How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? Those psychologists and psychologist wanna bees will have a very hard time defending Mark Morin's conduct. Will he be removed as sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated moderator?
Truth is there are 10 times++ more bad psychologists than there are bad priests.
Anonymous wrote: > How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
Wasn't nude brad. Would you care to see the photo (singular)? Which was taken with his mom standing right there? Which his mom then proceeded to email copies of to her family and friends because she thought it cute? I'll gladly blur out the face and post it. Maybe then you'll get your jollies. -- ==================================================== Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened to you as a youth is not as important as what is happening in the present. Leah... AKA 1/27/04
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing condom....)
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Psychoanalysis
Psycho-analysis pretends to investigate the Unconscious. The Unconscious by definition is what you are not conscious of. But the Analysts already know what's in it- they should, because they put it all in beforehand.
- Saul Bellow (b. 1915), U.S. novelist. Albert Corde, in The Dean's December, ch. 18 (1982).
> He admitted to taking a nude photo of the child.
Brad, brad, brad When are you ever going to learn that the popular press just sometimes doesn't get it right. I admitted to no such thing.
Would you care to see the photo for yourself? No? I didn't think so. You'd prefer to continue playing this game. Last time I looked, a photo of a person 75% clothed and no genitals showing was nothing to loose sleep about.
have you considered what could happen if you haven't played your cards right?
> How disgusting that you defend a butt rapist..
careful brad, your projections are showing. -- ==================================================== Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened to you as a youth is not as important as what is happening in the present. Leah... AKA 1/27/04
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:28:03 +0100, nos...@nospam.au wrote:
>Ah so you are a child molestor too then.. but you think it's >ok to be a child molestor if harm can not be proven. You >are disgusting. There is a special place in hell for people >like you.
>On 07 Feb 2004 04:21:38 GMT, in sci.psychology.psychotherapy >John M Price PhD <jmpr...@calweb.com> wrote:
>:In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: >:: How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? >: >:First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by >:police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA. >: >:Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially >:nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. >:Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing >:condom....) >: >: (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. >:Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior >:written consent of the author with the express and only exception of >:followup postings limited to and within usenet.
-- Ryan Lankford
"Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the Sky!"
> Anonymous wrote: > > How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
> Wasn't nude brad. > Would you care to see the photo (singular)? Which was taken with his mom > standing right there? Which his mom then proceeded to email copies of to > her family and friends because she thought it cute? > I'll gladly blur out the face and post it. Maybe then you'll get your > jollies.
How did the newspaper get it wrong, regarding testimony in court then?
> -- > ==================================================== > Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened > to you as a youth is not as important as what is > happening in the present. > Leah... AKA 1/27/04
> > He admitted to taking a nude photo of the child.
> Brad, brad, brad > When are you ever going to learn that the popular press just sometimes > doesn't get it right. I admitted to no such thing.
In that case, more than a month having gone by, have you sued the newspaper for libel?
> Would you care to see the photo for yourself? > No? I didn't think so. You'd prefer to continue playing this game. > Last time I looked, a photo of a person 75% clothed and no genitals > showing was nothing to loose sleep about.
Then why was that used as evidence in court? And why did a jury convict?
> have you considered what could happen if you haven't played your cards > right?
> > How disgusting that you defend a butt rapist..
> careful brad, your projections are showing. > -- > ==================================================== > Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened > to you as a youth is not as important as what is > happening in the present. > Leah... AKA 1/27/04
<nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
> First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
> Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially > nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. > Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing > condom....)
That's different than taking nude pics of somebody else's kid, age 10. As a former photographer, I photographed nude babies for their parents, but not 10 year old kids, and not at my house away from their parents.
The article said he was turned in by another psychologist, not by the boy's mother.
There may be an innocent explanation, but I can't imagine it.
> (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> Psychoanalysis
> Psycho-analysis pretends to investigate the Unconscious. The Unconscious > by definition is what you are not conscious of. But the Analysts already > know what's in it- they should, because they put it all in beforehand.
> - Saul Bellow (b. 1915), U.S. novelist. Albert Corde, in The > Dean's December, ch. 18 (1982).
>>>How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
>>Wasn't nude brad. >>Would you care to see the photo (singular)? Which was taken with his mom >>standing right there? Which his mom then proceeded to email copies of to >>her family and friends because she thought it cute? >>I'll gladly blur out the face and post it. Maybe then you'll get your >>jollies.
> How did the newspaper get it wrong, regarding testimony in court then?
No idea. How do newspapers ever get it wrong? Perhaps in order to be sensationalistic rather than truthful? No reporter ever saw the photograph. Would YOU like to see it?
-- ==================================================== Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened to you as a youth is not as important as what is happening in the present. Leah... AKA 1/27/04
<nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
> First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
It shouldn't be necessary for every individual to prove it over and over again. I may think a particular street should have a 50 mph limit rather than a 30, and so drive 50 on it. If I get a ticket one fact is clear: the limit was 30, and I violated the law. I shouldn't have the privilege of making my own law because I don't like the one that exists, and the city shouldn't have to prove to the satisfaction of every speeder that 50 isn't safe.
In past conversations, it has been stated that not all molest victims are harmed psychologically, and that I only see the worst cases in my office (comparable to saying that a doctor sees only accident victims in the emergency room, and that not all speeders have accidents.) However, if it harms only 10%, or some percentage, that alone would suggest that a perpetrator has no right to play Russian roulette with unsuspecting or defenseless children.
> Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially > nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. > Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing > condom....)
> (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> Psychoanalysis
> Psycho-analysis pretends to investigate the Unconscious. The Unconscious > by definition is what you are not conscious of. But the Analysts already > know what's in it- they should, because they put it all in beforehand.
> - Saul Bellow (b. 1915), U.S. novelist. Albert Corde, in The > Dean's December, ch. 18 (1982).
>>>He admitted to taking a nude photo of the child.
>>Brad, brad, brad >>When are you ever going to learn that the popular press just sometimes >>doesn't get it right. I admitted to no such thing.
> In that case, more than a month having gone by, have you sued the newspaper > for libel?
That's between me and my attorneys.
>>Would you care to see the photo for yourself? >>No? I didn't think so. You'd prefer to continue playing this game. >>Last time I looked, a photo of a person 75% clothed and no genitals >>showing was nothing to loose sleep about.
> Then why was that used as evidence in court?
hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
> And why did a jury convict?
quite probably because other evidence was not allowed into testimony. But that's what appeals are for.
-- ==================================================== Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened to you as a youth is not as important as what is happening in the present. Leah... AKA 1/27/04
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <pkq720p4ebne49fl923ocs0b45h09im...@4ax.com> nos...@nospam.au wrote:
: Ah so you are a child molestor too then..
Yeah, right. And my joy at the release of convicted murders from death row, upon exoneration, makes me a murderer, too.
What a fucking idiot you are.
but you think it's : ok to be a child molestor if harm can not be proven.
Never said that, dumbfuck.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes, but it is necessary to protect the young and innocent. - Arthur C. Clarke
>>: How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him???
>>First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by >>police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
>>Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially >>nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. >>Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing >>condom....)
> That's different than taking nude pics of somebody else's kid, age 10. As a > former photographer, I photographed nude babies for their parents, but not > 10 year old kids, and not at my house away from their parents.
What makes you assume that the mother was not there?
-- ==================================================== Perhaps you will reach an age, where what happened to you as a youth is not as important as what is happening in the present. Leah... AKA 1/27/04
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <fW8Vb.4261$B63.2...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com> Gene Douglas <gened...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: "John M Price PhD" <jmpr...@calweb.com> wrote in message : news:402467d2$0$49528$d368eab@news.calweb.com... : > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article : <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous
: > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? : > : > First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by : > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA. : > : > Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially : > nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. : > Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing : > condom....)
: That's different than taking nude pics of somebody else's kid, age 10. As a : former photographer, I photographed nude babies for their parents, but not : 10 year old kids, and not at my house away from their parents.
: The article said he was turned in by another psychologist, not by the boy's : mother.
: There may be an innocent explanation, but I can't imagine it.
Apparently the press 'sexed up' the photo from a photo to a nude photo, as per Mark's posts here.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
The Kansas Board of Education's decision to delete evolution from the state's recommended curriculum and from its standardized tests is, in itself, powerful evidence against the veracity of Darwin's great theory. If Charles Darwin were able to visit Kansas in 1999 he would be obliged to concede that here was living proof that natural selection doesn't always work, that the unfittest sometimes survive and that the human race is therefore actually capable of evolving backwards toward, rather than away from, those youth-depressing apes. - Salman Rushdie, The Globe & Mail, Sept. 2/99
> : "John M Price PhD" <jmpr...@calweb.com> wrote in message > : news:402467d2$0$49528$d368eab@news.calweb.com... > : > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article > : <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous > : <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: > : > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? > : > > : > First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by > : > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA. > : > > : > Second, lots of folk do have nude pics of their kids (most especially > : > nudists, duh!). Hell, I even appear in one or two! Maybe you do as well. > : > Arresting your parents yet? (Oh, and not for having used a failing > : > condom....)
> : That's different than taking nude pics of somebody else's kid, age 10. As a > : former photographer, I photographed nude babies for their parents, but not > : 10 year old kids, and not at my house away from their parents.
> : The article said he was turned in by another psychologist, not by the boy's > : mother.
> : There may be an innocent explanation, but I can't imagine it.
> Apparently the press 'sexed up' the photo from a photo to a nude photo, as > per Mark's posts here.
That would be easily provable. And it would be hard to imagine the press running the photo in the newspaper. What else would they want to do with it? And it's my understanding it was evidence in a court of law.
So, more than a month having passed, I'm awaiting news of MM having sued the newspaper for libel.
> (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> The Kansas Board of Education's decision to delete evolution from the > state's recommended curriculum and from its standardized tests is, in > itself, powerful evidence against the veracity of Darwin's great theory. > If Charles Darwin were able to visit Kansas in 1999 he would be obliged to > concede that here was living proof that natural selection doesn't always > work, that the unfittest sometimes survive and that the human race is > therefore actually capable of evolving backwards toward, rather than away > from, those youth-depressing apes. > - Salman Rushdie, The Globe & Mail, Sept. 2/99
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <719Vb.4264$De3.1...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com> Gene Douglas <gened...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: "John M Price PhD" <jmpr...@calweb.com> wrote in message : news:402467d2$0$49528$d368eab@news.calweb.com... : > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article : <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous
: > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? : > : > First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by : > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
: It shouldn't be necessary for every individual to prove it over and over : again.
What does this have to do with the question?
: In past conversations, it has been stated that not all molest victims are : harmed psychologically, and that I only see the worst cases in my office : (comparable to saying that a doctor sees only accident victims in the : emergency room, and that not all speeders have accidents.) However, if it : harms only 10%, or some percentage, that alone would suggest that a : perpetrator has no right to play Russian roulette with unsuspecting or : defenseless children.
Sure, and society does have the right to set boundries. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with photos being considered harmful, as if the soul is being taken. Most especially if the photo was simply an innocent one, nude or not.
You are smearing the question into one of child molestation when the question has to do, simply, with photography. Do spend a little time and reread what you wrote in sppm about nude family photos.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
"God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organised religion." - The Simpsons, #100. 1994
> : "John M Price PhD" <jmpr...@calweb.com> wrote in message > : news:402467d2$0$49528$d368eab@news.calweb.com... > : > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article > : <b4f4f96b36e43c58dd13919c90f54...@paranoici.org> Anonymous > : <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote: > : > : How did taking pictures of the NUDE boy help him??? > : > > : > First, I'd like to ask how it hurt. Please be specific, and articles by > : > police or related organizations do not count. Cite real science. TIA.
> : It shouldn't be necessary for every individual to prove it over and over > : again.
> What does this have to do with the question?
1. Society takes offense, in a major way. 2. Laws are passed. 3. If a person wants to say the offense and the laws are silly, he should prove that to those who make the laws, and get them changed. 4. Just saying (in effect) "don't make a big deal of it" doesn't pass muster, when a big deal has already been made of it.
> : In past conversations, it has been stated that not all molest victims are > : harmed psychologically, and that I only see the worst cases in my office > : (comparable to saying that a doctor sees only accident victims in the > : emergency room, and that not all speeders have accidents.) However, if it > : harms only 10%, or some percentage, that alone would suggest that a > : perpetrator has no right to play Russian roulette with unsuspecting or > : defenseless children.
> Sure, and society does have the right to set boundries. I have no problem > with that. I do have a problem with photos being considered harmful, as > if the soul is being taken. Most especially if the photo was simply an > innocent one, nude or not.
Firstly, one must abuse a child in order to take those photos. Secondly, the photos consitute evidence of denied activity and prurient purposes.
> You are smearing the question into one of child molestation when the > question has to do, simply, with photography. Do spend a little time and > reread what you wrote in sppm about nude family photos.
It may or may not be a matter of simple photography. I would want to see the photo to get an impression of that. If it is a 10 year old standing straight before the camera, there would seem to be nothing artistic about that. If he is in the photographer's house, and his parents are not there, I would want to know why, and why the photographer made the picture. I would also want to know the circumstances that caused the boy to be nude in order to be photographed in that way.
> (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> "God has no place within these > walls, just as facts have no > place within organised religion." > - The Simpsons, #100. 1994
> > : There may be an innocent explanation, but I can't imagine it.
> > Apparently the press 'sexed up' the photo from a photo to a nude photo, as > > per Mark's posts here.
> That would be easily provable. And it would be hard to imagine the press > running the photo in the newspaper. What else would they want to do with > it? And it's my understanding it was evidence in a court of law.
> So, more than a month having passed, I'm awaiting news of MM having sued the > newspaper for libel.
More than a month, eh? You've taken the Evelyn Wood Speed Living course?
Wrapping up a criminal matter takes priority over initiating a civil matter. There is plenty of time to address those parties (each and every one) who have potentially exposed themselves to civil actions.
> > (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > > -- > > John M. Price, PhD
> > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> > The Kansas Board of Education's decision to delete evolution from the > > state's recommended curriculum and from its standardized tests is, in > > itself, powerful evidence against the veracity of Darwin's great theory. > > If Charles Darwin were able to visit Kansas in 1999 he would be obliged to > > concede that here was living proof that natural selection doesn't always > > work, that the unfittest sometimes survive and that the human race is > > therefore actually capable of evolving backwards toward, rather than away > > from, those youth-depressing apes. > > - Salman Rushdie, The Globe & Mail, Sept. 2/99
In article <f51a44254ba861d9c806f272a6641...@deaths.door>, posted Sat, 7 Feb 2004 0:10:18 -0500, ^reaper^ says...
:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- :Hash: SHA1 : :In article <Sb2dnREtkLdE87ndRVn...@gwi.net>, neurops...@gwi.net :wroted: :> careful brad, your projections are showing. : :Police try to reframe fram nadless winkie visuals. Tank ewe. : :^reaper^
Gosh, I knew he was a self-professed dickless wonder, but had no idea that meant the entire package. Maybe that explains why he's such a mean-spirited freak.
And you are right about the visuals! Man!
Kali -- You're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not evil enough. -- Dr. Evil (The Spy Who Shagged Me)
On 13 Feb 2004 06:43:30 GMT, brbr...@aol.comjoe (ssrihater) wrote:
>>Hell is a fairy tale.
>tell that to the children whose lives are ruined by these disgusting pigs >fithy lusts.
>You have much to learn
It seems that you do, since you obviously believe in that "bible" nonsense about heaven and hell. It was all a ploy to make people feel guilty and fall in line.
It looks like it worked on you quite nicely.
-- Ryan Lankford
"Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the Sky!"
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:48:03 GMT, Ryan Lankford wrote: > On 13 Feb 2004 06:43:30 GMT, brbr...@aol.comjoe (ssrihater) wrote:
>>>Hell is a fairy tale.
>>tell that to the children whose lives are ruined by these disgusting pigs >>fithy lusts.
>>You have much to learn
> It seems that you do, since you obviously believe in that "bible" > nonsense about heaven and hell. It was all a ploy to make people feel > guilty and fall in line.
Fall in line with what?
We have laws, break them and we suffer the various consequences. Many do not feel guilty about it. Some do fall in line, because of the laws, so we have a relatively orderly society.
OTH, the Bible does not require anyone to believe what is written therein, it only points out the pluses and minuses to the belief. Whether it is the final word or not I can't see where people are harmed. If one chooses to ignore what is written and in the end nothing happens, then they made the choice that was best for them, if there is a heaven or hell then they were forewarned.
> It looks like it worked on you quite nicely.
I have no idea where this person is coming from and I most likely have not read the messages that pertained to the subject that you have mentioned, but if he did bring that up as a "hammer" then that is too his shame.
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <td8f0lljyaf4$....@icepick.org> Iceman <1c3...@chi-mafia.org> wrote: : On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:48:03 GMT, Ryan Lankford wrote:
: > On 13 Feb 2004 06:43:30 GMT, brbr...@aol.comjoe (ssrihater) wrote: : > : >>> : >>>Hell is a fairy tale. : >> : >>tell that to the children whose lives are ruined by these disgusting pigs : >>fithy lusts. : >> : >> : >>You have much to learn : > : > It seems that you do, since you obviously believe in that "bible" : > nonsense about heaven and hell. It was all a ploy to make people feel : > guilty and fall in line. : >
: Fall in line with what?
: We have laws, break them and we suffer the various consequences. Many do : not feel guilty about it. Some do fall in line, because of the laws, so we : have a relatively orderly society.
: OTH, the Bible does not require anyone to believe what is written therein,
What about that bit about no one gets tothe father save through me?
: it only points out the pluses and minuses to the belief. Whether it is the : final word or not I can't see where people are harmed.
It was the basis for the antisemitism of the Catholic Church for centuries. That line from Matthew was deleted from Gibson's film, BTW. It sparks ahtred of the family in Luke. that line is deleted in all bibls printed in Norway (IIRC).
If one chooses to : ignore what is written and in the end nothing happens, then they made the : choice that was best for them, if there is a heaven or hell then they were : forewarned.
Pascal's wager. Not a good fallback. What if there is a god and she is Kalima?
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior written consent of the author with the express and only exception of followup postings limited to and within usenet. -- John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
I've touch'd the highest point of all my greatness; And from that full meridian of my glory I haste now to my setting. I shall fall, Like a bright exhalation in the evening And no man see me more. -- Shakespeare
> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <td8f0lljyaf4$....@icepick.org> Iceman <1c3...@chi-mafia.org> wrote: >: On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:48:03 GMT, Ryan Lankford wrote:
>:> On 13 Feb 2004 06:43:30 GMT, brbr...@aol.comjoe (ssrihater) wrote: >:> >:>>> >:>>>Hell is a fairy tale. >:>> >:>>tell that to the children whose lives are ruined by these disgusting pigs >:>>fithy lusts. >:>> >:>> >:>>You have much to learn >:> >:> It seems that you do, since you obviously believe in that "bible" >:> nonsense about heaven and hell. It was all a ploy to make people feel >:> guilty and fall in line. >:>
>: Fall in line with what?
>: We have laws, break them and we suffer the various consequences. Many do >: not feel guilty about it. Some do fall in line, because of the laws, so we >: have a relatively orderly society.
>: OTH, the Bible does not require anyone to believe what is written therein,
> What about that bit about no one gets tothe father save through me?
Yes, the Bible does say that, but no one is forced to follow it, nor any other part of the Word. It is by personal choice. Of course not to follow it, if it indeed be true, would be disastrous. That is where choice enters in. I believe it also says, Try me, test me, see if I'm not true. Or something to that effect.
>: it only points out the pluses and minuses to the belief. Whether it is the >: final word or not I can't see where people are harmed.
> It was the basis for the antisemitism of the Catholic Church for > centuries. That line from Matthew was deleted from Gibson's film, BTW. > It sparks ahtred of the family in Luke. that line is deleted in all bibls > printed in Norway (IIRC).
I read something about the deletion of that part in the movie. I see no problem with it being in the Bible or the movie. People have misused/misunderstood what has been written in the Bible ever since it was first written. I know of no biblical basis for people to harm the Jew because of it. In fact it was "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile" that the whole plan of salvation was for. So it was, historically.
Given the whole Bible, Old and New Testament together, once the Jew came into existence the whole idea of sacrificing the lamb was "symbolic" of what was to come, the "Lamb that was slain for the sins of the world."
I know of no biblical reasoning that could be applied to justify the hatred of the Jew because of the death of Christ.
> If one chooses to >: ignore what is written and in the end nothing happens, then they made the >: choice that was best for them, if there is a heaven or hell then they were >: forewarned.
> Pascal's wager. Not a good fallback. What if there is a god and she is > Kalima?
lol, there are many gods. No one wants to be on Kali's bad side. :)
> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy article <td8f0lljyaf4$....@icepick.org> Iceman <1c3...@chi-mafia.org> wrote: > : On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:48:03 GMT, Ryan Lankford wrote:
> : > On 13 Feb 2004 06:43:30 GMT, brbr...@aol.comjoe (ssrihater) wrote: > : > > : >>>
(...)
> If one chooses to > : ignore what is written and in the end nothing happens, then they made the > : choice that was best for them, if there is a heaven or hell then they were > : forewarned.
> Pascal's wager. Not a good fallback. What if there is a god and she is > Kalima?
What if there is no god, and you live all your life as if there were, thereby missing out on all those great sins you could have had?
> (c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved. > Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior > written consent of the author with the express and only exception of > followup postings limited to and within usenet. > -- > John M. Price, PhD jmpr...@calweb.com > Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. > Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
> I've touch'd the highest point of all my greatness; > And from that full meridian of my glory > I haste now to my setting. I shall fall, > Like a bright exhalation in the evening > And no man see me more. > -- Shakespeare
|
