Is Society Better With Pornography Adultery Abortion Divorce Homosexuality Accepted?

[Town Heretic]

Ego is not an emotion.

Of course not. But "hurt" absent a wound, is.

You defended freedom to view pornography as though it should be a legal right.

It is a legal right, as is lying (except under oath) and gluttony and any number of choices we make that we haven't codified as criminal activity. None of those are choices I make or approve of, but it is apparent that we are here to make choices and in our compact many moral ones are singularly the province of conscience. And for a number of reasons that's a good thing, even if our choices aren't always good.

I'm so ashamed of you mostly because I don't see the point in making a case.

Then you're allowing me to make my choice/argument with only a personal objection that can't move me toward what you believe is the better course or correct your own if it's errant, by examination between us. I don't see the Christ like in that approach. If I thought you were imperiled I'd come after you until every possibility of my aiding you had been exhausted.

But then, maybe I'll feel differently after thirty years. You've got a decade on jaded on me.

Now your position is not a particularly compelling position to launch an attack against my allowing others to make a number of moral choices with a very particular objection on a case by case. Apply your rationality to see the problematic parallel in your approach given your objection in chief.

You're too blind and deaf to pay attention.

Then your remarks are a bit like praying in public to be seen, aren't they.

It's difficult for me to be irrational.

Now that's a better statement and one I can understand, being a life long rationalist, though I don't find your approach here to be a rational extension of our mutual faith.

I've been a follower of Christ and student of His word for over 30 years.

How long were the apostles followers of Christ when they were chosen and how long had they been when they were sent into the world to change it? That sort of qualification is only as good as the effort and result. And I've seen Christians of long standing with any number of arrogant and ignorant views they justified with that sort of declaration.

I see in you a ignorance so deep that it can only be reached if you are allowed to lead yourself into destruction until you realize your own mistakes, because no one else will ever be able to reach you.

Where I think you're just a kid who does what so many granted an unmerited grace fall into. But while I think that will one day prove embarrassing, it isn't fatal and I'll laugh about it with you as you laugh about my own assumptive nonsense when it comes out in the wash.

And good luck to the both of us. :e4e:

 

[resurrected]

Considering all the times koban/SOD/resurrected has received infractions and been banned, this is a really stupid statement. He didn't break any rule, because you are in fact perverted (twisted).

:thumb:


and just an aside - most of my infractions and bannings are a direct result of lobbying of the mods by a certain someone

 

[resurrected]

... are we better for permitting people to make moral choices that don't interfere with the exercise of another's right?

Yes. God gave us that capacity to begin with, which was the point of my answer in the other thread.

God allowed us free will and the ability to choose to disobey Him and act contrary to His will, yes

you seem interested in drawing a parallel between God and the legal authorities in the united states, leading to the claim that since God gave us the ability to choose evil, so should the state

your argument is retarded

yes, God gave us free will

He also gave us guidance:

and the certainty of eternal punishment if we disobey Him

Spoiler

to complete your analogy, the civil authorities are more closely matched to God when they give guidance (in the form of laws), recognizing that some will choose to ignore that guidance (by breaking the law) with the certainty of swift and harsh punishment (in the form of a Godly justice system that punishes offenders)




quit being a retard

 

[Eeset]

 

[resurrected]

just heard on the cbc last night that the iron mines in labrador are struggling with the global economic downturn and reduced orders for ore from china


seems like most of the shipping i've seen lately has been tankers and not the bulk haulers


but it's still early in the season - they'll be shipping grain from the midwest soon

 

[Town Heretic]

God allowed us free will and the ability to choose to disobey Him and act contrary to His will, yes

So far so good.

you seem interested in drawing a parallel between God and the legal authorities in the united states, leading to the claim that since God gave us the ability to choose evil, so should the state

No. I've stated that there are good reasons why the state cannot act as if it was an extension of a covenant we aren't actually under to begin with. I've also noted that God seems invested in our having the ability to make moral choices, that choice isn't the problem to begin with, but it wasn't going to be a particularly fruitful or close analogy and I probably should have left off on it for that reason alone.

your argument is retarded

You're juvenile.

yes, God gave us free will

He also gave us guidance:

and the certainty of eternal punishment if we disobey Him

So you think you don't willfully disobey God's commandments on a daily basis? lain: As for me and most people, I'd suspect, grace is required.

to complete your analogy, the civil authorities are more closely matched to God when they give guidance (in the form of laws), recognizing that some will choose to ignore that guidance (by breaking the law) with the certainty of swift and harsh punishment (in the form of a Godly justice system that punishes offenders)

That's not half bad, though swift is problematic unless you're more concerned with appearance than getting it right. We have a right to speedy trial, by way of, but we also have an appellate process to make sure that an abuse of process doesn't go unexamined and, hopefully, caught. The state has an interest in/obligation to define the limitations of right as they relate among its possessors. That's a rough parallel but not exactly the same thing as what was accomplished by the Mosaic law.

Now a good law will almost always find a moral parallel. And a bad one will almost always find a moral failing. But there are laws which in and of themselves are only protections of the right to make moral choices without reducing that to a show of hands or an appeal to any particular groups' traditions. And those laws or the freedom protected will invariably offend those opposed to them to one extent or another.

One strength of our system is that everyone gets to be offended and none of us can be bullied by the Hindu or Hebrew or Baptist or Humanist down the street.

 

[resurrected]

One strength of our system...

the "strength" of our system has led to the degradation of our society, the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accessibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

congratulations!


you're an ideal poster child for our retarded society :thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

the "strength" of our system has led to the degradation of our society

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accesibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

I've addressed adultery. You're simply and factually wrong. It's still an actionable tort and a basis for divorce (and in many jurisdictions a partial determiner of the division of marital assets).

Divorce rates are in decline, but it's a topic worth discussing on merit. I think no fault divorces are a bad idea that make the entry and exit from the marital estate too easy and invites abuse. Though in truth a great many no faults are actually divorces with fault where the parents have decided to not see their dirty laundry set out as a matter of public record.

Abortion should be illegal as an operation of law. It's the worst weak sister decision the Court has made since Scott. And it will likely be undone by the same means, a Constitutional Amendment.

Pornography isn't legally available in any form to anyone of any age.

congratulations!

On the Civil Rights act, child labor laws, etc. or my noting where you go it wrong?

you're an ideal poster child for our retarded society :thumb:

Whereas you're an ideal subject for the new CBS series Stalker. You aren't incapable of a point, but you're either too lost to malice or too lazy a thinker to bother. In either event it's been...no, it hasn't really.

 

[resurrected]

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

no, you retard

not that sort of thing


this sort of thing:

the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accesibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

 

[Town Heretic]

no, you retard

not that sort of thing

this sort of thing:

The ones I addressed and to some extent refuted and not the ones you either can't address or failed to consider.

You might need glasses. lain: Or just character. But why quibble?

 

[resurrected]

i'll put it up there again:

the "strength" of our system has led to the degradation of our society, the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accessibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

congratulations!


you're an ideal poster child for our retarded society :thumb:

there's nothing there for you to refute - all of them a re factual statements



:think: perhaps i should have been more clear on the last


you're a retard

 

[Town Heretic]

i'll put it up there again:
there's nothing there for you to refute - all of them a re factual statements

No, they weren't. You're just that dishonest or troubled, I suppose. A grown man who talks like a fourth grader who wasn't taught how to act in public.

Here was the refutation of a number of points, along with a consideration you don't rate, but I gave anyway:

the "strength" of our system has led to the degradation of our society

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accesibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

I've addressed adultery. You're simply and factually wrong. It's still an actionable tort and a basis for divorce (and in many jurisdictions a partial determiner of the division of marital assets).

Divorce rates are in decline, but it's a topic worth discussing on merit. I think no fault divorces are a bad idea that make the entry and exit from the marital estate too easy and invites abuse. Though in truth a great many no faults are actually divorces with fault where the parents have decided to not see their dirty laundry set out as a matter of public record.

Abortion should be illegal as an operation of law. It's the worst weak sister decision the Court has made since Scott. And it will likely be undone by the same means, a Constitutional Amendment.

Pornography isn't legally available in any form to anyone of any age.

congratulations!

On the Civil Rights act, child labor laws, etc. or my noting where you go it wrong?

you're an ideal poster child for our retarded society :thumb:

Whereas you're an ideal subject for the new CBS series Stalker. You aren't incapable of a point, but you're either too lost to malice or too lazy a thinker to bother. In either event it's been...no, it hasn't really.

 

[resurrected]

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

no, you retard


not like those things


like the things i listed



are you what people consider "educated" in alabama?

 

[Town Heretic]

no, you retard


not like those things


like the things i listed


are you what people consider "educated" in alabama?

Do you mean to be ironic? Else, here was me going over that list you mostly got wrong while noting examples of the sorts of things that probably don't matter to you anyway, sadly:

the "strength" of our system has led to the degradation of our society

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

the prevalence of perversion, skyrocketing divorce rates, accesibility to the most vile forms of pornography to anyone, of any age, who can peck out a search on a keyboard, the deaths of millions of innocent children, and societally acceptable adultery and homosexuality

I've addressed adultery. You're simply and factually wrong. It's still an actionable tort and a basis for divorce (and in many jurisdictions a partial determiner of the division of marital assets).

Divorce rates are in decline, but it's a topic worth discussing on merit. I think no fault divorces are a bad idea that make the entry and exit from the marital estate too easy and invites abuse. Though in truth a great many no faults are actually divorces with fault where the parents have decided to not see their dirty laundry set out as a matter of public record.

Abortion should be illegal as an operation of law. It's the worst weak sister decision the Court has made since Scott. And it will likely be undone by the same means, a Constitutional Amendment.

Pornography isn't legally available in any form to anyone of any age.

congratulations!

On the Civil Rights act, child labor laws, etc. or my noting where you go it wrong?

you're an ideal poster child for our retarded society :thumb:

Whereas you're an ideal subject for the new CBS series Stalker. You aren't incapable of a point, but you're either too lost to malice or too lazy a thinker to bother. In either event it's been...no, it hasn't really.

 

[resurrected]

Like blacks being freed and having the right to vote, or women having property and Protestants and Catholics not killing each other en mass, child labor laws and a reduction of innocent people perishing before the law...that sort of thing?

no, you retard, not like those


like the ones i listed


are all alabamans as retarded as you?

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course not. But "hurt" absent a wound, is.

I'm the one with Asperger's. Stop taking everything so literally.

It is a legal right, as is lying (except under oath) and gluttony and any number of choices we make that we haven't codified as criminal activity. None of those are choices I make or approve of, but it is apparent that we are here to make choices and in our compact many moral ones are singularly the province of conscience. And for a number of reasons that's a good thing, even if our choices aren't always good.

The question is not whether it is legal, rather whether it should be. I though you were smarter than this.

Then you're allowing me to make my choice/argument with only a personal objection that can't move me toward what you believe is the better course or correct your own if it's errant, by examination between us. I don't see the Christ like in that approach. If I thought you were imperiled I'd come after you until every possibility of my aiding you had been exhausted.

I'm shaking the dust off my feet and delivering you to Satan for the destruction of the flesh...

But then, maybe I'll feel differently after thirty years. You've got a decade on jaded on me.

This is all based on what I've seen from you in your time here.

Now your position is not a particularly compelling position to launch an attack against my allowing others to make a number of moral choices with a very particular objection on a case by case. Apply your rationality to see the problematic parallel in your approach given your objection in chief.

What attack?

Then your remarks are a bit like praying in public to be seen, aren't they.

No. regardless of the fact that I think you cannot be reached by the efforts of the populace does not mean I shouldn't at least tell you how I feel about your lost and wandering position on this. Because, when you do reach the end of yourself you can look back and see that at least somebody cared.

Now that's a better statement and one I can understand, being a life long rationalist, though I don't find your approach here to be a rational extension of our mutual faith.

Then there's something you don't understand, which is pretty much where I'm coming from anyway.

How long were the apostles followers of Christ when they were chosen and how long had they been when they were sent into the world to change it? That sort of qualification is only as good as the effort and result. And I've seen Christians of long standing with any number of arrogant and ignorant views they justified with that sort of declaration.

When they were sent, pretty much on their own, it had been about three years. And fewer for Paul. I have recognized, and continue to recognize, my folly. I submit to His wisdom and let Him lead me, because I know if I chose my own path the best I could hope for is a blissful ignorance that would only end in tragedy.

Where I think you're just a kid who does what so many granted an unmerited grace fall into. But while I think that will one day prove embarrassing, it isn't fatal and I'll laugh about it with you as you laugh about my own assumptive nonsense when it comes out in the wash.

And good luck to the both of us. :e4e:

care to elaborate on that first sentence?

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm the one with Asperger's. Stop taking everything so literally.

What other way is there to take it? And your Asperger's doesn't really buy you much wiggle room with me. I try to tone down the inferential, pull back a bit on layering and things resting on nuance, but you're rational so I don't treat you any differently otherwise. We aren't having an impromptu, extemporaneous conversation, even if that's how I treat it. You don't have to. You can stop and consider and craft and revisit if you like. So you're not at any appreciable disadvantage in controlling the content of your posts.

The question is not whether it is legal, rather whether it should be. I though you were smarter than this.

I've addressed that frequently and did in this thread. But your focus is too narrow. I think there's another, fundamental question in this that our compact answered.

The question is whether you're comfortable with the purely religious views of any segment of our society being enacted as law.

I'm guessing that when your views aren't in the majority your opinion would shift. When your daughter (hypothetical though she might be) has to cover her head and face or when you can't wear buttons or colored shirts or dance or worship as you feel you should then the problem with that sort of thinking might occur to you... Better that the law should respect our right to differ and protect us from the mob makes right approach to it, even if every mob is certain it has God in its hip pocket and even if that protection means people will make choices we don't always approve of or respect.

And the next guy will give us the same elbow room.

I'm shaking the dust off my feet and delivering you to Satan for the destruction of the flesh...

Take that silly, self satisfied pile of horsefeathers and make a soft bed of smug superiority out of them if it suits you. Don't let me stop you. I'm weary of entertaining people who mostly appear to want to be seen being their brand of Holy, not to move anyone else to anything or, God forbid, offer assistance when they feel another is mistaken or confused on a thing.

I love Christ. I follow him as closely as I know how to and I try to give the next guy the benefit of the doubt, that it's what he's doing, whatever I think about how he's doing it.... Even if he's a hard headed kid determined to shake apparel at me. But I don't have to entertain that and if this is the best you can muster I wont' be offended if you just leave off and stop talking to and about me until you can do better.

This is all based on what I've seen from you in your time here.

Brandon, you haven't treated me with any discernible difference since I first arrived and opposed the to my mind wrong headed notion of a religious state sans a literal Christ at its head. And even so if you scanned that memory of yours you'd recall more than a singular example of my crediting you with a word of counsel I found helpful. Or maybe you can't and maybe that's part of your problem.

In any event, this isn't an evolution in your thinking. It's just more of the same with a slightly more dramatic flourish.

What attack?

Rhetorically, I assumed you might have an argument, that it wasn't as simple as your smiley and latter words amounting to an emotional response to difference. It's an easy mistake. I tend to think most people are rational on some level (and in fairness you've declared that being the case for you more than once) and that the flaw is found in the quality of their cognition or tool set.

What I know with certainty is that when two people who share the same end game differ fundamentally on approach and point there could be a fruitful conversation to be had and it should be one that interests both. But that's life for you.

No. regardless of the fact that I think you cannot be reached by the efforts of the populace does not mean I shouldn't at least tell you how I feel about your lost and wandering position on this.

But Brandon, you don't speak for "the populace". You may speak for a group of people within it, though as a rule I find it better to just speak for yourself and see how that goes. And unless you advance argument, your feeling amounts to nothing but an oddly wrapped self congratulation that can't teach me or anyone anything, won't illustrate the superiority of your position as you believe it stands and can't then be reasonably viewed as much beyond someone speaking to be seen speaking.

I'm sure there are a few people who will be happy to see it. I can think of a handful who will happily high five you. Likely more. But I'm equally sure it amounts to little more than a vanity.

Because, when you do reach the end of yourself you can look back and see that at least somebody cared.

You think failing to engage a rationalist, instead declaring only your willingness to judge and walk away is an act of caring?

Remind me to buy you a dictionary for Christmas.

If you cared you'd reason with me, attempt to move me. For better or worse that's what I do here. Sometimes I have to pry myself away from a thread. It isn't because I want to demonstrate how right I am on a point. It's because I tend to credit most people with wanting a fuller understanding of a thing and want that myself. Even if it doesn't change your point it will frequently sharpen it and at least give you insight into why what seems obvious or at least true to you might seem like something else to the next guy.

Doing that means being met with contrary contexts and answers and wrestling with their notion of better angels. That's always been one draw for me about this place...I'm not going to let an intellectual lamb perish in ignorance or perish in my own for lack of effort.

Life is heavy lifting.

I recall you once noting that you began your religious life staunchly in another camp and now you find yourself changed. That should inform you in a way it doesn't appear to...At the very least you should strive to avoid being the guy forgiven much who doesn't echo the treatment. And we've had very, very few if any sustained discussions of why you believe you're right and where you believe I'm wrong. Declaring? That you've done. Judging and finding a want? You've got that in spades. Doesn't help anyone else, Brandon. Doesn't even leave open the door to help you if you've got it wrong.

Then there's something you don't understand,

Because the alternative would be you're missing something. And we both know that could never happen. Even if you've already admitted it did once.

All you can say about my statement is that one of us has something wrong. The rest is in the hashing out you simply don't do in your rush to let the dogs out, so to speak...okay, on the Asperger's note, people often refer to their feet as dogs and that joke tied into your shoes statement.

When they [the apostles] were sent, pretty much on their own, it had been about three years. And fewer for Paul. I have recognized, and continue to recognize, my folly.

When do you do that? When do you hold open the possibility? I'm not suggesting you have to enter any argument/difference wondering if you have it right and declaring that aloud, but you should engage. That, well how you go about engaging and framing and listening will make that plain enough to someone paying attention.

Humility isn't always a downcast eye and demure appearance. It can be found in the underlying, even unstated proposition that I think enough of you as a human being with God's intended potential that I'll engage you on the question, sit and reason with you for our mutual edification and with the understanding that doing that opens me to the chance of instruction or even correction.

And when you substitute this for engagement you make a statement of another sort.

I submit to His wisdom and let Him lead me, because I know if I chose my own path the best I could hope for is a blissful ignorance that would only end in tragedy.

The tragedy of you to my thinking is that you don't understand there are all sorts of Christians who love God as much as you and still manage to differ soundly with you on any number of things. And it doesn't follow that their difference is error simply because you're really, really sure you have it right this time.

care to elaborate on that first sentence?

I only just did. That was engagement on my part, giving you as critical an understanding of what appears to me to be your error as I can. It invites reasoned response. A response that shows consideration, which is what I gave your short shrift.

 

[Eeset]

I had to put on waders to get through that last flood of verbiage. And in the end it said only one thing....."I think I am better than you". :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

I had to put on waders to get through that last flood of verbiage.

Poor you. I hate that you have to read everything I write. It's so unfair to you. Else, I gave him what he and you rarely give anyone. At least you didn't find some way of comparing it to rape. So that's progress.

And in the end it said only one thing....."I think I am better than you". :idunno:

You're right at the very end. You don't know.

The actual message was that you can't say you care about someone without acting on it. And simply judging and walking away isn't that.

 

[serpentdove]

God allowed us free will and the ability to choose to disobey Him and act contrary to His will...

They break Gods law :reals: and then complain that :sozo2: evil comes from it (Ga 6:8). :dizzy: Isn't that what Adam asked for when he sinned? He wanted to know good and evil--and here we are (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10). :BRAVO:

It's good that we can disobey him. If we could not, love would not be real. I love him and I chose to follow him (Jos 24:15). :straight:

"Ge 3:5 — “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We do ourselves great harm when we believe that we will find greater blessing in doing our own thing than in obeying God." Stanley, C. F. (2005). The Charles F. Stanley life principles Bible: New King James Version (Ge 3:5). Nashville, TN: Nelson Bibles.

"We reap what we sow, more than we sow, and later than we sow." ~ Charles Stanley

See:

The Principle of Sowing and Reaping by Charles Stanley