In an op-ed for today's Deseret News, disbarred Miami attorney Jack Thompson writes about the Utah video game legislation that he has been promising for several weeks.
Here's the bill in Utah: It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make. The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law.
The Entertainment Software Association bragged this week that it spread $4.2 million around to "lobby" politicians at the federal level, with more spread around to state politicians...
Despite Thompson's assertion, we don't remember the tight-lipped ESA mentioning its lobbying expenditures at all, much less "bragging" about them. The $4.2 million lobbying figure which Thompson refers to was tracked down by Gamasutra via a public records search and subsequently detailed in a recent news report.
Since we've been unable to locate Thompson's measure on the website of the Utah legislature, GamePolitics asked Thompson to identify the bill and its sponsor. He declined, saying only:
I have a sponsor and a bill, and [the video game] industry is in trouble.
Layton Shumway, who pens a video game column for the Deseret News, suggests that HB14 might be the Thompson bill, but that seems unlikely. In a comment to his op-ed, Thompson offers what could be a carefully-worded hint on the future of the mysterious bill:
I look forward to returning to Utah, possibly this week, to testify for the passage of this bill. I met with state government officials last month in Salt Lake, and there is great enthusiasm for this approach...
Of course, returning to Utah "possibly this week" also means possibly not this week, or possiby not even during the current legislative session.
From Thompson's description, his bill seems aimed at movies as much as video games. Indeed, he cites poor R-rating enforcement by movie theaters but fails to mention the video game industry's significant, FTC-documented progress at stopping M-rated sales to minors.
We note also that Thompson is identified by the Deseret News as "a former practicing attorney," which does not seem to fully convey his permanently disbarred status to readers of the Utah newspaper.
Comments
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Wow, three websites and a video, that's definitely an accurate representation of Christianity. *eyeroll*
Every group has people who abuse the group as a way to further their personal agendas. These people aren't an accurate representation of the group; they're just the loud and noticable ones that end up on the news. You're being very narrow-minded and unfair by refusing to recognize all the good things Christians do like this or this or this.
Maybe you should step back and look at the religion as a whole and what it is meant to be instead of finding the few manipulative psychos (like JT) and assuming that they're representative of the religion. These people don't represent what the religion actually is or is supposed to be; they're simply using it to further their own agendas. Please, just step back and view the religion as a whole. Learn about what it is supposed to be and what the majority of its people are. You may find that they're actually pretty good people even if you don't agree with them on everything. Right now, your inaccurate tirades against the religion just make your view look small-minded and hateful. Take some time to learn and see what it's really supposed to be.
And on an unrelated note, I don't see what the big deal is with teaching Creationism in schools. We currently have an unbalanced system that only teaches the "scientific" theory of the Big Bang; we shouldn't be forcing belief in that on people any more than we should force Creationism on them. To be fair, we should really just teach all sorts of creation mythology and let the kids pick for themselves.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Quit with the quotes. It's scientific, it's made testable predictions, something that creationism doesn't do.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
You should really do your research because the Big Bang not testable. All we know is that everything in the universe is moving away from a point of origin. That data we have suggests that a large explosion blew a dense mass into the pieces that we call the universe, but we have no way to test that, and nobody was around to see it happen. It's not testable or provable unless we can show that it can in fact happen. Until someone can recreate the Big Bang or go back in time and observe the first one, it's just a likely guess based on what little information we can collect.
Furthermore, scientists have absolutely no idea how the hot, dense mass that exploded came to exist. I believe that trust in something unprovable and/or inexplicable is called "faith." Hm, who would have thought that our "logical," "scientific" explanation of the universe would require a leap of faith?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Maybe you should do your own research. Distribution of elements, background radiation all mesh with the big bang. If you think direct observation is the only way to prove something, you have a lot to learn about science. Plus science doesn't prove things. You posit something and try to disprove it.
I'm willing to say "we don't know yet". That doesn't preclude investigation, "goddidit" is a copout and ends investigation, there's no falsifiability there.
ETA:
Let's put this in perspective.
Big Bang Theory: 1916, as a side effect of relativity
Galaxies seen moving away from each other: 1929
Notice the time differential there?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Yes, they mesh with the theory, but they do not prove it. Any scientific theory has to be tried over and over again and observed multiple times to see if the theory is likely correct. Unless we can recreate the Big Bang and measure the results to compare them to our universe, we're simply speculating based on other theories and observations. What we have now is the aftermath of an event that we did not observe. The best we can do is come to likely conclusions, not the iron-clad truth that people make it out to be.
It's deceptive to say that the Big Bang is THE answer when it's based on observations made after an event that we still can't (and probably never will be) able to completely explain. We shouldn't be teacing one faith-based creation method over any other method.
Also, I believe the Big Bang theory was actually a hypothesis until the discover of the moving galaxies seemed to suggest its validity. Before the proof of expanding universes, it was a hypothesis based on some data and countered by a number of other ideas about the existence of the universe. However, that's pointless nitpicking that's irrelevant to the argument.
Finally, "God did it" does not end investigation. If that were true, hundreds of people wouldn't have spend thousands of years trying to understand God and his methods and motivations behind creation. Saying "God did it" doesn't stop people from asking how he did it.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
How many times does it have to be said?
SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE THEORIES. IT **DISPROVES** THEM.
All scientific observations are consistent with there being no god. God is unnecessary. That doesn't mean there isn't one (or many), but when millions of observations all point towards something, you tend to give it credence.
Let's go back to something you said a few posts back "Where did that ball of hot gas come from". Let's completely ignore the inaccuracies there since it also talks about the origin of time, space, and matter itself, not a "ball of gas". Something had to make that ball of gas is your hypothesis, correct? Simply because everything has an antecedant cause.
Why do you have that assumption? And more importantly, why does that assumption stop? What's the "first cause" first cause? If an omnipotent, omniscient being came into spontaneous existence, how can a universe, which is infinitely LESS complex not have come into spontaneous existence? If it always existed, how come the universe couldn't have always existed. Simply applying Occam's Razor says there's an infinite number or none. You better have a reason to special case any other finite number.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Yes, but you also cannot teach a theory as indisputable fact. Saying the Big Bang is THE way the universe was created is deceptive. Unless you can disprove the other theories, you have to teach them alongside it.
All scientific observations are consistent with there being no god.
Bull. You interpretations of scientific observations say there is not god because you don't believe in one. You can't prove God unnecessary and more than you can prove him necessary. You're just taking your interpretation and proclaiming it as a fact.
Why do I think the mass had to come from somewhere? Why don't you think it did? Everything else in the universe has a beginning and an end, and everything is amazingly ordered to exist inside that cycle of life and death. Pretty good organization for random chance, isn't it? If I could get my d20 to break the laws of chance like that, I'd have crits on every roll for the rest of my life.
You should also spend a little more time studying theology before you start making assumptions. A divine being does not have to have a beginning. That's one of the perks of being divine; you get to break the rules of the physical universe and be eternally existing without beginning or end. God doesn't have to play by the rules of the universe because he exists apart from the physical universe (which is also why you can't prove or disprove God).
And we should probably just give this up. Greater men than you and I have spend centuries debating this stuff. If you want to get my perspective, I can probably scrounge up some books of Christian philosophy and such (yeah, there's a ton of it around). I'd suggest starting with Abraham Kuyper. Otherwise, we're just sitting here arguing pointlessly back and forth because we have base assumptions that neither of us can prove affecting our views so we see things differently while the constant indenting of replies slowly crushes our wannabe arguments into unreadable little columns.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Theory isn't fact. No shit sherlock. Gravity is a theory. Everything your computer is built on is a theory. Don't undermine what a theory is.
"Divine being does not have a beginning". Special pleading, sorry, that doesn't get any credit in my book. Show necessity or it doesn't exist.
"Pretty good organization for random chance, isn't it? If I could get my d20 to break the laws of chance like that, I'd have crits on every roll for the rest of my life."
Again, you show you don't understand science or math. Let us try an experiment, shall we?
Since you have a d20, I'm going to assume you have a d6. Draw 3 dots in a triangle on a piece of paper. Label one of them 1,2 another 3,4, the last 5,6. Or, if you like, shuffle it, I don't care, pick any assigination you'd like.
Pick a random point anywhere, I don't care, and draw a dot. Roll the die and draw a new dot halfway between that dot and the numbered dot. From the new point, repeat the process, keep repeating.
Random, is it not? If not, why not?
Shall I post the picture you will get without seeing your dice rolls?
ETA:
Chance is also meaningless. You will understand when you understand the answer to the following question:
I have a perfectly fair coin. I toss it and it comes up heads. What are the chances it came up heads?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Special pleading, sorry, that doesn't get any credit in my book. Show necessity or it doesn't exist.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what you think. When you're in the realm of theology, you have to play by the rules of theology. One of the basic assumptions of the nature of divinity is that a divine being is beyond the scope of the natural universe and thus not restricted to its proofs and laws. But, if we want to do this scientifically, don't you have to disprove necessity? Or you can try to prove that God is unnecessary, but since you're coming from a different perspective, I doubt I'll agree with your conclusions.
You can drop the entire dice thing as well. Your example is not anywhere near what I was getting at. Re-reading the statement, I see that I made it based on a number of personal associations that nobody else would likely get. Your line of thought with the awesome picture and a coin toss doesn't really come anywhere near what I was getting at, and the point is largely irrelevant to this discussin anyway.
Really, I think we should just stop this stupid discussion. You don't have enough knowledge of theology and religion to debate points concerning it, and--according to you--I don't have any understanding of math and science whatsoever.
We're both coming at this from opposite starting points. We cannot prove our base assumptions and are simply wasting time trying to prove the other guy wrong when the other guy's view of things is completely different, thus rendering our proofs irrelevant. You go right ahead believing that there is no God; I'll stick with believing there is.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
You repeatedly make mistaken assumptions about science and math and what is and isn't possible without a god. It's not irrelevant.
I am assuming the Null Hypothesis, which is the default position without evidence. So either show evidence of god or show necessity, those are all that is acceptable to someone rational.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Seriously, just drop the dice thing. I obviously did not convey the meaning behind it sufficiently because, as I said, it's a personal association. Since I know what I meant and you don't, I think I'm in the better position to judge the relevance. It may be relevant in another context, but in this discussion it just becomes another tangent that doesn't really aid the main discussion, so you should really just let it be and quit trying to make a point about a statement you don't understand.
You're welcome to believe that the null hypothesis disproves god, but I'll continue to disagree with you because my base assumptions differ from yours in a way that makes us interpret the same data in different ways.
I'd also like to point out--yet again--that you really can't legitimately apply the laws of science to a non-scientific area. Using science (which deals with the natural universe) to prove or disprove the supernatural is just as absurd as trying to use Newton's laws of motion to interpret The Grapes of Wrath. You're applying the laws from one area to a completely different area that operates under different rules.
And, as I've said twice now, just drop it. We're obviously going in circles. You tell me I don't know anything about science; I tell you that you don't know anything about religion, and neither of us believes the other because, according to our basic assumptions about the nature of reality, we see ourselves as right. We're also getting crushed by the ever-indenting reply option, and we're quickly going to find our posts impossible to read. Let's just agree that we're both stubborn and have differing views that neither one of us will convince the other of so we can get on with our lives.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Do you believe that these things you cited represent the majority of Christians in the world? If so, you have a lot to learn.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
I would say that before you start a flaming diatribe against an established religion, you first get a few things straight.
Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and that by dying and resurrecting he freed us from our sins. That's it. That's all Christianity is.
Now, before you try and contradict that point, Christianity has thousands of subsects, ranging from Catholicism to Protestants to Baptist, and those are only some of the big named ones. Mormons and JWs even can be added to that list. All of these groups have different beliefs that make them noticeably different. Some look down on gays, others don't.
I think what you've done is you've taken the words and beliefs of a very vocal minority and lumped everyone else into that. It's like saying all Muslims are Terrorists, all people from SF are homosexuals and/or hippies, and all lawyers from Florida are jackasses. It's a bad step to make, but it's one that happens quite easily, sadly.
Something that would probably do you good is to just have a level headed conversation with a few random Christians. Sure, you may find a few that fit your description of them to a T, but I guarantee you that you'll find many, many more that have beliefs very contrary to what you say.
So, next time, before you go and give a hateful flaming of Christians and their biases, try looking and seeing that you have a fair share as well.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Then why don't the "sensible" Christians do more to keep the zealots & kooks relegated to the fringes? The problem is that the Religious Right "moral majority" is very powerful in American politics. To be so influential requires numbers. Who is keeping the 700 club on the air? Who is keeping Chick Publications in business? Fundamentalist Christianity is big business in the USA.
Perhaps I have bad luck, but the vast majority of devout (regular church goers) Christians I encounter are preachy, moral-eleitists who try to impose their ways on others.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
"Perhaps I have bad luck, but the vast majority of devout (regular church goers) Christians I encounter are preachy, moral-eleitists who try to impose their ways on others."
You very likely meet a lot more devout non-preachy christians than you'd think... Devout christians who are NOT preachy, moral elitists who try to impose their views on others often do not speak of their faith in casual conversation or without reason... They go through their daily lives like just any other person and only bring up religion when it comes up. If you do not speak of religion then they most likely won't bring it up. A lot of my family for instance is very devout, but at the same time you could know them for weeks or even months, without ever realizing it. Most likely the only way you would realize how devout they are is if you directly ask them or spend the holidays with them.
That's the difference about Zealots and the the rest of the devout christians... Zealots are A LOT louder where as other christians do not speak unless spoken to... They do not want to force their views on others, or preach to other people, so what reason do they feel they should have to speak as loud as the zealots. Zealots want to preach to everyone, where as most priests only preach to those that want to listen. Not to mention that the media loves the nut cases, and thus give the zealots a lot more attention, while the quieter follows remain quietly in their churches (or at best, small low access channels that feature prayer and mass... regular mass is quiet boring compared to the ranting and raving of a hateful zealot)
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
How do you propose we restirct these people? Wouldn't that be illegal, immoral, and unethical?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
I would defend their right to their faith any day. It is the place of other Christians to restrict the zealots within their faith. It's not a matter of law.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
We can't do anything about them, that's kinda how Christianity split into thousands of factions in the first place. How do you change the mind of a fanatic?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
40,000+ different Protestant Christianities and counting
And (still) only 1 Catholic Church
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Technically, yes. In reality, no. You're forgetting the split between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churchs over the issue of Rome's supremacy back in the 11th century.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
You can't change the fanatic. But they can be ignored as the kooks they truly are. The problem is, they aren't getting ignored enough.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Oversimplification and misrepresentation don't make your arguments stronger, friend. Study some theology before you start making accusations.
Also, I suggest you look into all the good things Christianity does instead of simply (and wrongly) claiming that it's a list of things you can't do.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Jack Thompson is just one of legions of Christians who are trying to impose their "morality" on everyone else.
- They are trying to deny Gays any rights whatsoever.
- They are trying to turn Science class into Sunday school by injecting Creationism into the curriculum. And let's not forget their assault on science through the ages: Heliocentrism, Evolution, cosmology, etc.
- They attempt to impose their beliefs on abortion onto everybody. If you don't like abortion, don't get one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
In the United States, Christianity is the primary motivator for denying gays the right to marry. Fundamentalist Christianity, which is prevalent in the U.S., is one of the biggest threats to liberty that there currently is.
Christianity provides mental comfort, but the comfort comes at a terrible price, namely the glorification of "faith", the definition of which is to believe something with no supporting evidence, and that is a horrible thing to do, especially after the last eight years.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
SounDemon
Dead on, very true.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.
---
http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Whenever some one states "gay marriage" I have to ask;
What is Marriage? Not what you think marriage is, but what is marriage?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
jer
A union of couples under the deity of their choice?
Thats the basic definition since not all humans are in male/female couplings.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.
---
http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
There are plenty of people who get married before the state, no religion involved.
My defenition of marriage therefor would be more like :
Two people who want to let those around them know of their intent to spend the rest of their life together, come what may.
Marriage is simply a formal anouncement of said intent, and stating it before all those you love is supposed to make you less inclined to break that union.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
No, now your're assuming that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway. How about we define marriage as "a legal status that allows you to joint-file your tax return"?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Submitted by Baruch_S - February 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm -0500
No, now your're assuming that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway.
Thats why i used the word supposed.
There will allways be people getting married for all the wrong reasons, and fortunatly these days those marriages can be dissolves fairly easy. Note i say CAN, it really depends on the couple lol
The perks of being married can also be a good reason. Why not tie the knot to get those perks if you have been living together for a good number of years allready :-P
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Basic definition under who's?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
And not all believe in a deity, so remove that as well.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Okay, I'll give you the gay marriage thing. Most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, so they vote against legalizing it. Whether that's Constitutional is questionable. However, their allowed to believe homosexuality is wrong just as much as you're allowed to believe it's not.
I'd also like to point out that everyone has some sort of faith, even if it doesn't fall into a definite religion. Everyone bases their views and actions upon certain unprovable assumptions about the way the world works. Claiming to be completely logical is foolish.
Finally, you're assuming that Christians have no supporting evidence. Plenty of Christians have plenty of reasoning behind their beliefs, although you would interpret that evidence differently because your underlying assumptions of reality leave no space for a divine being. We could argue this all day, but the fact that we approach the world from two entirely different worldviews means that we'll likely view the same things in very differing lights.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
That is something akin to how I was raised and not being catholic I did not even have the "out" of being able to confess and have my "sins" wiped away. I cannot claim to be a christian now thanks to that, though I do have the grounding.
Those kind always say it is what is best of the children. I found out the fact they lied about not doing most of things they were trying (and failing) to keep me from doing.. but I digress.
jackie simply does not care, honestly I dont even think he cares about passing this or any bill except that doing so will get him more time in the spotlight, this whole thing (up to and to include the flamings he has gotten here) seems to be nothing more then getting attention for jackie. Oh he can toss out ideas like how thier 1st amendment rights are fake or false (since they do not agree with his and he is god or the spokeman thereof) and how he is going to override them but the gods forbid is anyone threatens jackies civil rights.
The thing I still cannot understand.. ok yes it is Utah not exactly cutting edge in most things but how could any serious group have thier names tied to his? Of course he has been careful to hide his sponsor (or lacks one) but it does make me wonder. If we ignore him he does things to demand attention (spoiled child anyone?) and if you do pay attention to him (watch him or attempt to prevent him from doing damage) he baskes in the attention.
Maybe he does have us right where he wants us (scary huh).
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
"They believe that unless they are totally in-line with the ways of God, you will be punished forever."
Actually that isn't it at all. Rather the Christian belief is that there is no possible way that you can be in-line with the ways of God on your own, and that you WILL fuck up repeatedly and daily. But through Jesus taking the bullet for you you can be absolved of your past and very many future fuck ups.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Today Utah tomorrow the world!!!!!!
Seriously though everytime I think of Utah I think of SLC Punk. Kinda hard to take the State seriously. Than again look at what they did in Cali. with gay marriage..... Looks like JT found some like minded folks. Let em have Utah. Maybe all the crazies will move there and leave the other 49 alone.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
No, you'd probably see a good chunk of the Midwest go. Basically, the middle of the country (the generally conservative part) gets sick of the liberals and decides to split and form their own country. They'd split the East and West Coasts and would control most of the food production with the possible exception of California. The conservative state would begin to look more like England in V for Vendetta while the liberal state would probably start to look like America in Fahrenheit 451 or the UK in Nineteen-Eighty-Four.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Hi there. So, um, where are you getting this from? Many commenters on Thompson articles have asked him to cite his sources, would you be so kind as to do the same for this?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
I would like you to explain me in what way are you being repressed if you claim you are a christian. You can´t be repressed in America if you are saying you are a christian, because they are majority in this continent. That´s nonsense.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Hi there. Christianity has this thing called "hell". If you are a sinner, then that is where you go. Are you not aware of Christian beliefs that homosexuality, unmarried sex, and promiscuity are sins? Where have you been?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Uh, yeah. The bible states that every human is a sinner, and yet states there are ways to STILL get into heaven. Get back to us when you brush up on some basic theology.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Many Christians think they have the ONLY way to get into heaven or to be moral. These people are also prone to believe they must legislate morality for everyone else.
Why the hell should everyone else have to be forced to live their way?
Sorry to break your perfect 1950's world.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
So do many (or most) other religions. Your point?
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Point out where I said that everyone should have to live to thier standards. No really, please do. I'll be waiting over there if you need me.
All I was doing is pointing out your erroneous claim that people could get into heaven by their own works of morality. That was ALL I was making note of. If you are going to bash them at least have your facts straight when you do.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
Not trying to derail this post, but I would like to ask a counter-question:
Are you not aware of Christian beliefs about salvation, redemption, loving others and forgiveness? People like Thompson make it easy to think that Christianity is some great evil, but that's not the truth. Isn't the truth what we're all looking for here? Not addressing to you in particular, but in general how can people admonish Thompson for painting all gamers as evil and then in turn paint all Christians in that same light? Thompson and Thompson alone are responsible for his actions. Personal responsibility is something that he appears to be avoiding, let us not do the same.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
The core beliefs of Christianity had to be altered to make it palatable to most people in the last century or so.
A lot of arguments for racism, such as "the races were never meant to intermingle", are ripped straight from the Torah. Arguments against gays and the right of gays to marry come directly from the bible.
Religion is a double edged sword in our country, the practitioners want their morals codified in law, but most of the morals aren't bad at all; but one of our biggest protections is the separation of church and state. This way atheists and gays cannot be legally oppressed by any religious group.
And yes, I have a venvetta against religion because my father is a fundie, and his Fundamentalism rent our family in two.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
I too am sorry about your family. Still, we are not all the same. Others below have made good points in defense of the faith, so I want to ask you this:
"The core beliefs of Christianity had to be altered to make it palatable to most people in the last century or so." - can you cite a source for this? Last time I checked, Christianity's core beliefs were in the Bible, which hasn't changed. There is a God, God loves us and we have the opportunity to have a positive, loving relationship with God. This is made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, who saves us from the price of sin - death.
A lot of people over the years have loved quoting John 3:16 but I believe 3:17 holds a much more important message in these times:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved"
I think a lot of people who call themselves Christians have forgotten about that. As a side note to others, it is my opinion that there were fundamentalists in Jesus' time. They were called Pharisees.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
The core beliefs of Christianity get altered EVERY century.
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
SounDemon sprake: "This way atheists and gays cannot be legally oppressed by any religious group."
California Proposition 8 - funded by the Mormons (from Utah, no less...I know Mormon's here in CA who abhor the prop), backed by fundamentalist "Christians", voted in by other oppressed classes, who just don't seem to get the idea that oppression is more than a racial issue.
Please, don't ever be so naive as to think that the law will protect any group from anything. Vigiliance and persistence against the oppressors is the only way to keep them at bay.
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
Re: Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His ...
The prohibition wasn't against the intermarriage of races, though that's a common misconception. God's prohibition was against the Jewish people marrying outside their culture. They were surrounded by cultures and societies that practiced polytheism and idolatry and God didn't want His people to be corrupted by those things.
If said person were to convert to Judaism then a marriage could have taken place but only under very rare circumstances did the kosher version happen.