Cut back on the icons, fellas

[The_Man_Of_Steel]

I think you mean desensitization to violence. And, I assume you are equating criminality with violence. I find it hard to believe that you think Ken Lay and Enron's fall from grace is attributable to our desensitization to violence?

 

Sorry, but you made a false assumption about my intended context. I did not nor do I equate crime with violence. There are violent offenders and "non" violent offeders, but they still fall under the same umbrella of being called "crime". And as we both know there are many different types of crime and ways to spend a night in jail. Anyway, it seems to me, you make a lot of assumptions. Why don't you go read my other 700+ posts before making assumptions? I was responding to Rick, a friend, and one with whom I share many views, I think you were offended by my post and somehow felt the NEED to set me straight according to YOUR view. You picked the argument, NOT I. Live with it!

[CosmicBob]

Joanna,

 

I've been out all weekend but have finally found time to review this thread. I am going to agree with you on all your points. I like looking at women as much as the next hetero guy, but I do feel that the avatars gave this forum an image it doesn't deserve.

 

Not only that, it makes it harder to read at work because who knows what's going to come up as an avatar?

 

Please don't bail on account of this. It looks like people are restraining themselves and hopefully it will go back to comic book avatars or at least something not so blatant.

[The_Man_Of_Steel]

If only you Christians would live by the words you so freely use to judge others.

 

You wish WE Christians would live? How do YOU know how I live? You've never met me, your basing MY Christianity on some other person that you've met that has claimed to be a Christian. I can call myself Superman, but does that mean I am? Sorry, but to quote M&M, "I can't be your Superman".

 

Nor do I believe in a God, your God, any God (with the possible exception of the ones in Journey into Mystery).

 

And frankly, I think you ought to reconsider. Any God who has a stomach weak enough to be sickened by your petty daliances has no business running the Universe. If he bothers to look at the atrocities happening in the rest of the world, he'll never stop throwing up.

 

Wow, you sure have a talent for NOT imposing your beliefs on someone. Why should I reconsider? Based on... Your reasons are... I just love these types of arguments that lack any sources or reason.

 

So let me give you some food for thought, the following is a paper I wrote for college...

 

God: Myth or Truth?

 

"Can you remember a time in your life when you sought answers to the big questions pertaining to life? You know, questions like: Is there a historical beginning for the earth? And why are there multitudes of diverse animals and seed bearing plants? Does mankind have an origin? And is there any purpose or reason for our existence here on earth?

 

Our world-view determines how we answer (if we can) these fascinating and very important questions of life. The two very incompatible world views I am going to be concerned with here are: atheism and theism.

 

Theists believe in the existence of one God who is transcendent (going beyond the world) and yet who is personal and immanent (dwells within the world). Theist’s also hold that this God is unlimited in power and love. Two exceptionally intelligent and well known theists are Thomas Aquinas and Norman Geisler.

 

Within atheism there are a variety of viewpoints. Here I will exemplify the purist form of atheism which holds that there never was, is, or will be a God. Two famous and highly intelligent men who held this view were Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell.

 

There are many arguments both for and against the existence of God. Theists have argued from truth, design, first-cause, the perfect idea, a perfect Being, and a necessary Being. Atheist’s have argued from the fact of evil, opposition of good and evil, impossibility of self-cause, impossibility of necessary existence, impossible attributes, and from the incompatibility of determined freedom. There are far too many volumes of information on this topic for me to address all of them here, so I have condensed this debate to mainly the cosmological argument.

 

On what grounds can the atheist say that God does not exist? Both Sartre and Russell applied cosmological arguments against the existence of God from cause. This is the logic of the argument: Everything has a cause, and if God is not caused by another, then God is causing his own existence. But a self-caused being is impossible. Therefore God cannot exist. An extension of the argument is: If God does not need a cause, then neither does the world, but if the world needs no cause then there is no God. The first suspect is the assumption that everything has a cause, if that were the case there could be no beginning of causes. Because there is an infinite regress of cause, there cannot be any explanation for an origin of existence. The second suspect is the assumption that God (the creator) and the world (His creation) are equate.

 

On what grounds can the theist say that a first cause does exist? Without a first cause, the atheist cannot give an adequate answer to the question: Why does something exist rather than nothing at all? From the principle of causality it has been argued by theists, that only the finite, changing, and dependent (food, water, etc.) need a cause. In that same frame of thought, since the theist God is infinite, unchanging, and not dependent on another, then He is an uncaused Being. One can conclude that God the uncaused Being caused the first cause.

 

Within our minds, we have thoughts that are not visible; an atheist with their thoughts, deny the existence of an invisible God. I have to exist to deny my existence. So it is an undeniable fact that I exist. If something exists then it can only fit in one of three categories: impossible, possible, or necessary. None of the three categories can contradict one another. This opens the door to the possibility that I do not exist. With that in mind whatever has the possibility not to exist is presently caused to exist by another. Current causes of existence cannot regress for eternity. It is impossible for any cause to cause (actual) its existence and have (potential) its existence caused at the same time because we know a self-caused being is impossible. We can conclude that a first, uncaused Being is causing my current existence to exist. The uncaused cause must be eternal, constant, omnipotent, omnisciencient, impeccable, and therefore a necessary Being to be the one to first-cause existence. That leads us to a cause by an infinitely perfect and constantly knowing Being theists know to be God.

 

By omnipotent or all-powerful I mean that an uncaused-being (God) has the power to bring that which does not exist into existence. Also it is impossible for God to do something that contradicts Himself. For example: it is impossible for God to create a rock that He could not lift. Here is how this principal works: it is impossible for God to sin because then He would not be perfect, and if not perfect then He could not be constant, and if not constant then He could not be eternal, etc. If God exists, then he must be eternal, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect. Anything less would not be God, but a false god.

 

Why would this God need to be all-knowing? I have the ability to reason, but where does my ability to reason come from? We have the potential to learn, but without a source of knowledge, how can we learn? How can the ignorant become knowledgeable, except that they learn from the knowledgeable? How can I know what does not exist without knowing what does exist? Here is the theist’s answer: an all-knowing and infinite-being (God) gives the finite (us) the ability to obtain knowledge. If the previous arguments are true then it is permissible to say that the ultimate being, or more specifically God exists. The God who exists has the same attributes as the one described in the Holy Scriptures. I conclude then that the God of the Holy Scriptures exists."

 

Well that's it, to be honest, I kind of rushed the end of the paper, and would have preferred to have a little more time to go more "in depth", but there are a few really good apologitic type books devoted to the explanation of God's existence.

 

So you see it comes down to this. Either you believe in an infinite regress in cause, or like me believe in an uncaused being (who I call God), that caused the first cause.

 

I have REASONS, apart from my person experiences and how I "feel", I have sound reasoning for why I believe what I believe. I know what Atheists believe better than most people that claim to be an Atheist.

 

It's obvious to me, that this is a topic you FEEL strongly about. You shouldn't trust in feelings, they come and go like the wind.

[Architecht]

 

(checks terms of use for the clause on "Separation of Church and Comics")

[chromium]

heh !

 

Cool, this topic has taken a bizarre turn from Sex and Comics to Church and Comics... Would be cool to have all three topics mingled, but I'll leave that to the Vatican

 

Anyway, better post this next cover quick before religious icons (get it !! hehe) go the same way as the hoochie ones

 

[ArAich]

I like issue #2 where the Pope battles Dracula.....classic stuff....

[Bonds25]

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you're a woman! LMAO!! I think you're the only woman in the world who wants a G.I. Joe #22 in CGC 9.8 or better.

[OldGuy]

That's #21.....

[Bonds25]

- thanks for the correction.

[OldGuy]

{wispering} It's all the same to me, but you know how those

JI Joe collectors can get.

[Guest]

Us angry GI Joe collectors get fierce when our beloved #21 gets called 22! Thats blasphemy Bonds and we must burn you at the stake!

[Guest]

Yeah Arch, you should post a huge sign that says" No religion or politics allowed here" "Comics only" and "Coin collectors are gay" .....Just kidding on the last one!