What happens after life??

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesAnyone should be able to have sex whenever they want????

 

Where is the surprise or confusion there? Except in cases of rape, that is what we have now. Some people only "want" sex when they are under a contractual monogomous relationship. The Chaney/ Bush '04 campaign slogan. "One Dick, One Bush, just like god intended!".

 

While others do not share the same desire to require a formal written government sponsored contract in order to enjoy sex.

 

Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? That you are entitled to some level of control over other's rights that they are not even allowed to have control over themselves?

 

Or is it just that your personal view is the only one that anyone could possibly feel was an ethical/ moral one?

[GAHD]

Boil boil toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble...

[IrishEyes]

Where is the surprise or confusion there? Except in cases of rape, that is what we have now....

 

Well, what's wrong with rape? I mean, obviously in the case of rape, SOMEONE wanted sex right then, right? enough to force his or her desires on someone else, and obviously we can't ask them to suppress those urges, as that might lead to a buildup of stress!

 

 

Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? That you are entitled to some level of control over other's rights that they are not even allowed to have control over themselves?

 

Of course not!! why have any laws regarding sex at all? I mean, hey, if some person wants to have sex with YOUR 12 year old, and your 12 year old says yes, then what's the problem?

 

While others do not share the same desire to require a formal written government sponsored contract in order to enjoy sex...

 

Why was it wrong for that woman teacher to have sex with her teenaged student? They were both consenting.

 

Or is it just that your personal view is the only one that anyone could possibly feel was an ethical/ moral one?

 

Actually, 'consenting' is really restrictive. You shouldn't push those standards on others! How dare you be so close-minded!!

 

If we just send our kindergartners off to school with a pack of TROJANS and remind them to be safe, everything's all good, right??? They can have sex with their friends on the way to school on the bus! Why wait?

 

Too extreme of examples? Not hardly. That's exactly what you are saying when you complain of my attitude. Yes, I think there should be limitations! But that's not the issue, even though you're trying to twist it that way.

 

The TOPIC is 'what happens after life'. Why you are trying to turn this into a moral debate about sex is beyond me, but if you really feel the need to argue, START A NEW TOPIC. I've been suggesting creating a "Freethinker and IrishEyes take off the gloves", but you haven't responded to that. ;-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

The TOPIC is 'what happens after life'. Why you are trying to turn this into a moral debate about sex is beyond me,

 

Let's see if we can trace how we got here...

 

Yes the subject is "What happens after life". At the beginning of the week (5/3,4)we got into a little, what I would consider "friendly jabbing". Which included some obtuse joking about being Irish, sex and other topics. Then on 5/5 we got slapped around a little for dragging the topic way off :-)

Originally posted by: GAHD

wow, now this topic hasn't been derailed....

So we started back into a discussion of what is proof, what is provable, what each of us might be able to prove of our personal beliefs and how that might relate to an after life. As part of that discussion I mention how PROOFS/ Science are being rejected in favor of acceptance of bogus claims. Giving examples of how religious beliefs are used to suppress scientific findings, including things related to a god's existence, an afterlife and the negative influence religious beliefs, specifically Christianity, is having including the harm to 3rd world countries with uncotrolled pop growth and STD's. Further, how that religious belief in a heaven (afterlife, the specific topic of this thread) is highly selfish.

 

Then in a post Wed May 05, 2004 11:35 AM (if the time doesn't change) you sent a post which specifically addressed the faith healing/ STD topic. To which, as usual, I then posted a number of factual references to support my earlier assertions.

 

Now you want to know why we are discussing it?

 

From your Wed May 05, 2004 11:35 AM post

 

First, at what point did teaching people the only way to prevent the spread of STDs 100%become 'religious ignorance'? ... Do you have any other suggestions for 3rd world countries? Pass out condoms on every street corner in Africa?...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

Where is the surprise or confusion there? Except in cases of rape, that is what we have now....

Well, what's wrong with rape? I mean, obviously in the case of rape, SOMEONE wanted sex right then, right? enough to force his or her desires on someone else, and obviously we can't ask them to suppress those urges, as that might lead to a buildup of stress!

 

Nice job! Let's take a rational, reasoned discussion about personal freedoms and trash it completely. Let's jerk it into the realm of knee jerk emotional ramblings. After all it is obvious that an effort to protect an INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOMS is the same as FORCING others to do things.

 

I really thought better of you than that. I am highly disappointed that you would use such an intellectually dishonest approach to this discussion. That my question about the rights of each person to determine THEIR PERSONAL freedom to make choices

 

Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? That you are entitled to some level of control over other's rights that they are not even allowed to have control over themselves?

is denegrated into a claim that I want to rape children!

Of course not!! why have any laws regarding sex at all? I mean, hey, if some person wants to have sex with YOUR 12 year old, and your 12 year old says yes, then what's the problem?

If you can't answer the question in an intellectually honest/ intellegent way, don't answer.

 

Or is it just that your personal view is the only one that anyone could possibly feel was an ethical/ moral one?

Actually, 'consenting' is really restrictive. You shouldn't push those standards on others! How dare you be so close-minded!!

</blockquote>

I am really disappointed that you would stoop to such a low level of ramblings. I expected better out of you. Even if you ARE a Christian! :-)

[Freethinker]

It becomes obvious at this point that after your accusing me of only using highly biased sources:

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

You should have stopped after your first sentence. That would not have shown your obvious bias, as evidenced by your second sentence beginning "Research was done...faith healing sects". Again, I ask - WHERE do you find these bizarre research results? And WHO pays for these studies?

 

And my then showing that those highly biased (anti-Christian?) sources were The American Cancer Society and such, that rather than you having to acknowledge error, you instead attack me personally. Calling me a child rapist.

 

If you are not able to admit error, that is your personal failing. Don't use it as an excuse to invent an emotional scapegoat by accusing others instead.

[IrishEyes]

If you are not able to admit error, that is your personal failing. Don't use it as an excuse to invent an emotional scapegoat by accusing others instead.

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..........

 

I just can't stop laughing!!

 

It really stinks when someone *intentionally?* misinterprets your statements, twists them, pokes holes in them, and uses them to try to make you look like a monster, huh?

 

At NO point did I say "Freethinker is a child rapist", except in that direct quote just now. At no time have I thought you were capable of such.

 

Your statements...

 

Where is the surprise or confusion there? Except in cases of rape, that is what we have now.... Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? That you are entitled to some level of control over other's rights that they are not even allowed to have control over themselves? Or is it just that your personal view is the only one that anyone could possibly feel was an ethical/ moral one?

 

tried to paint me as some type of monster that wanted everyone to live according to my personal view, even though I never said that!

 

All I did was take what you wrote and apply the same logic YOU usually use to pick apart arguments - going to extremes, making incomplete assumptions, and arriving at emotionally bankrupt conclusions.

 

but then, hey - I had a GREAT teacher...YOU!!!

 

Man, i LOVE you!!!

[IrishEyes]

Nice job! Let's take a rational, reasoned discussion about personal freedoms and trash it completely. Let's jerk it into the realm of knee jerk emotional ramblings. After all it is obvious that an effort to protect an INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOMS is the same as FORCING others to do things.......

 

.....I really thought better of you than that. I am highly disappointed that you would use such an intellectually dishonest approach to this discussion. That my question about the rights of each person to determine THEIR PERSONAL freedom to make choices ......

 

.....I am really disappointed that you would stoop to such a low level of ramblings. I expected better out of you. Even if you ARE a Christian! :-)

 

WHY DO YOU GET TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO HAVE THEIR PERSONAL FREEDOMS?????

 

Why don't rapists and child molesters get to choose? Aren't they people too?????

 

You can ridicule me for approving an 'abstinence' approach, saying that it is 'religious ignorance'. Yet when I follow your train of thought through it's possible ramifications, I'm trashing a reasoned discussion on personal freedoms, and stooping to knee jerk low level ramblings.

 

So YOU are the only one that gets to project your own personal views onto the rest of society, right? The rest of us are not intellignet enough to make our own personal choices, but must rely on YOU to tell us that rape and sex with children is immoral, huh? Because YOU said so, right??? But what about the guy down the road from you that is a registered sex offender? Doesn't he have the right to satisfy his natural, physical, sexual, human urges with your child, if that child consents? Or are you, in your infinite wisdom, going to explain to the rest of humanity what the actual 'age of consent' should be? Why go with the government's general rule of 18 (or 16, or 14, depending on your state)? I'm sure you have the TRUE answer...

 

As for the rest of your earlier post, thanks for posting your list of resources. Not all of them are 'obviousky' biased. But looking at some of those sites does raise some interesting questions...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

.....I am really disappointed that you would stoop to such a low level of ramblings. I expected better out of you. Even if you ARE a Christian! :-)

 

WHY DO YOU GET TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO HAVE THEIR PERSONAL FREEDOMS?????

 

Why don't rapists and child molesters get to choose? Aren't they people too?????

OK, if you want to continue to pertend that denying someone of their personal freedoms is protecting that someone's personal freedoms, we will evaluate that.

 

a "rapist" is someone that forces someone else to do something that is not that person's personal choice. Thus a person's personal freedoms are being violated by the rapist.

 

"Children" are called "children" because they are not considered old enough to be able to correctly make personal choices. When they do reach that level of intellect, they are called "adults". This is why courts process each age group differently. This shows that a legal distinction IS made officially.

 

Is this still beyond your ability to comprehend? Are you still going to pretend your assertion is rational?

 

You can ridicule me for approving an 'abstinence' approach,

 

and no matter how many times I tried to explain the difference between "an 'abstinence' approach" and an abstinence ONLY approach, you seem incapable of cpmprehend that difference.

 

Are you truly that inable to make simple logical correlations? In which case I apologize for taking advantage of the mentally challenged. I will try to find ways to explain the facts in a far less intellectually challenging manner.

 

saying that it is 'religious ignorance'. Yet when I follow your train of thought through it's possible ramifications, I'm trashing a reasoned discussion on personal freedoms, and stooping to knee jerk low level ramblings.

 

PRETENDING that FORCING others into doing something they do not want to do or are not competent to make informed decisions on is NOT violating that person's freedoms, IS NOT VALID. It IS using an "appeal to emotion" fallacy. A Straw Man.

 

"My personal freedom to swing my fist, ends at the other person's nose"!

 

Is this beyond your ability to comprehend?

 

As for the rest of your earlier post, thanks for posting your list of resources. Not all of them are 'obviousky' biased.

 

What you are saying is that ALL of them ARE biased (and based on your previous post, biased therefore AGAINST Christianity) but only some are OBVIOUSLY biased.

 

Is the American Cancer Society OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is the Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is Quackwatch OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is the American Cancer Society OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

But looking at some of those sites does raise some interesting questions...

 

Such as "why does MEDICAL SCIENCE contradict your Christian beliefs?"

[IrishEyes]

OK, if you want to continue to pertend that denying someone of their personal freedoms is protecting that someone's personal freedoms, we will evaluate that.

 

Huh? What on earth are you talking about here?

 

a "rapist" is someone

 

Well, at least you are admitting that a rapist is a person...

 

that forces someone else to do something that is not that person's personal choice

 

But it IS the choice of the rapist. So why is one person's personal choice more important than that of another?

 

Thus a person's personal freedoms are being violated

 

Yes, either the personal freedom of a 'person' not wanting to be raped, or the personal freedom of the rapist. Which one gets to have their personal freedom?

 

"Children" are called "children" because they are not considered old enough to be able to correctly make personal choices.

 

Who gets to decide this one as well? I mean, your 17y11m28d daughter is less capable than my 18y0m1d son, right?

 

When they do reach that level of intellect, they are called "adults". This is why courts process each age group differently. This shows that a legal distinction IS made officially.

 

Yet this line keeps moving. Recent court cases show that even 'children' are being tried in court as 'adults'. SOMEONE keeps changing that magical 'level of intellect'. Or maybe it's based on each individual case? Yeah, that's fair, isn't it? Thus, a 14 year old can be tried for murder as an adult, but is not considered mature enough to be able to decide to smoke a cigarette.

 

Is this still beyond your ability to comprehend?

 

 

Actually, that's exactly the question I was going to ask you!

 

Are you still going to pretend your assertion is rational?

 

My assertions are the result of following your irrational statement to a possible conclusion. Just because you don't like where YOUR OWN STATEMENTS have led, don't try to pin that blame on me. ;-)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

but then, hey - I had a GREAT teacher...YOU!!!

 

I have noticed that your posts have (typically, until this particular lapse) followed a more rational, more logical approach. I am not forced to spend as much time delineating each and every fallacy, rather than being involved in an intellectual discussion. e.g. you no longer claim to be able to PROVE your god's existence. You no longer claim to have a 100% certain mathematical proof for your god's existence. You openly admit that you do not have anything that would be considered factually valid proof for your god.

 

That has come a long way!

 

Man, i LOVE you!!!

 

I'm already spoken for, sorry!

 

Yes an intentional monogomous relationship, even if only by intentionally exerting an individual freedom of choice. And she's over 18! WAY over.... :-)

[IrishEyes]

And here we see you demonstrating your true hypocrisy...

 

Are you truly that inable to make simple logical correlations? In which case I apologize for taking advantage of the mentally challenged. I will try to find ways to explain the facts in a far less intellectually challenging manner.

 

It was only a few days ago that you chided another poster for making a personal attack on your character instead of the facts you presented. I AGREED WITH YOU THEN. I will ask you to keep personal character attacks out of this discussion. You know that I am not mentally challenged, as I know that you are not. We simply have differing opinions on some issues. To insinuate that I am 'mentally challenged' because I refuse to agree with your position is well beneath you.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

OK, if you want to continue to pertend that denying someone of their personal freedoms is protecting that someone's personal freedoms, we will evaluate that.

 

Huh? What on earth are you talking about here?

 

So perhaps you REALLY are not capable of understanding that "personal freedoms" means EVERYONE's personal freedoms, not ONE individual's personal freedoms? Are you truly trying to tell us all that you can not comprehend the difference between one person forcing somone else to do something and the concept of protecting EVERYONE'S personal freedoms?

 

OK, you ARE a Christian, I guess we have to make a greater allowance for thought process potential.

 

a "rapist" is someone

 

Well, at least you are admitting that a rapist is a person...

and you can show us all where I even suggested anything less?

that forces someone else to do something that is not that person's personal choice

But it IS the choice of the rapist. So why is one person's personal choice more important than that of another?

Spoken like a true Christian! Especially when the "other" is a Christian. Then that person's individual beliefs should be allowed to override the personal freedoms of everyone elses.

 

Thus a person's personal freedoms are being violated

 

"Children" are called "children" because they are not considered old enough to be able to correctly make personal choices.

 

Who gets to decide this one as well? I mean, your 17y11m28d daughter is less capable than my 18y0m1d son, right?

If "capable" is the issue, NO. My daughter would not have the intellectual stumbling block of accepting unsupportable concepts as truth. If legal process is considered, then YES. Legally my daughter would be considered less capable of making informed decisions.

 

When they do reach that level of intellect, they are called "adults". This is why courts process each age group differently. This shows that a legal distinction IS made officially.

 

Yet this line keeps moving. Recent court cases show that even 'children' are being tried in court as 'adults'. SOMEONE keeps changing that magical 'level of intellect'. Or maybe it's based on each individual case? Yeah, that's fair, isn't it? Thus, a 14 year old can be tried for murder as an adult, but is not considered mature enough to be able to decide to smoke a cigarette.

You are arguing based on the irrational application of law from the current Christian theologically overrun Government. One that finds punishment of youths as criminals, especially lower strata minorities, to be appropriate since it mollifies the Religious Right Conservative agenda.

[IrishEyes]

What you are saying is that ALL of them ARE biased (and based on your previous post, biased therefore AGAINST Christianity) but only some are OBVIOUSLY biased.

 

Is the American Cancer Society OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is the Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is Quackwatch OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Is the American Cancer Society OBVIOUSLY anti-Christian or subversively so?

 

Again, an *intentional?* misinterpretation of my statement.

 

But since you asked my opinion of your referenced sites...

 

http://www.peopleunitedforreligiousfreedom.org/thoughts.htm - this reference was a reprint of another article found at ...

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html - which is a site maintained by a psychiatrist to debunk what he considers 'health frauds'.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical3.htm - cites cases of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists in the first section, yet any conclusive "PROOF" is missing from the inferred assertions that these groups have erroneous medical beliefs. Studies are cited which indicate the CS group had a higher overall mortality rate than those of a different group. The site does admit that the studies were not thorough, nor conclusive. The JW cases are based on the ban on blood transfusions. Much more of this page was dedicated to the studdies done by Rita Swan, who also founded...

 

http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm - which is a tragic case, at best. Mrs. Swan has devoted her life to fighting religious exemptions for any reason for all children in the US. Of course, what is not found on this site (at least not by me) was the explanation that Mrs. Swan was once a CS, and her refusal to obtain medical help for her child led to the death of her son. She then filed a lawsuit against CS, claiming it was their fault that her son died, instead of taking responsibility for the tragic death herself. While I do have compassion for any mother that loses a child, refusal to make an informed decision for your child does not give you the right to try to take that away from other parents.

 

http://www.aslme.org/pub_ajlm/29.2_3f.php - I was unable to read the full text of this article, as i did not want to order it. Perhaps you coud refer to another place that this article is posted?

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Faith_Healing.asp?sitearea=ETO - This was a cute article on Faith Healing! I mean, it makes statements like "even though there are remissions that have unknown causes, it's wrong to think they are because of faith healing"; and "if a person has faith that they will be cured, then starts to feel better, it's only a placbo effect; but the placebo effect of them feeling better could actually help them heal, but this is not actually faith healing". And NO, those are not direct quotes, but they are close approximations.

 

So, while none of the referenced sites has a motto that staes "We hate all Christians", some of them are *obviously* against certain 'Christian' groups, while others only scorn those that believe in faith healing.

 

And before this goes any further, can I remind you that I've already stated that I am against withholding medical treatment from children? However, I don't like being labeled a 'child abuser' just because I am also a "Christian parent".

[IrishEyes]

So perhaps you REALLY are not capable of understanding that "personal freedoms" means EVERYONE's personal freedoms, not ONE individual's personal freedoms?

 

That's NOT what you said. I asked if anyone should be able to have sex at any time, to which you replied... "Where is the surprise or confusion there? ... that is what we have now.... "

 

You interjected your qualifier "Except in cases of rape", which made clear that 'rape' is objected to, and therefore it is wrong.

 

My argument is not FOR rape. My argument is against YOU saying things like "Typical selfrighteous Christian philosophy" to denote a negative attitude, and yet ridiculing me for turning the tables on you.

 

You feel perfectly fine saying "Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? That you are entitled to some level of control over other's rights that they are not even allowed to have control over themselves? Or is it just that your personal view is the only one that anyone could possibly feel was an ethical/ moral one?", yet scoff when I ask why rapists and child-molesters are not afforded the same degree of personal freedom that you feel everyone would be missing if we lived by my 'personal view'.

 

I'm asking you for consistency. You can't make inflammatory statements like "Are you saying that you should have the right to force others to follow your personal choice on the issue? ...etc", yet call me mentally challenged for applying the same standards to you.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesIt was only a few days ago that you chided another poster for making a personal attack on your character instead of the facts you presented. I AGREED WITH YOU THEN. I will ask you to keep personal character attacks out of this discussion. You know that I am not mentally challenged, as I know that you are not. We simply have differing opinions on some issues. To insinuate that I am 'mentally challenged' because I refuse to agree with your position is well beneath you.

 

I am truly insulted by your attempt to twist the concept of personal freedoms to include rape and child abuse. That is an approach that lacks ANY intellectually honest orientation. I found it to be way below the level of discourse we had reached.

 

I would love to get this discussion back up to the level we had been at. Meanwhile I will reply to such tactics in what I feel is an appropriate tone.

[IrishEyes]

I am truly insulted by your attempt to twist the concept of personal freedoms to include rape and child abuse.

 

The not-so surprising thing is that I agree with you that rape and child abuse do not fall under the category of 'personal freedom'. Personally, I feel that rapists and child-abusers are the lowest form of scum on this earth, and I would not mind having public exections re-instated for any person that harms a child! (Yes, this includes your examples of 'Christian' child abusers!)

 

 

That is an approach that lacks ANY intellectually honest orientation.

 

However, the statement, "I do not think that rape or child abuse is a personal freedom", can, especially in today's climate, be argued to be ME imposing MY views onto society at large. But if ENOUGH people come together and echo the sentiment, then it is no longer just MY view, right? With enough people, it can become the MAJORITY view. If the MAJORITY view is what is eventually adopted as "the law of the land", then that is what the people of the country must adhere to, regardless of the small population of rapists and child abusers that may disagree.

 

The same theory holds true for any other issue. No matter how loud, well thought out, well intentioned, or intelligent an argument may be for any issue, if it does not hold a majority of the people's attitudes, it will generally not become a 'rule' that we live by. Thus, *I* do not expect *YOU* to live by *MY* morals or ethics. However, if *MY* ethics/morals are similar to what is accepted as 'right' by the majority of people (however antiquated or ignorant you may think them to be), then YES, others will be expected to live by *MY* standards, such as they are. And before you go into a bunch of lectures about how we get laws, etc. in this country, I am going to make a disclaimer that my above explanation was a gross simplification used as an illustration, and is in no way to be considered a full and complete description of 'how a bill becomes a law'. If you want that explanation, please watch SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK. (Yikes, do they still show that, or am I showing MY age?)

 

Anyhow, we have a LOT of cleanup to do from storm damage last night, so I will wish you all a wonderful weekend, and see you sometime next week!!!