http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010729/wl/israel_palestinians.html
Divine prophecy fullfilled on a daily basis. Ex Jdubs in denial on a daily basis.
Rex
Rex B13
JoinedPosts by Rex B13
-
22
Are ex-dubs still in denial?
by Rex B13 inhttp://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010729/wl/israel_palestinians.html .
divine prophecy fullfilled on a daily basis.
ex jdubs in denial on a daily basis.. rex
-
-
Rex B13
-
9
How Not To Be DA'd
by Defender inmany of us, who have found the real truth about the truth and have stopped attending meetings and have made known some of our views to close jw friends and family, are trying to live discreet lives hoping that we never encounter that dreadful moment when the mobile spanish inquisition suddenly knocks on our door.. it is an extremely emotional and heart wrenching situation and many would find it hard to deal with, myself included.
being prepared would certainly help.
being resolved to uphold our consciences is admirable.
-
-
Rex B13
I luv it, Farkel! You made my week!
Rex -
15
When God Hides His Face
by teejay indavid and nancy both carry a recessive gene for a disorder called zellweger syndrome, a disease for which there is no cure.
against 1 in 100,000 odds, they had a child who was born with the syndrome.
they named her hope, who struggled with life for 199 days.
-
-
Rex B13
TeeJay
>The scientific method starts with empirical data, the formation of a hypothesis, experimentation and verification, then arriving at a conclusion. I like that method better. Not nearly as glamorous but a lot more sound.
Oh really? How does science verify evolutionary THEORY that cannot be demonstrated? Can they create life by combining non-life like Dr. Frankenstein? Where are all the intermediaries that should exist now and in the fossil record? How can you draw a textbook picture of the various man-apes from a tooth, a jaw and a shin bone? Where is your next research grant coming from if you don't seek conclusions that your peers agree with? One of my favorites now is the idea that organs like the eye appeared suddenly during 'evolution' and did not gradually develop.....
Hmmm, must have been a MIRACLE, eh?
Rex -
31
No Moral Absolutes?
by Rex B13 inhi gang,.
those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.
how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.
-
-
Rex B13
Amen, I see that some here are getting the point that I am trying to make to Seeker. C.S. Lewis is just about required reading for any who want a deeper understanding of Christianity.
Rex -
31
No Moral Absolutes?
by Rex B13 inhi gang,.
those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.
how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.
-
-
Rex B13
Seeker,
Some general thoughts:
The A.P.A. HAD STUDIES that claimed to exonerate pedeophiles from the 'sick list'.
Since when is the 'net any authority on anything at all? Have you ever been to the library or is this medium your main teacher?
Why is it wrong to filter out dangerous sites to those who are too immature too handle corruption that turns adults into porn addicts?
You cannot claim the moral highground because I accept the Bible as the word of God. There is NO moral highground without His setting the tone.From a friend on another list:
"What age is underage? And what dictates that age as underage? This is the point i've made with G..... You feel that homosexuality is not immoral.
At one time the majority did but in the past maybe 15 years the majority has now swung and changed. The new MTV generation now is the majority and finds homosexuality as merely an acceptable alternative lifestyle. So where does the alternatives stop? Will pedophilia in another 15 years become an acceptable alternative? What will be the standard to dictate what age is underage. I can't remember clearly but i think there was a man who had a relationship with a 13 year old boy and now i fighting in court for this activity as an accepted relationship. The premise NAMBLA makes is that if "we are gay or homosexual genetically than this means from birth we are genetically pre-disposed to homosexuality. If this is the case at what point does the genetically pre-disposed homosexual realize their sexuality"? Well one of the arguing points is when the person becomes sexually active. And when does a boy or girl become sexually active determines when they are aware of their genetic make-up. If this is so than it is possible for a consentment by a boy sexually at his/her realization of their sexuality. So therefore can a man and a boy have a sexual relationship and it be acceptable? A sexual relationship is a sexual relationship whether it is with other 13 year old boys or a 36 year old male. Age no longer is a determinate for sexual activity because it is an individual choice as to when a person decides to venture into their sexual active lifestyle. It is that persons choice whom her/his partners will or should be as well. There are laws even for heterosexuals to consent marriage for adults and children as early as 16 years of age and in some states 14. So what age is the deternminate cannot be established except by the choice of the boy/girl as to their own ventures of sexual activity.
I personally am against the whole thing since i have a theistic concept of morality but an agnostic cannot fight against such logic in the face of subjective morality. NAMBLA has a strong argument in a subjective moral world without a theistic outlook. NAMBLA is the subjectivists/agnostics morality coming home and slapping them in the face and there ain't nothing agnostics/subjecivists can do about it. Diss God and your own diss comes back at ya from another angle. Their is no morality without a supreme moral lawgiver. It all goes in the toilet when you eliminate God."That argument shreds your argument Seeker. Let's nail the lid to the coffin:
"The problem with evil without a theistic outlook
Evil is subjective to a person's personal view. Evil truly is not existent. Evil is merely an imagined view by each individual pushing their personal morality upon another. Tolerance is subjective to each person's personal morality. Without God their is no law of universal evil. Evil is merely a concensus agreement of the majority over the minority. The minority's views of what is evil are suppresses while the majority's view reign.
Proof is F....'s views here. If I were a theist: from my theistic outlook i am forced to accept the conditions set out by my lawgiver whom is God. He sets standards for me andd i merely comply because of who and what he is. He holds a superior position to myself and i submit to his authority and person as the universal lawgiver, therefore my view is conditioned upon his demands. While F.... or G.... can deny his demands and merely go spouting their personal morality. Now i dont know what G.....'s views are concerning homosexuality or bi-sexuality but he certainly deems homosexual pedophilia as wrong in HIS personal morality. But what happens now if an ex-JW NAMBLA advocate comes to this list? What happens if someone is on this list and believes it is moral to have a sexual relationship with a consenting child? Now this person will defend their PERSONAL MORALITY vigorously. It becomes a mere battle of wills and personal morality's of which only the majority will win or dominate. The minority which in this case would be the incumbent NAMBLA ex-JW member whom may join this list or could be present silently would than have none tolerant of their views on this list. So in the name of tolerance and without God we have the same scenario. Someone's views are not being tolerated and another's views are evil by personal individuals who carry no authority have a consensus. The question then becomes, "WHO ARE YOU TO PUSH YOUR PERSONAL MORALITY ON ME?" Without God none can give a good answer for such, save they may have a consensus backing them which could change in 20 years and they would wind up in left field. Without God there is no true morality! Without God none can answer that big question in all caps above justifiably!"
That's exactly what you are doing, Seeker._______________
"You fail to realize that the universal lawgiver is the dictator of what is good and bad and as his creation we are to conform or suffer the onsequences. For the production of the human race he dictated incest as beneficial for a brief time only to populate and
withheld birth defects. He can do that because he is God and i am not. For the sake of his people's survival in a wilderness he allowed murder. He can do that because he is God and has superior authority and make up than I.
He can and does ditate what is right for us as his creation and what is wrong. He can do that because he can stare death in the face an know what it is! As i stated in my earlier post he knows everything!A lack of submission to his will brings suffering and has promulgated the ghetto we now live is called Earth! A Ghetto is always made by it's residents. I as a JW spent a great deal of my time witnessing in Southeast WASH DC. You should see it. These guys in DC Gov't keep
putting up nice garden apartments with all the trimmings and the people keep tearing them down so they in the end look like sewer crack infested buildings, dank and dirty. People make it a Ghetto not the DC Govt!
Agnostics want to blame God for their Ghetto they created!
Choices are you can keep it lavish and care for it or destroy it and agnostics destroy it and then point at the Govt/God an blame them. Justlike a bunch of strung out junkies in Ghetto who keep blaming everyone for their adictions and their places and their poverty. Laws are changed constantly by the US Gov't that sometimes override old laws. Old laws are abolished because they benefit people. Does this make the old laws bad, No! Old laws served their purpose for benefiting persons for that time. It's called progress and laws have to be changed for progress and this doesn't make old laws as evil or bad. God changes laws to aid mankind's progression and to overcompensate for his inadequacies.> Is hetrosexuality always "right"- no in cases such as rape, or an abusive marriage. What determines whether hetrosexuality is "right" or "wrong" in these cases? What about pedophilia then? The same processes should be used to determine this - and when that is done it is clear that pedophillia could never be "right".
_________
Bologna! Once homosexuality is termed as right and it basically has now than the pedophiles can step up and stand up for their rights based upon the same standards the homosexual movement is using. Using the very same process! I think i clearly enumerated what that is on
previous posts. NAMBLA has a strong case using the homosexual agenda which is using the idea that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.
(a very big piece of misinformation!)> Agnosticism does not make a person immoral or unethical.
_______________
I didnt say it did. But it certainly enables and supports immorality. An agnostic can be a moral person by biblical standards. I know of a good friened of mine that was an agnostic that passed last year. I spoke at his funeral and he was one of the most wonderful people i've
ever encountered. He fought for those that were oppressed an was quite a civil activist. But agnosticism still fails in addresing evil at it's very basic form. It has no solution for evil. Evil is some subjective choice made by the minority at least until the minority becomes the dominant culture. So your agnosticism cannot solve as to the evils of pedophilia or necrophilia. Those things for now are considered evils of the off brand weirdo but what happens when the weirdos take over the world? In the roman culture bestiality and pedophilia we're accepted forms of sexuality by an empire! Not so weird for the consensus than was it?
What happens if America or russia becomes another Rome? So once again the question begs, "Who are YOU to push YOUR PERSONAL morality upon me?" You're a nobody, just another human, someone whom by nature is my equal nothing less and nothing more! All you have is a consensus and what will happen if i take that away from you? Your truth is no longer truth!
Your intolerance is now no longer tolerable. The only rational solution for evil is a theistic outlook which has someone whom can answer that question which requires no qualification. Only
God can dare to say, "Who are you to question me the Supreme lawgiver who is better than you! I know what is best for i made you! If you have the answer than do tell me what they are!"
(from my friend, Gus)Go ahead, Seeker, dig yourself another hole and prove my point to the entire post!
Rex -
31
No Moral Absolutes?
by Rex B13 inhi gang,.
those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.
how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.
-
-
Rex B13
Dedalus,
You're making the common mistake of over-simplifying scriture, which robs it of the all-important context.
Rex -
31
No Moral Absolutes?
by Rex B13 inhi gang,.
those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.
how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.
-
-
Rex B13
Go away troglodyte Alan. You are an intellectual idiot who plays only to the grandstand.....I don't take you seriously anymore.
Rex -
26
Is pedophilia an unforgivable sin?
by cnn77 inin my opinion it should be and a pedophile should never be allowed back into the organization.. the children they abuse suffer for the rest of their lives so why should a pedophile have forgiveness and be reinstated?
-
-
Rex B13
I should have clarified that point. You are speaking of Mosaic Law, which was fullfilled in the messiah. Once we sin even once we have fallen short of the true comparison, between us and Christ. It is a different case comparing humans among each other of course.
Scripture tells us that one sin separates us from God, thus we all stand condemned without salvation from our Lord Jesus Christ.Another case is in the 'White Throne Judgement', where each one is judged according to his earthly actions and the punishment/rewards meted out are done with true justice, holy justice. Now, don't confuse that with the salvation which cannot be changed, only the rewards are changed.
Rex -
31
No Moral Absolutes?
by Rex B13 inhi gang,.
those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.
how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.
-
-
Rex B13
>There are no moral absolutes in the abstract, but in real life there are some morally correct things.
According to whom? Who sets the accepted norm? In the past it was 'wrong' for races to intermarry, 'wrong' to be lesbian or homosexual, wrong to have pre-marital sex and the list goes on.
>Long before there was a concept of religion, or the Bible, humans noticed that some actions caused harm to individuals and to the society in which they belonged.
"Long before" is a broad, unprovable statement. You have no idea that worship has not existed hand in hand and well before any laws were recognized.
>Murder, for instance, was horrific,
Really? When was 'murder' defined and what about circumstances surrounding a death?
>and thus became almost universally condemned, as it should.
It is still not universally condemned. In fact, it never has been when one looks at history.
>Just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we can't all agree on certain levels of subjectivity.
But we all don't agree on the subject of morals!
>We all know murder is wrong, atheists and believers alike.
Define 'murder'. You are now starting to prove a inherent coscience that exists because God put it there. There is no reason that it should develop under evolutionary pressure since the strongest and the smartest are the survivors. Without that programming from God society should not have progressed beyond a rudimentary level.
>If believers want to say God condemns murder, that's fine with the atheists who avoid murder simply because it is wrong, not because they are told not to do it.
Where did the original law against 'murder' come from? Or conversely, aren't you proving a God given conscience that is inherent in all creation?
>So all your examples are meaningless, for no one is defending immoral acts. Just because we have no need of God, it doesn't mean we accept any actions as moral -- we don't.
Where is your moral absolute then? What guideline is valid since we all have different views on morality?
>In fact, my morality can basically be summarized (in simplified form) as: do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt.
The A.P.A. recently tried to say take pedeophilia off the 'sick' list!
>think of the implications of that: Do you want to overeat to the point of obesity? Can't do it, it would harm yourself.
Some say that we should be able to harm our sells
>do you want to commit adultery? Can't do it, it would harm your mate. Want to kill that annoying person over there? Can't do it, it would be harmful to that person, his friends and family, and society at large. Want to engage in sex with a child? Can't do it, it would harm the child, etc.
You have just seen the tip of the iceberg in your delimma. Who determines the moral absolutes in the society that I mentioned, ancient Greece, and Rome is another good example?
>t actually makes for a very moral person. Now to comment on your lists, but only from MY point of view (I can't speak for any one else). You won't agree with what I say, but that's fine for I don't agree with your level of morality either. I think you are a very immoral person, for you support an idea that will lead to the death and torture of countless humans.
You have no right to judge me for you have no real guideline to follow. I do not support an 'idea', I give credence to inspired scripture which tells me that sinful man will die in separation from God without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and saviour.
quote:
1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> am against anything that would harm children.
So am I. I have a moral absolute to follow.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY is it any worse than homosexuality or lesbianism?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Because adults get to make their own choices and are emotionally capable of dealing with sex.
Who says? Where is your moral guidline? It is subjectiove to the norms of the society that promotes or condemns it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT age is considered acceptable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>No such number can be given, for each person matures at different levels.So, then sex with children is sometimes OK?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) How does one take a stand on teenage (or pre-teen) sexual activity when it is actually none of your business, even as a parent (according to secular organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc., the A.C.L.U.)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It is very much your business as a parent, and no one can take that away,Not according to society, they can get all the birth control they want and not inform you.
>even though Christians keep trying to do so by forcing their agendas into the schools despite what non-Christian parents want.
Rhetoric wiothout proof is just bull....
>Still, though I disagree with Christians, and you disagree with Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that you as a parent have a full say. Assuming you rear your children correctly, of course.
Wait a minute, correctly? Who determines that?
5) How would you establish a moral/legal guideline any more effective than pre-1960 American norms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You mean back when the adults were getting drunk, wife swapping, and hating their lives but couldn't talk about it? You mean back when the kids were sneaking around having sex and then getting abortions in the back alley? Yes, a wonderful time to be living, if you were a hypocrite.You've no evidence for that being anywhere near the norm and look at the way authority has been undermined to the point of our society being ready to crumble!
Yes, you yourself are a hypocrite because your beliefs are not any more valid than mine are, you just claim they are.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Why would you continue to promote illicit sex when it is proven to result in so many problems for society? Abortions, teen preggies, kids raised without parents, delinquency run rampant, welfare subjegating people to the state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->ll those things are more prevalent in America than in Scandinavian countries, where sex is more open and accepted, and thus the kids are far less obsessed with it. The more you clamp down, the more enticing sex becomes to your children.
That is deliberate, liberal context twisting (comparing apples to oranges) MISINFORMATION. You believe this is true because this is what you have been told.
>nstead, teach them responsbile but loving ideas about sex, don't condemn someting so natural, and watch the abortion rate drop, the pregnancy rate drop, the deliquency rate drop. It happens, just look at other countries. Your Christian obsession with sex dooms your children to be messed up.
Cite the examples please, cite the context please. You are just using ACLU style rhetoric.
Rex -
63
GB Admits It Has No Answers, Blood
by Maximus in"in contrast with humans, who have a limited life span, jehovah never feels pressured by time to reveal his secrets prematurely.
this fact should prevent us from becoming impatient when certain bible questions cannot presently be explained to our satisfaction.
"modesty on the part of the faithful and discreet slave class, commissioned to provide the christian household with food at the proper time, prevents it from presumptuously running ahead and wildly speculating about things that are still unclear.
-
-
Rex B13
Why do you have "no answer", Master Member Maximus? Are you the, "weakest link"?
Rex