Google censors TheologyOnLine!

[Knight]

Google (http://www.google.com) censors TheologyOnLine!

Recently TheologyOnLine purchased several "keywords" from Google (http://www.google.com) (Google (http://www.google.com) is one of the most popular search engines on the internet). Buying "keywords" means that when internet users search for certain words or terms within Google (http://www.google.com) a TheologyOnLine ad-link would be displayed in a prominent position at Google (http://www.google.com).

Our campaign ran for a couple days and then I recieved the following e-mail from Google (http://www.google.com).Thank you for advertising with Google AdWords. Our goal is to help you create high-impact advertising that reaches your target audience and maximizes your investment.

After reviewing your account, I have found that one or more of your ads or keywords does not meet our guidelines. These results are outlined in the report below.

In order to ensure your ad's success and relevance, our AdWords Specialists review each ad and keyword for compliance with our Editorial Guidelines. We disable keywords and temporarily suspend ads that don't meet our guidelines.

If a keyword has been disabled, your ad(s) will no longer be displayed for searches on this keyword. If an ad has been suspended, please edit it based on our suggestions below. Save your changes to automatically resubmit it for review. To log in to your account, please go to: https://adwords.google.com/select/

----------------------------------------------
Campaign: 'TOL Campaign,' Ad Group: 'Ad Group #1'
----------------------------------------------

AD TEXT:

TheologyOnLine
The original theology forum.
Always open for debate!
www.theologyonline.com

Action taken: Suspended - Pending Revision
Issue(s): Unacceptable Content
~~~~~~~~~

SUGGESTIONS:
-> Content: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain "The UN isn't only worthless.... its EVIL! (posted by Knight)", "Homosexuality is a wickedness (posted by Freak)". As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site.


---------------------
Read below for definitions of the issues we discovered:

Unacceptable Content: Google believes strongly in freedom of expression and therefore offers broad access to content across the web without censoring search results. Please note that the decisions we make
concerning advertising in no way affect the search results we deliver.


---------------------
We're confident these changes will improve the performance of your ads and increase the return on your investment. For more information on performance tips and ad requirements, please see:

Optimize your ads:
https://adwords.google.com/select/tips.html

The AdWords Editorial Guidelines:
https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html

Please feel free to email us at adwords-support@google.com if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

The Google AdWords TeamWhat are your thoughts on this issue? Furthermore... isn't it interesting (maybe telling) which two examples that Google (http://www.google.com) cited as to why they were suspending our account?

[Goose]

ROTFL

Oh man. Maybe someone should tell them about all the EVIL things that you can find on Google. I did a search for a children's book and I found porn pics, even with the content moderator on. Go figure.

[Goose]

Google is EVIL!

[Knight]

Originally posted by Goose
ROTFL

Oh man. Maybe someone should tell them about all the EVIL things that you can find on Google. I did a search for a children's book and I found porn pics, even with the content moderator on. Go figure. Goose, I think your thinking what I am thinking.

They could have found a number of more harsh things being said at TOL.

But getting mad about someone saying "the UN is evil"?

That strikes me as a tad odd.

Furthermore.....
TheologyOnLine is a forum! People say things on forums!

[Goose]

I totally agree. I find it very odd too.

Not only that, but Google is huge. If you're not on there, then that's like not being in the phone book.

[Freak]

Unbelieveable!!!

Google says: SUGGESTIONS:
-> Content: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain "The UN isn't only worthless.... its EVIL! (posted by Knight)", "Homosexuality is a wickedness (posted by Freak)". As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site.

I guess Knight and I are too radical for Google. What has happened to our world....
:noid:

[Goose]

Google labels TOL worse then porn sites. hehe

[Freak]

I think I know what's behind this.....:nono:

[Flipper]

Freak:

Is it... Demons?


And for the rest of you:

You are supporters of private property, right? And TOL (if I recall rightly) had an on-site banner ad pulled because it didn't fit in with the owner's beliefs, right?

Well boo-hoo. Google doesn't endorse homophobes. Awwww diddums. It's not like you're dropped from the search engine or anything, they just don't want your money because they don't want to be seen endorsing your "righteous hate" (which you all proudly profess).

If you don't like it, don't spend your advertising dollars at Goo.. Oh, you can't. But it's hypocritical to whine about it. Private ownership, people!

The UN thing is a bit odd, but it may be an 'avoiding controversy during wartime' thing. Or maybe it's one thing a list of automated risk topics that, if spidered by a bot, slides the site on which it is contained into the list of minority tinfoil-hat wacko brigades.

I would be concerned if they dropped you from their search engine entirely, because that would be a free speech matter. This is just one of taste.

[Goose]

It's called hypocrisy Flip. It's not like I'm going to write my congressman. It's just silly.

[lucybelle]

Google recieves my personal BOOT TO THE HEAD! :down:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Flipper
Freak:

Is it... Demons?


And for the rest of you:

You are supporters of private property, right? And TOL (if I recall rightly) had an on-site banner ad pulled because it didn't fit in with the owner's beliefs, right?

Well boo-hoo. Google doesn't endorse homophobes. Awwww diddums. It's not like you're dropped from the search engine or anything, they just don't want your money because they don't want to be seen endorsing your "righteous hate" (which you all proudly profess).

If you don't like it, don't spend your advertising dollars at Goo.. Oh, you can't. But it's hypocritical to whine about it. Private ownership, people!

The UN thing is a bit odd, but it may be an 'avoiding controversy during wartime' thing. Or maybe it's one thing a list of automated risk topics that, if spidered by a bot, slides the site on which it is contained into the list of minority tinfoil-hat wacko brigades.

I would be concerned if they dropped you from their search engine entirely, because that would be a free speech matter. This is just one of taste.

Yes, Flipper, Google's bad judgement comes from the same demons that have blinded you.

[Flipper]

So, and let's be very clear on this, are you suggesting I'm demonically possessed?

[Sage]

Oh no the demons are coming to eat my soul. When people have different opinions than you i guess it is just those darn demons blinding them. I mean what else could it be?

Anyway's Google is a business its goal is to make money. Google is just doing what they believe is in their best interest. I mean heck if i owned a normal business i probaly would have done the same thing. I would just be looking out for my finances.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Flipper
So, and let's be very clear on this, are you suggesting I'm demonically possessed?

This is something you have stated, not me.

Since you asked I'll give you my honest opinion. It's possible you have a demon but more then likely you are simply blinded by a demon.

The Holy Scriptures tells us:

If our Message is obscure to anyone, it's not because we're holding back in any way. No, it's because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they won't have to bother believing a Truth they can't see. They're stone-blind to the dayspring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us the best picture of God we'll ever get.

[mingus]

I never did like Google, Google SUCKS !

[okinrus]

I think I found this site with google :)
google has a huge database of newsgroups
that debate these same topics.

[Goose]

Google took over usenet didn't they?

[okinrus]

Just deja news. Nobody really owns usenet.

[Goose]

Ah, that's what I meant.

[KS Presby]

Apparently Google likes to censor conservatives since they singled out the UN comment.

[KS Presby]

I think I will post this to my favorite political board, FreeRepublic.com

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak


This is something you have stated, not me. No it was something he asked you. That funny little mark at the end of his sentence is called a "question mark" since it signifies a question.

Sheesh! Speaking of unable to see...

Since you asked I'll give you my honest opinion. It's possible you have a demon but more then likely you are simply blinded by a demon. You refused my challenge to diagnose my status by asking your deity directly, perhaps you'll do that for good ole Flipper.

The Holy Scriptures tells us:

If our Message is obscure to anyone, it's not because we're holding back in any way. No, it's because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they won't have to bother believing a Truth they can't see. They're stone-blind to the dayspring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us the best picture of God we'll ever get. This sounds more like the "gospel according to Jay Barlett".

How about chapter and verse for this supposed citation...

[Zakath]

Knight,

It's a free country. Use one of the other web search engines.

You might always try an economic boycott of "Google" and see how effective that would be... ;)

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath
Knight,

It's a free country. Use one of the other web search engines.

You might always try an economic boycott of "Google" and see how effective that would be... ;) I say we just hack'em. :D

[Flipper]

Zakath wrote:


This sounds more like the "gospel according to Jay Barlett".

How about chapter and verse for this supposed citation...

I was rather wondering that.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath
Knight,

It's a free country. Use one of the other web search engines.

You might always try an economic boycott of "Google" and see how effective that would be... ;) Ya know... you atheists are a tad frustrating.

It isn't like I posted this thread because I felt my rights were being violated or I was going to start a "boycott Google" campaign.

TheologyOnLione is a forum. And on forums people discuss things. All kinds of things!

This topic is one of those "things".

You may or may not find this topic interesting.

If you don't find it interesting don't participate on this thread.

Google has every right to deny my dollar yet I have every right to point out their hypocritical judgment and mock them. :D

[Flipper]

Hypocritical judgement? In what way?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Flipper
Hypocritical judgement? In what way? How do YOU think?

[PureX]

I don't agree with any form of censorship. People are perfectly capable of accepting or rejecting information as they see fit, they do not need me or anyone else telling them what they can or can't know about. But I do find it ironic that some Christians would get in such a huff about being censored when Christians themselves are notorious for trying to censor everyone else.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX
I don't agree with any form of censorship.Are you sure about that?

Lets test that statement....

Should those who wish to sell pictures of young girls being raped be censored or not?

You continue...People are perfectly capable of accepting or rejecting information as they see fit, they do not need me or anyone else telling them what they can or can't know about. But I do find it ironic that some Christians would get in such a huff about being censored when Christians themselves are notorious for trying to censor everyone else. Again, who is in a "huff"?

I simply started this thread to discuss what I feel to be an interesting topic. I am not in a "huff" nor do I seek retribution against Google or anything else.

[Prisca]

Gee, isn’t it odd that those who would normally be in an uproar over censorship change their tune when it concerns a conservative Christian forum. It’s true that Christians would like to censor content that exploits women and children, that violates laws of public decency, or that encourages or condones illegal or harmful behavior. But we are not for censoring the “lawful” expression of individuality or creativity. As Goose pointed out:

“Maybe someone should tell them about all the EVIL things that you can find on Google. I did a search for a children's book and I found porn pics, even with the content moderator on.”

[Knight]

Sweet avatar Becky!

[Prisca]

Thank you, sir!

[Flipper]

Knight wrote:
How do YOU think?

Well, I don't recall Google advocating one way or another before this came out. So Google don't accept ads from homophobic organizations. That's news to me, but I don't see the hypocrisy.

Now, if they dropped you from their search engine, that would be hypocritical.

[Flipper]

Becky:

Gee, isn’t it odd that those who would normally be in an uproar over censorship change their tune when it concerns a conservative Christian forum.

Perhaps you missed the part when I said that I would find another search engine if Google dropped TOL from their listings altogether.

Yes, I hold free speech in the highest regard. I also hold the rights of private ownership in high regard also. In this case, one is not trumping the other, so I see no reason to get particularly upset.

Actually, I'm mildly amused. Many of you chaps seem to be at your self-righteously indignant happiest when postulating a censor-happy Christian society (a few honorable exceptions, perhaps Jefferson) but you don't seem to like it when your own message is slightly obstructed. I respectfully suggest that if I tried to take out a banner ad on TOL that stated "Why not go Gay today?" or "Reject the teaching of the Nazarene", I expect that this turkey would not fly.

Pardon me while I play a mournful gangsta rap on the world's smallest violin for TOL's hard encounter on the rocks of private enterprise and personal taste.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
Are you sure about that?

Lets test that statement....

Should those who wish to sell pictures of young girls being raped be censored or not?

You continue...Again, who is in a "huff"?

I simply started this thread to discuss what I feel to be an interesting topic. I am not in a "huff" nor do I seek retribution against Google or anything else.

Such photos would be evidence of a crime, and would require the consent of the victim AND the rapist before they could be distributed. As it is doubtful that the police, the victim and the rapist would all give their coinsent, the photos could not be distributed legally. One could however stage the event, pay the "actors" and sell those photos if they wished.

If you will read my post a little more closely, ("But I do find it ironic that SOME Christians would get in such a huff about being censored when Christians themselves are notorious for trying to censor everyone else.") you will see that I did not accuse you or anyone in particular of anything. I made a gross generalization. That you chose to apply my general statement to yourself is something for you to work out within yourself.

Relax. You weren't being attacked.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX


Such photos would be evidence of a crime, and would require the consent of the victim AND the rapist before they could be distributed. As it is doubtful that the police, the victim and the rapist would all give their coinsent, the photos could not be distributed legally. One could however stage the event, pay the "actors" and sell those photos if they wished.So you do support some censorship?

You DO support censoring criminal behavior? Correct?

You continue...Relax. You weren't being attacked. You have a strange way of communicating. I never insinuated that I thought I was being "attacked".

[PureX]

Originally posted by Becky It’s true that Christians would like to censor content that exploits women and children, that violates laws of public decency, or that encourages or condones illegal or harmful behavior. But we are not for censoring the “lawful” expression of individuality or creativity.
Material that "violates laws of public decency" don't need to be censered as they would already be illegal.

Material that "exploits women and children" is likewise illegal, except in the cases where the "exploitation" is in the eye of the beholder. Christians, however, seem always to be convinced their their OWN eyes are the only ones that are allowed to determine what is or isn't "exploitation". Thankfully, the law doesn't always knuckle under to their bullying.

As for the statement about how Christians are "not for censoring the “lawful” expression of individuality or creativity" I have to giggle to myself. As an artist, I have seen how the Christian right loves to support individual expressions that don't promote or agree with their own agendas. Even you have to see the foolishness of THAT statement!

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX

Material that "violates laws of public decency" don't need to be censered as they would already be illegal. So you DO in fact support censorship.

And your original statement....I don't agree with any form of censorship.Can be thrown out or revised.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
So you DO in fact support censorship.

So if I say I'm against rape, you're going to say I'm "censoring" the rapist? C'mon, get real!

[Flipper]

Knight wrote:

Should those who wish to sell pictures of young girls being raped be censored or not?

On the face of it, yes. But, as always, with a few caveats....

You know how us relativists love to lose you in the gray areas.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz628.html

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/g/giovanni/bologna/rape.jpg

http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin37.html

So, whatchoo think? Are you with Bob E?

Should this sort of filth be burnt or should it be smashed with hammers? Or smashed with hammers and burnt?

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX


So if I say I'm against rape, you're going to say I'm "censoring" the rapist? C'mon, get real! Again....

Should IMAGES of young girls being raped (child pornagraphy) be censored?

It really isn't that tough a question, I am sorry that it makes you stumble.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight
Again....

Should IMAGES of young girls being raped (child pornagraphy) be censored?

It really isn't that tough a question, I am sorry that it makes you stumble.

Flipper, Zakath, Pure X, and all the others fools simply fail to see the obvious--that child ponography is evil.

Knight says: I am sorry that it makes you stumble.

Knight, you must understand, atheists support child ponography (implication is clear since they reject the notion that ponography is a absolute evil) that is why they are hesitant to answer the obvious.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Freak


Flipper, Zakath, Pure X, and all the others fools simply fail to see the obvious--that child ponography is evil.

Knight says: I am sorry that it makes you stumble.

Knight, you must understand, atheists support child ponography (implication is clear since they reject the notion that ponography is a absolute evil) that is why they are hesitant to answer the obvious. Oh, I am well aware of that my fine friend Freak. I am just going to drag Pure-X though his own contradictory mud for sport. :D

[Flipper]

So a portrait isn't an image?

And just so's we're on the same anti-censorship page here, Knight, will you agree that the artworks I linked to are valuable and important pieces that are worth preserving, even if they're not to your taste?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Flipper
So a portrait isn't an image?

And just so's we're on the same anti-censorship page here, Knight, will you agree that the artworks I linked to are valuable and important pieces that are worth preserving, even if they're not to your taste? Flipper, you are attempting to distract from the topic and move into another debate (what is art?) etc.

I am not going to be distracted by you (at least not here - on this thread).

[Knight]

Flipper are you against ALL FORMS of censorship as pure-X claims to be?

[Flipper]

*sigh*

Freak.

To not agree with a statement != necessary support for a contrary position. It simply means what it says: "Flipper does not believe that child porn is absolutely wrong".

It's really quite a simple concept. To misunderstand it is to proudly wave around your ignorance of argumentative logic as if it were the flag of Moronistan.

Please, I beg you all, let us not embark once again on the fruitless voyage of what constitutes an absolute. Let me at once assure you that the worthlessly debased conceptual mangle traditionally produced by your side in way of an answer makes the concept of an absolute quite worthless.

Unless you can prove the existence of God (and better men than you have tried), then your assertions of absolute morality are without merit. You can employ as many emotive arguments as you like, but reason is merciless.

[Flipper]

Knight:

Flipper are you against ALL FORMS of censorship as pure-X claims to be?

I certainly am not. Society could be very badly damaged if there was no such thing as censorship.

Let me just say that I am in favor of minimizing the need for it, not maximizing its use.

[Flipper]

Flipper, you are attempting to distract from the topic and move into another debate (what is art?) etc.


No, I'm just trying to understand what your attitude towards censorship is. To 'understand where you are coming from' on this one. I think it's important to find out what you believe on this matter, since you were the one who brought up the subject of rape imagery.

So why don't you answer the question. I'm not asking "do you think these images are art"? The answer to that should be patently obvious. I'm asking "what, in your view, should be done with these images"?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Flipper
Knight:



I certainly am not. Society could be very badly damaged if there was no such thing as censorship.

Let me just say that I am in favor of minimizing the need for it, not maximizing its use. Good, we agree!

Now I will wait to hear back from Pure-X.

[Flipper]

Will you, once that happens, be answering my question regarding the fate of those rennaissance art pieces?

[PureX]

Photos of a rape are not a censorship issue. They are a criminal issue. AFTER the police release them, and AFTER the victim, the rapist, and anyone else in the photograph give their permission for it to be released, then it would become a censorship issue, and then I would say no, they should not be censored.

[Flipper]

PureX: Why should having the permission of those in the photographs be a criteria? That just makes those involved the potential censors.

You're not "solving" the issue of censorship, just devolving it. Oddly enough, the French have a similar approach in their newspapers - you can't run a picture without permission of the main parties involved. It prevents tabloids from proliferating and may play a partial role in controling the impact of sex scandals and the like in France.

However, it's still a form of censorship. You're telling other people (with the best will in the world, maybe) that they can or can't use certain pictures.

[Flipper]

PureX:

AFTER the police release them...

Which the police will never do. Right there, they've been censored.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX
Photos of a rape are not a censorship issue. They are a criminal issue. AFTER the police release them, and AFTER the victim, the rapist, and anyone else in the photograph give their permission for it to be released, then it would become a censorship issue, and then I would say no, they should not be censored. Ugh. :(

Many IF NOT MOST issues pertaining to censorship are legal issues!

Why do you think child pornography is censored?

You made the bold claim that.....
"I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I began to test that bold statement of yours and the first thing you do is describe a "form" of censorship that you favor (I.e., illegal activities).

Yet when presented with this obvious error in your train of thought you claim this some how isn't censorship.

Would it be so harmful to simply revise your original assertion and admit you overstated your case when you claimed... "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

[PureX]

Originally posted by Flipper
PureX: Why should having the permission of those in the photographs be a criteria? That just makes those involved the potential censors.

You're not "solving" the issue of censorship, just devolving it. Oddly enough, the French have a similar approach in their newspapers - you can't run a picture without permission of the main parties involved. It prevents tabloids from proliferating and may play a partial role in controling the impact of sex scandals and the like in France.

However, it's still a form of censorship. You're telling other people (with the best will in the world, maybe) that they can or can't use certain pictures.
It's not my place to "solve" the censorship issue, that in itself would be censorship. However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image, as they will have to live with the effect of that image being publically distributed. I don't believe it is censorship for one to control their own images (or expressions of whatever form), for censorship to occur, one would have to be attempting to control the expressions of others, or the right of others to experience them.

I anticipate that this dialogue will soon come to "what about children?", so I would say that as children are not mature adults and cannot be fully allowed to make their own decisions as an adult would, they are not part of the "censorship" issue, as they have to be governed by their nature as children.

[Flipper]

If I take a picture of you in an unguarded moment, whose picture is it?

Let me give an alternative point of view. We are at war. An ABC News Correspondent knows that a special operations team is about to go into battle. Should that correspondent be prevented from filing a detailed report on this before it takes place? Is censorship appropriate in this case? What about self-censorship to prevent loss of life? What if the special operations team was killed as a direct result of the journalist's loose lips? What if the military subsequently banned journalists from the front line? Is that censorship?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
Ugh. :(

Many IF NOT MOST issues pertaining to censorship are legal issues!

Why do you think child pornography is censored?

One of the reasons I do not believe we need censorship is because many of the circumstances that people want "censored" are already illegal criminal activity. I have no problem witholding a photo of a crime from the public, because 1. it's evidence of a criminal act and as such needs to be handled like any other evidence of criminal activity, and 2. because the victim in the photo did not consent to the crime nor the documentation of the crime, and they have a right to control what happens with their own image. As that right was denied by the rapist taking the photos, it would be illegal to distribute them without the victim's permission.

Regarding "child porn" which incidentally have not yet even mentioned, it is evidence of a crime, because having sex with children is a crime. So it should be treated as above, with the exception that a child would not be expected to reasonably "give permission" for the photos to be distributed, just as they could not reasonably "give permission" to have sex in the first place. A child's "permision" is not bonefide regarding sexual issues.

However, if an adult rape victim chose to allow photos of her/his ordeal to be published, then they should be allowed to do so.

[Flipper]

Going back to your last post...

You stated that: "However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image..."

From where do they derive this right? Are you anti-security camera? After all, they are constantly recording us without our consent.

Even if they did have that right, they are still acting as censors. I don't think motive is an issue in the act of censorship. They are acting as their own censors to prevent harm to themselves. A government censor may believe he or she is acting to prevent harm to society.

It is still censorship. To impose your opinion on whether and how a picture or image is used is censorship, no matter how laudable.

Is it censorship to prevent someone from having sex with a goat in a public place? What if they say it's art? Isn't that censorship? Do you support their right to do and say as they like in that public place, no matter how upsetting it may be?

What if someone decided that their form of self-expression was to stand outside a synagogue and loudly read passages from Mein Kampf using a bullhorn? What if they claimed it was a performance piece? Would you prevent them from doing so?

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX

One of the reasons I do not believe we need censorship is because many of the circumstances that people want "censored" are already illegal criminal activity. I have no problem witholding a photo of a crime from the public, because 1. it's evidence of a criminal act and as such needs to be handled like any other evidence of criminal activity, and 2. because the victim in the photo did not consent to the crime nor the documentation of the crime, and they have a right to control what happens with their own image. As that right was denied by the rapist taking the photos, it would be illegal to distribute them without the victim's permission.

Regarding "child porn" which incidentally have not yet even mentioned, it is evidence of a crime, because having sex with children is a crime. So it should be treated as above, with the exception that a child would not be expected to reasonably "give permission" for the photos to be distributed, just as they could not reasonably "give permission" to have sex in the first place. A child's "permision" is not bonefide regarding sexual issues.Do you not realize you are outlining a direct form of censorship?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Flipper
If I take a picture of you in an unguarded moment, whose picture is it?
It's your picture, but it's my image. You will need my permission to exploit it. However, if your picture of me exposes nothing that I was not willfully exposing myself, in public, then my permission is already implied. For example, if I am walking in a public place, I have already exposed myself willingly to the public, and so your photo of me walking in public will not expose me in any way that I have not already done myself. So my permission is already implied, as I have "exposed" myself.

If you use this image to make money, however, I may have grounds to sue you to stop, or to pay some restitution.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
Do you not realize you are outlining a direct form of censorship? I'm sure that in your mind this is true, but in fact I haven't "censored" anyone. I merely supported the laws regarding criminal evidence, and the illegal exploitation of one's physical image. If I had claimed these photos be witheld or destroyed against the wishes of those involved, that would have been censorship.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX
I'm sure that in your mind this is true, but in fact I haven't "censored" anyone. I merely supported the laws regarding criminal evidence, and the illegal exploitation of one's physical image. If I had claimed these photos be witheld or destroyed against the wishes of those involved, that would have been censorship. So you are asserting that criminal evidence should be censored?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Flipper
Going back to your last post...

You stated that: "However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image..."

From where do they derive this right?They get this right from God, I suppose, as it was God who gave us each our own unique image. Why would my external form be any less mine than my internal organs? Should you be allowed to take part of my liver without my permission?
Originally posted by Flipper Are you anti-security camera? After all, they are constantly recording us without our consent.Those cameras are not allowed to record images of me that are not public. My permission is implied by my being in public, but it is not implied otherwise, and is in fact illegal, then.
Originally posted by Flipper Even if they did have that right, they are still acting as censors. I don't think motive is an issue in the act of censorship. They are acting as their own censors to prevent harm to themselves. A government censor may believe he or she is acting to prevent harm to society.It's not censorship for one to control their own image or expression. Censorship is the control of someone else's image or expression.
Originally posted by Flipper Is it censorship to prevent someone from having sex with a goat in a public place? What if they say it's art? Isn't that censorship? Do you support their right to do and say as they like in that public place, no matter how upsetting it may be?It may be art, but it's still cruelty to an animal and is illegal. The "artist" should be arrested for his crime. He is not arrested because you are upset, he is arrested because the goat is upset. *smile*
Originally posted by Flipper What if someone decided that their form of self-expression was to stand outside a synagogue and loudly read passages from Mein Kampf using a bullhorn? What if they claimed it was a performance piece? Would you prevent them from doing so? As long as this "artist" has not broken any laws, yes, he should be allowed to speak his peace.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
So you are asserting that criminal evidence should be censored? I'm asserting that criminal evidence should be treated as criminal evidence, for whatever reasons that we treat criminal evidence as we do. If evidence is kept from the public, it is to aid in a fair trial, I assume. Though I do not believe that evdence is kept from the public. But in the case of the victim's image, that is for the victim to decide.

[Knight]

Originally posted by PureX
I'm asserting that criminal evidence should be treated as criminal evidence, for whatever reasons that we treat criminal evidence as we do. If evidence is kept from the public, it is to aid in a fair trial, I assume. Though I do not believe that evdence is kept from the public. But in the case of the victim's image, that is for the victim to decide. Currently criminal evidence is censored on just about every level imaginable. Criminal evidence is probably THE most censored thing one could think of. Do you agree criminal evidence should remain so highly censored?

[Flipper]

It's not censorship for one to control their own image or expression. Censorship is the control of someone else's image or expression.

I don't think you've made a case for that. There are certain misrepresentations of one's image that can be actionable, but that is because they are libellous or imply some kind of an endorsement not actually shared by the person whose image is thus employed. In other cases, an image may be concealed to protect the identity of one who is younger than the age of responsibility, as you correctly identify.

The image itself is not considered inviolable. In fact, you agree with that - you state that by going out in public, you have implicitly made a contract that allows you to be videotaped. I don't think your position is very consistent.

So, a woman is raped in a public place, it's okay for someone to make a TV show out of security camera footage (once the rule of law has been observed)? How does her right of privacy trump this contract that you seem to be be alluding to?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Knight
Oh, I am well aware of that my fine friend Freak. I am just going to drag Pure-X though his own contradictory mud for sport. :D

:thumb:

[Freak]

Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.

[novice]

Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X :) states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information?

[Rapunzel]

I *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*.....

Ugh. Stupid censors.

[Freak]

Originally posted by novice
Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X :) states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information?

:shocked: :D

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
Currently criminal evidence is censored on just about every level imaginable. Criminal evidence is probably THE most censored thing one could think of. Do you agree criminal evidence should remain so highly censored? Your definition of censorship seems to be very broad, so naturally you believe that evidence is being highly censored, but as far as I know, it is only withheld from the public until the trial, so that it won't cause undue bias. The trial itself is public, and so any evidence brought to bear would be exposed then, and certainly after the trial it's all public record. I'm not sure that I'd consider this delay in exposition, censorship.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Flipper
I don't think you've made a case for that. There are certain misrepresentations of one's image that can be actionable, but that is because they are libellous or imply some kind of an endorsement not actually shared by the person whose image is thus employed. In other cases, an image may be concealed to protect the identity of one who is younger than the age of responsibility, as you correctly identify.We do in fact own our own image. For example, you can't use Bill Gates face (or anyone else's) to sell widgets, without his permission. You can't use Bill's face to promote some moral agenda without his permission, either. The only time you can use his face without permission is when permission has already been implied by the circumstances.
Originally posted by Flipper The image itself is not considered inviolable. In fact, you agree with that - you state that by going out in public, you have implicitly made a contract that allows you to be videotaped. I don't think your position is very consistent.

So, a woman is raped in a public place, it's okay for someone to make a TV show out of security camera footage (once the rule of law has been observed)? How does her right of privacy trump this contract that you seem to be be alluding to? There is no implicit contract that says we are allowed to be vidiotaped outside. As I previously explained, it is our own form (image) that we "own". When we go out in public, we are allowing others to view this form, and so a photograph of us in public has implied consent. We did not consent to being raped, in public or anywhere else, and so a photo of this does not have our impleid consent.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak
Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.
This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

[PureX]

Originally posted by novice
Pure-Bull errrrrr... I mean Pure-X :) states, "I don't agree with any form of censorship."

I wonder how Pure-X would feel If I were to have gained knowledge of all of Pure-X's personal financial information such as; bank account numbers, credit card numbers and other personal information about Pure-X. Imagine further that I wanted to broadcast that information via the local newspaper, a spot on the local radio station and I also wanted to post Pure-X's personal financial information here at TOL.

Do you suppose Pure-X would support or oppose these media outlets censorship of this private information? The childish insult aside, you have a good point. I had not previously considered information in terms of censorship. As an artist, I automatically thought of imagery. I looked up the word censorship in my dictionary, and the definitions it gave were rather vague, but it did use the example of military censorship, and I have to confess that in the case of endangering life and limb, censorship of military information is appropriate.

You asked about personal information, however, and I would say that at least some of our personal information would be "owned" by us, just as our image is, and so would be protected as personal property. A bank account, for example, could be viewed much as a photograph, where the photogragher owns the photo, but the face in the photo is mine. He can possess the photo, but he can't show it without my permission. Likewise, the bank may own the account, but I own the money in it. The bank can't share that information without my permission. Unfortunately, here in the US, and in most of the world, in fact, the laws regarding information are not as clearly established as those protecting our bodies or even images of our bodies. We need to work on this.

[Knight]

Pure-X, I am not trying to be a jerk but I am curious....

Is it safe to say that you overstated your case when you asserted..

"I don't agree with any form of censorship."

[PureX]

Originally posted by Knight
Pure-X, I am not trying to be a jerk but I am curious....

Is it safe to say that you overstated your case when you asserted..

"I don't agree with any form of censorship." No, but it would be safe to say that I over-generalized in making such a statement. I was thinking of censorship regarding expression, rather than information. Off hand, I can't think of an example of self-expression that would need to be censored, as we already have laws that protect us from abusing each other. As long as these laws are obeyed, censorship is unnecessary.

I believe that a founding principal of our (US) government is that we are free to do and believe and say whatever we wish EXCEPT when it infringes upon the rights of our fellow citizens. Following this principal, and the laws being obeyed, censorship would only become a moral issue, as any criminal aspect of it would already have been dealt with. And as this is America, morality is not the government's business. So it becomes a moot issue, to my thinking. I'm sure there are lots of folks who think they have the right and obligation to dictate morality to everyone else, but thankfully, here in America, we are protected from their desire to do so.

But regarding some forms of information, the problem is not that of a citizen or group of citizens abusing the rights of another, but that information that rightly belongs to all of us, if exposed, may endanger some of us physically. In this kind of instance, we couldn't rely on the already established rights of ownership to protect us, and so some form of censorship would have to take place.

The war in Iraq is a good example. We all "own" the information regarding what our army is doing, and how they are doing it. But if we were to make this information available to all the citizens who rightly own it, it's very likely to endanger our own soldiers as they attempt to carry out their task. Thus, the laws of ownership need to be superceded, and that does constitute censorship. Once the danger has passed, however, this information (that belongs to us all) should then be distributed to we who rightfully "own" it. So in a sense, the censorship is only temporary. But never the less it is censorship, and I do agree with it.

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.

Then clear up any confusion any might have with your views on this.

Do you believe necrophila is evil?

Yes or no?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak


Then clear up any confusion any might have with your views on this.

Do you believe necrophila is evil?

Yes or no? I doubt very much that we would have the same understanding of the concept of "evil". So my answer would be of little value to you. It would not "clear up" any confusion.

[Flipper]

So, after all that, Knight, are you going to enlighten us on what should be done in your view with those Rennaissance paintings and sculptures?

I'm worried I might be able to guess the answer...

[.Ant]

Originally posted by PureX
Originally posted by Freak
Pure X is necrophilia or beastality evil?

A simple yes or no will do.
This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.
In a way, it's unrelated to the topic. But it's certainly not a ridiculous question, at it's heart (and especially after your comments about the nature of 'evil'), it's a theological question.

[.Ant]

Originally posted by lucybelle
Google recieves my personal BOOT TO THE HEAD! :down:
I echo lucybelle. This is shocking and ridiculous, but more prevalent than most people realise. Although censorship of un-illegal beliefs is not Politically Correct, censorship of un-illegal, politcally incorrect beliefs is PC. In other words, censorship is bad, unless I agree with it in a particular case. It doesn't make sense, but that's what most people seem to think.

I think that's why anti-censorship ideals are unsustainable.

Christianity is certainly politically incorrect, because it dares to say that some things are just plain wrong, even if they are not illegal.

And of course, the other thing is, as Knight said - this is a *discussion* board, get a grip! We wouldn't want to promote *discussion* now would we, Mr. Google?

[.Ant]

Originally posted by PureX
It's not my place to "solve" the censorship issue, that in itself would be censorship. However, the people in a photograph have the right to control what happens with their own image, as they will have to live with the effect of that image being publically distributed. I don't believe it is censorship for one to control their own images (or expressions of whatever form), for censorship to occur, one would have to be attempting to control the expressions of others, or the right of others to experience them.
Originally posted by PureX
However, if an adult rape victim chose to allow photos of her/his ordeal to be published, then they should be allowed to do so.
I totally disagree. The law says that rape is disgusting and evil. Showing disgusting, wicked images does not help society in any way.

The other thing is, that such a photo might be produced by two consenting adults (made to look like rape when it actually wasn't). But does that make it right to publish? Is it good to play-act evil behaviour?

[PureX]

Originally posted by .Ant
I totally disagree. The law says that rape is disgusting and evil. Showing disgusting, wicked images does not help society in any way.
If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50. Also, the function of the law is not to "help society" be less "disgusting and evil", it's simply to protect us fom each other. You are free to decide for yourself what is disgusting and evil and to live accordingly, as long as your doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.

Originally posted by .Ant The other thing is, that such a photo might be produced by two consenting adults (made to look like rape when it actually wasn't). But does that make it right to publish? Is it good to play-act evil behaviour?

You are confusing what is right with what is good. That they have a right to publish the photo is right. That it be viewed as "good", depends on who's viewing it.

[PureX]

Originally posted by .Ant

This is a ridiculous question and has nothing to do with censorship.
Originally posted by .Ant In a way, it's unrelated to the topic. But it's certainly not a ridiculous question, at it's heart (and especially after your comments about the nature of 'evil'), it's a theological question.

"Evil" is a quality assessment, not a state of existence. Therefor, to ask me a question regarding "evil" and then demand a "yes or no" response will just get one ignored. I can't give a "yes or no" response to a question that requires a quality assessment.

What are the qualities that one would assess as "evil"? Willful ignorance, perhaps? Unnecessary or self-serving violence? The denial of other people's viability and well being? Do we extend this last one to include dead bodies and animals?

We each will have to decide these questions for ourselves. I think the word "evil" tends to become a blanket that obscures our agenda more than it illuminates it. I would rarely refer to anything as "evil" for that reason. Instead I would rather assess something as what I think it is: willful ignorance, or selfish violence, or demeaning and abusive to others, etc.

Would these offenses apply to animals? I think so, within reason. Would they apply to dead bodies? I suppose they would, to some degree.

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
I doubt very much that we would have the same understanding of the concept of "evil". So my answer would be of little value to you. It would not "clear up" any confusion.

I know this is difficult but try, ok?

It's rather easy. Watch me.

I believe necrophilia is evil.

What about you? Yes or no?

[.Ant]

Originally posted by PureX
"Evil" is a quality assessment, not a state of existence...

We each will have to decide these questions for ourselves. I think the word "evil" tends to become a blanket that obscures our agenda more than it illuminates it. I would rarely refer to anything as "evil" for that reason. Instead I would rather assess something as what I think it is: willful ignorance, or selfish violence, or demeaning and abusive to others, etc.
Good point. The word 'evil' has a tendency to make people divorce themselves from the idea that some things they do might be evil.

Originally posted by PureX
If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50. Also, the function of the law is not to "help society" be less "disgusting and evil", it's simply to protect us fom each other. You are free to decide for yourself what is disgusting and evil and to live accordingly, as long as your doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.
I was speaking of the law of the bible. I believe the Bible lists rape as a perversion, the meaning of which fits 'disgusting and evil' pretty well.

You're right, (one of) the law's function(s) is to protect us from each other. We should be protected from evil images. (Replace the word evil with not-good if you like). "Love always protects" - I count it as my duty to protect people from evil things. But of course, if you don't believe in absolute morality, this doesn't make sense; see below:

Originally posted by PureX
You are confusing what is right with what is good. That they have a right to publish the photo is right. That it be viewed as "good", depends on who's viewing it.
Any discussion of law and morality needs a basis - mine is the Bible. So what the Bible says is very relevant to any discussion of the law. As for the right to do evil - sure, I have the right to publish evil pictures, I have the right to be racist, I have the right to do anything. But of course that says nothing about whether those actions are right. (I made a previous post about these two "rights").

If you deny my basis of morality, this discussion is pointless. The discussion then becomes "Does the law need a basis of absolute morality?"

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
I believe necrophilia is evil.
That depends on how one defines "evil" doesn't it, Jay? :)

I don't engage in necrophilia, or any of scores of sexual practices engaged in by the outlying extremes of human population. So does that make me "not evil" or "virtuous"?

I believe that terrorizing ignorant people by telling them they have demons inside them is evil.

Do you believe that terrorizing people by lying to them is evil, Jay? :rolleyes:

[PureX]

Originally posted by .Ant
Any discussion of law and morality needs a basis - mine is the Bible. So what the Bible says is very relevant to any discussion of the law.

If you deny my basis of morality, this discussion is pointless. The discussion then becomes "Does the law need a basis of absolute morality?"
Why do you get to define the function of American law?

Don't you think that's a rather arrogant assumption?

Can you see that an assumption like this dismisses everyone who might believe differently than you as meaningless?

Do you think placing yourself as the only measure of what matters, and just dismissing everyone else is an act of love, or of the spirit of God's love referred to as Christ?

[.Ant]

Originally posted by PureX
Why do you get to define the function of American law?

Don't you think that's a rather arrogant assumption?

Can you see that an assumption like this dismisses everyone who might believe differently than you as meaningless?
I'm not talking about American law. I believe you said:
Originally posted by PureX
If you can find a law that says "rape is disgusting and evil" I'll give you $50.
(my emphasis). So I gave you a law. The law of Christianity. So where's my $50?

Originally posted by PureX
Do you think placing yourself as the only measure of what matters, and just dismissing everyone else is an act of love, or of the spirit of God's love referred to as Christ?
I'm not placing myself as the only measure of what matters, but God / the Bible. He is my measure on what matters. What is your measure of what matters?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath

That depends on how one defines "evil" doesn't it, Jay? :)

I don't engage in necrophilia, or any of scores of sexual practices engaged in by the outlying extremes of human population. So does that make me "not evil" or "virtuous"?

I believe that terrorizing ignorant people by telling them they have demons inside them is evil.

Do you believe that terrorizing people by lying to them is evil, Jay? :rolleyes:

Zakath, you make this too easy. Evil is the opposite of good, correct? A child even understands what evil is but you don't. This puzzles me.

Thanks for telling us you don't practice necrophilia. Now, would you affirm that this perversion is evil? If a young person came to you and wondered what your views are of this, what would you say?

[Flipper]

When you have a few moments, Knight, could you consider the following questions?

If you had your way, what would you have done with these pieces of art?

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz628.html

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/g/gio...ologna/rape.jpg

http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin37.html

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
...Evil is the opposite of good, correct? A child even understands what evil is but you don't. This puzzles me.Religionists and non-religionists often use differing definitions of words dealing with morality and ethics.

As I've said several times before to you, when I ask you to define a word it isn't because I don't have an idea what the word means. It is because I want to see if you and I are using a similar definition.

So, for you, necrophilia is "the opposite of good"? Is that "good" like a "good tooth"? Or is it like a "good boy" or a "good girl"? Or is it like "good taste" or a "good book"?

Many of those things are simply matters of taste or preference, not indicating moral condition at all.

Again I'll ask you what are you trying to say here, Jay?

Thanks for telling us you don't practice necrophilia.You're welcome. At least some of us provide useful answers. :D

Now, would you affirm that this perversion is evil?
Since, as a psychologist, I would probably define necrophilia somewhat differently than you, how about telling me what you mean by the term?

I've got to admit that in all the years that I've managed to found and teach at a school, pastor two churches, and run a counseling practice, I have never had anyone other than TOL's resident demon chaser ask me such a question! Is it such a common problem where you live?

Additionally, why are you so fixated on sexual deviancy, Jay? First homosexuality, now necrophilia. Is there something you're not telling us? ;)

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Religionists and non-religionists often use differing definitions of words dealing with morality and ethics.

As I've said several times before to you, when I ask you to define a word it isn't because I don't have an idea what the word means. It is because I want to see if you and I are using a similar definition.

So, for you, necrophilia is "the opposite of good"? Is that "good" like a "good tooth"? Or is it like a "good boy" or a "good girl"? Or is it like "good taste" or a "good book"?

Many of those things are simply matters of taste or preference, not indicating moral condition at all.

Again I'll ask you what are you trying to say here, Jay?

You're welcome. At least some of us provide useful answers. :D


Since, as a psychologist, I would probably define necrophilia somewhat differently than you, how about telling me what you mean by the term?

I've got to admit that in all the years that I've managed to found and teach at a school, pastor two churches, and run a counseling practice, I have never had anyone other than TOL's resident demon chaser ask me such a question! Is it such a common problem where you live?

Additionally, why are you so fixated on sexual deviancy, Jay? First homosexuality, now necrophilia. Is there something you're not telling us? ;)

Zakath,

I'm curious to know why you avoid being clear?

In your counseling practice, if someone had asked you if necrophilia was evil. What would you say?

[Flipper]

I can't speak for Zakath, but I might guess that many psychologists would avoid the question because it is likely to be counterproductive to some of the objectives of psychological or psychiatric counselling for the practitioner to express opinions on morality. If you do that, you have declared your interest one way or another, and so may influence the patient's answers accordingly. They might, for example, stay away from certain areas if they perceived the person to have an antethical or hostile view.

My $0.02. Dr. Z., I hope, will set me straight if I'm full of it.

[Zakath]

Flip, you're on target.

When I'm counselling someone, we are there for them to work out their issues, not for me to vent my opinions.

Jay,

You're confusing shepherding with counselling again. Shepherds direct sheep to follow the path the shepherd chooses. Counsellors assist clients with finding their own path, not merely mimicking the counsellors'.

If a client asked me such a question, I would not answer it.

You, on the other hand are avoiding answering my questions about your seeming preoccupation with sexual deviance. What gives, Jay?

[Lion]

Flip-You asked;When you have a few moments, Knight, could you consider the following questions?

If you had your way, what would you have done with these pieces of art?
I don’t know about Knight, but after looking at them (I could only view the first and third, the second site was off line) I see nothing pornographic or obscene. However, if they did show nudity, or simulated acts of sexual intercourse (rape or otherwise) I would say they should be destroyed.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Flip, you're on target.

When I'm counselling someone, we are there for them to work out their issues, not for me to vent my opinions.

Jay,

You're confusing shepherding with counselling again. Shepherds direct sheep to follow the path the shepherd chooses. Counsellors assist clients with finding their own path, not merely mimicking the counsellors'.

If a client asked me such a question, I would not answer it.

You, on the other hand are avoiding answering my questions about your seeming preoccupation with sexual deviance. What gives, Jay?

I have no preoccupation with sexual deviance but I'm concerned you may. No reasonable person would ever endorse sexual deviant behavior as you do. Why do you feel the need to endorse evil? Why can't you tell your client necrophilia is evil? It seems to me you need to see a doctor and a exorcist.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
I have no preoccupation with sexual deviance but I'm concerned you may. Funny, your're the one who keeps bringing it up and harping on it, not we atheists...

No reasonable person would ever endorse sexual deviant behavior as you do. Jay, you are either blind or an outright liar.

Please find one place on this website where I endorse sexually deviant behavior.

(I won't hold my breath in the meantime...)

Why do you feel the need to endorse evil?Probably because I carry on so many conversations with evil people like you. People who prey on the sick and infirm; people who prey on the weak and mentally ill... :mad:

Why can't you tell your client necrophilia is evil?I explained that, Jay. You won't accept the explanation. That's your issue, not mine.

It seems to me you need to see a doctor and a exorcist. I'm very healthy and if you think I need an exorcist, do your darndest! I challenge you to prove you are really an exorcist for Jesus Christ. I defy you and your fake deity to cast out any demons that may be affecting me...

Fair enough?

Or are you just another lying religionist with lots of words and no power?

I publicly dare you to show your deity's power, Jay.

Put up or shut up, you poseur! :D

[Freak]

Big words, Zakath.

You are the one with demons not me. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. It's sad your treating people when in fact your're the one with the mental problems (and the demons).

Yes, I'll meet you and cast those demons out of you in Jesus name ( Next time I'm in Virginia I'll meet you and counsel you). The name that is above all other names.

Don't worry, Zakath, I'll make sure those deviant evil spirits are driven from you in Jesus name.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
Big words, Zakath. Whatever it takes, fakir!

You are the one with demons not me.
So you do claim that I am demon possessed? Without ever having met me, or even knowing my real name, how would you verify that?

Hmmm... :curious:

Yes, I'll meet you and cast those demons out of you in Jesus name ( Next time I'm in Virginia I'll meet you and counsel you). The name that is above all other names.Ohh, so you must be in close physical proximity???

Why must you meet me, Jay?

Jesus' god could heal at a distance, why can't yours?

So your god will let me be tormented by demons because he can't seem to rustle up a strong enough exorcist from among his billion followers????

Sounds pretty weak to me, you fraud.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your god is god, Jay.

So far you're all talk and no action...

I find it difficult to fathom how you've actually convinced people on this board you're for real, you fake. :down:

[Freak]

Blah blah blah blah

That's all you do is complain. Why don't you get a real life in Jesus Christ, your only hope.

I'd rather have Jesus then just self. See, Zakath, your in a terrible position, all of your hope and dreams rest in you---a you that is dying, that gets sick, that's decaying. My dreams and hopes lie with a risen Christ who is now glorified and who reigns.

Zakath, next time I'm in Virigina, look me up and I'll cast those filthy sex spirits from you (those same spirits that have caused you to believe necrophilia is not evil). What a deceived atheist you have become. You are pathetic!

[Zakath]

There you have it folks!

The impotent Jay Bartlett, exorcist extrodinaire, defeated by a poor, dumb atheist.

Jay, you couldn't cast out a well-used baseball, let alone a non-existent demon!

You're all talk and no action.

You, sir, are a fake, a fraud, and a charlatan. :mad:

[Freak]

There you have it folks, a cranky old atheist who is bitter with his meaningless life.

You, Zakath, have been proven over & over again to be a fool who hates Christians. But we love you. Can you say the same thing about us? Do you love us?

When I meet you in Virigina we'll see who's all talk and who's all action--as I cast those vile evil spirits from your mind.

You, sir, are a cranky clown who has a affinity for Christian forums to spew out your hatred for Jesus.

[Zakath]

And when was the last time you were in Virginia, hotshot? Should we be expecting you soon?

Perhaps your god can tell you where to go... (I would but this is a family forum...)

Why would you have to come out here anyway? Aren't there enough exorcists out here?

I think it's interesting that not a single one of the two dozen or so that I am familiar with have ever claimed I was demonically possessed...

Must be one of those guild things like the old time masons...

BTW, I have only hatred for preditors like you, Jay. I couldn't care one way or the other about a twenty century dead Jew. But I do care about those who prey on the weak and mentally ill, as you do.

[Gerald]

Freak, are you really sure you want to do that...?

I mean, I live in the same metro area that Zakath does (you know, walking into the lion's den and all that...).

And why is it, exactly, that exorcisms must be performed face to face? Why not at a distance?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Gerald
Freak, are you really sure you want to do that...?

I mean, I live in the same metro area that Zakath does (you know, walking into the lion's den and all that...).

And why is it, exactly, that exorcisms must be performed face to face? Why not at a distance?

I'll cast the demons out of you too, Gerald. We could hold a mass exorcism.

I'm not joking, I'm serious about this.

Zakath, I was in Virginia about 5 years ago but as I have opportunity I'll visit your hometown and cast those demented devils out of you. I'm surprised you have consented sounds like there is a God as He has answered my prayers already.

[Zakath]

One might think that in the spirit of "greater things than I do, shall ye do" that exorcists should be able to cast out demons at a distance...

Of course that presupposes the existence of demons and real exorcists in the first place... ;)

Not FAKES like some people we know...

[Flipper]

I think you guys should take him up on this. He could bring out a copy of that levitation video, so you can all have something to watch afterwards.

After all, the exorcist has declared that both of you are demonically possessed. He is, after all, the expert on exorcism and he must be divinely inspired to have such certainty in his 'diagnosis', or he would be guilty of all sorts of sinful slander.

[Flipper]

Lion:
However, if they did show nudity, or simulated acts of sexual intercourse (rape or otherwise) I would say they should be destroyed.

So much for Botticelli and Michaelangelo. Lucky old Mona Lisa's buttoned up tight, and so will escape the fires.

I'll happily debate this with you, but I was hoping you might first produce your evidence for the preterist rush accusations you levelled a while ago. I have searched google a couple of times but have not found anyone else making such claims although it is certainly a widely argued and controversial topic.

Any forums you suggest I try? Disaffected theologian web masters I can talk to?

I'm not completely doubting your word, you understand. It's just that I adhere to a higher standard of evidence than a lot of Christians.

[Freak]

Flipper, are you now taking up a Christian cause (as in defending the preterist movement)?

:confused:

[Knight]

Flipper, try to keep at least some train of thought. Even if its just the caboose. :D

[Flipper]

Knight:

Having problems keeping up? I know I'm faster than lightning but really, I do try to keep my most of my words below two syllables for the benefit of the "brightest radio audience in the country".

I'm sorry. I'll spell it out for you. I will happily have this argument with Lion, but only when he has shown himself able to defend a recent claim he made. After all, I often hear fundamentalists talking about a rational defense of their hardline faith based on evidence and the process of reason. So when more worldly claims are made that should be easily verifiable and are destructive in their effects, why shouldn't the maker of such claims be required to back them up?

So I'm not really interested in anything Lion has to say today or tomorrow or 50 years from now unless he will one day put his money where is mouth is. I'm not holding my breath though (although I'm sure he'd like me to).

If you guys can't be bothered to support your swingeing accusations, why should we believe that truth is important to you, as you so often insist?

Freak:

Flipper, are you now taking up a Christian cause (as in defending the preterist movement)?

Heck no. I'm almost totally disinterested in preterism as it seem a plausible and coherent interpretation of events as opposed to the wildly entertaining LaHaye-like End-Times claims that makes for much more interesting reading. Either way, it's all pin-dancing in my view and so there are better ways for me to invest my time.

But I am interested in people, how they treat others, and what they say versus what they do.

So no, I'm not defending preterism. I'm asking someone who purports to adhere to a strong moral code to support some accusations that were, I think we can all agree, destructive. If he doesn't want to (and it would be quite understandable if he didn't), then I don't have anything I'm interested in saying to him, nor am I interested in anything he has to say.

I'm sure he'll be heartbroken.

[firechyld]

Aww... I wanna join the Freak party! Sozo thinks I'm demon possessed... I don't think Freak ever answered one way or the other. :D

How 'bout all three of you head down here?

firechyld

[Zakath]

It's fascinating that Jay thinks I'm demonically possessed.

It's been a few years back, but the last time I spoke with Oral Roberts or Robert McAlister, neither of them seemed to think I had problems...

Of course these guys were practicing Jay's schtick long before he was born...

[Freak]

Originally posted by firechyld
Aww... I wanna join the Freak party! Sozo thinks I'm demon possessed... I don't think Freak ever answered one way or the other. :D

How 'bout all three of you head down here?

firechyld


Look firechyld, we love you here at TOL. You might have demons. But the good news is Jesus is able to liberate you from these spirits that are tormenting you. I'm planning on traveling down to New Zealand May '04. Perhaps you can meet my wife and I then.

By the way, do you have a mailing address, I'd like to send you my new book for free.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
By the way, do you have a mailing address...

Watch out, Firechyld! That's how it starts; first a "free gift" to add you to Jay's "ministry mailing list", then the incessant badgering for money after they sell their list to hundreds of other "ministries"...

Run while you still can! ;)

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath


Watch out, Firechyld! That's how it starts; first a "free gift" to add you to Jay's "ministry mailing list", then the incessant badgering for money after they sell their list to hundreds of other "ministries"...

Run while you still can! ;)

I do not badger. I rarely, rarely ask for a dime. I do not sell my mailing list to anyone.

I think what you said was unfair and unkind. To prove you wrong. I'll just send her a free book and she'll never hear from me again.

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Zakath


Watch out, Firechyld! That's how it starts; first a "free gift" to add you to Jay's "ministry mailing list", then the incessant badgering for money after they sell their list to hundreds of other "ministries"...

Run while you still can! ;)

Zakath,

You're way off on this. I bought Freak's book. I haven't been slammed by any other ministries. There's been no badgering for money here.

[Brother]

Very hypocritical.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Zakath,

You're way off on this. I bought Freak's book. I haven't been slammed by any other ministries. There's been no badgering for money here.

Merely pointing out the similarities with other groups I've experienced over the last few decads. If you're a fan of Jay's theory that you're influenced by invisible aliens from another dimension, that's your privilege.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by firechyld
Aww... I wanna join the Freak party! Sozo thinks I'm demon possessed... I don't think Freak ever answered one way or the other. :D

How 'bout all three of you head down here?

firechyld
Will we get to see you in your Harley Quinn outfit?
:confused:
...at least, I think it was you who mentioned having one...if not, then I've just made a fool of myself (of course, sometimes I need only get up in the morning to accomplish that...)

[Zakath]

Firechyld,

I was just in your neck of the woods (relatively speaking) last November. The wife and I did a ten-day sail from Bay of Islands to Auckland with another couple on a nice 46' Benneteau...

When we get down there again, I'll try to contact you and we'll look you up. I want to see Oz next time.

[Calvinist]

Originally posted by Flipper
I can't speak for Zakath, but I might guess that many psychologists would avoid the question because it is likely to be counterproductive to some of the objectives of psychological or psychiatric counselling for the practitioner to express opinions on morality. If you do that, you have declared your interest one way or another, and so may influence the patient's answers accordingly. They might, for example, stay away from certain areas if they perceived the person to have an antethical or hostile view.

My $0.02. Dr. Z., I hope, will set me straight if I'm full of it.

You are correct and this is precisely why psychologists get nowhere with their patients and when the patient finally quits seeing the "doctor," they are much poorer and more unhealthy than before-- the "doctor" does get richer though.

There simply must be right and wrong in a person's life them to become healthy. People come to doctors seeking answers (which the doctors do have but refuse to provide BTW) and leave more confused and lost than before.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Calvinist
You are correct and this is precisely why psychologists get nowhere with their patients and when the patient finally quits seeing the "doctor," they are much poorer and more unhealthy than before-- the "doctor" does get richer though.
Perhaps why some psychologists get nowhere with their patients...

Some of us do pro bono work, as well. ;)

[temple2006]

Aww...Grow up and get over it. I am addressing the original thread issue.

[Zakath]

Shucks temple, why'd ya have to go and do that? ;)

[temple2006]

Do what, Zak?

[Calvinist]

Originally posted by firechyld
Aww... I wanna join the Freak party! Sozo thinks I'm demon possessed... I don't think Freak ever answered one way or the other. :D

How 'bout all three of you head down here?

firechyld

After I get home from Iraq can my family come stay at your house while we are on leave? We won't mess up your house much, we want to see the sites...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by temple 2000
Do what, Zak? Address the original issue! We were all having fun straying far off topic... :)

[temple2006]

Well, then have fun.

[Zakath]

Thanks mom! ;)

[temple2006]

Who are you calling mom and why?

[lucybelle]

I wanna go!!! Promise you won't leave without me!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by temple 2000
Who are you calling mom and why? <sigh>

Never mind... :nono:

[temple2006]

Zak...I really woulf like to know.

[Zakath]

The general atmosphere around here is deteriorating rapidly.

I think I'll keep my comments to myself, thank you.

[temple2006]

Well, duh! When did that ever stop you, Zak?

[Dulcita]

Ohhhhhh

Freak is a real published author? Where can I get an autographed copy?

[Freak]

Originally posted by Dulcita
Ohhhhhh

Freak is a real published author? Where can I get an autographed copy?

Yes. I am. Check out amazon.com for yourself and get the book.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Dulcita
Freak is a real published author?

In a manner of speaking.

Jay appears to be self-published. (Amazon lists his publisher as "unknown".) There are publishing houses that will print anything you want if you've got a few hundred dollars, up front of course... :rolleyes:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath


In a manner of speaking.

Jay appears to be self-published. (Amazon lists his publisher as "unknown".) There are publishing houses that will print anything you want if you've got a few hundred dollars, up front of course... :rolleyes:

You better check again. I do have a publisher based out of Fairfax, Va. I have had all kinds of problems with amazon.com here recently, so don't be surprised they get some of the info wrong.

[Zakath]

Does the publisher have a name?

Would you kindly supply the name? :rolleyes:

[Zakath]

(sound of crickets chirping...)

[CoCrucified]

Google likes four-letter, vile, obscence, pornographic words! Good is bad, and bad is good!

Whoops, I'm judging!!!

Alan

[Zakath]

Google likes what makes money and reduces their risk of being sued.

They're just a business.

There are already businesses that handle "morality" issues. They're called "churches".

I'd bet that Google has no desire to compete in that arena.

[CoCrucified]

Originally posted by Zakath
Google likes what makes money and reduces their risk of being sued.


Of course anyone can sue for anything; however, I don't think just listing what's out there makes them liable for what is said.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by CoCrucified
Of course anyone can sue for anything; however, I don't think just listing what's out there makes them liable for what is said. I agree, it's only that in our litigious society, even the non-involved parties sometimes have to spend money on legal defense.

It's aggravating, but the real world is sometimes that way. :rolleyes:

[CoCrucified]

Originally posted by Zakath
I agree, it's only that in our litigious society, even the non-involved parties sometimes have to spend money on legal defense.

It's aggravating, but the real world is sometimes that way. :rolleyes:

I think we need "looser pays." That would stop a lot of this nonsense. If someone brings an unfounded lawsuit, they should pay both sides legal expenses.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by CoCrucified
I think we need "looser pays." That would stop a lot of this nonsense. If someone brings an unfounded lawsuit, they should pay both sides legal expenses. Interesting idea. It would be particularly expensive if the state lost a suit - then the taxpayers get to pay.

[CoCrucified]

Originally posted by Zakath
Interesting idea. It would be particularly expensive if the state lost a suit - then the taxpayers get to pay.

True. Maybe the politicians who mess up should pay instead!

[Zakath]

Hey, this is sounding better all the time. :D