(June 20, 2015 at 11:21 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay, I've read everything you wrote, and I will try to keep it all in mind as we go forward.

I would like to ask one question. You wrote, "I hate catholicism for what it teaches."

If you can boil it down, what does the Catholic Church teach that you find worthy of such hatred?

Where do I begin?

That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved. That we're nothing without god. The idea of vicarious redemption. The guilt. The notion of hell. Thought crime. The submission. The idea that some men are better than others. The oppression of women and discrimination of homosexuals. That contraception and abortion are wrong and so is premarital sex. The way it fetishizes suffering. That we should give to the poor, but nevermind the golden cross the pope's holding. That criminals can escape legal persecution and instead be protected by the church. The egocentrism behind the humility. Celibacy. That people can be infallible. That there is a third party involved in every crime that demands an apology.

Enough for you?

(June 20, 2015 at 11:27 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:18 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote: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???

Quote: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!

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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.

Have you read and understood Orwell's 1984?

If so, you might just be able to understand the difference and the problems involved. What you probably won't understand is what this thought crime indoctrination does to the minds of children.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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?

Sorry, but as a moral standard I think that, that is bankrupt.  I judge people by their actions not their thoughts.  Those who are tempted but do not act are to be congratulated.  That is how we want them to behave.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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?

It's not the hatred so much as the shooting that I object too.  Seriously.  Both men may hate equally, but one of them is much more dangerous.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: God judges the heart because He knows the inner thoughts.

You do realize you are talking to people who do not believe in your god?

(June 20, 2015 at 11:31 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 10:38 am)Randy Carson Wrote: If someone has AIDS, which is more effective at preventing the spread of the disease: using a condom or abstinence?

If it is the latter, then yes, relying on condoms...with a known failure rate...does provide a false sense of confidence which does aggravate the AIDS crisis.

A completely useless question. Randy. Let's get it through our head. Humans are going to have sex. Doesn't matter what you tell them, what you preach to them, what your doctrine is, what you threaten them with. Sex is among the strongest instincts we have. We know this. Can we stipulate this? Or are you going to pretend that they'll stop if only you just threaten them the right way?

So, it is your view that throughout the course of human history, in all places and at all times, humans had sex without self-control? Or would you say that it is possible for people to be chaste/celibate until marriage?

Quote:Knowing they will have sex, spreading "lies" about how condoms make things worse is just plain evil.

If I told you that the airplane you are about to get on was probably safe, would you get aboard?
If I told you that the roller coaster ride at the county fair is usually safe, would you buy a ticket?
If I told you that the taxi driver in the cab you just hailed is sober most of time, would you get in?

Quote:Let's make it personal.

Do you think if more people used condoms in Africa that the spread of AIDS would be stemmed?

Not 100%. Which is what would happen if people in Africa stopped having sex with people who are infected altogether.

Quote:I also noticed that you didn't address the cretin from Mozambique who told his "flock" that condom manufacturers were infecting their condoms with HIV.

Because I know nothing about this situation. I'm routinely accused of making stuff up, so should I feign knowledge of this matter or go do five minutes of Google research now just to respond to another hole you want to drill in the boat?

(June 20, 2015 at 10:38 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Let's make this personal, okay? Just to test your resolve.

You meet a nice girl and you go out a few times. Things are progressing nicely on many levels, and intimacy is a possibility. Then she tells you she has AIDS. "But it's okay," she says. "If you use a condom, you probably won't become infected."

Kind of a show-stopper, isn't it?

Nope. Not at all. If I liked her enough, and there was enough of a connection there to warrant a further relationship where I make sacrifices, I would continue dating her. We wouldn't have sex until I could verify her viral load. If it was zero, I would get prescribed PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis), which is covered under my insurance. My chances of contracting with PrEP and a condom are effectively zero. The only thing I would have to verify is that she is serious about her cocktail and also that she checks and monitors her viral load regularly. Not a show stopper at all.
[/quote]

Suuuuuure you would, Mike. Sure you would. Cause all that is a lot easier than simply finding another cute girl.

(Can you imagine the comments folks in this forum would be hurling at me if I had written a paragraph like that?)

(June 20, 2015 at 11:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 11:21 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay, I've read everything you wrote, and I will try to keep it all in mind as we go forward.

I would like to ask one question. You wrote, "I hate catholicism for what it teaches."

If you can boil it down, what does the Catholic Church teach that you find worthy of such hatred?

Where do I begin?

That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved. That we're nothing without god. The idea of vicarious redemption. The guilt. The notion of hell. Thought crime. The submission. The idea that some men are better than others. The oppression of women and discrimination of homosexuals. That contraception and abortion are wrong and so is premarital sex. The way it fetishizes suffering. That we should give to the poor, but nevermind the golden cross the pope's holding. That criminals can escape legal persecution and instead be protected by the church. The egocentrism behind the humility. Celibacy. That people can be infallible. That there is a third party involved in every crime that demands an apology.

Enough for you?

If you will cut and paste that into the Ask a Catholic thread, I will take it from there.

Fair enough?

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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?

I know that you were addressing someone else so I hope you don't mind if I answer. Yes, this is hard for me to understand. Putting thoughts on par with actions cheapens the horror of killing someone or committing adultery. A thought is not the same thing as the deed.

If you imagine killing someone but don't go through with the act, the potential victim can still live a long life. How is that the same thing as killing someone?

(June 20, 2015 at 11:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 11:21 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay, I've read everything you wrote, and I will try to keep it all in mind as we go forward.

I would like to ask one question. You wrote, "I hate catholicism for what it teaches."

If you can boil it down, what does the Catholic Church teach that you find worthy of such hatred?

Where do I begin?

That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved. That we're nothing without god. The idea of vicarious redemption. The guilt. The notion of hell. Thought crime. The submission. The idea that some men are better than others. The oppression of women and discrimination of homosexuals. That contraception and abortion are wrong and so is premarital sex. The way it fetishizes suffering. That we should give to the poor, but nevermind the golden cross the pope's holding. That criminals can escape legal persecution and instead be protected by the church. The egocentrism behind the humility. Celibacy. That people can be infallible. That there is a third party involved in every crime that demands an apology.

Enough for you?

^This^

(June 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 11:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Where do I begin?

That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved. That we're nothing without god. The idea of vicarious redemption. The guilt. The notion of hell. Thought crime. The submission. The idea that some men are better than others. The oppression of women and discrimination of homosexuals. That contraception and abortion are wrong and so is premarital sex. The way it fetishizes suffering. That we should give to the poor, but nevermind the golden cross the pope's holding. That criminals can escape legal persecution and instead be protected by the church. The egocentrism behind the humility. Celibacy. That people can be infallible. That there is a third party involved in every crime that demands an apology.

Enough for you?

If you will cut and paste that into the Ask a Catholic thread, I will take it from there.

Fair enough?

Absolutely. Don't bail on me this time

(June 20, 2015 at 11:55 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 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?

Sorry, but as a moral standard I think that, that is bankrupt.  I judge people by their actions not their thoughts.  Those who are tempted but do not act are to be congratulated.  That is how we want them to behave.

This is simply wrong, Jenny.

We're not speaking of temptation here. Temptation is the opportunity to sin, and temptations are everywhere.

For example, for men who are more visually oriented than women when it comes to the opposite sex, pretty girls are everywhere; thus, temptation is everywhere. But we don't have to give into the temptation by acting on that opportunity.

What Jesus spoke of was NOT temptation but embracing the temptation and committing the sin mentally. The man who sees a naked woman and thinks, "Wow, she's cute" has NOT had sex with her in his mind. The man who sees the same woman (or one who is fully clothed) and starts to imagine "doing" her has committed a sin even though it was not committed physically.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote: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?

It's not the hatred so much as the shooting that I object too.  Seriously.  Both men may hate equally, but one of them is much more dangerous.

Well, sure. An angry, hate-filled man with a gun IS more dangerous. But they are BOTH angry, hate-filled men. Jesus would object to the hatred of both equally.

(June 20, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

Quote:God judges the heart because He knows the inner thoughts.

You do realize you are talking to people who do not believe in your god?

Of course. But would you agree that IF God exists, then He would know the inner thoughts of man? And if God judges according to a higher standard, then not only the actions of men but the thoughts of men must be considered by God?

So, it is consistent to believe that IF a holy and righteous God exists, then He calls us to a higher standard than we might otherwise aspire to if left to our own devices.