User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [8] December 19, 2014 at 5:08pm

    NOTNICE,

    The Ten Commandments are laws. If you break a law, and there are no consequences to breaking those laws, why do they exist in the first place?

    That’s what I’m asking. If there is no consequence to breaking moral laws, why bother having them at all? If there is no Ultimate Justice, then the terrorists win. They can fly airplanes into buildings killing thousands of people, and there’s no justice. Moral laws are pointless if there is no ultimate justice after life is over. If evil people don’t get punished for their wickedness, and good people aren’t rewarded for their good, then “justice” and “injustice” don’t exist. They’re just concepts people made up and are just as pointless as the morals that surround them.

    Without a supreme Judge, there can be no injustice or justice: only pitiless indifference.

  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 4:55pm

    When you work a suicide hotline, you encounter all kinds of perverts and weirdos.

    I am sorry that my understanding of how perverts think is bothersome to you. I don’t know why you are so indignant about all of this. I’m not sure why you think an exhibitionist is “better” than a pedophile. They’re both disgusting and vile.

    Why do you insist on saying he had sex with a child, when he clearly didn’t actually have sex with a child? He had a child grope him. That’s horrible and sick and perverted. Why isn’t that enough for you? Why are you automatically assuming that he had sexual intercourse with the child?

    I understand feeling disgust at the guy, but you’re just jumping to conclusions. What if a dog humped a little girl and tried to have sex with her? Would you have the dog put down, or castrated?

    Please do not take this as a defense of evil. It’s not. What he did was pure evil. I admit it’s evil. The guy who did it admits it’s evil. But isn’t that how we should handle things, by admitting that it’s evil, and then trying to find a way to overcome it?

    You can call it pedophilia all you want, but pedophilia is “having sex with children”. If he didn’t have sex with a child, he’s not a pedophile. What he did was horrible, disgusting, and perverted. It just wasn’t sex. If you want to define “sex” as “touching a penis” then that’s your choice. I have always heard that called “groping”, not sex.

  • [-2] December 19, 2014 at 4:41pm

    I understand what you are saying. But again, if you applied that logic to everybody (not just this guy), you would be claiming that a woman who breastfeeds a child is also a pedophile.

    Yes, it was sexual contact, but it wasn’t sex. He didn’t have sex with a child. He had sexual contact with one. If this were a grown woman, it would be the difference between vulgar sexual harassment, and rape.

    But you keep saying he “admitted” this, like somebody caught him in the act. That isn’t the truth. Nobody caught him, nobody made him “admit” anything. He voluntarily told his therapist about these events. Why would he tell his therapist about those particular events, but not others?

    Answer these questions, and you’ll understand:

    1. If what he did was sex with a child (pedophilia), then what would you call actually having intercourse with a child? Because if you ALSO call that pedophilia, you are saying that a penis touching a child’s hand is the exact same thing as intercourse with a child by inserting the penis into their body over and over until climax (regardless of whether it is rape or coercion).

    2. Why would somebody who has doctor-patient confidentiality, and doesn’t know they’re being recorded, only tell their therapist about 3 events, if there were more? Nobody caught him, nobody forced him to talk. He chose to share those events. Why hide other events? He didn’t “admit” to these things, he chose to divulge the information; to confess his sins, his crimes.

  • [2] December 19, 2014 at 4:23pm

    Because cities are growing, and people are starved for God. It’s not like you’re going to find a megachurch in some tiny hamlet. They’re all in cities with millions of people.

  • [36] December 19, 2014 at 4:21pm

    Well, there were “megachurches” back during Paul’s ministry. Jesus himself preached to “megachurch” congregations. The miracle where he fed thousands of people with fish and bread would have definitely been a “megachurch” event.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with megachurches. Some are good. Some are not. Just like some small churches are good, and some are not.

    Responses (2) +
  • [11] December 19, 2014 at 3:44pm

    Terkus, you do realize that people have been saying that same thing for thousands of years, right? I mean, when Paul preached to the Greeks, and told them that Jesus rose from the dead, they laughed at him.

    Your fear of things you don’t understand is sad. But as a great man once said, “Any man who is serious about his atheism cannot be too careful about what he reads, or he might find himself at church.”

  • [9] December 19, 2014 at 3:39pm

    Yup, and they do it on multiple levels. Not only do the commandments contradict each other, some of them contradict THEMSELVES.

    For example, number 1 is a commandment to be open minded. If somebody obeys that command, they are disobeying it, since they are only being open minded because they are dogmatically following an arbitrary commandment for no reason. Open minded people don’t follow arbitrary commands for no reason.

    So if you obey the commandment to be open minded, you are merely following commands and doing what authority tells you to… which is the opposite of being open minded, which means you are actually disobeying it by trying to obey it.

    If you obey, you disobey. If it’s true, it’s false. It’s logically incoherent.

  • [3] December 19, 2014 at 3:33pm

    Because you need to know what the enemy is up to at all times if you want to counter them. Otherwise, next thing you know these new atheist commandments are being taught in schools and everybody is suddenly shocked by it.

    Don’t you wish somebody had reported about Common Core a couple years before it was ever institutionalized? Always keep an eye on things. Be aware of your surroundings, and fringe activity.

  • [35] December 19, 2014 at 3:26pm

    What happens if you break these atheist commandments? You go to not-hell? What’s the punishment? I see no reason to follow any of these if there is no God.

    Responses (9) +
  • [8] December 19, 2014 at 3:25pm

    Yes, it’s an excellent list if you believe in God. But if you are atheist, then all of the “commandments” are logically incoherent.

    Also, some of them aren’t commandments. They’re just statements. “Every person has a right to control over their body.” That’s a commandment? So if you have an epileptic seizure, and lose control of your body, are you breaking that commandment?

    It’s just weird…

  • [63] December 19, 2014 at 3:23pm

    6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
    Why? If there’s no God, no heaven, and no hell, why should we care about consequences? If I can murder somebody and get away with it, why shouldn’t I do it? If it feels good to kill people, why shouldn’t I?
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
    Why? What is the point if there is no good, no evil, and the universe just belched us into existence?
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
    Why? If there is no God, then human existence doesn’t matter. All generations will eventually die off, the universe will die off, and humanity’s existence will be nothing, not even a story, forever and ever. Why bother being responsible?
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    9. There is no one right way to live.
    This is only true if life has no meaning. If there is purpose or meaning to life, then whatever leads us to that purpose or meaning is the right way to live, and what leads us away from it is the wrong way to live. But if life has no purpose or meaning, sure. But there’s also no point to living, period.
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
    How do you know what is “better” if there is no God, no absolute standard, by which to judge things?
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    Responses (5) +
  • [24] December 19, 2014 at 3:15pm

    1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
    Uh… you cannot command people to be open minded, because if they obey that commandment, they are not being open minded, they are dogmatically following a commandment. If it’s true, it’s false. LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
    So, if slavery is true, and I wish slavery didn’t exist, I shouldn’t believe in anti-slavery ideals, I should just accept slavery as fact? LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
    Eh, no. This isn’t even atheist. Modern science only exists now because people who had belief in God. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature. And they expected law in nature, because they believed in a Law Giver.” -C. S. Lewis
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    4. Every person has a right to control over their body.
    This isn’t even a commandment. It’s just an observation. LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

    5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
    Wow. This one is logically incoherent on two levels. First, if there is no God, then “good” and “meaningful” have no meaning, because there is no absolute standard by which to judge things. Everything would be relativistic, so “good” and “meaningful” are whatever you want them to be. Second, this isn’t a commandment.
    LOGICALLY INCOHERENT TIMES TWO!

    Responses (6) +
  • [-4] December 19, 2014 at 2:21pm

    I agree. It was disgusting, and perverted. But it wasn’t sex. It was groping, exhibitionism, and inappropriate touching. It was evil on ever level. But don’t call it something that it isn’t. He didn’t have sex with them.

    If you’ve got some kind of evidence to support your claims, present it. But from the evidence that has been given, it sounds like he’s an exhibitionist, not a pedophile.

    I think an exhibitionist is just as evil as a pedophile, but you don’t seem to think that’s the case, since you say “He’s only an exhibitionist”. I never said that, you did. You read what I wrote (which was a condemnation of exhibitionism and an explanation of their thoughts and desires) and came to the conclusion that somehow I was defending or standing up for the man, simply because I think people are incorrectly assessing what he is.

    The only way I defend him is that he CLEARLY STATES that what he did was evil. He’s not a leftist trying to normalize this sort of thing, like many, many others have done. The fact that he knows it’s evil and has been in therapy for 20 years to keep it under control, is evidence that he is repentant of what he’s done.

  • [-2] December 19, 2014 at 2:09pm

    Jacob217,

    How did you get “standing up for him” from what I wrote? If you have evidence that there were other events that he’s not talking about, please, present it. But the only reason we know about the ones we do, is because he told them, willingly, to his therapist, and his wife recorded the conversations.

    I’m not defending what he did. I’m saying that people should be accurate and call it what it is. And sex, it was not. If you think that being touched inappropriately is sex, you’re insane. It’s groping, it’s disgusting, it’s perverted, but it’s not sex.

    I am in no way defending or “standing up” for him. I’m standing up for the truth. If you have evidence that he had sex with somebody, then hand it over. But speculation, assumptions, and jumping to conclusions is just not right. Use what evidence you have to deduce things. Don’t insert feelings or things you just assume to be true.

  • [5] December 19, 2014 at 1:29pm

    That’s possible, but divorce rates are also very highly impacted by pornography and previous sex partners. When two virgins get married, and neither the man or woman has had sex with anybody else, such unions almost never end in divorce.

    Responses (1) +
  • [16] December 19, 2014 at 1:26pm

    It’s not JUST pornography. It’s the entire way our culture has become obsessed with fantasy over reality. When people would rather watch fake sex performed by actors, than have real sex with a wife, that is choosing fantasy over reality.

    People don’t want to deal with the “real world”.
    So they sit in their dark little rooms and stare at the glowing screens.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] December 19, 2014 at 1:04pm

    This type of fear, the kind that worries and is anxious, is a pointless and idiotic emotion. Anxiety and worry never solved anything, let alone prevented a terror attack.

    If North Korea is going to attack something, they’re going to do it regardless of whether or not you show a movie in your theater. You cannot reason with or appease terrorists.

  • [1] December 19, 2014 at 12:31pm

    I feel sorry for Obama. I wouldn’t trade places with him for all the riches and all the power and all the fame in the world. I can’t even imagine being somebody like him, with life being dictated by political correctness, talking points, and some mindless fantasy about social justice.

    I feel sorry for him. I had good parents who loved me, exposed me to all sorts of worldviews, and then let me choose the path I would take. Obama never had that. As far as I can tell, he never spent any time with people who weren’t like him, and his parents were just horrible. His mom was a flake, his dad was a drunk and a womanizer, and his role models were junk. The only decent person ever to cross his path was his step dad, but Obama’s mom abandoned him.

    Sometimes, I think maybe I should adopt Obama, and spend a few years raising him the way he should have been raised, and be a father to him. I know that sounds silly and weird and foolish, but it’s what I feel.

  • [-2] December 19, 2014 at 11:49am

    If you’d ever met some exhibitionists before, you’d understand this isn’t pedophilia. I think he’s telling the truth. I’ve known several exhibitionists before, all male, and they all do it for the shock value. It’s a type of narcissism where a person is desperate to shock people and get that disturbed reaction out of others.

    Exhibitionists hate getting laughed at, so children are the target, not because of sexual attraction, but because they are less likely to point and laugh, and more likely to be shocked by the encounter.

    Think about it. If an exhibitionist exposes himself to another man, the other man is just going to be like “Dude, put some clothes on. That’s nasty.” Or they might point and laugh. If the exhibitionist does it to a woman, she might point and laugh, or make fun of him. Ridicule and mockery is mortifying and painful to narcissists, who derive their self-worth from what other people think of them.

    Exhibitionists feel like they are shocking and exciting people. So if they expose themselves naked to others, and get made fun of, that crushes their self esteem. But if they get shocked reactions, it’s like cocaine to them: a huge adrenaline rush.

    Kids are far less likely to report an encounter with an exhibitionist, they’re more likely to be shocked, and less likely to make fun of the guy. That’s why exhibitionists tend to target young girls.

    Responses (6) +
  • December 19, 2014 at 11:41am

    Well, since he “admitted” this to his therapist in a private session that was secretly recorded, I’d say that he’s telling the truth.

123 To page: Go