Off Topic Messages

Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:02 am

First of all, I've had several years of religous studies, so I know a bit about where you're coming from. But, what the hell is a "radical believer"? Is believing that radical? Not in America, it's not.

Is it radical to have faith in something...a higher power...something outside of yourself? It's arrogant to think we've got it all figured out. I think it's pretty radical to consider that your existence is a fluke, an accident, and that there's no rhyme nor reason to anything on Earth.

I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or not. You claim to be enlightened because you don't believe in God, dragons, dwarves...lol. I would never presume to tell you I'm right and you're wrong because what I believe is based on faith. But, what makes you so damn positive that you're right and I'm wrong?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:17 am

It is just as arrogant to deny God's existence as it is to belittle those who choose not to believe in God or Gods.

For me personally, it's a real dilemma. To think that the universe is just a series of random pings is a very disquieting thought. And the idea that there is some sort of redemption at the end is extremely comforting. Yet I don't know how to make sense of things like Katrina or things like NAMBLa. EagleUSA wrote earlier about how NAMBLA members are monsters. He's right. But they were not born that way. People talk about choice, but why would a just God let these people go through a series of events that destroys their humanity and ultimately pushes them to indifferently destroy the humanity of others? I can't answer questions like these.

Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:27 am

LTB -

You wrote:
People talk about choice, but why would a just God let these people go through a series of events that destroys their humanity and ultimately pushes them to indifferently destroy the humanity of others? I can't answer questions like these.


I know I'm the last person to take religious advice from, but here goes:

According to The Jehova Witnesses, God has given up on us [for the moment].

The world is in the hands of Satan.

This explains all the awful things going on which, in normal times, God wouldn't tolerate or allow.

All this is by way of a test.

Those who remain true believers will be selected on judgement day to join with Him in life everlasting.

Nice, cosy explanation of it all, eh ?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:36 am

figures

Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:44 am

likethebike wrote:They have a right to think what they think no matter how vile it may be. However, they don't have a righ to act on those thoughts and acting on those thoughts includes the ownership of child pornography because its existence implies the coercion of a child. Lots of people have vile thoughts but don't act on them. Lou Reed said "Between thought and expression lies a lifetime" and I agree.

To say they have right to exist doesn't give them any legitimacy at the table. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party have an absolute right to exist and they endorse an absolutely vile agenda. However, just because they have the right to speak doesn't mean we have to listen to them or grant them any cultural legitimacy. When they speak, we either ignore it or ridicule it and dismiss it. Once they speak, should we keep an eye on these people? Certainly. But you should have the right to control your own thoughts.


It's the "keeping the eye" on child molestors that we really do a bad job on. In fact, it's well nigh impossible.

I'm familar with this civil libertarian line of thinking and even the notion that the U.S.
actually propers by letting hate groups still have the right to assemble as opposed to places like Germany which ban often ban them outright -
for obvious reasons. We like to think that "letting it out in the air" actually
diffuses the fanaticism, while driving it underground makes it fester.
I wonder even about that.

But being older and wiser than I once was (and I don't mean that
to condescend) but I just do not care anymore (intellectually and otherwise) about the right
of individuals to even fantasize about molesting or raping children.

Whether they act on it is a gamble I don't want my government
taking. If you have a proclivity to fantasize about child porn, you
are by definition a menace to society and not that far from abducting
some poor kid. One strike and you should be out - for life. We
can't go around "rehabbing" such people. It doesn't work, period.

Okay, no midnight arrests for your "thoughts" for which you have a "right" . But truck in child porn in anyway, and buddy, you
are fair game, that's my attitude toward such near-criminals.

And that doesn't mean we're going to start rounding up communtists,
trade unionists, Jews, or other groups.

That's where the Left is out to lunch. We're defending freaks...

and going to lose elections for eternity with such stands.

On a university campus, maybe we can sit around and fret over
the "rights" of child rape/ molestation fans, but I personally
won't miss them. Let' em rot. NAMBA is a perfect litmus test.

That kid in Massachusetts mentioned earlier (and any number
of abductees) is enough to turn around many a liberal. The ACLU
hasn't always been so out of touch. Defending unpopular causes,
yes, but devenient criminals? Sayonara and good riddence.

Call that '1984', but being tough on crime is actually a progressive
notion. Why liberals (who used to have a basic foundation
in popular morality, especially on law and order) has to cede ground to the extremes these
days I'll never know.

I'll return to the other issues at another time soon. Good debate,
people.

God bless us, everyone....even Colin and ol' Spanish. :wink: :lol:

Besides, you'll enjoy HOW GREAT THOU ART more if you 'only believe'
:lol:
Regards,
Greg

Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:48 am

EagleUSA wrote:No on can "prove" one way or another. That's why it's called faith.


Exactly!

I have enough faith for everyone here. (Have I ever mentioned the fact that I'm a Sunday school teacher?)

Anyway -
For those of you who do not think the word God should be on anything in public. Take out those American dollars that you have and burn those little babies!

Oh well, I guess it's all right to have his name on some things, huh?

Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:37 am

Owning child pornography is an action. That's the difference. I'm sorry but people have all sorts of terrible, evil ideas all the time and only a very small few act on those ideas. You can't punish them for ideas. And maybe some of these people may get psychiatric help.

Also the link between fantasy and action kind of a red herring. Many people fantasize about actions as mundane as telling off their bosses yet never follow through. You are most definitely not a step away from action when a fantasy enters the head.

What punishment a crime receives or doesn't receive is another argument.

There are so many other options for dealing with evil opinions than suppressing them or arresting a person for expressing them.

Remember no government ever killed or wrongly imprisoned somebody because they thought they were great guys. It's always painted as a "protection" of the public.

Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:57 am

LTB -

You wrote:
Owning child pornography is an action. That's the difference. I'm sorry but people have all sorts of terrible, evil ideas all the time and only a very small few act on those ideas. You can't punish them for ideas. And maybe some of these people may get psychiatric help.


Paedophiles caught with child pornography [on a computer, say] often claim that they are not 'active' and only collect pictures & videos to satisfy their 'needs', and as such have done no real harm.

But the children were abused, photographed & filmed in the first place in order to meet those very 'needs' !

The harm done is of a very real nature.

Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:02 pm

likethebike wrote:
Yet I don't know how to make sense of things like Katrina or things like NAMBLa. EagleUSA wrote earlier about how NAMBLA members are monsters. He's right. But they were not born that way. People talk about choice, but why would a just God let these people go through a series of events that destroys their humanity and ultimately pushes them to indifferently destroy the humanity of others? I can't answer questions like these.


LTB-
Free will. God created us with the ability to choose, and the freedom to make choices. This is an act of love on God's part. We are free to follow God's way or are own. It's like that saying that if you love someone/something you don't hold it against there will, but set them free. If they truly love you they'll stay of there own accord. Consider the alternative: if we didn't have free will then we'd be automatons and God a puppetmaster.

But in creating us with free will the potential for evil was also in a sense created. You can't have one without at least the potential for the other.

Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:02 pm

Steve Dube on your God's Earth. We are insane animals on an unfinished planet using our so called free will to murder, torture, starve , and corrupt the earths population in whatever way the most powerful of us decides.

After a life of searching I know for certain there is no such thing as free will...we are the selfish gene, victims of our genetic makeup, doomed to die ignorant of the mighty Cosmos's origen.

Our arrogance in trying to explain the laws governing the Cosmos just has us all so confused many turn to fairy stories by the Ancient scribes who had nothing better to do than make it all up as they went their merry way...happy with their power over the naive!

But Holy Moses..I could be wrong, and instead end up in Heaven with all the nut cases, or in Hell, with Errol Flynn and Elvis's so-called friends who found out too late, Satan is an Elvis fan :lol:

Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:47 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:Steve Dube on your God's Earth. We are insane animals on an unfinished planet using our so called free will to murder, torture, starve , and corrupt the earths population in whatever way the most powerful of us decides.


Maurice, my name is Pete. Yes, there's evil and insanity. It comes from people choosing to do evil.

MauriceinIreland wrote:
After a life of searching I know for certain there is no such thing as free will...we are the selfish gene, victims of our genetic makeup, doomed to die ignorant of the mighty Cosmos's origen.


So you have no say whatsoever in whether or not you maintain fidelity to your spouse? And if you stray is this your defence?: "I couldn't help it, it's in my genetic make-up." This is but one example of the fallacy of your (or rather Richard Dawkins) selfish gene theory.

MauriceinIreland wrote:
Our arrogance in trying to explain the laws governing the Cosmos just has us all so confused many turn to fairy stories by the Ancient scribes who had nothing better to do than make it all up as they went their merry way...happy with their power over the naive!


So physicists and cosmologists are 'arrogant' in trying to unlock the mysteries of the universe? Then was Darwin arrogant for seeking explanations of the development of life on earth? Or Dawkins?
And if it's arrogant to unlock these mysteries and has led to nothing but confusion then how can you, as an atheist, claim to know there's no God based upon science? Is that not arrogant? Shouldn't you be saying "I don't know" or "we can't know" which is agnosticism?

Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:19 am

Colin- I agree. That's why I see owning child pornography as an action since the child had to be abused in the first place to create the work. Any market for it is a market for child abuse.

Pete- Free will only takes you so far. I don't know if you are conversant with Charles Manson's history but if anyone laid out his backstory before the murders, growing up. It would rip your guts out. You can really see how he went off the rails. I know other people have had similar circumstances and somehow straightened out. Still, it's clear that the events that happened to this man had a large effect on the human being he became.

And free will very much explains something like 9/11 but what does it do for us with the Tsunami or Katrina? Those people were just trying to live their lives.

I don't put it down and I think there are actual logical defenses to be made in favor of religion, but there are holes there I just can't explain away.