*******************************************************************************************************************
TRUTH:
"Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness, But Rather EXPOSE Them!" ~ GOD, Ephesians 5:11

Got PROOF? The police in Colorado know about serial child killers! Go to www.PoliceRecordingsKekoas.com for the TRUTH!

May 31, 2006

Pedophiles To Launch Political Party

News in AMSTERDAM -- Pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage. The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!" The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether. The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening. Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should also be allowed.

Full story...

It's only a matter of time before this kind of perversion reaches the United States. After all, pedophilia is just another sexual "orientation" and having sex with animals is just a sexual "preference" of some people...so who are we to judge what they do in the bedroom or barnyard?

113 comments:

  1. I read that this morning and coun't believe my eyes. What a nightmare!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately, I have to agree that groups like this will co-opt some of the arguments used by the gay community. They will claim they were 'born that way', attempt to intellectualize and justify their habits and accuse detractors of being hateful and judgemental toward their lifestyle. I am not saying this in an attempt to insult gays, more to observe that unsavory groups like pedophiles will do anything to legitimize their interests. One of the said pedophiles was already in full victim mode, intoning: Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals.

    A lot of people wonder why Christians don't just keep their opinions on morality to themselves but this is a classic example of more radical groups pushing the envelope in an attempt to totally overturn traditional sexual boundaries. I have heard of books on Amazon.com that attempt to intellectualize and justify 'intergenerational sex' by pointing out that pederasty was common in ancient Greece (in an attempt to argue that what was once socially acceptable is therefore a legitimate choice).

    Did you read about the World Cup? Germany is importing 40,000 prostitutes to 'service' attendees. Many of these will be poor women from other countries who will be lured by promises of glamorous 'modeling' jobs. Earlier this year I read the German goverment tried to deny a woman unemployment because she refused to take a position as a 'sex worker'. Because the position in question was legal, the government told her to either take it or lose her benefits.

    Add to that hideous underworld of child sex trafficking where children from third world countries are sold into slavery for the sexual pleasure of hordes of sickos, locked in basements, tortured, etc.

    Sorry to ramble on but this stuff really bothers me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, obviously that's gross and wrong.

    But can you still not see the difference between pedophilia/beastiality and homosexuality? Why do you keep calling it a "sexual orientation" when nobody else uses the words that way? Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

    Christ...wake up. Having sex with kids who don't (or can't) choose that sex HURTS them. Having sex with other adults who choose that sex HELPS them. One is bad, the other is good, and it is very simple to tell the difference. You can use your Bible to justify your hatred, but when you try reasoning it out like this with comparisons to things which are actually wrong, it becomes nonsensical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who says these things are actually wrong, Phronk? - You? - Please!

    By what authority do you base your decisions of right and wrong? You personal feelings?

    Don't you live in a world of sexual relativity?

    You say - "One is bad, the other is good." - by what standard?

    What's bad to you may be good to another. Just like what's good to you may be bad to another. So how can you really say it's good or bad?

    YOU CAN'T - Because you have NO authority to make the claims you do!

    How does being a sodomite pervert HELP someone anyway? If you ask me - That's gotta HURT!

    Oh - and please don't use the Lord's Name in vain around here! Be respectful!

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the subject of sodomy:

    There are millions of heterosexual couples that practice it every day. I'm waiting for you to disparage and criticize them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forgot to mention that I am with you on the pedophile issue...just not comparing them to gays and lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dani, I am going to be taking an English class this semester in which we write a term paper on a topic of our choosing.

    I have decided to do a paper on the negative long-term effects of homosexual "parents" on children. Do you have some sources that you can point me to? I've looked at what James Dobson has on it but I need more. Specifically sites that are more 'clinical' in nature, otherwise I'm sure I will just be dismissed as "judgmental".

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's only a matter of time before this kind of perversion reaches the United States.

    Uh, Dani, have you actually seen the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dani, we've been through this before, a few posts down (I'll cut and paste it below for your convenience). I explained my moral standards. My comment made it pretty self-evident, too.

    You seem to ignore things which don't fit with your little bubble of a worldview. Conversations with you would be much more fulfilling if you actually listened and thought about what people are saying.

    How does homosexuality help anyone? Well, having a loving relationship with a person of the gender you're meant to be with is a good thing. And it doesn't hurt anyone. So overall it's good. This isn't hard to understand.

    I'm sorry for using your Lord's name in vain. It is indeed direspectful. Could you please stop referring to normal sexual practices with words like "deviant, sodomit, perverted, fornicating", etc.? Those are very disrespectful too.

    Previous comment:

    you have no moral standards to live by. It is your God-given free will to do as you choose, however, you WILL pay the consequences for your choices.

    You are wrong about this, as I've explained before here and elsewhere. I have moral standards that I live by. Everybody does. They just happen to differ from yours.

    I live my life in such a way that I maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. That is the ultimate standard - happiness is the currency of life. Things that promote love and happiness for me and others are good. Things that cause hate and unhappiness are not good.

    Sometimes this overlaps with your standard (e.g. we both agree that murder is wrong, except in certain circumstances)...sometimes it doesn't (I think two lesbians living together and loving each other is pretty much the epitome of good...you think it's wrong). But please don't think I have no moral standards. That couldn't be further from the truth.

    The whole reason I keep coming back here, and the reason much of what you say bugs me, is that I am quite passionate about my moral standards, and some of what you say rubs up against them. And not in a good way.

    And you say I will face the consequences for my choices. Well, that's only if God exists and everything you believe is true. I think the chances of that are slim.

    And also - believe it or not, I'm a good person. I do things to make the world a better place. Will God judge me based on the kind of person I am, or on whether I say "I believe in God" every day? And if God is the type of being who rewards hollow statement of belief rather than benevolent action, then do I really want to spend eternity with him? Maybe I'd rather be with Satan. *

    ReplyDelete
  10. PHRONK:

    Sadly, Pedophiles are starting to claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

    Article 1

    Article 2

    My point is that these groups will hijack the same arguments the gay rights movement has used in order to legitimize their activities.

    Dani's point is that when you move from a more authoritarian standard of sexual morality like the Bible into moral relativism, it gives groups like these a lot more latitude to make their arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There's a huge difference between two adults having sex and an adult and a child having sex. It doesn't matter what coupling of genders is going on; it's the notion that someone who is sexually mature and can express sexual consent should not have sex with someone who can't do one or both. To me, to have any disparity connotates rape.

    I don't like the fact that a pro-pedophilia political party has cropped up in a prominent European country, but it's not time to run around like a chicken with my head cut off -- yet. As for this group, if there aren't any members of the Parliament who have signed up to be a part of it, it sounds like they're a lobbyist group for now. NAMBLA has shared similar status for ... what, thirty years, and hasn't attained enough political power to do anything in the US. I'll start to get worried about the possibility of sanctioned pedophilia when the group manages to pass something in its agenda, which seems to be unlikely now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, so pedophiles are hijacking the terms. Why would Dani go along with what the pedophiles are doing?

    Maybe the Bible gives less latitude. But it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater...perfectly wholesome practices are seen as wrong when they're actually not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. pedophiles should be castrated. simple.

    as for everything else, i agree with phronk, not that u give a rats ass, i'm just sayin.

    btw....i had a revelation this morning when i awoke....God gives us all free will to make our own choices and do with it what we will, he is all loving and all forgiving right? so just before you die (you, meaning anyone) say you're sorry, beg for forgiveness and it'll all be ok....isn't that why Jesus died on the cross?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The thing is if you add sexual orientation to all the anti-discrimination laws then all these groups have to do is 'prove' that what they are doing is a 'sexual orientation'. That's kinda scary.

    Not that I'm for discrimination but there's a difference between discriminating based on behavior vs. who the person is.

    For example, I refuse to hire someone who belongs to a radical Islamist group that advocates violence toward 'infidels'. Theoretically that person could manipulate anti-discrimination laws to claim that I'm discriminating against Islam, which is clearly a manipulative ploy to silence critics of their extremist tactics.

    In Canada, religious groups can't publically voice their opinion on homosexuality because it gets classified as 'hate speech'. Advocating physical harm or mistreatment of any group of individuals is clearly abhorrent, but when you can no longer take a public stand on what you feel is right or wrong, it becomes censorship.

    Sadly, it seems like certain groups have used hate crimes and non-discrimination legislation to silence anyone who opposes their worldview. That's why I am against hate crimes laws. Causing physical harm to someone is wrong regardless of motive and should be punishable by law. But we live in a free country and that means that we will have to deal with other people voicing opinions that offend us.

    I get offended every day by stuff I read. I could spend hours reading anti-Christian 'hate speech' on the web. But that's the price I pay for living in a country with free speech. I'd rather keep it that way.

    Thanks for listening.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey, it's not all about pederasty and sheep-buggering - they're in favour of free train rides and public nudity, too.

    Not sure I understand the point of this blog - is its purpose to piss people off so much that they would never even consider becoming christian? Cause, you know, if it is - good work!

    ReplyDelete
  16. PSB - I think a lot of the posters on this blog dislike Christianity to begin with. To each his own.

    The free train ride thing was weird, maybe they figured they'd throw it in as a freebie?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "though i may dissagree with what you say i will fight to the death to defend your right to say it"

    the words fall like ashes from my mouth right now

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well it sounds like Dani and Bunny Lover should not consider entering into a gay relationship anytime soon. So don't.

    BTW, I know which day God created dinosaur bones! April 1st! He is such a kidder (or is it a 'she'?). I like it when he's the fun happy god and not the mean kind that let's the little Jewish kids die at Auschwitz.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Say it hot – I am glad you are with me on the pedophile issue. Sodomy is sodomy and it is a homosexual practice. Heterosexual couples that practice it are also perverted.

    ===================

    ME – That’s great that you are doing a paper on the negative long-term effects of homosexual "parents" on children. Here are a few links to get you started:

    How do children fare in families led by same-sex parents?

    Same sex marriage in the Canadian culture

    Pros & Cons - 26 reasons why it's a bad idea

    Children of Homosexuals More Apt to Be Homosexual

    When you are finished writing it, will you please email me a copy? I would love to read it!

    ===================

    Butchieboy – No, I have not seen the filth and perversion that is on the internet. I’m sure it’s there, but I generally don’t search out sites with child porn or bestiality on it. I bet you like that kind of sick stuff though.

    ===================

    Phronk – I am not ignoring things which don't fit with my little bubble of a worldview. I read what you wrote, but I find it hard to take you seriously when you define truth and morality by your own standard. Truth and morality are NOT relative terms. It is absolutely wrong to molest a child, rape a woman, have sex with an animal, commit adultery and incest, or be a homosexual. Your “moral standards” mean nothing when you base them on your own “feelings” of right and wrong. What you define as “perfectly wholesome” is defined as an abomination to those who believe the truth.

    The child molesters live their life the same way you do – they “ maximize happiness” by having sex with children. In their eyes, what they are doing doesn’t hurt anyone either.

    It is not disrespectful to refer to ABnormal sexual practices with words like deviant, sodomite, perverted, fornicating, etc. Those are factual statements. On my blog, I will refer to wickedness as it is. Sex was designed to be within marriage, whether or not you agree, that is the truth. On your blog, however, I will refrain from using those terms – fair enough?

    I’m sure you are a good person. But being good means nothing if you reject God. Yes God will judge you based on the kind of person you are – You are an atheist! So chances are you won’t want to spend eternity with God anyway – You would be much happier spending an eternity with Satan.

    ===================

    Yamathan – What about two adults having sex who are related? Is it okay for a grown brother and sister to have sex with each other? What about a mother and her adult son who are sexually mature and want to express themselves together? Would you say that incest is wrong?

    ===================

    Mitzzee – Actually pedophiles should be put to death –swiftly and painfully. None of this "68 counts" of child molestation crap and then a fifty year prison sentence. The very first time they are convicted, they should be executed. Just because a man is castrated does not prevent him from harming children.

    I’m glad you had a revelation this morning. You’re right – God does give us all free will to make our own choices and do with it what we will. You will pay the consequences for poor choices, but that’s your free will, you do what you want. God is NOT all loving and all forgiving though. He is Just and Righteous and will pour out His wrath on those who live in rebellion towards Him. On the other hand, just before you die, if you say you're sorry, beg for forgiveness and truly are repentant, it will all be ok and God will forgive you. Yes - that is why Jesus died on the cross. But you have to REPENT! Forgivness is not free.

    Oh – and I do give a rats ass, that is why I have taken the time to respond to everyone.

    ===================

    Jason - April 1st is National Atheists Day. You fool! ;)

    (It also happens to be the b-day of my 2 yr. old)

    ===================

    Bunny Lover– You rock Girl! Thanks for ALL of your great comments, as usual!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Apostolic Bunny Lover - I believe you are referring to BILL C-250 which states...
    1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

    Definition of ``identifiable group''
    (4) In this section, ``identifiable group'' means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

    Before this bill was passed the Criminal Code of Canada Sections 318 and 319 made it a criminal offence to:

    advocate genocide
    publicly incite hatred
    wilfully promote hatred
    against an "identifiable group."

    And described an identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

    colour
    race
    religion
    ethnic origin

    Hatred directed against others groups (such as women, or gays and lesbians) was not punishable under sections 318 and 319.

    So in the past this law protected hate toward Christians but not toward homosexuals (and women). This law simply "leveled the playing field". So please don't complain that Canadian laws protect homosexuals but not Christians. If hatefull statements are made against your religion you have just as much lawful protection as a homosexual has. If you have those rights of protection why shouldn't someone else?

    If you have a problem with this Bill you have a problem with Amnesty International and basic human rights. See here for more about About Amnesty International

    Infomation on about Online Hate and the Lawhttp://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_crime.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jason sez:

    I like it when he's the fun happy god and not the mean kind that let's the little Jewish kids die at Auschwitz.

    OK, that is precisely the kind of bitter anti-God sniping I am talking about. These types of comments are a dime dozen.

    You want a nice tolerant laissez faire God who respects your choices, right? Well some people choose to hurt others.

    The word of God outlines what sin is and preachers can preach it but God can't force anyone to listen to it if they don't want to. It's called free will.

    Today, the Iranian mullahs are openly proclaiming their plans to nuke America and Israel but America doesn't dare do a thing because of all the anti-war frenzy over Iraq. So we ignore them and hope they will magically reach enlightenment.

    We did the same thing w/Hitler - everybody dismissed him as a kook even though he openly talked about every atrocity he planned to commit.

    So after telling God to butt out of our lives we then blame him when kooks like Hitler actually carry out their plans?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your Judgemental Aunt said (regarding Canadian hate speech laws):

    So in the past this law protected hate toward Christians but not toward homosexuals (and women). This law [Canadian] simply "leveled the playing field". So please don't complain that Canadian laws protect homosexuals but not Christians. If hateful statements are made against your religion you have just as much lawful protection as a homosexual has. If you have those rights of protection why shouldn't someone else?

    To be honest, I don't want lawful protection against hate speech against my religion. Why? Because I live in a free country where everyone has the right to voice their opinion. The only exception would be directing a group to commit acts of physical violence against another group.

    If someone beats me up because I'm a Christian I don't need some hate crimes law to protect me because they already committed the crime of assault.

    It would take me a nanosecond to find all sorts of anti-Christian hate speech on the web. Oh, well. I would rather tolerate it than live in some country where speech is controlled by some kind of politically correct gestapo. The danger of hate speech legislation is that it will be invoked against individuals who publically disagree with the ideology of a 'protected' group. And that, my friend, is chilling.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bunny: I don't hate God, I love God. Who else do you think created the universe. Sheesh. I don't think Eve was very nice though for disobeying God's rules. Also, it's not polite to take Adam's rib.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also, if the Da Vinci Code is true (which I hear it is), then that makes Mary Magdalene a very dirty bird!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jason, the 'factual evidence' for the DaVinci code is pretty shaky (and this from a major network news special). But a lot of people will believe it cause they want to.
    All throughout history this type of thing has popped up. Only now the Catholic church isn't allowed to execute people for not 'coming into line'.

    Unfortunately, some Islamic extremists are determined to spread the gospel of Shariah law to every country, which will effectively bring us back to the times of the Old Testament.

    It cracks me up that righteous liberals systematically defend Palestinians when their society buys into notions like honor killings and throwing homosexuals in trenches to be buried alive. My Palestinian friend told me "we don't have a problem with gays". When I asked him why, he just ran his finger across his throat.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just in case you missed the link in my post Criminal Code of Canada restricts the ability to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, and wilfully promote hatred. The

    Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the communication by means of a telecommunication undertaking (including the Internet) of messages that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of:
    race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

    Broadcasting Act prohibits any licensee from broadcasting or distributing programming that contains abusive comments about individuals or groups – comments that would expose an individual, group, or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on discriminatory grounds.

    Are these the types comments required by your self or religious groups to "voice their opinion on homosexuality"? I myself have never been in a church were these types of comments were used or required to "voice their opinion". And would never stay in the company of anyone who used such comments publicly or privately.

    Even though you "don't want lawful protection against hate speech against my (your) religion" I want if for you. If every Canadian did not have this protection it would not only make Canada a dangerous place for all of us but it would endanger our free speech.

    PS I would find just as much (without a doubt more) hateful, degrading, sick comments against homosexuals on the web in 1/2 the time it took you to find anti-Christian hate speech. But I'm sure you're more than aware of that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh and Bunny have you ever been beaten or known anyone (a friend, a relative, a son or a daughter) threatened, beaten or death to death by a stranger who yelled "I hate you F$#ing Christians" then while punching you in the face his two buddies who were kicking you yelled "You dirty Christian" and "Flaunting your Christianity with your TV shows and your churches. Why don't you keep that sick perverted stuff at home"? Yeah, I didn't think you did. That's why you don't "want lawful protection against hate speech against my religion". Maybe if you did you would think differently.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Your Judgemental Aunt sez:

    Broadcasting Act prohibits any licensee from broadcasting or distributing programming that contains abusive comments about individuals or groups – comments that would expose an individual, group, or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on discriminatory grounds.

    Are these the types comments required by your self or religious groups to "voice their opinion on homosexuality"?


    Certainly not and this legislation is generally well meaning. My concern is that even if a church publically voices its opinion on gay sex or some other sensitive issue in a tactful manner, some pissed off official is going to decide that this is 'hate speech' and use the law to shut them up. Same thing w/public critique of Islamic Extremism - they tend to call it Islamophobic hate speech in an effort to silence the opposition.

    Regarding gay-bashing, people get beat up and threatened and murdered for all sorts of reasons. My Dad threatened us with a gun just because he 'hated' my grandmother. The 'excuse' may vary but beating people up and threatening violence toward them is a criminal offense.

    Christians don't face much threat in the United States but they are regularly tortured, beaten and jailed in other countries for their beliefs. In other countries other religious minorities or gays face the same fate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And as a woman, I deal with the possibility of being raped by some guy who hates women. Maybe there is a perp out there that listens to rappers referring to women as 'b*tches' and 'hos' and sex objects and it feeds his hatred and desire to punish women. But I'm not so sure that censoring rap music is going to solve the problem. I also view hard core porn as promoting hatred and objectification my fellow human beings but it's a multi billion dollar business that is avidly defended by those concerned about 'free speech'.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't know where this thread went, but I'm not touching it. At this point I'm just going to reply to Dani's reply to my earlier comment and promptly leave.

    Dani, thanks for the questions! They were thought-provoking and interesting.

    Just making a clear seque, all things considered, anything between two consenting adults upsets me LESS than a situation between an adult and a child. I oppose the practice of incest in immediate family units, but perhaps second or first cousins should be allowed to marry. On that note, it should be pointed out that a great many American states have provisions allowing for cousins to marry. Every state is unique in their prerequisites, such as what degree of relation is allowed, and a few states require that the couple be infertile, but it's still legal.

    I don't, however, like unions between siblings who grew up in a nuclear family. There are the rare "Luke and Leia" (i.e. "We had no idea we were THAT related.") examples that I just won't touch, but by far I don't like closely-family-bonded people to marry.

    Finally, ever-so-finally, I don't think that some levels of in-family marriage is wrong. I'd say that incest within the immediate family or between people who were raised as a sibling or child are wrong, but I wouldn't draw the line of sand three cousins out. (I'm trying to directly answer your last question, but "incest" might be a little loaded for some examples I've cited. Many apologies.)

    I won't get too far into it, because there are of course going to be examples countered that are almost universally looked down upon, BUT I don't see any problem with SOME related people being married. If that's not your opinion, it's simply not your opinion. All I'm doing is stating mine.

    Dani, I found these questions very thought-provoking, but I'm unsure where you're going with this.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I read what you wrote, but I find it hard to take you seriously when you define truth and morality by your own standard.

    Understood. I find it hard to take you seriously when your entire sense of morality is based on a storybook.

    Truth and morality are NOT relative terms.

    Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. When I say that morality is based on balancing harm and good, I mean balancing it not for an individual, but for all of humanity (or, at least, the group of individuals in which the morality is being discussed).

    Thus, there are absolute wrongs. These are things that always cause harm to any human or group of humans. Raping children will always cause more harm than good, at least in today's society.

    Sure, to the few individuals who engage in it, it will do them more good than harm. But to everyone else, and society in general, it is causing harm. Thus, we must defend ourselves from that harm. To us as a society, it is wrong.

    Your “moral standards” mean nothing when you base them on your own “feelings” of right and wrong.

    Ok, let's keep going back and forth: "Your moral standards mean nothing when you base them on a fictional book." Again, it comes down to whether the Bible is true or not.

    Hint: It's not.

    In their eyes, what they are doing doesn’t hurt anyone either.

    That may or may not be true. But even if it is, from an objective point of view, it causes measurable harm. You can easily see and record the harm it causes.

    It is not disrespectful to refer to ABnormal sexual practices with words like deviant, sodomite, perverted, fornicating, etc.

    Yes, but your definition of abnormal is incorrect. That's a factual statement. So it is disprespectful.

    On your blog, however, I will refrain from using those terms – fair enough?

    Sure, fair enough, gosh darn it.

    But being good means nothing if you reject God.

    Well, there goes His omnibenevolence then. Again...he rewards hollow statement of believe more than actual good deeds? He prefers saying you're good to actually being good? That's not a man worthy of worship.

    I have to use my imagination a lot in these conversations, because it's all hypothetical to me. I don't believe God even exists. And once again, I think it all comes down to that. If God does exist and the Bible is literally true, word for word, then maybe your system of morality is right. But I think the fact that the Bible's system of morality completely goes against what we all feel in our hearts as human beings is one more nail in the coffin - it shows that the Bible is NOT true. It shows that God does NOT exist.

    You better hope that your religion just happened to be the one that got every detail about the universe just right, or else your whole life has been devoted to a lie. Doesn't that bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I wonder how many of these pedophiles and rapists are Christians? If they repent in the end, they'll be accepted with open arms? What about Deb? Will she have to beg forgiveness for her sexual orientation (which, by the way, was not her choice) or be sent the other way? What about the Jew or Buddist who spends their life selflessly helping others? Their place in Heaven is taken by the pedophile?

    Frankly, it makes no sense to me.

    Yes, I'm an atheist and firmly believe it's because I wasn't taught a religion from birth, but given the opportunity to understand all of them. Education made me an atheist, not an opinion that was was drummed into my head as an impressionable child. The home schooling of your daughters disturbs me. I believe they have the right to make their own choices. Oh, and I sure do hope none of them have the gay gene.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Phronk sez:

    Again...he rewards hollow statement of believe more than actual good deeds? He prefers saying you're good to actually being good? That's not a man worthy of worship.

    Shora sez:

    I wonder how many of these pedophiles and rapists are Christians?
    --------------------------

    Professing oneself to be a Christian means absolutely nothing to God (from a biblical perspective).

    This scripture pretty much addresses the issue:

    Matthew 25:

    The Final Judgment
    31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory...All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. 34 Then the King will say to those on the right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.'
    37 "Then these righteous ones will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' 40 And the King will tell them, `I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,* you were doing it to me!'
    41 "Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, `Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons! 42 For I was hungry, and you didn't feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn't give me anything to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn't invite me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me no clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
    44 "Then they will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' 45 And he will answer, `I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.' 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life."


    Jesus does not hate anyone on this thread. He hates sin because sin is what separates us from him and destroys us spiritually. But he offers us the chance to repent and turn to him. This offer is open to everyone - even people like Sadaam Hussein but Sadaam would have to truly repent deep within his heart and be willing to change.

    In turn, he gives us the power to lead a Godly life. But he's not stupid. He knows who's faking it and who's for real.

    I have a gay co-worker who has some better personality traits than me. He's more positive and easygoing and unruffled than I am. But I can say that God has helped me become a better person than I was before.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bunny- Once again you are not answering any of my questions.
    You say religious groups can't publically voice their opinion on homosexuality because it gets classified as 'hate speech'.
    My point is it is not. Hopefully you agree with my point on free speach by now since you have provided no support to your argument only opinions.

    With regard to homosexuals using the law to protect themselves why wouldn't they? The vatican happily encourages it's followers (including politicians)to use federal and provincial laws (i.e. no tax) for it's own advancement, to protect itself (many clergy child abuse cases go to court due to the fact the church refused/refuses to admit they actually happened) and the use of the law to stop any movment that the church sees as "immoral" (telling politicians to vote against the gay marriage bill in Canada.

    I am not speaking about other countries. I was referring to Canada as your original comment remarked on the state of free speech "in Canada".

    I am aware of the many atrocities people in other countries around the world face on a daily basis (the opressors and the agressors usually justify their actions with their religious beliefs.) FYI homosexuals face far more danger in far more parts of the world than Christians do.

    There, I'm done. There is no point having a discussion with you since you never actually address any of the questions I put forth.

    ReplyDelete
  35. How come priests are allowed to suck guys off but I'm not?

    I want to do it too!

    I didn't even eat the bad apple the snake told me to eat.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jason, that's really gross. Can you keep lewd comments to your personal blog? You might as well spit a big green hocker in my face.

    There's nothing in the bible that condones the activity you are referring to so you're on your own, buddy.

    YourJudgementalAunt - Sorry I didn't answer your questions. I thought I did. As for personal opinions isn't that what blogs are all about? I think it's interesting to see where different people are coming from.

    I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church. Fascinating institution but not a great track record on many issues. And yes, various institutions try to influence the legal system. Yup, it's called lobbying and everybody does it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I just spent 20 min. reading through these comments and amazingly enough, people continue to be in an uproar! -- Constant bickering makes for an interesting read! Go get um Dani! And Apostolic Bunny Lover!

    ***To Mitzee- Yes, you can repent right before you die, and God will forgive you IF you are sincere, although I must say, you seem like this is definantly premeditated. God knows all things, and I would be concerned living my life doing "whatever feels good", BANKING on moments not even gaurenteed. It is a nice plan you have there, although you better SERIOUSLY hope it works out that in the time frame you are going to die, you have 2 min. or so to get your life right. Hopefully not an instantaneous death or anything. Instead of making that gamble why not surrender to God now and enjoy all that He sees fit to bring your way, A.K.A.--blessings, peace, joy that passes all understanding, HOPE that "the world" cannot comprehend of or share. Just an idea. Gaurantee your spot, don't bank on maybe's.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Phronk said-
    "I live my life in such a way that I maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. That is the ultimate standard - happiness is the currency of life. Things that promote love and happiness for me and others are good. Things that cause hate and unhappiness are not good."

    Um doesn't that just beg the very question against what Dani said? I mean isn't it an impediment upon the happiness of pedaphiles to have their way of life so maligned? When Stalin genocidally massacred his own citizens didn't that increase his happiness (via-increasing his rule)?

    ***And your standard of right and wrong ultimatly fails to tell us why we should abide by it.*** Why should I give a rip about the happiness of somebody else? Why is it universally binding that this is the standard of morality...b/c you athiests say so?

    Oh and Dani, I'm not mad at you or anything I just cant get down with mocking hell bound sinners in their sin.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am so bored today. This thread is better than Jerry Springer and it's way past my bedtime.

    Miss Informed I saw you are a scrapbooker. Now we're talking.

    My new question is: Why are there no male scrapbookers. Seriously, there are 0.

    I asked my gay co-worker if he was interested cause he likes photography and doesn't seem hung up on machismo. He gave me a dirty look and walked away. So what is it with guys and scrapbooking.

    Regarding thugs who beat up gays I'm reminded of that old show w/David Carradine. He seemed really peaceful and passive and kind of effeminate. Every show some group of redneck thugs would threaten him. After verbally warning them in a soft and gentle manner he would then proceed to karate chop them into oblivion and walk away peacefully into the sunset. So why don't they do a remake called Queen Fu featuring a gay martial arts expert who beats up homophobic rednecks.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Shora - Thanks for commenting and for writing about me on your blog. I know probably already hate my guts, but if you will check back tomorrow I will take the time to respond to your comments.

    ===================

    **And a quick message for ME - I thought you might want to check out my fellow blogging friend named Tyler Dawbin. Hey has a few great blogs that are insightful and informative. He also gave me this great link for you =>
    Homosexual Sex as Harmful as Drug Abuse, Prostitution, or Smoking

    I'm sure you already know that TRUE statistics about homosexual parenting will be somewhat hard to find outside of conservative sources because the "Religious Right" are the only group of people who care enough to share the truth about homosexuality. You will not find accurate and reliable information from the "Loose, Left-Wing Liberals" because they do not believe in absolute truth and morality. They are defined by the values of Hilary, Humanists, Homosexuals and Hollywood so you know they cannot be trusted. Plus pro-homosexual advocates obviously have their own personal agenda to fulfill - so naturally they glamorize perversion.

    Also - Please keep in mind that you can always contact me through email if you ever want to discuss anything outside the realms of this blog. I respect your desire to remain anonymous, just know that you can talk to me behind the scenes anytime you want.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yamathan -- Thank you too, for taking the time to respond to my questions in a decent manner. I am glad they were thought-provoking and interesting. When I asked if incest is wrong, I wasn't trying to make it complicated, I was pretty much referring to incest within the immediate family or between people who were raised as a siblings.

    My attempt to "provoke your thought" was merely to point out the fallacy in your argument of supporting two adults having sex together, as long as they are sexually mature and can express sexual consent. Surely, grown siblings are mature and can consent to having sex together, and they aren't "hurting" anyone (so-to-speak), but does that really make it ok??? Certainly NOT!!!

    Same is true for homosexuality - Just because they are grown and consenting adults, does NOT make it okay! The truth is it that DOES matter what coupling of genders is going on, homosexuality is wrong - even if it doesn't align with your worldview. I agree that child-molestation is a heinous act and is far worse than homosexuality, but a lesser of two evils, is still evil. --- That is why I didn't vote for Bush ;->

    ==================

    Phronk -- You stated: "When I say that morality is based on balancing harm and good, I mean balancing it not for an individual, but for all of humanity."

    Let me ask you these 2 simple questions:
    1) How exactly has homosexuality been "good" for all of humanity?
    2) How has fornication and having multiple sex partners benefited our society?

    Perhaps to the few individuals who engage in those activities, it will do them more good than harm. But to everyone else, and society in general, it is causing harm. Think of all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, fatherless children, broken homes, depression, addictions, instability, and other issues that results from having sexual relationships outside of marriage, whether gay or straight. To us as a society, sex outside of marriage SHOULD be wrong. But sadly, traditional values have been exterminated and considered abnormal, while sexual perversions are glorified and socially acceptable.

    Here are a few definitions for you from the dictionary itself - Not just some worthless storybook:

    Deviant - One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards. => ABNORMAL

    Sodomite - Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male). => ABNORMAL

    Perverted - Deviating from what is considered right and correct; Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion. => ABNORMAL

    Fornicating - Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other. *Word History: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. NOTE: the crime of engaging in fornication — compare to adultery. Where still considered a crime, fornication is classified as a misdemeanor.

    All of those terms I use, by definition are ABNORMAL. It is not disrespectful for me to use those words, it is TRUTHFUL! Sometimes the truth is offensive and our "feelings" get hurt. For example, when I said you were using your girlfriend by fornicating with her because if you really loved her enough to have sex with her, you would WANT to make her your wife so you could spend the rest of your life with her. Otherwise, your girlfriend is merely a sexual object and compannion for you to use as an outlet for temporary fulfilment until another woman comes around who is good enough to be your wife. Assuming of course, that you are not "gay" and actually want to get married to a woman someday?!?!

    You got all hostile and deffensive because "you wanna live the way you wanna live" and anyone who says it's wrong is being hateful and disrespectful. Again, this is why we shouldn't rely on our "feelings" to determine wright from wrong. Perhaps your views of sexuality are completely warped - living in Canada and all?

    From my objective point of view, homosexuality causes measurable harm to those involved and society at large. You can easily see and record the harm it causes to humankind.
    Re-Read This => Statistics on Homosexuality - You know, where you left this comment: "I avoid any statistics that feel the need to have the word "true" in front of the title."

    Perhaps you should reconsider reading these stastics before you reach your conclusions of whether or not they are indeed true. Then go to the link I provided at the bottom of the post and verify all the references for yourself. Don't make irrational claims without actually looking at some of the "details" - that is completely irresponsible. If you happen to find out that those statistics are completely bogus, then consider this scenario:

    Let's say, hypothetically speaking that homosexuality was normal, healthy, good for people, and no one ever suffered from diseases or any of that stuff - Everyone is just having a Gay ol' Time being gay together. Now, lets say that we take all of the homosexual men in the world and place them on a large deserted island with a fully functioning society for them to operate in......Next take all of the lesbian women of the world and place them on a separate island with the same stuff needed to live on......How long do you think it will take before each of their societies and entire populations will cease to exist altogether?

    I would say that having an entire group of individuals becoming extinct in less than a century because they cannot reproduce does NOT seem very healthy for a society or the human race to even survive. What do you think? Of course, I'm ALL for the idea of putting homosexuals on separate islands - But, that's just my hateful opinion.

    BTW - when you are hopefully reading those statistics - be sure to take a moment to check out the comments from your Canadian pal Seanny McShawn - He used to be my number one opposing critic a few months back but he couldn't handle or admit the most basic absolute truths - like: Do you exist? He reminds me a lot like you - Except you are a tad bit more intelligent than he is, especially when you make comments like this:

    "If God does exist and the Bible is literally true, word for word, then maybe your system of morality is right."

    See - you're no fool if you can at least acknowledging that there is a possibility of the Bible being true. Maybe if I were indeed a complete fundamental religious whacko (like you think I am), and everything I say could be complete garbage, Just try to keep in mind that there is a chance that I COULD be right about the Bible. If there is even a small fraction of a chance that the Bible is True in you mind, wouldn't it be worth your time and effort to find out for certain?

    "But I think the fact that the Bible's system of morality completely goes against what we all feel in our hearts as human beings..."

    This is one of the primary reasons why we should NOT rely on our "feelings" - Like my husband always says, "feelings are the worst indicator of reality."

    Further, I will kindly point out that the Bible's system of morality DOES seem to line up with the majority of what you believe to be morally wrong. God says that He has written the Law on your heart, so you would have now excuse to know right from wrong. Whether or not you choose to do the right thing is entirely different.

    As I'm sure you already know, the Bible that says DO NOT: Murder, Lie, Steal, Commit Adultery, ect. Surely those things do not go against what you feel in your heart to be bad? The Bible also happens to say that incest, bestiality, rape, child molestation, along with fornication AND homosexuality and morally wrong.

    In addition to that, all of those things listed in the Bible as "morally wrong" are not only considered "sins" in the eyes of God, they are also crimes. At least most of them still are crimes today, but 50 years ago we began to severely compromise on God's morality, so NOW certain sexual crimes which were once punishable by death, are now legal and practiced by millions.
    As my original post indicates - we are continuing to push the moral envelope to the outter limits of evil. Was it even thinkable that there would be pedophile political parties trying to run a nation of people?

    No matter what you believe to be true - it really boils down to the MAJOR fundamental issue of whether you believe the Bible is true or not. Nothing I say will make you become a true believer, but here is a hint: IT IS TRUE!

    "You better hope that your religion just happened to be the one that got every detail about the universe just right, or else your whole life has been devoted to a lie. Doesn't that bother you?"

    Of course it would bother me, IF I actually had doubts about God and the Bible. But fortunately for me, I happen to know for certain, without a doubt in my mind, that every single detail about the universe and in the Bible is "just right" and enspired by God. I have done extensive research and study from all viewpoints for several years to verify the details for myself. I do NOT merely have "blind faith" and base my whole life on some silly storybook. My faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for. By faith I can understand that the universe was designed and created by the hands of God because all of the marvelous things which we can see, were clearly not made by something that is visible.

    If you would?? Please take a moment to check out these pictures from my trip to Hawaii and let me know if you sincerely think all the beautiful scenery just happened by random chance in the cosmic universe => ~*ALOHA* ~

    So the question is turned back around - YOU better hope that your religion (Atheism) just happens to be the one that gets every detail about the universe just right, or else YOUR whole life has been devoted to a complete lie. Doesn't THAT bother you? Even a little?

    "I wuv ya too, Phronk" - Otherwise I wouldn't spend my entire evening into the wee hours of the morning writing this response to you when I have to be up at 6:00am to tend to the needs of six small children throughout the day. I could and should be sleeping right now, but I care enough about you knowing the truth to give up my precious beauty sleep and crazy-fun dreams. Ask yourself this: Why would Dani waste so much time, just to tell you lies?

    Just some food for thought...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dani, I certainly do NOT "hate your guts". I simply disagree with you. I absolutely respect your right to have your own beliefs and I also respect and admire the way you're handling yourself here when challenged by so many.

    As I said before, what disturbs me the most, being a mother myself, is your choice to pull your children out of the "Godless governments schools" in favour of teaching them what YOU believe they should learn. I believe children go to school to learn math, English, SCIENCE.... as well as all the social skills that go along with making friends and learning to live with others that aren't exactly like you. You're denying your kids that. Religion is something that can be taught (or in my case not taught at all) at home. My children are 14 and 11. My husband was raised Catholic, he believes in God but is not a churchgoer. Neither of my children were baptized or received any other type of religious ceremony. Religion is not taught in my home, but it's discussed, and when my children ask questions the answer they're always given begins with "Well, I believe.... but Dad believes.....". The conversation is never "This is the way it is" but instead "This is what some people believe". As it has turned out, my eldest is a "heathen" just like his mum. My youngest firmly believes in God. I completely support him in that, but it was his choice, and not something I told him to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't hate you either...hate is a very strong word....i just think you take things way too literally, I live my life like this: do onto others as you would have done onto you....i'm generally a good person to all, i dont judge, it's not my place and i think that counts for a lot in this day and age....regardless.....you have the right to say what you want, we all do, and do what you want, i just think we're all in for a big surprise when we die....all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  44. although i do think your a little off your rocker, ok a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It is not for us to question why I like guys, God works in mysterious ways. True.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This must make u happy.

    If gays can't marry then how will they be able to have sex without sin in the eyes of the Lord?

    The US sure is mixed up.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You guys always contradict yourselves.

    "The bible is TRUE!" Yet, when presented with other biblical passages such as the allowance of slaves, including the selling of one's daughters into slavery, Christians claim that these are no longer valid and outdated. Huh? You just pick and choose your "truths"?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I'm sure you already know that TRUE statistics about homosexual parenting will be somewhat hard to find outside of conservative sources because the "Religious Right" are the only group of people who care enough to share the truth about homosexuality."

    Thanks so much for the sources. I will read all of them. My paper will be due sometime in late August and I will definately email you a copy then! I knew that this would be a tough subject to research. If I can't find enough sources (this paper has to be 20 typed pages or more)then I have a backup topic of the general effects of homosexuality on society. (Which I have more than enough material for). :) Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bob - read my lower comment for clarification.

    Dani - before I get insulting (I can't help myself sometimes), I want to thank you for taking the time to write back.

    Now, on with it:

    1) How exactly has homosexuality been "good" for all of humanity?

    Well like I said before, I don't think homosexuality itself is either good or bad. It's descriptive, like having brown eyes. The key aspect of homosexuality - having relationships with the same sex - is usually good. There is certainly nothing "wronger" about a gay relationship than a heterosexual relationship. What is wrong is denying who one is and being unhappy for it.

    2) How has fornication and having multiple sex partners benefited our society?

    I like sex. Don't you like sex? Therefore it's causing good every time you do it. It would cause great harm to take away peoples' right to choose who to have sex with and when. So it balances out as good.

    Think of all the diseases, unwanted pregnancies, fatherless children, broken homes, depression, addictions, instability, and other issues that results from having sexual relationships outside of marriage,

    Those sound like results of being irresponsible, not the particular timing of sex. Plus they're things that could happen in a marriage just as easily as outside of one.

    Here are a few definitions for you from the dictionary itself - Not just some worthless storybook: [deviant, sodomite, etc.]

    Here are a few more:

    Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    Homophobe: A person who hates or fears homosexual people

    Dogmatist: A person who lays down opinions as incontrovertible truth, without consideration of evidence or opinions from others.

    They're in the dictionary, so I can call you those things? Ok, cool.

    You got all hostile and deffensive because "you wanna live the way you wanna live"

    Actually, I was A) In a state of incredulity because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and B) Hostile because you insulted the woman I love (and all women) by implying that she cannot make her own decisions, and it's my job to "make her my wife". It had nothing to do with me. So yeah, when you insult people I love, I get a little hostile. When people talk about your kids here, though they have some good points, I'm surprised you haven't just told them to fuck off.

    I'll continue in the post below.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Perhaps your views of sexuality are completely warped - living in Canada and all?

    Haha...so now not only is every religion except yours wrong, but the entire country of Canada is warped too. Heheh...that's rich. You just love this attention don't you?

    From my objective point of view,

    Muaahahahhahahahahhahaah

    Re-Read This => Statistics on Homosexuality - You know, where you left this comment: "I avoid any statistics that feel the need to have the word "true" in front of the title."

    Yeah, then I went on to point out several concrete factual errors and problems with the method of those "statistics". Then I explained how even if they are true (they're not), it doesn't really support your point anyway. Oh and hey, did you read that article I linked to about how homosexuality is not a choice?

    Now, lets say that we take all of the homosexual men in the world and place them on a large deserted island with a fully functioning society for them to operate in......Next take all of the lesbian women of the world and place them on a separate island with the same stuff needed to live on......How long do you think it will take before each of their societies and entire populations will cease to exist altogether?

    Oh...my...God. Dani Dani Dani, this so ridiculously irrational that I'm surprised even you would bring it up.

    First: Go back to your example. Replace every instance of the word "homosexual" with the word "heterosexual". Now read it again.

    I guess the world is doomed, eh?

    Second: Humans have been around for thousands of years. Homosexuality has always existed. Other animals have been around even longer. Homosexulaity has always existed in them too. Even if 5% of the population NEVER reproduced, I think we'd be OK. At the rate you're popping out kids, you could probably repopulate the world if you were the last heterosexual on earth.

    (tell me to fuck off now)

    See - you're no fool if you can at least acknowledging that there is a possibility of the Bible being true.

    Does that make you a fool, since you won't at least acknowledge that there is a possibility that my point of view is true?

    If there is even a small fraction of a chance that the Bible is True in you mind, wouldn't it be worth your time and effort to find out for certain?

    Yes. That's why I have conversations like this. That's why I read about science and philosophy and Buddhism and everything. That's why I rejected my Christian upbringing in the first place.

    "feelings are the worst indicator of reality."

    Well that's bizarre. How did you choose your husband then? Was it a cold, emotionless command from God? How do you choose a meal for dinner? Same thing?

    And...

    God says that He has written the Law on your heart, so you would have now excuse to know right from wrong.

    So God wrote the law in our hearts...but our hearts are the worst indicator of reality...so God wants us to ignore reality? And if by reality you mean God, then God is hiding himself? Is He shy or something?

    As I'm sure you already know, the Bible that says DO NOT: Murder, Lie, Steal, Commit Adultery, ect. Surely those things do not go against what you feel in your heart to be bad? The Bible also happens to say that incest, bestiality, rape, child molestation, along with fornication AND homosexuality and morally wrong.

    Yes, murdering and stealing feel wrong in most situations. Score one for God. But seeing two men (or women) in love and having a great life together gives me fuzzy feelings of warmth and goodness. Did God mess up when he wrote his law in my heart?

    so NOW certain sexual crimes which were once punishable by death, are now legal and practiced by millions.

    Yeah...so you're getting back to your homosexual genocide position, right? And that feels right to you? How do you know God didn't mess up when he programmed your heart?

    Please take a moment to check out these pictures from my trip to Hawaii and let me know if you sincerely think all the beautiful scenery just happened by random chance in the cosmic universe => ~*ALOHA* ~

    Very nice pictures! I went to Cuba a few months ago and it was gorgeous as well.

    A few things:

    1) Classifying a non-theistic position as "it just happened by chance" demonstrates that you really don't understand much about science. I'd suggest reading more about it before rejecting it.

    2) My own personal feeling is that things seem more beautiful when you truly understand, or know that you could understand, how they came to be. All the wonderous complexity of the scenery and life you see in Hawaii is mind-boggling and beautiful in the deepest sense of the word. This satisfies me much more than "A magic man in the sky made it all pop into existence", but to each their own.

    3) It seems much more likely to me that we were created to appreciate prexisting things (i.e. find nature beautiful). Things were not created to be appreciated. Whether you believe God created us or we came about through natural processes, this seems like a better solution to me.

    So the question is turned back around - YOU better hope that your religion (Atheism) just happens to be the one that gets every detail about the universe just right, or else YOUR whole life has been devoted to a complete lie. Doesn't THAT bother you? Even a little?

    Well see, that's the thing, I don't have to get every detail right, because the payoff doesn't come at the end. I'm living your afterlife right now...I'm making the world a better place and enjoying my life. If I discover I got something wrong, I can change my beliefs, and it doesn't invalidate everything I've done previously.

    And where do you get this idea that I'm an atheist? The entire time here, I have been arguing against your God (and Bible), not all gods. Perhaps I worship an obscure Egyptian god who encourages hedonism and acceptance.

    I really have no problem with people who are religious. Religion does a lot of good things. It's your specific religion - your particular interpretation of the Bible and Christianity - that I am 99.999999999999% sure is not only false, but doing harm to the world.

    So please be clear - I am not taking the position of an atheist here. I am taking the postition of aDanitheism.

    Like homosexuality, religion itself is neither good nor bad, just descriptive. It's what you do with it that counts - and the reason I have taken so much time here is that I think what you're doing with your religion is absolutely horrible. I know I will never change your mind about whether God exists...but maybe, just maybe, you can at least consider that some specific aspects of your beliefs need alterting to make any logical or moral sense.

    Ask yourself this: Why would Dani waste so much time, just to tell you lies?

    I do appreciate your time, but I am taking a lot of time here too. That says nothing about the truth of what I am saying. Same goes for you.

    Well, this has been my longest comment ever...please forgive any typos, as I don't have time to read it over.

    Have a good dya.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The super doppler gaydar says the forcast is partly queer with a chance of fag... Wait.
    What am I wasting time here when I could be doing some major PWNAGE.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Miss Thistle said

    You guys always contradict yourselves.

    "The bible is TRUE!" Yet, when presented with other biblical passages such as the allowance of slaves, including the selling of one's daughters into slavery, Christians claim that these are no longer valid and outdated. Huh? You just pick and choose your "truths"?


    -----------------------
    The Bible doesn't condone or condemn slavery. The Jewish law did contain guidlines for ethical treatment of indentured servants. In the New Testament, slaves were advised to keep a low profile on the issue as Christianity was a new religion and subject to intense political persecution.

    Regarding the Jewish Old Testament law and it's over 613 rules. In Acts, the new Christian church struggled with this issue. The guidelines established were:

    Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality [Greek: Porneia]. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."

    Different theologians argue about the exact meaning of Porneia, the term used repeatedly in the New Testament in reference to sexual immorality.

    John McNeil - Progay View

    Robert Gagnon - Traditional View

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm sorry you're so unhappy, Dani. I hope you learn to love. :)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jason sez

    If gays can't marry then how will they be able to have sex without sin in the eyes of the Lord?

    --------------------

    Jesus Christ can release you from any desires that don't line up with this Word. It's called deliverance. This would include overwhelming sexual attractions that would lead you to sin. The Bible says that sexual sin is really destructive so the point is not to label people as immoral but establish protective boundaries for sexual behavior.

    Obviously tons of people believe this can't happen but I'm not one to limit God's power so easily. God has delivered me from a lot of things like an eating disorder, depression - things I felt I had no control over.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Love the Blog, and i only read one entry. Like yourself I see black and white in some things, and "Know" GOD's Word, some people think that makes me narrow minded and a hater..Whatever. One of our supreme court justices--Ruth Bader Ginsberg also said the age of consent should be dropped! GOD HELP US!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Exodus 21:7-8
    "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her."

    To me that is more than a guideline, but you choose to interpret as you see fit.

    I suppose your interpretations of Noah's selection of two of each kind of animal would include whales and every other sea animal? Not to mention every "kind" of insect? Pretty big boat, I'd gather, if you consider the thousands of types of birds alone. Plus food. Plus room for waste.

    But, of course, the bible says so.

    Debate for another time. Sorry to hijack, dani.

    ReplyDelete
  57. So lemme recap -- you wanted to point out fallacy in my impression that two nonrelated consenting adults having sex is acceptible by citing examples of close-family incest? Isn't that a little diverting?

    I should also point out that I meant that I don't care what gender coupling in an adult/child relationship occurs because I don't like ANY adult/child relationship because of the consent barrier. Perhaps I should also make it clear that honestly I don't really care what any gender coupling occurs in any adult non-incestual relationship because it's a) none of my business and b) really none of my business, with a smattering of c) why should I care?

    If you disagree, that's fine, but please don't hedge the issue. This was a post on pedophilia and how very much you dislike it, and for good reason. By your dragging incest into the mix I feel a little snubbed, if nothing else because it felt like an intentional undermining of my stance by likening it to something almost universally abhored.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Miss Thistle quoted Exodus 21:7-8, which touches on female 'slavery'

    I found a Commentary on these verses. In Hebrew society people had the option of becoming indentured servants for six years, usually to meet some type of financial need or pay off a debt, etc. For women, these arrangements constituted a marriage contract. This type of arrangement, while foreign to modern society, made sense in a time where women could not just go and get a job and be financially self-supporting.

    What the Jewish Law did was give her specific contractual rights. At the end of 6 years, if her employer did not want to marry her or give his son to her as a husband, she could be redeemed back by her family. The employer was not permitted to sell her to foreigners. If the employer failed to offer one of these three options it constituted a breach of contract and she was free to leave w/o any other further financial obligations.

    According to the commentary
    This idea of women - and women of lower classes - having such rights, respected by God and society was revolutionary in an age when women were usually regarded as property

    ReplyDelete
  59. Let me apologize for the sloppy typos in my last post, I must have seen at least half a dozen errors. *Blush* It was getting late and I was too tired to proof read it one last time before I posted - see what I get for being lazy. Anyway, I don't want to come across as a careless writer when responding to you all, and I want my writings to make sense. Gosh darn it - I hate being so anal about these things. By the time I finally finish a lengthy post, there are five more comments to respond to and catch up on. So please try to overlook any silly grammatical mess ups of mine.

    Anyway...

    Jason -- Bush may claim to ban "gay marriage" but he sure has no problem supporting "gay civil unions'. He is such a total coward and a phony believer if I ever saw one. Thanks for trying to make me happy though - but that didn't do it.

    Thanks to Bunny for taking over for me and responding to many of these comments. It's also been fun to read the dialog between you and your judgmental aunt. I hope you all are enjoying yourselves, I know I am.

    Oh Bob -- No worries. I respect your requests. Different strokes for different folks. Your comments are always welcome here anytime.

    Well Phronk my pal -- We both have devoted endless hours of writing back and forth, yet we seem to be dancing around in a circle, reaching absolutely no conclusion to agree upon...other than the fact that we disagree on Truth. So for now, while I am not giving up, I am just going to take a little break, cuz frankly this is getting exhausting and time consuming (especially since I can't type very fast). Maybe later tomorrow I'll respond to you? This is where that new 36 hr "stay awake" pill you wrote about would really come in handy.

    Thank you though for devoting your time to me, I do appreciate your thoughts and questions because they force me to study even harder to give the right answers.

    Real quick though, I will say that it's cool with me if you want to call me a bigot, dogmatist or a homophobe. Those are pretty much true statements, except I don't "hate" homosexuals, but they do severely gross me out. You can also add to the list of name calling: judgmental, intolerant and radical nutcase since those are also true statements. So NOW can I call you a fornicator, since that it the truth as well? If you REALLY loved you girlfriend like you say you do, why not just ask the girl to marry you? Seriously, what's the big deal? Are you waiting for something better to come along? And BTW - No matter how much you insult me I would never tell you to F-off. I'm made of lead - don't ya know? Nothing you say can hurt my feelings.

    ================

    Shora -- As promised, I will now take this time to respond to your comments. First, I'm glad to hear that you don't "hate my guts." Disagreeing with me is great - obviously all of the differing viewpoints here make this blog exciting, at least I think so.

    "What disturbs me the most, being a mother myself, is your choice to pull your children out of the "Godless governments schools" in favour of teaching them what YOU believe they should learn."

    As a parent, I have an obligation and responsibility to teach my children what I believe they should learn. Further, it is my right and choice as their mother to do what is in the best interest of my children. It would be absolutely irresponsible of me to forfeit my rights as a parent and had them over a godless bureaucratic education system that teaches and promotes the very things that go against my most cherished beliefs.

    I also believe children should learn math, English, science, history, ect. But is public school the only place on earth that they can learn those thing? Further, I don't know if you have noticed, but the illiteracy rate of most schools these days is shamefully high. Many kids today are graduating high school who can barely read, write, spell, or even use proper grammar, let alone know anything about the basics.

    For me, the most important objective with raising my children is building their character, not teaching them math, English and science. The main goal in child training is to train them to be obedient, respectful, to honor God, to learn His Word and to love each other. Once those things are in place, the academics will naturally follow with ease and oftentimes they will excel far beyond public educated kids.

    "...as well as all the social skills that go along with making friends and learning to live with others that aren't exactly like you. You're denying your kids that."

    Ahhh yes, the social aspect of public schooling, I almost forgot! Please excuse me for being blunt - but denying them what exactly? If I wanted my girls to be severely sexually harassed daily, experience fierce peer pressure, have poor self-esteem, get bullied, pick up a few drug habits, disrespect authority, use foul language, learn how to give blow jobs and have orgies, or possibly get sexually molested by their peers and teachers, then I would send them to public school in a heartbeat. I don't exactly want my children to embrace moral relativism, feminism, tolerance and perversion as virtues. No, no - I actually LOVE my children and care about their physical, emotional and spiritual well-being, so that kind of "socialization" is not an option for our family! Thanks for your concern though.

    In our home we learn about the truth in the Bible along with history, math, reading and science. Since my husband and I are equally yoked together with the same beliefs, we do need to plat the "he said, she said" game. The conversations in our home is always, "This is the way it is." We also teach the opposing view, "This is what some people believe" and unfortunately they are absolutely wrong.

    It does not surprise me that your eldest is a "heathen" just like his mum. What do you expect to happen when you don't teach him about truth and morality and you send him to a godless school to be indoctrinated with lies? You say your youngest firmly believes in God. Well, he is only 11 - Give him a few more years and he'll become a heathen too.

    Moving right along, you asked -

    "What about Deb? Will she have to beg forgiveness for her sexual orientation."

    Yes - she does need to REPENT and beg for forgiveness for mocking God and living a sexually immoral life! I really like Deb, and I want nothing more than for her than to experience the True freedom in Christ. Stay tuned because she has invited me to be a guest blogger on her site and I get to write whatever I want. That's pretty brave of her and and I am extremely grateful for that opportunity.

    I wouldn't stress out over pedophiles and rapists suddenly having a great revelation on their death bed and repenting of their wickedness. People like that are completely given over to a debased mind and their hearts are too full of evil- to receive forgiveness from God. Sinners like that will not be in Heaven - otherwise Heaven would become hell.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "...as well as all the social skills that go along with making friends and learning to live with others that aren't exactly like you. You're denying your kids that."

    I have to agree w/Dani here. I work for a public online charter school that serves mostly low income folk. A recent survey revealed that safety concerns are the #1 reason parents want their kids to work at home on the computer. I've had parents tell me stories about their kids being raped, shot, bullied, beat up, running with the wrong crowd etc. etc.

    Liberal minded folk just love to wax poetic about the joys of public education, mostly cause their kids go to nice well funded schools where this kind of crap doesn't happen. Or if it does, their noble social experiment ends and the kids get sent packin' to private school.

    Parents whose kids study at home either thru home schooling or an online school have lots of socialization options - they can involve their kids in hobbies, sports, church youth groups, work study programs, art, you name it.

    My neighbor's daughter was kicked out of HS for smoking pot and being able to work at home w/o peer pressure enabled her to earn her HS diploma. Her 'social' experiences w/other kids resulted in the cops being over there every other day. Real constructive I woud say.

    ReplyDelete
  61. But how are we supposed to "recruit" kids to the gay "lifestyle" if all you people homeschool them?

    I want to be a teacher and read all kids, "Heather has Two Mommies."

    I don't think Jesus would have liked Nascar. Was thinking about that all day.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Phronk-
    Length of writing doesn't validate your position. You failed to answer why we should adopt your system of morality. AND if you say that it's your system we don't need to adopt it this is a reduction to sheer relativism. If this is the case what right to you really have to say that pedophilia is wrong and should not be allowed, thus imposing Phronk's morals upon others?

    What you really mean is that for you it is wrong, but the pedophile may have their own standard of morality (just different from yours but equally valid...after all you don't want to be DOGMATIC and claim to have an absolute truth) do you?

    So please explain: 1) Why sould we accept your system of morality and its stipulations.

    2) How is your system not a reduction of morals to mere relativism? (true for you not for me)

    ReplyDelete
  63. There is nothing wrong with Homeschooling. And Dani is right about the importance of teaching children what WE, the PARENTS, feel to be important. Certaintly, Math, Science, English, etc, are very important, and if you look at the statistics of homeschooled children, they, by far, exceed their "traditional" school counterparts. They, (homeschoolers) have the opportunity to do more "hands on" learning, more one on one time, less distractions in the classroom, and are "socialized" through sports, scouts, hobbies, and numerous other venues, that are appropriate. School is meant for LEARNING ACADEMICS, not for SOCIALIZATION. There are children at my daughters school that I DO NOT WANT HER TO SOCIALIZE WITH. I feel bad for those children, for it is really not their fault, but their parents fault, that they act the way that they do. But, I do not want MY CHILD picking up THEIR BAD BAHAVIOR. If I had the ability to snatch my kids out of public school right now and homeschool them, I would do it in a heartbeat. The more I research homeschooling versus public education, the more I feel an overwhelming desire to teach my own children. I am tired of holding my daughter at night while she cries because people were picking on her because she brings her lunch to school, which of course, must make her "poor". I am tired of her telling me that she wishes she could just "act stupid" at school so the other children would not make fun of her because she is school minded, loves to learn, and excels. I am tired of the same boy pushing my daughter down at recess everyday, giving her scraped knees, damaging her self esteem, and DESTROYING her clothes.
    Homeschooling is not a bad thing. The more I think about it, the more I want to do it! I want to be able to PROTECT my children, and keep them safe from the harm that others do to them.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dani, I'm not even going to attempt to address some of your comments. Thanks for spending the time to respond, but there are certain things we can go back and forth on til the cows come home and never come CLOSE to agreeing.

    You've all brought up very valid points regarding home schooling. I sometimes forget to be more thankful that I live in Canada and don't send my kids to school worrying if they'll be knifed or sexually molested by their teachers. And my kids' friends come in all shapes and colours, they all play together in relative harmony, and for that I'm also etremely grateful and proud to be Canadian. I should clarify that it's not home schooling per se that I have a problem with, it's some people's version of it. Dani, I have a suspicion your version is "2 times 2 equals 4 because God made it that way". And you said "I don't exactly want my children to embrace moral relativism, feminism, tolerance and perversion as virtues". Ok, we're in agreement on perversion, but the others?!?!? Home schooling your children on the evils of having an open mind, women's rights and respecting others beliefs is not a good thing. Can I ask you your views on interracial relationships? I don’t suppose I really have to ask, but...

    ReplyDelete
  65. Shora -- You are not even going to attempt to address some of my comments? Awe, bummer. I wish you would, never know what you might find out.

    "Dani, I have a suspicion your version is 2 times 2 equals 4 because God made it that way".

    Well - it's a good thing I'm RIGHT, huh?

    So this is the problem with your mindset - "2 times 2 equals whatever you want it to equal" because all truth is relative.

    See the error here? There are certain things in life that are absolute and we should teach that to our children. It is absolutely foolish for parents to redefine truth and let our kids "think for themselves" and make up their own answers as they go along in life. Shame - shame!

    What do you tell your kids 2 times 2 equals?

    "Home schooling your children on the evils of having an open mind..."

    Having an open mind is great...so long as your mind isn't so "open" that your brains fall out on to the floor!

    I am not even going to touch the "women's rights" issue. Plain and simple - women don't have the right to murder their own offspring inside their womb because GOD SAYS MURDER IS EVIL!

    Oh, and my husband has brown skin if that answers your question about interracial relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Goddess - that sucks about your kid. See if there are any online charter schools in your area - in my state these are free.

    Shora - I have a friend who lives near Toronto and she lives in this great multicultural neighborhood (with I assume an equally cool school). Unfortunately, with American schools, unless they are in a wealthy or middle class neighborhood, Goddess's experience is more uncommon. Kids get beat up for wearing the 'wrong' shoes (not super expensive ones) and then when they wear the 'right' ones they might get stolen.

    It bothers me that you see Dani through your own stereotypes of conservative Christians. Seem like you assume she is some moron living in a trailer park who is turning her kids into Jr. Klansmen.

    Maybe you need to examine your own stereotypes. Liberal minded folk can be very snooty about how 'enlightened' they are in comparison to everybody else - I know because I went to a prominent ultra liberal college and had to deal with their attitude. I had to unlearn so much of the snobbery and arrogance I picked up there. I have some friends w/bad teeth, lacking a college education, poor grammar etc but they are the most loving and down to earth people you'd ever want to meet and I value their salt of the earth wisdom.

    One stereotype used to demean Conservative Christians is the 'red neck bible thumpin' Jr Klansmen slopebrow moron'. I hear it all the time from people who are proud of their 'enlightened' state of 'tolerance'. And they think that in invoking these stereotypes that they are being terribly witty and original! It gets old real fast and the hypocrisy pretty much leads me to tune them out completely. I am saying this having once been ultra liberal myself so being on the other side I can see a lot of bullcrap in the liberal attitudes I once held so dear.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Here is a comment Shora left me on her blog:

    Dani: You have your beliefs and I have mine. Nobody can say who is right or wrong. What disturbs me is when one person's radical beliefs are force-fed to those without a choice and not old enough to understand that they have one.

    ===============

    Shora - are you absolutely sure about what you said?

    I mean, if nobody can say who is right or wrong, how can you say I'm wrong and you're right?

    Are there any such things as absolutes?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dani girl! I had to push through all these people to get in. Ugh! ;)

    I'm back ... (don't cringe!!!)

    Loose left wingers. I'm so with you on that one. These people irritate me (sorry to those who are loose left wingers)... And as you know, most of the gay community do lean way way WAY left, to the point of 'get out of my face with that crap already'!!! They constantly push things in your face either for attention or for the mere shock treatment. That I agree with.

    The age limit to 12 yrs old and this group? Horrible. These little ones have no say in this. They don't even know what's going on! They think it's normal because an adult is doing this to them.

    And animals? Feel bad for those lonely farmers needing a little lovin'. (ha) But they do say that sheep have the same anatomy as a woman's genitalia. Seriously! And NO I didn't find out the hard way! It's unclean and just not safe and just AND it's more of a sickness rather than an "orientation" in my eyes.

    I feel like what I say is going to be redundant after all these comments, but in my beliefs as a homosexual, loving a person of the same sex is not the same at all from pedophelia or bestiality.

    At least you would get a dinner out of me before I'd ask you to come home. ;) A sheep can't do that!

    Now argue that one! :)


    Cheers!!! When you coming to NY so we can throw back a martini or 5 and we can both pick each other's brain?

    Is alcohol bad? Hmmm... It might lead to...oh no...FLIRTING! Watch out hubbie! jk!!! Have to bust on ya a little!

    Emailing you now.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Flirting/adultery/lesbianism and other crazy things as well.

    *wink wink*

    I'm like the devil--tempting the righteous one over here....

    muA ha ha ha!

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dani:

    In response to the, "I thought guns were bad" comment:

    My profession REQUIRES guns. Big ones, small ones, LOTS of them.

    I was writing more about how the military attempts to "train" your brain to shoot another human being, without it being a "shock" to your system. Of course, we all know that it DOES shock your system. Shooting at a firing range is completely different than shooting in combat. Firing ranges do not have enough varibles in them to be "combat training" effective, meaning, how many times in combat do you think someone is laying stationary, shooting at a stationary target, that isnt shooting back?
    And regardless of what shape the silhouette is, we all KNOW, in our minds, that it is JUST paper. I have no problem shooting at paper. I do think that I would have issues with shooting a person, however, if they were shooting at me, I do believe I would fire back.
    Remember, regardless of WHY we are in combat in Iraq, (WMDs, NO WMDs) we are still FIGHTING CRAZED people who twist their RELIGION, (or they dont twist their religion, depending how you "view" the scripture) who want to kill us all. They will not stop trying to destroy us.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Are you sure that this story is out of Amsterdam? I could have sworn I heard something like this occurring in Left-achusetts, A.K.A, Massachusetts.

    ReplyDelete
  73. After a while it getrs pretty easy to take shots at the "tolerant" when it comes to truth. Like Dani pointed out to Shora how she really if she is going to be consistent with her statement on truth she really can't assert half of the things she does.If all worldviews are equally valid and no one has the right to say anyone is wrong it becomes impossible to make any moral guidlines CONSISTENT with our views of truth. Morality can be stipulated by an elite, or consensus, but neither really have come to true conclusions about morality therefore the stipulation may be disregarded because that is "Their truth" not mine.

    So this sort of nonesense may pass muster in the ears of the apathetic, but for those who actually care about what is true a relativistic view really is simply insulting. 2+2=5 might be true for somebody, after all it would be intolerant, arrogant and dogmatic to assert that everyone who says anything besides 2+2=4 is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dani - OK, no rush, but I would be interested in seeing how you respond to some of my points, since you were pretty much PWNED.

    You can call me a fornicator all you want. I really don't care, it's just namecalling. But do realize that it will come across as insulting because you are using an archaic definiton of an outdated word. Most dictionaries will point this out. The one I have here refers to the word as "formal" or "humourous"...in other words, people are either using it when being completely literal, or for humourous effect. Not in everyday conversation.

    I won't respond to your other ranting, because, I repeat, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Bob - Umm, again, did you read my other comment on the topic? You seem stuck on the idea that I advocate a completely relative idea of morality. I don't...though there are necessarily relative aspects.

    1) Why sould we accept your system of morality and its stipulations.

    Because it will maximize the happiness of everyone on the planet. What else could you ask for?

    2) How is your system not a reduction of morals to mere relativism? (true for you not for me)

    First of all - and this applies to some of the other commenters here - I think you're confusing relative truth with relative morality. While I haven't thought about this deeply, it seems perfectly possible and consistent to believe that truth is absolute while morality is relative.

    2+2 will always equal 4, because 2+2 is just another way of saying 4. That's absolute. Morals are a completely different beast.

    Second - As I already said, my system of morality does have absolutes, at least within certain contexts. Again, read the lower comment instead of putting words in my mouth.

    Third - I don't see how one could hold the view that morality is completely absolute. If morality defines what people should and should not do, it depends on the context and the nature of the people.

    A simple example is that most people would agree that murder is "right" when done in self-defense but "wrong" in most other contexts.

    It also can't be completely relative. We're all humans, so there will be common notions of right and wrong that we all live by. Whether they were put there by God or by Nature, there is always a reason for them....things we consider wrong will cause harm to the individual or the individual's group.

    Question for you religious types: If the Bible is your only standard of morality, then there need not be any external reason for its laws, right? What if a lost bible verse was found, which said you should awake every morning at 3 a.m., stand on one foot, cluck like a chicken, and cut yourself in the face? Would you do it? Doesn't matter if it causes harm or if there's no reason for it, right? 'Cause your system only refers to the Bible, not any actual reasons for things.

    And why do you even quote "statistics" showing that homosexuality is harmful? Why should harm matter...harm has nothing to do with your system of morality. Things are wrong because God said they're wrong, not because they do any harm, right? Or is that just to try connecting with us godless heathens who foolishly think that happiness and love have some intrinstic value?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Phronk asks:

    Why should harm matter...harm has nothing to do with your system of morality. Things are wrong because God said they're wrong, not because they do any harm, right?

    If the Bible is your only standard of morality, then there need not be any external reason for its laws.


    --------------------

    First of all, God has a good reason for everything. The problem is we tend to want to 'lean toward our own understanding'. We did this as kids, thinking our parents to be mean and unreasonable when they attempted to set boundaries for our own good. They knew things that we didn't. So does God.

    There is a spiritual realm, Phronk, and like the physical world, it is governed by a system of laws.

    You can't defy gravity just because it doesn't suit your fancy. Nor can you alter spiritual laws thru vain musings and armchair philosophy.

    I came back to Christianity because I spent years doing things 'my way' and got really burned. I started dabbling in the occult and some really weird crazy stuff started happening. It went from being cool and fun to terrifying. If I hadn't had 2 suicides in my family already I might not have stuck around.

    When I turned my life over to Jesus Christ it was because I was a miserable wreck. I made a decision to seek spritual safety in the Word of God and the guidance of the holy spirit. Gradually the weird, dark terrifying stuff started to recede and now I feel like I'm on an island of safety. I no longer suffer crippling depression. I have a good job and a home of my own. Some people might not think that's much but I look back on my old life and shudder.

    God is good.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Bob, anyone can easily assert something that is complete tripe, i.e. most grass is purple. The real trick is substantiating what is asserted. To be honest I haven't followed the post to defend or defend anything, but I did notice that little nagging error in your statement. Keep in mind I didn't read much of the rest of it.

    I'm going to read the thread and just see how things go.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Phronk-
    Firstly, philosophically you really haven't provided an answer but have simply begged the very question. I asked "Why should we accept your standard of morality?" You answered:

    "Because it will maximize the happiness of everyone on the planet. What else could you ask for?"

    This is to beg the question. Why is "Happiness" (arbitrary word) the standard we should accept for right and wrong? Because you said so? This is simply arbitrary. Why sould I really give a rip about the happiness of my neighbor when I can get mine by walking all over him?

    Also you said:
    "I think you're confusing relative truth with relative morality. While I haven't thought about this deeply, it seems perfectly possible and consistent to believe that truth is absolute while morality is relative."

    I disagree for the following reasons:
    1) If things that describe reality accuratly are truths.

    2) And reality is constant (unchanging),

    3) Then, truths are absolute and universally binding (unchanging).

    4) An accurate moral system is a truth. (ex: tormenting babies for fun is wrong)

    5) Therefore, an accurate moral system is universal and binding

    Long argument to define an obvious fact that if truths are by nature absolute, morality too (being a type of truth) must be absolute.

    As for you problems with a Christian ethical system you said:
    "If the Bible is your only standard of morality, then there need not be any external reason for its laws, right? What if a lost bible verse was found, which said you should awake every morning at 3 a.m., stand on one foot, cluck like a chicken, and cut yourself in the face? Would you do it? Doesn't matter if it causes harm or if there's no reason for it, right? 'Cause your system only refers to the Bible, not any actual reasons for things."

    Your point seems to be that because this Bizarro world morality revealed in a "new bible" causes "unhappiness" it should be done away with and we should opt for a system based upon happiness advancedment. Again why "happiness" advancedment should override this system is still arbirarily decided.

    Anyway atheists always raise the what if "God told you guys that you need to eat poop to be accepted by Him?" questions. Well unfortunatly we have no such absurdities to deal with. The God of the bible is rational and has revealed Himself through emperical works (Red Sea exodus, bodily ressurection of Christ) His ethical standards are unchanging and universal because He Himself is the standard of right and wrong. Thus, on these grounds universal morality is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yamatha said-
    "Bob, anyone can easily assert something that is complete tripe, i.e. most grass is purple.[?]"

    Oh yes people do so all the time look at the Hari Krishnas.

    ReplyDelete
  79. You're missing my point entirely. Of course 2 + 2 = 4!!! My point was simple -- math should be taught as just freakin' math! Sigh. I give up. Forget about what the "good book" says, I should have listened when a wise person said never get into religion or politics.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Wow this threat is HOT!

    Thanks to Bob, Bunny and Goddess for ALL of your GREAT comments!

    I am busy finalizing my paper for Deb so I haven't had the time to respond here, but you are all doing such a great job I really don't need to add much to the debate.

    Phronk - If you think I have no idea what I'm talking about, why should I waste my time with you?
    That really is insulting.

    Here are a couple final questions for you concerning moral absolutes:

    Is it ABSOLUTELY wrong to violently rape a woman or molest a child?

    Was it ABSOLUTELY wrong for Hitler to murder millions of Jews?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bunny: That's nice. Says nothing about truth, though.

    Bob: Well, I'm glad to see someone who knows the actual meaning of "to beg the question" rather than using it interchangably with "to raise a question"

    I don't think I'm doing it, though.

    I'll attempt to formalize it:

    1) If my system of morality makes you happy, then you should follow it.

    2) My system of morality makes you happy.

    ---

    3) You should follow it.

    You see, I am not begging the question...but perhaps you have a problem with either of the premises. You think happiness is an arbitrary standard, and so (1) is not true.

    Maybe, but I can't think of any standard which is not arbitrary. Surely you can't argue that my standard is arbitrary, but picking one religion out of thousands and using that as your standard is not?

    I don't know if there's a way around this arbitariness problem (I'm no philosopher)...ultimately we all have to make a choice that works for us and stick with it.

    Why should you care about your neighbour's happiness? A few reasons: A) If your neighbours are well-off they're more likely to help you out. Goodness breeds goodness. B) It makes you feel good to help other people and make sure everyone is well-off. C) If you hurt other people, they will (because of the same happiness standard) fight you to maintain their own happiness, and you will end up worse off than you were before.

    And many more reasons.

    Also, I still disagree that morality can be lumped into the same category as other "truths". In other words, I disagree with your point #4: morality is an absolute truth. My other comment explained why and you didn't really address it.

    You say the Bible's moral laws are rational. But why does rationality even matter? I thought your whole point was that things like rationality and happiness are arbitrary standards. Also, I don't think it is rational. Maybe there was a good reason for some laws when the Bible was written, but they no longer apply (e.g. sex before marriage, homosexuality)

    Dani - I meant you have no idea what you're talking about when you attempt to bring my personal life into it. Not in general. Again, I'd like to hear your thoughts on some of my arguments.

    Regarding your absolute wrongs...well, you, once again, still seem stuck on the idea that I think there are no absolutes. Did you even read what I wrote?

    For your specific examples, I can't think of any situation where those things would cause more good than harm, so they are absolutely wrong in the system I've laid out.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The point of the 2+2=4 analogy is to simply show that any ofther answer besides 4 is wrong. Thus it is with truth in general. Some answers are right some are wrong so my suggestion is let us do away with the nonesense of "That's just your truth" and "No one can tell who is really right" The fact that you guys are up in arms that anyone would disagree that 2+2=4 only validates my point that there is a truth (4) where to vary from it is to be wrong.

    So it is with Christianity either it is true or it isn't. Either Christ is who He claimed to be: The Son of God, God incarnate, and the ONLY hope for mankind to have eternal life (John 3:36). Either Jesus is all these things or he is a liar or lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Casual sex (I'm defining sex before a committed relationship) is not really a good idea.

    There are a whole slew of reasons, ranging from STD's to psychological ones that I'm not going into because I could write a novel. But...I do think the Bible does have some common sense guidelines (purely non-religious) that people should live by.

    Yes, I read your site Dani. I'm drawn to the controversy and the thought provoking comments.

    Take Care.

    R

    ReplyDelete
  84. Phronk-
    You're right it is premise #1 in your argument I would challange, that is the premise I thought I have been challanging all along. Which is why I said it was simply begging the question when you gave that as a reason for why we should adopt your moral system.

    But you said something I thought was interesting comming from an Atheist:
    "You say the Bible's moral laws are rational. But why does rationality even matter?"

    Most atheists I talk with really pride themselves on their rationality and ability to be "free" in their thinking from dogma. So it is odd to hear that sort of question from an atheist.

    I used the word "rational" to describe the christian ethical/moral system because the very validity of the system is based upon the existance of God. Thus, because God is rational and unchanging the moral system which He has given is unchanging. Thus God is not going to give contradictory moral direction to man, because not only would this be irrational but would display a sort of imperfection in God (because His standard of right & wrong is capricious.

    The bible aside for a moment, for God to be God would mean that He is the final determiner of what is morally permissable and what is unacceptable, creatures answer to Him. To make a moral system for ourselves "do what is right in our own eyes" is the hight of rebellion.

    Analogy: You're a knowledgable chef and owner of a restaurant, you have laid out specific guidelines to your employee cooks for how food is to be prepared. While you are off work a food critique comes and eats and writes up a horrid review of your resaurant after ordering your specialty. You find out that your cookds just kind of picked and chose what directions they would follow while preparing the food, and did what they "felt" was right.

    I think this is a picture of what we do when we decide to be our own autonomous deciders of what is right and wrong rejecting God's standard (in areas of both truth and morals). We dethrone God from His place of God and put man in the place of God as arbiter of truth.

    But hey, I've enjoyed hashing this stuff out with you.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Phronk:

    Failure to Address Truth? I was addressing your contention that Christians do what's in the Bible regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

    Math is a system. The system is based on rules. According to the laws governing that system, 2+2=4.

    The physical universe is based on laws, the inner workings of which we discover through science.

    I asserted that the spiritual realm also has a set of laws and that you can't just whimsically invent your own reality any more than you can will away physical laws like gravity just because it doesn't suit you.

    I would rather accept and follow the spiritual laws outlined in the Scriptures than pretend I am Godlike enough to invent my own and magically believe they will come to pass. The latter is a childish trait called "magical thinking".

    If your girlfriend no longer maximizes your happiness will you dump her?

    ReplyDelete
  86. There they go again. I'm content to live and let live but please don't shove your ideology down our throats.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I would like to say thank you for this blog because it has finally forced me to do some reading...

    And because of that reading, there are some questions I would like to ask you.

    For your male children, and your female children, did you wait 40+ and 80+ days to go back to church after their births, and did you bring your offerings to lay upon God's altar? Since you were, for that time, unclean and all...

    You aren't still eating Sunday dinner's leftovers on Tuesday are you?

    Your husband doesn't shave, does he?

    If you have nieces and/or nephews, you have never changed their diapers, have you?

    I sure hope not...

    Thanks again for giving me the motivation to finally read these laws.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Welcome Valkyrie - It's nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your comments. (For those of you who don't know Valkrie, you can find some of her writtings along my sidebar under "Neurotic Nonsense")

    I guess you don't have to be a Christian to know that casual sex is a bad idea.

    ===============

    Phronk - Anything that I could additionally say to you, Bob and Bunny have brilliantly said it for me already. I completely agree with what they both say and I believe all of your questions have been addressed.

    Now that you know the Truth, what you choose to do with that information is up to you.

    *Thanks for the link too, Bunny! Now I wanna see this: "Gov't Agrees to Mandatory Christian Curriculum with No Opt-Out for Students or Parents."

    Oh the HYPOCRISY!!!

    Let me go on and on...

    ReplyDelete
  89. Kathy said:

    I would like to say thank you for this blog because it has finally forced me to do some reading...

    And because of that reading, there are some questions I would like to ask you.


    -----------------------
    Oh for God's sake, do we have to go through with this again? Well at least you tried to be different and not mention the wool and linen.

    Previous post:

    Regarding the Jewish Old Testament law and it's over 613 rules. In Acts, the new Christian church struggled with this issue. The guidelines established were:

    Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality [Greek: Porneia]. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."

    NO WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW CIVIL LAWS MEANT FOR ANCIENT HEBREW SOCIETY. HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT LYING, STEALING, MURDER AND SEXUAL IMMORALITY ARE SUDDENLY "OK". Hello!
    -------------------

    If people are going to bash Christianity then I wish they'd at least study things out instead of ignorantly cherry picking scriptures and hurling them Christians like sodden blankies. But then, maybe if you studied out the scriptures you might learn something useful.

    Sorry but the more I participate on this thread the clearer it becomes that the pro-gay mafiosi are a sad caricature of the 'haters' they purport to scorn.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Dani - Actually, I think I had some good points that haven't been addressed. If you'd like to weasel out of them, whatever, it's your blog, so you can go on repeating your beliefs ad nauseam, or you can actually explore them.

    I'll list the unaddressed points:

    1) The "evidence" you present for the harm homosexuality and other "perversions" cause was debunked. Care to defend it?

    2) Your island example was completely ridiculous. Care to salvage it?

    3) Are you a fool because you won't acknowledge alternate points of view?

    4) How do you reconcile "your heart is the worst indicator of reality" with "God wrote His law in our hearts"?

    5) Why did he write the wrong laws in my heart? And the hearts of most good people?

    6) Does advocating homosexual genocide feel good in your heart? How do you know God didn't mess up on your heart like he did mine?

    7) The beauty of Hawaii can be explained by many things other than your God. Disagree? Why?

    8) What makes you think I'm an atheist?

    Nobody's said anything about these points. See the post where I made them for further details.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Bob: Oops! I was wrong when I thought you knew what "begging the question" means. Also: "challenge". But this isn't a spelling bee, so whatever.

    I asked about rationality because you brought it up. If God's word is the only standard, then whether His word is rational or not should not have any effect on what you believe or do. Obviously I think rationality is the route to truth.

    Thank you for the answer...it does help me understand your point of view more. I can't believe it though, because A) I don't believe your God exists (always comes back to that, eh?), and B) As described, He doesn't seem rational. If the Bible is God's word, and the Bible is contradictory, then God's word is contradictory (and thus not rational). I know you all have canned answers to wiggle your way out of it, but there are clear contradictions in the Bible. So God is not rational.

    Bunny Lover: Well, you gave one example of a life improved by a religion. It says nothing about the truth value of that religion. Some mental patients are very happy with their delusions, and there's a good chance they're not true.

    Your contention that the spiritual realm has absolute laws only makes sense if (woo, here comes another list!): A) There is a "spirtual realm", whatever that means. B) The Bible accurately describes the laws that govern this realm.

    I find it odd that you ascribe atheist-like morality to "magical thinking", when you base your life on a magical being who magically created and continues to magically influence our lives. When someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else, Freud called this "projection". Maybe Freud was right about some things after all!

    Would I dump someone if they no longer maximized my happiness? Absolutely! Why would I stay in a relationship I was unhappy in? I would hope she would do the same. Living a lie would be no good for either of us.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Okay Phronk, I'll answer your questions - Thanks for summing it up for me, that makes it a little easier.

    1) The "evidence" you present for the harm homosexuality and other "perversions" cause was debunked. Care to defend it?

    The evidence was not debunked, you just don't agree with it. Care to provide evidence that proves homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle?

    2) Your island example was completely ridiculous. Care to salvage it?

    NOPE - Just let them all die off.

    3) Are you a fool because you won't acknowledge alternate points of view?

    No - I acknowledge alternate points of view, and I just happen to acknowledge that other points of view are WRONG!

    4) How do you reconcile "your heart is the worst indicator of reality" with "God wrote His law in our hearts"?

    I said "your FEELINGS are the worst indicator of reality" - not your heart.

    5) Why did he write the wrong laws in my heart? And the hearts of most good people?

    He didn't. You rely on your feelings not the truth placed in your heart.

    6) Does advocating homosexual genocide feel good in your heart? How do you know God didn't mess up on your heart like he did mine?

    It feels good to advocate for truth. God doesn't make mistakes.

    7) The beauty of Hawaii can be explained by many things other than your God. Disagree? Why?

    Like what?

    8) What makes you think I'm an atheist?

    Because you don't believe in God. However, I know you did say that you might believe in other gods, so therefore you couldn't be an atheist, just a FOOL.

    Over at Deb's you said:
    "I'm beginning to be convinced in the existence of God because of her...but only because she proves that Satan exists."

    Well, that's a start! I'm glad you are being influenced by me and starting to see the truth that there is a God.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I didn't think it was very nice when Jesus showed up on someone's grilled cheese sandwich. That was kind of gross.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Jason

    Is that icon you or the lady from Hairspray? That's one image I would not want to appear on my sandwich :)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ugh. It's clear you're not interested in thinking much, so I'll be brief.

    The evidence was not debunked, you just don't agree with it.

    What I wrote had nothing to do with agreement. I pointed out some concrete factual errors. The onus is on you to defend them.

    2) Your island example was completely ridiculous. Care to salvage it?

    NOPE - Just let them all die off.


    OK, I guess you don't understand, so I'll spell it out: If you put all heterosexual men on an island, they'd die off too. So the fact that they'd die off does not distinguish heterosexuals from homosexuals, let alone prove that homosexuality is "unhealthy" for society.

    3) Are you a fool because you won't acknowledge alternate points of view?

    No - I acknowledge alternate points of view, and I just happen to acknowledge that other points of view are WRONG!


    Oh dear. I guess I have to spell it out again. You wrote: "See - you're no fool if you can at least acknowledging that there is a possibility of the Bible being true." Implying that I would be a fool if I didn't acknowlege your point of view. Since you just said, again, that you don't even entertain the notion that other points of view could be RIGHT, that makes you a fool by your own logic.

    4) How do you reconcile "your heart is the worst indicator of reality" with "God wrote His law in our hearts"?

    I said "your FEELINGS are the worst indicator of reality" - not your heart.


    So you're proposing that there are two levels of feelings: there are just plain feelings, and then there are deep "heart" feelings? How do you tell the difference between them?

    5) Why did he write the wrong laws in my heart? And the hearts of most good people?

    He didn't. You rely on your feelings not the truth placed in your heart.


    And how exactly would you know what's in my heart? No really, seriously, my heart tells me things that disagree with you. If God wrote them there, he screwed up big time.

    6) Does advocating homosexual genocide feel good in your heart? How do you know God didn't mess up on your heart like he did mine?

    It feels good to advocate for truth. God doesn't make mistakes.


    That really fucking disgusts me. Genocide feels good to you, eh? I...fuck...I can't even reply to that. There is something seriously wrong with you. I actually, truly, think you should seek psychiatric help before you ruin the lives of your kids and yourself.

    7) The beauty of Hawaii can be explained by many things other than your God. Disagree? Why?

    Like what?


    It's not nice to answer a question with a question. Plus I already went into this before. You can dance around it all you want, though.

    8) What makes you think I'm an atheist?

    Because you don't believe in God. However, I know you did say that you might believe in other gods, so therefore you couldn't be an atheist, just a FOOL.


    Oh. So anyone who doesn't believe in your specific God is a fool. Question: Why did God create a world where the vast majority of its inhabitants don't believe in Him? A world full of "fools". You'd think he would have tweaked free will so that He's getting at least a 50% hit-rate. Really, that must have been a conscious choice...but I thought God wanted people to go to Heaven? What gives?

    "I'm beginning to be convinced in the existence of God because of [Dani]...but only because she proves that Satan exists."

    Well, that's a start! I'm glad you are being influenced by me and starting to see the truth that there is a God.


    I'm glad that you're glad that you represent Satan and all that is wrong with the world. You're sorta the opposite of the beauty of Hawaii...something so disgusting that some entity of pure evil must have created it.

    I'm being very mean here. But I just can't believe the horrible things that come out of your mouth (well, your fingers anyway). It just breaks my heart and makes me want to cry knowing that you exist. Even more so knowing you have influence over young lives.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Oh poor baby - need a box of tissues?

    ReplyDelete
  97. What a well-researched and thought-provoking response. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  98. All of the things that I asked about, whether you want to categorize them as "civil laws" or not is completely irrelevant. Every single one of the "civil laws" that my questions were based on begin with the (para)phrase "And God spoke unto Moses..." (or something along those lines). If God is speaking it, doesn't that make it "GOD'S" law? Who cares if it was meant in a 'civil law' sort of manner. God spoke it, Moses wrote it down and passed it on. Does that not make it God's law?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Every single one of the things that I asked about (which none of you cared to respond to thanks so much for once again glazing over what you don't want to admit) has some basis in 'helping' civilization. Not eating the 'fruit' born of fresh planting for 5 years for instance was said to be put into practice so that the best of said fruit could be born, and not have the soil exhausted in one or two cycles.

    Who's to say that the original intention of the archaic "anti-homosexual relations" laws were not made for the same purpose? In the beginning, there were, according to your beliefs, only 2 people. If Eve bore Adam a male child and Adam chose to only sleep with that male child, the human race would have gone out faster than a candle in the wind. After the great flood, if men only would have slept with men and women only would have slept with women, same thing. Perhaps these "laws" were made for much the same reason as the laws about not eating pork in hot climates. With so few feet in the gene pool of the time, maybe God wanted to make sure that the population grew.

    Much the same as your argument about parents making rules for their kids because parents know things that kids don't, perhaps God just figured that biblical man was too stupid to disgregard his own feces (or that of his swine's) and handed down these "laws" and said "Do it or else!" in an attempt to further our species and did not give us explanations that he didn't figure we'd be able to understand.

    Much in the same way that we now know that if we WASH our food, we are less likely to get sick, we also know that there are billions of people on this planet and if a VERY small segment of them want to sleep with the same sex it isn't very likely to kill off the human race.

    And there is one HUGELY major flaw in your 'island' argument also. Obviously, since the language and idea of homosexuality has been around since the bible was "written", it isn't a new thing to society. Those islands would always be populated because, much like Hitler shipping off the Jews, you'd have a full-time business going running The Queen Fairy back and forth to drop off the latest round of detainees.

    ReplyDelete
  100. It also says something about not causing a sinner to suffer their sin, else you participate in the sin yourself....better get thee to a church real quick.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Oh and just for the record, the 'shaving' thing? That is NOT a civil law...according to the scripture, and to the study of it that I DID read tyvm, that was put into practice because God wanted the Isrealites to distance themselves from the practices of the Egyptians and one of those practices was to shave the beard and cut the hair to form a ring around the head, thus making oneself more like the heathen gods they worshipped, a way to worship another god besides your God.

    So that one still needs an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  102. As Jesus once said - "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine." - Matthew 7:6

    *That was right after He said "Do Not Judge" - Hmmm, imagine that?

    Some things are just not worth my time to respond to!

    ReplyDelete
  103. KATHY-
    Being under the new covenant does not erase the law. There is a distinction between a) moral laws and b) ceremonial laws. The laws you referenced are ceremonial laws havining to do with "cleanness" and ones approachablity to a holy God. In Christ we are made clean, we are not bound to clean ourselves through types of food and outward doings. If you study the NT particularly Paul's letter to the Galatians it is clear that we are made clean in Christ alone, not in ceremonial practices.

    However there is the 2nd type of laws, the moral. These deal with what type of behaviour is acceptable to God, such as stealing. Interesting enough homosexuality is in the NT still labelled as a damnable sin, so it is clear even in the new covenant God's moral view toward sexual immorality did not change b/c sexual immorality is not a neglected ceremonial practice, it is a deviant moral practice.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Not worth your time, or you just have no response when we call you out on avoiding the tough issues?

    Guess we hit a nerve there eh?

    ReplyDelete
  105. I find it ironic that someone who purports to..." when someone has devoted time to leaving a lengthy comment like that I always respond." has nothing to say except that she does not have enough faith in her faith to respond to questions when the answers will not mesh with what she claims to believe.

    And Bob, I'd like to say thank you for actually attempting a well thought out and honest response to my questions instead of just blowing me off or giving meaningless excuses. The only problem I have with your answer, which only leads me to more questions, is the "ceremonial" aspect of the reasoning behind not following some of what are considered to be the more "outdated" laws in the bible, at least considered "outdated" by those who have chosen not to follow them. Not seeing the nakedness of one's own kin is considered ceremonial? I realize that in those types of the laws that I brought up, the point is not to have sexual relations with your kin...however, given that we are supposed to follow the "word" of the laws, and not question the "reasoning" behind them, it would seem to me that if God says you are not to see your kin naked, then we should not attempt to interpret what He may or may not have meant by those words and should simply do as the Lord commands. I'm pleased that as a step-grandparent, I will have found a loophole in the whole "Gramma will watch you and change your diapers" law, as I don't like poopie diapers.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Kathy - When you come here with a hostile, combative tone, I reserve the right not to respond to you. If you sincerely want to know the answers to your questions, I suggest you change your approach with me. I am more than happy to devote a response to someone who is interested in the truth, not just wanting to challenge me for fun. Plus, any length of time reading the comments in related posts will lead you to your answers.

    To sum it up for you: Symbolic Laws vs. Moral Laws

    Moral Absolutes remain constant throughout time.

    Symbolic Laws are not inherently evil.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Phronk - Not worth my time!

    Besides, you're full of lame excuses! It gets real old and tiresome after awhile. Nothing I say will be good enough for you no matter how true my response are.

    You are clearly comfortable living in your sin and being willfully ignorant of the truth, so just stay that way for all I care.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dani - If you had any convincing arguments, I would be more than happy to listen to the "truth".

    I have pointed out specific errors in your arguments and asked you questions to give you a chance to defend them. I don't consider these "excuses". Although you continue trying to turn it back on me, I am not defending anything, but rather attacking your beliefs. I am not the one who needs excuses.

    Additionally, if they were simple excuses, it would be pretty easy to come up with answers. You have not done so.

    But hey, like I said, it's your blog, so you are free to respond to or ignore comments as you choose. I could understand how this has made you uncomfortable.

    Good day to you.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I don't see why you are trying to make a distinction here...law is law and God is God...word of God is law, just admit that there are certain laws you don't *want* to follow or don't feel you *have to* follow so you won't.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Kathy,
    Theologians make a distinction because Paul the apostle makes a distinction. He writes clearly in Galatians that we are no longer to keep ceremonial laws specifically eating "kosher" and being circumcised both as means of grace. People were teaching that you couldn't be saved by only believing in Christ but by keeping these ceremonial laws as well. Well the moral heart of the law stays but what are the moral aspects for example not shaving? There are none this is a ceremonial law which not adhearing to would make you unclean. However in Christ alone are we made clean, thus these laws really were pointing us to Christ.

    Paul reaffirms that Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, so again it is clear that homosexuality is a practice in violation of moral law.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Hmmm, interesting. I know Jews who change their childrens diapers and give them baths. Since they do not believe in the NT, how do they get around all the ceremonial laws? Do they still have to practice them all? (I really have no clue about Judaism. Dont they have another book, as well, other than the NT? Does it say that they can wash their babies?) OH, I am confused! :)

    ReplyDelete
  112. goddess- don't let kathy's misreading confuse you, I really don't know where the idea came from that you couldn't see you baby naked. As far as 21st century Judaism its dead, there are no atonement sacrifices and priesthood. They make some ad hoc rescue saying that its ok.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Actually there is a group is Israel that has already designed the 'third temple'. All the implements and sacred vessels are ready and they even have a red heifer, which I guess is part of some ritual.

    It doesn't seem like most Jews are orthodox though - I thought only the orthodox Jews still tried to do all that stuff. I heard there are still guys who check clothing labels to determine if wool and linen are mixed together & all that.

    ReplyDelete

NO TROLLS ALLOWED - Comments will be moderated - Remember, it's always a good idea to tell the TRUTH....