Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Texas megachurch minister caught in Internet sex sting
worldnetdaily.com — 52-year-old man busted after driving 200 miles in wife's car to have sex with 13-year-old girl
daytoncub- 48 diggs
- digg it
- PopcornDave, on 05/18/2008, -2/+15FTA "Police found a box of 10 condemns inside the car, a Web camera and a headset police believe he was planning to give the girl."
Where can I get a box of condemns? I mean it was a minister an all but a box of condemns?- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -3/+11"condemns", hmmmm. Maybe he pastors a very legalistic church,lol.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2"Life is like a box of condoms. You never know which one you won't get to use"...
- Wesen, on 05/18/2008, -6/+14I support the death penalty for pedophile Priests... and Preachers who abuse children.
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/18/2008, -4/+8Amen.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Do you think teachers should get the same punishment?
- JanHus, on 05/18/2008, -8/+6Obviously teachers should be exempt because they are secular. Only Christians and conservatives should be punished for breaking the law and harming others.
It's called "eliminating the competition." It has nothing to do with justice.
- JanHus, on 05/18/2008, -8/+6Obviously teachers should be exempt because they are secular. Only Christians and conservatives should be punished for breaking the law and harming others.
- michael4lsu, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is the limit on punishment. Execution is far too severe a punishment for someone who hasn't committed a murder but has abused children. I'm not saying pedophiles should get off easy at all. I think they deserve life in prison. But they do not deserve the death penalty by God's laws.
- DWposts, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3You're a better man than I am, Michael. I'm not sure that there is an equivalent punishment that could be carried out on a pedophile other than death. I think an argument could be made that a child victim suffers MANY kinds of death, starting with the death of their innocence and childhood. Severe mental illnesses, destruction of the ability for intimacy, depression, anger and violent behavior - the list goes on and on. They carry these wounds for a lifetime.
Each pedophile monster is a virus that spreads to many of their victims, in turn creating many more monsters. They cannot be rehabilitated, are usually unrepentant, and will almost certainly re-offend.
I can see no reason to keep them alive taking up prison space or feeding them. At some point society just has to take out the trash.
- DWposts, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3You're a better man than I am, Michael. I'm not sure that there is an equivalent punishment that could be carried out on a pedophile other than death. I think an argument could be made that a child victim suffers MANY kinds of death, starting with the death of their innocence and childhood. Severe mental illnesses, destruction of the ability for intimacy, depression, anger and violent behavior - the list goes on and on. They carry these wounds for a lifetime.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9I note that you've made your condemnation of pedophilia dependent upon the profession of the abuser. That's revealing.
- misterkurtz, on 05/18/2008, -6/+10Jesus Christ said, "I will build My Church..." Obviously this is not it! I pity those 25,000 poor fools who are members.
- lorrie4dad, on 05/18/2008, -3/+14Because this minister is deep in sin, does not make the other 25,000 "poor fools." What he did in secrete, God brought to light. Bad people are everywhere. Even in churches, and the bible tells us to beware of them and weed them (those who don't repent) out of the congregations. This man does not reflect the entire Prestonwood Baptist Church. This is very sad.
- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9"This man does not reflect the entire Prestonwood Baptist Church." Agreed. But what is additionally sad is that there was no one there that held this man accountable or in whom he could confide. This is often the case within vocational ministry unless accountability is established early on.
- ROaks, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3How can you hold someone accountable for something he is doing in secret? Because he knew he was wrong he would not have confided in anyone. So, what are you talking about. You usually make sense these3, but not in this case.
- michael4lsu, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2these3remain, that argument sounds like an excellent argument in favor for the institution of the Catholic Church that Jesus founded with its hierarchy.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5@michael4lsu
Jesus founded the Catholic Church? That is news to me. - these3remain, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@ROaks "How can you hold someone accountable for something he is doing in secret?" I understand the confusion caused by my statement so I will try to clarify what I mean by accountability. When a minister ( or layman, for that matter) has a strong accountability partner or has chosen to surround himself with a few folks that hold him accountable, temptations like this can be terminated before it becomes sin. If the individual knows that what he is thinking about doing is sin, and has a brother/sister in Christ that he can safely reveal his thoughts to without fear of judgment and rejection, very often, the accountability partner can gently but firmly rebuke and correct, thus averting the sinful act. In addition, when this type of vulnerability exists between accountability partners, they can also uphold the person in prayer in their particular area of weakness, and together, thwart the enemy - whether it be the world, the flesh or the devil.
P.S. I did not dig you down for your post, either, since it was clear that you required some clarification about what I had written.
- notpc, on 05/18/2008, -5/+2
Thus the Nicolatian system has become...another synagogue of satan.
I'm also quite sure according to His Holy word....that building these mega-monstrosities to themselves is NOT what the Lord had intended as His Church.
Satan is laughing fer sure.
- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9"This man does not reflect the entire Prestonwood Baptist Church." Agreed. But what is additionally sad is that there was no one there that held this man accountable or in whom he could confide. This is often the case within vocational ministry unless accountability is established early on.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9Do you pity the same millions of fools that are forced to attend public schools and are molested by teachers?
- oestec, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8"My church is not of this earth", said Jesus Christ.
No church, currently in existence, is THE church. Since that is the fact, it should surprise no one that ministers, pastors, reverends, etc, are frequently found to be less than holy.
As our Lord told us: "No one is good but One, that is, God". Also, "All fall short of the glory of heaven".
- lorrie4dad, on 05/18/2008, -3/+14Because this minister is deep in sin, does not make the other 25,000 "poor fools." What he did in secrete, God brought to light. Bad people are everywhere. Even in churches, and the bible tells us to beware of them and weed them (those who don't repent) out of the congregations. This man does not reflect the entire Prestonwood Baptist Church. This is very sad.
- JaelsTentPeg, on 05/18/2008, -2/+21"He said he was feeling guilt and shame and grief," said Malinik."
Yeah, so are we Rev... so are we... *sigh* - Glock26, on 05/18/2008, -7/+7This man's intentions were clearly criminal. However, I do wonder though how many criminals are created out of stings like this? And I wonder if these stings were not so routine if this man (and many others) would have ever committed any crime? This smells of entrapment and while in this case they appear to have captured a man with evil in his heart, I have to wonder about many other cases. Lastly, to those who "pity the 25,000 poor fools" who worship at the church, it appears that you know nothing about being a Christian. Christians sin. This case clearly is an example. We are not called to be sin-free. We are not called to be perfect. These things are impossible for weak humans. Christians are called, however, to strive to be Christ-like and when we fail, seek repentance and forgiveness. And before you through any stones, give yourself a long hard look in the mirror.
- PappyPapillon, on 05/18/2008, -5/+5Okay, then let's forgive him and then take him out back and string him up.
- Lutrasimilis, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11Christians sin?! You know Jesus was pretty specific about people who molest children. He said they would be better off at the bottom of the sea, with a millstone around their neck. Christians may not expected to be sin free, but anyone who can't resist having sex with kids should be locked away, period. If I came across some horny old man trying to rape a young girl, I wouldn't wait for him to finish before kicking his teeth in.
- RichardMinch, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5"Matthew 18:5-7
And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"
The passage doesn't necessarily address child molestation and the intents thereof. It addresses those who causes believers to stumble and sin. Notice it says, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me"
While he certainly sinned having evil in his heart, it would seem to me that those who enticed him to sin are accountable for leading him to do this, thus they too are accountable to the Lord for their actions. Essentially, they caused a believer to stumble. However, I do not condone the actions of this pastor, nor the officers who baited him in to do this, but I do want to reiterate that there is no sin Jesus will not forgive, including child molesation, as horrid as it may be.
Let's not cut the Lord's grace short for this man, as He may cut us short for our own stumbles.
Justice will be served for him both here and in the herefter, in the form of imprisonment here, and a loss of reward in eternity.
Let Jesus decide his eternal destiny and just rewards. Our part is to pray for this man, his church, and the officers involved.
Doing more than that boldly plants our feet in God's shoes, and that's not a good position to be in. - JanHus, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3I am curious. On previous forums I got the impression that you supported sexual liberation, Lutrasimilis. When you say "anyone who can't resist having sex with kids should be locked away, period" how do you determine what age is still "a kid?" In Japan the age on consent is 13. Juliette from Shakespeare's play was 13. Do you also think that child porn is wrong or is it art?
Finally, do you subscribe to the belief that the Bible is a moral authority that applies to everybody? If not, then how did you determine that what this man did was wrong? I'd just like to know.- ThoughtfulWi, on 05/19/2008, -4/+6How do you determine?? Common sense. Basic decency. Innate sense of right and wrong. I don't think you have to wait until Pat Robertson comes along to tell you it's a SIN!
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5Why don't you ask yourself the same question? I'm not being snide. I'm being serious. In the absence of religion, do you think you'd be unable to determine right from wrong? Or, is it possible that our ability to empathize with others helps us to do that?
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3@eir574
"In the absence of religion, do you think you'd be unable to determine right from wrong?"
In the absence of religion, no. In the absence of God, yes.
And I'm getting really fed up with the new comment format. - Lutrasimilis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6JanHus,
I'm for certain types of sexual liberation, yes. Consenting adults should be able to take responsibility for what they do in the bedroom. They're adults.
Age of consent has always been different from culture to culture. In some countries, the age of consent is 9. In Shakespeare's time, 13 was middle adulthood and 35 was old age. I think 18-21 is a good maturity marker in our society, what do you think?
Child porn is not art. It never will be. I worked for Yahoo, and we burned thousands of people for CP every year, people stupid enough to just store it in their online archives. Those people get what they deserve, believe me. They're not busting the people taking pictures of their kids in the bath.
And finally, the Bible. I don't know. I've seen some people make tremendous good of it, and I understand some people were burned to death just for translating it from Latin. It has sublime truths lying right next to instructions for selling your own daughter into slavery. Blessed are those who dash children upon rocks. Bronze and iron and silver are lovingly spared while folk are slaughtered. That smells of man, not God. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6@flip2trip,
"In the absence of religion, no. In the absence of God, yes."
So, in the absence of god, you would see absolutely no way to decide that it's wrong to kill your neighbor? You think that in the absence of god, you'd have absolutely no ability to empathize with other people? This strikes me as strange, as most people start developing that skill around the age of four. - flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3eir574--
Well see this is the crux of our differences!! Man's inner sense of right and wrong are not brought about by just empathy, or teaching or societal pressures--they are from God. God created us in His image--remember the Garden of Eden story? Where Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge? When he did, he became aware that he was naked and was ashamed--was this awareness because of empathy? No, it was because he gained knowledge of good and evil and became aware of what he had done--he had done the one thing God had commanded he not do.
I am curious eir--do you believe that man has a conscience? - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5@flip2trip,
I'm confused about what you're saying about empathy. You're saying that empathy does not play a role in our ability to distinguish right from wrong, as that knowledge is given to us by god. But, what I'm asking you is whether you think that empathy could be used as part of the basis from which to distinguish right from wrong in the absence of god.
"I am curious eir--do you believe that man has a conscience?"
Do you mean 'conscience' as in the part of us that can tell right from wrong and feels guilty when we do something wrong, or "consciousness" as in our ability to think and reason about ourselves and the world? I suppose it might not make much of a difference in my answer. Yes, I think we have the ability to reason about our world, to determine whether an action we're about to take is right or wrong, and to feel guilty about an action we've taken that we know to be wrong.
Is your point in asking me to make me wonder where consciousness comes from? If so, I don't know. It's also very difficult to define. My parents' dog certainly appeared to feel guilty when he did something he knew was against the rules, though I can't say for sure since that's just my interpretation of his actions. I've seen an orangutan punish another in its group for failing to share food. Does that mean he had some level of consciousness that let him know that sharing is right, and hoarding food is wrong? I don't know. Will science someday advance far enough to completely explain what we consider to be consciousness? I don't know. - flip2trip, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1@eir
"You're saying that empathy does not play a role in our ability to distinguish right from wrong, as that knowledge is given to us by god."
Ummm, no I didn't. I am saying that we have the ability to empathize with people because we are created in God's image. This isn't reserved just for believers, all people were created this way. : o)
- JanHus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Lutrasimilis,
18-21 years is a good maturity marker for our culture? I'm inclined to agree, but isn't that cultural-centricism?
The problem I'm having is epistemological. What is it that becomes the point of infallibility by which everything else can be measured? You mentioned some things in the Bible that definitely seem harsh, cruel, and wrong. But the question is, what infallible standard (or more-correct standard) was used to determine this?
eir574 wants to claim that knowledge of right and wrong are simply intuitive (that people just know it). However, this cannot be the case because some people's intuition results in actions that are even more cruel than the aforementioned biblical examples.
Obviously, we must have some sort of law to appeal to that is higher than the ones generated individually or culturally. Otherwise any claim to rightness or wrongness is foolish.
You're a very intelligent person, Lutrasimilis, as is evidenced it your thoughtful response. I'm eagerly awaiting your next one- Lutrasimilis, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1JanHus,
Cultural-centricism is appropriate as it applies to the law of the land in which that culture sits. In our culture, this age coincides with the completion of high school and early exposure to independent life, along with a host of other rights and responsibilities. You are essentially -expected- to be mature enough by that age.
"But the question is, what infallible standard (or more-correct standard) was used to determine this?"
Quite simply, I don't believe in the infallible. In my opinion, even if it exists, we haven't figured it out yet. We've got many, many infallible factions who don't agree. It's not that they're all wrong, it's just that each seems to think that the others have made some sort of fundamental mistake. Good principles exist within each, but if they all claim to be infallible, then the term loses some of its credibility.
Some people would have us believe that good and evil are simply abstract concepts, but I disagree. I think there is a universal principle that under-writes every one of us, and it is this. Evil is the pleasure you take in the suffering of others, and a measure how far you'll go to arrange it. Good is your urge to reverse that suffering, and how much you'll sacrifice to do so.
Jesus boiled that down to the Golden Rule - do unto others. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Everything else, and I mean -everything- else is suspect. You don't feel just a little wary about the proscription to stone your unruly children to death? Does that really sound like a Perfect solution? To convince myself that this is Right, I have to deform so many basic values that I wouldn't want to obey the commandment, even if I were wholly convinced of punishment later.
Wouldn't you feel the same, if asked to stone your own child to death? Would you not suspect? Would you not rebel? Even if Jesus took away those cruel laws, does it negate the fact that they were once Perfect?
- Lutrasimilis, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1JanHus,
- RichardMinch, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5"Matthew 18:5-7
- DahktaD, on 05/18/2008, -2/+8Entrapment?! This son of bitch, hypocrit "Christian" got on the internet and engaged this "13 yo girl" himself! HE set everything up for his own perverted pleasures!! Hopefully this was a FED task force and they prosecute his ass...5 years minimum. Can wait for the Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Bakker flowing tears asking for forgiveness on the boob tube.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -4/+4You sound just like a dysfunctional liberal. Because he is a Christian, he is a hypocrite. Do you feel the same way about liberal teachers molesting our children? Lets see. Our children go to school almost everyday all year long. The numbers are staggering. Anyone who molests children is a sick pervert. But wait, the hero of the liberal left, Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that there should be no age of consent. After all, this is what the left tells us, everyone should do as they want. Now radical Islam thinks this is wrong, but to hear the left tell it, it's Christians who are to blame for man kinds ills. Liberals are brain dead. They believe that free speech is for them, and no one else. Or haven't you heard of communism. It's only killed 300 million people. Maybe we should give it another chance and then we can ask DahktaD how he likes living under total leftest rule. You just might get what you wish for.
- Lutrasimilis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Dysfunctional liberal? What the hell are you talking about? Why is every single person who points out Christian hypocrisy a 'liberal'? If you ask me, it's the Christian conservatives themselves who should be most thoroughly condemning of this vile man - the cringemaking and deflection give people the idea that they're willing to utterly abandon their judgemental nature when the pride of their own social flock is on the line.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3This kind of stuff isn't even news, but just another repetition of the same old tired formula. What do you want, the requisite tears and sympathy and the de riguer condemnations? Will that make you happy? Will that even make a difference?
He'll have his court date like any other citizen. Until then, call me skeptical about yet another bust for signals and emails and chats -- which are not physical actions. - Lutrasimilis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4"He'll have his court date like any other citizen. Until then, call me skeptical about yet another bust for signals and emails and chats -- which are not physical actions."
Plenty of terrorists have been halted at the 'signals and emails and chats' level, too. He brought a box of condoms, come on, what do you think he was going to do? Make balloon animals? This guy was going to rape a child, period. He'd already solicited a number real kids. He admitted to his wrongdoing.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3This kind of stuff isn't even news, but just another repetition of the same old tired formula. What do you want, the requisite tears and sympathy and the de riguer condemnations? Will that make you happy? Will that even make a difference?
- DOGODSWILL, on 05/18/2008, -4/+3The only thing that creates a criminal is a SATONIC SPIRIT.This is why JESUS CHRIST warns man kind to keep their focus on HIM , least ye may fall into SIN.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I think you meant Satanic.
- Lutrasimilis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3No, Saton is Satan's bumbling second cousin. He's like Hell's Gomer Pyle.
- jesusis1, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2You have hit the nail on the head. Those who are without sin, let them cast the first stones.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9A Pastor of a Church is held to a higher standard than his congregation. Being a pastor and even entertaining thoughts of having sex with a child should have been a warning sign to him. He should have resigned and sought help from a Christian Counselor.
While I know that none of us are immune to sin, seeking sex from minor children is particularly abysmal. Even prisoners see these people for what they are---which is why child molesters are usually put in solitary for their own protection. - 80hd, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2This man showed a substantial and prolonged interest in pedophilia.
Minor isolated incidents are being prosecuted, it's the people who make arrangements like this for days on end and who then take significant action to do what they planned.
How much more did he have to do to show criminal intent? Draw a picture of what he wanted to do to this fictional girl and send it in certified mail then walk 500 miles in the snow? Come on give it a rest.
- PappyPapillon, on 05/18/2008, -5/+5Okay, then let's forgive him and then take him out back and string him up.
- vitodanelli, on 05/18/2008, -9/+3I think these so-called "police stings" are nothing but entrapment. Police resources could and should be used for better purposes such as capturing drunk Illegal Immigrants or busting drug gangs.
But those guys fight back with guns and violence. It's so much easier to bust a horny priest in a sting.
Those police should prioritize their prioriities.- seala, on 05/18/2008, -2/+11Protecting underage girls from pedophiles should be a top priority for the police. Thank God it was a sting and he was caught before there was a real victim
- 14justice, on 05/18/2008, -4/+3Protecting underage girls from pedophiles is the job of their parents, not the police.
- DWposts, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4 It's NOT the job of police to protect children? You can't be serious!
- seala, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11As pedophilia is a crime, it should be the job of both.
Or are you suggesting pedophilia isn't bad enough for the police to be involved?.- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1However, no pedophila actually occurred.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Do you think the same priority should be given by police towards sex starved teachers?
- eir574, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8@hugo:
Yes, if they're going after underage students.
- 14justice, on 05/18/2008, -4/+3Protecting underage girls from pedophiles is the job of their parents, not the police.
- PappyPapillon, on 05/18/2008, -3/+8This goes way beyond a "horny priest". The guy is a pedophile who got caught. He's brought shame upon himself, his family, and his church. He was willing to victimize a child - a child - for his own sick pleasure. He has shown himself to be unfit to live in our society.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5So then, why not the same outcry from our society towards our teachers. Why are they given a pass. Why is there never an outcry about them? It's much more prevalent with teachers than with priests.
- Taquoshi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6People are becoming more aware of the problem of predatory teachers, hugo. The reason why this is given so much more attention is because a minister, and particularly ordained ministers (which I don't know if this person is ordained or not) are supposed to dedicate their lives to God's service and to care for their flocks. Many of them have taken vows upon their ordination.
Teachers, on the other hand, are employees of the school system. They have taken no vows and made no promises, other than what may or may not be in their contracts. In theory, - the operative word here is "theory", teachers are supposed to safe guard (another operative phrase) their students.
And, yes, sexual predatorship is wrong on both counts. Unfortunately, the priest/pastor/minister story makes for better viewership/readership and people can gloat over their downfall. I don't like it and actually agree with you that the abuse of students by teachers is probably more widespread than that of priests/ministers/pastors. The bottom line is that preying on children is wrong, no matter who does it and it doesn't matter to the victim whether his/her assailant was a priest or a math teacher in the long run. What usually matters is that it was someone they "trusted".
- PappyPapillon, on 05/18/2008, -2/+14He couldn't have been "stung" if he wasn't out there on the 'net looking for an underage girl. The man is a predator.
- DOGODSWILL, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1 DEAR VITODANELLI , I wonder if this had of been your daughter or granddaughter , would you have commented the way you have. It seems you may be listing to the LIBERALS too much .
- 80hd, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Do you list to conservatives then? Maybe they can teach you to use the reply button and proofread your comments occasionally.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I really wanted to give you the benefit of the sarcasm tag. No such luck, so you DO get the "Complete *****" tag...
- seala, on 05/18/2008, -2/+11Protecting underage girls from pedophiles should be a top priority for the police. Thank God it was a sting and he was caught before there was a real victim
- KJeffV, on 05/18/2008, -3/+13Sorry, Glock`n´Vito, but while I rail at the TX FLDS cmpd raid, I believe there is pretty clear intent in this case. I think most would agree that child abuse—particularly sex abuse—is one of the most egregious sins of all: Jesus addressed this prob specifically, and even other criminals already in stir treat "short eyes" to the worst of all mistreatment, incl'g murder.
That said, the difference here is that there was evidence Barron wasn't going to "minister" to this girl, and while illegal immigrants, drug dealers, gangs, & the like pose a clear & present danger to the populace, Barron & his ilk pose the same danger . . . and possibly, ultimately, to the same, eventual nbr of vics, if not more. A crime is a crime, after all, and all crimes should be dealt with.- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5You are right, but the same is true about our teachers. Or don't you think it's a crime. The church was forced to pay millions of dollars to victims. When is there going to be a class action suit against the teachers unions?
- ThoughtfulWi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6A big part of the reason the Catholic church was made to pay a huge settlement to it's victims was because the church hierarchy turned a blind eye to the problem and allowed it to continue. The number of Catholic priests who were involved in these scandals comes to maybe 1 to 2 % of the entire priesthood.I grew up in the Catholic church in the 60s, and was an altar boy for 6 years. I was alone with priests often, and there was never even a hint of anything sexually abusive. And I also attended an all boy's Catholic High School for a year. I am no longer a practicing Catholic, but it, nevertheless, pains me to hear of priests spoken of as if they were all pedophiles. Many of them are saintly,selfless people. I really don't believe that reasonable people of any persuasion condone child sexual abuse, whether it is done by a priest, a teacher, a cop or anyone else. It's dehumanizing regardless of the perpitrator's persuasion. I have no doubt that if their is a cover up of school teachers involving sexual abuse, and it is found out, the lawyers will be descending. They are not selective.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -2/+5You are right, but the same is true about our teachers. Or don't you think it's a crime. The church was forced to pay millions of dollars to victims. When is there going to be a class action suit against the teachers unions?
- 14justice, on 05/18/2008, -8/+3Since there was no actual underage girl involved, there was no crime --- none!
You folks are promoting Gestapo tactics in America, formerly "land of the free."- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7"Police are investigating evidence Barron may have had similar online conversations with more than a dozen minor girls."
I think the term "minor" indicates underage girls - and not just one. While I disagree with the tactics, the man, if he is guilty, should be brought to justice. - Lutrasimilis, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10Oooh, so attempted murder isn't a crime either, as long as you're not successful, right? No harm done.
That's some brilliant reasoning there. - DOGODSWILL, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2JESUS said don't live buy the law but buy the HOLY SPIRIT , the wrong here is two fold. (FIRST)He took his eyes off of (JESUS) the HOLY SPIRIT , which allowed SATON to take controll of his thoughts.(SECOND) He had already performed the act in his heart ,and would have actually performed it , if the law inforcement had not of caught him first----------------THANK GOD.-----------From the oppion I get out of your comment---------------You ignore JESUS CHRIST teachings and place your trust in a man made law. This is an example of how the LIBERALS are leading AMERICA into HELL because the only way they can see something is through the eyes of man.We are to be lead buy the HOLY SPIRIT and not what we can get buy with under some man made law.------------MAY GOD BLESS YOU.
- DWposts, on 05/18/2008, -3/+6The acts of communication in a prurient manner with a juvenile is a crime (if the person has reason to believe the other party was a juvenile, regardless if it actually IS a juvenile), over electronic telecommunications systems is a crime, attempting to meet for the purpose of committing a sex offense is a crime. The pastor has a legal duty of acting in loco parentis; in the place of a parent. In addition to the (intended) victims age, the pastor has violated that legal duty to protect.
Not all crimes require a specific victim suffering specific harm; society itself is the victim. Should we wait until a child is assaulted before acting?- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5What you've said is quite possibly the most reasonable post thus far. You're right in that those laws are the ones that he has broken and that he should be punished for them. Still, those laws are NOT pedophilia itself. His actions are quite different than the people who have a history of physically abusing minors or having sex with them.
- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Your post is brilliant, clear, and obviously true. Too bad so few in here can understand this.
- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Very good point.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5What you've said is quite possibly the most reasonable post thus far. You're right in that those laws are the ones that he has broken and that he should be punished for them. Still, those laws are NOT pedophilia itself. His actions are quite different than the people who have a history of physically abusing minors or having sex with them.
- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Good point 14justice: It looks like our justice system is more and more interested in going after "thought crimes," such as "racism," "hate crimes," and -- now -- talking dirty to play-acting, ADULT cops acting as though they are underage. The crime is apparently one of "thinking" that they are underage, when, in actuality, they are NOT! This strikes me as very close to Soviet-style justice. All that seems to be missing is the "show trial."
- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7"Police are investigating evidence Barron may have had similar online conversations with more than a dozen minor girls."
- these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -2/+17"Police are investigating evidence Barron may have had similar online conversations with more than a dozen minor girls."
More than a dozen minor girls that Barron was attempting to solicit for sex - while some may say that Christians aren't called to be perfect, etc. this is not a case of mere backsliding or a slip-up - when sin is repetitive it falls into the category of "habitual" sin. And when a "Christian" engages in habitual sin, watch out. When one is engaging in habitual sin, it is because the person is in bondage to it as well as possibly remorseful but not repentant. Perhaps the arrest is what God is going to use in this man's life since he failed to respond to more merciful rebukes, i.e., from God.- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Wait, thesethreeremain: Let's stay WITH the facts as we know them. I am rather certain there is a legal distinction between having a sexually explicit conversation online with a minor and actually SOLICITING a minor for sex while online (although both acts are deemed illegal and both can, of course, be committed within the same chat encounter). In Texas at least, if I am not mistaken, the penalty for the two crimes is different: stiffer punishment for solicitation than for simple online sex chat. From what we know THUS FAR, there is no indication of what the content was of his online discussions with other minors (IF there were other minors), to include whether any online sexual chat -- let alone solicitation -- took place. First: the officer said that he "may" (operative word) have had "similar" conversations with more than a dozen minor girls. This means, he may NOT have had conversations with ANY other minor girls. Second: We do not yet know the CONTENT of these other discussions, although, of course, it could have been sexual in content -- but we simply do not KNOW that, yet. Third, as I said above, he did not necessarily SOLICIT any other minors, even if he did engage in sexual chat. Fourth, we do not know how many of these "other" underage individuals were: a) really girls; or b) really underage; or c) were in actuality online cops. Of course, as more information becomes available, we should have answers to some of these questions, but, in the interim, let's be "radical" and try to remember the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," shall we?
- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5The Salt of the Earth? No, just a little piece of the dung hill.
- KCLorelei39, on 05/18/2008, -3/+7once saved, always saved-no matter what sins you commit, you're a goin' to heaven to be with Jesus!. I've seen way too many instances of where this doctrine leads people who are already prone to sin.
This lie has been going on since the Garden of Eden "You shall not surely die - did God REALLY say not to do this thing? He just doesn't want you to become as powerful as He is, blah blah blah ad nauseum"
I speak as one raised in a Southern Baptist church, then later in life as a member of an Independent Baptist megachurch. The senior pastor at this TX megachuch, along with all the other pastors, have probably already concluded that this man wasn't saved to begin with /sighs
I left my own megachurch over a year ago, and found a nondenominational church that isn't dysfunctional.- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3lol, yea the devil loves that, once saved always saved. It's part of his portfolio.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6@victorypup and KCLorelei
I take issue with your comments. Particularly, I wonder if you can explain this quote from Jesus:
John 10:27-30
27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
Now, to me if Jesus wanted to say you could be saved and then become unsaved (thus making the cross insufficient to cover all sins) he would have said "no one but themselves" are able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
If the Cross doesn't cover all sins, if there is way to become "unsaved" as you say, then you make the Cross irrelevant.
Now I await your explanation of how one can become "unsaved." :)- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4I wait for an explanation of why people have to rely on a book to decide their morality.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5@ssn697
And I wait for the explanation of why people assume there is no God while offering idiotic explanations of how life began on the backs of crystals or aliens seeded life here on earth. - InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I'm waiting for what causes one to become "unsaved" also, as that's vital information for all Christians to have. Stop guarding the secret so jealously, people! Let all your brothers and sisters know what exactly are the unsaving vices! Maybe some sins are bad, but not bad enough, you know? Like maybe lust isn't unsaving, but adultery is.
If Jesus is gonna drop me like a hot potato if I screw up, I really need to know. - KCLorelei39, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2perhaps if you read the Bible for yourself, and asked God to show you the truth of the matter, instead of accepting what's taught from the pulpit by pastors who had to go to college to be passed along man's traditions about what God says.....
Jesus didn't die so that you continue to sin as you please and remain stubborn in your unbelief of His ultimate justice. the vehemence with which you defend your allegience to sin is sad.
how often did He say to obey the commands, sin no more, etc? If one accepts His substitutionary sacrifice, one is obliged to grow in grace and truth, overcome this world, not wallow in it...or else the new life given just may result in stillbirth. think and pray about it. - victorypup, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2flip2trip, I think John chapter 10, read in context can explain itself, perhaps you may want to review 2 Pet chapter 2, then read on over to Jude and the little Johns, Perspective needs to be kept in context.
- flip2trip, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2KCLorelei39 said--"perhaps if you read the Bible for yourself, and asked God to show you the truth of the matter, instead of accepting what's taught from the pulpit by pastors who had to go to college to be passed along man's traditions about what God says....."
You made me laugh because you make a broad assumption that somehow I was told what I believe by man. Believe me, I've studied this quite well, prayed about it and have this confirmed in my spirit.
If you make the assessment that you can become unsaved somehow, and that helps you in your walk I won't condemn you for that--but please don't assume because you believe it, that is it and everything else is a lie.
If the Grace provided by the Cross is not sufficient to cover all sins, then I must ask the question--What sin can you commit after you are saved will result in negating the purpose of the Cross? And if it is not just one sin, but several or the same one, then how much do you have to sin to remove the power of the Cross?
You assume that if a person believes he is "once saved, always saved" that this will result in the Believer continuing to sin because hey, what the heck I'm forgiven so I can do anything. I am saying that is false. If you are saved and have been covered by the blood of Christ then why would you want to purposefully mar your walk? In addition you are Born again and have become a new creature in Christ. If you can become "unsaved" then you would have to be born again, fall away and be unsaved, then what? Could you be born again, again?
I believe Scripture says it best--"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39)
John 3:15 states that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life." If you believe in Christ today and have eternal life, but lose it tomorrow, then it was never "eternal" at all. Hence if you lose your salvation, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be in error.
Have a blessed day! : )
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6@victorypup and KCLorelei
- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3lol, yea the devil loves that, once saved always saved. It's part of his portfolio.
- Lutrasimilis, on 05/18/2008, -1/+12Just wait until they open up his computer. Pedophiles often work in rings.
And a word on stings. Stings are used to prevent major drug transactions, arms deals, and even terrorist bomb plots. An ounce of prevention, not a pound of cure. When they use a sting to catch child predators, they don't go looking for people to entice. They wait for the predators to come to them. There is NO denying this fact. Those people have no one to blame but themselves.
What should concern you is that for every one that's caught, there are ten that never will be. This guy was an idiot.- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5I agree, this sting is a righteous sting, no body was entrapped, The super pastor was trolling for a victim, and the victim got him, plain and simple. Had he not been looking for this young girl, she would never have hooked this dude.
- 14justice, on 05/18/2008, -4/+2It is not illegal to think about committing a crime, to want to commit a crime, to talk about committing a crime, to plan to commit a crime, or even to make preparations to commit a crime.
Sting operations by "law enforcement" --- about drugs, sex, terrorism or whatever --- amount to entrapment, police persecution of selected citizens or even of random passersby. They would be found unconstitutional if we had any courts left that still enforced the constitution.
Police have way too many existing crimes that they are unable to solve. We shouldn't allow them to make themselves look better by creating new crimes that they can "solve" because they know the perpetrator in advance! - DWposts, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4Incorrect, 14justice. "(T)o plan to commit a crime, or even to make preparations to commit a crime" is the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime. For example, think of a gang of bank robbers apprehended as they approach the bank, or even before they depart for the bank.
- 14justice, on 05/18/2008, -4/+2It is not illegal to think about committing a crime, to want to commit a crime, to talk about committing a crime, to plan to commit a crime, or even to make preparations to commit a crime.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5So then, how prevalent do you believe teachers are actually involved in sex with our kids. Everyday it is reported. So it must be just an ounce. How many classrooms are there? How many days do our kids go to school? The odds are staggering. But there is no outcry towards teachers. Only towards priests.
- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6I agree Hugo, but it's ok only if it's a woman teacher after the young guys. Hundreds of them across the country, but, if it's a woman and boy thing every thing is alright. Equal opportunity molestation is gender specific. This Pastor just didn't get it right.
- JanHus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Teachers are overlooked because they are the secular world's priests. Christian priests are the competition so they are the only ones that must be eliminated.
It's not about justice meted out equally.- ThoughtfulWi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1And of course Jan Hus, and Hugo have exhaustively researched the topic, and can cite us the evidence to support their claims that only man on girl,( or boy, I'm assuming,) or religious predators are being reported and prosecuted.
- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Lutrasimilis: First, you are extremely naive about how much trust you are willing to place in Government -- to say nothing of the degree of power over our lives you are happy to give them. You are a "good German." Second, you are WAYYYYYYYYY ahead of the facts on this minister. Many crime rings (of various types, including terrorists) DO operate on the Internet. However, it is almost a given that this gentleman was a loner. Moreover, there is NO indication, based on the information released thus far, that this minister has EVER touched an underage person in an illicit sexual manner. Remember: He was arrested trying to make a tryst with an "imaginary" person. Additionally, police seem to LOVE to pick on "soft" targets like this minister (old, unarmed, naive), instead of the really dangerous types, like all the Hezbollah sympathizers that live in and around Dearbornistan, Michigan. Problem is, the jihadis are tough! (And our cops are not, for the most part.) Finally, please don't tell me that you are supporter of the ludicrous "War on Drugs?"
- PappyPapillon, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I see teachers on the news quite frequently being investigated and/or arrested for molesting or trying to molest the students which have been entrusted to their care. The most recent being Thomas Arthur Beltran, a 60-year old teacher at Lincoln Middle School in Santa Monica, California, who has been accused of molesting four female students.
- gunjam, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Okay, Pappy, I read about Beltran, also, but NO ONE -- and I mean NO ONE is calling for these teachers to be strung up from lamp-posts. We apparently reserve that kind of vigilante bloodlust for preachers/priests -- even though -- from what we know of the Texas minister in this story -- NO child was ever TOUCHED (as he was arrested for attempting to meet one IMAGINARY thirteen-year-old), whereas Beltran had REAL sex with REAL teenagers (PLURAL!). Moreover, for some illogical reason, when men (like this Texas preacher) use the Internet to meet minors for sex, it is somehow considered FAR MORE evil as compared to the similar predatory pursuit of students by teachers and principals who are CHARGED to watch over these kids. This makes no sense to me, because virtually every kid knows that the Internet can be dangerous, whereas teachers and principals are ASSUMED to be watching out for their students' welfare. I will also predict that Beltran receives a FAR lighter sentence than this minister does, even though his actual crimes against kids are more serious. (Admittedly, part of the reason that Beltran will in all likelihood receive a lighter sentence is that he lives in California, whereas the minister lives in Texas.)
- InRussetShadows, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Uhm, no. The cop kept talking to him for two weeks. That's entrapment.
- gunjam, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I tend to agree with you. It is also a strange use of tax-payers' money.
- KJeffV, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2DANG! I agreed with—and even Dugg up!—DrSimilarTail TWO times in one thread!? Surely THAT has to be one of the signs of the end times!
- victorypup, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5I agree, this sting is a righteous sting, no body was entrapped, The super pastor was trolling for a victim, and the victim got him, plain and simple. Had he not been looking for this young girl, she would never have hooked this dude.
- DOGODSWILL, on 05/18/2008, -5/+10This is a prime example of what can happen (and most often does) when people don't make and keep JESUS CHRIST as their # 1 focus. If the minister had keep his focus on JESUS instead of the things of the world , and the members their focus on JESUS instead of their minister , then this would not of happened. This is what happened to PETER when HE was walking on the water , when he took his focus off of JESUS , He begin to sink.-------------------Now comes the punishment to both the church and the minister. Ministers are no exception , they brake the law , they pay the price like everone else.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Funny, I never go to church, and pay no attention to this reliance on something else to tell me what is right or wrong. I find it EASY to not go surfing for young girls. I find it EASY to know what is right, and what is wrong.
Yet, here is a guy who supposedly devoted his life to this book, and he couldn't tell right from wrong?
Relying on fear of some unseen force to help you do what is clearly right or wrong smacks of weakness.- inobla, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3"Relying on fear of some unseen force to help you do what is clearly right or wrong smacks of weakness."
And in many cases it's a very poor substitute for the right medication. - DOGODSWILL, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Only GOD truly knows this ministers heart and ever man's, as far as that goes.It appears that he may be like many men that are out there preaching the word with out the calling of GOD to do so.They are called false prophecy's , and will pay a much bigger price in HELL than the common unbelievers , because they are doing more harm than they are good.Just remember ---GOD says we all are to read his word (the HOLY BIBLE) so we will know the truth for our self's and don't have to take some one Else's word for it.So lets us not get caught up in the sins of another mans and loose our own soul because we ignored what JESUS ask of us.In the day of judgment we want be there to here what GOD will tell this man,but we( as ever man will ) stand alone before JESUS to explain why we received him or didn't as our savior.JESUS said that no man will enter HEAVEN except buy me, and that ever man will answer for himself and no one else -------------are you ready for that day.---------------------REMEMBER THAT NO MAN CAN OR WILL ENTER HEAVEN BUY HIS OWN GOOD WORKS.
- 80hd, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's so annoying the way that most religions pretty much teach their followers that anybody who is not part of their little group will automatically be a heathen of some sort, and that everything they do is wrong, even when they happen to agree on things.
- inobla, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3"Relying on fear of some unseen force to help you do what is clearly right or wrong smacks of weakness."
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Funny, I never go to church, and pay no attention to this reliance on something else to tell me what is right or wrong. I find it EASY to not go surfing for young girls. I find it EASY to know what is right, and what is wrong.
- nippinawassee, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8OK - proves that stupid doesn't come in race, rank, or anything else concerning humans. List the stupids and you'll have a long line of preachers, politicians, wealthy businessmen and women, and yet after all the publicity that is given to them when caught, does anyone learn from this? Nope - they are all insulated against the truth... stupid stupid stupid... and those that defend these lowlife individuals? Yet more STUPID...
- ikbrooks, on 05/18/2008, -3/+10The problem with most of yall is you do not know this church, the members or the Pastor. I do! I go to this church and have the last 5 years. My wife has been and soon my son will be baptised here. You all can say what you like and many have made valid points on this thread.But remember this...we are all predisposed to sin. We are all susceptible to the lure of temptation. I did not know this pastor. He was over a different ministry. I am sorry for the pain he has caused and for the pain he will have to face bot he and his family. Prestonwood is a blessing to the community and everything we do as a church has been nothing short of a wonderful blessing to all. Then this! It is all very sad. Pastor Grahm and the leadership of the church are doing the right thing by cooperating. This guy will have to face the music. Sin is sin and it is everywhere. This guy fell to the attack of sin.
This guy was at the church 18 mths and all was thought to be ok. How wrong we were. These3 you make a good point. Had this guy yielded to the more merciful rebukes he may not have been in this situation. But he did not and look at the sin and the stain it leaves on us all. the shadow it casts is broad and dark. It is sad.
Kevin B.- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4I have to agree with you ikbrooks. Some of the comments here sounds like the hate speech that comes from the left all the time. They are the only ones that can get away with it. Frankly I am getting tired of listening to these crybabies on the left. It is them and their lifestyle that has radical Islam after our throats and unfortunately it will be the right that will have to save them from themselves. What they don't understand is that when Allah comes a knocking for them to convert, there will be no compromise. It will be off with their heads while real Americans will be defending themselves without wearing head coverings.
- DOGODSWILL, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1 MAY GOD CONTINUE TO HAVE MERCY OWN ALL HIS CHURCH . I hope that I didn't say any thing that could be taken as a personal put down or criticism but that only GODS knows whats in his heart. But remember it is never too late to repent or ask for forgiveness .We all sin ever day and have to ask for forgiveness every day.What the world can't see is the difference in a LOST SINNER & A SAVED SINNER.--------------MAY GOD CONTINUE TO HAVE MERCY ON AMERICA,AMEN.
- marineavi, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Spare our children, turn him and his ilk into eunuchs.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3If we are to save our children then we will have to take them from our public schools which is infested with gays and lesbians and child molesters as well.
- ThoughtfulWi, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2HUGO! Thank you! Thank you 1 million times for distinguishing between GAYS AND LESBIANS and CHILD MOLESTERS. There seems to be so much confusion these days.Thank you so much.
- hugothecommie, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3If we are to save our children then we will have to take them from our public schools which is infested with gays and lesbians and child molesters as well.
- Nannybell, on 05/18/2008, -11/+12This problem is rampant in the human race, period. Pastors, teachers, politicians are high profile persons in whom we place trust, so we hear about them in the media. But this thing is everywhere in all parts of society. We all recoil from it now, but liberal society will not always do so. Liberal society is already laying the groundwork for accepting the sexualization of children. If not, then why do they push highly sexualized novels on kids in public schools? Why do they let underage girls dress like harlots? Why do they permit kids to watch sexualized TV programs and movies? Why do they basically tell kids it's ok to engage in premarital sex?
So to the liberals who believe in moral relativism, tell me ... on what basis do you fault this man? I already know your answer ... "because the girl is too young to consent." What will your answer be when society, in its further descent into moral madness and decay, decides the consent thing isn't really relevant, as it will have decided that sex is something any age group can intelligently consent to?- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -9/+10Thumbs up Nannybell--I can't tell you how many times I have said that the pedophile will become the next protected class in this society if something isn't done to stem the tide of immorality running rampant in the world, but more specifically this great country.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6So when are your Christians going to step up, and stop your ministers and pastors from saying one thing, and doing another? America can't go one week without hearing about another leading Christian involved in a sex scandal.
Why must you destroy the morals of America? - ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -5/+6Where was the most recent example of pedophilia being attempted to be pushed under the rug, ignored, and discounted? Ah, yes. The Catholic Church.
So, by your own logic, if we don't get rid of religion, pedophilia is going to become accepted, and run rampant in this country.- osko2052, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's a moral choice, not a religious one. The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world and anything the liberal media can do to destroy it they will most definitely do it.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6So when are your Christians going to step up, and stop your ministers and pastors from saying one thing, and doing another? America can't go one week without hearing about another leading Christian involved in a sex scandal.
- idoj, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9@flip2trip, why do you feel that pedophilia will become accepted in any society? This form of abuse, as I'm sure you know, involves sexually assaulting children. Conservatives and liberals alike view this as wrong.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -10/+8Read your history idoj--the Greeks were big fans of pedophilia and was a widely accepted practice among soldiers. They believed that having sex with a boy before battle strengthened the man as well as the boy.
- chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5This was also not universally accepted even amongst the Greeks.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5chaosium---
Is there anything that is "universally" accepted?
- idoj, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9I'm quite familiar with history Flip2trip, but thanks anyway... Just because the Greeks you mentioned favored pedophilia, does NOT mean that liberals or conservatives do. I think we can all agree to sexually assaulting children is wrong.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4I was just responding to your question, you acted as if it was not possible so I merely gave you an example. :-p
- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3idoj, we can all agree that it is *wrong*? On what logical basis is it *wrong* on a secular level? You think it's *wrong* but that doesn't mean society will always agree with you. Better think that one through.
- victorypup, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5idoj, you seem to have spoken over their head. One of the weaknesses of our society is people have compared themselves by themselves and determined these misnomers, ie liberal and conservative. Ascribing all ills to the class they themselves think they are not a part of. You are quite correct, child molestation is an egregious behavior. This is a condition of the heart, a heart that has been drawn by lust, and fed with sin. Notice how that many seeking to excuse this mans behavior tend to disavow Rev 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Granted, we are all subject to temptation, and I am with you, Little children do not make me weak. People given to this behavior are more than just weak, they are sick. Jesus reinforced the Commandments of the Father when he addressed the Issue of adultery. Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Did he exclude the man who lusts after a child? We need to remember that God has let many civilizations die from the rot that grew out of their loathsome behavior. Jesus gives to every man that receives Him; Luke 10:19 "You see, I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the Enemy, so that nothing will harm you." No man has the excuse of "weakness", after having received God's divine grace to overcome.
- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2VP, precisely WHO is trying to excuse this guy? And what reality are you living in? We have a large group of people in this nation who proudly identify themselves as liberals who are pushing for normalizing behaviors that conservative Christians believe is terribly immoral. Now, what part of that statement is incorrect?
- idoj, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4@VP, I agree. Wish I could digg your thought of "One of the weaknesses of our society is people have compared themselves by themselves and determined these misnomers, ie liberal and conservative. Ascribing all ills to the class they themselves think they are not a part of" more than once." Well stated.
- DOGODSWILL, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2IF LIBERALS VIEW IT WRONG , THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP PUSHING TO GET liberals elected into offices of power to judge and make new laws to support such stuff.
- osko2052, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3Homosexuality used to be viewed as wrong and still is wrong but look where we are today in this country.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -10/+8Read your history idoj--the Greeks were big fans of pedophilia and was a widely accepted practice among soldiers. They believed that having sex with a boy before battle strengthened the man as well as the boy.
- ThoughtfulWi, on 05/19/2008, -6/+11On what basis do I fault this man? Well, you see Nanny, he broke the law. And he's a child molesting scumbag. And a scumbag is a scumbag, liberal, conservative, gay, straight or otherwise. I dare say YOU are posing as the moral RELATIVIST here, girlfriend.
- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Yes, he broke the law. What he did clearly labels him a scumbag. See my post below where I clear it up that I am in no way excusing what this man did. Although conservative Christian moral precepts do not permit that kind of behavior, he was not submitting himself to conservative Christian moral precepts when he did this. What he did was horrible. He should be prosecuted for it. Furthermore, Prestonwood acted very quickly in firing the man. They did the right thing. However, the point of my comment was that without the prior restraint of a moral law higher than mankind himself (i.e., coming from the Creator), you have no logical basis for declaring what this man did as wrong. All you have are what you wish to be so in society.
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9@Nanny,
You're essentially accusing liberals of being completely unable to tell right from wrong, and your proof is that you can make a slippery slope argument. I can't answer for parents who allow their children to wear skimpy clothes or watch sexual movies. But, even parents who do that would almost certainly agree that they don't want their kids to be raped. You're only guessing that society will decide that young children can consent to sex. I dare you to ask parents of kids wearing clothes you consider to be too skimpy whether they'd be okay with young children having sex with adults. Don't just assume that we're headed in that direction because liberal idiots can't tell right from wrong. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -8/+10@Nanny,
It strikes me as kind of ironic that you've said that people on digg have threatened your very humanity. I find posts such as yours that suggest or say outright that groups of people such as atheists or liberals can't be decent people and can't tell right from wrong to be dehumanizing. You haven't exactly said that, but you've said multiple times that you're convinced it will happen, and that we'll change our minds and become terrible, inhumane people because we don't share your political viewpoints or your religion.- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3E, I've been watching the trend over the past however many decades just since I've been on the planet. It's a clearly observable trend that only someone in deepest denial cannot see. It is a trend toward the relaxation of and elimination of the taboos regarding sexual behavior. It began with traditional marriage and has progressed through all the facets of permitting sex outside of marriage, and then progressed to lifting the taboo on homosexuality. It has followed a pattern. It is logical to think the pattern will continue along the same line. It is illogical to think it won't, that there is some predetermined point where it will stop, some point beyond which society will not go. You have no reason to think that. All you have is your subjective opinion that society will always recognize certain things as harmful. Please give me a logical reason to believe that is the case, considering it has clearly lifted taboo after taboo regarding sexual behavior and seems to be moving along the same path. Give me a logical reason to think that society will not also change its mind about whether or not other sexual taboos ought also to be lifted. Even now, many American parents are becoming ok with their underage daughters having sex as long as they use birth control and condoms. Schools are assigning sex drenched novels to kids to read, whereas in the past that would never have occurred. What's up with that, E?
- alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6"Even now, many American parents are becoming ok with their underage daughters having sex as long as they use birth control and condoms"
I don't think I know one parent that thinks they are "okay" with that. You're just suggesting that because they educate their kids about safe sex. They are being realistic. Abstinence does nothing if your child decides to be sexually active.
Also I don't think I see how acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of pedophilia. If anything age of consent has always increased. The majority of western society frowns upon pedophilia and it's been a long time since child brides have been accepted as normal. If the other party cannot consent then it should not be accepted by society.
"Schools are assigning sex drenched novels to kids to read, whereas in the past that would never have occurred. What's up with that, E?"
I would like for you to point out the sex filled novels you talk about.
"Give me a logical reason to think that society will not also change its mind about whether or not other sexual taboos ought also to be lifted"
Homosexuality was accepted by the Greeks and the Romans ( Who by the way condemned Pederasty.), and in China. So to act like this is a new trend isn't really logical. Homosexuality has been accepted before and God has yet to smite all of us from the face of the earth. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2AJ, I have read statements by and about parents who see it otherwise. The fact that you personally do not know anyone in your acquaintance who thinks that way proves nothing. Also, TV and movies portray acceptance of kids having sex as long as they protect themselves. Society generally follows suit, and has already begun.
I will be happy to point out those novels. Will be back later this afternoon to do just that. Please check back then. I have a whole list, but have to go out for awhile. In the meantime, you can ponder titles such as How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, Bless Me Ultima, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and others. Possession of novels like that would have gotten me expelled in high school, but today they are assigned by teachers themselves. Oh I know, it's all in the name of *literature* and *art.* wink/wink - alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6"AJ, I have read statements by and about parents who see it otherwise."
How many? five or six? Is that supposed to representative of the whole of parents? I've grown up during this generation, I know that teenagers have sex. But having that knowledge will I be okay with my kids having sex? Hell no! But it would be naive of me to think that they are always going to be on the straight and narrow.
Teenagers are only human, they make mistakes. They learn from those mistakes. It's more responsible of me to teach my kids ways of having safe and protected sex. It is irresponsible to believe that teaching my kids about abstinence will eliminate their sex drive.
As for your comment about the books you've mentioned. I don't recall One flew over the cuckoo's nest drenched in sexuality. Granted the R.P. Macmurphy was put in prison, atleast by his account, for "Fightin' and *****' to much". I guess the novel is drenched in sexuality for having a few passing references to sex. I guess you're from the same crowd you thinks Catcher in the rye as a demonic book for having the word "*****" in it. Which even the main character denounces as lewd. We should probably ban 1984, one of the most important novels of the past century for its overtly sexual themes. I guess the sex overshadows the message of the novel. I'm only mentioning those books because I'm sure Catcher in the Rye will be mentioned, although I'm not too sure about 1984. As for the other novels I can't comment on them for I have not read them. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5" In the meantime, you can ponder titles such as How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, Bless Me Ultima, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and others"
Instead of having us guess, why don't you tell us exactly what's wrong with those books? Some people think that any discussion of nudity in any context is inappropriate at any age group. The classic example I've used is Things Fall Apart, which appeared on a list of books that some conservative group wanted to ban (I remember you were commenting on that thread). It does have descriptions of nudity, but in the context of tribal rituals. Not all nudity is pornographic, and neither is every hint in a book that its characters are sexual beings.
@Alkajazz: For people who believe that teenagers should not be exposed to the idea that humans are sexual beings in the books they read, 1984 would most certainly have to be banned. Remember how the main character's wife would remind him to do his duty to the party every week in an attempt to produce a child? - alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4"@Alkajazz: For people who believe that teenagers should not be exposed to the idea that humans are sexual beings in the books they read, 1984 would most certainly have to be banned. Remember how the main character's wife would remind him to do his duty to the party every week in an attempt to produce a child?"
And Winston's obsession with sex as a form of rebellion against the party;And the numerous times Winston and Julia have sex. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5"And Winston's obsession with sex as a form of rebellion against the party;And the numerous times Winston and Julia have sex."
Apparently 1984 didn't scar my psyche quite as much as some would expect it to. I didn't even remember those things. Perhaps I'll read it again.
I wonder if The Scarlet Letter is also on Nannybell's list? After all, it describes adultery. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2E and AJ,
I am speaking about novels that contain very graphic descriptions of sex of various kinds. Many are very recent, written in the 1980s, 1990s and later. Some were written in the last few decades.
You said One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest isn't so bad. Go here and read a number of excerpts from it. http://www.sibbap.org/booksmp.htm
That isn't wholesome reading material for kids. You see nothing wrong with teenagers being assigned novels that contain numerous graphic descriptions of sex and vulgar material? That's the slippery slope I'm talking about. You're on it but you don't even know. There was a time when adults prevented kids from reading graphic descriptions of sex. Today they encourage it. You're on that slippery slope without realizing it.
You can also look on that website for the other two novels I named. It will tell you in great detail what is objectionable for kids in those novels:
http://www.sibbap.org/bookshl.htm
http://www.sibbap.org/booksag.htm
If you really want more titles, I'll give them to you.
"It is irresponsible to believe that teaching my kids about abstinence will eliminate their sex drive."
Did I ever say anything as ignorant as that? It would be so good if you people would address things I actually say. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6The excerpts from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest don't glorify sex. They don't describe it for the sake of being pornographic. Do you think that any description of sex or nudity in a book makes it foul and inappropriate for even 11th and 12th graders? It sounds like you're so worried about that slippery slope that you won't take a single step onto it, and instead want to declare any hint of nudity or sexual activity as inappropriate for even those children who are just about to be adults.
A lot of the quotes from the books you mentioned are in that category (they mention sexual acts and/or nudity without glorifying it). I haven't read How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, but a bunch of the quotes on that website seem to indicate that a character is having second thoughts about premarital sex.
Ah, and this must be the list where I saw Things Fall Apart, though they don't give any excerpts. It's particularly sad that people want to ban that one from schools. I'm forever grateful that my 11th grade English teacher included it in the curriculum. It's a viewpoint that we don't often hear from, and a few descriptions of tribal rituals involving nudity certainly don't make it pornographic. - alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5I think you need to read One flew over the cuckoo's nest instead of reading all the questionable material in it. Like I said before with 1984 the sexual themes will probably overshadow the message of the book for you. I doubt you will ever read it (if you already have I applaud you) because you've stated before you've "grown" out of non-fiction. One flew over the cuckoo's nest wasn't required reading until my senior year. I think Seniors are mature enough to handle the content in some of these books, I would even say Juniors. They are practically adults at that time. But I guess I'm on the slippery slope of immorality because I read One flew over the cuckoo's nest, Slaughterhouse five, Gates of Fire and Catcher in the Rye before I graduated high school.
- Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1AJ, I understand appreciating literature for the sake of literature, and I appreciate good writing. These novels may be well written (some of them, maybe) but the subject matter is something else. There is a difference between recognizing that someone has talent and how he actuallly uses that talent. Crude and crass are not good uses of talent. But these are crude and crass times, and a lot of people today don't know any different.
- eir574, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4So no writer should portray a crude and crass character? You make no distinction between a pornographic book and a book that mentions sex for the sake of developing a character? (I mean, some of the descriptions of sex that those pages you linked to objected to were from the point of view of a girl who was trying to resist the urge to have sex!) Do you also think that Michelangelo's David should not be viewed because it's a nude sculpture?
Is there any type of nudity that you don't see as inappropriate? My parents have a picture of my sister and myself when we were both quite young, and we're naked. Would you call it pornographic, or did my parents just capture on film an innocent scene that was repeated daily in our home when my sister and I were babies? - Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I don't recall mentioning nudity per se, or even uttering the word in this discussion. You on the other hand have mentioned it several times now. I am addressing an issue that is a valid point for discussion. Some may agree, some may disagree, as one would expect; but the tone of your comments is clearly that of, "Whaddya say about that, huh, huh??" You interject the ridiculous idea that I consider normal family photos of babies to be pornographic. Where did you get an idea as absurd as that to paint me with? It would appear you are stereotyping me. It isn't my responsibility that you are angry at me because I believe society is going down the tubes, and because I believe that those who are responsible for eradicating traditional morality in this country will also in the future be pushing the envelope even further, to the point of normalizing the sexualization of kids and pedophilia. That's a logical conclusion for a person to draw based on obvious trends over the decades.
- Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2BTW, I clearly stated that I am discussing novels in the context of what is assigned to kids to read in public school, not what adults can choose to read for themselves. My comments about a crude and crass culture relate to such a culture lacking the necessary thinking apparatus to properly discern that kids in school should not be assigned novels with such adult material. Actually, you are making my point for me in saying (either you or AJ or both said it) that kids in high school possess the maturity level to read novels that contain graphic descriptions of people having sex, graphic descriptions of relatives and nonrelatives molesting little girls, etc. In the past, no teacher or school administrator would have thought it appropriate to assign material like that to kids to read, because society still possessed within itself the discernment that it isn't appropriate to introduce such material to kids, that kids are not psychologically ready to deal with the ramifications of it, not to mention that parents did not send their kids to public school to be given highly sexualized material to read. But now a huge segment of society (--dare I say liberals? Yes, I do think so--) thinks otherwise, which illustrates my point that we have slipped further down that slope toward sexualizing kids. It's painfully obvious.
- alkajazz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5"TW, I clearly stated that I am discussing novels in the context of what is assigned to kids to read in public school, not what adults can choose to read for themselves."
One flew over the cukcoo's nest is usually assigned to Juniors and Seniors! Are they not old enough to read this material? They aren't "kids" anymore. - eir574, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5I brought up nudity because that seems to be part of the reason that some people want certain books banned from school (as I said, I'm thinking specifically of Things Fall Apart, which was on that list). And, because in another digg thread a week or two ago, there were people who insisted that absolutely any picture of a naked child is child porn. I didn't know if you were in that crowd, so I asked.
A lot of the quotes on the web pages you linked to were not graphic descriptions of the mechanics of sexual activity.
I wouldn't say that I'm angry with you specifically, though you did spark some anger in me. It's more disappointment and bafflement that someone can sit upon a high horse and declare everyone else responsible for the decline of society just because she doesn't understand how they construct their systems of ethics without believing in a deity. You're the one insisting that atheists and liberals can't be trusted to remain moral people. Societal mores have always changed. You're the one saying that if we don't hold to your world view, then pretty soon we'll be condoning sex with children. You don't leave room for the possibility that someone could think differently than you without sliding all the way down that slippery slope you've constructed. There's no doubt that there are problems in societies, but you're turning far more people into enemies than you need to. Instead of saying we're all in this together and even though we view the world differently, we can all agree to hold the line against certain abhorrent things, you say you and your kind are the only ones who can be trusted to continue to be decent, trustworthy people. - Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2AJ, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the idea of whether or not high school juniors and seniors are still kids. They definitely are from the perspective of anyone past the age of about 37-40 and beyond.
- alkajazz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5NB, yes I realize I am biased because I'm only nineteen. But my parents thought I was mature enough at 17 and 18 to read books such as these, make my own decisions, think for myself. And no, I don't come a from a liberal atheistic family either.
- Nannybell, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1E,
I did not contribute to any discussions about nudity.
"A lot of the quotes on the web pages you linked to were not graphic descriptions of the mechanics of sexual activity."
The excerpts contain graphic sex, allusions to sex expressed in graphic terms, gross vulgarities, profuse profanity, and just in general XXX-rated tripe unfit for kids to consume. Are you defending that material as good for kids to read?
You have been avoiding answering my statements about the clear trend in society away from taboos regarding traditional matters such as traditional marriage, fidelity in marriage, the necessity of marriage for sexual activity, premarital sex, and homosexuality. I asked you very pointedly whether or not you recognize that the trend exists, but let me restate it.
It started with relaxing morals concerning traditional marriage, especially concerning living together, multiple sexual partners, lack of requirement for even so much as a personal commitment before having sex. Yes, all of these things have happened throughout time, but the difference is that our society in the last 50 years has begun sanctioning them. More recently it has progressed toward normalizing sexual behaviors other than heterosexuality. And at the same time, society has begun presenting to underage persons blatant graphic sexuality in novels, TV programs, movies and music. Yes, underage people have engaged in sex throughout time, but now we are handing it to them on a platter. We are also handing them condoms. That wouldn't have happened before, because society did not sanction out-of- wedlock sex. Today it does.
Do you or do you not recognize that we have progressed from a standard that protected traditional marriage and did not sanction sexuality in any other setting, to a situation where various forms of sexuality are being normalized, including non-heterosexual, and that kids are being given sexualized material to read that was considered inappropriate for kids just a few years back? Is that or is that not a descent down a slope away from high standards at one end toward lower standards at the other? And since it is clearly that, what logic would prevent me from assuming it will not continue? The logic of your wishful thinking on the matter?
- alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6"Even now, many American parents are becoming ok with their underage daughters having sex as long as they use birth control and condoms"
- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3E, I've been watching the trend over the past however many decades just since I've been on the planet. It's a clearly observable trend that only someone in deepest denial cannot see. It is a trend toward the relaxation of and elimination of the taboos regarding sexual behavior. It began with traditional marriage and has progressed through all the facets of permitting sex outside of marriage, and then progressed to lifting the taboo on homosexuality. It has followed a pattern. It is logical to think the pattern will continue along the same line. It is illogical to think it won't, that there is some predetermined point where it will stop, some point beyond which society will not go. You have no reason to think that. All you have is your subjective opinion that society will always recognize certain things as harmful. Please give me a logical reason to believe that is the case, considering it has clearly lifted taboo after taboo regarding sexual behavior and seems to be moving along the same path. Give me a logical reason to think that society will not also change its mind about whether or not other sexual taboos ought also to be lifted. Even now, many American parents are becoming ok with their underage daughters having sex as long as they use birth control and condoms. Schools are assigning sex drenched novels to kids to read, whereas in the past that would never have occurred. What's up with that, E?
- chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -11/+12"Liberal society is already laying the groundwork for accepting the sexualization of children"
Nice to hear that you're blaming liberals for your high-ranking pastors. I thought taking responsibility for your actions was a conservative trait? Whatever happened to that? - ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -7/+9Amazing. You are blaming some unseen group for this Christians actions. It never fails.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -5/+10Nannybell,
I have a short list for you. This is a list of recent Christian leaders involved in sex scandals. This list doesn't even include Conservative politicians who claim to by strong Christians:
Ted Haggard
Paul Barnes
Lonnie Latham
Richard Roberts
Bishop Thomas Wesley Weeks and Juanita Bynum
Bishop Earl Paulk
Coy Privette
Joe Barron
At what point do you take responsibility for your religion, and the inability of it's leaders to follow the holy word of God? At what point do you stop blaming others, and look at yourself, as the reason America is becoming less and less moral? The Christian right has had a stronghold in this country for several decades now. In that time, what we have seen is your religion promoting war and intolerance, it's leaders being involved in theft, corruption, pedophilia, prostitution, etc. etc. etc.
When will you stop allowing your religion to corrupt America?- chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5I don't even care about blaming the religion. What does show a lack of basic cognitive function is to blame those ***** HARLOT SLUTS for their dear leaders for wanting to have sex with children,
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5Wow, I missed that in her rambling. It is everyone else's fault. What a ***** loser...
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2I went back and read her post several times and I cannot for the life of me understand what either of you are talking about. Are you two sharing a bong?
- chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3"I went back and read her post several times and I cannot for the life of me understand what either of you are talking about. Are you two sharing a bong?"
Liberals are turning children into harlots, which causes those poor misunderstood pastors to fantasize about barely pubescent children. You're not very smart, flip. - flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1chaosium--Here is her whole post--the one you guys responded to on this thread and I don't see the quote that you have there--is it me? Oh, and thanks for the personal attack.
---------------------------------------
This problem is rampant in the human race, period. Pastors, teachers, politicians are high profile persons in whom we place trust, so we hear about them in the media. But this thing is everywhere in all parts of society. We all recoil from it now, but liberal society will not always do so. Liberal society is already laying the groundwork for accepting the sexualization of children. If not, then why do they push highly sexualized novels on kids in public schools? Why do they let underage girls dress like harlots? Why do they permit kids to watch sexualized TV programs and movies? Why do they basically tell kids it's ok to engage in premarital sex?
So to the liberals who believe in moral relativism, tell me ... on what basis do you fault this man? I already know your answer ... "because the girl is too young to consent." What will your answer be when society, in its further descent into moral madness and decay, decides the consent thing isn't really relevant, as it will have decided that sex is something any age group can intelligently consent to?
------------------------------------
Now show me in this post where she said what you are attributing to her. And please, try to refrain from personal attacks. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2You people are incorrect about what I was saying.
First of all, I hold this *pastor* completely responsible for his own actions. I don't know the man, so cannot say why it might not have been evident that he on some level had observable problems. He must have hidden them well. Also, it's possible that Prestonwood has become so large that it is not maintaining a close enough relationship with its people to monitor what's going on with them. That should change. All churches should take extreme care to be as knowledgeable as possible about persons it places in positions of trust. But if a person is adept at hiding his real character, then...
Prestonwood fired the man right away, so please do not compare this situation to Catholicism wherein pedophile priests were just reassigned rather than being booted out immediately.
My statement that this occurs in all facets of society is simply a fact. We hear about it more when it happens with pastors, teachers, politicians, police, etc., because those are people in positions of trust and the media reports on it more. Christians are no less prone to this evil than anyone else. We SHOULD be less prone, but that's just not always the case. It's possible the man was never really a Christian in his heart and mind in the first place. Or if he was, he might never have submitted himself to the Lordship of Christ. He's in his 50s. His proclivity toward young girls was possibly longstanding, but I don't know.
So, I in no way excuse this man for what he did. And I believe churches should keep closer tabs on its pastors, teachers and members alike. The modern church has trended away from holding one another to a high standard of accountability, and that's a serious mistake.
THAT SAID, we move on to the heart of my comment, which was: Without the prior restraint of a nonchanging standard of morality that comes from belief in God, we are at the mercy of the prevaling winds of societal change. There is a difference between the moral precepts of Christianity and whether or not the Christian himself lives up to those precepts. Without that unchanging moral standard which exists outside of society itself, you have no logical reason to have hope that society will always see morals the way YOU do. That hope is purely subjective on your part. - ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6@flip
"Now show me in this post where she said what you are attributing to her. And please, try to refrain from personal attacks."
Funny, from the guy who had to attack us, with the "are you two sharing a bong". I always forget that "do as I say, not as I do" stuff.
"Liberal society is already laying the groundwork for accepting the sexualization of children. If not, then why do they push highly sexualized novels on kids in public schools? Why do they let underage girls dress like harlots?"
See? She is blaming the "liberals" and their letting teenage girls "dress like harlot" for illegal, inappropriate behavior.
Never mind that rape has been around forever. I guess they were dressing like "harlots" asking for it in the bible too, eh?
It is a garbage, *****, "it's not our fault, you make us do it", disgusting argument, that passes her lack of moral and ethical control off on someone else. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5"It is a garbage, *****, "it's not our fault, you make us do it", disgusting argument, that passes her lack of moral and ethical control off on someone else."
It's not so much that Nannybell is passing her personal failings off on everyone else, but that she's saying her religion and political affiliations give her the one, true way to morality and that the rest of us are contributing to the downfall of society. That's what I find so extraordinarily arrogant about her position. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2E, it would be good if you would make sure you understand what I am saying before you comment on it. You've been doing that a lot lately. You are very exacting in your criticisms of me and others, so please apply the same standards to yourself. On a thread the other day, I merely asked you if you considered yourself to lean to the left, and you went on for awhile reading quite a bit into that question as though you think you know. In this dicussion, I am speaking of mankind in general. Right now it tends to be liberals to the left of center who favor normalizing behaviors that previously were considered immoral. And there are conservatives who actually engage in the immoral behaviors privately but would never come out and admit it. And there are Christians who for whatever reason know better but fail to live up to expectations. But in general it is liberals pushing to normalize what to Christians is highly immoral. If you are not one of those, fine; but in general, it isn't conservatives doing that.
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6"On a thread the other day, I merely asked you if you considered yourself to lean to the left, and you went on for awhile reading quite a bit into that question as though you think you know."
Yes, I asked you why in the world that was relevant to the conversation. Since I know you think so poorly of liberals in general, I was probably also a little on the defensive. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2P.S.
Did either one of you read my post above from almost 6 hours ago? Please inform yourselves before you speak. - eir574, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Yes, I did read it. You said that you blame the pastor for his actions, but that beyond that, you think those who don't believe in god "are at the mercy of the prevaling winds of societal change," which I interpret to mean that you don't trust atheists to remain moral people because you don't believe our morality has a solid foundation, no matter how many times we try to explain it to you.
- flip2trip, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2@ssn697---
First of all, asking if you two are sharing a bong in no way reflects on your respective intelligence and was not a personal attack but merely an attempt at humor. If this somehow was felt to be a personal attack then I apologize, but understand it was not meant that way.
As for the other part of your post you are definitely reading something into nan's statement that isn't there. I believe you are letting your personal prejudices draw incorrect conclusions from her statement. She never said, nor did she imply that the "poor" pastor wasn't at fault, nor did she allude to that, at all. Nor do I believe that she alluded rape was the fault of the victim because of how they dress.
I also found it odd that you still responded to my post when nannybell had clearly answered your accusations in the post directly above yours.
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5Ok you are trying to prove that Christianity is bad because of people who break the tenants of Christianity. How does that work? How is this any different than saying all Atheists are like Stalin?
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11I think they're trying to show that belief in god is not sufficient to keep people from committing evil acts, and that pedophilia not all the fault of the non-religious moral relativists whom Nanny is railing against. She is making a direct connection between what she calls moral relativism (which boils down to lack of a belief in god) and the decline of society. As an example of that decline, she talks about things like children wearing what she considers to be skimpy clothes. She thinks this is an indication that I, as an atheist who leans towards liberal social positions, will someday approve of children having sex with adults. Somehow, Nanny is saying that only religious people who are politically conservative can tell the difference between right and wrong. Some of the rest of us may be able to keep it straight today, but who knows what we'll be capable of tomorrow?
It's a straw man argument, it's ridiculous, and it's offensive. I know I shouldn't let digg upset me, but I find it highly distressing that there are people who truly believe that. It's the height of arrogance, and, frankly, it's disgusting. What kind of bubble are people living in that they think that they're the only ones who can be trusted to be halfway decent human beings? - flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6I'm not exactly sure that is what she was trying to say; however, I don't think we can label one segment of society for all the ills of said society. It's definitely a larger problem than simply saying the Liberals or Conservatives or the Christians or the Atheists cause all the problems. There is enough blame to go around.
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9I agree that the problem is complex. The person who commits a particular act takes all the blame, of course. I think Nanny is talking about society as a whole, and she says that liberals and moral relativists (i.e. atheists) are responsible for what she sees as an increased rate of acceptance of these types of acts because they sexualize children and because, as she's said many times, she's convinced that they will eventually get rid of the concept of the age of consent and will not just allow, but promote sex between adults and children.
That's why I'm offended. Nanny has just blamed me for a problem she sees in society. She talks about parents who let their kids wear skimpy clothes and watch sexually charged movies, but she places the real blame on me because I don't share her political and religious views. Even though I may be a decent person now, that's apparently a facade that could fall any day.
I'm starting to repeat myself, but the claim is outrageous, and though I've had good conversations with Nannybell in the past, she's struck a nerve here. Holding everyone who doesn't share her political and religious viewpoints responsible for the downfall of society was going just a little too far, and I can't even conceive of the arrogance necessary to make that charge. She has said before that some of the atheists on digg have said dehumanizing things to her. If that's true, then this is complete hypocrisy, as she's just said that liberals and atheists can't be trusted to tell right from wrong. We can't be trusted to empathize with our fellow human beings and know that there are certain things we can't do to them. We can't love our children enough to want to protect them from sexual predator (which is what getting rid of the age of consent means).
Yeah, I guess I'm pretty angry with Nannybell. I didn't realize before now that she thinks so little of atheists and of people outside her own end of the political spectrum.
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11I think they're trying to show that belief in god is not sufficient to keep people from committing evil acts, and that pedophilia not all the fault of the non-religious moral relativists whom Nanny is railing against. She is making a direct connection between what she calls moral relativism (which boils down to lack of a belief in god) and the decline of society. As an example of that decline, she talks about things like children wearing what she considers to be skimpy clothes. She thinks this is an indication that I, as an atheist who leans towards liberal social positions, will someday approve of children having sex with adults. Somehow, Nanny is saying that only religious people who are politically conservative can tell the difference between right and wrong. Some of the rest of us may be able to keep it straight today, but who knows what we'll be capable of tomorrow?
- Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3E, be angry all you wish, but please prove to me that others will always see things as you do. Show me the logical basis for it, other than just your own faith in human nature. Your faith is misplaced. Your idea of empathy is not and will not always be shared by all. Your view is gullible, naive, subjective, and based on wishful thinking. Again, show me the logical basis for believing mankind will always hold to certain levels of morality as you define morality. I'm speaking of the human race itself, regardless of political persuasion or moral point of view, without the prior restraint of the Creator who declares certain things to be right and wrong because He says so. Without that, you have nothing.
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -4/+8I can demonstrate quite clearly that your claims of Christianity controlling morality as false. There are MANY, MANY, paths to a moral life. Christianity hasn't been one of them.
I don't use an unseen God as a crutch to force me to be moral. My kids both grew up without church in their life. Neither of them drink, smoke, or swear. Both are outstanding students.
Morality is a teachable, learn-able trait (sociopaths/mentally ill notwithstanding). Pretending that ONLY through Christianity can morality be controlled/set is so offensive, and so narrow minded, I struggle to believe you are making that claim (especially with the hundreds upon hundreds of examples to the contrary).
I don't NEED a "Creator" to tell me what is right and wrong. I don't need the fear of "hell" to keep me in line. I don't need the excuse that "he died for my sins, so anything I do, now that I am "saved" is actually okay in the end" tp cover for deviant behavior.Saying that YOU do tells me more about your innate lack of self control than anything else. - Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2What you DO need is a logical basis for arguing right and wrong with people in the future who will tell you that the old guy down the street has a normal desire to have sex with your underage granddaughter, and that your underage granddaughter can legally consent, because the age of consent will have been lowered to 10. Give me your logical argument against that, and leave out "it harms my granddaughter" and "she can't consent" -- because society will have changed its thinking on that. Or maybe it will be your great-granddaughter, depending on how much time passes before this comes to pass. Because it will.
- inobla, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7Damn ssn! You are spot on. I feel exactly the same way you do, though, I could try for days and not state it so eloquently! The idea that Christianity or religion in general has some kind of monopoly on morality is well beyond absurd.
- eir574, on 05/19/2008, -2/+7"Show me the logical basis for it, other than just your own faith in human nature"
Haven't we had this conversation before? Certainly it's been all over digg before. Humans share enough instinctive traits to be able to learn to live together:
1) The will to survive
2) The desire to see our children survive and prosper
3) The desire to throw our lot in with a community of humans to improve our odds of survival and prosperity.
4) The desire to be in the unpleasant physiological state of the fight or flight response for as little time as possible.
5) The ability to see the world through another's eyes starts developing at about age 4.
6) In order to keep society functioning, the needs of the many will sometimes outweigh the needs of the few.
7) The majority should not impose its will on the minority all of the time, as they may find themselves in the minority someday.
I'm not going to kill you because I don't want you to kill me, and I recognize that in order to hold the rest of society to the rules (whatever they may end up being), I have to be held to them myself. Otherwise, everyone could think like that and the rules would mean nothing at all.
I'm not going to have sex with a child because I recognize that it's not in the child's best interests, that he lacks the capacity to consent, that his parents wouldn't want that for him, and that I wouldn't want it for my own children.
The challenge is to find a set of rules that are necessary and fair, and a system for enforcement. Many Christians on digg have said that with law given to us by a deity, we don't have to worry about that step. But, then why do so many Christians disagree on how to interpret that supposedly inalterable moral law? We face the same problem with this absolute law of yours and with figuring it out for ourselves from the ground up.
Having gotten a nigh
- ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -4/+8I can demonstrate quite clearly that your claims of Christianity controlling morality as false. There are MANY, MANY, paths to a moral life. Christianity hasn't been one of them.
- chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5I don't even care about blaming the religion. What does show a lack of basic cognitive function is to blame those ***** HARLOT SLUTS for their dear leaders for wanting to have sex with children,
- flip2trip, on 05/19/2008, -9/+10Thumbs up Nannybell--I can't tell you how many times I have said that the pedophile will become the next protected class in this society if something isn't done to stem the tide of immorality running rampant in the world, but more specifically this great country.