| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 11:06:56 PM |
| Object: |
Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet? And is this a reasonable or misguided
aspiration?
In light of the Supreme Court's end-of-term decision on legislation
aiming to regulate Internet pornography, The New Atlantis asked legal
scholar Jeffrey Rosen and theologian David B. Hart to comment.
Writing not as a lawyer, I am able to address the Supreme Court's
recent decision regarding the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) only
somewhat obliquely. Concerning the legal merits of the case, certainly,
I have little to say. This is not necessarily because I believe one
must be a lawyer to understand the Court's decision, but because I am
largely indifferent to the legal arguments contained within it, and am
convinced that even the question of whether or not it was dictated by
genuine constitutional concerns deserves very little attention (as I
shall presently argue).
I can begin, however, by confessing my perplexity at some of the
reasoning behind the court's majority ruling, most especially the
curious contention that COPA might prove to be unconstitutional on the
grounds that there exists filtering software that provides a "less
restrictive means" of preventing access to pornography on the
Internet and that does not involve "criminalizing" any particular
category of speech. Surely, if we are to be guided by logic, the
existence or nonexistence of such software (which is, after all, merely
a commercial product that parents may purchase and use if they are so
inclined and have the money) cannot possibly make any difference
regarding the question of whether the act violates constitutional
protections. Moreover, it is difficult for me to grasp why the Court
works upon the premise that whatever means are employed to protect
children from Internet pornography should involve the barest minimum
imposition possible upon the free expression of pornographers.
Again, not being a lawyer, I have no idea what shadowy precedents might
be slouching about in the background of the Court's decision, and I
am aware that the alliance between law and logic is often a tenuous
one. I can even appreciate something of the Court's anxiety
concerning the scope of the government's control over "free
expression," given that the modern liberal democratic state-with
its formidable apparatus of surveillance and legal coercion, and its
inhuman magnitude, and its bureaucratic procedural callousness, and its
powers of confiscation, taxation, and crippling prosecution, and its
immense technological resources-is so very intrusive, sanctimonious,
and irresistible a form of political authority. Allow the government
even the smallest advance past the bulwark of the First Amendment, one
might justly conclude, and before long we will find ourselves subject
to some variant of "hate speech" legislation, of the sort that
makes it a criminal offense in Canada and Northern Europe for, say, a
priest to call attention publicly to biblical injunctions against
homosexuality. We have, as a society, long accepted the legal fiction
that we are incapable of even that minimal prudential wisdom necessary
to distinguish speech or art worthy of protection from the most debased
products of the imagination, and so have become content to rely upon
the abstract promise of free speech as our only sure defense against
the lure of authoritarianism. And perhaps, at this juncture in cultural
history, this lack of judgment is no longer really a fiction.
In a larger sense, however, all human law is a fiction, especially law
of the sort adjudicated by the Supreme Court. As much as jurists might
be inclined to regard constitutional questions as falling entirely
within the province of their art, the Constitution is not in fact
merely a legal document; it is a philosophical and political charter,
and law is only one (and, in isolation, a deficient) approach to it.
Constitutional jurisprudence, moreover, is essentially a hermeneutical
tradition; it is not the inexorable unfolding of irrefragable
conclusions from unambiguous principles, but a history of willful and
often arbitrary interpretation, and as such primarily reflects cultural
decisions made well before any legal deliberation has begun. And since
legal principles-as opposed to exact ordinances-are remarkable
chiefly for their plasticity, it requires only a little hermeneutical
audacity to make them say what we wish them to say (one never knows,
after all, what emanations may be lurking in what penumbras). Just as
the non-establishment clause might well have been taken-had our
society evolved in a more civilized direction-as no more than a
prohibition upon any federal legislation for or against the
establishment of religion, so the promise of freedom of speech might
have been taken as a defense of political or religious discourse, and
nothing more. There is certainly no good reason why "free speech"
should have come to mean an authorization of every conceivable form of
expression, or should have been understood to encompass not only words
but images and artifacts, or should have been seen as assuring either
purveyors or consumers of such things a right of access to all
available media or technologies of communication. We interpret it thus
because of who we are as a society, or who we have chosen to be; we
elect to understand "liberty" as "license." How we construe the
explicit premises enshrined in the constitution is determined by a host
of unspoken premises that we merely presume, but that also define us.
This is why I profess so little interest in the question of the
constitutionality of COPA; the more interesting question, it seems to
me, concerns what sort of society we have succeeded in creating if the
conclusions we draw from the fundamental principles of our republic
oblige us to defend pornographers' access to a medium as pervasive,
porous, complex, and malleable as the Internet against laws intended to
protect children.
The damage that pornography can do-to minds or cultures-is not by
any means negligible. Especially in our modern age of passive
entertainment, saturated as we are by an unending storm of noises and
images and barren prattle, portrayals of violence or of sexual
degradation possess a remarkable power to permeate, shape, and deprave
the imagination; and the imagination is, after all, the wellspring of
desire, of personality, of character. Anyone who would claim that
constant or even regular exposure to pornography does not affect a
person at the profoundest level of consciousness is either singularly
stupid or singularly degenerate. Nor has the availability and profusion
of pornography in modern Western culture any historical precedent. And
the Internet has provided a means of distribution whose potentials we
have scarcely begun to grasp. It is a medium of communication at once
transnational and private, worldwide and discreet, universal and
immediate. It is, as nothing else before it, the technology of what
Gianni Vattimo calls the "transparent society," the technology of
global instantaneity, which allows images to be acquired in a moment
from almost anywhere, conversations of extraordinary intimacy to be
conducted with faceless strangers across continents, relations to be
forged and compacts struck in almost total secrecy, silently, in a
virtual realm into which no one-certainly no parent-can intrude. I
doubt that even the most technologically avant-garde among us can quite
conceive how rapidly and how insidiously such a medium can alter the
culture around us.
We are already, as it happens, a casually and chronically pornographic
society. We dress young girls in clothes so scant and meretricious that
honest harlots are all but bereft of any distinctive method for
catching a lonely man's eye. The popular songs and musical spectacles
we allow our children to listen to and watch have transformed many of
the classic divertissements of the bordello-sexualized gamines,
frolicsome tribades, erotic spanking, Oedipal fantasy, very bad
"exotic" dance-into the staples of light entertainment. The
spectrum of wit explored by television comedy runs largely between the
pre- and the post-coital. In short, a great deal of the diabolistic
mystique that once clung to pornography-say, in the days when even
Aubrey Beardsley's scarcely adolescent nudes still suggested to most
persons a somewhat diseased sensibility-has now been more or less
dispelled. But the Internet offers something more disturbing yet: an
"interactive" medium for pornography, a parallel world at once
fluid and labyrinthine, where the most extreme forms of depravity can
be cheaply produced and then propagated on a global scale, where
consumers (of almost any age) can be cultivated and groomed, and where
a restless mind sheltered by an idle body can explore whole empires of
vice in untroubled quiet for hours on end. Even if filtering software
were as effective as it is supposed to be (and, as yet, it is not), the
spiritually corrosive nature of the very worst pornography is such
that-one would think-any additional legal or financial burden
placed upon the backs of pornographers would be welcome.
I am obviously being willfully nadve. I know perfectly well that, as a
culture, we value our "liberties" above almost every other good;
indeed, it is questionable at times whether we have the capacity to
recognize any rival good at all. The price of these liberties, however,
is occasionally worth considering. I may be revealing just how quaintly
reactionary I am in admitting that nothing about our pornographic
society bothers me more than the degraded and barbarized vision of the
female body and soul it has so successfully promoted, and in admitting
also (perhaps more damningly) that I pine rather pathetically for the
days of a somewhat more chivalrous image of women. One of the high
achievements of Western civilization, after all, was in finding so many
ways to celebrate, elevate, and admire the feminine; while remaining
hierarchical and protective in its understanding of women, of course,
Christendom also cultivated-as perhaps no other civilization ever
has-a solicitude for and a deference towards women born out of a
genuine reverence for their natural and supernatural dignity. It may
seem absurd even to speak of such things at present, after a century of
Western culture's sedulous effort to drain the masculine and the
feminine of anything like cosmic or spiritual mystery, and now that
vulgarity and aggressiveness are the common property of both sexes and
often provide the chief milieu for their interactions. But it is
sobering to reflect how far a culture of sexual "frankness" has
gone in reducing men and women alike to a level of habitual brutishness
that would appall us beyond rescue were we not, as a people, so
blessedly protected by our own bad taste. The brief flourishing of the
1970s ideal of masculinity-the epicene ectomorph, sensitive,
nurturing, flaccid-soon spawned a renaissance among the young of the
contrary ideal of conscienceless and predatory virility. And, as
imaginations continue to be shaped by our pornographic society, what
sorts of husbands or fathers are being bred? And how will women
continue to conform themselves-as surely they must-to our cultural
expectations of them? To judge from popular entertainment, our favored
images of women fall into two complementary, if rather antithetical,
classes: on the one hand, sullen, coarse, quasi-masculine belligerence,
on the other, pliant and wanton availability to the most primordial of
male appetites-in short, viragoes or odalisks. I am fairly sure that,
if I had a daughter, I should want her society to provide her with a
sentimental education of richer possibilities than that.
My backwardness aside, however, it is more than empty nostalgia or
neurotic anxiety to ask what virtues men and women living in an ever
more pervasively pornographic culture can hope to nourish in themselves
or in their children. Sane societies, at any rate, care about such
things-more, I would argue, than they care about the "imperative"
of placing as few constraints as possible upon individual expression.
But we have made the decision as a society that unfettered personal
volition is (almost) always to be prized, in principle, above the
object towards which volition is directed. It is in the will-in the
liberty of choice-that we place primary value, which means that we
must as a society strive, as far as possible, to recognize as few
objective goods outside the self as we possibly can.
Of course, we are prepared to set certain objective social and legal
limits to the exercise of the will, but these are by their very nature
flexible and frail, and the great interminable task of human
"liberation"-as we tend to understand it-is over time to erase
as many of these limits as we safely can. The irreducibly "good"
for us is subjective desire, self-expression, self-creation. The very
notion that the society we share could be an organically moral realm,
devoted as a whole to the formation of the mind or the soul, or that
unconstrained personal license might actually make society as a whole
less free by making others powerless against the consequences of the
"rights" we choose to exercise, runs contrary to all our moral and
(dare one say?) metaphysical prejudices. We are devoted to-indeed, in
a sense, we worship-the will; and we are hardly the first people
willing to offer up our children to our god.
The history of modern political and social doctrine is, to a large
degree, the history of Western culture's long, laborious departure
from Jewish, classical, and Christian models of freedom, and the
history in consequence of the ascendancy of the language of
"rights" over every other possible grammar of the good. It has
become something of a commonplace among scholars to note that-from at
least the time of Plato through the high Middle Ages-the Western
understanding of human freedom was inseparable from an understanding of
human nature: to be free was to be able to flourish as the kind of
being one was, so as to attain the ontological good towards which
one's nature was oriented (i.e., human excellence, charity, the
contemplation of God, and so on). For this reason, the movement of the
will was always regarded as posterior to the object of its intentions,
as something wakened and moved by a desire for rational life's proper
telos, and as something truly free only insofar as it achieved that end
towards which it was called. To choose awry, then-through ignorance
or maleficence or corrupt longing-was not considered a manifestation
of freedom, but of slavery to the imperfect, the deficient, the
privative, the (literally) subhuman. Liberty of choice was only the
possibility of freedom, not its realization, and a society could be
considered just only insofar as it allowed for and aided in the
cultivation of virtue.
There would be little purpose here in rehearsing the story of how late
medieval "voluntarism" altered the understanding of freedom-both
divine and human-in the direction of the self-moved will, and subtly
elevated will in the sense of sheer spontaneity of choice (arbitrium)
over will in the sense of a rational nature's orientation towards the
good (voluntas); or of how later moral and political theory evolved
from this one strange and vital apostasy, until freedom came to be
conceived not as the liberation of one's nature, but as power over
one's nature. What is worth noting, however, is that the modern
understanding of freedom is essentially incompatible with the Jewish,
classical, or Christian understanding of man, the world, and society.
Freedom, as we now conceive of it, presumes-and must ever more
consciously pursue-an irreducible nihilism: for there must literally
be nothing transcendent of the will that might command it towards ends
it would not choose for itself, no value higher than those the will
imposes upon its world, no nature but what the will elects for itself.
It is also worth noting, somewhat in passing, that only a society
ordered towards the transcendental structure of being-towards the
true, the good, and the beautiful-is capable of anything we might
meaningfully describe as civilization, as it is only in the interval
between the good and the desire wakened by it that the greatest
cultural achievements are possible. Of a society no longer animated by
any aspiration nobler than the self's perpetual odyssey of
liberation, the best that can be expected is a comfortable banality.
Perhaps, indeed, a casually and chronically pornographic society is the
inevitable form late modern liberal democratic order must take, since
it probably lacks the capacity for anything better.
All of which yields two conclusions. The first is that the gradual
erosion-throughout the history of modernity-of any concept of
society as a moral and spiritual association governed by useful ethical
prejudices, immemorial reverences, and subsidiary structures of
authority (church, community, family) has led inevitably to a constant
expansion of the power of the state. In fact, it is ever more the case
that there are no significant social realities other than the state and
the individual (collective will and personal will). And in the absence
of a shared culture of virtue, the modern liberal state must
function-even if benignly-as a police state, making what use it may
of the very technologies that COPA was intended somewhat to control.
And that may be the truly important implication of a decision such as
the Supreme Court's judgment on COPA: whether we are considering the
power of the federal government to penalize pornographers or the power
of the federal court to shelter them against such penalties, it is a
power that has no immediate or necessary connection to the culture over
which it holds sway. We call upon the state to shield us from vice or
to set our vices free, because we do not have a culture devoted to the
good, or dedicated to virtue, or capable of creating a civil society
that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of
subjective will. This is simply what it is to be modern.
The second conclusion is that every time a decision like that regarding
COPA is handed down by the Court, it should serve to remind us that
between the biblical and the liberal democratic traditions there must
always be some element of tension. What either understands as freedom
the other must view as a form of bondage. This particular Court
decision is not especially dramatic in this regard-it is certainly
nowhere near as apocalyptic in its implications as Roe v. Wade-and no
doubt there are sound legal and even ethical arguments to be made on
either side of the issue, within the terms our society can recognize.
But perhaps the COPA decision can provide some of us, at least, with a
certain salutary sense of alienation: it is good to be reminded from
time to time-good for persons like me, with certain pre-modern
prejudices-that our relations with the liberal democratic order can
be cordial to a degree, but are at best provisional and fleeting, and
can never constitute a firm alliance; that here we have no continuing
city; that we belong to a kingdom not of this world; and that, while we
are bound to love our country, we are forbidden to regard it as our
true home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian and author of The
Beauty of the Infinite.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 07:18:27 AM |
|
|
Then how will Words of Truth occupy himself?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus Sucks" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 02:51:35 AM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132355216.729144.35630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet? And is this a reasonable or misguided
aspiration?
The problem with you wackos is that you think you are doing good by
sheltering the "children" from reality. Mind your own business. All you can
possibly do is teach your children what you think is right. Trust me, kids
don't need the internet to masterbate. I'm sure Pastor Dave and Ray Martinez
have jerked off to National Geographic or the Sears catalog. Let me let you
in on a little secret... Nobody cares if you jerk off. Stop feeling guilty
about it and stop worry about protecting children from porn.
I'm sure my kids have stumbled across some real porn. Big deal. How is it
going to hurt them? Do you think they will become rapists? There's a lot
more rapists that were forced to repress their natural desires. And don't
get me started on Catholic priests. I don't encourage my kids to look at
porn; I have those channels locked on by cable box. But if I walked in on
one of kids masterbating I surely wouldn't tell them they are sick perverts
and god is watching them or they'll go blind.
Please. I beg of you. Stop trying to "protect" everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 12:54:38 PM |
|
|
In article <SZqdnelEkf6kDuPenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Jesus Sucks"
<Jesus@sucks.*****> wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132355216.729144.35630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet? And is this a reasonable or misguided
aspiration?
The problem with you wackos is that you think you are doing good by
sheltering the "children" from reality. ...
*** Indeed. V., a friend's 15 year old daughter, asked her mother when
she could start dating. Her mother replied: when you are 28. When she
was 19, V. got a job dancing at a Speamint Rhino Club.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 03:42:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:51:35 -0600, "Jesus Sucks" <Jesus@sucks.*****>
wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132355216.729144.35630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet? And is this a reasonable or misguided
aspiration?
The problem with you wackos is that you think you are doing good by
sheltering the "children" from reality. Mind your own business. All you can
possibly do is teach your children what you think is right. Trust me, kids
don't need the internet to masterbate. I'm sure Pastor Dave and Ray Martinez
have jerked off to National Geographic or the Sears catalog. Let me let you
in on a little secret... Nobody cares if you jerk off. Stop feeling guilty
about it and stop worry about protecting children from porn.
I'm sure my kids have stumbled across some real porn. Big deal. How is it
going to hurt them? Do you think they will become rapists? There's a lot
more rapists that were forced to repress their natural desires. And don't
get me started on Catholic priests. I don't encourage my kids to look at
porn; I have those channels locked on by cable box. But if I walked in on
one of kids masterbating I surely wouldn't tell them they are sick perverts
and god is watching them or they'll go blind.
Please. I beg of you. Stop trying to "protect" everyone.
Masturbation and theism have a number of uncanny parallels.
Both are OK, providing they are done in private.
Doing either in public is offensive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the wharf rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 03:03:10 AM |
|
|
In article <1132355216.729144.35630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
words of truth <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
The damage that pornography can do-to minds or cultures-is not by
any means negligible.
It is, however, imaginary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
18 Nov 2005 11:40:42 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Preaching the truth of Scripture,
from Creation to Revelation!
http://home.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
But he who hates correction is stupid.
Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
He who despises the word will be destroyed.
- Proverbs (assorted)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 12:26:52 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 12:46:10 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about licentious
pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers have all but outlawed
religion from public places. Where people should be most free to express
their religiousity, they are being, instead, persecuted and restricted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 12:48:26 PM |
|
|
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about licentious
pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers have all but outlawed
religion from public places. Where people should be most free to express
their religiousity, they are being, instead, persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would have to
be quadruple-X rated.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 01:10:23 AM |
|
|
Pictures, writing, or other material that is sexually explicit.
A Supreme Court Justice once was asked what is pornographic and replied; "I
can't define it
but I know it when I see it".
Pornography is strictly a matter of personal opinion. Sex and bodily
displays and nudity are perfectly normal
and is neither unhealthy or harmful except in the minds of prudes.
"??R.L.Measures" <r_@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-1911050448260001@192.168.1.100...
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography in
the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about licentious
pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers have all but outlawed
religion from public places. Where people should be most free to express
their religiousity, they are being, instead, persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would have to
be quadruple-X rated.
--
? R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 02:19:34 PM |
|
|
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography
in the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about licentious
pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers have all but
outlawed religion from public places. Where people should be most
free to express their religiousity, they are being, instead,
persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would have
to be quadruple-X rated.
No, it wouldn't be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 04:23:58 PM |
|
|
In article <IuSdnVMGzpLoqeLeRVn-hg@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on pornography
in the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about licentious
pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers have all but
outlawed religion from public places. Where people should be most
free to express their religiousity, they are being, instead,
persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would have
to be quadruple-X rated.
No, it wouldn't be.
€€ Triple?
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 05:31:51 PM |
|
|
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <IuSdnVMGzpLoqeLeRVn-hg@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News
Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on
pornography in the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about
licentious pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers
have all but outlawed religion from public places. Where people
should be most free to express their religiousity, they are being,
instead, persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would
have to be quadruple-X rated.
No, it wouldn't be.
€€ Triple?
Cute, I bet you think yourself a real wit.
The passages are not even double x .. at worst it could be considered by
those who want to take it the wrong way as softcore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "€€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 02:59:11 AM |
|
|
In article <59CdnQOavY4b_OLeRVn-tQ@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <IuSdnVMGzpLoqeLeRVn-hg@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News
Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on
pornography in the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about
licentious pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers
have all but outlawed religion from public places. Where people
should be most free to express their religiousity, they are being,
instead, persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would
have to be quadruple-X rated.
No, it wouldn't be.
€€ Triple?
Cute, I bet you think yourself a real wit.
€€ I read the Song of Solomon and it is easily the best account of T and
A on this planet.
The passages are not even double x ..
€€ Which translation?
at worst it could be considered by
those who want to take it the wrong way as softcore.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 01:53:05 PM |
|
|
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
I bet you think your replies are worth reading.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 04:34:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:53:05 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
I bet you think your replies are worth reading.
I bet you think that setting followups to groups like 'alt.islam' mean
you're something more than a lying *****, don't you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 06:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:31:51 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <IuSdnVMGzpLoqeLeRVn-hg@rogers.com>, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
€€R.L.Measures wrote:
In article <mL6dnXDY6adM6OPenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@rogers.com>, "News
Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> writes:
On 18 Nov 2005 15:06:56 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> spake thusly:
The Pornography Culture
David B. Hart
Can society set ethical, legal, or cultural limits on
pornography in the age of the Internet?
Yes, they absolutely can!
What part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" do you people not
understand?
Elf
I *think* that's about the practice of religion, not about
licentious pornography and smut. Funnily enough, the law makers
have all but outlawed religion from public places. Where people
should be most free to express their religiousity, they are being,
instead, persecuted and restricted.
** If the Bible's Song of Solomon is ever illustrated, it would
have to be quadruple-X rated.
No, it wouldn't be.
€€ Triple?
Cute, I bet you think yourself a real wit.
The passages are not even double x .. at worst it could be considered by
those who want to take it the wrong way as softcore.
1:1 The Song of songs, which is Solomon’s. 2 Let him kiss me with the
kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine. 3 And the
smell of thine ointments is better than all spices: thy name is
ointment poured forth; therefore do the young maidens love thee. 4
They have drawn thee: we will run after thee, for the smell of thine
ointments: the king has brought me into closet: let us rejoice and be
glad in thee; we will love thy breasts more than wine: righteousness
loves thee.
Anyone with a brain would give thast one a triple X, for sure.
You teach your children about any of this? Didn't think so.
1:15 Behold, thou art fair, my companion; behold, thou art fair; thine
eyes are doves. 16 Behold, thou art fair, my kinsman, yea, beautiful,
overshadowing our bed.
Sounds kinky!
2:3 As the apple among the trees of the wood, so is my kinsman among
the sons. I desired his shadow, and sat down, and his fruit was sweet
in my throat.
Now that would be quadruple X if shown visually. The act described is
commonly referred to as a *****.
3:1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loves
The author must not have been to ken on "flying solo" that night.
4:16 Awake, O north wind; and come, O south; and blow through my
garden, and let my spices flow out.
Need a cold shower yet?
6:4 Turn away thine eyes from before me, for they have ravished me.
Fan me, Beulah!
7:5 Thy head upon thee is as Carmel, and the curls of thy hair like
scarlet; the king is bound in the galleries. 6 How beautiful art thou,
and how sweet art thou, my love! 7 This is thy greatness in thy
delights: thou wast made like a palm tree, and thy breasts to cluster.
8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of its high
boughs: and now shall thy breasts be as clusters of the vine, and the
smell of thy nose of apples; 9 and thy throat as good wine, going well
with my kinsman, suiting my lips and teeth.
If you haven't spooged by now, you need a serious dose of Viagra.
8:1 I would that thou, O my kinsman, wert he that sucked the breasts
of my mother; when I found thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, they
should not despise me. 2 I would take thee, I would bring thee into my
mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me; I would
make thee to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranates.
More kinkiness! Neat!
8:8 Our sister is little, and has no breasts; what shall we do for our
sister, in the day wherein she shall be spoken for?
Now, that was where it gets kind of gross, and becomes one of the
reasons your cult's Grimoire of Death and ***INCEST*** got its name.
Was that good for you too, sparky? Need a cigarette?
May the Blessings of Gong Gong rain ubiquitously and reign supreme!
Rev. Bonnie *****, Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 07:17:00 PM |
|
|
It could be only considered 'softcore' at worst by those, like you, who
would twist and demean it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 07:29:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:17:00 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
It could be only considered 'softcore' at worst by those, like you, who
would twist and demean it.
The only twisting is yours, christstain.
The only demeaning is done by those who ignore it and pretend it
doesn't exist, christstain.
And once again, you snipped it out. Your shame is showing,
christstain.
Oh, and don't try changing the newsgroups field again, *****.
I will NOT allow you to get out of your shame so easily. LOL!
At any rate, let's take a gander at what's actually in your Grimoire
of Death and Incest. It'll save you your daily trip to
www.wahoosandhoohahs.org
1:1 The Song of songs, which is Solomon’s. 2 Let him kiss me with the
kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine. 3 And the
smell of thine ointments is better than all spices: thy name is
ointment poured forth; therefore do the young maidens love thee. 4
They have drawn thee: we will run after thee, for the smell of thine
ointments: the king has brought me into closet: let us rejoice and be
glad in thee; we will love thy breasts more than wine: righteousness
loves thee.
Anyone with a brain would give thast one a triple X, for sure.
You teach your children about any of this? Didn't think so.
1:15 Behold, thou art fair, my companion; behold, thou art fair; thine
eyes are doves. 16 Behold, thou art fair, my kinsman, yea, beautiful,
overshadowing our bed.
Sounds kinky!
2:3 As the apple among the trees of the wood, so is my kinsman among
the sons. I desired his shadow, and sat down, and his fruit was sweet
in my throat.
Now that would be quadruple X if shown visually. The act described is
commonly referred to as a *****.
3:1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loves
The author must not have been to ken on "flying solo" that night.
4:16 Awake, O north wind; and come, O south; and blow through my
garden, and let my spices flow out.
Need a cold shower yet?
6:4 Turn away thine eyes from before me, for they have ravished me.
Fan me, Beulah!
7:5 Thy head upon thee is as Carmel, and the curls of thy hair like
scarlet; the king is bound in the galleries. 6 How beautiful art thou,
and how sweet art thou, my love! 7 This is thy greatness in thy
delights: thou wast made like a palm tree, and thy breasts to cluster.
8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of its high
boughs: and now shall thy breasts be as clusters of the vine, and the
smell of thy nose of apples; 9 and thy throat as good wine, going well
with my kinsman, suiting my lips and teeth.
If you haven't spooged by now, you need a serious dose of Viagra.
8:1 I would that thou, O my kinsman, wert he that sucked the breasts
of my mother; when I found thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, they
should not despise me. 2 I would take thee, I would bring thee into my
mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me; I would
make thee to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranates.
More kinkiness! Neat!
8:8 Our sister is little, and has no breasts; what shall we do for our
sister, in the day wherein she shall be spoken for?
Now, that was where it gets kind of gross, and becomes one of the
reasons your cult's Grimoire of Death and ***INCEST*** got its name.
Was that good for you too, sparky? Need a cigarette?
May the Blessings of Gong Gong rain ubiquitously and reign supreme!
Rev. Bonnie *****, Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 09:38:54 PM |
|
|
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:17:00 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
It could be only considered 'softcore' at worst by those, like you,
who would twist and demean it.
The only twisting is yours, christstain.
Sure .. but your spelling betrays you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 10:55:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:38:54 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
Bonnie ***** wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:17:00 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
It could be only considered 'softcore' at worst by those, like you,
who would twist and demean it.
The only twisting is yours, christstain.
Sure ..
Thanks for the admission. Now quit griping.
but your spelling betrays you.
You mean "christstain"?
Sweetie, that's not a misspelling, nor has my ability to spell quite
well in my second language betrayed anyone.
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
Christstain. Christstain. Christstain. Christstain.
Christ-stain. Christ ------ stain.
It's an accurate moniker for who you christstain sickos are.
And how <drum roll> twisted you christstains are.
Get it yet?
Damn, you christstains are effin' stupid.
Now, back to the topic at hand.
Since you have proven that you are unable to read from your own
grimoire of death and incest for comprehension and face the fact that
your book o' blood is pornographic, I shall simply quote the relevant
passages yet again, and watch you dance some more to avoid dealing
with the PORNOGRAPHY that is your Grimoire of Death and Incest.
1:1 The Song of songs, which is Solomon’s. 2 Let him kiss me with the
kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine. 3 And the
smell of thine ointments is better than all spices: thy name is
ointment poured forth; therefore do the young maidens love thee. 4
They have drawn thee: we will run after thee, for the smell of thine
ointments: the king has brought me into closet: let us rejoice and be
glad in thee; we will love thy breasts more than wine: righteousness
loves thee.
Anyone with a brain would give that one a triple X, for sure.
You teach your children about any of this? Didn't think so.
1:15 Behold, thou art fair, my companion; behold, thou art fair; thine
eyes are doves. 16 Behold, thou art fair, my kinsman, yea, beautiful,
overshadowing our bed.
Sounds kinky!
2:3 As the apple among the trees of the wood, so is my kinsman among
the sons. I desired his shadow, and sat down, and his fruit was sweet
in my throat.
Now that would be quadruple X if shown visually. The act described is
commonly referred to as a *****.
3:1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loves
The author must not have been to keen on "flying solo" that night.
4:16 Awake, O north wind; and come, O south; and blow through my
garden, and let my spices flow out.
Need a cold shower yet?
6:4 Turn away thine eyes from before me, for they have ravished me.
Fan me, Beulah!
7:5 Thy head upon thee is as Carmel, and the curls of thy hair like
scarlet; the king is bound in the galleries. 6 How beautiful art thou,
and how sweet art thou, my love! 7 This is thy greatness in thy
delights: thou wast made like a palm tree, and thy breasts to cluster.
8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of its high
boughs: and now shall thy breasts be as clusters of the vine, and the
smell of thy nose of apples; 9 and thy throat as good wine, going well
with my kinsman, suiting my lips and teeth.
If you haven't spooged by now, you need a serious dose of Viagra.
8:1 I would that thou, O my kinsman, wert he that sucked the breasts
of my mother; when I found thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, they
should not despise me. 2 I would take thee, I would bring thee into my
mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me; I would
make thee to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranates.
More kinkiness! Neat!
8:8 Our sister is little, and has no breasts; what shall we do for our
sister, in the day wherein she shall be spoken for?
Now, that was where it gets kind of gross, and becomes one of the
reasons your cult's Grimoire of Death and ***INCEST*** got its name.
Was that good for you too, sparky? Need a cigarette?
May the Blessings of Gong Gong rain ubiquitously and reign supreme!
Rev. Bonnie *****, Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 11:01:47 PM |
|
|
Bonnie ***** wrote:
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
It wasn't an admission, I was pointing out the obvious. You interpret
everything about Christianity with a negative twist. Then you say you
don't. But come on, what could I expect? One read of one of your posts is
enough to establish you have a 'thing' about Christianity. Your perogative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 12:16:22 AM |
|
|
On 2005-11-19 15:01:47 -0800, "News Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> said:
You interpret everything about Christianity with a negative twist.
What's negative about a bit of hot, erotic poetry?
Oh, yeah... nothing, except to people like NP, here.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book,
and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching."
-- Assyrian Tablet, Ca. 2800 BC
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 12:55:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:01:47 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Bonnie ***** wrote:
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
It wasn't an admission, I was pointing out the obvious. You interpret
everything about Christianity with a negative twist. Then you say you
don't. But come on, what could I expect? One read of one of your posts is
enough to establish you have a 'thing' about Christianity. Your perogative.
OK. Here's your big chance!
Name the most positive thing about Christianity.
And not something that exists only in your mind, or others' minds.
I mean something real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
20 Nov 2005 02:31:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:25:43 +1030, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:01:47 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Bonnie ***** wrote:
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
It wasn't an admission, I was pointing out the obvious. You interpret
everything about Christianity with a negative twist. Then you say you
don't. But come on, what could I expect? One read of one of your posts is
enough to establish you have a 'thing' about Christianity. Your perogative.
OK. Here's your big chance!
Name the most positive thing about Christianity.
OOOHHH!! OOOHHH!! OOOHHHH!!!
Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Please let me answer!!!!!
<Bonnie clears throat>
Yje most positive thing about Christianity would be the Inquisition,
because they positvely got rid of those they positively hated.
And not something that exists only in your mind, or others' minds.
I mean something real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
21 Nov 2005 01:48:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:31:15 -0800, Bonnie *****
<bonnieb@fifispad.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:25:43 +1030, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:01:47 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Bonnie ***** wrote:
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
It wasn't an admission, I was pointing out the obvious. You interpret
everything about Christianity with a negative twist. Then you say you
don't. But come on, what could I expect? One read of one of your posts is
enough to establish you have a 'thing' about Christianity. Your perogative.
OK. Here's your big chance!
Name the most positive thing about Christianity.
OOOHHH!! OOOHHH!! OOOHHHH!!!
Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Please let me answer!!!!!
<Bonnie clears throat>
Yje most positive thing about Christianity would be the Inquisition,
because they positvely got rid of those they positively hated.
And not something that exists only in your mind, or others' minds.
I mean something real.
Nice try, but I really wanted "News Post" to answer.
It can't be that difficult, can it?
I see he/she has anwered more recent posts than mine, so perhaps he
has to think REALLY HARD about it.
Come on, "News Post"!
It's not like I asked for a list of one hundred things!
What's keeping you?
Here it is again, with sugar on top:
PLEASE name the most positive thing about Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "News Post" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
21 Nov 2005 02:25:20 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Here it is again, with sugar on top:
PLEASE name the most positive thing about Christianity.
Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
21 Nov 2005 06:00:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:25:20 -0500, "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet> wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
Here it is again, with sugar on top:
PLEASE name the most positive thing about Christianity.
Jesus.
I did specify: something that exists outside your imagination.
But my hopes were never high.
(It doesn't pay to have hopes set much above complete disappointment,
when asking theists to explain what their threatening blather actually
means.)
Ok, so according to you, the MOST POSITIVE thing about Christianity
is:
someone who almost undoubtably never existed.
That's the BEST thing you could come up with, after days of hard
thinking, and talking to preists, and reading your Bible?
Sheesh!
Unbelievable.
Not the relief work by Christian organizations, nor fighting for poor
peoples' rights, or anything even vaguely provably positive?
Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
I have a list of the WORST things about Christianity, and they are ALL
VERY REAL, and very very bad, by anyone's judgement.
(One of the minor niggles is total idiots like you, who manage to
destroy any vestiges of respect I may have for Christianity.)
Hardly balances out does it?
Now go away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
21 Nov 2005 04:04:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:25:20 -0500, in alt.atheism
"News Post" <newsgroup@post.internet> wrote in
<ks6dnVH2hviQrRzeRVn-tg@rogers.com>:
Michael Gray wrote:
Here it is again, with sugar on top:
PLEASE name the most positive thing about Christianity.
Jesus.
Why are there so few Christians who follow is teachings? In particular,
why in America are so many who loudly claim to be Christian opposed to
His social teachings?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Society Set Limits On Pornography? |
19 Nov 2005 11:47:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:01:47 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "News Post"
<newsgroup@post.internet>
Bonnie ***** wrote:
Christstain is the name of the followers of your sick, festering
cult, christ-stain-insanity.
It wasn't an admission,
It was before you snipped it out without attribution. Lie by omission,
anyone?
Oh, and it still is an admission, archived forever in Google. LOL!
I was pointing out the obvious. You interpret
everything about Christianity with a negative twist.
No twisting necessary or involved.
The last 2000 years of your cult's bloody history speaks volumes.
How silly of you to imagine that genocide, executions, murders,
persecutions, and oppression are not negative.
Then again, it's what you christstains do best.
Then you say you
don't. But come on, what could I expect? One read of one of your posts is
enough to establish you have a 'thing' about Christianity. Your perogative.
That "thing" is called the truth. Your denial of the truth is
irrelevant.
You want to not be a christstain? Then reform your sick deathcult.
May the Blessings of Gong Gong rain ubiquitously and reign supreme!
Rev. Bonnie *****, Universal Life Church
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
