sephiroth_king
-
Posts
1098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by sephiroth_king
-
-
She probably isn't through puberty at 13, if she's even hit it yet. But hey, I guess by your logic if I find a girl with a mental disability I can manipulate her into thinking she wants sex from me and then have sex with her all I want. It's extreme, and the girl isn't mentally disabled, but that is what you are basically saying. She is no where near fully developed mentally, and she in all likelihood isn't finished puberty or possibly even started.
It must be easy to straw man. I never once claimed she was developed fully at all, but I can argue that some kids are more developed than 19 year olds. And what's up with the fallacy? If someone has a mental disability, of course they have to be examined closer. But we weren't talking about that. So why include it?
Also, do you not know when puberty starts? Thats the age. Come one now, don't argue that. Its a moot point anyway.
See that lady's post earlier. She didn't see the dude as a stranger, he was a friend. They had a relationship (online), he wasn't really a stranger to her at that pointNow you're just purposely finding things to get angry about. I was just stating something.
One thing I will say, though, is you have great drive, and in all seriousness, respect you for that.
-
Prevent a couple of bad things that happened when I was a child.
Or at least that was the first thing that came into my head, but I guess I wouldn't change that either. Nothing. My life really has risen above and beyond those things. And I'm happy as a result. :)
-
I'd still think the 10 year old was a [bleep]ing idiot for giving out personal information, but by 13 there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't know how giving personal information is a bad idea.
Or at least when they hit a point where they can reason. I've known a lot of people who were able to reason around that time, and some who weren't. We were all taught not to give out personal information or talk to strangers since we were even younger.
-
Would anyone be even arguing if the kid was male and the adult was female?
Most people wouldn't, probably. I would still find it a problem and would want it fixed. It would be a double standard otherwise.
-
Would you be saying this if she were 10? And this is a serious question, please answer
Has she hit puberty? Probably not. I'm at least arguing from a pubescent standpoint. If she hit puberty by that age, she should be cognitively tested, but chances are sure won't have that great of maturity because he/she'll have just started puberty.
At that age, you are usually still a child. Pre-pubescent. Which is a child.
Simply put. If she was 10, probably NO.
@Tacos: 'Tis indeed. I don't really like going there. :/
-
I could be misunding what your saying, but it sure looks like your arguing in favor of Pedophilia.
Eh, I was posting a long response to this, but I got distracted and can't remember what else I was going to type. But in short, no. Pedophilia is the attraction of prepubescent children which I am not asking we allow, simply just a test for pubescent teens to see if their cognitive abilities are on par with what is expected of an adult: to differentiate what is harmful and whats best for them. Immaturity should be contained within protective laws, but those that can think shouldn't be held with these laws.
Basically, again, one should be tested based upon cognitive ability.
-
"I am above the law!!!!" :rolleyes:
Perhaps you're not saying that it wasn't wrong, but you are trying to apply circumstances that are aimed at either (1) trolling or (2) legitimately attempting to mitigate the responsibility of the actions of the one ADULT involved in this situation. This man conducted a despicable act against a minor. There is nothing that can mitigate that fact.
Nothing.
I don't know how old you are -- and I don't care. I don't want to discuss your age here.
That said, your response is typical of the "younger person" who thinks that they are mature enough to make certain decisions for themselves, so therefore they should be allowed to make such decisions.
The reality is that most (if not all) people under the "age of consent" are not capable of competent management of themselves, despite the fact that they may believe themselves otherwise capable.
Meanwhile, there is an adult involved here who has committed a heinous crime against a child. He alone is responsible for this crime. He alone committed it. He alone.
Meanwhile, your attempts to purport that your own "maturity" is some form of guideline through which one should determine the degree of responsibility that the minor involved in this situation should share in this incident is ridiculous.
The consent law is arbitrary. Being 18 means nothing in biology. Nothing. Age of consent laws are arbitrary not only in sex, but everywhere else. Theme parks, for example, can decide when you are an adult to charge you more. Though this is an extremely poor contrast.
You futile attempts at using straw men are also rather amusing. I am 18, going on 19 in about 26sh days. Now, what I simply think is that consent should be defined with the cognition of one's brain. One can be 14 and be more mature and developed than that of a 19 year old, for example. But in our age of consent laws (at least in 'Merica), the said 14 yeah old would still be cognitively devoid than that of a 19 year old because the law said so. And only a couple hundred years ago, those laws were different than todays. Laws evolve and change over time as we investigate and discover new realities, or when we can disprove older laws and replace them.
Every single person who has anything resembling a rational thought should question the law every now and then, in my opinion. Mindlessly following the law is silly and dangerous. Its good to question the reality of the situation sometimes.
This girl may not have had the cognitive abilities to discern what is good or bad in her situation, and we won't know because of the law.
I also cannot agree with the so-called "reality" you stated. Teenagers mature younger and more rapid nowadays. Puberty is occurring younger, and many children are also capable of rational thought during those ages.
I also find it arbitrary that an adult, lets say age 33, can have sex with a 15 year old and he would be the only one charged with any wrongdoing, even if the teen consented. However, if the situation was twisted and lets say the 15 year old were to rob a bank with this man, she can be tried as an adult for being an assistant to this mans crime. Granted, sex is definitely more psychologically relative and is emotionally connected as well, but given the conditions of the bank robbery scenario it can be just as frightening for the child.
No. In reality, age does not show anything but how many days one has lived on this earth and does not necessarily relate to cognitive ability. Surely there are teens that obviously cannot make that decision, but at the same time there must also be quite a few that can.
I was ninja'd :P
@blyaunte: your stereotype of the average child is something that truly is shocking. Let me ask you a question: should a 17yr old be treated the same, even though they're so close to 18. Age is a measure of time, and NOT a measure of maturity. If the 13yr old truly thought that she was so mature, then she should've:
A) asked to be immansipated so she'd have the ability to consent, or
B) refused to press charges when the police heard of this incident.
Anyone who thinks that maturity=age clearly has no grasp of the 'real world'.
Also, if I were trolling, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't make an attempt to sound intelligent and I also wouldn't make an attempt to care about what I was saying. But hell, I apparently may be a troll simply because I don't agree with the majority.
-
That's all I'm arguing. Manipulation or not, she still consented.
And then, she'll be programmed and told that what happened to her was wrong, and she'll probably scarred because of it bing beaten into her head. Its rather sad, even though the situation is wrong.
There is no such thing as consent from someone younger than the age of consent. "Yeah, I'm old enough, let's do this," Sorry honey, the government says that its not your decision to make, and the answer is automatically a resounding "NO."
What happened to her WAS wrong. A 54 year old man should not be having sex with a CHILD. If you're an adult, children (minors under the age of 18) are off limits.
I never said ti wasn't wrong. In fact, I said that at the end.
But then again, I'm not one to follow arbitrary age laws as defining who a person was as I believe in the cognitive standards of someone rather than, again, an arbitrary age. By law standards, sure, consent is non existent. But that doesn't mean one cannot make a decision on heir own based Upon their age. So [bleep] your government. You can argue from law, but I will not argue from law because law is just another way of control. I'm simply arguing from a psychological viewpoint here.
But I did say the situation was wrong in general. So I don't know where you came off as me saying it wasn't wrong.
EDIT:
I'm disgusted by the people who think this was the 13 year old girls fault, and I think mad4u has got it right. I heard no mention of a dad in the story, so it seems to me she likely had "daddy-issues" to begin with. No dad, her mom's never home, and if she's playing RS, we can hazard a guess she MIGHT not be the popular girl at school. (I could be wrong, but that stereotype didn't come from nowhere :P). This adult reaches out to her, makes her feel special and wanted, and she's reaching an age of sexual curiousity.
Did you guys know that a very large percentage of rapes don't ever get reported? It's because the victim thinks it's they're fault, they they're the ones to blame, and that they should feel sorry for letting it happen. They're ashamed of what happened. Why would this 13 year old girl (whose mom wasn't in that picture very often, we know) turn to her mom in a situation like that? Maybe guys can't relate to this, but if you were 13, and you were raped, your first instinct would NOT be to tell your parents!!!
This could also be a likely candidate of what was happening.
-
People are blaming the victim of a rape. People are blaming the victim of a rape. Let that sink in. This guy deals extensively in Magic cards and plays Runescape, both excellent ways to meet and form bonds with children and young people. This probably isn't his first time, and he chose her probably because he knew he could manipulate her. I was going to type more, but I legitimately can't tell if I'm being trolled or not.
(I'm taking my intro out, its flame bait without me noticing it. I apologize.)
There's no need for personal attack, either. I already said before that manipulation played a big part in this mess. Are you not reading my posts or something? You're agreeing with me on that part. On behalf of disagreeing, I'm simply saying that you cannot simply victimize someone that chose to participate, through manipulation or not, though she shouldn't be blamed for the situation.
When someone chooses to participate in something, accept items from somebody, sneak around with somebody, etc. then age shouldn't even play a part in deciding who's at fault, only cognition. And in her mind (even if people qualify her decisions as null and void due to her age), she still made a decision--to have sex, and in continuing she didn't feel it was rape. She acted on a sexual urge which is quite common for her age.
That's all I'm arguing. Manipulation or not, she still consented.
And then, she'll be programmed and told that what happened to her was wrong, and she'll probably scarred because of it bing beaten into her head. Its rather sad, even though the situation is wrong.
You can also not make the assumption that he's done this before without proper evidence to back it up, however similar situations have some of the same backgrounds.
But I will say this again: Don't take offense because people won't agree with your position, and I am certainly not sorry for disagreeing with you.
-
But she isn't fully a victim, either, as she seems to have wanted it rather than telling someone or avoiding the situation altogether
Wow, OT you have disappointed :wall:
I said parents, not parent. It takes two to make a kid, and its both parents responsibility to raise their child.
Separated parents forming a dysfunctional family might be to blame more than just the mother.
Things don't always work out the ideal way they should. I don't see how you could blame anyone but the guy, it's pretty damn easy to hide a cell phone/what you are doing on the computer from parents. Especially when there's only one in the household and they work two jobs
Don't freak out because people won't agree with you in relation to this. I understand your position, but you have to understand that a victim that was raped (in the sense of forced sex) wouldn't continue to get raped (by that form of the definition). He molested and raped her because she was underage and thus, by cognitive standards, probably couldn't make wholly correct decisions. Basically, there's the rape where you are forced, and the rape where you allow it, but are too young.
She was simply too young and kept going for more. Clearly she was manipulated, but everyone has a choice, and her choice was to stay and accept sex from this pedophile. At some point, one has to acknowledge in these situations that there is no victim in the traditional sense. She's a victim of manipulation, not forced sex and the like.
-
How can it not seem like she wasn't taken advantage to you? It doesn't matter if she wanted sex (which I HIGHLY doubt, she probably doesn't even really know what sex is), she's 13, she isn't fully developed mentally and to have sex with her is pathetic and disgusting and reprehensible. That's ignoring that he obviously WANTED to have sex with her and probably goaded her into it, it's not very hard to manipulate a 13 year old. He drove to her house to give her a cellphone, a drive that mapquest is telling me was TWELVE HOURS LONG. Hell, in all likelihood the girl wasn't even through puberty yet. He sounds like a typical pedo
Well, I wouldn't say she didn't know what sex was. I would go as far as to say curiosity starts out at an extremely young age (via Freudian standards), and is hard wired into us because of evolutionary standards. Children are curious about genitalia (our own and the opposite sex) and the opposite sex.
Girls also tend to start puberty around that age as well.
However, I agree with you. Psychologically, no child that age can make correct decisions in regards to having sex with an adult. Children that age--male or female--for the most part are incredibly naive. Hell, even I was. The man most likely told her that he loved her and got her to have sex with him that way.
But she isn't fully a victim, either, as she seems to have wanted it rather than telling someone or avoiding the situation altogether, and this man was able to take advantage of her because of her naivety (and/or lack of knowledge in regards to predators). She probably isn't exactly scarred either, but she damn will be after the people pound into her head that what happened to her was horrible and reprehensible--which it is, but its sad to see someone become scarred because it is programmed into her.
But, on my opinion on the location, typical. I hear these stories all to often in Massachusetts. I know a lot that went through something like this. I like it in MA, I just don't like hearing these stories all that much (like anyone else, but it is typical around these parts in local news).
-
Info
-There is a perk that will lower the sound of your footsteps.
-Perk for Axe that enables deeper cuts, which means prolonged bleeding. You can hit someone once and they will eventually bleed out.
-Eventual perk upgrade for Maces that will allow you to hit for full damage, ignoring armor stats.
-The article mentions placing runes on the floor (that we know already) but in particular talks about 'lob a frost rune down and if an enemy wanders over it, shards of ice will be launched through its body'
-Telekinesis is an available spell.
-'No more agility to build up so don't have to keep jumping around to level up' (I assume they mean no longer skills like acrobatics and athletes but they use the word agility)
-When you kill a dragon you're able to absorb its soul which will make you learn a new dragon shout.
-There is a dragon shout called 'Unrelenting Force' which pushes anything standing directly in front of you backwards.
-Dragon shouts have cooldown periods after each shout performed. Individual shouts will have their own cooldown time.
-In the northern parts of Solitude is the Bard's College. The city is a busy port and there's event similar to bonfire night that has the burning of an effigy of King Olaf.
-Windhelm is the largest city. It has a palace that should look spectacular. This is also apparently the hangout for the Imperial Guards who monitor the path to Morrowind.
-Bleak Falls Barrows is a dungeon, with ancient Nord catacombs which features rivers, tree roots coming through the ceiling and light coming through odd cracks.
-120 Dungeons and they claim that 'no two areas will be alike'.
-Just to re-confirm this fact straight from Todd Howard. Oblivion had 1 dungeon designer with artists doing the rest. Skyrim has 8 dungeon designers.
-Whole world is hand-crafted. Oblivion had some generated landscapes and there is NONE of that anymore used in Skyrim.
-The Shivering isles expansion inspired the team that unique, hand-crafted cities, where no two buildings look the same, was the way to go.
-Example of a 'Radiant Story'. OXM UK recieved a quest to go to Bleak Falls Barrow and retrieve a golden dragon claw antique and take it back to shopkeeper Lucan. If you killed Lucan, the quest would change to his friend Camilla instead.
-The Snow. Has been a lot of confusion about this. OXM UK says that snowfall is dynamic. Instead of a texture with a bit of white added, landscapes realistically get dusted with snow landing in appropiate nooks and crannies.
-There are one-off puzzles in certain dungeons.
Example of new AI: 'Wolves have a den. Few times a day they go out and do a patrol and hunt in a pack. If they kill something then they'll hang out there. If you go outside and they're on patrol they will come after you. If they've killed something they will guard that and not chase you down as they want to look after it.
Dragon Shouts
The fact about the 'absorb soul of dragons to learn new shouts' has caused a little bit of confusion.
The dragon shout phases, of up to three words, can be found inscribed on the walls of ancient Nord dungeons. When uttered by the Dragonborn (the player) the words invoke powerful magic powers. For many of the shouts you can learn more phases which in turn will allow you to unleash a lengthier or more powerful version of the shout by holding the shout button down.
This appears to be the main way of learning shouts, by finding the word inscriptions. However the OXM article also mentions that you can learn new shouts in the process of absorbing dragon souls. The article doesn't mention anything else about this, maybe not all dragons give shouts, we don't know yet.
Key Map Locations visible on page 34
Solitude
Markarth
Dawnstar
Winter Hold
Windhelm
Whiterun
Riften
Falkreath
edit - These map locations may very well be outdated as OXM have used the old skyrim map with a new colour scheme.
Confirmed Skills
Alchemy
Illusion
Conjuration
Destruction
Restoration
Alteration
Enchanting
New Screenshots
Page 31 - We see a dragon on top of snow covered ruins. There is a huge backdrop behind it showing off mountains, new clouds and fog. Draw distance looks great.
Page 34 - There is a picture of the skyrim worldmap which lists the locations listed above. On 2nd look they've used the same map as the one on the UESP wiki, so it may be outdated.
Page 38 - A player appears to be wearing Elven armor and dualwielding a sword and staff. The staff is able to cast light along a corrider. (Was in gameinformer but bigger shot here and addition info)
Page 39 - 2 new screenshots here, we see a hooded stealth character performing a stealth execution (Assassin's Creed style, blade to the chest up close). We see a new dungeon called the 'Hall of Stories' which features a locked door and a puzzle to open it. Stonework looks fantastic with spider webbing across the walls.
Most of this article (especially the entire land being hand crafted!! :D) makes me giddy as hell. The bleeding effect pwns as well. Now I just hope for skeletal variation, and I will be happy.
-
[hide=Specifically two passages come to mind]
Matthew 15:1-9 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)
Matthew 15
That Which Defiles
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a'] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”
Acts 15:1-29 (New International Version' date=' ©2010)
Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a'] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
[/hide]
That has Old Testament references in it, though. I have some disagreeable quotes from the New Testament that I have marked in my defiled bible. :P
[Hide=My Rebuttal]
I'll be jumping around as I flick through random passages, so bare with me.
Jesus on Not Abolishing the Old Testament Law:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.Jesus abdicates killing:
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”Jesus abdicating Child abuse:
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about youWait, didn't you use that one? :P Also see: Mark 7:9
For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing.Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not.Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy.Slaves Obeying Their Masters:
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ.Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
[/hide]‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. ‘I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you. Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come. He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;and I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’Among other random passages.
And of course, most of those things we don't follow because they are bronze age mythology and we have learned to be more secular in our thinking. But why pick and choose? No, usually I know the answer: because its a comfort zone, a security blanket. ignore the old and in with the new--which still gives bad advice with a mixture of good things to say (that steals from other Religions like Hinduism).
I would also just like to point out that the Old Testament isn't necessarily defunct just because some passages said so because, again, Jesus didn't exactly care to bring down the old law and had some twisted beliefs in regards to slavery and the such. He did have a lot of good things to say, but then again a lot of what Jesus has said is reflected upon religions older than Jesus.
The Old Testament shows the rudimentary and vicious, savage God who seemed bloodthirsty and violent throughout the old book. The New Testament shows the other side to appeal to people in my opinion. The only conclusion I can make is that this book was written by a few to control the many, and to do that they had to make a nice, forgiving savior.
But both contain contradictions and unjust things that should be examined carefully, as even things that seem just may not even be at all in my opinion. (Like I said, the Sermon On The Mount as an example.)
Nite everyone. See you tomorrow. :)
-
Even the commercials were bad.
I completely agree. Our dorm hall had a party, and pretty much every person bashed the hell out of the commercials and the half time show.
Christina Aguilera wasn't that good, and Fergi was absolutely terrible.
All in all, it sucked.
-
If you're still hung up on the Old Testament, you've really missed the point.
And what, prey tell, is the point? That Jesus is the savior, the all good, and the New Testament is canon whilst the Old Testament is canon-fodder?
Sorry, the New Testament isn't all good either.
No, you have. You've decided to completely disregard the origins of your own religion (if you're a Christian) and inherently take in the teachings of Christ, which are again not all that good either. That's the problem: picking and choosing. The point is to read it all and consider it, lest you simply just ignorantly push aside all of the bad for the bliss. Picking and choosing is just a mechanism for a believer to decide what they don't want to hear and what they do. Too many people I know do that. But please (and I mean this politely, I don't mean to come off like a jackass, which I inevitably will do) don't tell me to read the New Testament as if I haven't read it and then tell me to stop being hung up on the Old Testament. Read and take in both or be ignorant. And personally, I'll take in both. You do as you please.
-
EDIT:
If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today.
You really should read the New Testament. There's a lot of good stuff in there, and you'd fix your gross misconceptions.
So, disregard the old testament for the new? To put it bluntly, screw that. I'll read both as to what those medieval beliefs are. Also, I've read the Bible multiple times, went to a Catholic School where my Faith was destroyed which led me to read it multiple times, and I know for a fact that the New Testament is just as full of crap as the old testament. And when I say crap, I mean, in my opinion, immoral crap. For example, Jesus' Sermon on The Mount, which is looked at usually as "good" when looked at theologically, but when looked at in depth is just kind of sad.
The Iron Chariots Wiki Is a good place to find lots of counter-apologetics stuff, among it the Sermon on the Mount.
By the way, there is no misconception just because one Testament says different things from the other. If there are two testaments, one should study them both, not look at one and snub it because it says a few bad things. But as I've said before, the New Testament isn't up to par either.
You can't see the forest for the trees."And you can't smell your own [cabbage] on your knees." -Marilyn Manson, The Beautiful People (Lol, just being a wise-ass here really)
-
Religion sets our morals, and it's what we were taught for the most part. Regardless of if you believe in god or not, you still hold true to the morals that were taught to you from religion. I believe at heart, most people in the world are [wagon], and they need that moral system. Every organized religion has always been a set of morals in a book. Don't kill random people, don't defile the gods' temple, etc. What was important to that society.
People set morals, not Religion. For example, Let's say Christian in todays world followed the Bible to the very core. Every last person who considered themselves a Christian or a believer in God or Christ followed the Bible to the last bt of ink. If this were the case, the believers would have to kill sodomites, incestual people, women would have absolutely no rights still, slavery would exist, etc. Yet, these beliefs, which were once indeed followed, are abolished as cave man theology by people today. When humanity realizes not to fear authority, then they begin to determine what is truly right and wrong.
Religion can be credited with mass control of people via moral standards laid out by their respective Gods, but throughout time it seems secularism has always triumphed against horrific ideals simply because they are horrific.
Most religions seem to adapt to what the people believe and feel is right in order to stop people from going astray; Christianity does this a lot (set aside a few sects today). Morality can be debated to the end of time, but no Morality is wholeheartedly true unless we will it. This is why personally I don't believe in good or evil, as they are simply just labels.
Also, as a quick addition, the religious morality system seems to be set in place so people will be rewarded for their good deeds in the afterlife, rather than doing good for the sake of doing good. Personally, I haven't known a lot of Christians that do good for the sake of it rather than to be rewarded for their actions. Take my sibling, for example, who vehemently opposes scientific ideas and homosexuality because her Bible demands it, rather than setting her own moral standard. And because she follows it, she'll be rewarded. She even looks at me and snubbingly tells me that she feels sorry for me because I'll burn.
-
Paaackers won.
I was cheering for them. I was not confident that they could do it. But they did. :thumbup:
-
"We have absolutely no f-ing idea" is not a "perfectly reasonable" scientific explanation.
It's not meant to be a "scientific explanation" more than it is a testament to how we don't know and won't assume something else until we accumulate proof/ a better understanding.
Also, evolution doesn't so much deal with the origins of life as does abiogenesis. Evolution simply describes the evolution from the beginning to different species and how they adapted through natural selection.
-
-
Damn nature, you scary
Good thing I live in MA :thumbup:
-
Yes, but how do we know that the laws are what they are? Because of our logic which comes from our perceptions. How do we know that either of those is correct? We don't. Of course you can learn thousands of facts about the universe and read about philosophies and all that, but in the end those might be as false as anything else. We are an object of existence, and we know existence because of our perceptions. But what happens when there is no one left to perceive? Existence becomes basically nothing. Perceptions are what make nothing seem like something. Nothing can come from something and something can come from nothing. Actually for nothing to exists something has to exist, and for something to exist nothing has to exist. Essentially something and nothing are one, because one can not exists without the other. Alas, existence and anything that comes out of it is one.
But all of this is plain [cabbage] so... meh :P
When there is no one left to perceive ten we cease to exist. The laws don't cease to exist. NOTHING ceases to exist until it "dies"--whether it be humans or a star above. everything stays the same until another big crunch.
What separates a human from an animal is that we understand existence and can discern as such. If we die, there will be nothing else to perceive what we cognitively can...but that doesn't mean existence no longer has meaning. Thats a blatant lie, intentional or not. Maybe, per say, YOU die, then your existence no longer means anything in the present moment...but everything else is still there and does exist. Same if all humans die--the earth, the stars, everything still exists and that doesn't devalue the existence simply because we, as humans, can't perceive it. If anything, that's an egocentric way of thinking.
Your next statements are also patently absurd and sound like appeals to ignorance. Something can come from nothing and vice versa? No. Absolutely not. Something doesn't have to exist for nothing to exist, that's a contradiction. You know what? I don't understand how you could've posted that last part. Its self contradictory and is an argument that sounds like it comes from a spawn of a beaten philosophical ideal. Like taking Nietzsche's Abyss quote and beating the [cabbage] out of it and posting it up. :/
-
Yes, humans created logic. So logic can maybe be considered "true" to humans, but is it true to the universe and any type of existence in general? We can't know with our logic. Since we can't prove the logic is true, because attempting to do so would be using logic anyway. Everything we think of is equally false.
Even this post can be considered all false.
The universe is indifferent to what we think because it is not a sentient being. As to it being true to any other type of existence, it would probably have to be on par or the same as our logic if it were, for example, a God because that God would have had to existed with the laws of the universe or be born with the laws of the universe that created them, and if he was here before the laws, that would beg the question as to how he got there, and who created him, creating a never ending paradox and therefore, for lack of a better word, silly.
As to other beings we don't know about...that's the problem. We don't know about them, so we can assume their non existence until we find credible evidence to other existences.
We can know our logic is true because it is still bound to natural laws around us, humans didn't arbitrarily make up random rules in which logic is bound to, but our universe had laws that logic must be bound to. Gravity, for example. The Laws of physics as another.
Again. Logic doesn't need to be proven true or false. Its not something which can be falsified or made truth because it is in tune with the laws of the universe and as such is already bound to be true. Nothing needed to "prove" something so abstract.
Edit: Apologies for any bad grammar or syntax errors. Its 3:20 here and I'm anxious about going back to my university tomorrow and therefore can't get to sleep. :P
-
Sweet, good memories always dying in Oregon Trails...and I still have the Carmen San Diego games and play them every now and again.
Too bad I hate Facebook.
religion
in Off-Topic
Posted
HOLY CRAP thank you. I love the Atheist experience.
...
Just thought I should throw that in their before I get back to my university work :shock: