Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Pornography: How the Liberals won America

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 28, 2002
 Comments:
The other evening I was browsing in my local video store looking for wholesome Christian content when I noticed a young couple slip into the store furtively, slipping from one section to the next whilst slipping each other lewd glances and giggling softly. Being the concerned person that I am I at first wondered if they were under the influence of the "demon weed," and considered alerting the staff so that the police could come along and arrest the miscreants. But then I tracked their path, and noticed where they were heading - a dark corner at the back of the store I hadn't noticed before, hidden as it was behind those sections dealing with violence and "fantasy." Curiously, I followed the couple as they meandered across the shop in a futile effort to avoid attention, until they paused at this section, their hot eyes wandering across the shelves as their limbs further entwined in a sybaritic display of lust.

By this point I had moved close enough to see what it was that had these lustful youths so excited. And imagine my shock and outrage when I discovered that these youths were looking at the most vile and degrading selection of videos I had ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon! Titles like "Little Anal Annie," "Hard Cocks vs. Tight Holes," "Naughty Nuns," "Cocks and Robbers" and even worse! That's right, they were looking at pornography!

liberal_myths

More stories about Liberal Myths
Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
Beating Children Saves Lives
Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush
Global Warming: A Proactive Solution (Part 1 of 2)
The Myth of "Facts"
Ken Kesey will go no furthur
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Mythical Man-Meat
Full Frontal Rudity
The Dark Side of Cancer
I Believe in Negroes

More stories by
Jon Erikson

Linux in the corporate world
Not just harmless fun
Linux: From awk to sed
A final solution to the problem of Evil
Pearl vs. Python: A Technical Review

Pornography is an immoral cancer which blights our so-called "modern" society. It has arisen since the spread of Liberalism amongst the more gullible elements of our society, and had spread thanks to the tireless actions of groups such as feminists, hippies and Democrats. Whereas once this depravity was confined to the the pit of festering corruption that is Europe, it can now be found in your local video store, waiting to corrupt the weak.

Pornography serves no purpose to society but to sate the unwholesome appetites of certain elements of the male population who, for whatever reason, cannot find themselves a woman to marry like God decreed for us all. Indeed, the kind of men that use that use pornography are remarkably easy to fit to a standard profile; they are typically aged between 20 and 40, white, lacking in social skills, ugly and possessing poor personal hygiene and are atheists and Liberals. So remember - if you see someone like this, they are almost certainly a "user" of pornography!

Pornography is degrading to both men and women. It encourages the myth that all men are interested in is looking at naked women and thinking about fornicating with them, a cruel lie which Satan has encouraged in modern society through the use of fronts like Britney Spears and other so-called "sex symbols," sluts whose lives unknowingly further the path of Evil. Indeed, the whole purpose of pornography is to encourage the sin of onanism, something which God-fearing Christians know to be wrong, as it directly goes against the word of the Lord. A true man has no need to look at glossy pictures of naked women, they are quite capable of finding themselves a real woman.

Women are exploited in these magazines with both the promise of money and the supposed "liberating" experiance of being photographed without any clothes on. These are lies from an industry filled with perverts of the highest order, people for whom Satan is a way of life. No amount of money can save a soul when it is bound in the chains of degredation, and the very word "liberation" testified to its corrupt roots in Liberal movement, Satan's frontline stormtroopers in the fight against Christianity.

It is a symptom of the moral decay of modern society that the pornography business has become so huge. The "erotic film" industry, which takes degradation to new extremes, makes over twice as much money as all of Hollywood does each year, and immeasurably more than than that made by wholesome Christian film companies producing spiritually enlightening and fufilling entertainment.

Since the rise of Liberalism in the last fifty years America has become a latter-day Sodom and Gomorrah filled with all kinds of foul perversions marketed by Satan's minions as being "healthy" and "natural". Only through the staunch support of decent Christian causes and a return to proper American values can we even begin to turn the tide of filth and restore America to the shining beacon of Light it once was.


Right On! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 11:36:40 AM PST
Man, your article got me HOT! Post another one, soon. Real soon! NOW! Er, nevermind...


Re: (none / 0) (#3)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 12:18:56 PM PST
You are very easily excited, aren't you? Perhaps there are some deeper psychosexual issues involved?


--
Peace and much love...




You said "deeper" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 03:10:01 PM PST
Not unless those "deeper" psychosexual issues involve rump-pumping a filthy Russki while he's vomiting up quality American Smirnoff in the middle of Red Square.

To paraphrase Napoleon, I will be there in three days. Do not wipe.

jvance


Cute joke. (none / 0) (#12)
by tkatchev on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 10:13:54 PM PST
Though it has been done before. Many times. So many, in fact, it mostly highlights your own obtuseness and provincial idiocy more than anything.

Next time, try a bit harder; you failed even to offend me. Stupid people, as a rule, are not offensive.

P.S. American vodka (like any other American food "product") is actually very low quality. In Europe, American food is seen as a refuge of the poor and maladjusted, because it is the cheapest way to stuff your stomach. You'll probably get severe hormonal deficiencies in the process, but the kind of people that buy American food in the first place would probably not care very much.


--
Peace and much love...




Try posting sober next time (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 11:06:09 PM PST
Though it has been done before. Many times.

That would explain your inability to flatulate sonorously. But maybe you're bored (heh) with that particular activity and you'd prefer a right good squicking instead.

Next time, try a bit harder; you failed even to offend me.

And you just felt compelled to to tell me how unaffected you are. Yawn.

Stupid people, as a rule, are not offensive.

Stupid people also are incapable of recognizing when they've been offended. Obvious Guy says you're two for two.

P.S. American vodka (like any other American food "product") is actually very low quality.

Now that's rich. American products are the only quality products, period. You choad-munching fuckwit ex-Commies wouldn't recognise quality if it ran over you in a Trabant.

Is that all you got? I thought you were one of the premiere flamers on this overrated blog. You wouldn't last five minutes in alt.peeves.

jvance


d00d, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 12:50:24 AM PST
I dunno who that "jvance" is, but whoever he is, he's gonna kick your dork ass once he finds out you've been stealing his identity to do some half-witted crapflooding.


]<001 (1.66 / 3) (#18)
by jvance on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 01:06:25 AM PST
God I love arguing with myself, but I forgot to append "jvance" to the previous comment. Goddamned dyslexia - preview or post? Feh!

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Hey! (3.33 / 3) (#19)
by jvance on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 01:12:15 AM PST
You stole my identity, you half-witted crapflooder. I'm gonna kick your dork ass!

Just as soon as I finish pounding kvfelcher's
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Site Test (3.33 / 3) (#41)
by jvance on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:20:53 PM PST
So, what happens to a reply to a deleted comment?

If this shows up in the discussion, then you dudes have problems. That'll teach you to use execrable Open Sores software instead of a properly paid for Microsoft blogger.

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Big Nono (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:06:54 AM PST
Arguing with oneself anonymously is bad form on the Adequacy. All such comments risk deletion. You have been warned.


 
wow. (none / 0) (#29)
by derek3000 on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 07:15:54 AM PST
that was pretty good. I don't know why; just rubbed me the right way.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
vodka (none / 0) (#37)
by nathan on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 02:27:34 PM PST
Of course, everyone knows that the best vodkas are probably Grey Goose and Biala Dama (with a grudging nod to the superlative Magadanskaya.)

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Yak Piss (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by jvance on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:08:14 PM PST
I really wouldn't know. I don't drink, so it all tastes like (what I imagine) Yak piss (would taste like) to me.

But if it's good enough for 007, then it's damn well good enough for you.

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

blatant trolling (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:20:06 PM PST
My evidence?

  • Grey Goose is not yak piss. It is frog piss. There are no notable Himalayan vodkas.
  • In the link mentioned, Bond's vodka martini is made with Smirnoff Red.
  • This jvance has already engaged in trollish (though funny) behaviour elsewhere on this site.

    It's clear that this trollery, a known cause of lag, must stop. jvance, I beg you, amend your ways.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

  • Blatant trolling? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jvance on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:44:52 PM PST
    This "trolling" you mention is new to me. Is it some distasteful form of rhetoric peculiar to inter-net discussions? Perhaps that's why half of my comments to this forum have been deleted. If someone would kindly explain to me the subtleties of this "trolling" and in particular my trespasses, I will endeavour, truly I will, to mend my errant ways.
    --
    Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

    oh, no you don't (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nathan on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:53:52 PM PST
    Even if knew illegal trolling techniques, I certainly would not spread them in a public forum for right-thinking adults.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    trolling is a fag term (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:36:06 PM PST
    come on... admit that it sounds stupid.
    Trolling, trolled, troller, trollee... right.

    There's a perfectly legit well-known term for the phenomenon of brainless useless posts solely intended to annoy other posters or to flood the board. And it's called SPAM

    SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAMMEDEESPAAAAM!!!! SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAMMEDEESPAAAAM!!!!


     
    Available in your local video store??? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by wumingzi on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 02:26:57 PM PST
    What filth-ridden perverted neighborhood are you living in that allows porn in your video store?

    Here, I'm kept safe by our sole provider of wholesome commercial video fare being Hollywood Video. (We have some purveyors of ethnic fare in Chinatown, but if I wanted to watch kick-ass wimmin, busting up bad guys while speaking bizzarre languages I wouldn't be living in our bastion of freedom, the United States).

    Hollywood Video keeps me safe from all of this. I was browsing the other day, not looking for anything particularly outre mind you, just some mindless three-braincell entertainment. Well, they had it, but for some reason, they decided that it was necessary to chop about five minutes of the film.

    Sex, drugs, and violence are all OK in Hollywoodland, but maybe not all at once.

    Disappointed, I went home with my second-choice movie.

    In conclusion, I would like to thank Hollywood Video, for being sensitive to the values of our community, and protecting me from any further exposure to smut.


    Link problems... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by wumingzi on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 02:46:54 PM PST
    Ya check spelling, check grammar, and are tripped up on hyperlinks. Editing becomes more and more complicated every day, I tell ya.

    This is not my second-choice (or third or fourth choice ) movie.

    This is.




     
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 04:02:31 PM PST
    Excellent distillation of adequacy articles. 6/10 could do better.


     
    Leave atheists alone (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 04:04:58 PM PST
    you god people always point fingers at atheists and presume that they are all sinners. thats what makes you theists so narrow minded and annoying that i am proud to be an open minded secular humanist, whos not a liberal!


    Atheists (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slubberdegullion on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 04:09:14 PM PST
    Atheists are sinners by definition. God's very first commandment was that you believe in him and no other. He asks this simple thing of you, through his Book and his followers, and you refuse. This is your sin, and it is why many god-fearing Americans dislike atheists. Indeed, atheism requires more faith than theism--you must both believe what you are told blindly and refuse to believe the obvious facts present in the Bible.


    "YOUR GOD?" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 05:25:34 PM PST
    in your definition i am a sinner. incase you havent noticed there are other religions in this world, and i see no reason why your religion is the correct one. in fact, your lack of support for the basis of your religion makes me laugh.


    Re: (none / 0) (#13)
    by tkatchev on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 10:16:25 PM PST
    You know you are sinning. Stop lying to yourself and admit you are feeling guilty for betraying your immortal soul.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Peer Pressure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 11:33:58 PM PST
    Athiests and agnostics don't subliminally think they are sinning. They are just pressured into saying they are religious for comformities sake. I however resist this temptation.


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Right Hand Man on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 05:34:36 AM PST
    Well, aren't you just a stand up guy.

    You are so solidly convinced of your convictions that you are able to resist the pressure to tell a lie. Of course, as an athiest you can allow yourself to commit to all manner of sinful and indecent acts because you don't believe there will be any consequences, but by all means, pat yourself on the back for not telling a lie. Why you don't I have no idea, as there are certainly will be np rice to pay as far as you are concerned. Why not just take the easy road like you do with everything else and just do whatever makes you feel good?

    As you can tell, it requires much more resolve to actually live a virtuous life in service of God than to live like a savage. God wants you to resist temptations of the flesh, worship only Him, love thy neighbor, don't kill anyone, spread the gospel. He puts all kinds of requirements on a person. Living as a Christian is difficult, even without all of the persecution we face. We do it because we know that there is a reward awaiting us in heaven. We also know that serving God is what makes men of boys, and women of girls. It stays the ravages of liberalism, as it is impossible to be both a good Christian and a liberal. Belief in God accomplished a great many things.

    So congratulations on your triumph. While you athiests have accomplished next to nothing, we Christians have saved mankind many times over.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Not true. (none / 0) (#27)
    by tkatchev on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 06:14:50 AM PST
    Atheism has given humankind the wonderfully Marxist dialectic materialism.


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    I have but one thing to say... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 01:45:27 PM PST
    And it's nothing I personally ever said, but a quote I find most relevant to the 'debate' at hand:

    Yattering55: christianity = killed more people than the nazis


     
    arrogence... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 02:05:49 PM PST
    you know, all you christians have done is prevert your religion, force it on others, and attempted a genocide. if thats your "accomplishments" then hats off to you. as for us atheists, we are more open minded to the world, resulting in many scientists who have done so much for this world. so stop believing you are superior to others and learn to accept brotherhood with all peoples of this world.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#39)
    by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:17:35 PM PST
    I guess I'll bother with this one...

    How have the Christians "preverted" their religion? And to what "genocide" would you be referring, good sir? If you mention the Holocaust, by the way, I won't even dignify it with a reply.

    So all scientists are atheists, huh? Tell that to Newton, Einstein and Fermi, among others. Why don't you stop believing that you are superior to Christians? And while you're at it, why not stop spouting the inane platitudes? They're smug, self-righteous and mean absolute squat.





    response (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 05:35:41 PM PST
    I said many scientists, and the genocide i am referring to are the crusades. with all the christian hate crimes that go on around the world, "jesus" would feel like he failed in his quest to save mankind. but of course since all your sins are forgiven you can go out an commit any hate crime you like, as long as its in the name of christ.


    you don't like Christians, do you? (none / 0) (#49)
    by nathan on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 07:12:45 PM PST
    with all the christian hate crimes that go on around the world...

    As opposed to Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Jewish, and Buddhist hate crimes? Your problem isn't that Christians are evil, it's that they have an impact on your sacred, sovereign right to free action.

    "jesus" would feel like he failed in his quest to save mankind

    You don't much like the Lord Jesus either, do you? What'd He ever do to you?

    One thing I'll agree is that Christians must try harder to fight the evil inside of themselves. Unlike liberalists, Christians know this is a victory that must perpetually be fought, won, and lost in every individual human heart. People have and will always have the potential for evil. The Lord did not seek, through His Incarnation, to take away our inviolable free will.

    The point of the Incarnation wasn't to end human strife forever. That is the point of the Apocalypse. The point of the Incarnation was to make possible fellowship between the Absolute, which is God, and sinners, which is mankind. The Incarnation was no trivial quest, but the historical event that defined and justified history. Through it, we were made capable of accepting the Love of God.

    Sorry for all the "God talk;" I know it'll make the post almost unreadable to you, because you are a liberalist fanatic who finds it totally unbearable. Try and get past the "dirty words" to understand what I'm talking about.

    All the best,
    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Re: (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:16:43 PM PST
    when i said jesus would be disappointed, how do you get the feeling that i hate your savior? that has no implication that i hate him, just that he would be disappointed with many, many of you christians.

    also, i was singling out christianity because one of the first to relpy to me was using his christian religious views against me, no doubt that there are tons of other hate crimes caused by religions, thats why i feel religion is becoming a problem in the world.


    Hmm... (none / 0) (#56)
    by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 05:32:59 AM PST
    How do you know that Jesus would be disappointed with many Christians? Are you two personally acquainted?

    And thanks for assuming that I'm Christian, even though I'm not. I just have as much respect for Christians as I do for everyone else.

    I'm also curious to know how I used my views 'against' you. My questions were sincere, and not posed in a spirit of viciousness.



     
    now pull the other one (none / 0) (#59)
    by nathan on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:47:20 AM PST
    Right, right, you have nothing against Jesus. That's why you put quotes around the name the first time you used it.

    Go back to praying to your "marie stopes," you sanctimonious pretender to politeness.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by Right Hand Man on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:19:05 PM PST
    I don't believe I was using my Christian religious views 'against' you, I was merely pointing out that, as an athiest, you really don't have any motivation for doing something that you seem to take great pride in. If there are no consequences for your actions, why does it matter whether or not you admit to the existence of God? I mean, you've convinced yourself that there is no God despite considerable evidence to the contrary because you want free reign to do whatever you feel like doing. Just act like you really do believe in God and then go about your everyday blasphemous life. It would be a right funny joke, up until you meet Him face to face and He sends you to hell for eternity.

    Don't confuse my espousing my Christian values as 'using them against you'. I can't help that you are wrong and that I live a better life than you. You made you own choices.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Atheist morality (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:23:56 PM PST
    "If there are no consequences for your actions, why does it matter whether or not you admit to the existence of God?"

    But there are always consequences to any action. Think about it. Anything you do affects other people, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The desire to treat other people as you would like to be treated -- the Golden Rule -- is a perfectly good basis for morality whether a God exists or not. There may be no consequences in the long run, but to quote Keynes, "In the long run, we are all dead."

    In fact, atheists don't rely on fear of eternal torture and the lure of eternal bliss to behave morally. They don't look forward to the sadistic pleasure of watching those they dislike burn for eternity. Isn't it more "moral" to behave correctly for its own sake rather than out of fear?


    Ok (none / 0) (#79)
    by Right Hand Man on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:48:44 PM PST
    But there are always consequences to any action

    I agree with that, given the basic laws of thermodynamics.

    Think about it.

    I have and it isn't really too difficult a concept to grasp. The bible, a rather simple book, explains it all wonderfully and negates the need to spend countless hours mulling over the ins and outs of morality.

    -- the Golden Rule -- is a perfectly good basis for morality

    Good call, there may be hope for you yet.

    whether a God exists or not

    Not just a god, but God, exists. The one and only. Again I find myself engaged in debate over a very simple matter. God exists, there is ample evidence to prove it (read Genesis 1:1), only ignorant savages believe otherwise.

    In fact, atheists don't rely on fear of eternal torture and the lure of eternal bliss to behave morally.

    Well, they don't often behave morally so it doesn't suprise me that they have little motivation to do so.

    They don't look forward to the sadistic pleasure of watching those they dislike burn for eternity

    Nor do I, thats why I'm trying to explain all of this God business to you. I'd really rather you get on the right path and save yourself.

    Isn't it more "moral" to behave correctly for its own sake rather than out of fear?

    No, because behaving morally goes against human nature. Those other people out there, they want to eat your children. They want to get drunk and engage in pre-marital sex. They just love to swear and take drugs and lie to each other. It isn't their natural inclination to abstain from all those things, it is the fear of God that does it. Stop kidding yourself. And you still haven't demonstrated any consequences for falsely admitting that you believe in God, particularly as they might exist if your fantasy world where there is no God were reality.


    -------------------------
    "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

    Belated reply (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 9th, 2002 at 06:54:28 PM PST
    I have and it isn't really too difficult a concept to grasp. The bible, a rather simple book, explains it all wonderfully and negates the need to spend countless hours mulling over the ins and outs of morality.

    So you believe it's a sin to boil goats in their mothers' milk? It's all right to punish innocent babes for their fathers' sins? Biblical morality can be interesting; it's not a field I know well but what I know is discouraging.

    Not just a god, but God, exists. The one and only. Again I find myself engaged in debate over a very simple matter. God exists, there is ample evidence to prove it (read Genesis 1:1), only ignorant savages believe otherwise.

    Unfortunately, your evidence is of two types. Evidence for a creator could be used to support any kind of postulated supernatural entity, from Yahweh to Ormuzd to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I haven't seen any evidence for Yahweh specifically; do you have any besides the Bible?

    Well, they don't often behave morally so it doesn't suprise me that they have little motivation to do so.

    Proof?

    Nor do I, thats why I'm trying to explain all of this God business to you. I'd really rather you get on the right path and save yourself.

    A) Prove Yahweh's existence. B) Prove why I should worship a deity whose morals would make Lina or Xellos blush.

    No, because behaving morally goes against human nature. Those other people out there, they want to eat your children.

    Um, eat my children? Atheists have latent cannibalistic tendencies? Come back down to earth here.

    They want to get drunk and engage in pre-marital sex. They just love to swear and take drugs and lie to each other.

    A) Swearing is immoral?
    B) Drinking, drugs, and fornication aren't good for anyone, but atheists don't have a monopoly on immorality. Moonshining and fundamentalists share a lot of territory, and a lot of abortionist business is generated by the religious.
    C) I don't tell lies just for the love of telling them. Lies are only for purposes of personal utility, as I'm sure you know well.

    It isn't their natural inclination to abstain from all those things, it is the fear of God that does it.

    Explain why I, no fearer of God, rarely swear or lie and have never done any of the other immoral activities on your list.

    Stop kidding yourself.

    Au contraire, you are the one lost in self-delusion. You still haven't acknowledged that a morality not built on fear of supernatural terrors can work, when there is living proof that it can. I'm not arguing that all atheists are more moral than Christians. I'm not arguing that there aren't immoral atheists. I'm just saying that morality isn't exclusive to Christians.

    And you still haven't demonstrated any consequences for falsely admitting that you believe in God, particularly as they might exist if your fantasy world where there is no God were reality.

    The usual consequences of belief in God are nothing more than wasting time in church, but in cases like yours they include being a general nuisance to the public, wasting large amounts of time and indignation protesting human nature, and possibly willful self-deceit. Not to mention holding back the progress of human knowledge and eventually, on the far end of the scale, creating countries like Afghanistan and going on killing sprees because of religious ideology.


    I know this probably won't help anything or anyone (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by budlite on Sun Feb 10th, 2002 at 08:41:51 AM PST
    Look, can't people just agree to disagree?

    I'm not a Christian. Technically, I'm Jewish but being of more scientific nature in my own head I'm agnostic. I don't know whether God exists or not, if given absolute accurate and true proof either way I wouldn't try to disprove it. I'm not here to try and stop people believing one way or the other about the existence of God, I just think it doesn't matter what each and every person thinks. If a person does or doesn't believe in God then that's their prerogative. If they believe in a different God or gods, then that's also their prerogative. I don't care. I just wish other people wouldn't get so worked up about their beliefs that they think they are absolutely correct and refuse to accept the possibility that they may not be.

    The truth is, we have no real way of knowing whether God exists, but scientific evidence points to non-existence. Many biblical events have been successfully linked to mundane earthly phenomena, but this still doesn't prove the non-existence of God. Just like the writings in the Bible don't constitute proof of the existence of God.


     
    Jesus (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:06:05 PM PST
    Jesus died on the cross for our sins, therefore, if we ask, we are forgiven. So if you are going to make comments regarding christianity, I would first suggest going to your local christian bookstore or library and picking up a copy of the bible. Obviously, if you are *so* well versed in the workings of Christianity and the ways of God, then you would know this, and we would not be having this discussion. Period.


    I know that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 04:27:59 PM PST
    i do know that... but what i dont understand, is how does him dying save us all????


    Re: (none / 0) (#68)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:11:23 AM PST
    Because that brings us back into communion with God. Before Christ, people worshipped rocks, trees, stormclouds, painted themselves blue and howled at the moon. After Christ, (some) people worship God, the ultimate creator of the universe.

    What's so difficult to understand?


    --
    Peace and much love...




     
    Died for our sins? (none / 0) (#71)
    by priestess on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 04:30:26 AM PST
    I never understood exactly what this phrase is supposed to mean. Jesus died for our sins. Is it similar to "I went down the pub for a beer"? If so then Jesus died in order that we can sin, correct? Wouldn't it then be a shame to waste his effort and not take advantage of all the sin he's enabled us to have?

    Strange. If that's even remotely true then I'm even more convinced that it's not Jesus I have any kind of problem with, it's his Fan Club.




    not exactly... (none / 0) (#73)
    by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:02:38 AM PST
    "Jesus died for our sins" means that, in order that human beings could come into fellowship with the Omnipotent, Absolute Creator of the Universe, He became fully human and took upon Himself the sins of all human beings, that we might choose of our own freed will to love God and our fellow man.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    nice to know (none / 0) (#42)
    by nathan on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 03:29:42 PM PST
    You know, Christians have gotten as good as they've given. What is it about Christians exercising political power that exercises you so badly? It's not clear to me that Muslims like the Fatimid dynasty, pagans like the marvellous Alexander, atheists like Stalin, or Hindus like the BJP are intrinsically any more peaceable.

    Why do you hate God?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Hitler was a Christian. <nt> (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:28:07 PM PST
    <nt>


    how sweet of you. (none / 0) (#100)
    by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:45:43 PM PST
    What about Mao? Sweet old Ari Sharon? Maybe that clever Osama is more your sort.

    Piss off, creep.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Following blindly? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:27:28 PM PST
    How are atheists following blindly? Its the other way around. You only believe in God because your parents told you to.

    And What facts are in the Bible? It's a bunch of myths and parable's that make little reference to historical events.It's been written by HUMAN hands for centuries, making it completely open for change.
    Though I do believe the Bible teaches good morals and ethics, I believe it was only written for that purpose (by humans of course :-).

    The reasons for religon:
    1)To establish Laws and Ethics
    How else would you get a bunch of ignorant
    people to behave? You get the local wise man
    (or parents)to say "There's a ever-present all-
    seeing being(s) that see when you break the
    rules, and if you don't behave He/She/It/They
    will make your life miserable"

    2) To explain the unexplainable
    When man first realized his own existence, he
    thought,"My tools exist because I created
    them,so things must be created before they
    exist. So,who made me? Things didnt appear out
    of nowhere". Thus, the notion of god(s)and
    religon was created.

    3) there's probably hundred's of other reason,
    but i'm too tired

    Lemme recommend that you read the book/play/movie Inherit the Wind.






    Atheists are dumb because... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 11:15:49 PM PST
    They take all the unknowns that religion explains and replace the word "God" with the word "science". Be an agnostic. Have the balls to say "I don't know."


    Agnostic? Ballsy? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:15:29 PM PST
    What a load of shit. People with courage either choose a religion, and accept its strictures, or reject any notion of god, and face the considerable task of constructing a conistent moral and social outlook on their own.

    Agnosticism is for people who want to avoid the ancient questions addressed by religion entirely. What is right? How should I live? By what standard will I judge others, and myself?

    Well, gee, an agnostic can't possibly know any of that stuff, so there's no need to worry about it, right? It's the biggest cop-out ever imagined.


    false unity (none / 0) (#67)
    by nathan on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:25:48 PM PST
    [Atheists] reject any notion of god, and face the considerable task of constructing a conistent moral and social outlook on their own.

    I dispute your conflation of the two. Religion needn't be something you accept to replace your free mind. What exactly did Sts Augustine, Jerome, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and Teresa of Avila "accept" that led them to write off their own intelligence, intellectual freedom, and moral free will.
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    following blondly? (none / 0) (#58)
    by nathan on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 08:45:28 AM PST
    Though I do believe the Bible teaches good morals and ethics, I believe it was only written for that purpose (by humans of course)

    Good for you. Why does this opinion carry any weight at all? Show that I shouldn't just consider it an unreasoned prejudice. And if you don't like the Bible, as such, why not do some thinking about the problem of free will in a mechanistic universe?

    Lemme recommend that you read the book/play/movie Inherit the Wind

    Read it, hated it. Not a single sympathetic character, including the "hero." Its nasty shots at W J Bryan don't do a thing for its credibility, and the characters are cardboard. I'd rather suffer through Our Town again.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    The smart choice (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 11:11:24 PM PST
    That is why people who know enough to know they don't know the secrets of the universe choose agnosticism.


     
    silly (none / 0) (#11)
    by nathan on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 05:48:27 PM PST
    According to St Paul, all human beings are sinners - atheists, Christians, everyone.

    On the other hand, the vainglorious atheist belief that a person can be responsible for his own existence does lead to problems. You may claim to be a humanist, but what is the souce of your humanism? If people aren't ends in themselves, who cares about people?

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:12:05 PM PST
    sin is not something that is tangible or demonstrable, it is part of CHRISTIAN tradition, this by the way is the same tradition that made old pauly a "saint" (and why should we listen to him anyway, what makes him any kind of authority?) if you are not a christian you cannot sin, period. if you are a christian there are many things you cannot do, i.e. don't say this, don't stick your penis here, don't wear clothes made from this fiber or that, ect. ect. ect. but these rules do not apply to non christians because they are not bound by the mythology do you understand. now you can go around and point at people and shout "sinner sinner sinner, satan's main course for dinner" or something like that but that is your opinion.

    now here is an example, let's say i am crazy and i believe that people who walk forwards are guilty of some concept, let's call it BLARGH. now i could walk around backwards all day and pass out tracts telling people about the evils of forward walking, i could picket the funerals of forward walkers and i could write letters to the editor telling people to stop blarghing. but at the end of the day you see it is only i that am bound to not blargh because it is my ideology. the fact that people believe that sin comes from some space god is irellevant, i could believe that blargh comes from some space god too and that doesn't give it any more credence except for in my own mind. so if you want to live your life by the restrictive goat-age rules in the bible that is your choice but you need to realize that those who have moved past it are no longer bound by them.

    do you understand.


    Re: (none / 0) (#82)
    by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:10:04 AM PST
    I don't have time to wade through your dysfunctional punctuation, but, briefly, I believe that you have confused judaism and Christianity. Typical of those that read one book of the Old Testament and thought that that is all there is of Christianity.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    what a clever way (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:56:36 AM PST
    to completely avoid having to address any of the points i made. you lash out with hatred at me because i used an example from the old testament which i guess most christians today find embarassing, and then you completely ignore the rest of it. okay, let's substitute the clothes with mixed-fibers thing to sex out of wedlock. i assume christianity still frowns on that. now are you willing to addess any of this, or will you scamper away with your tail in between your legs? i recommend the latter.

    people who are not christians are not capable of sin. christians may believe otherwise, but that is their problem, not mine. if you are going to point fingers at people who do things you don't like and call them sinners even if they are not christians, do you have the sack to do the same thing to yourself when you do things that other religions prohibit? to use the other example, do you feel guilty when you eat ham because judiasm prohibits it? what's that you say? there's no reason to feel guilty because you are not a judiast and the rule doesn't apply to you? fucking a, chief. now you've got it, don't you.


     
    Wait... (none / 0) (#85)
    by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 06:53:50 AM PST
    so if you want to live your life by the restrictive goat-age rules in the bible that is your choice but you need to realize that those who have moved past it are no longer bound by them.

    Oh, you mean rules like 'Don't kill' or 'Don't steal'? Don't be so sure that your 'advanced' existence is superior, buddy.


    you don't get it (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:16:27 AM PST
    this is just silly, it is not just christian mythology that says "don't kill" and "don't steal", it is also THE LAW. there are laws against doing these things. there are not laws against other christian sins such as taking the name of the lord in vain. if you do not understand this let me know and i can expand a bit. but this is all besides the point.

    i never said that some of the things that christian mythology calls "sin" were okay, such as murder, ect. we all agree that murder is wrong. but the whole "sin" concept goes beyond saying that it is wrong to do, it also says things about torture and hell, and about saviors and things. it is this that is part of christian mythology and it is this that does not apply to non-christians. here is a hint, and you may want to sit down for this: you do not have to believe in a malevolent torturing space god in order to know that killing people is wrong and that you should not do it. the fact that so many people require this sort of invented reinforcement to keep them from going off on murderous sprees is thoroughly depressing. now i admit that it is better than the alternative, as the father of two i believe that if fear of a god will keep the christians from harming my family, then so be it. i just wish society could grow up a bit.

    so we have established that people are able to discern the obvious rules of decent society (no killing, stealing, ect.) without the help of supernatural spooks or concepts like sin. what remains are things like sex out of wedlock and other things that don't harm anybody but christians consider to be "sin". okay, here's the deal, if you don't like those things then don't do them. but you can't go around calling people who do them "sinners" if those people are not christian. now if the person doing these things is a professed christian and a regular churchgoer then it would be okay to play the sinner card. but you are talking about artificial constraints that you have voluntarily placed on your life and here is the point: people who choose not to partipate in your (or any) particular mythology are not constrained by the rules of it.

    let's say that you are a christian and go on lunch break. you stop at the deli and see a mouth watering ham sandwich. so you eat it. now you know that eating pork is a jewish sin. but you're not a jew. so what do you do? do you run to the nearest church and enter the confessional and say "thank you father, for i have sinned, i ate a ham sandwich?" of COURSE you don't, because you do not subscribe to that mythology, and you are not obligated to follow its rules? you would think me a fool for calling you a "sinner" for committing some other religion's sins. but that is exactly what you are doing when you point fingers at people you don't like and call THEM "sinners." all clear?


    wow, you're ignorant (OT) (none / 0) (#94)
    by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:07:47 PM PST
    You have totally failed to understand Judaism. Eating the flesh of an unclean animal is considered, by Orthodox Jews, to be sinful, for Jews (exempting extenuating circumstances; for instance, in order to save a life, you can kasher 'unclean' things in an emergency.) In other words, Jews don't care if anybody else eats pork.

    I mean, I'm at a loss. You are totally ignorant about religion, but you are so arrogant and vainglorious that you think you can condescend to religious people? What a stroppy little runt you are. It's as stupid as when the Southern Baptists go after the 'secular humanist conspiracy.'

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    you're making my point (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:42:24 PM PST
    you hit the nail right on the head! it is a sin for JEWS to eat pork, not everybody else. so basically you are invalidating what you originally said, which was that "everybody is a sinner." if you mean what you said about the jews then you are at least tacitly acknowledging that this is wrong. now if you said "all christians are sinners" then that would be closer to the mark. but when you consider things that christians consider to be sins such as premarital sex, people who engage in these things but are not christians are not sinners because they are not bound by that particular mythology. just like you are not prohibited from eating prok because you're not a jew. actually i think you make my point better than i am equipped to do. a person is only capable of "sin" if he or she is part of a system of beliefs that assigns a particular meaning to that word. beyond that, it's all good.

    by the way i am not being arrogant, just speaking the truth. if anything it is you that is being arrogant, what with all of the overuse of the word "vainglorious." isn't pride a sin? for me it doesn't matter, but for you it might be a whole different ball of wax.


    I believe you mean (none / 0) (#96)
    by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 03:51:28 PM PST
    i am not being arrogant, just speaking the truth

    ...the truth for yourself. After all, it's all relative, and you can define stuff out of existence.

    Doing something sinful is not the same thing as "sinning" (an overused word.) This is the sort of religious illiteracy that makes you unable to follow what I'm saying. If there exists objective right and wrong, then there is such a thing as doing wrong, even if you use a different word for it. If there is such a thing as objective right and wrong, there must also be some absolute source for the distinction (if it were only convention or social conditioning, then right and wrong wouldn't be objective.)

    Get it through your head. This applies to all mature religions (ie, those that do more than just worship bulls and thunder,[1]) and the root of all serious religious thought is the idea of the Absolute. Christianity is not "mythology," it is serious philosophical inquiry into the nature of the Creator of the universe and into the good and the right for man within creation.

    [1] I don't mean to condescend to paganism, actually. I think that the primitives also had an idea of the Absolute, but it would be wrong for us, today, to adopt our misunderstandings of their ideas.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Wait... (none / 0) (#97)
    by hauntedattics on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 12:16:17 PM PST
    I fail to see how calling the Supreme Being a "malevolent torturing space god," and assuming that without the concept of sin, Christians would want to kill your children isn't at the very least obnoxious and disrespectful, and at the worst, arrogant and vainglorious. Yes, I used that word again on purpose. You might want to go look up the concept of pride in a Christian theology book. I think you'll be surprised.

    And before you assume I'm Christian, don't. I just have respect for that religion and its beliefs, which is more than you have.



     
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 12:54:01 AM PST
    First off..I want to say that was stupid of them.. Who goes to the video store to get porn. For the best in hard-core porn you got to buy it online. American porn is okay, but the European sh@t is where it is at. Nothing like watching 2 hairy french chicks eating each others a-hole. Ya... Now I got to go to the bathroom real quick...Be back later..STicky fingers and all..


     
    myth (none / 0) (#20)