What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

I'm not sure what CL had in mind in her post to which you are objecting. However, I would like to say that while SOME instances of looking at a beautiful woman MAY cross the line to "committing adultery" as Jesus said, not all do.

• It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
  

Why don't you answer the quote from Jesus that I posted? It didn't mention any of those conditions at all.  He wasn't even talking about looking at a woman. He makes it perfectly clear that if you desire to be adulterous with a woman, the desire is the sin already committed.  Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

Oh, that's right, it's because you recognize the unjust nature of thoughtcrime and have to explain it away with mental gymnastics.

I'm not sure what the issue is, Parkers. If you mentally address a woman and imagine yourself having sex with her, you have committed the sin of adultery in your head just as much as the man who physically does it. Is this so difficult to understand?

If one man walks into a church and opens fire on a group of people having a prayer meeting, how is he more guilty of hatred than the man who imagines himself doing the same thing but cannot get up the courage to actually pull the trigger?

God judges the heart because He knows the inner thoughts.

How does language like this increase the credibility of what you're saying?

Do these words make your arguments stronger?

Or should we take your point of view more seriously because you've chose more forceful language?

This is the only sort of treatment Huggy merits.  If you've been around long enough to witness his dishonesty, you'd understand. He's a lying idiot, bereft of any insight, given to an obsessive embrace of the inane -- and he takes any opportunity to slur those who don't agree with him, such as accusing them of tolerating child abuse, which I will never do. I don't appreciate anyone imputing positions to me which I don't hold, and when someone not only does that, but refuses to apologize for their poor treatment, they get the treatment they deserve.

Okay, but if that is true, why not humiliate him with calm reason instead???

Whether or not that damages my credibility in your eyes doesn't matter. Firstly, I'm not mounting an argument; I'm pointing out a salient fact. There is no arguing with the fact that I didn't post in that thread, and he has no idea what my views re: Milk are, and yet he is imputing a position to me anyways. Secondly, I don't crave your good opinion in this or any other matter.  The people who are close to me, their opinion matters; and they know already that when confronted with dishonesty, I am a salty motherfucker. Dishonesty is a quality I don't tolerate.

If you find it discomfiting, go on ahead and put me on ignore.

Nor should dishonesty be tolerated...as long as it is actual dishonesty and not simply disagreement or misunderstanding.

No, I'm not uncomfortable...I used to talk the same way, but at some point, I decided to stop. Cold turkey. That doesn't make me a better person, and I would not want you to think that I consider myself to be better than you or others. I'm just thinking about the practical side; I prefer to to choose words that strengthen my position on its merits. Huffing and puffing rarely does that.

For example, would an attorney arguing a case before the Supreme Court of the United States be viewed as having a stronger argument simply because he chose to throw in some "salty" language? If that were the norm, it would be Court TV I'd want to watch!