marjon9

Thanks for passing that along. It provides a place to start in thinking about the topic. And, as you say, it raises additional questions for me. Such as, if god understand if people haven't gotten the word, what does that mean? I guess it means they don't go to hell, but they also can't go to heaven, so where do they go? And what does it mean if you "haven't gotten the word?" Can you have "heard" of Christianity? What if there is no church within 1000 miles? Anyway, the questions go on and on. But it's interesting to hear the answer you sent along.

Neal, you may not want to get into this because it is personal or whatever. But I do wish someone would explain to me what the "other view" is. If the Bible says what it says, what is the other view? I'm not trying to force you to debate or defend yourself, I'm just curious. But like I say, I don't mind of course if you'd rather not get into it. I just hope a "believer" will some time be willing to explain why my view is not accurate. It's hard to get people to talk about that.

These comments are not meant to be an "attack," but just some questions and issues. To me the issue is not that I need scientific proof. To me the issue is, if the Bible is "true," then 95% of all humans who ever walked the earth are destined to burn in hell for eternity (at least based on certain fundamentalist views of what the Bible means). If the only way to heaven is to accept Christ as your personal savior, and all others are "lost," then I just can't accept something like that under any circumstances. Most of the world's population has never had a realistic opportunity to learn about Christ and accept Christ. Even if someone has "heard" of Christ, if that person grows up in rural Tibet, that person has not had a realistic opportunity to "accept" Christ. How can the punishment for such a person be to burn in hell for eternity? How can anyone believe in a God that would be that cruel, unfair, and arbitrary? If this is who "God" is (which I seriously doubt), then I don't want any part of it. I just don't see how a person can buy into a belief system like that, through "faith" or otherwise, that involves so much pain and unfairness. Wouldn't God want us to think at all?

To be honest, I thought Don was a little bit "nappy headed" if you see what I mean. Don "the nappy headed" Ho. That's how I think of him. And don't be too tough on banjo music. Anyone else listen to Bela Fleck? That guy is one of the greatest musicians alive today, in my opinion.

I read the paper. I'm not one of those who would be inclined to argue with you, but I'll make a few comments. It makes me very sad to read about that. I think that men are really quite afraid of the power that women have in their lives. Most men, left to their own devices, would be relatively unmotivated. They would be pretty happy sitting under a palm tree counting sand. Men are motivated to do more than that by being around women. Men are capable of doing amazing and wonderful things, don't get me wrong, but they just don't really feel a need to do these things unless they are motivated by women. Women provide the hunger. Women are capable of motivating each other. Women don't really need men in that way. But men don't really get much motivation from other men. James Brown was pretty correct in his song It's A Man's World. Men build the buildings, but it don't mean nothing, nothing, nothing, without a woman or a girl. This kind of power is terrifying to men. That's why men feel a need to wrap women up head to toe in burkas, and why men feel a need to suppress and control women in the ways described in this piece by the Mormon scholar. It seems like every religion has its own particular scheme for making sure women are controlled and that their power is undermined. Men happen to have the advantage when it comes to physical strength, and fear of female power causes men to seek to control women through use of that physical strength. I think that pretty much explains what rape is about. And it is really a loss for both sexes when men seek to suppress and control women. A happy, fulfilled woman is capable of motivating a man to become far more than anything he could have dreamed. Most men lose out on so much by deluding themselves into believing that they have the power and the control. We all lose so much from that. This is one of the main reasons I hate religion. It takes such a heavy toll on women. Women pay a huge price, and men lose so much too, without understanding why. Men seemingly have the advantage because they "control" everything, but they pay an enormous price as well. Everyone does by the imbalances created by religion. I'm married to a strong, confident woman. It amuses me to think of what might happen if I tried to pull some of these control games on her described in the article by the Mormon scholar. My approach with her is to do what I can to help her fulfill herself. I'm not Mr. Perfect and I make all kinds of mistakes. But I know that to the extent I can support her, my life will be doubly blessed. I always get back more than I give. Every religion seems to feature its own scheme for controlling and suppressing female power. Everybody loses because of it, but women are the ones who pay the heaviest price. What a sad and foolish way to live.

At least the "authorities" appear to understand that something needs to be done to change the law. But it's hard to tell for sure. It will be interesting to see how the court rules. If anyone hears, let us know. I wonder how many court scenes there have been that went something like this: Religious Person "Helping" the Pregnant Woman: "Your honor, I acknowledge that this woman is really, really, really, really depressed, but in my opinion, she is not suicidal." Pregnant Woman Carrying a Child That Wil Not Survive Childbirth: "No, Your Honor, seriously, I'm suicidal. Trust me on this one. Here, let me cut my wrist right here. Does anyone have a razor I can borrow? Here, I'll stick a pen in my eye. No, wait, seriously, I'm suicidal."

Carlene, on at least two occassions on this forum you have made the comment that "men are pigs (present company excluded)." I've posted them below. I'm very offended by those comments. It makes no difference whether you added the disclaimer that present company is excluded. It is obvious that you truly believe, as a general rule, that "men are pigs." I think you owe everyone on the forum an apology for that. I'll just wait here until I see that apology. I am so mad at my DH's friend, Mr. P. Today he e-mailed ME pics of him and his live-in girlfriend!!! Of course, it started another argument between DH and myself. I think it was a totally in-your-face thing for him to do, knowing, as he does, how I feel about their relationship. DH is afraid that I am going to "destroy" his 40 year friendship with Mr. P. I have no intention of doing any such thing. I was even civil when Mr P came to my house a few weeks ago. But this was just so not cool of him. I did not respond to the e-mail. Men are pigs (present company excluded). ==================== I told DH that this whole thing makes me sad, but more than that, it makes me feel terribly vulnerable. Mr P was the absolute best husband I ever knew. If he is capable of this, then it could happen to any of us. My friend Alan is right....men are pigs. (Present company excluded, of course.) I'm just thankful that Mrs P's state of mental confusion/drug-induced bliss prevents her from knowing what a creep the love of her life has turned out to be. =================== The actual fact is, I could not care less about your apology. I think you really do have issues with anger toward men, but this is a public forum, and people have a right to vent and use hyperbole without being called upon to apologize every time someone is "offended." In my case in particular, since it is so obvious from my posts on the topic that I do not in any way diminish the ugliness and horror of pedophilia, your insistence on an apology is particularly disingenuous. I just want to say that I'm done with this thread if the topic of discussion continues to be "Marjon." If people want to talk about something else, I'm there.

Totally awesome, dude (as my son likes to say). Congratulations!

I don't think a "poor choice of words," assuming there was one, or an analogy that "could have been better," is something that requires an apology. Especially in Rants and Raves. If it did, 80% of the posts would require apologies. Again, all of this is a red herring. No one wants to talk about what this thread is actually about, so instead they want to focus on my alleged "arrogance." Feel free to have whatever "honest opinion" you want to have about me, and feel free to refuse to "move forward" about this. Whatever.

Exactly!!! Well said!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!! You use the word "amusing" to describe this. I use the word "silly." Perhaps there is a big difference there, but I don't see it. The fact is, I do not in any way trivialize any sort of harm or trauma that may come from molestation, rape, pedophilia, etc. I've explained that clearly over and over again in numerous posts. If anyone got the incorrect impression that I do trivialize these things from a particular sentence of hyperbole I wrote three days ago, please let that impression be corrected. If someone wants to be offended by a position I have actually taken, I would have no problem with that. But being offended by a misunderstanding from one sentence that clearly does not reflect what I actually believe is, shall we say amusing/silly. I hope everyone will stop being "offended by the offending words that were not meant to offend."

Your post motivates me to make one clarification. That is, I have absolutely no animosity toward "Christians," or anyone else. I single out conservative Christians in my posts because, in my experience, conservative Christians are the ones who seek to use legislation and constitutional amendments in an effort to force others to live by a moral code that they believe in, in such areas as prayer in school, abortion, and gay rights, etc. That is what these threads have been about from the beginning. Anyone who happens to be a Christian is perfectly fine with me as long as they leave me and the rest of the world alone to live our lives by the moral code that works for us.

What I said was: "The concept of prayer in school is just about as offensive to me as pedophilia." I think all of you are being silly to get in a huff and claim that I am somehow equating rape and pedophilia with prayer. That's just ridiculous. If you read the posts I've made here throughout this entire thread, you can clearly see that this thread has nothing to do with anything like that. My comment was a little bit of hyperbole to make a point. If I said "drinking alcohol is the work of the devil," would you all pounce on me for being a devil worshiper, or some other such nonsense? This group of indignant comments about rape and pedophilia amount to nothing more than red herrings to avoid talking about what is actually being said here. And, what is actually being said here, is this: no group of people has the right to use legislation and constitutional amendments to force others to live by moral standards that everyone does not agree with. Whether you like it or not, prayer in school is deeply offensive to me. I don't expect you to understand. I don't really care if you understand. But what I do care about is that you should not be allowed to use legislation to force me to endure something I find deeply offensive, simply because you think it is wonderful. That is the point I'm making here, as I've said repeatedly. And by the way, when I say "you," I mean that generally. This is not directed at anyone in particular. It is not a personal attack. It is a discussion. But please, you can all put your arms down now. I'm not suggesting that prayer is equal to rape and pedophilia.

Great news, Laurend! It's been a long haul. I hope you get a surgery date soon!

This is simply not true. That was not my purpose. My purpose was to stimulate debate on the question whether one group of people has the right to control the behavior of others through legislation reflecting their own moral beliefs. Religious conservatives are constantly seeking to do this on the local level with school prayer, all the way through to the national level with constitutional amendments about gay marriage. I fully expected said religious conservatives to protest my post, and they did, demanding that it be removed because it went against their own view of "correct" morality. They were not able to get their way. I believe that this is a very legitimate basis for meaningful discussion, and is not simply designed to bait and stir up everyone's ire. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with whether anyone "supports" pedophilia.

Can you point to anyone who has even hinted at being pro pedophilia?

You are making the argument here that pedophilia is so heinous that we are somehow encouraging it or endangering children by simply mentioning it. I don't understand that argument. All of us are in favor of "drawing the line" against pedophilia, and all of us care about "all the children being molested, abused, manipulated or 'loved.'" But why is talking about it "crossing the line" or endangering "all the children." Can you explain that? I'd really like to know. If anything, silence is more likely to endanger children. If all those Bishops had been willing to talk about what pedophile priests were doing, untold hundreds of children could have avoided being victims. It seems to me that you want to remove the thread because you don't like the topic and it makes you uncomfortable. That's fair enough, but it is not a good enough reason to justify censorship. There is simply no rationale argument to support the proposition that censoring this thread will somehow protect children. And if there is such an argument, will you please explain it?

I certainly agree that there is no "pro and con" debate about the topic of the boy love forum. But for me the debate here is about a different topic. For me the debate is about whether one group of people with certain moral sensibilities has the right to decide for everyone else what they can read, or how they should live. After all these months of reading these religious-themed posts and listening to people declare that they have a right to tell me and everyone else how we must live, I just got a bit worn out from it. To me one of the prime examples is prayer in school. The concept of prayer in school is just about as offensive to me as pedophilia. Yet those who advocate it believe that they have a right to force that on me and everyone else. The abortion debate, the gay marriage debate, etc., etc., are similar to me. A certain group of people feels like it has the right to legislate in these areas and force everyone else to live by their determination of what is morally correct. That is simply unbearably offensive to me. So that is the debate here for me. It's not about whether anyone advocates sex with children, which of course no one does. So, yes, I did begin a sort of a troll post. I knew that the usual crew of "religious" conservatives would stand up and demand that the post be removed. I enjoyed participating in the demonstration that the moral sensibilities of this particular group does not always get to determine what is best for everyone else. And besides, it was interesting to me lifting up this rock of the boy love forum and finding the vermin underneath. It's interesting, weird, funny. It really is hard for me to understand what the big deal is.

I see your point, there are a lot of child lap-banders here who need protection. (And I mean that in a jocular, friendly way). And by the way, I fully and completely support your right to ask for censorship.

That is just so typical. I think you are a very bright lady mousecrazy and I agree with a good portion of what you say. But censorship is not the answer. How can the moderators be in a position of deciding which content is unacceptable? The fact is, so much of what has been said on various threads here is highly offensive to me. So, should those threads be removed? If you don't like this thread, don't read it. This is the rants and raves section. If you don't like it, don't read it. You conservative religious folks simply do not get to dictate to others what they can read, or, more significantly, how they live. This precise confrontation is the exact reason I posted this thread. Thank you for helping. And by the way, I want to reiterate, I have nothing personal against you at all and, indeed, even find myself agreeing with you from time to time.

Here's part of what Wikipedia has to say about Rocky Mountain Oysters. Rocky Mountain oysters, mountain oysters, prairie oysters, Montana tendergroin or swinging sirloin are culinary names given to boar or bull testicles. They are usually peeled, coated in flour, pepper and salt, sometimes pounded flat, then deep-fried. Boar (hog) "Mountain oysters" or "Rocky Mountain oysters" are served in some Mid-west areas such as in Illinois, and Iowa. So, this proves that "Rocky Mountain Oysters" are not ONLY Bull's Balls. I like to think of them more as "Swinging Sirloin." It's the "pounded flat" part that gets me, if you see what I mean.

This thread seems to have really pushed some buttons with some people so I just want to say a couple things about it. The first thing is, obviously no one is advocating, defending or supporting pedophilia in any way. No one is looking forward to some time in the future when this type of behavior is "acceptable." There is not a single word in any post that suggests anything like that, so I don't know where that thought would come from. Upstanding Christians are not the only ones disgusted by pedophelia. Lauraj, as for what I was looking for when I found it, you may recall yesterday that there was a brief discussion of a "Christian Sex Toys" web site on the "Large Penis Posts" thread. I was looking up "Christian Sex Education" and I ran across this Boylove site. I thought it was bizarre, thought provoking, and a bit funny, so I posted it. And I will also confess to a mildly sinister motivation. I find it amusing to raise issues of Christian hypocricy. Fundamentalist Christians spend quite a bit of time trumpeting their moral superiority and attempting to pass constitutional amendments and otherwise legislate the way others should live their lives. Yet frequently it is the members of this group who are shown to be the most outrageous hypocrites. And while I certainly do not think that this "Boylove" site represents anything that is legitimately "Christian," or that pedophilia is, in any sense, a "Christian" thing, you will have to admit that 95% of news items relating to pedophilia over the last ten years have been about these monster priests. So, yes, there was a bit of a sinister motivation on my part in posting it. I did intend to push some buttons and stimulate debate. I did not intend to "offend" people, and frankly, I don't understand why this thread is any more offensive than quite a few others we've seen around here lately. But aside from that, I do admit that I intended to push some buttons.

I know, isn't that creepy? Very weird. It's hard to know how they would have voted. It seems to me a lot of Christians are Republicans. But are these really Christians? They seem to think so. It reminds me of that Woody Allen joke, that he would never join a club that would have him as a member. Would these "Christians" vote for a ban on gay marriage? Very weird.

You know, MsDad, you may be right. Sorry about that. I don't see any connection between being gay and being a pedophile, so that had not occurred to me. But now that you mention it, you may be right.

http://www.cblf.org/

Can anyone tell me where I can get one of those "Large Penis Posts"? And do you know how you attach it? Do you strap it on?