An object lesson

quote:

---

I asked God about Grace2u, and got affirmation. I ask about this guy, and get a different response.

---

??? So it all comes down to individual conversations with god to sort these things out, between Xians?

---

holmes

Holmes,I urge you to stop engaging this character. Most of our correspondents here, though lacking in science education, seem like harmless types. They may be frustrating, but basically they're just out for a laugh. This guy creeps me out.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I understand what you are saying. I think that the question you pose is extremely complex and probably ultimately unknowable to us. If you are asking if I would consider this person to be a Christian, it is certainly debatable, probably no however. I suppose most Christians(95%) would say no as well. They would probably rationalize that because his fruit is obviously not of Christ, he is not of Christ. I would agree that anyone who thinks that Hitler was correct, is seriously lacking in their understanding of what Christ taught, and is lending more evidence to suggest a still rebellious heart, then a converted child of grace. To the point, where I would probably question their own professed faith and doubt the reality of their conversion. Given this, I could make educated assessments and take actions accordingly(confront them in their obvious false understanding of scripture), however I certainly can’t say if their conversion is real or not. The same is for Stephen and for my wife even. I simply do not know. All we see is the external, only God knows the heart and it’s true position towards Himself. We see the evidenced "fruit" of a converted heart but only God knows the truth. The fruit I see from the Nazi suggests rebellion.I think there is a large difference between what I understand Stephen to be saying and what this example demonstrates. It is a valid question however.

Holmes,You ask, Not between Xians, who for the most part in my experience, do not have nor believe in conversations with God. But, as a scientist trying to evaluate the plausibility of the creationist and evolutionist ideas, I am constrained to read the Bible on which the creationist ideas are based, and to consider sensibly the idea that that book is "the words of God." But the Bible places virtually all its emphasis on talking conversationally with God. You cannot, according to Scripture anyway, obey any of its commandments without "hearkening to His voice." His sheep "know His voice." "Faith comes from hearing the spoken (rhema) word of God." We live, "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." and so on. So, a critical experiment (suggested by the Scriptures) is to "seek the Lord with all your heart, and you will find Him." And, obviously, hear His voice. That's testable, I did it, and began to "hear" voices, not audibly, but there really isn't any other way to describe the experience. "Had an idea" is really quite different, less of a sense of a person talking to you.And what the voice said, when I responded as if it really was this Jehovah person speaking, was pretty amazing. I saw several really dramatic "miracles" just doing what the voice said. And, got a great deal of courage, confidence, hope, faith, gumption, energy, power--all sorts of personal things promised from hearing His voice.But let me clear about Hitler, to both you and Grace2u. Hitler was a man with a gift, who chose to do evil, and did deeply evil things. This he was free to do, and the German people were free to support him in this choice. It's a choice we all have. That's what free will is all about. Good or evil.I can imagine a society where parents, say, were not free to abuse their children (and suffer whatever societal consequences this might bring on them.) Where the parents would be watched, say by a Big Brother eye, and numbed by an electrical shock whenever they started to do something evil. Or something the watcher thought was evil. But, I personally judge that loss of freedom more destructive culture wide than the parents who use the freedom to abuse their children, and hurt them. Abuse is bad, but loss of freedom is worse.But, in all this, the Jews were free to leave Germany, to avoid the consequences on them that was the result of Hitler and the Germans being free to abuse them. (Not usually the case with abused children!) The Jews freedom to leave, or their choice to stay, in no way validates the evil of what the Germans did, only their freedom to choose, good or evil.

Holmes,You note, Not to leave the wrong impression, I spent too much of my own life suspecting I was a creep, and then found out that I was right. This was about the same time that the Jesus Freaks were pressuring me to stop being ignorant of theological hypotheses, and they offered me the incentive to research the matter by observing that, if it was true, I could be "born again." This time, not a creep.It didn't feel good thinking I might be a creep, and it felt even worse when I became pretty sure that, indeed, I was congenitally inclined that way. So, the incentive worked, I discovered that God was really out there, made the application to be born again (partly as an experiment, at the time), and experienced a rather dramatic psychological "conversion." This was in the context of a lot of theraputic efforts, that accomplished little or nothing. The contrast was impressive.Note that NDE studies show similar results. Individuals that die temporarily on the operating tables, who have an out-of-body experience, are very likely to demonstrate post-experience, a dramatic change of personality. Paper is in Lancet, done in Scandinavia I think.Glad to see that your own experiences with pornography have not left a scar, though.Stephen

My experience was the exact opposite. Once I left behind the mysanthropic teachings of Xianity, I was able to see that I was not the creep they kept trying to say I (and everyone else) was. I also saw that sexuality, as a natural part of the human condition, was very very good.I'm glad what you have come to believe makes you feel that you are a better person. I am sceptical that it is a truly healthy belief system, but a big part of health is feeling good about yourself... so there ya go.Porn is just the graphic depiction of human sexuality, human pleasure. Bad quality porn, like any other bad quality art, sucks. But porn itself is a neutral commodity. It is what we make of it. Some of it is really excellent. As we finally shake off the victorian age (and photography gets in the hands of the masses) I believe the quality will just get better and better. Sure there will still be exploitation and bad art, but that will be the case everywhere. Its just human expression will open up and you'll have a lot of great artists going into it, like we haven't seen since the Greeks (or old Japan/India/Thailand).Of course, whether one likes to see graphic depictions of bodies giving sexual pleasure or not is all relative. There is no absolute rule you must like it... or not.

---

holmes

Well, was that deliberate or not?

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

Well, was that deliberate or not?

---

Hmmmmm... maybe what I should do is have everyone ask God whether it was deliberate, and then I can see who actually has a line to the Truth... or got lucky on a 50/50 chance.Anyway, this has made me realize I should have used "blows" instead of "sucks". Sucking feels good, and blowing--- while it may look like fun--- feels really bad. That would be a much better description of bad porn, or art.

---

holmes

Holmes,Erotic art, that is inspiring, inspired, and persevering, is a good thing, healthy as far as I can see, truth preserving.Stephen

This is totally sidetracking, but it may be a historic moment as I find something I can agree with Steve on...

quote:

---

Erotic art, that is inspiring, inspired, and persevering, is a good thing, healthy as far as I can see, truth preserving.

---

As stated, it is something I myself would say. There may be differences in definition though. The common use of the term porn would include erotic art. It is mainly in studies of effects of porn that you start seeing a difference in definition, where erotica may contain graphic sexual content, but pornography (usual termed hardcore pornography) contains violent acts along with the sexuality (whether graphic or not).For you, can erotica... and so good art... include graphic depictions of sexuality? If so then we are in near complete agreement.But then there is the flipside of this. Bad art. Erotica can still fail. And as all art judgements are subjective, they will fail on a person by person basis. Of course some will fail across the board, because they are simply poorly made.Is there a reason to criticize bad sexual art, more than bad art of any other kind?Frankly I'd rather see the moral majority focusing on ridding the world of bad violent art than bad sexual art. If bad, at least the sexual art has some minor pleasure involved with it, in contrast to violent imagery doing nothing but promoting minor hostility.I have always wondered at conservatives, whose faith declares everyone should be fruitful and multiply (which suggests quite a bit of sex) and should not kill, spend so much time deriding porn and championing violence.

---

holmes

Holmes,I sense we agree about a lot. Hating evil, loving truth, delighting in pleasure. But you wonder, Yes. No. Me too. But, even more than violence, I hate hypocrisy. The immorality of the "moral majority" denying the plain cry of Jehovah in Scripture to be heard, speaking now, not as pale words written in some book.... I've been deeply in love, and know how betrayal of that love can be painful, hurtful. But this Jehovah Person is the deepest love there is, and so is vulnerable to deeper pain than I can imagine. And then those hypocrites go around saying that they "love" Him, but never hang around to listen to Him talk to them! And they stumble and confuse anyone else wondering what Jehovah really wants, misleading them completely.Felt safe with that rant. Thanks for responding so honestly.Stephen