52
   

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

 
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 05:25 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
When are you going to vote on the choice I gave you? Are you scared of doing. It sure does look like it when you have to lay a load of **** onto me, which is false, in order to get yourself off the obvious hook. For ****'s sake Krumpie--vote. We can only discuss your position when you have voted. No control of sexual behaviour or political control. It's simple enough.


What choice? I don't even know what you are talking about. As far as it being one way or the other? Control and oppression are the same thing. I am not advocating absolutely no control. I am saying there are certain things that are agreeable for society to function but we are far beyond what is reasonable at this point and now we exist in an oppressive state.

So what am I suppose to be voting on again? What are my options? Perhaps they need to be explain to me, and why only these options?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 05:26 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
No, it doesn't matter, nor do your totally bogus claims of being persecuted.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:05 am
@Krumple,
Oh--come on Krumpie. That's a complete cop out.

The Christian religion is about the control of sexuality. Professor Greer said that the Catholic Church is a fertility machine. The law covers everything else.

You have ONLY three choices. Christian control of sexuality, no control or political control. You rule out the first I presume despite acting in the correct Christian manner for whatever reason. If you don't know the reason you act in the correct Christian manner you are in parrot mode.

Which leaves you the other two. Choose one. If you think there's another choice kindly offer it.

"I'm not advocating no control/oppression" means nothing. In fact it concedes my point.

I don't find the State particularly oppressive.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:07 am
@Setanta,
If it doesn't matter, than no one in this thread should have to explain anything to you, at all!....

As I will not!

Have a good day!
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:22 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Oh--come on Krumpie. That's a complete cop out.

The Christian religion is about the control of sexuality. Professor Greer said that the Catholic Church is a fertility machine. The law covers everything else.

You have ONLY three choices. Christian control of sexuality, no control or political control. You rule out the first I presume despite acting in the correct Christian manner for whatever reason. If you don't know the reason you act in the correct Christian manner you are in parrot mode.


Well here you are forcing me into three options when I can consider a forth or even fith. Why are these my only options when I can consider others? For example you never really said what political would mean as far as sexuality goes. I don't even know what you mean by it or what sort of limits or control it has towards it.

Not only that but since you said I only had problems with the first one, meaning christian control, you neglected to actually read what I wrote. I actually stated that I was not for absolute no control. There are aspects that need be addressed. I don't think someone has a right to your body just beause they want it. Therefore there would be a bit of control here. A person's body is their property and should thus have say over it.

Now if some guy wants to have sex with his dog, it effects me in no way, so why should I care if he wants to have sex with his dog? Do I care about the dog, of course I do, but if it's his property I shouldn't have a say. Animal rights a side it should be up to him and his dog. If the dog objects I think he should consider it and not force the animal. However; if the dog was my dog, I wouldn't want this same guy having sex with my dog, so there would be some necessary control.

Regardless if religous people want to admit it or not, just because something is illegal doesn't mean everyone will follow it. Not to mention that even if something is illegal, it doesnt mean a person is a good person simply because they follow the law. A truely good person acts in good ways regardless of the law. This means that if you were to say, make murder legal, an actual good person still would not murder even though it were legal to do it. Why? Because of my definition of what I consider goodness to be. It is not based on laws. It is based on societal agreeances.

If you want to consider that political then okay, but as far as our current political standings on sex, I don't agree with them. So you need to define for me what you mean by political here in this context before I can say I agree or disagree with it.

I think everything should be debated.

Just like abortion, I am actually both, pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. But people refuse to allow me to be this way. People simply can not see how I could be both at the same time. Here is how.

I personally think it is wrong to kill a being that is in production phase. However; if someone else thinks it is okay, then it should be allowed. But why? Because that production phase is solely based on another beings life. If the fetus were able to develop independantly from another body then by all means you would have to grant it's full rights, but since it is dependant upon another, then you have to take into consideration that beings wishes as well.

Long story short. If a woman wants to have an abortion, it should be available. However; I wouldn't want to have one because it is my choice and my point of view, but since I feel this way, it doesn't give me the right to impose my belief onto others and force them to behave like me.

This is only one reason, I do have other reasons as well but to prevent this from becoming incredibly long, I'll leave them out.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:22 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Oh, i'll have a wonderful day, starting with fits of hilarity at your phony prophet and martyr bullshit. You know, i suspect you actually believe that load of crap . . . sad . . . but funny!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 06:55 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
Well here you are forcing me into three options when I can consider a forth or even fith. Why are these my only options when I can consider others? For example you never really said what political would mean as far as sexuality goes. I don't even know what you mean by it or what sort of limits or control it has towards it.


It's impossible to argue like that. If you have another choice say what it is. Political control would be imposing rules on sexuality from Washington.

We cannot run society based on the goodness of your heart. Complete control of one's own body has effects on others. We have prisons to discourage that.

I'm not bothered about shagging dogs. It would be a lot cheaper than shagging women. I'm pretty sure of that. Do you think lingerie would play a part?

As Lord Justice Leveson said recently--"The problem with a free society is preventing people doing what they want to do".

There are three choices with that. No prevention, a morally constructed prevention and legal prevention. No prevention is anarchy and catastrophe. Moral prevention in the name of "God" seems to me the most efficient. There's a difference between conditioning the psyche with morality and trying to impose a set of rules voted on in Congress by people with the same sexual urges as the rest of us. The latter would surely end up with punishments for adultery or the encouragement of it.

Anyway--you have got to two choices having ruled out no control. As you rule out Christian sexual morality as well I assume you favour political control.

Will you describe the logistics of it please then we will know what it is you are promoting. We would be stepping into the dark if we agree with you without that knowledge and trusting to your good nature being copied by the other 310 million Americans and twice as many Europeans.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Oh, i'll have a wonderful day, starting with fits of hilarity at your phony prophet and martyr bullshit. You know, i suspect you actually believe that load of crap . . . sad . . . but funny!


Still not quite as funny as you saying people in here are loonies, or crazy, or this thread is a fascinating train wreck....But you can not stop yourself from coming here to give your opinions to people and about their discussions, and topics being discussed, amongst others who like this thread....

I know you will say you have the right to come here, and it is not for me to tell you otherwise....And the thing is your right! and I am not saying don't come here....Nor am I saying to go....

But it is not wise to tell people that they are crazy, and this thread is a train wreck, If you can not stop yourself from coming to post...Or chime to them, about what they say...That makes you look crazy, not them....REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY!!

Enjoy your day! Which starts with laughing at others!
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:07 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Well here you are forcing me into three options when I can consider a forth or even fith. Why are these my only options when I can consider others? For example you never really said what political would mean as far as sexuality goes. I don't even know what you mean by it or what sort of limits or control it has towards it.


It's impossible to argue like that. If you have another choice say what it is. Political control would be imposing rules on sexuality from Washington.

We cannot run society based on the goodness of your heart. Complete control of one's own body has effects on others. We have prisons to discourage that.

I'm not bothered about shagging dogs. It would be a lot cheaper than shagging women. I'm pretty sure of that. Do you think lingerie would play a part?

As Lord Justice Leveson said recently--"The problem with a free society is preventing people doing what they want to do".

There are three choices with that. No prevention, a morally constructed prevention and legal prevention. No prevention is anarchy and catastrophe. Moral prevention in the name of "God" seems to me the most efficient. There's a difference between conditioning the psyche with morality and trying to impose a set of rules voted on in Congress by people with the same sexual urges as the rest of us. The latter would surely end up with punishments for adultery or the encouragement of it.

Anyway--you have got to two choices having ruled out no control. As you rule out Christian sexual morality as well I assume you favour political control.

Will you describe the logistics of it please then we will know what it is you are promoting. We would be stepping into the dark if we agree with you without that knowledge and trusting to your good nature being copied by the other 310 million Americans and twice as many Europeans.


From my perspective religous morality actually causes more harm than good. It oppresses peoples sexuality and makes them feel shameful for something that is biological.

I am for absolute freedom of choice as long as it does not impact directly another in a way they do not want or wish. If they are fine with it, then by all means it should be acceptable. This even means if they wanted to be murdered/killed, then by all means all parties involved would be just. I know that might sound odd or strange but it is actually reasonable. Would there be causes where someone tried to lie and say the person wanted to be killed but in fact didn't? Sure there would be but this is where clear disctinction needs to be made or else the person should be liable for commiting murder instead of assisted suicide.

If everyone involved in (what ever activity you want to insert) are in agreement with it then by all means it should be allowed. It really comes down to what the individual wants. If you dont want to be killed then by all means no one should have the right to murder you. If you want to use drugs, then by all means you should be allowed to. If you want to pay for sex and the person offering is fine with it, then by all means you should be able to.

Does this mean that forcing people into sex trafficing should be allowed? No. Everyone involved must be willing and okay with it or else it is not just. Forced child prostitution should not be allowed if the child involved is doing it against their will. That if they had the option to not partake would they not want it?

So I am somewhere in between political/sociatal agreement and anarachy. See I told you I could come up with another possibility.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:35 am
@Krumple,
Do you believe that this ideal concept of yours would ever work??

If it was implemented and did not, what do you think would and should happen?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:41 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Do you believe that this ideal concept of yours would ever work??

If it was implemented and did not, what do you think would and should happen?


Good question, but I am not disillusioned to think that people wouldn't either try to abuse it or bend it to manipulate it in ways that I have not taken into consideration. Do I think it could work, sure or else I wouldn't have proposed it. Would there still be problems in the world? Yes. People do things they shouldn't even if they personally believe them to be wrong. Motivation is usually the driving force that makes people forget their moral codes.

What should happen if it didn't work? Then by all means I would bow out and head back to the drawing board and allow people to say, "I told ya so..." to me. But to be honest, I really doubt that would happen. I actually strongly believe that such a system could work and infact I think a day will come with we will realize this is the best system.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:46 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
From my perspective religious morality actually causes more harm than good.


I don't know that that can be justified.

Quote:
It oppresses peoples sexuality and makes them feel shameful for something that is biological.


That's the whole point. If that sense of shame did not exist what would happen without any legal inhibition? And today that sense of shame is not mandatory.

You are moving towards State regulation of sexual behaviour. Inexorably.

Quote:
I am for absolute freedom of choice as long as it does not impact directly another in a way they do not want or wish.


We all agree with that. Even the Pope agrees with it.

Shagging dogs and wanting to be killed are the least of our problems.

Quote:
So I am somewhere in between political/societal agreement and anarchy. See I told you I could come up with another possibility.


We are all in between those things. Where in between is the question. It doesn't qualify as another possibility. It's too nebulous. Too subjective.

Quote:
Forced child prostitution should not be allowed if the child involved is doing it against their will.


Of course.

Quote:
That if they had the option to not partake would they not want it?


But what if they do want to partake of it as I am quite sure some do?


izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 07:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You know, i suspect you actually believe that load of crap . . . sad . . . but funny!


People believe all sorts of weird ****. Spendius believes John Smiths is a decent pint, RL believes his avatar name is justified, Chights believes he's been slandered, BillRM believes Henry VIII had seven wives, Sturgis believes Guy Fawkes was one of the pilgrim fathers, and you believe you've got a sense of humour.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:01 am
@Krumple,
Do you believe there should still be such a thing as the Police?? Who enforce laws?

Because, lets say, A person helps another commit suicide, and then after the person is dead, the other person thinks it was wrong, and evil, and goes on a killing rampage, without a law enforcement no one would stop them....

Someone would still need to enforce some kind of laws that need to be implemented as general laws of conduct?? Do you disagree??

Why do you believe that everyone would abide by your concept, and not most contort it for personal mal-reasons, rather than believe it would most likely work??
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:04 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
People believe all sorts of weird ****. Spendius believes John Smiths is a decent pint, RL believes his avatar name is justified, Chights believes he's been slandered, BillRM believes Henry VIII had seven wives, Sturgis believes Guy Fawkes was one of the pilgrim fathers, and you believe you've got a sense of humour.

Thumbs up! Mr. Green Cool

Never had John Smiths? Is it really that bad Izzy?? Is it really that good Spendius??
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:09 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
But what if they do want to partake of it as I am quite sure some do?


It should be acceptable then but if they wanted to stop or not do it anymore they should also be allowed this option.

I find it funny when you say;

spendius wrote:
That's the whole point. If that sense of shame did not exist what would happen without any legal inhibition? And today that sense of shame is not mandatory.


But you know there are people who do things and feel no shame for it? Such as a huge amount of catholic priests who molest young boys. I've seen a show that followed and interviewed men who had been abused by their priests and even in the interview they asked the accused priest if he felt any guilt or shame for doing it to them and he said flat out no.

Shame is not a system that is reliable for people to behave in a way you consider it to be. Some killers don't find any shame or feel any guilt for taking the lives they took. It is unreliable to expect shame to be in the minds of every person and in the acts that they carry out.

In other words shame does not work.

Here is where religious morality causes harm. There are many families who are strongly against homosexuality because their religious teachings dictate to them that it is in some way evil and wrong. When a child who is actually gay grows up in a family environment who bashes and critisizes homosexuality, this person eventually becomes ashamed for something that is natural. This often ends in a bad result. Some commit suicide and others become astranged from their families or they become abusive towards homosexuals because they fear it within themselves. This whole thing is induced by religous oppression and this is only one example of how it harms society instead of helping. There are many other ways that religion is harmful rather than productive.

Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:14 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
...Sturgis believes Guy Fawkes was one of the pilgrim fathers...
Kindly leave me out of your attacks.
Since you decided to bring it in, the statements I made LAST OCTOBER were that the avatar you had chosen struck me as a pilgrim. It was received in the same manner by at least one other member who said as much. At no time did I say that Fawkes was a pilgrim, that is part of your withered imagination.

Why are you dwelling in a post from six months ago?

Further, since your slanderous p.m. of April 6 this year, I have not responded to any of your posts. Similar to the dead man, I will respond to you only when you see fit to drag my name in or if I see a factual error.

Once more, kindly, do not, bring my name into your posts.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:21 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Do you believe there should still be such a thing as the Police?? Who enforce laws?


Well yes and no. I think the police should be a private industry but I think the courts should be run by the state. They should be two seperate entities to make sure they are reliable in their jobs. You can't have a private business run the courts or they will become unjust and you can't have the police force run by the state or it will become corrupt.

There only needs to be three laws!!

1. Do not kill or cause harm to someone who does not want or wish that harm onto them.

2. Do not cause damage to someone else's property unless they allow it.

3. Do not prevent someone from exercising their own wishes unless it violates one of these three by carrying it out.

Those are the only three laws you need. Every single aspect of human society is wrapped up in one of those three if not all of them. If forces people to be responsible for themselves and their actions. Which is what you want instead of a society who finds escape routes and gets off because of a technicality in the law book that was not specific enough.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Because, lets say, A person helps another commit suicide, and then after the person is dead, the other person thinks it was wrong, and evil, and goes on a killing rampage, without a law enforcement no one would stop them....


Well according to what I stated above this shouldn't happen although it could. Harming someone against their will under my proposed system would be considered wrong.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Someone would still need to enforce some kind of laws that need to be implemented as general laws of conduct?? Do you disagree??


Yes to an extent but at the same time I would still expect just responses to those who are violating these three rules. A fair court system to address these violations should be available and to make them fair they would have to be state run, however the actual police force should be privately run to prevent corruption.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Why do you believe that everyone would abide by your concept, and not most contort it for personal mal-reasons, rather than believe it would most likely work??


Well there would still be some who would try or attempt to get away with crimes. I don't think you could ever have a system where everyone would play nice, because that is just not the human condition. Some people never learn empathy for others so they just don't care who they harm or hurt to get what they want.

I am saying the ways in which i see the problems of our society is due to an imbalance of oppression and lack of personal responsiblity. No one teaches self responsibility especially not religious people. They teach that you can do wrong and ask for forgiveness and then you are good to go. This doesn't make a society feel empathy for others it makes them have an escape route that doesn't need to consider others well being at all.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 08:21 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
No, just laughing at you and your silly conceits. Apparently, you aren't aware that train wreck is a metaphor for something horrible yet compelling that people can't help watching. As for crazy, you're making ship up again. I didn't say you're crazy. But if you really expect anyone to believe that god speaks to you, or that you are a prophet, or that you are persecuted, than you are terribly deluded. But that was demonstrated long ago. So i'll keep watching the train wreck here in the most bizzare thread ever.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Apr, 2012 09:19 am
@Setanta,
You did not say I was crazy, But you said there are a lot of loonies in here, and there are a lot of crazy people here?? Did you not mean me as one of those people???

As far as being deluded, and this thread being bizarre....

You responding to me, and to this thread and others makes you just, if not more deluded and just as bizarre....

Why would you post to someone deluded, unless you thought they spoke good things, or you were not deluded yourself?

And as far as this thread being bizarre....If you post here to chime in, regardless of what they say, your contributing to the bizarreness, and that makes you bizarre too!

And from what I see, most peoples posts seem to make sense, while yours are the most bizarre of them all...

Because you do not actually state points as to why you agree or not, you come here and constantly rant about how other people are dumb, trying to attack, or bully you...or in someway are beneath your knowledge...(though you may not actually state it, it is easy to read between the lines)

At least they answer the questions, which gives them a reason to be here....

What is your story??

You find it to be of good sense to come in and post how bizarre this thread is, and that there are a lot of loons here??

Thanks for the 2 Cents! But keep it, and go get yourself a tic-tac or something....
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/13/2025 at 01:43:12