I've created a blogroll, just below the "Good Sites" list and moved a few of you from the old list to the new one. My concept is this: the "Good Sites" is now reserved for people who share my views on morality (or in the case of Two World Collision take them seriously) and are significantly devoted to discussion of the moral issues. The blogroll includes people I like whose blogs are more in the nature of personal journals and whose posts aren't too racy or overtly hostile to my message (subjective judgment, based on overall impression).
The blogroll is still a work in progress. I expect to be adding blogs to it as I go along. If I follow your blog, I'll at least give serious consideration to including it.
5 comments:
Now if you post these 'good sites,' with a wink to discussion, why are these sites the only ones that support your views???
Discussion has to have two sides, normally opposing views, otherwise its just propaganda.
Now I admit, I am fairly hostile to religion, but I am always open for discussion... And I can always be tactful, I dont attack just to attack!
As an example, I hold your views in high regard, regardless of how much I utterly disagree with them... On my blog link list, however, I have your blog, and The Atheist Experience, sitting right next to each other...
Now if Christians such as yourself, are so strongly convinced that their way is the right way, why is it that you guys are so adverse to debate? If anything you should bring some serious discussion in an attempt to better clarify your position.
cheers
Randy, it's not that I'm averse to discussion. If I were, I would not have listed your blog at all. (In fact, it was as I was putting up the blogroll that I realized that I wanted your in the list.) It is just that I am implicitly endorsing the sites in the first list. I consider them places where people can go to get my views differently, and perhaps better, expressed. Maybe I should rename the list — not "Good Sites," as if the others weren't, but something else such as "Views similar to mine, well expressed." Or maybe I should just put them all on the blogroll.
I hope I have made it clear in other statements on the site, that I welcome discussion of whatever I post.
And I hope this clarifies the distinction between the two lists (if I keep that set-up).
torchy! just made a post which linked back to this earlier one he made;
http://torchyboy.blogspot.com/2008/12/links-and-such-rulez.html
I think he makes a lot of sense. Not that I'll be doing exactly the same. The differences which immediately occur are that I don't distinguish between followers and others who link me, and that I don't intend to have any list of primarily photo sites. Also, if I think a site goes too heavily (subjective, I know) into graphic descriptions of sexual activity, I won't list it.
What's your view on condoms?
Sorry, but I'm ignorant of your proscription.
It's a serious question to a homosexual.
I think that condoms are immoral when used by a husband and wife because their "marital acts" are supposed to be open to the transmission of life. There are those who argue that even though adultery and fornication are not the setting in which God intends for life to be transmitted, it compounds the wrong for the man and woman to render the act infertile by using a condom. I'm not sure about that.
But when it comes to two men, I don't see anything wrong with using a condom, since the act is inherently sterile to begin with. (Of course you know that I regard the act as wrong whether or not a condom is used, but that's not your question.) I don't see condom use during homosexual activity as changing the moral quality of the activity, because the reason it is wrong for husband and wife has nothing to do with the case of two men.
Post a Comment