Mary Cheney Gives Birth to Baby Boy

My goodness, I believe I have already covered this topic.

No, I do not think that pedophiles choose to be attracted to children.

So what?

Children cannot consent to sexual relations.

Therefore, it is inherently wrong for an adult to have sex with a child.

Non-pedophiles are not attracted to children, but are attracted to adults.

Adults can consent to sexual relations.

Therefore, it is not inherently wrong for two adults to have sexual relations.

Now how about we make another set if substitutions:

“Actually, we were talking about the belief that a person chooses to be heterosexual for selfish reasons. I’ve already pointed out that this ‘choice’ causes more difficulty for a person than either A) choosing to go with the majority and be homosexual or B) choosing not to fight their innate homosexuality, whichever you think is the alternative, and thus is unlikely to be the selfish choice.”

Somehow heterosexuality did not magically become evil by my inclusion of it in that paragraph. How could that be?? Because adult heterosexuality is qualitatively different from pedophilia, as is adult homosexuality.

Take the false analogy and leave.

"Let’s say there is an infant waiting for adoption ...a single male homosexual pedophile wants to adopt the baby girl. .. Now would you consider allowing that adoption to be immoral?"

Oh, brother. No to that adoption.

First, a male homosexual pedophile (I'm assuming this person is also not committed to abstinence!) is committing criminal acts with some child or children, even if not with his own adopted child. In that sense (criminality) he's sooner or later headed for prison (sooner, we hope) and ought not to be adopting, just as we wouldn't want a known counterfeiter, embezzler or drug kingpin to adopt.

Second, the particular kind of crime he's involved in, involves something deep in his ability to form relationships with other people. He may be sexually aroused by males, but he's not engaging in wholesome relationships with anybody, adult or child, male or female. I say this because pedophilia is a pervasive emotional problem, of which seeking sex with children is only one obvious symptom.

Thirty years ago, some psychologists thought they could treat and rehabilitate such men. Now I don't think anybody believes that. These men are so twisted by obsession and compulsion, they don't even quite grasp that what they're doing is wrong.

There's a really revealing film/DVD out there called "Deliver Us From Evil" about a serial child abuser, Oliver O'Grady. The scary thing to see was how almost light-hearted he was when describing is predations, as if (even after trial, conviction, and 7 years in prison) he still thought what he'd done was kind of friendly and cute.

And not only that: such people are so confused, I doubt any of them are exclusively "hetero" or "homo." The just want sexual gratification with whatever sweet, vulnerable creature they can get their hands on.

No, you have read my post completely backwards. I said that it is inherent, it is always wrong to murder babies, even if you're in Joshua's army committing genocide under the supposed command of God.

How is my interpretation backwards?:

"Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent..."

Who said I'm atheist?

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it:

"...and that God most likely did not exist..."

Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason? If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what? Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker? How so? Are there good atoms and bad atoms?

Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection? The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?

I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong.

Is the source of morality agreement? What if the poker does not agree? Would that mean that there is no morality when there is disagreement?

Cordially,

ahayes ...

Quoting your post # 616 on this thread:

“I find this very distasteful because it renders God completely incomprehensible and untrustworthy. Perhaps God really has a personality more like Satan, has handed us moral laws to follow just to play with us, and is telling us that he is good while planning a surprise for those who choose to follow him into the afterlife. . .”

Uh ... your statement is a MAJOR no-no and shows how pride and human rationalization has crept into your mind to distort your soul and your thinking process. I would be most willing to suspect, upon further examination, that I think that this conclusion of yours is borne of some personal issues that you have to deal with concerning your Fundamentalist background / upbringing. I’m not saying that it of itself is the cause, only that I think that you have some issues with it (which you acknowledge) that have caused you to become obstinate toward God.

Perhaps these unresolved issues are what cause you to have disdain for God’s Divine Providence. Anger, resentment, and having to submit to the conclusion, as an imperfect human being, of not being able to elicit an all-encompasing answer to life’s injustices, leaves one feeling very ineffectual (I speak from experience myself). God will not bow down to you ... you must bow down to God’s Will. To fail to submit to unconditional faith in God’s Divine Will, will only cause you consternation and agitation (once again, I speak from past and current personal experience ... been there and done that, and unfortunately, still doing it).

To say that “Perhaps God really has a personality more like Satan” is just flat out blasphemy and a telltale byproduct of an evil origin (and I think that, if the truth be told, you know it yourself and said that to elicit a shocked response from those of us who do indeed believe in God ... well, here is your shocked response).

You have to remember that God’s Ways are above our ways ... His Thoughts are above our thoughts. There is no way that we as human beings, with our inherent faults and limited comprehension of the world, could ever even come close to understanding what life / creation is about on a scale of how God indeed does or permits it to be. No way. We can try, but we will never succeed. Our human brains are incapable of it. We are called to reach for perfection, however, we most likely will never achieve true perfection in this lifetime. Our human nature’s tendency to gravitate toward sinfulness and selfishness is what acts as a detriment to achieving it. True perfection will only come as a reward to us in the hereafter, dependent upon how God judges us (and I think how we judge ourselves and take responsibility for our actions).

Reflect back, if you will, to the account of the repentant thief on the Lord’s right side as He agonized upon the Cross at Calvary ... he was remorseful and admitted to Jesus, his crimes and sinful ways, even to the point of proclaiming to Jesus that it would be a just sentence for him to be condemned to Hell. He went on to plead that Jesus, on the Day of Judgement, would only remember him and his confession to Him as they were suffering the pains of crucifixion upon their respective crosses. And what was Jesus’ reply? “TODAY YOU SHALL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.” Talk about submission and humbling one’s self before God. Amazing! Talk about absolute forgiveness! I pray that God will be as merciful to each one of us on the Day of Judgement, if we only honestly admit to our sinfulness and acknowledge how it has pained Him and our fellow souls on this journey of life. We will all be held accountable for every thought, word, deed, action, and sin that we have ever done. Granted, I myself do not long for that day as I have a ton of actions that I would shrink in horror and shame from to have to take responsibility for before God’s Judgement. I have the tendency to pick the motes out of my brother’s and sister’s eyes, when I have planks in my very own eyes (enough to build a fleet of seafaring ships). But that day will indeed come, like it or not. Will it to fruition or not.

In concluding here, I really don’t care to get into a Free Republic flame war or major debate with you over this, I just want you to know that I think that you need to do a bit of soul searching and reduce your level of pride in yourself. Stop questioning why God permits evil to be done in this world ... evil DOES NOT come from God ... to think so is an obvious deception created by satan to challenge God’s Omniscience. Evil is the product of satan and his minions. The majority of evil is due in part by the will of mankind. Mankind’s will tends to exclude God’s Divine Will from the equation of life. We want answers here and now. Tangible ones. One that we can digest and understand. Ones that are concrete and not amorphous. This is were we are called to FAITH. To believe in what is unseen and of God when our human senses fail to be cognizant of it. Our souls know the truth regardless of how much we try to rationalize our sinful actions. They yearn for “home” ... home with God.

ahayes ... I hope that you take that step toward FAITH and find peace in your soul. I will be praying for you.

Take care and PEACE be with YOU.

Front 242

Not much different than an adoption.

Uh ... your statement is a MAJOR no-no

I know.

and shows how pride and human rationalization has crept into your mind to distort your soul and your thinking process.

I will forgive you for your assumptions, since starting with your beliefs they are inevitable.

I would be most willing to suspect, upon further examination, that I think that this conclusion of yours is borne of some personal issues that you have to deal with concerning your Fundamentalist background / upbringing. I’m not saying that it of itself is the cause, only that I think that you have some issues with it (which you acknowledge) that have caused you to become obstinate toward God.

Nope, I never had much against God. It was a result of my realization that I could not condemn Mohommed unless I could rationally defend Joshua. I realized that this was impossible. The only way my fundamentalism really was involved was in ruling out the possibility that God was truly a God of absolute morality and merely too inept to transmit his will regarding morality clearly in the Old Testament. Fundamentalism doesn't incline one to believe in ineffectual gods. :-D

To say that “Perhaps God really has a personality more like Satan” is just flat out blasphemy and a telltale byproduct of an evil origin

While I sympathize with your feelings of outrage, that possibility was an inevitable conclusion of the premise I made (that evil is what God says it is, evil is not evil in itself), which I see you have not really addressed.

You have to remember that God’s Ways are above our ways ... His Thoughts are above our thoughts. There is no way that we as human beings, with our inherent faults and limited comprehension of the world, could ever even come close to understanding what life / creation is about on a scale of how God indeed does or permits it to be. No way. We can try, but we will never succeed. Our human brains are incapable of it.

This was about the only answer I got to my questions. How could God order infanticide? "God is righteous [an undefended postulate, since ordering the killing of babies sure doesn't look righteous], and we cannot understand him. Stop trying and just have faith." Again, if we can't understand God, and God can order us to do things that we would consider evil normally (killing babies) and have it be righteous, the true character of God is unknowable and might be more like what we think Satan to be. I prefer to have faith in what I know to be trustworthy, thank you.

Stop questioning why God permits evil to be done in this world ... evil DOES NOT come from God

In the case of the genocide of the Canaanites (including the babies, let's not forget), God ordered the evil done.

How is my interpretation backwards?: "Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent..."

That quotation is in regards to the Judeo-Christian morality expressed in the Bible, not my sense of morality, which as you see conflicted with this.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it: "...and that God most likely did not exist..."

"This particular version of God probably does not exist." =/= "No supernatural being exists at all, period." I am agnostic.

Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason?

It is innate. I know it is wrong. It is painful to me.

Do you only know certain things are wrong because the list was written down for you thousands of years ago? If so, you are a scary person! :-o

If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what?

Because the pokee hurts. :-(

Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker?

Nope, they are equally valid, as I explained before. Thus we can universalize and say no one should be poked in the eye, because no one wants to be poked in the eye.

Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection?

It hurts. :-(

The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?

I'm sorry, was there a point there??

Is the source of morality agreement?

In a sense yes, in a sense no. The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.

What if the poker does not agree?

Like the Nazis, they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.

They’ve been together for 16 years

But who's the daddy??

In the case of the genocide of the Canaanites (including the babies, let's not forget), God ordered the evil done.

Without God there are no grounds for moral objection to anything .

Cordially,

The kid will be in college by the time this thread reaches its natural conclusion.

I count twenty five children.

Y'a wife!? I thought you said the tu'ther one was yur wife!

No, you keep bringing up irrelevancies. Pedophiles should not adopt children because they are either in danger of harming the children themselves or of exposing the children to harm by other pedophiles. Homosexuals in general are no more danger to children than heterosexuals in general. False analogy!

Alcoholism invariably causes severe damage to the liver and other systems. It is impossible to be a responsible alcoholic if one is getting blind drunk all the time. Homosexuality does not invariably harm a person. The only way this would be analogous is if we're talking about a man who is going out having anonymous unprotected sex with other men all the time--in which case he'd be just as bad a parent as a man who goes out and has anonymous unprotected sex with other women all the time. Again, by extension of your analogy all heterosexuals are bad parents! Another false analogy.

You keep saying things are the same without proving they are the same. The only person you'd convince by these arguments is someone who agrees with you already!

Yep, which is exactly why we can’t really say what the difference is between God and the Devil.

Oops, misread you, I thought you said with God, meaning one cannot object to anything God does.

I keep on having people tell me I can't have a sense of morality if I don't believe in God, yet I am strangely unconvinced.

Christian: Your life is bleak and meaningless.

Me: No, it's not.

Christian: Yes, it is.

Me: No, really, it's not.

Christian: Well, you can't say anything's wrong.

Me: Yes I can, I do it all the time, actually.

Christian: Well, you can't say why it's wrong.

Me: Yes, I can. Here's why.

Christian: Well, without God life is meaningless. And there is no morality.

Me: So you say. . .

He’s going to be homeschooled by homosexuals, by the time he gets to college he’ll be a natural born flamer.