knowledgable about and then enjoyed the HECK out of!
Can't we just apply this to every controversial topic and all go home?
I think everyoneÃ, should stop all this stuff and lookit this instead.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/pestilence42/bearvshotdog.gif)
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 00:00:03
First of all, Adamski, I'm very well aware that not all of what I've said is always true in all cases.
Your post on the subject was written in a manner that suggested that you believed what you were writing holds true in the majority of cases, and I infered the following things:
1. You suggested that consent arises 'a lot of times' from a person being pressured into having sex, or from a heat-of-the-moment impulsive response. Perhaps this may be a relevent point to make if we were discussing 14 year olds having sex, or High School romances, but Becky specifically worded her sentence as "consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults" which suggests maturity towards sexual feelings and a knowledge of what you do and don't want sexually. This seemed to me to be a moot point and does not go towards any concrete reason why sex in any non-married relationship is wrong.
2. You provided a very pedantic 'argument' that safe sex isn't safe sex at all. I'm not sure where this fits into the marriage argument as there's no shift in contraceptive responsibilities from being an unmarried couple to a married couple, it just seemed like you wanted to throw that in there to try and (quite poorly) 'negate' every aspect of the original sentence.
3. You make massive assumptions that people who have sex in an unmarried relationship don't know each other very well, which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you have statistics to back this "chances are" statement up, I'll be happy to retract my opinion that it is a ridiculous thing to say.
You also mention "The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you" without defining when "too early" actually is. In the context of you presenting a case against sex outside of marriage I can only assume that you mean that having sex before the wedding night is emotionally scarring. If you said at 11 or some equally silly pre-consentual/pre-legal age then I'd totally agree, but we're specifically talking about "adult relationships" here.
4. We have different views of what 'love' is, although you actually typed out my feelings about it:
Quoteyou need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.
Some of the love I feel for my partner manifests itself in a sexual way, and I personally feel that to betray that aspect of love would betry the intense emotional, spiritual and mental connection we have because it also hightenes all of the aformentioned aspects of love. You can't sustain a relationship for long purely based on sex ("fuckbuddies" don't exist in my happy little world), but trying to repress sex from a loving relationship strikes me as being incredibly emotionally unhealthy and making an obsessive deal out of something that isn't really a big deal if you just get on with being in love.
Not that I'm saying that love can't exist without sex you understand, but I think sex and physical interaction is an important part of a loving and healthy relationship and it's bonkers and unnatural to try and cut it out of your lives just because you are in that boolean state of being 'unmarried'.
Before that line you state that a relationship can't be sustained purely on love. Can you define for me what you believe love to be? Is it less than a mental, emotional, spiritual and commited bond? Do you really, really believe that love ISN'T the whole purpose of a relationship, or did you muddle up what you meant by that sentence?
5. You state that sex clouds your ability to really get to know a person.
Quoteit's imperative to really really get to know a person before you marry him or her. If you don't have sex during this time, then (given what I've said about being naturally inclined to love whoever you're having sex with) you'll presumably be able to examine the person's character without being clouded by desire
I personally find the idea that you cannot fully 'examine' a person's character because your judgement is impared with sexual thoughts extremely patronising. I can't elaborate any further than 'balderdash', and if you can't see why then no amount of arm waving will help explain.
6. Your very last sentence throws me off guard completely: "Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak."
If you're trying to say here that getting married is the most emotionally protective way of 'testing the waters of relationships' then I'm not quite sure what to say. I don't think you've quite looked at every possible angle before coming to this conclusion.
If I have inferred incorretly, you might want to revise the way you present your opinions on such things - I have no personal knowledge of you so I can only react to the words you type (and not the extra words you meant to say that I would pick up on if I knew you personally).
And I'm not willing to go any further than this, because I'm ultimatly happy in my unmarried relationship and I plan to go on being in the same happily unmarried relationship for the rest of my life. My original post was not intended to be a rebuttal, or insulting, or counter-argumentative, I just felt stirred strongly enough to follow up your post in a blunt manner because your opinions dismissed my own relationship and I felt slightly annoyed by the conclusions you had drawn. An easy trap to fall into of course, I should have avoided hitting the 'reply' button altogether. I usually avoid topics such as these because I'm too lazy to type out complex replies and give detailed cross-references ;)
QuoteAlso, might I ask what makes you think you know exactly what "experiences everyone else in the world is having"? I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in the heads of every denizen of the world...
No no, what I meant was that you cannot generalise sexual practise and relationships and yadda yadda in the way you did in that post because the conclusions you have drawn do not reflect the experiences of everyone in the world, only those in close proximity to your life or stories filtered down to you. Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly.
lgm... I think "immodesty" in the case in question means, for example, flashing one's cleaveage aboot for all to see, or wearing extremely tight junk-enhancing pants...
Quote from: voh on Wed 08/02/2006 00:57:09
Stranger: A woman (or man) has a choice whether or not to pose for a nude photo shoot. If he or she opts to go even further, and star in a porn movie, it is still their own choice. Well, hopefully. But assuming it is, how can it be a bad thing to objectify someone if they've chosen to be seen as an object in the first place?
If you allow yourself to be photographed in the nude, you gotta bear the consequences. It's kind of backwards to blame the viewers for doing something the person being viewed knew could happen.
That is true. I, personally, think that the conditions in which one would have to make that choice should be eliminated (i.e. I don't think anyone should
want to be an object for anyone else), but then again, I can't make choices for other people.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
Are you telling me, TIS (and I don't expect you to answer this, I don't want you to divulge personal things here) that you've never gotten a little hot and bothered by seeing a boy you have a severe crush on in high school or something? In that case, you could claim you're still thinking of him as a person. So, coming away from that, have you ever just seen a guy (sorry, I'm assuming heterosexuality here, if not, just change the 'he's to 'her's) you thought was really good looking and gotten a little red in the cheeks?
I'm odd. I'll admit it. I never get hot and bothered over just looking at someone. I see millions of guys every day, many of whom can be construed as good-looking. I don't notice any of them unless I know something about them. If I actually meet a guy and can hold an interesting conversation with him, and he seems to be the type I'd have something in common with, that's when attraction starts to happen. I'm dead serious.
To be honest, I think it's because I grew up with low self-esteem and spent most of my life believing I was physically unattractive, therefore causing me to gradually not care about looks so much. It's gotten to the point where I don't even want people to see me as physically attractive at all; I'd rather be recognized for my intelligence, creativity, and attempts at humour.
There are exceptions, though: sometimes, I'll notice a person's looks if they physically resemble someone I know and like. Also, if I come across two people engaged in a public display of affection, I'll admittedly have a mix of "oooh..." and "get a room!" in my head...
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
But I also know what it's like to be where I am now, and where I've been in many periods of my life like now. That is to say, I LOVE sex. I think about it more times during the day than is probably normal ^_^ But I certainly don't feel dirty (in a bad way) or wrong in any way whatsoever. It makes me happy.
A lot of the time, I'm thinking about how much I love my fiance and the amazing times we've shared together (we live apart temporarilly now so it's just thinking about it for the time being). That's what I would call making love and that's the most fulfilling and wonderful things in the world because the act goes beyond the physical enjoyment and is just a very intense expression of our love and bond.
I have to admit, I'm envious.
I dated this guy for two years. During that time, I felt a lot like you do now regarding the physical aspect of our relationship; however, in the past nine months following the breakup, I've felt nothing but regret. Today, I feel that it was all dirty and wrong, and that I should have waited for someone who was more worth it.
Most people take a situation like this and move on, maybe go "yay, I'm more sexually experienced" or something like that. I can't do that. I can move on saying that I'll be more careful with whom I open my heart to, but I can't have an attitude of no regrets. It's just not me.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
I'm not always thinking about that though :P Sometimes it's just sex - in general. We all have bodies that enjoy (immensely!) physical pleasure, and that is never just physical, we always enjoy it mentally too. Those endorphines alone shoot to the brain, as well.
I'd rather just eat lots and lots of chocolate, but like I said, I'm odd.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
So don't be hating porn ^_^ It has a place in a healthy society just like many controversial things, when you understand it properly and know that it can have many good points too.
Well, that doesn't change the fact that I get nothing out of porn, and therefore don't like it. But I respect that many people disagree with me.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
Passion is what keeps me going in life, and I think most people get depressed or sad when they go for long periods without it.
Ah, that explains why I'm so depressed and sad all the time, then!
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
1. You suggested that consent arises 'a lot of times' from a person being pressured into having sex, or from a heat-of-the-moment impulsive response. Perhaps this may be a relevent point to make if we were discussing 14 year olds having sex, or High School romances, but Becky specifically worded her sentence as "consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults" which suggests maturity towards sexual feelings and a knowledge of what you do and don't want sexually. This seemed to me to be a moot point and does not go towards any concrete reason why sex in any non-married relationship is wrong.
Hey, a lot of adults act like teenagers. And a lot of teenagers think they're mature enough to be considered consenting adults. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the line between maturity and immaturity is quite blurry. Where would you say it's drawn?
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
2. You provided a very pedantic 'argument' that safe sex isn't safe sex at all. I'm not sure where this fits into the marriage argument as there's no shift in contraceptive responsibilities from being an unmarried couple to a married couple, it just seemed like you wanted to throw that in there to try and (quite poorly) 'negate' every aspect of the original sentence.
You're kind of right about that, and admittedly, I just kind of threw that in there for a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
3. You make massive assumptions that people who have sex in an unmarried relationship don't know each other very well, which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you have statistics to back this "chances are" statement up, I'll be happy to retract my opinion that it is a ridiculous thing to say.
That was speculation. Sorry for not phrasing it as such. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any statistics anywhere that pertain to how much people in relationships know one another; I assume that it's a hard variable to accurately measure.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
You also mention "The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you" without defining when "too early" actually is. In the context of you presenting a case against sex outside of marriage I can only assume that you mean that having sex before the wedding night is emotionally scarring. If you said at 11 or some equally silly pre-consentual/pre-legal age then I'd totally agree, but we're specifically talking about "adult relationships" here.
Like I said, the line between maturity and immaturity is a foggy one; not everyone crosses it at the same time. A 21-year-old could potentially be as immature as a 14-year-old, in which case, yes, they would be having sex too early. It's a very "it depends" thing. I don't know if there's a definite answer.
Admittedly, though, it's possible to get married too early, and it happens.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
Before that line you state that a relationship can't be sustained purely on love. Can you define for me what you believe love to be? Is it less than a mental, emotional, spiritual and commited bond? Do you really, really believe that love ISN'T the whole purpose of a relationship, or did you muddle up what you meant by that sentence?
I said "you need to be
compatible with one another", and you seem to have missed that. Love is precisely what you said: a bond. While bonding often results from compatibility, it doesn't always imply it. My ex-boyfriend and I loved each other and were committed to each other, but in some very important areas in our beliefs, we weren't compatible.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
I personally find the idea that you cannot fully 'examine' a person's character because your judgement is impared with sexual thoughts extremely patronising. I can't elaborate any further than 'balderdash', and if you can't see why then no amount of arm waving will help explain.
Sorry for the patronising sentiment. The reason I threw out this point was because it happened to me personally. If you and most other people are smarter than I am, well, good for you.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
If you're trying to say here that getting married is the most emotionally protective way of 'testing the waters of relationships' then I'm not quite sure what to say. I don't think you've quite looked at every possible angle before coming to this conclusion. Ã,Â
Nah, I'd actually say it's one emotionally-protective way. There are other ways as well.
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
If I have inferred incorretly, you might want to revise the way you present your opinions on such things - I have no personal knowledge of you so I can only react to the words you type (and not the extra words you meant to say that I would pick up on if I knew you personally).
Well, that's the last time I'll type replies to heated discussions while taking notes in a lecture at the same time, then...
Quote from: Adamski on Wed 08/02/2006 02:36:18
And I'm not willing to go any further than this, because I'm ultimatly happy in my unmarried relationship and I plan to go on being in the same happily unmarried relationship for the rest of my life. My original post was not intended to be a rebuttal, or insulting, or counter-argumentative, I just felt stirred strongly enough to follow up your post in a blunt manner because your opinions dismissed my own relationship and I felt slightly annoyed by the conclusions you had drawn. An easy trap to fall into of course, I should have avoided hitting the 'reply' button altogether. I usually avoid topics such as these because I'm too lazy to type out complex replies and give detailed cross-references ;)
Well, that's wonderful for you. Again, I'm envious that you've apparently found happiness. I hope it does, in fact, last for the rest of your life.
I'm sorry I offended you. In fact, I'm sorry if I offended anyone else. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to sulk in my ever-present loneliness.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 00:00:03
Let me clarify, then: Pornography, by its very nature, objectifies something. Whatever is depicted to cause sexual excitement serves the sole purpose of exciting someone: this is objectification.
Why is it "by its very nature" objectifying? I think we need to establish what we mean by objectification, but to the extent I understand its meaning, all fiction (and perhaps even all art) is to some extent objectifying: it depicts something in order to make a point or serve a purpose. I do not see why this would be wrong.
QuoteObjectification is a form of degradation; it reduces a human being into something whose only use is the pleasure of others. This is why I find it wrong.
Here's the
guilt by association again. Indeed,
some pornographic works reduce a human into something whose only use is the pleasure of others, but to establish this as an essential trait of pornography is completely groundless. You're making very specific statements about a very broad concept. I really don't understand why
the depiction of erotic behaviour would inevitably lead to depiction of a human being as
something whose only use is the pleasure of others. It's a connection that just doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: EldKatt on Wed 08/02/2006 08:45:43
Here's the guilt by association again. Indeed, some pornographic works reduce a human into something whose only use is the pleasure of others, but to establish this as an essential trait of pornography is completely groundless. You're making very specific statements about a very broad concept. I really don't understand why the depiction of erotic behaviour would inevitably lead to depiction of a human being as something whose only use is the pleasure of others. It's a connection that just doesn't make any sense.
Okay, then, I think that porn that reduces a human to a thing used by others is wrong. The rest of it, I just don't find appealing.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually starting to get sick of this thread...
Actually, this discussion reminds me of this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4446981554735098778&q=porn
For the love of God, never post a link to a female Tauren showing cleavage again. I just about gouge my eyes out with rusty spoons and force-feed them to myself whenever I come across them ingame...
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 09:26:18
Okay, then, I think that porn that reduces a human to a thing used by others is wrong. The rest of it, I just don't find appealing.
Then there's nothing I can disagree with. :D
Look, porn is usefull. It was for me, for my father (i dunno but probably), definately for my son and so on...
By the age man reaches his 13th-14th brithday he is ready to cum! And that said if he doesn't nature (God, human nature, desing, the ultimate being, whatever), has made sure that every once in a while we empty ourselfs. While sleeping. In Greek it's called oniroxis (have no idea tha Brittish term). Which means that you have an orgasm after having a lustfull dream in your sleep! And you can't avoid that! And of course, since you don't control your dreams, I would arrive to the conclusion that everybody is sinning, or objecifying or whatever with differnet women in their sleep (and don't tell me that all you dream is your wives now...), cause of human nature and devices to keep healthy!
And every male in this forum can back up to what I'm saying here! Even rharpe!
Kinoko: There is no reason to think any further than I have here. This is a fun thread. Not to mention that I just rediculed my self and all men!
EDIT: I completely forgot the first part of my post which I copied to notepad earlier.
Quote from: [lgm] on Wed 08/02/2006 01:03:51
2.) I think taking the Lord's name in vain is wrong. But saying "fuck" or "shit" is just naughty, but not Hell-inducing foolery. Swearing is just a sign of unoriginality and un-intelligence. If one has to reduce to using swear words, they really don't have anything important to say in the first place.
Why do you always have to have something important to say? I can just be in a bad mood or angry at someone and express my feelings about them by swearing. I don't mean any harm by it and it generally depends on my mood more than anything. But I disagree about curse words being uncreative. They are a great outlet for frustration, sometimes a cause for a good laugh (I think we can all agree that laughing is a healthy and enjoyable acitivity, no?), and can sometimes be rather imaginative.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 08/02/2006 01:12:45
As long as whatever you do (I'm including thinking in that statement) doesn't hurt anyone, I think that's still a beautiful thing. To be able to enjoy our minds and bodies, be it on our own or with a loved one or a complete stranger. If everyone's happy, it's ultimately just enriching your life more, really.
...
Passion is what keeps me going in life, and I think most people get depressed or sad when they go for long periods without it.
I think I agree completely with your take on porn and, in general, taking pleasure in life's beauty. If I see someone and find them attractive (btw, I don't neccessarily mean good physical appearance, it has something to do with personality, with what ther person projects outside), and perhaps fantasize about them, is this objectifying? I could find this person attractive for the very reason that they are a human being who is intelligent, rational and spiritual.
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 08/02/2006 08:21:44
I'm odd. I'll admit it. I never get hot and bothered over just looking at someone. I see millions of guys every day, many of whom can be construed as good-looking. I don't notice any of them unless I know something about them. If I actually meet a guy and can hold an interesting conversation with him, and he seems to be the type I'd have something in common with, that's when attraction starts to happen. I'm dead serious.
I can see where you stand here - I have a friend who, I observed, notices looks first of all when she meets someone. I think my mind actually blocks this out, and all the people I've had a crush on in my life weren't always physically attracting. Not only were they not what is considered ideal good looking, I myself noticed that they weren't good-looking, to my taste. Still, I was attracted because of their personality, their sense of humour, etc. I like it this way because it means I don't get a crush on someone just because of how they look, only to find out they are a complete idiot later.
For myself, though, in contrast, I like to feel attractive to other people, though eventually I want to be considered for my intelligence, rather than my looks.
Quote
Hey, a lot of adults act like teenagers. And a lot of teenagers think they're mature enough to be considered consenting adults. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the line between maturity and immaturity is quite blurry. Where would you say it's drawn?
Maybe I'm not in the place to judge, as I'm a teenager, but I find myself more mature than most teenagers. I don't think people having sex before the legal age of consent is wrong, if both partners are sure that they are ready for sex, and it doesn't have to be because they love each other, they might be ready physically and emotionally without being in love.
As a personal choice, I want my first time to be from love, and I also believe that it's much more enjoyable, mentally, if there is strong "mental" attraction to the other person- i.e. good chemistry and a loving relationship. I have no problem with people who, if they so choose, have casual sex (yes, I believe that's possible) or one night stands.
It's funny, we had our first sex ed. class today, one of 6-7 classes we'll have once a week, and we discussed a bit about one night stands and such. It's more a class about relationships, love, and such things, than it is about sex, since there really isn't anything new they can tell us about sex, save for demonstrations :P. It was interesting to have a discussion about sexual relations and in what context they are right, with people in my class who I don't usually talk to about that.
Quote from: Pesty on Wed 08/02/2006 01:49:35
I think everyoneÃ, should stop all this stuff and lookit this instead.
(http://froghaslipstick.com/art/doodles/bearvshotdog.gif)
The bear's the obvious choice, sure. My money's on the hotdog though. They're sneaky little choking hazards.
I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now *collective sigh of relief from entire forum*. Now seems as good a time as any. Before I go though, I'd like to say one thing:
Rharpe?
Love your penis.
It is a thing of beauty.
I have one more thing to say before I bow out myself. Keeping with the original spirit of this post...
If I were the Devil, I would start a powerful worldwide religious organization and rule men's hearts and mind through it.
If I were the Devil, I would have that world religion take most of its inspiration from pagan and heathen origin and disguise it as religious iconolatry.
If I were the devil, I would take all the attention off God and put it on light, fluffy things like being nice to everybody and overmoralizing things to the point where I balk at outhouses being displayed on television.
If I were the Devil, I would set up men that say they are the representation of God on earth. Only these people have the right to say what is right or wrong. Only these people have the right to translate Scripture. Only these men have the right to bugger boys without being questioned. And why? Because they said so...
If I were the devil, I would spend more time doing this then worrying about what the hell was on TV.
If I were the Devil, I would put rigorous opposition in the way of any who questioned my powerhouse religion, even when they were wrong. People claiming that the earth is round or that God doesn't want our money are put to death or branded hereticks. Anyone attempting to ruin my doctrine by properly translating the word "baptidzo" (to immerse in water) will be instantly killed, and I'll just make up the name "baptism" and let it continue to mean "the sprinkling of an infant," which carries on into the next thing I'd do:
If I were the Devil, this religion wouldn't be based on choice... Most people would be born into it, and have it drilled into their heads all their lives, and all he lives of their children, and their children's children. Any attempt to think for oneself will be said to be rebellion and will be dealt with harshly, reducing the chances of possible future insurrection.
So you would probably Christianity pretty much the way it is...
Quote from: esper on Wed 08/02/2006 14:53:56
If I were the Devil, I would start a powerful worldwide religious organization and rule men's hearts and mind through it.
Actually, most of the founders of the world's major religions weren't looking to rule anything. If they were, then they would have escaped persecution, which they, for the most part, didn't. Look at Jesus for example. If He wanted to rule men's hearts and mind, wouldn't He have tried to work his way up amongst the current "religious" leaders instead of denouncing them?
Quote from: esper on Wed 08/02/2006 14:53:56
If I were the Devil, I would have that world religion take most of its inspiration from pagan and heathen origin and disguise it as religious iconolatry.
That's not the work of the founder itself; it's the work of the people who adopted the religion but didn't want to do away with their old rites and celebrations, so they found a way of integrating them into the religion.
Quote from: esper on Wed 08/02/2006 14:53:56
If I were the devil, I would take all the attention off God and put it on light, fluffy things like being nice to everybody and overmoralizing things to the point where I balk at outhouses being displayed on television.
What? I thought being nice to everybody was a good thing! (To the point where you don't annoy people, of course.) And why does it take all the attention off God?
The rest of the post was pretty much spot-on, though.
Quote from: Ginny on Wed 08/02/2006 13:09:38
I think I agree completely with your take on porn and, in general, taking pleasure in life's beauty. If I see someone and find them attractive (btw, I don't neccessarily mean good physical appearance, it has something to do with personality, with what ther person projects outside), and perhaps fantasize about them, is this objectifying?
No. Is it possible to love the personality of a pornographic image, though?
Quote from: Ginny on Wed 08/02/2006 13:09:38
Maybe I'm not in the place to judge, as I'm a teenager, but I find myself more mature than most teenagers.
Been there. Done that.
Your sex ed class sounds pretty cool.
A lesson before that we were asked to write on paper what we'd like to hear about in the sex ed classes, and after a long thought I wrote down "sexual preference". I'm not yet sure of my preferences myself, and they say most teenagers go through a phase of pondering this subject. Should be very interesting if we get to the subject.
I was positively surprised that the lesson worked more like a discussion between everyone in the class than a lecture. Also, sounds like we'll be doing some "relationship" roleplaying in future lessonss.
"Is it possible to love the personality of a pornographic image?"
I don't think so, no. Porn, however, is more an equivalent of casual sex than of love. That doesn't mean that when someone views porn, they immedeately forget that the people in the video/image are human beings. I wouldn't say they use the person, they use the porn itself.
"Okay, then, I think that porn that reduces a human to a thing used by others is wrong."
If by reduce to a thing used by others you mean that the porn somehow sends a message that the person is nothing but a sexual tool, then I agree completely. Otherwise, I don't see exactly how porn in itself can reduce a human to anything. In the end, it's up to the viewer how they interpret the people starring in porn. This is all assuming the participating people do so by choice, of course.
Also, as Kinoko mentioned, pornography can be used to relieve whatever sexual tension is built up inside us, to replace the actual sexual act.
Quote from: Ginny on Wed 08/02/2006 16:30:50
I wouldn't say they use the person, they use the porn itself.
I couldn't have put it any better myself. My hat is off to you.
Also, I've given the human-to-thing reduction thing another thought. (
Please note that I'm still interpreting "wrong" as referring to some kind of hypothesized moral universals, not my personal opinion of what I like or dislike.)
Porn is fiction. It's really quite harmless, and I think we're on a very dangerous track if we condemn a work of fiction as immoral or degrading. Book burning can be a fun pastime in the company of good friends, but tolerance is much more worthwhile. I really don't give a damn if someone likes to watch movies about people being raped, as long as nobody is hurt. Violence is of course wrong, but depiction of violence (or objectification or whatever you like)--why not? I'd probably decline politely if they'd ask me to watch it with them, but that's my own business.
Thanks:)
Good point on the whole fiction thing - I think porn is indeed fiction, be it in form of a movie, a picture, or even a written text. Indeed violence is depicted more than most things in movies today, and I have nothing against these movies. If we can depict violence, why not depict sex? And if we can't depict violence or sex or anything controversial at all, it's an insult to us as humans with different interests and ideas. Creativity isn't always in the form of nice and pretty things and ideas.
And I'm not that sure, really, but do christians* have a problem with depicting of violence as much as the depicting of sex? After all each is considered as much a sin as the other. If so, are christians against "The Passion of the Christ"? It depicts plenty of violence.
It was boycotted here in israel because of some antisemitic messages I believe, but I got it by other means and have heard a great deal about it. I think they'll eventually give up and show it on television or somewhere, as they did with "Jenine Jenine".
An enourmous percent of movies, books and tv shows are, at least in part, about something that is considered wrong or immoral. Some even show a different perspective of it.
*Again, sorry for generalising, I am referring the conventional christian belief.
The first step towards dictatorship is censore.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/pestilence42/missionfailedbear.gif
MISSION: FAILED.
Stranger: read my post again. "If I were the Devil", I said, not "If I were Jesus." Jesus didn't start the church that exists today.
But he did start the fire...
That's an excellent point about porn being fiction, I wish I'd thought of it myself. I was starting to feel like a bit of a hero in this thread, what with everyone quoting me and agreeing with me :(
Someone (too lazy to check) mentioned the connection of love and porn... I just want to point out that in Japan, they have 'video girls'. These are videos where you can just watch a pretty girl do silly things like run and play on the beach, and talk to you like you're her boyfriend. They aren't necessarilly sexual at all but do quite well! This is just another answer to a person's loneliness, or longing to have someone of their own. Quite an interesting concept, really...
Um, no, Eric, I'm sorry, but it was always burnin' since the world's been turnin'.
No no, eric, it was Uku that started the fire. He IS a professional, after all!
Fair enough.
I do watch a fair share of movies that contain violence in them, but I don't really watch them for the violence. Slapstick humour and stuff doesn't bother me, but I'm pretty squeamish at the sight of blood and realistic violence.
On that token, I do think graphic depictions of violence are wrong (and the more tasteless and disgusting it is, the more wrong I think it is, as with porn).
Can I, however, clarify that throughout this thread, whenever I've said that I think something is wrong, it doesn't mean that I'm judging the people who disagree with me? It means I, personally, don't like it, and despite thinking the world would be a better place without it, I recognize that people are free to make their own choices about what they like and dislike.
Hey kinoko, is it in Japan where people can go in a shop and buy second hand ladies panties sealed up in a bag to contain that freshness of the previous owner?
(I did see that on TV once many years ago...)
Apparently, but I've never seen any and I don't know anyone who has.
A lot of these are urban myths, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true either.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Thu 09/02/2006 14:58:10
Hey kinoko, is it in Japan where people can go in a shop and buy second hand ladies panties sealed up in a bag to contain that freshness of the previous owner?
(I did see that on TV once many years ago...)
That just makes me want to barf....
I know! With skid marks and everything? Gross!
I bet they pay extra for skid marks...
QuoteMy goal in this discussion is not to convince anyone that I'm right;[...]why should I take someone else's personal experience over my own?)
We're different, they're different, everybody's different. I appreciate your demeanor when it comes to conversation, but you should realize that the theoretical constructions you suggest about sexuality and the like seem to have an air of objectivity about them. This I believe is the biproduct of that you're rationalizing processes that are very, very complex and wide-reaching via your limited (not your limited as in you're limited, but as in anyone's limited) logical faculties. The fact (and I don't say something is a fact lightly, given how I'm one of the crazy quasi-solipsist people) of the matter is: human behaviour, especially emotional behaviour, is very complex. This complexity invalidates any sort of sweeping generalization that hopes to more or less capture the inner workings of individuals. Whereas when I hadn't had sex I would agree with a lot of your points about the whole process, now that I have had sex, in various configurations and with various partners and in various stages of my life, I just find it extremely difficult to relate to any of your dry, logical points about the
causality in sex. Do this, that happens. If you don't do this early enough, that happens. Sex is not a closed system where you can test this stuff out. The people having sex are people, with lives and contexts that are infinitely complex. Everything interfaces with everything. You can't make these sort of statements and hope for ANY sort of credibility, really. They might seem logical, and even might appear to apply to facets of what's going on (especially from your point of view) but in reality there's too much going on for any of these points of be useful for one's personal philosophy.
Sexual practices and the emotions that surround them are very complex, capricious and do not listen much to appeals to reason. Right now, your head is clear, you are not in love nor in lust and your emotional state is generally 'calm' (to make a completely invalid description, really) but when you've experienced a number of situations that
make no sense you begin to realize that there's things you experience automatically, focusing your self-awareness on the experience, and then there's the after-the-fact rationalization that's just a safety measure to keep an illusion of control and understanding a knowledge and codification of experience. The latter has very little to do with the former. Emotions do not translate to causality in a simple way. Letters, words, phrases, arguments fail to capture the interconnections to a hopeless degree. What you're explaining when you say 'this or that' about sexuality, is more where you stand right now emotionally, what you
think you would do when the time comes, and much less present a clear moral position that indeed applies to your actions to come. In reality, we watch ourselves make "mistakes" (things that we've rationalized as being mistakes) over and over again, playing no active part in the decision-making, and that feels hopeless. So we make rules. And we break them. And we feel hopeless. And we make new rules. And we break them. And so on. Hopefully on the way you've experienced stuff, sex, break-ups, watching a movie with a person that finds you important, whatever. Those things are the ones to watch. Intentfully. Being present. Not the after-the-fact rationalizations. I can paint either picture (for and against promiscuous sex, for and against the modern stylization of sexuality, for and against god, the universe anything) pretty convincingly. Which sort of proves the point: words are words and words have nothing to do with experience.
An examiner that is interested in sociology might gather something useful about very specific aspects of mass behaviour, where a man is abstractified down to a bundle of numbers, but you're saying these things on a personal level. You're saying, this is my life philosophy, I present it to you, learn from me as I learn from you. On that level, the numbers (and words) mean nothing. You have no life philosophy. You have a lot of words, which you might break or keep according to processes you don't even begin to understand (and within which 'free will' means nothing). Life doesn't make sense if you look at it on the microscopic level, and believe me, that's what you're doing. Live is a whole, and we lack the faculties to examine it holistically. Our eyes are too small to gaze on this whole city at once and so on so forth max ernestsims and the fucaultisms you so like.
QuoteAlso, might I ask what makes you think you know exactly what "experiences everyone else in the world is having"? I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in the heads of every denizen of the world...
You don't either, yet you adress the issues as if your vantage point benefits over adam's because of logical continuity. It doesn't, and it isn't. Logic doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what's going on in the hypercomplex system that is one man, let alone people in interaction. Everything interfaces with everything. All sides of this argument are more self-validating themselves (feels good) by presenting arguments than talking to each other and learning things.
QuoteObjectification is a form of degradation; it reduces a human being into something whose only use is the pleasure of others. This is why I find it wrong.
See this is the thing. A neat explanation of what you believe to be the case about a strict effect of one thing. Presented logically, and one-sidedly. But what about people who want, for whatever reason, don't try to give me the 'they're ill' line, to be objectified? What about people who simply do not understand or speak of reality in such terms? What about mock-up sex as a replacement of sex, when you're 'having sex' to 'have sex'? When does sex, the image of sex, pornography become it's own message and not the envelope for the message that reads 'this is objectified'? For someone who says they've read post-modernists, your points of view are startingly positivistic. Just saying. Words are wrong. Beware of words. Words make manifest a lot of effects, and truth is not one of them.
QuoteRepression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much? Read "The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault for more on this.
Anyone that has read Foucault or Derrida or whatever would find 'repression is a form of obsession' to be a hilarious statement, equally valid (in it's invalidness) to any other 'x is y' statement. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't make these statements, it really means we shouldn't believe them. It means we should make them because they make us feel good, as if we understand the world and are in control. But there's nothing to believe in there. Are you sure you want to cite post-modernists as sources in your replies? They invalidate your method of communication.
Salesman: "Would sir be interested in our super deluxe panty edition? This lady not only shat herself, but she forgot to use a tampon! My mother is a bit senile you see."
Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 01/02/2006 17:30:01
Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 01/02/2006 03:43:51
Brown banana you say, Squinky? I see what you mean!
(http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/pat5800s/pages/jiggaskirt/jigga.jpg)
EXPLAIN YOURSELF supossed mature moderator! >:(
Is there something I'm mis-interperating here?
You attack a moderator for joking a little, but now you come in here with your sexaully oriented jokes and now it's cool?
Good day to you sir!
That bananna joke sounded racist. Does my joke come off as sexist then?
No, it comes off as stupid.
It was dumb, but why was it racist? There is nothing even hinting at racism, we were talking about a brown skinned penis, thats all. I didn't say brown penises weren't cool, or that I didn't want them drinking from the same water fountain as me. Gord called me racist too, I don't get you guys...
And you're joke is gross and possibly unsuitable for minors, not that I care, just using the opportunity to catch you in hypocrisy.
I like these silly threads. :-*
More please...
Sigh.. I don't know what country you are from and what difference that makes.. but you see, if you called a black man by the aforementioned colour of the penis you mentioned, that would be considered racist. There's a reason you never hear that song anymore that went "There's a br**n girl in the ring la la la la" (other than it being crap)
And as I've never heard of anyone having a "brown penis" before reading it in this forum I couldn't help but assume it meant that.
Sorry if my panty joke offended you.
Brown is a colour. Don't be scared of it.
Is anyone who's posted on this thread actually of African/African American descent? :-\
Quote from: ManicMatt on Thu 09/02/2006 22:20:57
Sorry if my panty joke offended you.
You offend me. Not because of your weird-ass views, but that you would attack someone and accuse them of being a bad moderator so flippantly. It's just not cool.
Quote from: Squinky on Thu 09/02/2006 22:37:43
You offend me. Not because of your weird-ass views, but that you would attack someone and accuse them of being a bad moderator so flippantly. It's just not cool.
Attack them? I'd hardly say I attacked them! In fact I asked them to explain themselves, and even asked if I'm misinterpreting something.
So I apologise, and now you say I have "weird-ass views"?
Bad day to you sir!
I would like to say as a christian, i am not racist, we are ALL human, and I beleve That Jesus was who he said he was, either that or a lunitic, i say there is no other choice.I don't beleve in bible thumping or christ on swordpoint. that is not real belief. As a christian i belive that if we die some of us our going to hell.WHATEVER that is.As philosifer, I wonder WHY God would make a hell. Now as a christian, i cansee why christians would want others to know god as they do, if the believe that when we die we go one way or other. Now if you saw, or thought you saw people marching into an ambush, would you just try to save your self? On that note I agree the Church has done a lot of harm. The crusades, The inquisition, witch hunts, anti semitism, the oppresion of homosexuality, forced conversion, and i am sure much more. i am sure this paul harvey guy is a nut case.We the Church, (I say that as the members of my religion as a whole) should kneel before the people of the world and ask for forgivness. We should get off our high horse and continue the good things we do, helping the poor, taking care of those no one will help, reaching out to those in need.A lot of single moms have been turned a by there churches in shame, NO MORE!If the church is to be a good thing in this world, we will stop acting as if we should only help those in our "club" but EVERYONE! yes we will continue to try to presuade those to our way of thinking, but that is because it is our belief that it is that or well... die. Freedom of religion and speech alow us to continue even if we are wrong and just deluding ourselves. even so, we should contine t oreach out and help others, thank you and have a LOVELY day!
I don't know, it seems to me that saying "br**n girl" rather than "brown girl" or even "black girl" is more racist than anything in that banana thread. Why? Because it makes it seem like there something wrong with having brown skin. I'm sorry to tell you, ManicMatt, but black men have brown skin everywhere, even on their genitals! It's not racist, it's reality. It's like saying a caucasian person has a peachy skintone. Racist would be someone thinking less of a black man because he has a brown penis. Do you see the difference?
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.
it's nice that we have our very own champions of political correctness, to whom how you say things is more important than what you say.
A g*** day to you, s**!
So anyway, there was this bloke who's skin absorbed the majority of the visible wavelength of light
Helm: Oh dear, my head hurts.
AGS General: The only forum on the internet that can go from a retarded religious debate to a retarded racism debate all in one thread!
The ONLY forum, DG? My god, you don't get around much ^_^
For the record, I -love- the song, "Brown girl in the rain, tra-la-la-la-LA!". It's on my Black Lace Agadoo album!
Oh... um, sorry. I mean, B***k Lace *^^*
As it turns out, rharpe is right... immorality leads to nasty diseases!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4696974.stm
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Fri 10/02/2006 01:00:53
Helm: Oh dear, my head hurts.
That's a good position on most matters.
I don't know who locked this but it is now unlocked. I think if a mod is going to lock something a reason should be given unless it's pretty obvious why it was locked. This, not so much...
So anyway
Bet it was MrColossal last night in a bit, say, vulnerable state ;)
Jesus came to him in a dream and ordered him to unlock it.
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 10/02/2006 20:11:39
I don't know who locked this but it is now unlocked. I think if a mod is going to lock something a reason should be given unless it's pretty obvious why it was locked. This, not so much...
So anyway
Not to point the finger, but I'm pretty sure it was Andail, and I think it was probably because the thread is a bit spent, and went off-topic a zillion years ago.
It was me. I came to the conclusion that the only reason I've associated "brown" skin as a racist thing to say is because before this forum, every time I heard that kind of description, it was used in a racist sentence. Why? Dunno.
So I sneaked into Andail's office (oh it's very plush! you should see it!) and locked this thread.
MEMO TO ALL AGSERS
FROM: Chris Jones
RE: New Politically Correct terms
From now on, we cannot refer to certain types of skin as "brown" due to the possible offence the term might cause some people.
From now on we must use the phrase "Burnt Umber Skin".
Thank you.
Have I mentioned I hate black people?
I hope you mean that you hate burnt umber skin people, Helm...
I just mean them niggers.
Lenny Bruce is rolling in his grave!
Bt
This thread got suddenly quiet.....
we're all over in the cartoon thread instead, Squinky. It's where the cool people go to be bigoted.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 11/02/2006 16:33:50
Have I mentioned I hate black people?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/SANTAELBURRITO/Helm.jpg)
I loved that video. You could tell Mike wanted to vomit blood all over the place.
What video? Link!
EDIT: Never mind, I found it. My god ^_^
I locked it because it has become a trashcan thread full of nonsensical one-line replies to a long since forgotten topic.
I didn't give a reason because it should be pretty obvious why this is a pointless waste of forum space.
That's pretty much why.
I don't know if there's any life left in this thread, especially for people who do not share my opinion that black people should all die in horrible agony, but even if it has run it's course, in can die like any other thread, falling off the first page of the forum, Andail. No need to lock, I think.
Quote from: Andail on Sun 12/02/2006 13:53:23
I locked it because it has become a trashcan thread full of nonsensical one-line replies to a long since forgotten topic.
shut up farggr0t!!1
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 11/02/2006 14:31:29
MEMO TO ALL AGSERS
FROM: Chris Jones
RE: New Politically Correct terms
Indeed, I will update the swear word filter to automatically replace "black" and "brown" with "differently coloured", "nigger" with "chap", and "white" with "of pale complexion".
In the meantime, I want everyone to learn a thing or two from these guys:
(http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/images/scrubs.jpg)
Rainbows are so gay.
I think in the light of this new evidence I have no choice but to force you ALL to watch this educational flash about racial differences.
http://stuff.ubersite.com/112560949433320805/1/whiteblack.swf
(I must warn those with epilepsy though, that the text is partially livened up by flashes.)
Wellness Diversity Through?
I already know how to jumble words up.
Quote from: Haddas on Sun 12/02/2006 19:11:56
I think in the light of this new evidence I have no choice but to force you ALL to watch this educational flash about racial differences.
http://stuff.ubersite.com/112560949433320805/1/whiteblack.swf
(I must warn those with epilepsy though, that the text is partially livened up by flashes.)
I am
Forbidden to watch that movie Haddas....
Since SSH brings it up ...
Quote from: Helm
I don't know if there's any life left in this thread, especially for people who do not share my opinion that black people should all die in horrible agony ...
I think Helm is following the fine moral example of the muslim masses but has been misunderstood. He must have meant to say that:
I don't know if there's any life left in this thread, especially for people who do not share my opinion that black people should all die in horrible agony unless they convert to being devout white people".
:-\
I sense my racism is not taken seriously enough.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/heart.jpg)
Here's a black man's heart. Arrived through mailorder earlier today.
Wow! Is someone going to get a real heart for valentines day? From none other than Helm, voted as sexiest AGSer by at least one person? ;D
I'm willing to bet that one Agser was Harvey, the Goat man....
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 12/02/2006 21:10:48
black people should all die in horrible agony unless they convert to being devout white people".
Hows that work?
Michael Jackson.
Quote from: taffytom on Tue 14/02/2006 01:31:04
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 12/02/2006 21:10:48
black people should all die in horrible agony unless they convert to being devout white people".
Hows that work?
Remember when superman gave up his powers to be with Lois Lane? Pretty similair....
As a woman, I agree with these sentiments.Ã, Women who pose for magazines, choose to be in Porn flicks, so on, did so knowing they would be drooled on by men, well and sometimes other women.Ã, They DID bring objectification upon themselves.
P.S.Ã, Finding this thread is like finding "good eats" on a tennessee highway.Ã, No matter how you cook the meat, it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Interesting to say the least.
Quote from: Glacies Akumayo on Wed 08/02/2006 00:59:12
Though I see your point here Stranger, I'm gonna have to agree with voh...Ã, they brought it on themselves, they can't feel bad for it.Ã, As for the person doing the... "acts" and objectifying, are they really objectifying if the photo/picture is MEANT as an object?Ã, This is a difficult subject... so many angles to glance at the topic...
::kicks self squarely in nuts, then stops momentarily to allow everyone time to visualize this::
That's what you get for going back into the meat of this thread!
Well some people in the porn industry obviously are there because they enjoy whatever the process makes them feel, call it objectification or whatever else. Honestly this isn't about porn people only anyway, I've never been with a woman that wanted to be treated like 'a person of equal rights, a liberated woman and a human! in bed anyway. Some form of objectification is in effect...
Anyway others get there to pay the rent and stay there because they also come to enjoy it. Others stay because they like the money and can't scale back into something less. God, this is so oversimplifying I feel like punching myself. I can't say what percentage of women (I'm not even going to discuss men) loathe being in the porn industry, but such a percentage must exist. It gets scary when you move away from american high-profile, clean (to the degree where cocaine for breakfast is clean, at least) porn industry and go to other places of the world where both recruitment and practices are a lot less savioury. Should I go 'that serves you right! you LOVE being objectified, huh?!' to a czech girl that was pushed on the streets as a prostitute from 15, and then recruited into the 'industry' at 18? Does she know any better? Where's the distinction, the willpower behind the 'choice' for which she should now reap the benefits?
First the joke:
Quote from: Helm on Tue 14/02/2006 14:42:27
I've never been with a woman...
HAW HAW
Now the real post:
Quote from: Helm on Tue 14/02/2006 14:42:27
I've never been with a woman that wanted to be treated like 'a person of equal rights, a liberated woman and a human! in bed anyway. Some form of objectification is in effect...
Which raises a question that I've had, all these new age hipsters (I'm not having sex I'm making love to my partner's aura!) and people like them, or who share certain thoughts with them... I wonder if they ever just want to
Spoiler
fuck.
Screw the auras and tantric meditation, screw the staring longingly into each other's eyes as you feel the spirit of Gaia well up inside you and two become one part ... Just throw your partner on the bed and viciously penis for a half hour and then eat some left over chinese food.
Maybe the new age stuff (which I won't dismiss outright) are after-the-fact rationalizations for people without strong libido, who never actually reach the mindset of "ME WANT WOMAN FLESH". Generally a lot of 'pleasant ideas' and nice words that people say about sexual practices or how they should be, like open relationships, multiple partners, no belonging etc break down in practice exactly because sex is about primordial drives, it's about ownership, about domination, about jealously, control, cruelty even. Lust hasn't changed a lot, the basic instincts of people haven't changed a lot, and by talking a lot about 'how things should be between men and women' I don't see much change occuring. I just see people struggling with different sets of identities.
It's actually pretty schizoid that we (well, I for example, but a lot are like that) feel compelled to treat women with respect and all that I've been socially programmed in social situations, and then I find myself reverting to pretty straightforward animalism in other situations. It's fun, but it's also masking reality in a very big way.
But you revert to animalism in many other aspects of life, not just GIMME SEX, I wouldn't say you're masking reality when you repress the urge to shit in public... But you're probably not talking about that. However, if shitting in public is your sexual release... Well...
I think the biggest change between men and women to happen is they learned then women like orgasms too. But I'm still not convinced of this!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29215
The masking reality part is in that nobody's trying to dress up pooping in so many words that people are trying to dress up sexual urges, and the handling of them.
Interesting...
I know that a lot of women don't give a rat's ass about objectification or being treated like a human being or whatever. Often, I read women's magazines and am mystified at the fact that they (very generally speaking) tend to advertise that beauty and sexiness are the highest ideals one should want to reach. Not that I'm saying that magazines are brainwashing people or anything; on the contrary, they reflect a sentiment that's already out there, and has been during much of history. Women want to be sexy... don't they?
I'm personally not a very feminine person. I'm a geek, after all. I'd rather read books than shop for clothes, and I'd rather tinker with my computer than experiment with makeup. I've been in relationships before, but I've always valued the mental connection I had with said people than the pure animal lust of it all. The sex instinct has always been there, but I find that it's not very important, and not a very overpowering force in my life like it seems to be for a lot of people.
I admit, when I encounter women who "bring objectification upon themselves", I don't understand them. My first instinct is to think they're stupid, or that they've been unconsciously influenced by our male-dominated society. Still, I can't read people's minds, and have no right to make such judgements. But that doesn't stop me from not understanding.
I also admit that I make it sound as if there's some sort of beauty-intelligence dichotomy. I don't really mean it that way. I'm sure that there are smart women out there who like to be sexy. Still, intelligence is a multi-faceted description that applies to many different things; even IQ tests are controversial in their limitation. What I really mean when I say "intelligence" is geekiness. When most people think of geeks, they think of guys, and they think of physical unattractiveness. For a girl to be a geek is the kiss of death because (again, speaking very generally) there is more pressure for girls to be attractive than guys. After all, ugly men can be quite popular among women, as long as they're rich. But when a man encounters a woman who makes more money than he does, he often feels intimidated, and his manhood seems to be undermined. (I'm not a man, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.)
So, the question (amidst all the generalizations) is... where exactly do I fit in?
This isn't about sexiness, really. Although yes, most women feel pressured (or want to, or a combination, I'm not going to try to understand) to appear pretty and available and whatnot. Men are available by default, it seems to be the instinctual status of things. We were discussing how women and men can talk all this shit about sexuality in theory, and in the end the sexual aspect of a relationship usually strongly depends on 'bad' traits like domination, objectification, control, pure animal lust etc. Of course there's existential loneliness, where, compassion, understanding, a vivid mental connection with the other person are much more important, but we were discussing the sexual aspect of things. Which doesn't mean they're not interconnected in rediculously difficult to understand ways...
As to femininity, geekiness, I can only speak for myself, but it's not clothing or make up that makes the difference, it's how a person carries herself, little pre-lingual things they do that I won't try to explain that ignite desire. I find it kind of sad that much of this modern disease that is projecting availability through clothing, make up, mannerism and whatnot simply fails on me because I seem to be looking for other things that are automatically there. The way a person looks at you does a million more things than their chosen outfit for the day. I say, don't sweat the 'sexiness' aspect of it, at all. You'll be sexy to some people anyway, and from that section, some you'll find attractive as well. You can't really do much more than that. Even if you try to project an artificial image, when you get in a relationship after a week or so you simply forget what you were trying to project and you're back to same-old you, so if someone's going to stick around, it's going to be for you, so why mislead him anyway?
Maybe you'll understand women that desire a degree of objectification more when you'll find this to work for you as well. Might not ever, but I doubt it. I put it up to your past record of relationships (not that I know much about it, but guessing) than there actually being something significantly amiss with you. Passion and desire and all that cannot be quantified, but lack of such can be quantified to fuck and it can paint a pretty unpleasant picture. Don't sweat it.
About guys and their money... I have to say that's a pretty base way to look at it. Attractive men are about being exceptional in many ways, about rising above of the pack. That Simpsons episode comes to mind (Bart:"what is it about the good-looking rebel that plays by his own rules?" Every female in proximity lets a lustful sigh ) Money's a way, but it's not only that. I've never felt threatened by the presence of a wealthy man in my life, nor will I ever. I've felt threatened by awesome artists, people who are more knowledgable than me, very handsome men, better guitarists, even people with longer hair than mine (not that I ever meet that last type any more) but more money? No.
Where do you fit in? Where everybody else does. You'll fit in just fine. There's compatible people to you, you're compatible to other people etc etc You're experiencing down-time, don't overintellectualize it.
"a brave new world, and all the people in it."
... (ithink thats how it goes)
Anywho, what I find interesting is the tippy balance society has, in that one) men have a lot of business power, (glass ceilings and all that) however in the sexual world Woman have lot of power, BEACAUSE of all the sexuality around, men want sex, thats the primel drive in the back of our heads. while woman nw a days both flaunt there appeal, yet are protected by laws and feminest mores.basicly it feels to me lke living in one big tease. Society if you ask me is changing faster than it can handle. I mean, flight to moon landing to pc in 100 years is RAPID change. how will society cope? Someday, sooner or later, society is going to collapse. Face it, it always happens. It happened to the romens the greeks the egyption, the maya, the inca, EVEREYBODY. MAybe not in our day maybe not in our grandchildrens day, but it WILL happen. How will we be remebered? As a magic age when man went to the moon, there were cures for most sickness, and people could FLY?! or as an age of were trhere were magic kings who fed off the work of children, who ravaged the land? who knows? If we have society collapse like the romens, english could become the new latin. who knows how we shall be remebered. it doesn't matter really. but it was a thought that rambled round my head and I thought I would share it.
Go away.
The only reason I dont shit in public is the fact that people would think im weird and it would make the street even dirtier than it already is.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 14/02/2006 20:03:44
...however in theÃ, sexual world Woman have lot of power, BEACAUSE of all the sexuality around, men want sex, thats the primel drive in the back of our heads. while woman nw a days both flaunt there appeal, yet are protected by laws and feminest mores.basicly it feels to me lke living in one big tease.
What if I don't want power? What if I don't flaunt my appeal? If men find me attractive, then it's their fault. I'm honestly not even trying.
Quote from: Helm on Tue 14/02/2006 18:25:51
About guys and their money... I have to say that's a pretty base way to look at it. Attractive men are about being exceptional in many ways, about rising above of the pack. That Simpsons episode comes to mind (Bart:"what is it about the good-looking rebel that plays by his own rules?" Every female in proximity lets a lustful sigh ) Money's a way, but it's not only that. I've never felt threatened by the presence of a wealthy man in my life, nor will I ever. I've felt threatened by awesome artists, people who are more knowledgable than me, very handsome men, better guitarists, even people with longer hair than mine (not that I ever meet that last type any more) but more money? No.
Okay, then if it were a woman who, say, was a better artist, or more intelligent, or whatever threatens you, would their attractiveness, to you, be hindered?
As for the rest of the stuff you said, I'm definitely all about being myself. I don't see how I could possibly be anyone else. I guess it means I'm doing the right thing, and I should just hang in there. What a comforting notion indeed.
As for being yourself, maybe you can compare notes with Squinky?
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Tue 14/02/2006 20:18:36
What if I don't want power? What if I don't flaunt my appeal? If men find me attractive, then it's their fault. I'm honestly not even trying.
Quote
Alas your right it is our fault, half the time we men think with our erm...smaller head. Like have you ever noticed a drwing a MAN drew of a naked (or semi naked) woman? It often feels just, provocitive. however a woman can draw the female form, (and what a lovely form it is) and it has no hint of sujestivness it can feel beutiful, powerful and free, but it doesn't HAVE to feel so blatently sexual as when a man draws. of course i am sure (theoreticly) a man can draw a woman and it not feel sexual, but so far, all the images (on sites like elfwood.) DO.
Maybe your not trying to be provoctitve, but we guys we are very visual, our eyes seem to be the biggest part of our brain. of COURSE you should be an individual, its not your fault the guys our drooling, its ours.
(in a si-fi book by Orsen Scott Card, One Alien says to another,"Humans are so weird, they are two comleatly differant spieces, driven together only by the need to reproduce", well Viva la diffrance!)
Lo_res, those are some pretty tired stereotypes and generalizations....People aren't that way, there are plenty of male artists that can draw a female without hinting at sexaulity....
I personally always preffered artsy, intellectual type gals over the normal "Pretty" Girl. Maybe it's because I watched to many 80's movies where the nerdy chick lets her hair down and looks all super-hot, I don't know....
QuoteOkay, then if it were a woman who, say, was a better artist, or more intelligent, or whatever threatens you, would their attractiveness, to you, be hindered?
I'd say that's turn me on even more. I'd get to properly punish her in bed for being better than me in these respects. I meet a lot of women who are much better read than me, but very rarely those who have lots of things to say that I find 'new' and whose personality I find very charismatic. If that makes any sense. I'm hesitant to say 'smarter than me' because intelligence is so damn complicated...
I've been thinking about this lately, and it's dawning on me that maybe it's not very healthy, mentally, to let the norms dictate our behaviour. Of course there's a limit to how far we can go, but where is it drawn? Society today accepts certain things while deeming others as insane, completely unacceptable. Sure, we can't do whatever we want, but so many people seem to live a life they aren't happy with just because they limit themselves. Maybe it's the people's fault, really. I'm still thinking about it :P.
i didn't day it was impossible i just said it is very difficult . call it a generization, call it human nature, from they way I have seen us guys work, its that deep down in us guys there is a horney little b*st*rd, clawing to get out Now the good news is most of us are able to repress that sucker and keep him under wraps. SExuality is one of the most powerfull forces in the facet of humen interaction, and the fact that we guys don't drop trow and howl at the moon is a good sign. I was describing the base side of man (not mankind) call it the id, call it the dark side. its the flip side of the human animal, it allows us to reproduce, to propetuate the species, but its a darn nucense the rest of the time. maybe i should review my views, in fact i will, thank you for bringing this to my attention, but I wasn't describing the whole of our being, just one part, I am sorry if I offened in anyway, anybody.
you offended the spelling police most of all. They're not the forgiving kind.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 14/02/2006 21:58:35
Now the good news is most of us are able to repress that sucker and keep him under wraps.
Not indefinately though. Just like a vacuum cleaner when it gets full, you're forced to empty the contents eventually, or it'll just 'burst' open when you least expect it.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 14/02/2006 22:45:45
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 14/02/2006 21:58:35
Now the good news is most of us are able to repress that sucker and keep him under wraps.
Not indefinately though. Just like a vacuum cleaner when it gets full, you're forced to empty the contents eventually, or it'll just 'burst' open when you least expect it.
Yuck. Seriously....
Edit---
I think you might want to go here, Matt:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=24617.20
Just in response to something TIS said back there (Sorry, I'm too lazy to type your whole name out ^_^ and yet not so lazy to give a disclaimer about it!), I'm a smart, intelligent geek with so much personality it HURTS. But I love being sexy, I love being objectified sometimes, and I like objectifying others sometimes. I'm not a bimbo who only does things like shop for shoes and put on make-up (though I do both those things sometimes).
I wish I could objectify someone's brains out right now :/
EDIT: HA! What an appropriate turn of phrase.
Kinoko aren't you engaged or something? What is your man doing?
And also, lots of personality can get pretty overbearing. Opinions can get pretty overbearing. Disrespecting the vital space you've set out with the other person by being overbearing can get pretty overbearing. Sometimes silence is sexy.
Yeah, well I didn't say I didn't want to be objectifying him, did I? ^_-
Well, great, now I feel even more abnormal.
I just hate how there's so much pressure on women to be sexy, but not so much for men. It's not fair.
I'm pretty sure my wife has lost interest in me physically as I have fattened with marriage. In fact, she's told me. So, I really think it does apply to both sexes in different fashions....
Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 15/02/2006 03:35:48I just hate how there's so much pressure on women to be sexy, but not so much for men. It's not fair.
On this point, we're in full agreement. But I guess I just don't think that will change any time soon. It's to do with the fundamental differences in the sexes. Men ARE typically more visually-stimulated than women.
I guess, I like people who are comfortable enough with themselves and intelligent enough to know while it's fine to be sexy and whatnot in some situations, I don't want that kind of pressure when I'm hungover and eating old pizza the next morning in my old pyjamas, trying to clean the house so I can sit down and do my assignment for uni.
Or, say, if I were giving an exceptionally intelligent debate at a book club. I don't want any wolf whistles or "turn that page, baby!"s thrown my way. Still that... that would never happen for many reasons @_@
There's a time and place for sexiness, there's a time and place for "christ, go get a cold shower, I have stuff to do".
I don't know what all you are complaining about. Guys can be VERY sexy to girls thanks to nature's secret weapon.... PHEROMONES
Invisible, odorless, and undetectable, when unknowingly inhaled
by any adult woman, Androstenone Pheromone Concentrate unblocks
all restraints and releases her raw animal sex drive! Scientists have
isolated the natural Human male Pheromone attractants and they
are NOW available legally to YOU!
email me to find out more
A scent that makes women sexual beasts? That's nuts!
Ring tones on the other hand (or Pherotones (http://www.pherotones.com/) as they're more commonly known)... now those are real turn ons.
Ummm....
"As seen on WEB?" What the hell does that mean? I'm seeing it on the web right now!
That's like saying "Eat ESPER flakes! Brand new cereal you've ONLY JUST NOW HEARD ABOUT!!!!"
If you look at the example video, esper, you might get it
The italics part means you'll have sex, esper.
Just by reading that web page? HOT DOG!
This thread is going pretty well too.
When DG says "have sex" it's a metaphor for "understand the irony"... becuase Americans are bad at both! ;D
Every stupid person loves irony.
Hey, it's not my fault everyone in the world is stupid. I expected the idea of pheremonal ringtones to actually be something some moron had really come up with. I looked at the site for less than 20 seconds before the prospect of such supreme ignorance began to make my eyes melt out of my head.
Quote from: Squinky on Tue 14/02/2006 22:47:43
Quote from: ManicMatt on Tue 14/02/2006 22:45:45
Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 14/02/2006 21:58:35
Now the good news is most of us are able to repress that sucker and keep him under wraps.
Not indefinately though. Just like a vacuum cleaner when it gets full, you're forced to empty the contents eventually, or it'll just 'burst' open when you least expect it.
Yuck. Seriously....
Edit---
I think you might want to go here, Matt:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=24617.20
Okay... *Reads and skip-reads the page*
Erm... why did you want me to go there for? Because people "release" something?
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 15/02/2006 00:21:53
Just in response to something TIS said back there (Sorry, I'm too lazy to type your whole name out ^_^ and yet not so lazy to give a disclaimer about it!), I'm a smart, intelligent geek with so much personality it HURTS. But I love being sexy, I love being objectified sometimes, and I like objectifying others sometimes. I'm not a bimbo who only does things like shop for shoes and put on make-up (though I do both those things sometimes).
I wish I could objectify someone's brains out right now :/
EDIT: HA! What an appropriate turn of phrase.
I'm sure a whole platoon of geeks objectified you after Cirque de Zale!
Bt
*shudder*
I'm a male!
But wanted to agree that most men think with their pennis!
(http://www.nikolasideris.homecall.co.uk/goto.jpg)
This how ugly and clumsy and stupid men can be!
Semen blocks drains?? o_O
I've been seeking sexuality alternatively intellectuality differently in different periods. I've never been able to work out a rule or a system, but when I find someone I'm genuinely interested in, I suddenly realise that her strengths are not easily categorised, and that I can't really pin-point why she is perfect.
The girl I'm seing presently is beautiful beyond compare, but for some reason this only fully occured to me while I was looking through some pictures some days after we met. She is not very "learned", she doesn't read books, not the typical intellectual, but still she's smart, funny and sharp.
Quote from: Blackthorne on Thu 16/02/2006 00:46:00
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 15/02/2006 00:21:53
Just in response to something TIS said back there (Sorry, I'm too lazy to type your whole name out ^_^ and yet not so lazy to give a disclaimer about it!), I'm a smart, intelligent geek with so much personality it HURTS. But I love being sexy, I love being objectified sometimes, and I like objectifying others sometimes. I'm not a bimbo who only does things like shop for shoes and put on make-up (though I do both those things sometimes).
I wish I could objectify someone's brains out right now :/
EDIT: HA! What an appropriate turn of phrase.
I'm sure a whole platoon of geeks objectified you after Cirque de Zale!
Bt
WHy do you think that CJ added object(ify)-oriententation to AGS? ;)
Yeah Andail, all that stupid 'I like women who have such and such qualities' discussions that people constantly have just usually go down the drain when you meet someone you're inexplicably attracted to. Goes to show that these things are pre-verbal and that the qualities are much more mystifying and complex and should not idly be tackled via objectiying exposition of the 'I like redheads' type.
However, readheads freak me out and I've never met one that I didn't instinctively desire to kill.
Quote from: Helm on Thu 16/02/2006 16:19:05
However, readheads freak me out and I've never met one that I didn't instinctively desire to kill.
If by kill, you mean "mate with like a rhinocerus" Then I whole heartedly agree with you.
Redheads have some sort of weird ability to be sexually appealing even when they're not attractive (even though, of course, they can be attractive like any other kind). It's pure chemistry, I believe.
Maybe it's the fact that they're more vulnerable to diseases, more sensitive to the sun and more prone to bleed (midwives always order extra bags of blood when redheads are to give birth) that have given them supernatural powers.
In this sense, I agree with both Squinky and Helm.
Quote from: Squinky on Thu 16/02/2006 16:45:21
If by kill, you mean "mate with like a rhinocerus" Then I whole heartedly agree with you.
I concur..
I like women who have vaginas.
What are you, gay?
Hey man, get with the times, Vagina's are all the rage.
Oh BOB, wher is this thread GOING?! insanity on a public level! And if it wasn't weird enough it always gets nmore so, THE DEMON THREAD! Run for your lives!Do NOT post, you will only make it.. GNNNFF!!(lol)
Back on to the topic of "discussion"
I would want 'im if I could get 'im, but no woman will even look at me, so I can't get 'im. :-[
Perhaps speaking (and typing) coherently would help?
I was only been silly, it was ment as a joke. BTW I know my spelling isn't so good, I type as well as I know how. I am sorry if I have confused anybody, but that last post was ment as a joke and a comment on how big this thread this thread has gotten, and how it has shifted around in so many crazy ways. again sorry :'(
Learn to type/spell. If that's too much of an insurmountable effort for you to make, use a spell-checker. I think learning how to spell is going to be beneficial for you in many ways, regardless of this forum. Your jokes are bad, but you're neither the first nor the last in that respect. If you have opinions though, and would like other people to consider them, presenting them coherently is a good idea.
Believe me I try, I often keep Microsoft Word open so I can cut-and-paste words I KNOW I will spell wrong. The sad part is, I spell so bad I don't always know when I am spellling something wrong. Do you think I like this, having my ideas tossed over, simply since my spelling is so terrible?
(puts head in hand and cries)
Heh, I joke! But most jokes contain simple truths, most people will just pass over your text and mark you up as another mindless internet user. I used to being even worse than I am now when I first started up using AGS, but having to go through all the messages in your game and fix them can make a guy decide to tidy up his writing a bit.
Well, ok. ('sniff) will try to be more clear in the future.
(Note to self: LEARN TO F***ING SPELL)
Thanks for the constructive criticism, now I know what to do in my next posts. hope to be more clear from now on. :)
Your last few posts have been clean enough.
I know, I copied them into Word, made spell checks and pasted them in the post. I am being VERY careful.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Fri 17/02/2006 17:53:02
(Note to self: LEARN TO F***ING SPELL)
That's not very clean! :(
It's like the raping of my inner child.
Bad jokes you say?
Does anyone know why six was afraid of seven?
Spoiler
BECAUSE SEVEN EIGHT NINE!!!!
...Ohhhh. I just lost all my friends :'(
Quote from: esper on Sat 18/02/2006 07:27:32
Bad jokes you say?
Does anyone know why six was afraid of seven?
Spoiler
BECAUSE SEVEN EIGHT NINE!!!!
...Ohhhh. I just lost all my friendsÃ, :'(
Don't worry, you didn't have any in the first place.
OH SNAP.
I think your momma would disagree....
Oh, it's on now, sucka.
My momma wouldn't disagree because I don't believe you've met her. She's a lovely lady, though, I think you'd like her.
Also, you're a fat and smelly nerd.
:o
Okay, I'll let you have that one.
Quote from: Pesty on Sat 18/02/2006 08:21:51
Also, you're a fat and smelly nerd.
I second that! ;D
I think I could win every single internet argument ever with that one line. Which I think makes me all powerful.
And also the devil?
It's possible.
Oh, and Nik... You can come over and pick up the t-shirt and nintendo game you left at my house, cuz we're through! (this is of course a joke, but I felt it necessary to mention that here...)
Come on, you've got to admit... 7 8 9? 7 ATE 9? It's funny as hell...
Don't make me break out my pirate joke.
Quote from: Pesty on Sat 18/02/2006 08:32:47
I think I could win every single internet argument ever with that one line.
Alas no, for I say to you, GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAooohhhhhh wait.....
You didn't actually WIN the argument you used that in...
It's still classic.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 08:35:38
Quote from: Pesty on Sat 18/02/2006 08:32:47
I think I could win every single internet argument ever with that one line.
Alas no, for I say to you, GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!
Don't milk it, geek.
Oh, sorry, I mean g**k.
Suck my cock, bitch!
:o
Holy shit!
Bad day to him, I guess...
I HAVE INVOKED THE WRATH OF MANICMATT. OH NO WHAT WILL I DO NOW. HIS NERDY ANGER SEETHES THROUGH THE INTERWEB AT ME.
Reference to a comic Ashen linked to on another thread:
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20050320.html
Am I supposed to be insulted by being called a geek and a nerd? According to some people on the net who have never met me then, I am a gay, fat, star wars-porn loving nerd.
Does anybody remember what the thread was really about?
Have half of you even read the first post?
Quote from: esper on Sat 18/02/2006 08:34:43
Don't make me break out my pirate joke.
This one?
(http://www.thexiis.com/media/piratecomic.jpg)
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Sat 18/02/2006 11:59:15
Rokusabaru's efforts really fell away after 1997 when his wife divorsed him. Before that time his food was fantastic, but I remember going there around 1999 and the chips were soggy, and my sausages were burnt. I mean, fair enough he had emotional stress, but this is absurd.
I think you're being a touch harse on the sausages, after all, Russia's defaulting on it's debt interrupted the whole supply chain through the Thurigian factories, so all he would have had after that were the inferior Paraguayan sausages, and Vasunichelli himself couldn't make them taste good.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sat 18/02/2006 12:30:57
Wait, that's not how the joke goes. I thought it was "Yar, it's driving me nuts."
No, that's not how I heard it.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 08:56:44
Suck my cock, bitch!
Just imagine me drinking a cup of bl**k coffee, and then spitting it all over my monitor. Because thats nearly what happened.
And notice that this thread is now in the top ten threads by replies, see what you evil people have done.
I've made history hooray!
You really shouldn't drink bleak coffee, go get yourself some decent stuff!
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 08:56:44
Suck my cock, bitch!
Once more I feel the need to thank rharpe for this beautifull thread.
What would AGS forums be without him, I wonder?
a festering pool of immoral slime and scum, maybe?
Everytime I leave the house and have the urge to rape someone just because I feel like it and have no morals and I'm only out for myself, I think.... What would Rharpe do?
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 18/02/2006 15:57:00
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 08:56:44
Suck my cock, bitch!
Once more I feel the need to thank rharpe for this beautifull thread.
Well, as Matt already said, I guess I have to take the blame for that one (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=24791.msg314027#msg314027). Sorry about that.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 10:33:53
Reference to a comic Ashen linked to on another thread:
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20050320.html
Am I supposed to be insulted by being called a geek and a nerd? According to some people on the net who have never met me then, I am a gay, fat, star wars-porn loving nerd.
No, of course you're not supposed to be insulted. Me stating that you're a geek is no more insulting than you calling me a woman. IT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT. Also, I put asterisks in geek! That makes it all better, right?!
I'm sorry, I will never drop that joke, nor will I ever let you live it down.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 10:33:53
Reference to a comic Ashen linked to on another thread:
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20050320.html
Am I supposed to be insulted by being called a geek and a nerd? According to some people on the net who have never met me then, I am a gay, fat, star wars-porn loving nerd.
Where do you even find fat g*y star wars porn?
Quote from: Squinky on Sun 19/02/2006 03:02:03
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 18/02/2006 10:33:53
Reference to a comic Ashen linked to on another thread:
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20050320.html
Am I supposed to be insulted by being called a geek and a nerd? According to some people on the net who have never met me then, I am a gay, fat, star wars-porn loving nerd.
Where do you even find fat g*y star wars porn?
Do a search for 'gay jabba the hutt pictures' and I bet you could find something. The internet has everything!
Nah some folks were calling me fat. I'm no more fat than I'm a nerd.
But please Pesty, humour me, what makes you think I'm a nerd?
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 19/02/2006 10:04:34
Nah some folks were calling me fat. I'm no more fat than I'm a nerd.
But please Pesty, humour me, what makes you think I'm a nerd?
No, ManicMatt, I refuse to humor you.
Good day to you sir.
Quote from: Pesty on Sun 19/02/2006 10:39:14
No, ManicMatt, I refuse to humor you.
Good day to you sir.
TRANSLATION:
No, ManicMatt, I have no idea why I think you're a nerd.
Good day to you sir.
TRANSLATION:
I am so obsessed with what everyone thinks of me that I'll go to any lengths to prove I'm not a nerd.
:P
Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 19/02/2006 11:46:11
Quote from: Pesty on Sun 19/02/2006 10:39:14
No, ManicMatt, I refuse to humor you.
Good day to you sir.
TRANSLATION:
No, ManicMatt, I have no idea why I think you're a nerd.
Good day to you sir.
Okay, fine, you're not a nerd. Shut up now.
Nerd.
POST 400, YEAH!!
WOOOOO!!!!
I ROCK!!!
At least there was some meaning in this pointless bickering, as Kinoko got the 400th post!
I think it's high time we lay this thread to rest.