Dear Lexi... I don't know how you get 'slander' from my vehement disagreement with Singers softly softly viewpoint as expressed and quoted.

It's nothing of the kind..and I do know the law.

It's called criticism. I express my 'feelings' about his view and I also call on the community to be equally outraged at his claim

"but it does imply that ceases to be an OFFENSE TO OUR STATUS AND DIGNITY as human beings"

they are his words...not mine...and he is making a judgement on MY feelings.. by claiming that a violent sexual attack by an animal on a human female is something we don't need to worry about or feel any sense of assault on our dignity.

I disagree strongly with that..and the other side of the coin that any human approach to an animal with sex in mind does the same thing.. destroys our dignity.

If you also have done your reading..(including my posts) you would see the reference to his mention of incest at a public lecture.. you can chase that one down too if you want.

So..I'm afraid that for me, and for any serious evangelical Christian, his position on incest and bestiality are outrageous and it is a public interest issue.

IF he is calling for a law against bestiality.. I know what he means.. he means that because the animal cannot give 'informed consent' it should be illegal. Prumably then, if a man can demonstrate that his ewe sheep is deriving considerable sexual pleasure from him mounting her.. no charges would be laid ?

I think Singer must have had a double dose of EST training. (look it up)

Dear SOG..I'm so glad you took the time to become one of we 'enlightened few' :) by checking the vids. I'm still looking at them (on DVD) over and over.. each time I gain more 'power' :) or knowledge.
(to use the EST terminology)

Please look at it again.. (I think it will be in part 3 and 4) or.. look up this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17cu-TS-Tk

When you see how MANY Americans of the 70s were infected with this psychological disease (as I'd describe it) it's mind blowing.
Note also the use of the 'Star Wars' computer resources by capitalist interests to 'undersand' the new mind/self created through EST.

Please note also how EST training peels back ALL cultural identity and causes the person to realise (what I've been hammering at for so long) that NOTHING..... matters.. there is...NOTHING...then..they 'rebuild' or re-invent themselves anew.. (or....does some OTHER force mould them?)

Freued+Berynays->Reich->Perls->Erhard-> Masses (80% of Americans)

-> REAGANS ELECTION SPEECH (this alone is fascinating)

He used words tailored for the 'ME' generation.

"Government IS the problem".. "YOU, will reshape america" etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XObcP69dhCg&feature=related Reagan

His reference to 'elites' was pandering to the EST trained Americans who hated the idea of some group of intellectuals were trying to shape them.

On 'shaping' public opinion.. don't you love the bit where the cute chick in the crowd of men is asked "Why do you like short skirts?" and she replies "It shows more off right"... Man asks "How does that benefit you?" and she says "It makes you more attractive"... END.. cut.
Oh.. I'll be a lot of cute nymphs were instantly 'decided' to buy miniskirts.

But speaking as an independant male with a Christian perspective, "I agree.. it DOES make you more attractive.. from our belly button DOWN"

Isn't "violent

sexual attack" wrong in

All circumstances?

Freud was wrong about

Many things, similar to

Newton and Einstein

SoG,

Yes, I find the word limit is frustrating (although I still think it’s a good thing), almost as frustrating as I find my inability my resist the urge to address every single point and just keep my responses to one post.

Anyway, I didn’t say there was “no worth” in any of the Ten Commandments, I said they were “pathetically inadequate”. In fact, considering they’re supposed to come from the most powerful and perfect being ever, you could simply say they’re “pathetic”.

Firstly, there had to be an even ten and this makes it look like an obvious marketing decision for a religion invented by humans.

Secondly, the tenth commandment put wives in the same category as oxen and ass as though they were a possession; yet another reason to believe it was written my mere (primitive) humans.

That being said, where is the commandment about not being able to own another human being? There are thousands upon thousands of verses in the Bible and yet this supposedly superior being couldn’t spare one single paragraph to point out that slavery is wrong and why!

Furthermore, you can’t just focus on the last five commandments if you want to truly appreciate my point. The (supposedly) most perfect being ever is SO childish and SO insecure that they couldn’t resist dedicating the first five commandments to themself in an obvious attempt to satisfy their megalomania.

Who in their right mind could respect such pathetic being?

Speaking of the inadequacies of the Ten Commandments though, I reject the notion of ‘sin’ since it isn’t a valid concept, but here’s a list of things that I would consider a ‘sin’ (if I were to accept sin as a valid concept) that the ten commandants don’t even cover:

- Credulity and gullibility;
- Voluntary wilful ignorance;
- Letting fear prevent you from understanding reality;
- Limiting the rights and freedoms of others in order to make them abide by your standards;
- Sacrificing the mental and emotional well being of a child in deference to a supposed god;

Continued...

...Continued

- Wasting the one and only life that you can KNOW you’re going to have, worrying about and working for an afterlife that somebody told you might exist.

And finally, I am so glad you listed those ‘anti-commandments’ and the ramifications of following them, because those ramifications you mentioned demonstrate exactly why we don’t need such obvious commandments to begin with. Any society that lived like that would collapse and cease to exist and that is in no one’s interests.

The Ten Commandments are redundant.

Boaz,

Think about this for a second...

<<No AJ..I suggest it is an insurmountable problem for one who's theology is flawed.>>

In other words, it’s only an insurmountable problem for those who haven’t bothered to invent a way of obfuscating the issue to get around a sound piece of logic, because...

<<Ultimately, God is sovereign. The interace between 'free will' and divine election is where time and eternity meet.>>

...until you can demonstrate this, your claim is indistinguishable from any just old made-up nonsense, and therefore, not only is a claim to knowledge here dishonest, but my point about god and free will stands unabated since it adheres to logic.

In regards to Romans 9 though, you’re going to have to sum it up for me, I see no relevance. Although I’m not sure there would be any point in you doing so, to be honest. What the Bible says is irrelevant; it has no authority and it gives those of us, who are willing to apply a healthy dose of scepticism because we actually value the truth of our beliefs, no reason to believe that any of what it says is true.

Otokonoko,

Unfortunately your response to me amounts to little more than preaching without any actual reasoning as to why I was wrong. So it’s a bit rich to claim that my argument was “flawed”. The criticism I offered encompasses all gods - even the one you described.

<<While I understand your suggestion that omniscience requires events to be set in stone, it doesn't require us to simply 'follow the script'. Instead, it requires that God can foresee - but does not control - the decisions we make that lead to those events.>>

Okay first, you have erroneously conflated omniscience with the act of following a script. Of course, if an omniscient god existed, it wouldn’t feel, to us, like we were reading from a script because we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what was going to happen.

Secondly, you erroneously conflate omniscience with ‘control’. I never said anything about an omniscient being controlling what we do - this is something you’ve introduced yourself - just that they’d know in advance what we were going to.

Thirdly, you effectively admit I’m right when you say: “[Omniscience] requires that God can foresee ... the decisions we make that lead to those events.” If you don’t agree, then please explain to me how deviating from what an omniscient being foresaw would not be a paradox.

Your entire argument hinges on rebutting a claim I have never made: that an all-powerful god controls what we do.

So I’m afraid my point still stands.

In regards to the sentence you meant to delete, I’m not concerned about any antagonistic tone in it. What concerns me is the fact that I didn’t make the claim to begin with.

But I’m sure you realise that now.

And finally, I’m humbled that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself would consider me to be a “thinking” and “intelligent” being. I’m certainly a “thinking” person, but I don’t consider myself particularly “intelligent”. My thoughts on this topic are simply the result of a long battle to maintain a faith that, in the end, lost out to reason.