Google censors TheologyOnLine!

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

Then clear up any confusion any might have with your views on this.

Do you believe necrophila is evil?

Yes or no?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak


Then clear up any confusion any might have with your views on this.

Do you believe necrophila is evil?

Yes or no?

I doubt very much that we would have the same understanding of the concept of "evil". So my answer would be of little value to you. It would not "clear up" any confusion.

 

[Flipper]

So, after all that, Knight, are you going to enlighten us on what should be done in your view with those Rennaissance paintings and sculptures?

I'm worried I might be able to guess the answer...

 

[.Ant]

Originally posted by PureX

Originally posted by Freak
Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

In a way, it's unrelated to the topic. But it's certainly not a ridiculous question, at it's heart (and especially after your comments about the nature of 'evil'), it's a theological question.

 

[.Ant]

Google shows how it's just another sheep in the herd...

Google shows how it's just another sheep in the herd...

Originally posted by lucybelle
Google recieves my personal BOOT TO THE HEAD! :down:

I echo lucybelle. This is shocking and ridiculous, but more prevalent than most people realise. Although censorship of un-illegal beliefs is not Politically Correct, censorship of un-illegal, politcally incorrect beliefs is PC. In other words, censorship is bad, unless I agree with it in a particular case. It doesn't make sense, but that's what most people seem to think.

I think that's why anti-censorship ideals are unsustainable.

Christianity is certainly politically incorrect, because it dares to say that some things are just plain wrong, even if they are not illegal.

And of course, the other thing is, as Knight said - this is a *discussion* board, get a grip! We wouldn't want to promote *discussion* now would we, Mr. Google?

 

[.Ant]

Victim-censorship is not enough.

Victim-censorship is not enough.

Originally posted by PureX
It's not my place to "solve" the censorship issue, that in itself would be censorship. However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image, as they will have to live with the effect of that image being publically distributed. I don't believe it is censorship for one to control their own images (or expressions of whatever form), for censorship to occur, one would have to be attempting to control the expressions of others, or the right of others to experience them.

Originally posted by PureX
However, if an adult rape victim chose to allow photos of her/his ordeal to be published, then they should be allowed to do so.

I totally disagree. The law says that rape is disgusting and evil. Showing disgusting, wicked images does not help society in any way.

The other thing is, that such a photo might be produced by two consenting adults (made to look like rape when it actually wasn't). But does that make it right to publish? Is it good to play-act evil behaviour?

 

[PureX]

Re: Victim-censorship is not enough.

Re: Victim-censorship is not enough.

Originally posted by .Ant
I totally disagree. The law says that rape is disgusting and evil. Showing disgusting, wicked images does not help society in any way.

If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50. Also, the function of the law is not to "help society" be less "disgusting and evil", it's simply to protect us fom each other. You are free to decide for yourself what is disgusting and evil and to live accordingly, as long as your doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.

Originally posted by .Ant The other thing is, that such a photo might be produced by two consenting adults (made to look like rape when it actually wasn't). But does that make it right to publish? Is it good to play-act evil behaviour?

You are confusing what is right with what is good. That they have a right to publish the photo is right. That it be viewed as "good", depends on who's viewing it.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by .Ant

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

Originally posted by .Ant In a way, it's unrelated to the topic. But it's certainly not a ridiculous question, at it's heart (and especially after your comments about the nature of 'evil'), it's a theological question.

"Evil" is a quality assessment, not a state of existence. Therefor, to ask me a question regarding "evil" and then demand a "yes or no" response will just get one ignored. I can't give a "yes or no" response to a question that requires a quality assessment.

What are the qualities that one would assess as "evil"? Willful ignorance, perhaps? Unnecessary or self-serving violence? The denial of other people's viability and well being? Do we extend this last one to include dead bodies and animals?

We each will have to decide these questions for ourselves. I think the word "evil" tends to become a blanket that obscures our agenda more than it illuminates it. I would rarely refer to anything as "evil" for that reason. Instead I would rather assess something as what I think it is: willful ignorance, or selfish violence, or demeaning and abusive to others, etc.

Would these offenses apply to animals? I think so, within reason. Would they apply to dead bodies? I suppose they would, to some degree.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
I doubt very much that we would have the same understanding of the concept of "evil". So my answer would be of little value to you. It would not "clear up" any confusion.

I know this is difficult but try, ok?

It's rather easy. Watch me.

I believe necrophilia is evil.

What about you? Yes or no?

 

[.Ant]

$50, did you say?

$50, did you say?

Originally posted by PureX
"Evil" is a quality assessment, not a state of existence...

We each will have to decide these questions for ourselves. I think the word "evil" tends to become a blanket that obscures our agenda more than it illuminates it. I would rarely refer to anything as "evil" for that reason. Instead I would rather assess something as what I think it is: willful ignorance, or selfish violence, or demeaning and abusive to others, etc.

Good point. The word 'evil' has a tendency to make people divorce themselves from the idea that some things they do might be evil.

Originally posted by PureX
If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50. Also, the function of the law is not to "help society" be less "disgusting and evil", it's simply to protect us fom each other. You are free to decide for yourself what is disgusting and evil and to live accordingly, as long as your doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.

I was speaking of the law of the bible. I believe the Bible lists rape as a perversion, the meaning of which fits 'disgusting and evil' pretty well.

You're right, (one of) the law's function(s) is to protect us from each other. We should be protected from evil images. (Replace the word evil with not-good if you like). "Love always protects" - I count it as my duty to protect people from evil things. But of course, if you don't believe in absolute morality, this doesn't make sense; see below:

Originally posted by PureX
You are confusing what is right with what is good. That they have a right to publish the photo is right. That it be viewed as "good", depends on who's viewing it.

Any discussion of law and morality needs a basis - mine is the Bible. So what the Bible says is very relevant to any discussion of the law. As for the right to do evil - sure, I have the right to publish evil pictures, I have the right to be racist, I have the right to do anything. But of course that says nothing about whether those actions are right. (I made a previous post about these two "rights").

If you deny my basis of morality, this discussion is pointless. The discussion then becomes "Does the law need a basis of absolute morality?"

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
I believe necrophilia is evil.

That depends on how one defines "evil" doesn't it, Jay?

I don't engage in necrophilia, or any of scores of sexual practices engaged in by the outlying extremes of human population. So does that make me "not evil" or "virtuous"?

I believe that terrorizing ignorant people by telling them they have demons inside them is evil.

Do you believe that terrorizing people by lying to them is evil, Jay?

 

[PureX]

Re: $50, did you say?

Re: $50, did you say?

Originally posted by .Ant
Any discussion of law and morality needs a basis - mine is the Bible. So what the Bible says is very relevant to any discussion of the law.

If you deny my basis of morality, this discussion is pointless. The discussion then becomes "Does the law need a basis of absolute morality?"

Why do you get to define the function of American law?

Don't you think that's a rather arrogant assumption?

Can you see that an assumption like this dismisses everyone who might believe differently than you as meaningless?

Do you think placing yourself as the only measure of what matters, and just dismissing everyone else is an act of love, or of the spirit of God's love referred to as Christ?

 

[.Ant]

Re: Re: $50, did you say?

Re: Re: $50, did you say?

Originally posted by PureX
Why do you get to define the function of American law?

Don't you think that's a rather arrogant assumption?

Can you see that an assumption like this dismisses everyone who might believe differently than you as meaningless?

I'm not talking about American law. I believe you said:

Originally posted by PureX
If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50.

(my emphasis). So I gave you a law. The law of Christianity. So where's my $50?

Originally posted by PureX
Do you think placing yourself as the only measure of what matters, and just dismissing everyone else is an act of love, or of the spirit of God's love referred to as Christ?

I'm not placing myself as the only measure of what matters, but God / the Bible. He is my measure on what matters. What is your measure of what matters?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath

That depends on how one defines "evil" doesn't it, Jay?

I don't engage in necrophilia, or any of scores of sexual practices engaged in by the outlying extremes of human population. So does that make me "not evil" or "virtuous"?

I believe that terrorizing ignorant people by telling them they have demons inside them is evil.

Do you believe that terrorizing people by lying to them is evil, Jay?

Zakath, you make this too easy. Evil is the opposite of good, correct? A child even understands what evil is but you don't. This puzzles me.

Thanks for telling us you don't practice necrophilia. Now, would you affirm that this perversion is evil? If a young person came to you and wondered what your views are of this, what would you say?

 

[Flipper]

3rd time lucky?

3rd time lucky?

When you have a few moments, Knight, could you consider the following questions?

If you had your way, what would you have done with these pieces of art?

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz628.html

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/g/gio...ologna/rape.jpg

http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin37.html

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
...Evil is the opposite of good, correct? A child even understands what evil is but you don't. This puzzles me.

Religionists and non-religionists often use differing definitions of words dealing with morality and ethics.

As I've said several times before to you, when I ask you to define a word it isn't because I don't have an idea what the word means. It is because I want to see if you and I are using a similar definition.

So, for you, necrophilia is "the opposite of good"? Is that "good" like a "good tooth"? Or is it like a "good boy" or a "good girl"? Or is it like "good taste" or a "good book"?

Many of those things are simply matters of taste or preference, not indicating moral condition at all.

Again I'll ask you what are you trying to say here, Jay?

Thanks for telling us you don't practice necrophilia.

You're welcome. At least some of us provide useful answers.

Now, would you affirm that this perversion is evil?

Since, as a psychologist, I would probably define necrophilia somewhat differently than you, how about telling me what you mean by the term?

I've got to admit that in all the years that I've managed to found and teach at a school, pastor two churches, and run a counseling practice, I have never had anyone other than TOL's resident demon chaser ask me such a question! Is it such a common problem where you live?

Additionally, why are you so fixated on sexual deviancy, Jay? First homosexuality, now necrophilia. Is there something you're not telling us?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Religionists and non-religionists often use differing definitions of words dealing with morality and ethics.

As I've said several times before to you, when I ask you to define a word it isn't because I don't have an idea what the word means. It is because I want to see if you and I are using a similar definition.

So, for you, necrophilia is "the opposite of good"? Is that "good" like a "good tooth"? Or is it like a "good boy" or a "good girl"? Or is it like "good taste" or a "good book"?

Many of those things are simply matters of taste or preference, not indicating moral condition at all.

Again I'll ask you what are you trying to say here, Jay?

You're welcome. At least some of us provide useful answers.


Since, as a psychologist, I would probably define necrophilia somewhat differently than you, how about telling me what you mean by the term?

I've got to admit that in all the years that I've managed to found and teach at a school, pastor two churches, and run a counseling practice, I have never had anyone other than TOL's resident demon chaser ask me such a question! Is it such a common problem where you live?

Additionally, why are you so fixated on sexual deviancy, Jay? First homosexuality, now necrophilia. Is there something you're not telling us?

Zakath,

I'm curious to know why you avoid being clear?

In your counseling practice, if someone had asked you if necrophilia was evil. What would you say?

 

[Flipper]

I can't speak for Zakath, but I might guess that many psychologists would avoid the question because it is likely to be counterproductive to some of the objectives of psychological or psychiatric counselling for the practitioner to express opinions on morality. If you do that, you have declared your interest one way or another, and so may influence the patient's answers accordingly. They might, for example, stay away from certain areas if they perceived the person to have an antethical or hostile view.

My $0.02. Dr. Z., I hope, will set me straight if I'm full of it.

 

[Zakath]

Flip, you're on target.

When I'm counselling someone, we are there for them to work out their issues, not for me to vent my opinions.

Jay,

You're confusing shepherding with counselling again. Shepherds direct sheep to follow the path the shepherd chooses. Counsellors assist clients with finding their own path, not merely mimicking the counsellors'.

If a client asked me such a question, I would not answer it.

You, on the other hand are avoiding answering my questions about your seeming preoccupation with sexual deviance. What gives, Jay?

 

[Lion]

Flip-You asked;

When you have a few moments, Knight, could you consider the following questions?

If you had your way, what would you have done with these pieces of art?

I don’t know about Knight, but after looking at them (I could only view the first and third, the second site was off line) I see nothing pornographic or obscene. However, if they did show nudity, or simulated acts of sexual intercourse (rape or otherwise) I would say they should be destroyed.