Woman to Woman

By Laura

January 30, 2006 07:09 AM | Link to this

I usually never agree with Shaunti, but this time I have to say she is right. Most fiction authors in some way write what they know; often basing their novels or parts of their novels on events in their real lives. Hemmingway is famous for it, for example, but he never attempted to call The Sun Also Rises a memoir! If a writer changes real life events so significanly that they are no longer even mostly true then the work has be labled fiction. To say that this is not a serious error or that we are making too much of his fabrications is simply giving this man a pass on the fact that he lied and made millions off his lies. We lessen the standards of truth and honesty when we do that I don’t think that is ever okay. The truth remains that he originally shopped this book as a novel and no one was buying but once he shopped it as a memoir it got snapped up. The weight of this book was all in the idea that it was TRUE. So now it has no weight. It is a lie! Diane you are wrong to turn this into an argument about artist merits or the integrity of an artist in his/her personal life. That is not what this is about. You have incorrectly blurred the two issues. Allen and Polanski’s indescretions were solely personal and not done in the course of making their films, nor did they relate professionally to their films in any way. For example, if Polanski had drugged a girl and then filmed her for a scen in Chinatown, then you would have a point as it relates to Mr. Frey but your stretch does not work. I usually happily go along with you and almost always agree with you, but you missed the mark in this argument.

By E. Lewis

January 30, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Most memoirs and biographies are simply the author’s version of the events of their life. I don’t believe that James Frey has less truth in it than almost any book coming out of Washington DC or any Hollywood flick. Was ‘Passion of the Christ’ 100% factual? I doubt it. That doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy it for what it is and the same is true for ‘A Million Little Pieces’.

By Tom Turner

January 30, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

I blame the sorry state of publishing, not some wretch trying to get his manuscript accepted and published. What exactly do editors like Nan Talese EDIT?! And why hasn’t Random House fired her?

By Renee

January 30, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Good Morning everyone…

I actually watched James Frey on Oprah and when I listened to him speak, so many events he was telling, sounded “less than true” to me. I have mixed feelings about the whole deal. I read the smoking gun report when they first made it public, and have followed up on it, just because I thought it was pretty interesting. I don’t know why he continued to lie when the Smoking Gun had their facts pretty much in order. I don’t know if him lying was important or not. Maybe as a business decision, he made a good decision to market it as nonfiction. And why did he use the Oprah show to come clean, when he was seeking her support before.

I wonder how long before the James Frey issue is turned into gay bashing and abortion rants.

Gazel last week you thought I was Ahmed or whatever his name was. I don’t know why you thought that was me but I don’t know the Qu’ran that well to quote verses, nor would I have the desire, lol.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Allen slept with his longtime girlfriend’s daughter and then married her….excuse me, Allen was the adoptive father of this daughter Kim and had been father for 16 years with 6 other children in their family. He was living in the house full-time and his seductions of his adopted daughter happened before her 18th birthday, thus showing the calibre of his father-skills. Small wonder he left the country so quickly.

Frey obviously knew no one would crack his sordid tale of dependency unless it was heralded as true—and suckers like Oprah lapped it up for her Everybody has a Problem I can Solve Because My Problems Are So Much Worse TV moment/book club. Part of Oprahs screeching is from her vanity, like her racially-motivated incident against Hermes of Paris—(gosh the French dont know who she is! Know this racially-motivated slur and in her bellyaching Hermes was never dropped from Oprahs web-site (Harpo is paid a % of sale revenue.) Being so wrapped up in her Oprah legend/trademark must make her a target more-often than this instance but here she was caught. When she comes back to earth she will discover all of us common folks are duped by others in life and her Book Club will only use dead writers.

Frey has a best-seller now thanks to this controversy and I doubt the publishers care if the money comes from duped purchases or curiosity seekers. In other editions the tag: This is a work of fiction will grace the volume. He will go where one-time published writers go…and languish in his cash.

By david

January 30, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Though a Republican, I almost never agree with Shaunti, either, because she is such an apologist for whatever corruption and right-wing religious hooey that comes out of the White House, Ralph Reed, etc and all the other Christian charalatans on the right. But in this column, Diane shows why the left doesn’t get morals and religion at all. This book is a lie, and Diane apologizing for it proves that there is no absolute truth with the left. This book is so far off that it is not even truthiness.

By David

January 30, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Um, woah. I agree with Shaunti. Yikes. Any book that purports to be non-fiction should be as true as possible. Of course, memory can be fickle, but what Frey did is disgusting to me. Call it “based on a true story” at the very least.

Now, if only Shaunti would take her belief in finding truth and accuracy and point it towards the bible.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Is it Friday yet?

By Scalia

January 30, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

I don’t know why you criticize her book club. I’m glad that she is helping people to read. It seems that reading is becoming a dying past time.

As for what happened outside of Hermes, nobody really knows what happened.

And you are right about people being duped. Half the people in Georgia and the United States were duped by our very own “angel” Ashley Smith, or whatever her name is that helped catch Brian Nichols. I find it hard to believe that she saw him sitting in the car for hours (neighbors notice that kind of thing. Why haven’t we heard from them?) and only said something to him when she went to get cigarettes in the middle of night. Why wasn’t she convicted for having an illegal substance in her house which she offered to Brian Nichols.

But you are right, common folks get duped every day.

By R Cagle

January 30, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Haven’t we been told for all of recorded time that art is self-expression? If that is true, then how can it be argued that the art should be viewed separately from the artist as Diane claims? Why should the good that any artist gives the world through self-expression be viewed differently from the bad they might also inflict through self-indulgence? Isn’t the artist’s life and work all one thing?

Taking it further, does Diane’s compartmentalization idea apply to all non-artists as well? For instance, should we “mentally separate” (as Diane does before viewing a Polanski film) the Nazi doctors and their horrid experiments from any potential good to mankind that might have resulted?

At some point we all have to take a stand one way or the other about the bad in this world. You can choose to mentally separate as Diane does so that your positive attitude towards the result is also one of tacit support for the monster who created it, or you can express your revulsion of the creator by separating yourself from both him and his work. Which makes your soul feel cleaner?

If you do nothing else, look at your next paycheck and ask yourself why you should spend good money to support some lying, cheating, child-molesting, drug/alcohol addicted, wife-beating, lecherous, whoring, out-of-wedlock child bearing, murderous, amoral a$$-hole whose politics you probably don’t like either.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Scalia - I have been saying from the beginning that Ashley Smith knew Brian Nichols prior to their “chance” meeting.

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

I wonder how long before the James Frey issue is turned into gay bashing and abortion rants

Read this entry late Friday and knew this would be my main topic about entry, however Renee beat me to it. LOL

aw, shucks.

Now, I learned about Frey on the smokinggun, first I had heard of him. Do not know if he had been on Oprah previously, presenting it all as TRUTH so have no real opinion. Not fond of LIARS but have not seen the book jacket to see if the book was presented as Truth.

But several issues, the time in jail a big lie and minor was the girlfriend hanging herself versus slitting her wrists, I consider the first(jail) a big lie, the second just a minor white lie. Saw excerpts from the show and it seemed Frey felt he was redeemed, to use Oprah’s term, since he had come on the show and admitted his lie. Come again? But then I do not like liars, period.

Graham Greene also wrote all about his life’s experiences, like Hemingway, however he also put it in novel form.

Oprah’s book club: I learned about it when a sister recommended White Oleandar, pre-movie. And then a brother called me to recommend Poisonwood Bible. Only two of hers I have read. But think her getting people to read a great idea.

oh, I missed my Ripped-From-The-Headlines:Woman-to-Woman at the ajc comment. Can a television series be far behind? LOL

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Hey, that’s not a bad idea, that “Ripped from the Headlines” thing…

I predict we’ll exhaust this topic by tomorrow midday, and the homo-bashing, anti-abortion rants will follow shortly thereafter.

Renee, did you read the article on Paulk? It was in yesterday’s AJC, but I’m sure they still have it online today. It’s a really long article, but follows the conversation you and I had last week. Take a look if you get a chance.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

JBM - I read it last night and I was actually going to ask you if you read it lol….it doesn’t surprise me though…the whole Chapel Hill Harvest over there is a cult like operation, they built their own neighborhoods etc for only church members.

By Archie

January 30, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

I do think this controversy over the book a “Million Little Pieces” is overrated and based on what I have read about the book I wonder how come no one discovered that this was lying before now. I kinda agree with Shanti that I don’t see how Frey can inspire when he has made everything up. Like someone said Oprah got played but she has to protect her brand. Oh well the world will go on.

As for Paulk I read that story and my first reaction is wow! If husbands could get that kind of respect from their wives… I mean I know I can’t go home and say I have a special relationship that involves sex with some woman and I definitely can’t ask a female member of my church to have sex without consequences but ministers can do this over and over. The Paulk story angers me as a man because of what male ministers can get away with. Those women should not be given a pass at all because they knew what their vows were when they got married and they had access to a Bible and other study materials so why did they hold this Paulk in such high regard that they would literally lay down for him.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Archie, all I can say is that the offices of elder, minister, pastor, bishop - are very powerful offices. They are held in such high regard, and there are a lot of spiritual aspects to consider as well. You know I’m not the “blame the man” kinda girl, but I definitely wouldn’t blame the women in this case. They were wrong, no doubt. But, they were basically brainwashed - as so many Christian people are. I have a lot more sympathy and compassion for the women than I would if they were just two regular women having a regular affair.

This was mental and spiritual manipulation, and an utter abuse of power and authority, which happens allllll too frequently in the Christian church.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

can this be one of those situations where shaunti and diane chime in and give us a new topic on tuesday?

this “controversy” is so overblown it’s comedy. we have a supreme court justice going for confirmation this week, but this story is what dominated the headlines. forget the SCOTUS, what we really get fired up over is if/when somebody dupes oprah over her book club recommendations. ha. what’s wrong with us?

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Bla, I have a confession to make… last week that was me posting as Diane and Shaunti… lol. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to come in and change the topic. ;-)

By lozen

January 30, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

I take it back ya’ll! The book thing is an “oh well” but the Paulk story is interesting. One thing I really wonder about is what causes people to do things like this? What causes people to join groups like Heaven’s Gate, Bob Jones, the Branch Davidians? All you had to do was look into the eyes of the leader of those Heaven’s Gate people to see he was crazy. People followed Bob Jones to another country and drank poisoned kool-aid, people become Branch Davidians and are burned alive! And where is the line between religious group and cult? Are humans just easily brain washed?

By lozen

January 30, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Agreed Bla about the topic this week. But you know it’s “Woman to Woman” and we can’t discuss hard news like a supreme court appointment on here! That’s because women don’t care about hard news don’t ya know; we want to discuss what’s on Oprah more than we want to talk about a man being appointed to the supreme court who will cave to the administration and work to make abortion illegal! That’s just the way we women are - interested in trivial news. At least that’s what the AJC editor of Woman to Woman seems to think of us!

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

And where is the line between religious group and cult

I always answered that with a funny: “About 10,000 members” but recently heard a good one as well from a Zionist/Fundamentalist: “Acceptance”.

By RF

January 30, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Well, this just proves what my dad always says—‘believe some of what you see and none of what you hear.’ I wasn’t surprised to hear Oprah go after Frey. Apparently he should have sold his book as fiction. But, when you’re a drug addict, what do you know of ficiton and nonfiction? His concept of reality was screwed up enough before he started writing.

Renee and JBM- read most of the piece on Paulk. What a mess!! How is it that a ‘man of God’ can build and steer such a large congregation, and then suddenly he’s also running a harem on the side? I guess greed and all that goes with it affects even the best of men. I’ve always believed if you offer enough, you can convince almost anyone to do anything. I just hate to see someone in authority play with people’s minds like this. How long before they’re drinking the Kool-Aid?

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

The question I posed was “What is the difference between a cult and an organized religion?” since I had my “10,000 members” answer ready. LOL

By Scalia

January 30, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

It’s not hard to believe. Look at what people on here rant about, and people on the Luckovich cartoon page. Look at how Chuck emphatically said that if you don’t do this, etc. you are going to hell. You can apply that same staunch, dogmatic belief system to anything to manipulate the crowd. “If you go and blow this building up, God will reward you.” “Kill those abortion doctors because God wants you to. He has called you to do that.” People will believe anything that you tell them if you say it the right way because there is a thing as a leader and a follower. The people that are the leaders are the ones that can manipulate the situation, and make you see the error of your ways.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

IMO, a cult is a group (usually with religious teachings) that is solely controlled by one person or one very powerful, usually elusive group of people.

The leader(ship) is manipulative, and tends to create rules (or distort biblical rules - in the case of Christian cults) that exercise an excessive amount of control.

The leader(ship) tends to demand total commitment and loyalty from his/her followers and often insists that followers cut off communication from non-followers, including their family members or long-time friends, neighbors, etc. They may encourage, brainwash, or insist that members all live in the same close-knit community to further discontinue contact with non-believers.

By skpialml1

January 30, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

skpialml1 http://www.skpialml1.cm ; Thanks!

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

on the flip side, lozen, perhaps the editors are jsut tired of us arguing over homosexuality and abortion and wanted to throw in a stinker topic for a week.

By Nikita

January 30, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Just my 2 cents here…Frey lied. or anyway, allowed others to cast him in a lie. which is quite unfortunate. However, it’s not really unusual. See the film “Fargo,” which has “Based on a True Story” in its intro. In fact it’s loosely based on a crime in the same vicinity which bears no resemblance to the ones filmed. But the Coen Brothers state quite clearly when asked that they placed that statement on the film as part of the fiction — in essence because they thought people might interpret it differently if they believed it was true.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Bla, I don’t think there’s a single subject in the world that Diane and Shaunti can come up with that won’t lead to a discussion on the evils of homosexuality and abortion.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

jbm,

NO WAY! that was you? see, i’m no smarter than oprah - look how easily i was duped. ha. lol. what a crafty one you are - my respect for you goes up all the time!

By Nikita

January 30, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Cagle, in response to your quetion, yes, actually, we should compartmentalize. Because, unfortunately, people aren’t perfect but a lot of them have good and bad qualities. Hitler, to use your example, wasn’t a bad artist or public speaker, but he was a megalomaniac. People need to be punished when they do wrong, but they also need to be recognized as whole people, which is to say people who do both good and bad things, and succeed or fail at different things.

By R Cagle

January 30, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

People, this not about some two-dimensional, self-important TV talk host getting duped. Its about right and wrong and how, good and bad, moral and immoral. Oprah probably doesn’t even see it in those terms. All she did was cut her losses and dump the guy when it became apparent her halo might pick up a little tarnish. Otherwise she’d probably be defending his work much like Diane does above.

You either have a moral compass or you don’t. If you support those who don’t have one by reading their books, viewing their films, admiring their athleticism, electing them to office, buying their products, or simply indulging your racist c-worker by not speaking up when he gets on a rant, then your moral compass is maladjusted as well.

No one is perfect, but that doesn’t excuse us all from our transgressions, nor does it give us excuse to ignore the transgressions of others just because they produce some byproduct from which we obtain a perceived benefit.

This is no small issue. If you don’t see that, then maybe you ought to do a self-check on your compass.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

cagle,

my compass is just fine, but i don’t see this as a big issue. i don’t like for a second the fact that the author is being intellectually dishonest and fabricating stories. frey should be criticized for being dishonest. but in the grand scheme of things, a recovering junky making up stories isn’t going to move the needle for me. this isn’t a story bc a junky lied, it’s a story bc a junky lied and duped oprah the clown. without oprah, nobody here has ever heard of frey.

By Nikita

January 30, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Maybe you should check the self-righteous-o-meter. Who’s suggesting we don’t have moral compasses?

My points were: a) people are complex, and not necessarily good in all facets. b) what is truth when it comes to a memoir, which after all is viewed through the refractive gaze of hindsight and a few gazillion editors and whatnot?
c) Is media bound to truth, anyway? Legally speaking, most of it isn’t other than being limited from slander and libel.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

cindy sheehan is thinking of running for senator against feinstein, according to a news clip released from caracas, where sheehan is the guest of america’s best friend, hugo chavez. hahahahahaha. talk about somebody who’s 15 minutes of fame just won’t end.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

LOL, Bla!! I’m not most proud of that… lol. I actually forgot to come back and say it was just me. I had forgotten about it altogether until you mentioned it just now.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

jbm, i thought it was great, harmless fun.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Bla, your 10:59 hit the nail on the head.

By Archie

January 30, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

JBM, I just re-skimmed the story about Paulk again and I still those women should not be given a pass. Heck,men manipulate women all the time for sex and these ladies should have known a dog when they saw it. This Paulk is the definition of a “player” especially since his previous church pushed him out because of adultery and he had other preachers that were players doing the same thing to women in their churches. If this weren’t a minister involved people would call these women names. Every Bible I read says that you can only have sex with your spouse else it’s called adultery. The women knew they were wrong because they didn’t tell their husbands from the onset. One of husbands was manipulated as well as he bought Paulk and his wife cars and setup an account for Paulk. Paulk pimped these women and he used the men but everyone has access to a Bible and I think the women should accept some blame. I think we give women a pass too often when they make errors in judging a man’s character especially when the signs are there the man has suspect character. When women manipulate men out of money,etc. the men are called suckers and there is no pity-party for them.

By RF

January 30, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Archie- that comes from a traditional view of society with the man as the head of the household and the woman being subject to him. Churches still preach that subservient role, and under that guise, Paulk used those women. Not that it excuses their actions, but it does prove how weak some people are and how quickly a woman can be manipulated by a man, even in our ‘modern’ times. I don’t see them as being as much to blame as the manipulator himself.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

RF I agree with you, and I agree with Archie

By Billy

January 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Archie, it would be different if women were in positions of power over men. That rarely, if ever, is the case. No, the women aren’t without blame here, much like the idiots in congress who believed all the administration’s BS reasons for war aren’t without blame, but the greater part of the blame in both cases lies with the manipulators.

By BES

January 30, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Shaunti wholeheartedly. I’ve read the book, and its a crock. I could tell it wasn’t real before it came out he lied about it. I am myself a recovering alcoholic and addict and I have had my share of getting in trouble. I did do 118 days in Fulton County Jail for a DUI. I didn’t make it up like he did. He proably took all his friends experiences and threw them all together to make a book. The funny thing, if he would have just called this a novel. He would have been still a celebrated novelist. Instead I’m sure the publishing companies are thinking of ways to get this go away. I applaude Oprah for what she did, was enjoyable to watch this liar squirm. Actually felt sorry for him.(NOT)At least he came clean in the end after making millions. Somebody is laughing all the way to the bank.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

I agree Archie that they shouldn’t be given a free pass except for Jessica Battle. (Jessica Battle, a college student who had been a dancer in the church’s arts ministry, filed suit in DeKalb State Court alleging that Paulk had molested her from the time she was 7 until she was 11 years old. Battle also accused him of forcing intercourse on her when she was 17. Battle’s grandmother, Lynn Mays, an influential pastor on staff, defended Paulk and blamed Satan for her granddaughter’s lawsuit.)

A “kingdom church,” Paulk explained in his 1984 book “Ultimate Kingdom,” is built on “kingdom relationships” between individuals or within communities willing to submit to spiritual authority. At Chapel Hill Harvester, that authority was Earl Paulk. Brewer and other church members consulted him on many aspects of their lives, from work to romance.

Church goers are taught to submit to an authority outside themselves: god, bible, minister or priest, father, husband, etc. True believers are not allowed to develop a trust in themselves and their feelings or thoughts. So they shouldn’t get a free pass, but cut them some slack because they were brainwashed.

By Archie

January 30, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Thanks Renee and RF, I understand RF about the traditional view as my church still adheres to that view,but I don’t. I think equality means more than just accepting privileges,it means taking blame when you don’t do right. A part of me believes these women wanted to get with the bishop for lustful reasons. Anyway I find the story fascinating because it backs up some of the attitudes the atheist-type people have and it backs up some of the non-traditional christian attitudes that I have. I mean no harm to the Frey issue but it just doesn’t fascinate the way the Paulk story does.

By Scalia

January 30, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

What I want to know is: did anybody in this church know some time ago that this was going on and call Earl Paulk on it? Or did they think that it was okay and not question it?

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Good example of why I now avoid “nice Christian men.” In my experience, when a man says “my faith is important to me,” he will apply the teachings of Christ and “good morals” to his life… unless of course you SLEEP with him, in which case, you become subject to the double standard by which “do unto others” doesn’t apply to “w——s.” Heh…. HWJTHC (how would Jesus treat his chicks?) The planet is crawling with the likes of Paulk.

By Archie

January 30, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

Billy you made a good point with your 11:52 post about congress. Lozen, I obviously don’t hold ministers up too high. Essence magazine published an article years go entitled “Preacher’s Prey” and I was amazed at how easily these guys can pull women,even when the women know they are in the wrong. I have a major problem with Jesse Jackson’s former mistress as she didn’t have any apologies to Jackson’s wife. I mean what happened to all the universal sisterhood between women? Anytime I hear a male preacher bashing men without an equal bashing of women I know there’s a manipulator in the house and it happens a lot in the black church.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

It’s not just ministers and nice christian men, Kimberly. I don’t know how many of my married college professors were sleeping with female students back in the 60’s. It was an accepted thing on campus although some people frowned on it. It’s different now and is not acceptable due to… TA DA… the women’s movement pointing out that those relationships were of unequal power. Of course we’re all aware of Monica! Sometimes I think it’s because women with little power admire men who do have power. (Why else would all these young women keep marrying Donald Trump?)

By Billy

January 30, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen, what about Cindy Hall, the first baby born into the church? Like Battle, he got his hooks into her when she was a child. If we’re going to blame the women, even in part, in this scandal, then we shoul re-examine the system of blame in all sexual crimes/scandals. How much is an 18 year-old high school senior to blame if she has a sexual relationship with a teacher at her school?

By RF

January 30, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Archie- sounds all too familiar to me. I don’t have a problem with God, it’s some of the fools running around ‘in his name’ that make me ill. Unfortunate, isn’t it, that God OR man would allow a minister, priest, whatever in a leadership role to misuse the job/authority in such a sad way. I have a sneaking suspicion Paulk ‘groomed’ his victims and had them all completely believing. That, and apparently he must have been a pretty good performer in the bed. Wouldn’t you love to be there on Judgement Day when Paulk shows up for his “reward”?

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Haha… I think women keep marrying Donald Trump out of vanity. They want to be counted among those who wouldn’t be caught dead in shoes that cost less than $600 a pair. It’s all about the shopping, and labels mean so much….

By lozen

January 30, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Billy, I agree with you too. I plead skimming the article! No, Kimberly, it’s because they want to run their fingers through that hair!

By RF

January 30, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Lozen- is it just me, or are there a lot of women out there who struggle with self-esteem and are drawn to power and self-assurance? I think women were programmed for a long time to be subservient, but seems to me these days a lot of them are letting themselves become victims of powerful predators because they think they need/deserve it.

By Jack

January 30, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I’m not very fond of the pious Oprah and care not what she or any other celeb has to say about anything. That guy should give her a big thank you and go to the bank.

And Paulk should be flogged.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Like I said earlier RF, I do agree with you, that these are men in power, who abuse their power etc, to take advantage of the women. But the flipside is the women are not ignorant. One of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not commit adultery”, so if they are followers of God and of the church, seems like God would win. This of course does not pertain to the boys or girls that may have been molested by him into adulthood. But these women carried on affairs, while he may be to blame, the women in my opinion do share some of the blame. They weren’t raped, they knew what they were doing, and they had the presence of mind to keep it a secret from their husbands.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

RF, I don’t see a big difference between being trained to be subservient and becoming victims to powerful predator males. I keep thinking about a woman who posted on this blog some time back that she was happy to be subservient to her husband and child! Can you imagine a normal male saying he’s happy to be subservient to anyone? Women are still being taught to be subservient, esp. women who go to church.

By Netbanker

January 30, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Howdy! What a stinker of a topic! The man said it was based on a true story…did he claim that the entire story was HIS? Does it really have ANY effect on anyone’s life?

Now on this Paulk topic…Holy Bejesus! was my reaction yesterday when I read the story. I do fully believe that the pastor used undue influence and while we can hold the women accountable they DID, in fact, reveal their stories. Did it take longer than most of us think is acceptable? Of course, but we weren’t walking in their pumps so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and still give them the credit for speaking out. It’s almost MORE damaging to them after 11-14 years than had they come clean immediately.

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

As a woman, I can say there is something inherent in many of us (not all) that makes us WANT to trust and submit to the stronger sex. Whether it’s our primitive biological origins, or our designated spiritual makeup, who knows? For many of us, it’s there. The problem is, you just can’t trust the b@st@rds. Sad. I really wanted to.

{:-<

By Julia

January 30, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

So a horse walks into a bar and the bartender asks,”So fella, why the long face?”….

Sorry, but this topic puts me to sleep!!! I’ll check back at the next topic….or later to see if you guys have switched topics. :)

By dee

January 30, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

from Archie: Those women should not be given a pass at all because they knew what their vows were when they got married and they had access to a Bible and other study materials so why did they hold this Paulk in such high regard that they would literally lay down for him.

I guess some people are “Preacher Groupies” and some are “Band Groupies”. I have a friend who used to work at that church and she said now that they, (the church), is selling off lots of real estate and also laying a lot of people off because of this big lawsuit that they have in the works.

Another note: Just a shot at Dubya — he’s lied to people consistently all the time and has called it real life, what’s the differnce between him and some rinky dink writer?

By RF

January 30, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Renee- I agree with you that the women are culpable. As a man, I’m just amazed that ANY man could have that kind of influence over women in this day and time. I’m not an avid churchgoer these days, but I do remember how the message of subservience to the man was taught in my last church. I just can’t believe that these women went on with it for so long! What is it about men in power positions that they have such persuasive abilities? Personally, I can’t see the ‘thrill’ of victimizing another person like that and not being eaten alive with guilt. I guess my mom’s right when she says that “even the devil can dress up in wings and a halo if he wants to look good”.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

By the way, do ya think Donald wears a toupee???

By Gazel

January 30, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

RF-that’s what they call the pope!

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

julia,

donald is as likely to have his real hair as i am to be the easter bunny.

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

A bartender looks up from behind the bar as a priest, minister, and rabbi walk in, and orders “Get Out, NOW!.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, if they had told their stories when it first happened their grandmothers would have accused them of being tools of satan! Well, one woman’s grandmother did …I wonder why priests prefer little boys and charismatic preachers prefer little girls and young women?

By Archie

January 30, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

“I just can’t believe that these women went on with it for so long!”

RF, I didn’t know you were a man all this time. Well your aforementioned sentence is the very reason I thought the women should take more of the blame. Eleven and 14 years into your marriage and you’re being pimped, you have to take some blame in this day and age. Thank you Renee for your 1:11 as they(women) did have presence of mind to keep a secret for many years. This type of thing does not happen to all women and it does not happen in every church. There are some very good christians going to church and there are good people period but what I have become less judgemental than I was 20 plus years ago. I really hope that all parties,including Paulk get their lives together. Paulk’s health is going bad so he really has to hurry. I don’t know if I would reward the Brewers because if Mrs Brewer had kept quiet there would not be any demand for repayment of money.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Dee, good parallel between Bush and Frey!

By dee

January 30, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

from Chilao — The question I posed was “What is the difference between a cult and an organized religion?â€?

None. Even though I love the bible and love God, I have begun to despise religions.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Paulk should be defrocked. Its a symptom of blind belief like we see here on this post-it show weekly of the grandiose all-one size fits all religion, but who checks up on them preaching to all the believers. Were they all into being holy for the cameras? What bugs me were the husbands claiming to be so naive when these affairs happened for years. Shows the husbands were not very involved with his wife, possibly their work/church took priority over their physical relationship and there was no bond of trust between the wives and husbands. People in power tend to have groupies. There is the electricity of being connected with someone who is powerful, be it a celebrity or a minister. Ask: is it all his fault or did his women get thrills knowing they were doing wickedness? Is it so uncommon to get your jollies knowing you are sinning with the Big Ones anointed somebody? Maybe Paulk did put big screws on her life…but adultery takes 2. The submission card is played when you get caught: He made me do it. Cant women just say: I was seduced, we romped and I liked it, sorry. Must they play the he made me do it card? Lotsa tears…He made me!

Archie, I think one of your best points was about women having affairs knowing the man is married, has children, a career but such is insignificant matter to their lust. While women see themselves as victims how could they all face Paulks wife every Sunday? If there is a victim its her Paulks wife not the other women claiming such innocence in his wickedness. Years…affairs went on for years…how can they look at her?

By lozen

January 30, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Oh, yeah and then there’s this: Exxon-Mobile’s quarterly profit of $10.71 billion is all-time high for a U.S. company. I hope all the stockholders are writing their “thank you” notes to the Bush family as we speak.

By Nikita

January 30, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Funny, I read this whole business thinking you guys were referring to John Paulk. Talk about lies!

By dee

January 30, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

from Renee - Like I said earlier RF, I do agree with you, that these are men in power, who abuse their power etc, to take advantage of the women. But the flipside is the women are not ignorant. They weren’t raped, they knew what they were doing, and they had the presence of mind to keep it a secret from their husbands.

I kinda agree with you, although the same argument can be made towards victims of domestic violence too. They always say, “Why didn’t she just leave?” but the answer, as well as the question is so complex that most women can’t articulate the “Why”.

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Bla. Please leave the chocolate & marshmallow bunnies. Those are my favorite!

By Renee

January 30, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Good comment Lyrazel.

By RF

January 30, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Yeah, it’s kinda hard to call someone a ‘victim’ if the situation has been going on for years! What amazes me is how many were involved and they ALL kept silent for a long time. Makes me think they were in it for something other than lust perhaps.

Trump I think has a bad combover. That cannot be a toupee with his money!!

By Prex

January 30, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

John Paulk left Exodus International in 2003 and currently lives the northwest United States with his wife and family

and has a Down-Low relationship with a guy in the next town? hmmmmmmmmm. hahahahahhaha

on that thought, where is the anti-gay crowd, trumpeting that Crash beat Brokeback Mountain at the SAG awards?

By Julia

January 30, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Just about the only thing women don’t have to worry about when getting older-losing their hair! (Most anyway.)

By Renee

January 30, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Dee, I don’t think you can compare an illicit, consensual affair, with domestic violence. Yes, Paulk threw around his power, but each and every woman involved, made a conscious decision to proceed in the manner in which they did.

By Scalia

January 30, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

I’m dying to know what Chuck and Randy have to say about Earl Paulk.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Trump has the money for hair plug surgery. I have no doubt its real because its thin and unprofessional looking while most celebrity hair thick and perfect. He plays his audience like the suckers they are…watch my show and see if you see a toupee…

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Wonder if Earl’s wife will “stand by her man” like Hillary did.

By Prex

January 30, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

I’m dying to know what Chuck and Randy have to say about Earl Paulk

does this recent revelation explain their absence?

Can we surmise that Paulk definitely going to hell?
Guess it depends if he repents and sins no more.

Maybe they are too busy with Ahmed, bless his soul, from last week, each trying to prove the other wrong or something like that.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Julia wrote: Another note: Just a shot at Dubya — he’s lied to people consistently all the time and has called it real life, what’s the differnce between him and some rinky dink writer?

About 1400 dead Americans, 120,000 wounded.

Bush should send some ballots from Florida to his friend President Mahmoud Abbas…and change the election.

By dee

January 30, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

from By Renee — Dee, I don’t think you can compare an illicit, consensual affair, with domestic violence. Yes, Paulk threw around his power, but each and every woman involved, made a conscious decision to proceed in the manner in which they did.

I’m not. I’m just saying if you asked these women “Why”; they probably couldn’t articulate the why. All they know is that they did it and it happened, sometimes for years, but they couldn’t answer the why. Yes, they knew it was wrong; but ask any groupie, “Why do you debase yourself for someone just because they’re considered a star?”, and they probably couldn’t give you a coherent answer.

The question is simple, but the answer is probably very complex. No one knows why some people are so attracted to power. Why did the Branch Davidians allow their children to be molested by their leader? Why did the men of that cult voluntarily abstained from sex with their wives just because their leader told them too? They all had bibles — why didn’t they read the word for themselves?

By John

January 30, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

This seems like the perfect time to point out that it seems some of the commentary of these two AJC writers is contrived. It seems that they feel compelled to disagree no matter what the issue. If this is “policy” for this section it should be stated. To simply disagree for the sake of readers renders future real debate questionable.

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Kerry would have been much better.

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

You came here for real debate? Hahahahahahahaha!

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

John, rarely do we read what they say, wink wink.

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Who needs some lousy TV show like the Book of Daniel when we have real-life reality in the Chapel Hill congregation. LOL

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

John’s It seems that they feel compelled to disagree no matter what the issue

I think it was part of the job description, discussed first interview.

By Scalia

January 30, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

That’s what gets me about the people protesting the Book of Daniel. They act like it was so negative, when you have things like this happening in real life. Would they have wanted the show to be like this? Would they have wanted the preacher having illicit affairs with several women from his congregation? Or was it just the fact that the son and his sister-in-law were gay?

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Jack, Kerry would have been better for what? President? How could anyone vote for someone whose whole platform was: Vote for me because I am not GWB? Maybe he lost because no one really understands what the democratic party stands for anymore…since the dem party dont know themselves! Maybe he lost because none of the voters who normally vote democratic wanted HIM despite what the party elected…

Maybe he lost because he is butt ugly and in this vanity-rules culture we live in more votes are cast for handsome than policy…wink wink…

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Dee. See definition of sheeple.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Yes, I have noticed a conspicuous absence of our “churchian” as opposed to “christian” friends today. I don’t know who posted that Ahmed stuff, but surely our churchian friends saw the parallel between their self rightousness and Ahmed’s, and their belief that they’re right and Ahmed’s belief that he’s right. Oh, on second thought….

By RF

January 30, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

I’m sayin’—— why read this stuff and then go home and watch it on TV? MY GOD isn’t a little reality enough? I watch TV less and less these days for that reason.

I think Dee has a point. The women, who logically should have known better, may not even be able to entirely explain WHY they did it. I don’t there will be any simple answers.

Paulk’s wife will ‘stand beside him’ long enough to figure out what she gets in the divorce. Why does any wife stay after such a situation is exposed? Can’t imagine myself.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel-I did not write the quote you attributed to me. I think it was dee.

By Elane

January 30, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Frey’s crime (as well as Talese’s) can be boiled down to two words: BAD BUSINESS. More and more, especially since Enron, we’re seeing constant reminders that when you try to dupe people, it comes back to haunt you. I tend to blame Talese more - she’s the professional and this is her job. If what Diane says is true, that the book was originally presented as fiction and steered by the suits onto the nonfiction shelves, then double, triple shame on all of them.

I think Frey had better just stick to fiction, even if it’s a recounting of what he had at Waffle House this morning. We’ll all rest easier.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

I beg your pardon, Julia…. humbled and now departing for her corner…..

By Archie

January 30, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

“Archie, I think one of your best points was about women having affairs knowing the man is married, has children, a career but such is insignificant matter to their lust. While women see themselves as victims how could they all face Paulks wife every Sunday? If there is a victim its her Paulks wife not the other women claiming such innocence in his wickedness. Years…affairs went on for years…how can they look at her?”

Thanks,Lyrazel your point about Paulks wife is what I’ve been waiting on some woman to make for the longest time. Your point is exactly why I had a problem with Monica Lewinsky and Jesse Jackson’s mistress. How can you fall in love with someone else’s husssband? As a man I can’t say I was “blinded by her beauty” and expect my wife to go along with that line. I do think sexual addiction is a different thing than just a regular affair so if Bill had a problem then I could understand Hillary standing by her man. With an addiction you’re irrational but with an affair you plan trips,go on dates, have conversations,etc. I think Newt G.,Jesse J. and E. Paulk were having affairs but Bill had a problem.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure why these women did what they did. But I don’t think these are helpless victims who were having sex while keeping the deer in the headlights look, not knowing what’s going on.

I was just going to comment earlier, do Shaunti and Diane actually read the forum comments and/or who comes out with these topics. The fact that a comment and a rebuttal could be written about James Frey (who means very little in the scope of society) is comical.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Boy I hate that I had that stupid meeting today. I have so much to say but don’t feel like rehashing.

I SO disagree with everyone who’s saying that the women are equally to blame. They are not. These are men, likened to God in the flesh, who abused their authority and power. The women didn’t just have affairs, they were coerced and brainwashed with spiritual force, which can be stronger than any physical force, to sleep with men that was as close to God as they ever thought they’d get on this earth. We may not ever understand it, but they are not to blame. And, there are sooooo many reasons they may have held on to the secret for so long (confusion, bewildered, spiritual struggles, shame, fear, guilt)… But, Dee’s 2:12 said it best. Earl Paulk is a monster who used his office to carefully select, abuse and brainwash women that he knew he could get away with abusing.

Scalia, your 2:41 is very thought-provoking.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

That is the big question: Why does anyone obey some crazy leader? Whether that leader is religious or political or whatever? Is it simply because we’ve been taught from day one to obey authority? Don’t forget women aren’t the only ones who follow blindly. Why do people keep following their leaders into war and risking death when they don’t ever know the whole story about what’s really going on? I think someone talked about the psychology experiment where people were told by someone in a doctor’s coat to keep increasing the electric shock to a hidden person even when the hidden person cried and begged them to stop. Most people continued on and on past the point of severe pain as long as the authority figure told them to do it! Let’s not kid ourselves; we all have it in us to blindly follow the commands of an authority esp when we’re young and unsure of ourselves.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Paulks wife will stay by her man because she is getting her revenge not just on him but especially on the women who had affairs with her husband. By staying with him she can claim God Triumphed over wickedness and even show them her glorious forgiveness. It puts the weak person in a position of power—and she will maintain her dominion forever after. Watching someone disgrace themselves after their being on a power trip is sweet revenge—whether you are Hillary or the silent suffering hausfrau…

By Julia

January 30, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

I think ketchup boy wants to run again in 08 doesn’t he? Nothing else, he sure provided us with alot of laughs and jokes throughout the election.

“I actually voted FOR that before I voted AGAINST it!” John (Flip-Flop) Kerry

By Jack

January 30, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Bill wanted what Hillary wasn’t going to give him. Big problem.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

So JBM…these women didn’t know the error of their ways? I can agree they were coerced but any one of them could have made a decision not to do it. And then, do they deserve monetary damages???? Maybe the duped husbands, and even that is a maybe.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

How can you fall in love with someone else’s husssband?

Archie, as a former mistress, I have to tell you that it’s really not that hard. :-)

Immoral, yes. Hard, not at all.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Now THAT’S what we need….more Clinton’s in office! :(

By Jack

January 30, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

I think I like Julia. :)

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

lozen,

do you gripe as much about the quarterly profits of bellsouth, microsoft or other large corporations, or is it just companies primarily engaged in the exploration and refining of petroleum? just curious.

why don’t you get in on the party and buy some stock?

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

julia is great, jack.

By Zack

January 30, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

No, it’s not an overreaction, and it’s just another example of why I don’t watch Oprah, quite possibly the most gullible woman on the face of the earth. (She also buys into Neil Donald Walsh, someone you might not have heard of but someone who purposely writes deceptive material.)

As for last week, yes, Hollywood owes it to America to subdue its material. (During the week of Thanksgiving, there were so many TV commercials that offended me that I was enraged.) We also owe it to Hollywood not to fuel its garbage-dispensing by paying for it. We also need to speak up and out against the content of many commercials.

By Chilao

January 30, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

ketchup boy wants to run again in 08 doesn’t he

good one, ketchup boy. if he does run, get the nomination, reports for duty,(lol), we can certainly have a Republican win again in 2008. Now McCain might not be a bad idea.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Renee, I’m not sure if I’m convinced that these women should receive monetary compensation, but I do think that they should sue Paulk (if for no other reason than to expose him).

At the same time, I will say that I know the psychology of church… and I probably know this field better than I know anything else in the world. There is no question in my mind that these women were manipulated, and that the psychology Paulk used on them was no less potent than a mickey slipped in their communion cups.

And, you don’t know if any one of them could have made a decision not to do it, because that would assume that we know their presence of mind, and mental capacity, ability, strength, etc., and we don’t.

I’m not saying they didn’t know the error of their ways, I think they (like so many other churchgoers) were impressionable, and easily convinced that this man was the closest to God in the flesh, and whatever he said had to be right. It’s not hard to manipulate the Bible to make it say what you want it to say. We see people like Chuck do it all the time. Paulk did the exact same thing. He took the very same word of God that he taught as inspired and holy, manipulated it for his purpose, and used it to convince these women that God actually wanted them to have this relationship with him.

Be mindful that there are several examples of polygamy and bigamy in the bible, so it’s not that hard to explain (to the “right” person - and he obviously picked the “right” people).

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Julia’s landing on the cool, sane side so far. Actually, this has been a very pleasant debate today—dare I type that and ruin it? The churchians are always near!!

As a man, I can’t even begin to speak to what these women were thinking, but apparently there was SOMETHING that convinced them to stay. That’s why I agree that while they are not totally without blame, they are victims in a way. Lozen said it in her 2:55- we’re all closer than we think to being controlled by a charismatic person. Why did all those folks run off with Jim Jones to the jungle and end up drinking Kool-Aid. Some came to their senses, but it was too late. I think Paulk carefully picked his women based on who he thought he could first persuade and then control.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

actually, can the dems trot out howard dean again? i was really looking forward to him winning the nomination last time b4 kerry swooped back into center stage to take it away from him. we need more of the scream: YYYYEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Ketchup boy? Hmmm… So, if your husband is a proctologist, what does that make you? A—H—- gurrrl?

Yes, that’s definitely what Americans need: new ways to label each other. ‘Cause seriously, things aren’t bad enough. Nice.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack!

I actually had a TON of funny Kerry cartoons and photos on my computer until it crashed last year. (Maybe it could only take so many photos of Franken Kerry!?!?)

Jack-you know what you get when you take the 1st two letters of first name and put them with the 1st two letters of his last name don’t you? :)

By Julia

January 30, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks bla!!!

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Haven’t we all known someone who had us all ga-ga and willing to change religions if necessary? I can see how Paulk did it. If he was as persuasive as one little vixen I remember, these women went willingly, blindly convinced that it was perfectly fine. Almost been there done that myself…and the rest I’ll plead the Fifth!

By Jack

January 30, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Paulk is like most men. Thinks with the wrong head.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

lest we forget that kerry had nothing to do with ketchup, if tereeeza has any sense, the most appropriate name for kerry is probably pre-nup boy.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

The women didn’t just have affairs, they were coerced and brainwashed with spiritual force, which can be stronger than any physical force, to sleep with men that was as close to God as they ever thought they’d get on this earth. We may not ever understand it, but they are not to blame. And, there are sooooo many reasons they may have held on to the secret for so long (confusion, bewildered, spiritual struggles, shame, fear, guilt)

JBM: Sure, I can believe they were coerced and brainwashed with spiritual magnetism BUT how could they speak to the same pastors wife every Sunday but not change their behavior? Many women who have affairs with married men use the wife as the excuse for their bad behavior…she was cold, she was ungiving, she had issues… It seems to me more crying tears over they got caught than brainwashing. As for Paulk being a monster…yeah…I would agree he used his power and office against victims for the first year…but after about the 5th year I see two monsters, ya know? A wife who cheats 10 years—can she really claim she was a victim?

By dee

January 30, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

from lozen - That is the big question: Why does anyone obey some crazy leader? Whether that leader is religious or political or whatever?

Your post reminded me of a quote that I’d read not too long ago……

“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.” Adolf Hitler

By Archie

January 30, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

I agree with Lozen that men can be duped too by religious folk. Renee, I am really feelin’ you on this Paulk thing.

JBM, any reader of the Bible knows that no man is God in the flesh and if you think that then you,you have the problem be you male or female. I never said the women should have equal blame in this case but Lyrazel made such a good point in that how could they look at Mrs Paulk each week for years? A part of being equal in today’s society is accepting blame. JBM I wasn’t expecting you to reveal something so personal. I will say this I don’t how many women would be sympathetic to a spouse with sexual addiction but I do give much credit to women for their tolerance level. Even my wife called these women names after hearing how long these affairs lasted. Renee and Lyrazel I really agree with you guys.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

That’s one way to have the heat taken off of you and not have to accept responsibility.

“Honey, I’ve been having an affair for the last ten years, with the pastor who is also your personal friend, but I’ve been brainwashed and did not know what I was doing”.

If they were truly brainwashed, they would have no idea of what occurred during the time period of being brainwashed.

And if you believe they were brainwashed against their will, then under those circumstances shouldn’t they receive monetary compensation?

By Jack

January 30, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

The women were guaranteed a place in Heaven for Pete’s sake.

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

good one Kimberly!! If I was married to all that money, they could call me anything they wanted while I was sipping margaritas on the yacht!

Now really, do we want a first lady who has spent the GNP of a third-world county on cosmetic surgery??

By Renee

January 30, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

No RF, lol, but I think she would be 100% more fashionable than Laura, lol. What is going on with those pocketbooks she carries????

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Uh Jack, maybe the women should have READ their bibles…one of the problems I have with evangelicals is they tend to PREACH but not read said BIBLE…seems preachers dont read it either…

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Jack- apparently he was convinced he could show the heaven here on Earth. Must have been doing something right to keep them all those years.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Oh pleeeease don’t make me think about the dumb things I did when I was young and stupid that were as bad as what the women of that church did! Please don’t make me think about those photos of my little six year old niece painted and posed to look like a little trollop that her parents or grandparents took her to pose for! Please don’t make me think about getting felt up by an old drunk when I was 13; I was so scared I froze instead of slapping him which is what I would do now. Then when I told my mother, she said, “You must have done something to make him think he could do that.” It took me two years of counseling after I was married to feel as if I could say no to some old lecher who was feeling me up at work! Females are trained to be victims. I see parents making their daughters kiss relatives they don’t want to kiss! I see mothers teaching their daughters they must always, always be nice to everybody. I have done things I really didn’t want to do because my husband or boyfriend wanted me to do it. I don’t think anybody can claim they never have either.

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Heaven’s just a rocket ride away, right? I KNOW I’ve heard that somewhere…..

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Renee- when you own more land than most middle-eastern nations and you have more money than God, you can carry any dang bag you want!

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Those pocketbooks were good enough for GWBs fashion-plate mother. We all know mother has direct interest in her daughter-in-law keeping up Bush fashion statements.

RF: Do not care how much the wives spend on cosmetic surgery…I dont elect the First Lady. Its when Kerry started getting nips and cuts AFTER he started his campaign that I wondered…hey…brain dead…Always have it BEFORE your campaign poster shot is printed…

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

and Kimberly, the question of the hour is, did you fall for it? Was it a ‘short’ ride??-LOLOL

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

You’re right Lozen. As a kid, I was also made to feel like it was my fault. That’ll teach me to speak up and tell the truth. Yup. Nice planet we live on.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Well Kimberly we know it’s always the females’ fault when something like that happens. How could Paulk look his wife in the face day after day? Nobody asked that q. yet!

By RF

January 30, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Kimberly- sorry I asked that question. Apparently you were still responding to Lozen while I was making a tacky joke. Now I feel like a schmuck…

Lozen- that’s why I see how the women could be considered victims. I don’t think parents are as controlling now, but I think we did program our girls to be subservient and this is the result.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

how old are you two? are you raising your girls to believe that sort of thing is their fault?

By lozen

January 30, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

I do not want anyone to think I don’t hold any of the women accountable for their actions. I’m just pointing out how quickly we blame the women whenever an incident like this comes up. I don’t care if she’s 11 years old. The old line was that we females had to control them and ourselves even if he was 35 and we were 14. That way of thinking has not died out yet.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Sure you can carry what you want LOL, all I’m saying is if I had the kind of money and owned the kind of land they do….I could be wayyyyy more stylish….lol…

By Archie

January 30, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Lozen we already said Paulk was a dog. Females have to accept some blame and I agree with Renee and Lyrazel. Heck I was told to be nice to people and I have had things said to me that I didn’t like and I have had women touch me in some questionable ways especially in this modern era. Women have to accept some blame. I called Paulk a player and a dog wayback in earlier posts today that’s no one is asking how can he look at his wife. Lyrazel and Renee keep up the good work.

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Bla, I’m old enough to know better. I’m teaching my daughter that if a boy or man says (x, y or z), he’s disrespecting her, and if he DOES (x, y, or z), she should feed him a knuckle sandwich, and come tell me immediately! I also offer other useful knowledge, such as “They’re that way 8 hours a day whether you’re there or not! Love ain’t got NUTHIN’ to do with it!” Then I add, “That doesn’t mean they’re bad, it just means they’re male. But you have to protect yourself, ‘cause THEY sure as hell won’t!”

By lozen

January 30, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Blabla, has it ever occurred to you that you might learn something you don’t know if you listened to what women tell you about their upbringing? Why do you have to throw out sarcastic little retorts? Esp. considering you might soon be the father of a little girl!

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Okay, wait!!!!! Y’all are going too fast for me! LOL!

One at a time.

Lyrazel: The wife has nothing to do with anything, and it’s not very difficult to separate your relationship with a man from your relationship with his wife. Especially if you’re taught to believe that God ordained both relationships, but the first wife isn’t spiritually mature enough or strong enough to handle the knowledge of the second ‘wife’ or mistress…

The women were wrong. I’m not saying they weren’t. I just don’t blame them, personally. And, they weren’t caught, they confessed on their own. And, as a professional churchgoer, trust me, when you come to church crying every single Sunday for months, and years, you want someone to uncover your problem.

Archie, my life is an open book. There isn’t much that I won’t tell about myself, especially if it’s a part of my past. And, I didn’t mean to imply that the women thought the man was God. But, there becomes a very fine line between God’s representative and God himself. And, this is what I think happened. For years, this man was the voice of God to these women. He prophesied to them, he spoke encouraging words over their lives, he prayed for and with them, he dried their tears, counselled them, heard there innermost secrets - as pastors do. He knew just what to say to get them in the bed - and they had no idea it was coming.

All I can say is that you don’t know the experience until you’ve been through it. I haven’t been through that particular one, but I’ve seen enough “Christian” pastors and elders abusing their authority to know exactly how it happens. And, it happens to the greatest among us.

Renee, I’m not saying they didn’t know what they were doing; I just think they were made to believe that it was okay, even that it was right. These women were spiritually manipulated into believing that what they were doing was right, not wrong. So, even if they knew in their hearts that adultery was wrong, Paulk found a way to convince them that it wasn’t really adultery. I mean, should JWs who deny their children certain types of medical care be compensated when they realize they were just brainwashed?

And, I’m still not sure that that means they deserve monetary compensation. What would the purpose of the money be? Will a bigger house make them feel better? A nicer car to undo the damage?

By lozen

January 30, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

And I started out Archie saying “yes, the women need to take some blame.”

By dee

January 30, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

from renee - If they were truly brainwashed, they would have no idea of what occurred during the time period of being brainwashed.

That’s their story and they’re sticking with it. Heck it worked for Patty Hearst!!

By Renee

January 30, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Who knows the truth about who was the actual agressor. If I’m caught or “confessing” it makes me look better if I say I was brainwashed. Then not only do I not need to take responsibility but I also get the bonus of becoming a victim.

Everybody knows Paulk is a pig. Who knows if one of these or all of these women pursued him.

Either way, I can’t fall for the “oh woe is me, I’m a helpless victim, trying to follow Jesus” act. These women all read the bible I’m sure and adultery is a commandment. It couldn’t be that they wanted to believe it was ok, so they could continue the affair.

An affair takes sneaking around. Making conscious decisions to leave the home while telling your husband and/or family you are somewhere else doing something other than what you are doing.

If he was raping them on the altar (or anywhere else, I would have a different attitude).

As far as being quick to blame the women, I think people are just as easy to blame the men. Maybe they are both equally to blame. Why does one have to be brainwashed and the other a tyrant.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen, when does the woman grow up and take responsibility for her actions? While I cant help but agree with you on many points, there is learned gross behavior many women use called always being victim— it is also taught by religious women to their daughters that salvation will come when a strong man guides you— that weak vessel excuse is a crutch many women use—especially when getting caught with dirty laundry around their ankles!

While Paulk seems to be deceitful, conniving and cruel, I see that also in the women he had affairs with since they administered the same cruel, deceitful and conniving behavior toward their husbands. How could Paulk look at his wife daily? Dont know, wont know—how could he shake hands every sunday with the husbands?

By lozen

January 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Preachers do it, priests do it, guru’s and even president’s do it…. come on, let’s fall in bed, uh, I mean love!

By RF

January 30, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Renee- when you’re that rich, you make fashion, not follow! Not that us poor folk will ever know that feeling…

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Renee, adultery may be a commandment, but there are enough examples of honorable Biblical figures who had several wives for Paulk to have made this his case.

One can really never know the mind of a victim of molestation unless he/she is or was a victim. I’ve never been in that situation, but I have had two situations in my life where I was “approached” in circumstances that made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Anyone who knows me knows that I don’t hesitate to speak my mind in any situation, like it or not. I’m a NYer, with a NY attitude, and I can be a very confrontational, in-your-face kind of person.

But faced with that situation, I became a totally different person. And, many women do.

I’m not saying blame the man, it’s never the woman’s fault. I’m just saying that this isn’t something that can be analyzed by the average mind. You have to have had this experience, or one similar - or you have to have some experience in church psychology - in order to really understand it.

By blablabla

January 30, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

lozen, that’s part of the reason why i asked the question - to get information. there was nothing sarcastic about and it wasn’t a retort, it was a question.

as to the other part of the reason why i asked the question - your age would give me insight on how relative and how recent your upbringing is. if you’re 70, your perspective on how girls are brought up is a tad bit different than if you’re 30. make sense?

thank you, kimberly, for your reasoned response. i’m glad to hear that your girls are being taught that when weird or unpleasant things happen, it isn’t necessarily their fault and that they don’t have to always be nice to everybody they meet.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Ummmm JBM….I have had the experience of men (and women) approaching me in ways that made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Had I chose to sleep with everyone who approached me in manner that made me feel uncomfortable and/or had a position of power, I would have had a very busy sex life.

A man thinks with what is between his legs a lot of the time, he can love his wife, but he’s going to try and get what he can get from you if you allow it. And as you know many women can think in the exact same way as a man. As a woman I can choose to, or not to, allow myself to be in that situation.

By Archie

January 30, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Preach Renee, Preach. This Paulk thing really is a juicy topic and it can be used as teaching tool for men and women as to what a false prophet is and what’s inappropiate. In this day and time we can train men and women to think,think differently—even in the church. I really like the last two posts by Renee and Lyrazel.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

It is a two-sided thing; I haven’t said it isn’t. I understand why women do things they don’t want to do because a man they care about or look up to asks them to. I even understand why it would be a temptation for a powerful man to take advantage of women just because he could. I understand how shocked I was and how frightened and confused I was when the old drunk boss grabbed me and ran his hands over me when I thought we were going to discuss a problem I had at work! I don’t know what I would have done if he’d been my minister and my parents’ minister and I’d grown up hearing what a godly man he was and been part of group from birth that talked about how we must obey him. This isn’t a simple issue. I don’t think I’ve said it is. I do tend to be more sympathetic toward the women and understand how they could have done what they did simply due to experiences I had as a young woman.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Exactly Archie!

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Archie, I thought churches were the place to go when you want to STOP thinking. How can you teach people in the church to think? I’m confused.

By FatMoose

January 30, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

The agruements removing blame from the wives are appropriate for children; but not grown adults.

People know what they are doing and look for a scapegoat eveytime; Male or Female, it does not matter.

Try finding a reverse of the roles played here. Not just Male/Female mind you, but a person IN power being coerced by someone below them in the hierarchy.

You may be able to come up with a few; but not many. This ilustrates my main point - it is primarily the power that corrupts and not the gender or teaching that gender gets.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

But, Renee, you are one woman. And most likely, if you were at Cathedral or Harvester, Bishop Paulk wouldn’t look your way because he’d know that you’re not the one to fall for it.

The most important part of the scheme, if you will, is selecting the weakest women you can find. He didn’t go looking for some strong-minded black woman who would tell him to kiss her @$$, and then go tell his wife. He went looking for the woman who would react just as those women did. Not everyone in the world is as strong as you.

Believe it or not, there are some women who do indeed sleep with every man who puts them in an uncomfortable situation - Christian or not.

By Lyrazel

January 30, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

JBM: I flunked church—what do I know about good behavior? I was also kicked out of choir—why should I know that a pastors integrity ought be more than lip service to his wife and congregation? I have seen enough women in abusive relationships to know the AJC certainly has not given us this full story or enough to actually decide who is victim and who is scum. I can only side with the wife (AND TWO HUSBANDS) because she seems both victimized by the women and her husband. Perhaps the wife knew and loved her position of power in her church so much she chose silence over declarations of infidelity. Bet they are ALL glad the lies are over. They must face their god…ya know? I just comment on a blog.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

kimberly-that’s not true. I go to church and I don’t check my brain at the door-so to speak. I don’t know about this “churchian” stuff but I am a Christian and enjoy going to church to worship God with fellow believers. Maybe you’ve had bad experiences going to certain churches but I haven’t. It’s very uplifting to me to be in that spiritual environment-especially after a rough week at my job.

By DianeisHOT

January 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Diane is still HOT!

and Shaunti is still NOT.

Lovin that black skirt! Oooh yes!!

By lozen

January 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel asked: “when does the woman grow up and take responsibility for her actions?” Maybe never if the woman spends her whole life in a charismatic church. I think some religious teaching trains women and men to never grow up and take responsibility but to always be looking to some outside authority for all their answers. It seems Paulk’s church was that kind of church. And don’t forget Jimmy Swaggart. He blamed his whole prostitute episode on the devil. The devil was trying to bring down his ministry and led him to making appointments with prostitutes! JBM probably has the best understanding of the inner workings of the church, and she isn’t blaming the women. Why are we so ready to immediately start blaming someone anyway? So we can think to ourselves that would never happen to me. I know it could have happened to me very easily.

By Renee

January 30, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

I’m not blaming anyone, I said both are equally responsible.

By dee

January 30, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

from Archie - Preach Renee, Preach. This Paulk thing really is a juicy topic and it can be used as teaching tool for men and women as to what a false prophet is and what’s inappropiate. In this day and time we can train men and women to think,think differently—even in the church.

That’s a good comment, but in reality how can we train people to think differently about religions? Religion seems to me more of a treat for men then women. There is one religion that advocates polygamy for the male but monogamy for the female.

There’s another that says if a male dies a martyr he gets 100(?) virgins, what does the female get? 100 ways to wear the burquas?

Another that doesn’t let women have a position of power in the church, and still another that insists upon women being the “handmaidens” of the church.

With all these different teachings by different cultures, and religions who can really say where the “false prophet” is hiding?

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Julia, I’m glad it’s working for you. Fellow believers can be good company, especially if you all share the same sense of humor. OH, I get it now: JO plus KE spells JOKE! CleVERRR. Hahaha! ‘scuse me whilst i pee myself.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

This is great today. You state your case and I state my case. We may disagree, but nobody is telling anybody else they’re going to hell because they disagree! I love it.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

kimberly-what did I do to tick you off?

By RF

January 30, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

What bothers me about the whole thing is how long it went on without anyone, ANYONE blowing his cover. That’s power and control there. He had an amazing control over these women to keep them from talking for that long.

By lozen

January 30, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

It was like a cartoon with the light bulb going off over my head one day. If there were a devil, where would be the best place for him to hide to deceive people? Starts with C and ends with H.

By RF

January 30, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

lozen- you’re going to hell (didn’t want you to have withdrawals!!) only kidding I think you’re pretty neat, actually. Maybe that means I’m going to hell too!!

By dee

January 30, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

By lozen — How could Paulk look his wife in the face day after day? Nobody asked that q. yet!

Good point! It’s like when you see a kid running wild in the neighborhod everyone always asks, “Where is his/her mother?” No one EVER asks, “Where’s this kid’s father?”

It’s like the female is the only one who can be responsibile!!!

By Gazel

January 30, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

lozen-add the word Catholic to the front of that and you may be hitting the nail on the head! What the Catholic church teaches is so far from Christian it’s not even funny. Revelation tells us the false church is in the city on seven hills…(Rome).

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

It didn’t go on without anyone blowing his cover. Paulk’s cover has been blown several times. I recall hearing and reading about him when i still lived in NY. And, after I moved to Atlanta, I heard even more stories. I’ve seen him on the news more times than I can remember, and this isn’t the first article I’ve read about him either.

What happens is that when they blow his cover, the “spiritually mature” members begin to bash the accusers, calling them satan’s workers, etc. The bishop makes some cockamamie story about how the devil is out to get him, and everyone falls for it.

By DianeisHOT

January 30, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Those HEELS! Those HEELS!

Diane please have mercy. Dress like Shaunti.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Dee/Lozen: What’s the big deal? Men (and women) cheat on their spouses every day and look them in the face day after day after day… unless of course, they get caught.

By kimberly

January 30, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Julia, you didn’t tick me off. I just think the ketchup boy references and lame Kerry jokes are old and tired. I am annoyed whenever I hear this kind of “humor” because, clearly, we (“free” Americans) are screwed in more ways than we’ve ever been screwed before. But instead of meaningful discussion of WHY that is, we get lame jokes about an election that’s been over for more than a year. Where are the jokes about what Dumbo has done to our economy, our military, our civil rights, and our morale? Frankly, I’m beyond being a little SICK of the churchies razzing someone who never hurt them, who TRIED to stick up for what’s right (albeit not hard enough) while failing to acknowledge that we’re all SCREWED from the “leadership” we’ve seen in the last 5 years (executive) and 10 years (legislative). Please tell me what the HECK is so funny, so I can chuckle too.

By Just Being Me

January 30, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

And, by the way, Diane is only hot in comparison to Shaunti.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Ok, no more jokes for Kimberly.

By Julia

January 30, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Putting a Democrat in office in 08-bet that’ll make ya laugh!

By Scalia

January 31, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

JBM: you don’t find Shaunti’s no comprise, dogmatic, rigid beliefs attractive? You don’t like her motherly look? I’m willing to bet that she drives a mini-van.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Wow, I finally made it in. Got lost on the new home page. Looks nice, but I hate change. :-(

By Renee

January 31, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

ummm….whats wrong with driving a minivan?? lol

By Renee

January 31, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

and whats wrong with a minivan lol?

By Mercy

January 31, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe I’m agreeing with a right wing columnist… but I am.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Heh, from a healthy heterosexual guy(meaning one who would find most women attractive, in some way), they are both attractive. However, Diane quite a bit more enlightened (evolved) (probably as a result of being exposed to more in life) and it IS all in/about the mind, correct? LMAO

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Anybody else having problems posting?? Maybe it’s just my PC.

Anybody got a topic for today or should I go and do some (gasp) work?

By Wray

January 31, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

What’s the big deal? Even books that are considered nonfiction have some fiction in them. Books are simply an author’s perception. An American History textbook is one writer’s account; other texts may present different facts. Give Mr. Frey a break. He wrote a book and delivered his message. Who really cares if it is 80% or 90% or 100% true? Look for the message.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

JBM - yes, problems with ajc posting at that, well, cannot remember url but part of posting when you hit post.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

I have had posting problems…JBM, fight the work feeling lol…

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Shaunti said: American vehicles continue to do well in quality ratings. I personally drive a terrific Dodge minivan that shows no signs of trouble after 8 years.

Gentlemen, this should answer your pressing questions about What Would Shaunti Drive.

By lozen

January 31, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

This is a test….

By Jack

January 31, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

I agree with Chiliao about the ladies. (The standards differ as one ages)

By lozen

January 31, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

I also hate change JBM, esp. when no change is really needed. People who set up websites are never satisfied and always have to keep changing it over and over. I’ve had to go thru that at work and it just makes everyone else’s life more difficult. The old website looked just as good and worked just as well as the new one! And then they do it in stores too. I learn where everything is and can go in and grab what I need in a rush; the next time I go everything has been moved. What’s up with that?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

LOL, gee thanks Lyrazel. I guess Scalia was right!

Renee, I’m trying to fight it, but all these piles of paper on my desk keep looking up at me, taunting me, teasing me, mocking me! I can’t hold out much longer…

Is anyone going to come up with another topic????????

Is the government doing enough to care for retired and/or disabled veterans?

Why is Georgia lagging so far behind in education? What does it mean for the future of Georgia, and our workforce? How did it get so bad and what can we do to fix it?

Should the King Center be sold to the government?

That’s all I can come up with right now… unless you guys want to do jokes again today… lol.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Lozen, the WORST change of all is in the grocery store. I ran into the Publix in Buckhead about a week or so ago… just wanted some canned pears. Mind you, the store is but a minute big. How about the canned pears was on a DIFFERENT aisle from the canned vegetables?!!!! WTH?

I hate that!! And, it seems like they always love to move the small stuff like baking soda (duhhhh, put it next to the baking powder, which obviously goes on the same aisle as the flour and sugar and stuff). ~sigh~ WHO MOVED MY CHEESE?!!!!!

By Archie

January 31, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

There’s a dominatrix that was acquitted of manslaughther out in San Francisco. The police say she confessed but since they didn’t tape it there was no evidence although it was alleged that her boyfriend cut this guy up into pieces. This story is interesting because it shows how slack police work can allow a killer to get away. The police lost their notes. It seems the guy had a heart attack while the woman was doing her thing.

This story isn’t as interesting as the Paulk story and the trial for Paulk is coming up in the 2 weeks. My wife stills finds it incredible that the affairs could have lasted that long and these women were that gullible. I still agree with Renee and Lyrazel and I have tried to consider other viewpoints but their viewpoint makes so much sense. I must admit however that church folk do have a hard time accepting reality when it’s just as plain as day. If you ever try to vote out a pastor with just cause you’ll see families split and friends fallout but one thing about there is a truth whether you want to accept it or not. Heck if a preacher has someone in the church pregnant and it’s not his wife he needs to step down.

By RF

January 31, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

What’s even worse is when you go to Wal-Mart, see something you don’t have the money/time to get that day, go back a week later, and IT’S GONE! Sooo, you ask an employee (when you can find one), and noone knows what you’re talking about. Bottom line- you see it, you better buy it then because it won’t be there in a week.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Archie, I read that dominatrix story… isn’t that something? Assuming she really did confess, it just amazes me that soooo many guilty people get off because of police slip-ups, loopholes in the law, cutting deals, or because of who they know - meanwhile, no one is in a hurry to release the innocent who are wrongfully convicted.

Then, you have states like Florida, that won’t even compensate a person for wrongful conviction…

I remember seeing an Oprah show (years and years ago, in the first year or so of her show) where a woman (married with children) lost everything (family, career, home, etc.) and was imprisoned for grand larceny. If I remember correctly, she was accused of stealing a fur coat or something like that. She was innocent, but spent like 10 years in jail before being exonerated.

Now, THAT’S a way to get me worked up…

By Renee

January 31, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Nobody that works in Walmart knows how to find anything. I don’t care who I ask, I always get the same answer.

“I don’t know” “I don’t work in this department” “I don’t speak English” (okay I’m wrong for that one)

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

RF, sooooo true! I am so anti-Walmart, and so addicted at the same time! LOL!

By True Confusion

January 31, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I have to agree with you about the Kerry jokes. I think it’s very convenient for people to laugh off the person who lost the election. But, considering the current state of our country, I do not feel like laughing at someone who could have kept us away from this mess of a nation. As for the flip-flop issue, Kerry voted for something, then voted against it. I don’t see that as flip-flopping. I see that as someone who agrees with an issue on the surface, then examined it more to determine that the underlying issues are something he does not agree with. I see that as an informed decision. People are allowed to change their minds. I would rather a President make an informed decision that contradicts what he thought previously, than hold strongly to an idea that is failing the country. I’m all for criticizing the head of the nation, republican or democrat, but where is criticizing Kerry getting us?

By Jack

January 31, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

You are Truely Confused. Bush inherited the economy. The Dems ran on an “anybody but Bush” campaign. That won’t cut it with the intelligent voters. Offer a solution instead of pointing fingers. Kerry is lucky that most don’t refer to him as Mr. Heinz.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

I’m all for criticizing the head of the nation, republican or democrat, but where is criticizing Kerry getting us?

I agree, TC. What a waste of humor.

By Archie

January 31, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

JBM, Florida has many stories of people wrongly convicted. Yes I get fired up too about anyone going to jail when they are innocent and that’s why I don’t like the death penalty,however, there are some folk that need the ultimate punishment and I would support that if we had a system much fairer than what we have now. I believe that dominatrix confessed but that foolish police department allowed her to get off. I don’t have a problem with WalMart because they do have low prices and it’s just that simple for me. Heck there are a lot of American companies that aren’t a paragon of virtue.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Yes. He wasted a lot of people’s time.

By Julia

January 31, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

It was a light-hearted joke folks. Good grief!

I can listen to dubya bashing all day long and not get worked up. Why so touchy over Kerry? It was a few short jokes for Jack’s benefit ok. I thought he would like them. Wasn’t trying to make a political statement or rile everyone up.

Next subject please…

By Scalia

January 31, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Thanks Lyrazel.

As for the store, I work in a department store. You move products around so that customer’s will see certain products that are not selling. You also put your most expensive stuff up front to catch the customer’s eye. For example, you have a hard time selling that organic bean stew you put it near the sugar or something that people are always going to buy. That’s also why candy is on eye level with children. If they see it, they will tell Daddy to buy it.

As for products, I was so bitter when Bath and Body Works discontinued one of my Men’s products. I also hate that I have to walk all the way to the back in the corner behind the cash register on two shelves to get the guy products. I know that women are the bulk of their customers, but geez. Can a fella get some love?

By Jack

January 31, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Julia. You are supposed to get people riled up. :)

By Jack

January 31, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

I usually refer to Kerry as “the gigilo” or “Mr. Heinz”. I did enjoy your jokes and those that can’t handle a little Kerry bashing should grow tougher skin.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Scalia, I know!!! Bath and Body used to make a Juniper something or other scent, and they stopped making it. I’ve been holding on to the last bit of my lotion, shower gel, and body mist for about 5 years now!! lol!

Julia - No one is riled up, dear. Some people like your jokes, some people think it’s senseless. I would say the same if you were joking about Bush Sr. or Reagan or Carter or Clinton… it’s old news. They have little or no effect on today’s situation, so it’s a waste of a joke. To me. And, remember, you’re on a blog so 9 times out of 10, there will be someone who strongly agrees or strongly disagrees with what you’re saying (unless you’re one of those who speaks in that language that no one understands so we just ignore you). you gotta be able to roll with the punches.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Scalia. Wow. I thought you were a female. Sorry.

By True Confusion

January 31, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Julia - no hard feelings. I get the humor, I mean, he’s an easy target. And Jack, I was not pointing any fingers. I did not intend on making a comparison to Bush with my statement. The point I was trying to make is that I like that he admitted he was wrong by changing his position. I thought he made a more informed decision, and just happened to go the other way.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

It’s so funny that you guys get the gender all screwed up. One of the regulars said yesterday that he thought RF was female… I think it was Bla?!

That’s just too funny to me.

Actually, last week Archie said something about being black and I was surprised… lol. Had no idea.

By CHilao

January 31, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Julia - I think the point was not Kerry, per se, but the historical relevance as it relates to today, Kimberly’s point. And he really is so so yesterday. (we hope..LOL) Since I had never heard the “ketchup boy” I thought it was funny, now “Mr Heinz” and his African-American wife, I had encountered before. I would not personally want to associate myself with the former ruling class of Mozambique, but that’s just me. Paul Theroux wrote a book, he writes both dark novels and travel books, and he, at 60, did an overland from Cairo to Capetown, via Mozambiqe. Interesting read, at any rate.

got a little side-tracked there, Mozambique did a pavlov’s dog thing. LOL

By Scalia

January 31, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Really Jack? Why? We used to talk about football frequently, and I thought that I came across loud and clear.

By Julia

January 31, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Thank you Jack. Oh Jack-Did you hear about the Iraqi general who wrote the book about working for Saddam and the fact that he gave Syria his WMD’s to hide? He was on Hannity the other day. I think it’s called “Saddam’s Secrets”.

By RF

January 31, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

JBM- I read once where Helen Keller said everyone should be blind for a short period of time. It changes your perception of people when all you have are their words. Funny how we perceive each other on a blog, isn’t it? We’re defined by words expressed, not by visual standards. I think that’s pretty cool.

By Archie

January 31, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

JBM there used to be a crew of racists that posted and a guy named Ben,myself, and I think Kimberly had to hold it down on this blog. As a churchgoing person I do wish the christians would represent better on this blog but then maybe it’s too much to ask when you have people like Paulk. I sometimes wonder what’s the point of going to church since in my hometown there’s a church every 1.5 miles and yet you still see senseless killings sometimes by members of a church. For example, a young man working in a strip club was killed by a lawyer, that does attend a prominent church here in Columbia. The lawyer evidently is mentally ill but I wonder why it’s so hard to get some conservative church folk to help someone. I mean we can’t solve everything but the South ought to have the lowest crime rate in the nation with all the churches down here.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

that is pretty cool RF.

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

if kerry is so yesterday, why is his name still plastered on about 1/3 of the bumper stickers i see around? i’m happy to stop poking fun at the kerry voters if they’d quit reminding me they voted for him. and show a little love and respect for your car, people - bumper stickers are tacky!

and true confession, i don’t find it comforting at all that kerry voted for one thing bc, as you say, he had only reviewed things on the surface and once he dug deeper he decided he didn’t like what he was voting for. i’m sorry, but i expect my elected representatives to understand an issue before they vote for it or against it. your explanation doesn’t wash with me.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

if kerry is so yesterday

Please, I can DREAM can’t I? LOL Watch him be the 2008 Nomination. shudder. I have liberal friends in MA who cannot stand him, their Senator.

I used to put bumper stickers on vehicles, non-political, but since they are so difficult to get off. Maybe people left them on there so not to be confused with that Black-squared W sticker.

By Lurker

January 31, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

The reason Kerry changed his vote on that particular bill was because it was amended. He voted for one bill, it was changed, he disagreed with the changes and voted against it. That seems like a fairly logical way to approach a vote. To doggedly stick to one idea regardless of changes in circumstance is a very dangerous way to govern.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Yes! I’ll bet the stuff is in Syria. After all, Bush was trying to do the right thing and get the UN behind us and that gave Sadamn plenty of time to ship the WMDs out of Iraq. Some are too stupid with their hatred of Bush to see that.

Scalia. I do remember you saying how good the football player’s looked in their britches . That’s why i thought that.

By RF

January 31, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Archie- church on every corner isn’t there? I went down to a very small town down 85 south over the weekend, and on this one road I saw maybe four houses and at least that many churches. The problem is, unless they’re small and local, most people don’t know each other very well and don’t feel comfortable opening up. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks busy ‘playing church’.

By RF

January 31, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Jack- Bush says it was bad intelligence, but I’m convinced there are WMD’s and I’d bet the farm we know where they are too. My bet’s on Syria.

By Julia

January 31, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

To be for or against something depending on the audience you’re speaking to is an easy way to get labeled as a flip-flopper. Makes the person appear weak and unsure of himself. If he’s unsure of himself then how can I put my trust in him?

You can’t say DUbya’s been labeled as weak or unsure!

(…Oh boy…here it comes!!! ;)

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Julia - interestingly, back to Theroux and when he was in the Sudan, traveling south. This was right after Bush’s election. The Sudanese he talked to went something along the lines of “Well, with Bush we know exactly where he and we stand, with Clinton we had no idea where he stood or where we stood”.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Kerry said whatever the audience at the time wanted to hear even if it contradicted what he said earlier. The Dems would have done better had they stuck with Dean. At least he was passionate about the race.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

book is: Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Cape Town by Paul Theroux

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Bottom line is that most republicans wouldn’t put their trust in a democrat anyway, and vice versa.

Most people who joke candidates don’t really joke because of the person’s character, but because they represent the opposite political party.

If it was character-based, I’m sure a lot more repubs would be joking Bush, and a lot more Dems would have joked Clinton when he was in office. (I used Clinton b/c I still don’t see the point of joking Kerry when he is soooo yesterday’s news).

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

The Evolution of Sticky Notes

By FatMoose

January 31, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

There is a fine line bw being brave and being stupid - Same goes for sticking to you original beliefs and LEARNING bc of more information is available.

GW has shown no capacity to LEARN and alter course where needed. And since he is not too bright to begin with, learning is quite vital for his position.

By Julia

January 31, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Hey, how about that Jimmy Carter??? LOL

By RF

January 31, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

JBM- antagonism is part of the political process. One party always pokes fun at the other just for being the other party. At least people know who’s who when they’re joking. What’s scary is how ignorant our teens are about, well, most everything. I put a Lukovich cartoon on the overhead about Bush, and AFTER I explained it to them, they still didn’t get the satire. Of course, these same kids can’t figure what a 30 dollar shirt would sell for at 20% off without a calculator, so I don’t know why I expected they’d get political satire.

By Julia

January 31, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Zell Miller in ‘08!!!!! (He could start a new party of Republicrats!) LOL

By RF

January 31, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Julia- I’d vote for Zell!! Republicrats- I like that!

Jimmy- he was less than weak as a president, but since then has done more than any former president I can name. He’s done alright since don’t you think?

By Jack

January 31, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Zell is the only politician I can think of that tells it like it is without the typical party partisanship. the dems don’t like him but this country would be better off with many like him.

Uncle Jimmy can swing a mean hammer!

By lozen

January 31, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

How about that Jimmy Carter! He’s a fine man who has done so much since he was prez. I think he tried to do good while he was prez. I have a lot of admiration for him.

By lozen

January 31, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Zell Miller is a raving lunatic!

By Jack

January 31, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

I could vote Republicrat before I would vote demorat.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Where’s Kimberly? Beat me Master, beat me! :)

By lozen

January 31, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Oh, well I forgot Jack when I said yesterday no normal male would ever say he enjoyed being subservient! Of course, Jack, I don’t think you’re normal either ;->

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Okay, question for all the conservatives: Who would be the ideal democratic candidate that even you would have to vote for?

Same question for the liberals: Who would be the ideal republican candidate that even you would have to vote for?

Moderates, hush. LOL!

By RF

January 31, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Okay, who spiked Jack’s coffee this morning? Or did you eat another druggie?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Okay, if I post one more thing that doesn’t show up, I’m leaving for good.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

How about a game of “Describe that Blogger”??

Realize it or not, you have an image in your mind of what your fellow bloggers look like.

For example, I visualize Kimberly, Bla, RF, Whiley, FM, and Jack (and a few others) every time I converse with them…

Anybody want to take a shot?

By Jack

January 31, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Oh Lozen. I’ll bet you can snap a mean whip! LOL

I better calm down, they’ll call the men in white coats again.

By lozen

January 31, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Netbanker is very well dressed. He’s trim and his pants fit! He is 5’10” tall and weighs 160. He wears glasses (he’s so smart) and has sandy hair, blue eyes and that pale english complexion.

JBM, I had a vision once of a tall, big woman like an Amazon warrior. Somebody I’d want on my side if it ever was necessary to fight! That’s how I visualize you.

By RF

January 31, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

JBM- you are soooo trying to avoid the work today, aren’t you?? ;-)

Good question about the candidates. I don’t know one on either side I’d vote for right now, and that’s kinda scary.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

I’ll go first.

JBM is a cute black female with long legs and likes to smile. Kimberly is a firery red-head. (Who I love) Whiley has long dark hair. (Love her too) RF, Bla, & FM are all SAWBs. Like me but I’m better looking. LOL

By Renee

January 31, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

I cant stand Zell Miller.

I like the game JBM lol….you first….

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

RF, yes I am! LOL! I’m actually just doing some busy work right now. I really can’t seem to get focused today. And the blog is boring me to death… you would think that would kinda encourage me to do some work, but NOPE.

Lozen, I saw NetB. as very well dressed too. I visualize 6’3”, white, dark hair, dark eyes, nice build, but slightly on the thin side, very nice smile, and glasses for reading (before he had the Lasik surgery)… LOL! He wears dark suits and shoes that I don’t particularly care for, but he still looks good every day.

Oh, and I’m far from big and tall! LOL! I’m about 5’8” and 120 lbs. And, if it came down to a physical fight, you’d be dead with me on your side! LOL!

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

JBM..you just ruined my day! B&BW doesn’t make Juniper Breeze anymore?! I love that stuff…very unisex scent that smelled nice…it was the apres shower summer time lotion. I did just discover their Orange Ginger at a hotel last week which is a good winter kind of smell.

I’d vote for John McCain in a heartbeat. His positions seem more Libertarian than Republican these days. My impression is that he’s a man with integrity and he’s had the balls to speak his mind even when his position doesn’t align with the RNC or the current Administration.

Political posturing is all about perception. Bush may not be weak, but he’s most certainly done the flip/flop. He was just better at creating a perception that he didn’t do a complete 180 on the Department of Homeland Security for a concrete example.

By dee

January 31, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

from Archie — I mean we can’t solve everything but the South ought to have the lowest crime rate in the nation with all the churches down here.

Oh wow, you are sooo right, and just visiualizing what you just said is sooo scary!! All these saints down here in the south who act worse than the sinners!! WWJD?!?

By Cherece

January 31, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

I read the book, and was able to see very clearly that what James was telling was made colorful. I still enjoyed the book, and didn’t pick it up to begin with based on fiction-nonfiction-memoir. It was a good read. Plain and simple. And if that book help one addict turn their lives around, Hurray for James!

What I do have a problem with is Oprah (yes I am saying it, unbelievable being I am such a huge fan of Oprah) I don’t believe that the public humiliation of James Frey did anything to help him. I was saddened and worried about him. Remember this man is an addict… Will he pick up and use again? Will he learn from this? What was the point in having him sit in front of all those people?

I believe fully in holding people accountable for their actions, but did it have to be done in front of millions of people? Did we have to watch this man’s public humiliation?

I can only say this, We are all human, and we all make mistakes, and anyone who took pleasure in watching this show should make sure that they live their life’s by the same truths as they hold everyone else to, and this includes Oprah!

By Renee

January 31, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

I thought NetB was black??? Maybe I’m wayyyy off base.

JBM an Amazon Warrior lmao (what a description).

I think RF is really handsome (I might be still wayyyy off lol)

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

I never could quite get a good picture of Lozen in my head, but I do have a pic of Whiley.

She’s somewhere between 10’1” and 10’3” (lol… just kidding). She’s about 5’8” and about a size 14. She’s got sandy brown hair that is really, really wild. Almost like she stuck her finger in a socket. Green eyes, olive skin. Dresses kinda frumpy, but she’s very comfortable in her look. She wears wire-framed glasses, and wears her pocketbook over her head the way your mom taught you to as a pre-teen. Always wears a smile (except when she’s talking about men).

By lozen

January 31, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

99 percent of murderers say they are christians!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

NetB is black? I don’t think so, Renee. Of course, I could be wrong.

I thought RF was black at first, but now I’m not sure. I think he might be white with soul. LOL! I picture him as handsome, too…

Archie kinda reminds me of Archie from the comic books - but a black version. I’m seeing bowties with pullover sweaters, nice courderoy slacks and always polished shoes. I picture glasses, and caramel-colored skin, with a few blemishes. He’s thicker than the comic-book Archie, his muscles are softening up a bit. He’s about 5’10” and appears to be grumpy until you get to know him. He’s not the most outgoing person in his day-to-day relationships (work, neighborhood, etc.). He drives a Nissan or a Chevy SUV.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Renee’ looks like JBM but a little older. Sorry Renee’ maybe I’m wrong.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

I picture Liza Minellie (sic) when i see Lozen post.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

NETB. I bring you good news! I made a mistake, it wasn’t B&BW that discontinued Juniper, it was Victoria’s Secret. It was a much nicer fragrance (to me), and when they stopped making it, I started using Juniper from B&BW. So, no, it’s not discontinued. Hey, you might like Calgon’s Hawaiian Ginger. That’s my signature bedtime fragrance. The hubby loves it!

By Renee

January 31, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

RF is white (I think) but again I may be way off. JBM I think he just has soul too lol.

By Whiley

January 31, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

WHAT? !! , JUST being me try again sweetie.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

You can eat juniper berries.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Ha ha ha!!!! Jack called you older, Renee!!!! LOL!!!! Jack, although we are very much alike and have so much in common, we don’t look much alike, and we’re actually around the same age. (Renee is older, though! LOL!). We are both gorgeous, though… if that’s what you were picturing! LOL!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

~giggling nervously~ Oh, hi Whiley! I.. I… I thought you were on vacation?? :-)

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Ok. I should have said “more worldly” maybe?

By Renee

January 31, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

ewwww I hate Hawaiian Ginger!

I think I am older than JBM but I look better ;) lol!

By Zack

January 31, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

To the person who said Diane was hot and that Shaunti was not, first of all, “hot” is a very vulgar term in that regard; I don’t care what anyone else says.

Both women are attractive, and that particular picture of Diane isn’t the best. The other one was a lot better. (I’m not insulting Diane at all; pictures just rely on so many variables to be right).

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Chuck has a really round head and reddish-brown hair. He’s balding and not too happy about it. He’s definitely on the plump side and wears nice clothes, but still looks sloppy. He tends to wear jackets that don’t exactly match his pants and socks that clash with his tie. Except on Sundays, when he looks his best. At work, he just wears a shirt and slacks, on occasion, a tie.

He’s got short, stubby fingers, and a mustache. He drinks a lot of coffee, but he’s cut back quite a bit.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Y’all are scaring me with the descriptions. Lozen is the closest although I’m a tad smaller than anyone guessed (5’9”, 140), but JBM nailed the build…I’m a former competitive swimmer. I wear contacts rather than glasses and have only 1 suit that I don for visiting clients that require them, weddings, and funerals. Many people in my company assume I’m from the California offices because I do have a tan year round that is a perk of having a condo in Florida. Several people I know say I have a thousand watt smile. (Momma did say to use it lots so the money spent on braces wasn’t wasted). I am addicted to shoes…thank god for Kenneth Cole and Sketchers!

Let’s see…

Lozen…beautiful long, loose white hair, a kind smile, mischievious twinkle in her eyes, medium height and build, dresses kind of fashion-funky (tribal inspired patterns, chunky jewelry).

JBM…small in stature, big in spirit…walks softly, but carries a big stick. Wears little makeup, but always has a strong color on her lips.

Kimberly is a FIERCE woman! Short black hair, very white teeth, clean and well done makeup, power dresser in tailored clothes that show off her figure. She’s petite, but a force to be dealt with.

Jack…short, dark hair, dark eyes, quick to smile and laughs with his eyes as well as his voice, medium build…t-shirt and jeans kind of guy who is comfortable in his own skin which means he cleans up well when he has to.

RF…light brown hair, chocolate brown eyes, exudes a quiet strength. Trim build and frequently wears khaki/polo shirt. He’s the nice neighbor next door who hides his ‘hottie-ness’ under a bushel.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Why is that vulgar Zack? Don’t you think your wife is hot?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Renee, I told you to make that eye doctors appointment!!! LOL! And, if you hate Hawaiian Ginger, you need a nose doctors appointment, too!!!!! LOL

Zack, get a grip, dude.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Somehow, I’m not picturing Zack’s wife as “hot.”

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Here’s what I see:

RF=George Jefferson Just Being Me=Wheezie Lyrazel=Florence lozen=Helen Willis Blablabla=Mr.Willis

Jack=Jed Clampett Whiley=Granny Kimberley=Ellie Mae Chuck=Jethro Netbanker=Mr.Drysdale Renee=Miss Hathoway

72John=Bookman/Buffalo Butt

By Renee

January 31, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

I’m glad you don’t lay next to me, I’d have to kick you and your Hawaiian Ginger out of bed lol….

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

NetB, wow, I think you hit the nail on the head with RF (not that I’ve seen him… lol). But, it sounds a lot like what I’m picturing.

I saw Kimberly with long hair, though… but I also see petite.

And, I love your Lozen description… even though that’s not what I pictured. I like yours better than mine.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Every husband should think his wife hot. I do. and I remind her of that daily.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

JBM…you are redeemed! Jack…can I just drink gin instead since it’s flavored with juniper berries?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

ROFLMBO @ Jack K.

Using television characters, I’d have to put myself more at a cross between Mama from “Mama’s Family,” and Florence from “The Jeffersons.” But, that’s more attitude-based than appearance-based…

By RF

January 31, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

JBM- oooooh, you sweet thang!! I don’t know about the handsome part, but I’ve been told I have lots of soul! Actually, there are some dark roots in the family tree we’ve found in recent years. I grew up in a very diverse area of the ATL and was very lucky to live in the kind of community Dr. King dreamed of. My family tree is interesting to say the least. Lot of nuts growing in it too!!

I see Renee as a strong, smiling type who people are comfortable talking to. JBM strikes me as introspective and quietly strong. I think the two of you together would be a hoot and loads of fun to be around. The rest are hard to picture. I can’t picture Jack, but I bet I could find him at a party- he’s the one over on the side keeping a group laughing.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Trolls don’t get invited to too many parties. LOL

By RF

January 31, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

I do kinda picture JBM as tall, don’t know why I get that impression.

Net I figure is the tall, thin banker type with the suit and tie thing going on.

By RF

January 31, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Net- problem is, nobody’s turned that bushel over in a while, you know what I mean?? Actually you’re not far off. Blue eyes. Definitely the neighbor type- I almost bought a minivan last year for pete’s sake.!! You guys got cameras or something??

I do see Jack with smile lines around the eyes and a quick, mischievous smile. He’s got grown younguns so I bet he’s getting a little gray.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

I am NOT Mr. Drysdale! And I have to go join a conference call…I guess someone has to work today.

By Scalia

January 31, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

What is SAWB? I’m so confused.

As for Chuck, I assumed he was hot. He has the hot repressed behavior of a mormon.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Trolls don’t get invited to too many parties. LOL

Too funny!

I think if JBM and I were to hang out, she would have a ruler to hit my knuckles when I get out of line, or give that look (Like you give to your kids when you want them to be quiet).

I think Jack would definitely be the life of the party.

I see RF as being kind of reserved, but a lot of fun (definitely not a closed minded person)

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Trolls rule in dark places.

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Sorry, but I needed a “banker” type in that role!hahaha

And now that I think about it…72john would make a good Boss Hogg!!! RF can be Luke and Jack can be Bo. Now, Daisy…hmmmm…maybe Julia can fit that role. Roscoe P Coletrain will be played by Chuck! Uncle Jessee will be played by blablabla. YEEEE-HAAAAA!!!!! ~~(blowing the “Dixie” horn on the General Lee)~~

By Julia

January 31, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Also ROFLMBO @ Jack K!!! Thanks (I think) for the Daisy role! LOL

By RF

January 31, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Chuck and Roscoe—too funny!!!

Renee- I get the feeling she’d be giving you that look a lot. You’d be the one laughing and getting both of you in trouble, you silly thing you!

Chuck’s the middle-aged guy with the Sunday suit and the coaches jacket during the week I bet. He’s definitely hyped up enough to be on the sidelines on Friday night yelling out orders!

Jack- you don’t get invited?? Just because you eat a few guests…some people are sooo picky!!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

That’s funny, Renee, because sometimes I give you that look here in the forum. Every once in a while, you’ll say something (Like earlier today, I can’t remember what it was and don’t feel like scrolling up), and I’ll say, “ooooh, I’mma pop that Renee right in the mouth!” LOL!

I would definitely be the one trying to force everyone to get along. I know I’d just shake my head and walk away on Whiley, John and Chuck.

It’s unanimous, Jack would be the life of the party. I think Kimberly would be a hoot, too, though. She strikes me as someone who can really party hard once you get her out of the house.

Renee would just get tipsy and giggle all night. LOL!

RF would get all kinds of attention from would-be suitors, and he wouldn’t even realize they’re looking! LOL!

NetB. would buy someone a drink.

So would I.

Jack would hold the door open for the ladies. Whiley would rant about it for hours.

72John would light a joint.

Julie would have one too many glasses of wine and get a little tipsy by mistake.

Lozen would pull out a cigarette from a long, classy cigarette case.

Renee would keep running to the ladies room to check on her makeup.

I would follow her to make sure she’s behaving.

OH, we forgot Tim… the other life of the party!!! Tim would bring the party with him! After a while, we’d have to walk away from him because we just can’t laugh anymore. Cheeks hurting, sides hurting, makeup running…

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Same question for the liberals: Who would be the ideal republican candidate that even you would have to vote for? Olympia Snow (R-Maine) A. She has proven herself with issues such as health care (her tri-state area has affordable health care benefits for ALL persons in ME,NH,VT) She also supported legislation that Americans be able to buy prescription drugs wherever they want. B. She is against NCLB C. She was not on payolla train of Aberhoff D. Environmentalist E. Supporter of child/working parent tax-deductions

Chortle… I dont keep up with who is black, white or tangerine…male … female…neutered…all of you are adorable…

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Hey, do you guys ever wonder what would happen if one of us died and you never found out about it?

I mean, I know it’s a bit melodramatic, but I was thinking, we haven’t seen John this week, right? What if he was in a bad car accident. How would we ever know it?????

That sucks.

By RF

January 31, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

NOPE- I usually miss all the signals right off the bat. Gotta work on that! I’d be standing there talking about my kids and just totally miss it!

Renee would be giggling and leaning on everybody. She’s the touch-you type. JBM would be quietly surveying the room and catch someone’s eye from all the way across the room while Renee giggles and I’m in la-la land- or sneaking off with Lozen for a break (yes I smoke and I’m jonesing for one right about now!)

Net would WANT to buy someone a drink, but he’d remember his commitments before it went too far don’t you think?

Tim and Jack would be playing off each other and literally have us spraying our drinks all over the table. I suspect ‘ol Net would get pretty funny too once he loosened up a little.

I’m trying to figure out who’d be working the dance floor. Renee, maybe, and Jack some, but the rest of us??

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

JBM:…You know the flip side to your thought is: How would we ever know if Tim won the lottery and gave up blogging because he bought Google…

By RF

January 31, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

JBM- you scare me sometimes. I thought that very same thing last week. That’s an interesting question.

Okay, Renee, say something funny and lighten us up here!

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

JBM - too funny. How about I know exactly which comment I made earlier which I know you found to be inappropriate.

I know Tim is a cutie, lol!

RF - you are right, I would definitely stay in trouble

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Renee would be giggling and leaning on everybody. She’s the touch-you type

RF, you hit the nail on the head! I am so the touch-you type!!!!!!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

RF, you’re really close, dude. I’d spend about the first half hour acting shy, being observant, surveying the room, determining who I like in person, and who I’d rather not have met at all. Then, after I’ve made all my mental notes, I’d be giggly and silly. I’d be the one leaning on someone, and I’m VERY touchy-feely. And, I’d definitely be working the dance floor if the DJ played something from the 80s or 90s.

I’d sneak outside for a moment to give you and Lozen “the look” that tells you that smoking is making your lungs black and I love you too much to see you do that to yourselves. Plus, it stinks. :-)

As for NetB. I still think he’d buy someone (or a few ppl) a drink. He’s just the generous type, and he doesn’t mean anything by it. It’s not a come-on or an advance, just a “you look thirsty, can I get you something?” or a “I’m headed to the bar, anyone need a drink?” His hubby would understand because that’s just how NetB. is.

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

who’s mr willis? sorry, i didn’t watch the jeffersons or whatever show he was on.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Bud and Jim were a couple of drinking buddies who worked as aircraft mechanics in PITTSBURGH. One day the airport was fogged in and they were stuck in the hangar with nothing to do. Bud said, “Man, I wish we had something to drink!” Jim says, “Me too. Y’know, I’ve heard you can drink jet fuel and get a buzz. You wanna try it?” So they pour themselves a couple of glasses of high octane hootch and got completely smashed.

The next morning Bud wakes up and is surprised at how good he feels. In fact he feels GREAT! NO hangover! NO bad side effects. Nothing!

Then the phone rings. It’s Jim. Jim says, “Hey, how do you feel this morning?” Bud says, “I feel great. How about you?” Jim says, “I feel great, too. You don’t have a hangover?”

Bud says, “No that jet fuel is great stuff — no hangover, nothing. We ought to do this more often.”

“Yeah, well there’s just one thing.” “What’s that?”

“Have you farted yet?”

“No “

“Well, DON’T, ‘cause I’m in Denver.”

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Oooh, is it Friday already? I’ve got one (but, it’s a bit raunchy). Beware!

A granddaughter was getting ready for a date when her grandmother said, “Sit here and let me tell you about young boys. He is going to try and kiss you, you are going to like that, but don’t let him do that. He is going to try and feel your breast, you are going to like that, but don’t let him do that.

But most important, he is going to try and get on top of you to have his way with you. You are going to like that, but don’t let him do that. It will disgrace the family.”

With that bit of advice, the granddaughter went on her date.

The next day she told grandma that her date went just like she had predicted.

“Grandma, I didn’t let him disgrace our family. When he tried, I just turned over, got on top of him, and disgraced HIS family!”

By chuck

January 31, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

JBM,

Not balding, full head of luxurious dark hair, straight as an arrow, mustache and weight are correct. Clothes way off. Jackets always match the pants, sports coats not suits. Never wear a tie to work. Usually jeans or khakis and a golf shirt, sometimes a school t-shirt. Always have a smile on…except when arguing here.

JBM, 5’6”, dark complected, braids. 125lbs. winning smile. 31 years old.

Jack, 60 years old. Tan from his walks around the bridge, salt and pepper hair 5’ 10” 190 lbs.

RF, 5’ 10” 170 lbs. brown hair, average looking, could get lost in a crowd if he wanted to.

72john, 6’ 3” 180 lbs. big chip on his shoulder.

Renee, light complexion, 5’ 8” loves to laugh. Large feet. (size 11?)

Chilao, 30 years old, 5’ 11” 160 lbs. dark complected, longish hair.

Kimberly, 5’ 2” 140 lbs. brown hair, green eyes. Rarely smiles.

blablabla, 28 years old, 5’ 11” 200 lbs. dark hair, cut above his ears.

BTW, I guess the whining can start now. Alito was confirmed. I thought we were going to get into politics a little bit. The Kerry jokes are appropriate for today. He flew back from a 5* resort in Switzerland to lead the filibuster fight against probably the most qualified nominee of the last 50 years…and lost 72-25. Kerry is still hanging around for ‘08, so he’s still fair game.

here’s a few old Kerry jokes left over from the last election:

Kerry Promise John Kerry is promising that if elected President, he’ll work to keep nuclear weapons out of the world’s most volatile hands. Of course, he’s already done that by defeating Howard Dean in the primaries.

Clinton on Kerry Former President Bill Clinton says he thinks John Kerry is running an excellent campaign so far. Mostly because Kerry’s been running for six months and he hasn’t even sexually harassed one woman yet!

Kerry Decision Despite the advantages it would have given him in campaign spending, John Kerry has decided not to delay accepting his inevitable nomination at the Democratic National Convention next month. Luckily for Kerry, he still gets to take in new campaign donations by delaying his inevitable defeat until November.

War Plans President Bush continues to face heavy criticism for his handling of the situation in Iraq. But John Kerry insists he has a solid plan to end the fighting…in Vietnam.

Dean & Kerry Express John Kerry is focusing on healthcare today as he campaigns with former rival Howard Dean. Dean will make some speeches, but more importantly he’ll serve as a stark example of what can happen when you can’t afford to buy prescription psychiatric drugs.

Kerry Medal Flap Republicans are attacking John Kerry for throwing away his Vietnam War combat medals at an anti-war protest. But the Kerry campaign is insisting he wasn’t throwing them away, he was throwing them at Jane Fonda’s head.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Lyrazel… that’s a good question, but it doesn’t quite have the effect mine has. LOL!

You guys need to buddy up or something, so we won’t have to worry.

If I die, Renee can tell you, and vice versa.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Chuck - that’s scary, especially the big foot thing…not a size 11 (thank goodness) but big enough, lol…too funny…

Oh, and RF, I would definitely be all over the dance floor. I would try to get JBM to dance with me but she would be acting shy and looking around for the wife LOL…

By RF

January 31, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

what is it that sisters can give you that doggone look and you know EXACTLY what it means?? I can stand just about any tongue lashing, but ‘that look’ just can’t be argued with. I wish I could do that!!

So what about bla? I’m picturing this energetic late twenties blondish sort with lots of energy. Educated and outworks others around him.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

ROFL @ Renee’s big feet!!! That is so hilarious!

Chuck, you’re came very close with me. Very close. I’m 5’8”, 120 lbs., dark skinned, braces - so I’m still working on the winning smile, no braids (although I have worn them before), and 29 yrs. old until the day I die!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Renee, did you not read my 2:39??? I would dance as soon as one of my songs came on! LOL!

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

I do not look like Florence of the Jeffersons…sorry…she is far too sensuous looking to be confused with me…

By Zack

January 31, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Just being a redneck—If you don’t understand why “hot” is vulgar, you should consider getting off the blogs and pursuing some real knowledge.

If I were married and you made a negative comment about my wife, you’d be in trouble.

As for being handsome, I make no comment one way or the other.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

~shaking my head at JBM~

Big feet, maybe, but I am not the Amazon Warrior lol.

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Chuck, thanks for calling me FAT. What a nice guy you are.

(BTW, I AM five-two, but slim & shapely thank you — no militant power suits here — and smile at pretty much EVERYONE but arrogant blowhards like you.)

Hey, do you think you could cram the word “Kerry” into your post just ONE MORE TIME? You might set a world record and then we’d have something to applaud you for. Wow.

By RF

January 31, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Chuck- quite observant there dude. A few inches taller, but the weight’s right. Definitely on the fringes in the crowd. I prefer a smaller group and like to blend in with large crowds.

Dude- you got nerve guessing a woman’s age and weight. Haven’t you ever gotten in trouble for that with the missus? Sure way to get on a woman’s bad side!

JBM- hehehe, that’s a good one! Renee- thanks for the giggle!!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Oh my goodness, did Zack just call me a name? What an overreactive temper you have.

Geez, Zack, it wasn’t that serious. I didn’t mean to insult you, dude.

By chuck

January 31, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Sorry about that Kim, I guess I just picture you as older in my mind. I humbly apologize.

By FatMoose

January 31, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

JBM:…You know the flip side to your thought is: How would we ever know if Tim won the lottery and gave up blogging because he bought Google

Now that is where you are wrong;) If anyone on this blog hit the lotto they would jump on here to brag (some more boastfull than others and some quite nicely). Yet, some would buy this blog just to kick people off they do not like posting;)

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Me thinks Kimberly has a secret crush on John KERRY!!! And she’s still fuming that he LOST the election…to someone with a BRAIN!

By Archie

January 31, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

I am definitely shorter than 5’10” and I have never worn glasses and I do wear pullover sweaters but no bowties and I already mentioned that I drive a Toyota and I hope my muscles aren’t softening because I work out twice per week with weights and I walk alot. I am not grumpy but I am quiet at work and I have a set of friends and acquaintances. My shoes aren’t always polished but I like that perception.

Thanks Dee for your earlier post.

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

Me thinks Kimberly has a secret crush on John KERRY!!! And she’s still fuming that he LOST the election…to someone with a BRAIN!

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Me thinks Kimberly has a secret crush on John KERRY!!! And she’s still fuming that he LOST the election…to someone with a BRAIN!

By RF

January 31, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

See Chuck, I TOLD you not to guess a woman’s weight. We ALWAYS get it wrong and we get in trouble!!—LOL

Kimberly- I just knew you were going to get him for that one!

By chuck

January 31, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Zack, I love ya man, but that doesn’t make sense. JBM is a woman and she is black. I don’t think redneck fits there.

What’s got you so upset today?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

5’2” and 140 isn’t fat.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Love you too Zack.

Chuck. You were close. Lighter than 190lbs though.

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

BTW, it occurs to me that Chuck may be an NSA spy — perhaps a volunteer spy anyway. Maybe that’s what he calls himself when he tracks down our identities and sits outside our houses with a zoom lens. How did he know my eyes are green? Stay away from my children, Chuck, or your untimely death will seen by all in this newspaper.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck has Kerry jokes, who could have guessed. LOL

way off, over 50, buzz cut, never was a long-hair even when it was fashionable. of course it still kinda is around these parts, called the mullet or something or other? LMAO. the same group who would have killed long hairs 30 years ago are now the long-hairs. Nothing like keeping up with the times…

Do not consider the term ‘hot’ vulgar but kindly refrained myself from directing ‘hot’ comments about Diane. Blame my Mom. LOL (for raising me with some kinda manners) plus would hate this new cyber-stalkin’ law to be misconstrued. LOL

By Lyrazel

January 31, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

I was reading ads…on this paper is a contest…to be LL Cool Js assistant. Grunt. I win a contest to work? No way! He can come be my assistant—like what is that? Whats so fabulous about getting to schlep his gear? Do they think we all just want to be roadies for the famous? Damn thats almost as cheap as… Hubby got these tickets: Worth 145.00 it says to go hear Donald Trump talk and some dude who wrote another book about Trump to talk more about Trump. Think I can sell the tickets on ebay for 1.29 or should I go with .99 cents?

By RF

January 31, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

kimberly- you gotta have green eyes as fiery as you are. It just fits ya.

JBM- 5’2” ain’t exactly a bikini figure, ya know?

By Jack

January 31, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

I wonder if Jack K. thinks Kimberly has a crush on Kerry?

By RF

January 31, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

kimberly- you gotta have green eyes as fiery as you are. It just fits ya.

JBM- 5’2” and 140 ain’t exactly a bikini figure, ya know?

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Hmmm.. I think Jack K has issues with both grammar and posting skills. But, I’ll be fair and respond truthfully: Yes I am disappointed at both the loss of the election and his unwillingness to stand and fight fire with fire. He took the high road too many times when he should have gone down in the trenches to confront the LIES that people with no scruples told about his military service on behalf of a drug-addicted, duty-dodging nitwit with connections. I thought he should have dumbed down his message so simple Americans could understand. I thought he should have stood his ground and called “B—-s—-!” every time a pile was thrown at him. In love? NO. Sick of you effing soulless bastards throwing it in my face? You betcha.

Now why don’t you go s—- this “president” off so we can impeach him already. You know you want to. It’s LOVE. Right?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Personally, I love it when my partner calls me hot. I consider it a compliment and not at all offensive.

And, I frequently refer to other men and women as “hotties.”

I guess it just has something to do with cultural background.

A couple of years ago, i was telling my mother-in-law that I was a good teenager, but very fresh. It wasn’t until months later that I learned that she thought I had meant “fast” or promiscuous. In my family, fresh meant that you were smart-mouthed.

And, hot means you’re sexy and attractive, beautiful, smart… a total package… a 10.

By Renee

January 31, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

I’m a lesbian, and I would die for the moment to be LL’s assistant. I think he could pull me back (for one night at least) lol. I’ve had a crush on him for over twenty years (good grief I’m old). Some things you NEVER give up, no matter what, lol.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Gotta love her!

By RF

January 31, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

JBM- what do you think would happen if John AND kimberly were there with Chuck? Guaranteed disaster!!

By chuck

January 31, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

NOT NSA, just listen and pay attention. I usually have a real good sense about people. I usually am very intuitive, but I guess I haven’t talked with you enough, Chilao to get a real good idea about you. I was way off on you dude. I had really long hair in the 70’s. About the middle of my shoulder blades. Now I keep it just long enough to cover the ears and the collar. I hate it short. I hate it, but I have counted at least 3 gray hairs in the nest. I always clip those out when they pop up. Now that I’m in my 40’s the beard and stache are startin to go gray.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

RF, that would depend on whether or not I was there to keep things calm (although I doubt I could handle John’s rage).

Hey Chuck, we noticed your absence yesterday. What do you think about the Paulk situation?

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Chuck - yea, a brother harassed me over my (some) gray hair, to which I replied “But I don’t use Grecian Formula”. Shut him up in a hurry. LOL

oh, very light, German/Irish. and abit shorter, supposedly short for a man, but have never felt it. and not Napolenic either. LMAO

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

My sister is 5’ even and about 130 lbs, I think. She’s by no means an hourglass, but I wouldn’t call her fat. She’s like a size 12 or so.

Nevermind, because weight is a cultural thing too…

By RF

January 31, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

true, it is cultural, but I generally don’t like the waifs. Women need some curves ya know? It’s all in where the weight lands.

12 is the average size, and the average weight in this country is going up. I think it’s a tragedy that so many women almost kill themselves dieting because Hollywood gives the image of perfection as Paris Hilton. YUCK!

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

No, SERIOUSLY. I used to top 140. (Not pretty in a bikini.) Lost 25 pounds a couple years ago in order to fit in with the superficial values of my society. Am smokin’ now, dudes. Now I have LOTS more attention and offers from men who care nothing for who I am on the inside. Um, yay.

So this is what’s creeping me out about Chuck. Did he pull an old drivers license picture or what? I’m seriously creeped out.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

So who is having a “State of the Union Viewing Party”?

hilarious article, at any rate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135122/

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

I am sorry. It’s the ajc forum that keeps freezing up on me. I didn’t mean to have multiple posts. Sorry.

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - MAYBE Chuck just got lucky with the guess. LOL

of course, with 72John gone and all, Chuck being out yesterday…hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

sorry. LOL

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, it may help you to scroll up and see that we’ve been doing this all day long. Lots of folks have been on target.

It’s really not that serious. I wouldn’t be freaked out.

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

alright, here goes - nobody get offended, this is all in good fun!

jbm: jbm, you have short black hair, are 5’7”ish and have a healthy build. you root for the underdog bc you like the little guys of the world. you’re in your late 30’s/early 40’s. you have an easygoing spirit and your house is a fun place to be when you have family in town. you like to dance but you don’t drink too often. you’re very self-disciplined (in a good/healthy way).

renee: is taller than jbm, but also has a healthy build to her height of 5’10”. renee strikes me as having slightly lighter compexion and is probably a year or two older than jbm. renee has no problems calling em like she sees em. renee will still drink with the best of ‘em at the right occasion and never runs from a fight.

whiley: is in her early 50’s. people either love her or hate her but she doesn’t give it much thought. she is strong and independent and is the type to give you her opinion whether you ask for it or not. whiley is very attractive, white, and gets away with telling people she’s in her early 40’s bc she looks so good. she has long brown hair that is naturally wavy to complement her hazel eyes. whiley wears reading glasses bc her eyesight is going, but she’ll never let you catch her with them on! whiley only drinks white wine and never hits the hard stuff.

lozen: is also in her 50’s. lozen reads vociferously, but this leads her to believe too much of what she reads or hears through the media, giving rise to her tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. lozen also likes the little guy/gal, but she doesn’t like sports and doesn’t watch them. lozen is only 5’2” but has a healthy build to her. she has neck-length dark brown hair, light brown eyes and wears glasses.

kimberly: is in her mid-30’s. she is short, but dayum feisty and fun. she still works out when she can but gets most of her exercise chasing her darling children. i envision her having long blonde/dirty blonde hair and will dance whenever she hears music she likes. truly a child of the 80’s, she secretly listens to “power ballads” in her car at high volumes when she’s alone, and still has a can of aqua net tucked away in her bathroom. she has a bit of quick fuse, but as a result, always has a witty retort for anybody who crosses her.

jack: is in his late 50’s and is still a kid at heart. graduating from the school of hard knocks has given him a practical outlook on life, but has always taught his children (and grandchildren?) lessons through humor. jack enjoys making fun of himself and is always in the middle of the action at the party. he is a devoted family man. jack has dark brown hair that is graying and is 5’9” with warm blue eyes. jack is the sharpest person on the blog bc he can say whatever he wants and everybody still likes him, regardless of what he says.

john: john is in his early 30’s. he is short (5’5”) and very pale in complexion bc he also reads a ton, and plays video games in his down time instead of getting out during the day. john was unathletic and picked on as a kid, but now he works out regularly and his work has paid off with a new and improved john. john doesn’t sleep as much as he should since he’s often out until the early hours of the night partying like a madman. john has a job with computers and types very fast. he doesn’t remember jokes but is funny among his friends bc of his sarcastic biting humor.

chilao: i don’t know enough about chilao to guess much about you, but i would gues you’re a little older - late 40’s or 50’s. you’ve done a lot of travelling.

RF: is a dude, not a girl. other than that i don’t have a good mental image of you, but i tend to like you.

chuck: is misunderstood. not politically, mind you bc we all know where chuck is politically and religiously. lol. but i think we could be standing in line at the grocery store next to chuck and not know it. chuck is in his late 40’s.

some of you have guessed pretty accurately as to my age, late 20’s. but i’m lighter and taller than whoever said i was 5’11” 200lbs - i played hoops in HS and would have in college as well if i didn’t have a brain. it really hurt when somebody said i would be uncle jesse…i’m responsible but very young at heart. i’m a gemini, which means…i don’t know what it means, probably that i’m hard to figure out.

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

My post made more sense than telling people you’re going to go pee on yourself!!! ha ha

By Renee

January 31, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

bla - GET OUT OF MY WINDOW!!!! lol lol

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

When’s the party? I’d definitely be out there on the dance floor with JBM when that 80’s music comes on! LOVE to dance…the recessional for my memorial service is going to be Billy Idol “Dancing with Myself” or I’m gonna haunt a few people until they wish they’d done what I asked in the first place.

JBM and I will be comparing notes at the beginning of the party. I’ll buy a couple of rounds for those hanging out by the bar before stepping outside for a breath of fresh air. That’s when I run into 72John and shock the bejesus out of him by taking the joint out of his hand and instead of giving him a lecture I take a big ol’ hit before handing it back. About that time RF and Lozen will wander out to smoke and I’ll be asking them for a cigarette. They’ll be shocked, but will understand once they catch the glassy red eyes and realize I’m stoned…not that 72John will have been able to keep the secret anyway. Renee will spy us through the window and just have to know what’s going on. She’ll slip out and we’ll all get to laughing that we’d better be careful before JBM finds out and we get in trouble. Before we can get back inside the door flies open so JBM can give us ‘The Look’ which means we’re all BUSTED. We’ll laugh and sheepishly go back inside (appropriately chided) and I’ll hold the door for RF so I can pinch his rear end. Y’all obviously don’t know any REAL bankers…you’ve got to watch out for the quiet ones!

Now as for Ms. Whiley…she’s short (5’6”) with a medium build. Straight, dark brown hair just short of shoulder length with emerald green eyes and smooth, milky white skin.

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

kimberly stated about John Kerry,” I thought he should have dumbed down his message.”

Now, folks, for Kerry to “dumb down his message”-now THAT’S pretty hard to do!!!

Thanks for the laugh though Kim!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

ha, renee!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Bla, REALLY CLOSE dude… except I have long, brown hair and I’m 29 years old. Everything else is right on.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Pretty good Bla. Only mid-50’s. Still waiting on grand-children. Green eyes.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

NetB. just tell me when and where and I’ll be there!!!

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

wow, i really got your age wrong. sorry about that. i guess i kinda based that on the age of your daughter, even tho i know you adopted her, i figured that would make you a little older.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

At the memorial service or the party?

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

NetB: Both, but hopefully the party first, the memorial service 50-60 years from now! LOL!

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

At this point in your life, would you rather lose your sense of touch, taste, sight, hearing, or smell?

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Jack K., here’s an example of what I meant: When Kerry said he was “thrice wounded” in Vietnam, no one in your family knew what that meant. Had he put on a John Deere hat and said “NASAR ROCKS!” everyone in your family would have applauded his amazing insight. You see in order to be a leader in what has become of our once-great nation, one must speak a language that our great GED-aspiring populace can understand. It is paramount in my disappointment that the Senator could not get down to that level and make his positions CLEAR to the cheeto-guzzling, ‘merica-Idol-watching masses who think the issue of whether Paula Abdul boinked a contestant constitutes important “news.”

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Bla, that’s okay. Although I didn’t say it aloud, I was wayyyyy off on your height and overall appearance. I was way off.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Probably sight. I rule in the dark. :)

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Kimberly I got exactly what you meant about Kerry and his campaign. I think he tried to give too much detail sometimes. The Republicans were masters at the simple message. They painted many issues in black and white even though they contain LOTS of gray areas.

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Sorry. I meant “NASCAR ROCKS.” Evidently, I don’t spend enough time in the inner ring, flashing my t—-ies for a cold Pabst, or I’d know how to spell that.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Someone asked Woody Allen what he would come back to Earth as if he could do it over again.

He said he would like to come back as Warren Beatty’s finger tips. Hehe!

By Jack

January 31, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

My grammar stinks. Sorry.

By chuck

January 31, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

So Kimberly, now that you know about my abilities…wellll, you know.

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Good point, NetB. Given the choice between a simple message and having to think, most people choose the simple message. Hence, the astounding popularity of the bumper sticker, “God said it. I believe it. ‘Nuff said.” in Cobb County.

By blablabla

January 31, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

really, jbm? now you gotta tell me how you pictured me. lol.

By Jack

January 31, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Gotta go. Today was quite enjoyable on the blog!

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

thrice? Did the Vietnamese throw rice at him or something, make some torpedo rice? Wait, let me look up that big word. LOL

JBM - taste, of all those, less important than the others.(to me)

bla - good shot, covered above by me to Chuck. (I know you probably had NOT read that beforehand, were taking enough time to do what you did/wrote, plus we do work sometimes don’t we? )

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck, you iggin me?

Bla, uhh, never mind, dear. Just know that you fared much better in reality than you did in my head! LOL!

Jack, cute. For me, it’d be touch or smell, though it would be a tough decision.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Wow, taste, Chilao? I could never give up my sense of taste. I lovvvvvvve food too much! I think I’d give up hearing before I gave up taste!

By Chilao

January 31, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Think we all read that as NASCAR…LOL it was the tractor clued me in.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Good answer, JBM!

I’d pick taste. Smell affects taste far more than the other way around so I could probably handle smelling the food and feeling the texture without the actual tasting part. And that would still put liver and onions on the do not eat list because it’s more about the odd texture than flavor.

RF…I was rereading some descriptions and we sound quite a bit alike when someone us giving us the eye. My husband or friends usually have to point out that someone was cruising me because I’m generally oblivious that way. I also tend to be focused on what I’m doing or who I’m speaking with and completely don’t hear or see things around me. Case in point last Thursday was a coworker at the LA airport asking me a question at the Delta kiosk. I walked in alone and was focused on getting my boarding pass so when he walked up and asked if I was on the 8:20 flight it took 3 times before I looked up to realize that 1) someone was asking me a question and 2) I knew the questioner. Fortunately I’ve mentioned my ‘handicap’ to him before so he just laughs at me now and gets right up in my face to capture my attention.

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Kimberly don’t you stop thinking. I saw a bumper sticker last week that made me laugh out loud and would be a good response to the Cobb one….”Jesus loves you! Everyone else thinks you’re an a*******hole”

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet Kimberly has a bottle of Heinz in her kitchen. (And maybe some Pabst in the fridge.)

By DianeisHOT

January 31, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Diane, Diane please become a model. This AJC rag doesnt suit you.

You need to be on a runway girl!!!

OH THOSE HEELS!! Just FABULOUS!!!

By RF

January 31, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

JBM-29?? Okay, now YOU’RE getting ‘the look’. Just kiddin’!!

Net- you silly thang! I knew you’d get in the party and have fun!

JBM- I’d have to give up smell I guess. I couldn’t possibly give up touch and miss the feeling of my littlest on my shoulder at night. No way!

So, when we gonna do this and get together? I’m all for it!! We’ll just have to figure out a way to get Renee down here. I know—ROAD TRIP in the Pinto she’s buying JBM!!

By Julia

January 31, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Jack K-enough already. I think we’re all tired of hearing about Kerry.

By kimberly

January 31, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Jack K. Clearly, you lack Chuck’s talent for assessing people.

By Jack K

January 31, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

How ‘bout one more Kerry joke? Nahhhh…save it for tomorrow!

By RF

January 31, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Net- I’m sooo glad to hear I’m not the only one who does that. I’ve been involved in conversations and TOTALLY blocked out everything else. I was with a group in N’awlins one year, and me and one buddy got to talking and missed half the St. Patty’s parade. Everyone with us just thought we had lost it completely (well we were toasted, but that’s beside the point).

By Netbanker

January 31, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I could give up sound. I studied music as a kid for far too long and I love the sound of waves on the shore. Hearing the way tree leaves russle in a gentle breeze let’s me know God or His Angels are near and watching over me. One of the best sounds in the whole world was the way my dog would grunt when you scratched his head and behind his hears…that was the sound of a happy boy who knew he was loved.

By Just Being Me

January 31, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Hey RF, I’ll be 29 until the day I die. You got a problem with that??????! (Seriously, I just turned 30, but I’m sticking with the 29 thing for a while). But, everyone tells me I’m an old soul, and I know I have a very “old” personality, so maybe that’s why everyone’s picturing me a little older?

I can’t give up smell because I’m still planning to have some babies and I just have to smell that baby scent.

We might have to do this without Renee (she’s gonna kill me when she sees this tomorrow… lol). She’s been yip-yappin about coming to Atlanta forever, and I get the feeling she’s not coming any time soon… :-(

By Billy

February 1, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

Did anyone actually like anything Drunky McSwerveandcrash had to say last night? I personally couldn’t watch more than 4 or 5 minutes at a time…

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Some cultures have professional mourners/wailers at funerals. I wondered last night how many congressmen/senators wished they could have hired professional clappers. Just a thought….LOL

Anybody know who the black kid on her left and the head-shawled woman on her right was next to Laura Bush? I wondered if Bush would point them both out, they seemed to be there for the normal political reasons, but Bush never mentioned them. I was waiting for the “I have nothing against black folk, why Laura’s own chauffeur, James, is a fine kid, there he is”. Call me cynical. LOL

It was interesting to hear Social Security referred to as an “entitlement program”. I pay into something for 45 years, Dayum right, I feel “entitled” to a return.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

billy,

i didn’t see ted kennedy’s speech; what did he have to say? i can’t listen to more than a few minutes of bluster from that sad sack either.

By Julia

February 1, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

LOL at Drunky McSwerveandcrash!

What do you guys think of having a sort of “eye for an eye” legal system. The story of the woman who adopted the 3 year old and beat him to death comes to mind!!! How on earth do you hurt a child for God’s sake???

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

all right, jbm. if you don’t want to tell me, that’s cool. it’s probably better for you not to know the truth since i know you’re crushing on me. lol. i don’t want you to start having doubts about who you are. (wink.)

but it sounds like i need to start working on my blog persona. ha.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Julia. Definitely a good idea but it isn’t politcally correct. me must be nice to murderers, rapists ETC. What they should do is let the next of kin of the victim select the punishment. Shock belts would be good. give the relatives the button!

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

julia,

while the thought has some appeal on a base level, i don’t think our justice system should be rooted in vengeance.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Blablabla-sorry about putting you in the Uncle Jesse role. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings or anything. You can have the Cooter role and Tim can play Uncle Jesse.

julia-I agree with the eye for an eye 100%!!! Not to the extreme of the Muslims but whatever you do to someone you get it right back. You torture and kill someone-you get tortured and killed. You beat someone-you get beat. Dirty Harry style justice baby!

I know what you’re thinkin’, did he fire 6 rounds or just 5. Well tell me…do you feel lucky PUNK???”

GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY!!!

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

it’s fine, jack k. i’m over it. no worries.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Bla, you don’t have to change a thing about your blog persona. I just had the wrong image. Need new e-glasses. :-) (Hint: I pictured short, chunky, and dweeb-like, but I still had/have a crush! lol… until you mentioned Mrs. Bla’s pregnancy, I thought you were late 40s. LOL!

By RF

February 1, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Julia- I tend to be middle-of-the road on most issues, but child cruelty/murder gets my blood boiling! I think the woman ought to publicy executed, SLOWLY!! That’s one thing my open-mindedness can’t accept or understand. I got my boys when my youngest was three, and I was way to entranced by that wonderful little angel to ever think about hurting him. I can’t imagine what mental state a person must be in to do that.

Chilao- these days social security is an entitlement program, and most anyone who has the slightest challenge, aka ‘disability’ thinks he or she is ‘entitled’ to it. It’s going broke because so many are abusing the system while those who need it are facing losing it. I better be careful, I almost sounded completely republican there!!

By RF

February 1, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

JBM- only 30?? Why you’re just a kid!! You do indeed have the soul of someone much wiser than your years. That’s a gift so use it well. Ignorance seems to be the order of the day today—at least among my ninth graders that is!! LOL

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

RF, I agree that it has become an entitlement program because of those people who abuse the system. But, somehow, there has to be repayment for those who pay into it for their entire working lives (aka ME).

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Uhh, excuse me RF - that’s 29, dear.

Thanks for the compliment, though! :-)

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

wow. glad i come across as a pinhead. so funny, jbm. 6’3”, 190 and 29. but i do have a dweeb-like profession that is probably beginning to rub off. lol.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Hey RF, in what county or system do you teach? Is it a good school? We’re in the process of applying to some private schools, but I have doubts that she’ll get accepted, so I’m looking for some public plan B schools…

By RF

February 1, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

JBM- uh-hmmmm, I know. I’m worried about what will be there when I retire, and I’m ten years ahead of you!! I’m not sure privatizing it will help, but for future generations I think they will have to in order to have any kind of guarantee for future benefits. Even with my teacher’s retirement, SS will be all but a necessity for me. It scares me to think about those who will work half their lives without a retirement fund if SS goes belly-up.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

personally, i think you should be allowed to opt out of social security.

on the one hand you need to provide a social safety net for the poorest of the poor. on the other hand, it’s not my responsibility to fund someone else’s retirement. but it is ridiculous to me that i’ll pay into a system my entire working career and then get nothing, or less than people who had the luxury of being born before i was.

it irritates me when politicians talk about the “guaranteed” benefits of social security. it isn’t guaranteed for a second - the politicians can change the plan tomorrow to increase the tax or decrease the future benefit and there ain’t a thing we can do about it. that’s pretty far from guaranteed.

and i did like bush’s mention of making health insurance more affordable for employees of small business. if you’ll recall, the majority of the uninsured are employees or dependants of employees at small businesses. when they buy insurance on their own and not through their employers, they’re buying those policies with after tax dollars. we need equitable tax treatment for them and more people will buy the insurance.

By RF

February 1, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

I’m down south of town in the greater Monticello area. Most of the counties down this way are smaller systems, so there’s not much to compare to. My school has a very good faculty and curriculum. The social environment with the kids leaves something to be desired though. We’re about 40 or so percent poverty, so there are issues there. One school I’m hearing some good things about is Westlake over in S.Fulton. They have quite a good clientele and a very active parent base from what I’m hearing, and are giving the northern Fulton schools a run for their money. I’m not big on Cobb schools these days. Too much politics. Clayton has gone completely off the deep end. Dekalb I don’t know much about. Douglas seems to have a good program too and it’s close enough to Atlanta to be a comfortable commute.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

A government who can provide everything, can also take it away.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Now that the Catholics control the supreme court just you wait until McCain gets elected. Ratzinger/Pope Benedict will be running this country!!! Doesn’t that bother any of you? Do you not see the red flags waving?

If you look at the Catholic run countries around the world you will understand my concern. Look at Mexico, Argentina, Croatia, Spain, etc…Where the Catholic church rules the land the people are oppressed and personal rights taken away.

The FIRST thing to go is seperation of church and state!

As a Baptist we fully support seperation of church and state but the Catholic church thinks it’s the worst evil on the planet!

Just giving you guys a heads up. Wait, watch and see what happens in a few years.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Dang. I’ll look into Westlake, but Douglas is too far, and I hate Dekalb County. I definitely wouldn’t do a Cobb school and I HAVE TO get my baby out of APS. APS is by far the worst system I’ve ever seen in my entire life. The only thing it’s good for is to demonstrate why Georgia ranks 50th in SAT scores and education overall.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

I agree that we should be able to opt out of social security.

On another subject, I think that auto insurance agencies should give a rebate to those customers who don’t cost them anything in any given year.

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

The FIRST thing to go is seperation of church and state!

I think that could also be said about many of the Fundamentalist-styled Protestant religions as well.
as evidenced by blue laws, anti-gambling laws in many states(look how much the Christian Coalition put into defeating a state lottery in Alabama recently), the perceived attack on male/female marriage by allowing simple gay-civil unions.

The list of things the Fundamentalists would like to codify gets pretty long, actually. American Taliban? Right here in the USA….

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Just how many Fundamentalists do you see blowing up buses via suicide bombers??? That makes no sense.

Christians don’t KILL other people because of their beliefs.

By True Confusion

February 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

I’ve heard that a lot of the people who bomb or otherwise attack abortion clinics claim to be Christians.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

can i please buy alcohol on sunday? please!

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

The reference to American Taliban did not mean suicide bombers, and think your geography a little off anyway. It referenced the non-separation of church and state, the fear you seem to have with Catholics. Those countries you mentioned are at least 90-percent Catholic. What really keeps that from not happening in the USA is all the denominations fighting amongst themselves. LOL

No, we would not KILL people here in the USA, we would just send them to jail. Semantic fine point really.

I nearly crapped when I moved to the South, went into a major food store on early Sunday morning, full grocery list, and the cashier told me she could not sell me that six-pack of beer until 2p.m. That is separation of church and state? SNORT

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I can’t say how many times I’ve been caught out there without a bottle of wine to serve for Sunday Dinner because of that stupid law… but, coming from New York, I’m just glad you can buy a bottle of wine at the supermarket. In NY, you have to go to the liquor store.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

What exactly are you snorting??? Hmmmmm……

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Why do you think we will never have a closed Mexican border? They want all those fine Catholics to flood our country.

By RF

February 1, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

yeah, get her out of APS. Any Fulton school would be better, but stay away from Tri-cities and Creekside (too much gang stuff).

Allstate is offering a deductible reduction program for safe drivers. I’m thinking about it myself.

Beer and liquor sales on Sunday! Here in the buckle of the Bible belt. What blasphemy to even mention such a heinous crime!! Just do what my dad does- buy extra on Saturday. He wants to retire to Florida just so he can buy beer on Sunday!

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

This just came to me via e-mail and since we’re having a sort of “hodge-podge” week on the blog, I thought you might enjoy it. It’s not completely off-subject…

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE

1930’s 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn’t get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren’t overweight because

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo’s, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms……….WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned

HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

and while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn’t it?!

By Jack

February 1, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Jack K. You are a typical Southern Baptist. Blame the Catholics. At least we allow alcohol to be purchased on Sunday because we trust the members of our flock will come to church sober. Why anyone rips other people because of their beliefs is beyond me.

By chuck

February 1, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

RF, I had not read the Paulk story until you mentioned it yesterday. If what was alleged in the story is true, he should be run out of town on a rail. I think it is dispicable to use your position of authority in the church or ANYWHERE ELSE, for that matter to coerce people to do things that benefit only you. That would include monetary coercion as well as sexual coercion. I am all for restoration of believers AFTER REPENTENCE, but I think that those charges, if true would forever bar him from positions of trust in ministry. Plus, he doesn’t appear to be repenting of even the things that he admitted to. That kind of thing is exactly what turns people off to God’s church.

I do think that people should understand, that this guy is most likely not even a Christian but a Charletan who started this church for his own gain and benefit. That would be my GUESS, though I have never had any contact with this particular church.

Something else also: People should hold the leadership of their own churches accountable. If a preacher spends more time talking about money than anything else…BEWARE. If there is not a system set up that has multiple checks and balances on how the money is collected and spent, beware. NO CHURCH SHOULD HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE ONE PERSON HANDLES THE MONEY AND THE BOOKS. My brother was youth pastor in a church in NC where the financial secretary embezzled over $40,000 in 2 years. A friend was pastor of a church in Louisianna where one deacon collected all of the money and wrote all of the checks and in 2 years never gave a financial accounting to the church. This friend asked the state to come in and do an audit and the church fired him.

People in ministry MUST BE ABOVE REPROACH. No pastor, deacon, Sunday school teacher etc…should ever be alone with a female to which he is not married. When I go on visitation I will not go into a house where a woman is home alone. I visit from the porch unless my wife is with me.

Every church ought to have a variety of people who count the money…none of them should be paid staff people. Different people need to count every week in at least groups of 3. They should all sign off on the amount collected and verify the bank deposit. 2 people should be required to sign checks and a third person who can’t sign them should be in possession of them except when it is time to pay the bills. I know this seems somewhat draconian, but it avoids the appearance of evil and helps to keep honest people honest and thieves out of the henhouse.

If your church doesn’t use most of these safeguards it is RIPE for the picking. I would ask questions.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

RF, I’ve been making calls. I’m trying for either North Springs High or Chamblee High.

Either would present a transportation issue, but it’ll be worth any inconvenience to get this child in a real school.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

I completely agree with you, Chuck.

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

If you are having a party and plan on serving alcohol, and have plans for Southern Baptist attendees, why should you always invite at least TWO?

If you invite only one, they will drink all your booze. If you invite two or more, they won’t drink any at all.

hahahahahah

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Jack-are you Catholic? The reason you Catholics would allow alcohol on Sunday is because your priests can’t go a single day without the stuff! Some of the most drunken folks o the planet are catholic priests. Not to mention the most morally bankrupt.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Yeah. And your mother wears combat boots.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

I’m rubber-you’re glue…hahaha

By Jack

February 1, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

No. You’re s**.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Uh ohhhh

By RF

February 1, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Chilao—good one!

Chuck- I absolutely agree. Here’s a question- should Paulk and others like him be held accountable in a court of law?

JBM- either one would probably be good. North Springs is definitely more ‘hoity-toity’, but has a good solid reputation.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, was that you yesterday who guessed me as long, loose white hair, twinkle in the eye, tribal clothing and chunky jewelry? You were so right! I showed that to people at work and they said, “He’s seen you, right?” How did you do that?

By RF

February 1, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Jack and Jack are going at it. Somebody get the timeout chairs ready. Now boys, you’ll have to sit out recess and move your behavior sticks to RED (kindergarten for SUPER-BAD, momma’s gonna beat yo’ butt).

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Yeah, NetB. was really good yesterday… so was Bla.

RF, I compared all the details of both schools, and it’ll come down to which one will be easier for her to get to and from. I’m about to get on the phone with MARTA now. Also, Chamblee is no longer an option (the friend that i thought lived in that zone actually doesn’t) so we’re looking at North Springs or Lakeside (which is another good one).

As for your Paulk question to Chuck, my 2 cents: he and others like him should only be accountable in a court of law if they have actually broken a law. Otherwise, the thrashing they get from God will suffice.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

The Catholics and the Protestants are equally totalitarian in my opinion. I am so upset that Alito was confirmed. And Jack’s right: anything the gov’t gives it can take away. We are up s** creek without a paddle in this country as far as gov’t is concerned.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

K’s last name should be “Meeoff”

By lozen

February 1, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

In the rising of the sun and in its going down, we remember Coretta S. King; In the opening buds and in the rebirth of spring, we remember Coretta King; When we are weary and in need of strength, we remember Mrs. King. So as long as we live, she too shall live, for she is now a part of us, as we remember Coretta King.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Hi Lozen. :)

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

I was wrong, not the first or last times. Croatia is 76 percent Catholic, and less than 1 percent Protestant(but I was right about the other percents) LOL. Of course when anyone uses a 90percent number, they are meaning “mostly” correct? Or is that 95 percent? LMAO. I have been to Zagreb and remember seeing alot of churches. Kinda like Charlotte(NC), a Protestant church on every corner. LOL

interesting page about religions by country:

http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/religion.php

By chuck

February 1, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

RF, I think for certain that he should be prosecuted if he broke the law. There are supposed to be pretty strenuous rules for non-profits but these rules are often just ignored when it comes to churches. To an extent, I agree with that approach because government CAN BE used as a tool to squelch religious freedom. IF, however, he committed fraud, that’s a different story. These guys generally write the bylaws of the organization so that they can do anything they want. Members should really look into those bylaws to see if they have any recourse.

Also, it doesn’t happen often, but churches that don’t incorporate have another problem. The individual members can be held personally liable for the actions that occur in relationship with the function of the church.

By chuck

February 1, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Hey Chilao, I was in Romania last year and they are 85% Eastern Orthodox. It is very Catholic like at least to me a non-Catholic.

By Archie

February 1, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Chuck, your 11:20 was so good and I agree with it. Go Chuck.

By chuck

February 1, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Thank you jbm and Archie

By RF

February 1, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

I didn’t know that about incorporation. So, in other words, if they were to try to find criminal activity, it could backfire on the whole church if it’s not incorporated. I wonder how many actually are incorporated these days. I’m not sure I totally agree with all the exemptions churches get from the law. I guess too it depends on whether or not the women involved are willing to testify against him and go through all the mess. That’s what usually keeps a corrupt minister out of jail.

By Jewish and Proud of It

February 1, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Impropriety unfortunately will happen anywhere that fallible men hold postitions of power. In my synagogue last year, our Cantor was fired and arrested on embezzlement (sp?) charges. After the anger, it was rather sad as he was well-liked amongst the entire congregation and was a model of spirituality (or so we thought). What evil lurks in the hearts of men?

By chuck

February 1, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

I agree J and P. RF, in this case it looks like the women are going the civil court route, so I assume they will testify for the money. I think if it was me, I’d sue to remove him from the church in addition to the money, which I’d give to a reputable ministry.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

That’s another reason I’m not a religious person in a conventional sense. Xtians claim their religion changes people and makes them better people. It doesn’t.

By chuck

February 1, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Ronald Reagan said it well: Trust but Verify.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Lozen, religion doesn’t change people and make them better, Christ does.

I assume by “xtians” you mean “Christians”? If so, that’s pretty offensive, even if it wasn’t intended to be.

By RF

February 1, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

No matter how ‘good’ something seems, I stick to the motto “believe SOME of what you see and NONE of what you hear”. As long as imperfect humans are involved, there will be mistakes and issues to deal with.

So, what does everyone think about Coretta Scott King passing? Seems we’ve all but lost the generation that truly remembers the movement and what life was like before and during that time. About all we have left are the pictures.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

…is in a grumpy mood since she was not invited to the party…and like the wicked witch decides to crash it with her pack of Hells AARP Angels…You will recognize me! Im the biker chick in leather Depends!

…Well, that felt better.

Renee, when I get my pass to LL Cool J (its always gifted to some idiot who cant appreciate the event) I will forward him up to you.

If any governor candidate ran with the premise to repeal the Blue Laws of this state they would loose the election, it has been tried. They would have to change such laws while in office which is subversive and sneaky. Its not people WANT the Blue Laws its just they will have been ministered to act against such. I believe the Blue Laws in Texas include: ice cubes. Now, is that strict or what?

DONT MESS WITH MY SSI! All you youngsters who have yet to pay into the system or beginning to—the system may be antiquated and liberally inclusive—but for those of us who have spent 45+ years working—its mine! Its mine because the money is mine—not entitled but WORKED FOR, PAID BY TAXES! And further…you will NEVER get the benefits from a solitary system of retirement that you would get on SSI. Sure its easy to think you are going to make wads of cash: in the end you will have a small pittance not even what the lowest beneficiary will get. I dont see how your savings plan will allow for health care, spouse benefits, child-benefits ( + college to age 21) of your orphaned rug-rats…sorry…you might be able to save $2-300/year (ha! how many of you save that free and clear?) One month in a nursing home with adequate care now runs $5000…given none of you are headed to the ward soon, my guess with current market trend will be you will look at about 8-10,000/month. You think you are going to have that saved? Ha! And what will you leave your children? A waste basket full of empty bank accounts….

…drinks her spiked Ensure…heads off to work…

By Jewish and Proud of It

February 1, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

JBM, does that count for us Am Yisrael?

By Jewish and Proud of It

February 1, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Well, I’m off to lunch, be back later! Tzom Kal everyone!

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Yes, J&P, that counts for everyone, IMO.

By DDB

February 1, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Personally, I think that if America wasn’t so interested in everyone else’s problems (and trying to cover-up their own) this book would never have been so popular.

Whether or not Frey lied, his book is a best-seller. Now that we know he lied, the book will sell even more.

What have we come to?

By Jack

February 1, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel you go girl!!!

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Wow, Lyrazel. I pictured you a little younger and a little less crazy. LOL!

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Jack-this is just getting silly. Not gonna trade insults.

Chilao-Wow, you’ve been to Zagreb. Did you visit the Jasenovac Memorial (for the death camp that the Catholics ran during WWII)? The churches must have been Catholic because the Ustashe forces have torn down all the Orthodox ones just like they did in Serbia and Kosovo.

http://www.jasenovac.org/libraries/viewdocument.asp?DocumentID=38

By Jack

February 1, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

I pictured her as crazy! (South Georgia Peach)

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

I wish Diane and Shaunti got paid according to the level of engagement their columns invoked.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Not silly at all. Why do you hate Catholics?

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Well?

By RF

February 1, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

JBM- they wouldn’t earn cab fare, let alone enough to pay for ‘the eight-year-old mini-van.’ They’ve been putting out some duds for a long time. I suspect if we weren’t so involved in conversing with one another, they would have pulled the plug on them a while ago.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

I had fun with that…phew…need a nap! (Georgia Peaches spike their Ensure with Peach-flavored Moonshine)

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Oh no, RF!!! What if they do pull the plug?! How will we all stay in touch?

Darnit, I just broke a nail. Grrrr!

By lozen

February 1, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Xmas? xtians? Doesn’t X stand for Christ in some way somehow? Anyway, I stick by my original statement: whether it’s religion or Christ who people claim make people good people, it doesn’t. Some of the best people I know are atheists and agnostics and Buddhists. None of those people think they have to be good to go to heaven. Some of the most evil people I’ve known have been the followers of jesus. They steal, they lie, they have adulterous affairs, they hate everybody else, they judge, they criticize, all the time claiming they’ve had the big changeroo experience - accepted Jesus into their life. Don’t you think it’s a little weird to respond to a jew that jesus changes people and makes them better?

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Jack K - no, not a priority for me while there, I was just a passenger as it was.

Kinda like I missed the Memorial to the Slave Plantations sponsored by the Southern Baptist convention. Do you know where it is? oh, that’s right, there isn’t one.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Haha. Chilao!

By Archie

February 1, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

“Lozen, religion doesn’t change people and make them better, Christ does.

I assume by “xtiansâ€? you mean “Christiansâ€?? If so, that’s pretty offensive, even if it wasn’t intended to be.”

I agree with your post JBM and I add that religion does work for some people just not all people. Heck you could say being agnostic or atheistic doesn’t make people better but for some of those people it’s irrelevant what they are because good character is good character and bad character is bad character but yeah some people do change when they accept Christ and some are just not as good as others. One of the reasons I agreed with Chuck about an earlier post because his post wasn’t left-leaning or right-leaning, it was just right.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Info on the link between the Catholic church and Croatia/Ustashe.

http://www.pavelicpapers.com/features/essays/psg.html

Jack-you may be very surprised if you take the time to read it.

By RF

February 1, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

OMG- call the nail salon—there’s one aggravated sistah with a broken nail!!

I hate to admit it, but I soooo into this blog thing, I would HATE it if they stopped it. I might just resurrect my Yahoo mailbox just in case. Further details later on that.

lyrazel- sounds like you might need to monitor the ensure, honey. Either that or you need to pass the moonshine recipe on to the rest of us overworked schmucks!! I only hope I can have that much energy when I’m in the ‘ensure crowd’!!

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Jack K - for those of use a little more informed, that Memorial issue in Croatia is kinda old news.

Wasn’t that last month some time?

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

No need for me to read it. I have not met any Catholic that has anything to do with Croatia just like I have never met anyone who ever owned slaves. That was then, this is now. How bout Jews? Do you hate them also? Muslims? I’m not going to waste my time agrueing with you.

By RF

February 1, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

chilao- High five dude! I love the SBC jokes.

Where’s Renee today? I knew we were missing something…

By lozen

February 1, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, loved your rant! You are invited to the party and bring your peach snapps, honey chile. Biker woman in leather depends is so funny. Somebody should start making those for all of us aging boomers fer shur. I would like tie dye and native american designs when I reach that point! I feel the same as you about SS too. The stock market goes up and down. People make money and they lose money. The sons of presidents get top jobs in Savings and Loan companies and clean out the money people have there. Enrons happen. Pensions are going down the tubes for a lot of people. Even for those who have tried to plan for their old age they might not get a pension and ALL they will end up with is their SS! And damn, no! It is not an entitlement program when Americans have been paying for it!

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Some guy in Houston had worked for a company Enron bought. About the time he was ready to retire, his retirement account went from $1.5 million to $3,600. I am sure he will make a fine WalMart greeter but doubt it was in his plans.

Looks like we could all use more of that, heh?

By Scalia

February 1, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Jack, you’re funny. I was laughing hysterically at your 11:40 post.

As for your 11:12 post JBM, good times. I don’t know why I’m not sick from eating the snake berries in the yard and all of the dirt, sand, grass, bark, and pennies that I ate as a child.

I never cried when I scraped my leg, etc. You rolled with the punches, and kept going.

Chuck, right on about the church. Without checks and balances, people will give into the temptation.

“Oh nobody is around to see me take this fifty dollar bill. God, I promise to never do it again, and I will repay it when I get paid.” That’s how it starts.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

My speling is bad today too.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Oh, my! I am all aflutter now. I am not shooooouh exactly what I have done to offend JBM and Archie. And being the good southern woman I am I must find out because we good southern women never ever wish to offend anyone. Have you all heard the one about “only southerners know what a hissy fit is?” Fiddle de de!

By E. Lewis

February 1, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Is James Frey’s reality any less real than all those so-called reality shows that everyone seems to love so much?

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

A good party would include Lozen & Lyrazel and big bucket of peach moonshine! Yee ha!

By RF

February 1, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

lozen- well Miss Scarlett, how could you EVAH offend anyone, what with your delicate temperament and all??

My parents just retired, and even with secure pensions are still dependent on social security to make it. It’s sad to think after all those years that they are suddenly so limited by what the govment decides to give them.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

What is sad is that the federal income tax was supposed to be temporary and social security was never ment to be one’s sole source of income. If we weren’t taxed out the a$$, we could probably save plenty for retirement.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

lyrazel,

first of all, it isn’t YOUR SS. it’s OURS. the money being paid to you right now wasn’t earned by you, it was earned by me. the money you earned and paid into the system is long gone. so if SS belongs to anybody, it belongs to ME because it is MY tax dollars being used, not yours.

second, you must not really care about your offspring if you’re unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to put an end to this ridiculous and unsustainable ponzi scheme. the demographics and life expectancies of americans no longer supports the system as it currently exists but the blue hairs don’t want to mess with your the gravy train. who cares if the grandkids get saddled with mountains of debt as long as you get your spiked ensure, right?

third, here’s the most fundamental question: when did it become the gov’ts responsibility (thru the use of my tax dollars) to take care of you, instead of your responsibility to take care of yourself?

and lastly, there are lots of people who save plenty; trust me when i tell you, we don’t want the blue hairs or the gov’t sticking their paws in our pockets.

By RF

February 1, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Scalia- I absolutely panic if my boys go anywhere on the bikes without helmets, and I promise you I have checked the depth on the wood chips at the playground. I have no idea why- but we are sure some paranoid parents these days!

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Some guy in Houston had worked for a company Enron bought. About the time he was ready to retire, his retirement account went from $1.5 million to $3,600. I am sure he will make a fine WalMart greeter but doubt it was in his plans.

chilao - while i’m sorry that some guy you know had this happen to him (or that it happens to anybody), doesn’t he deserve blame for having his ENTIRE nest egg in one company’s stock? how can you be about to retire and have 100% of your net worth in your employer’s stock. people who do that are insane and asking for that kind of calamity to occur. your story isn’t an advertisement for social security, it’s an advertisment for the financial planning industry.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Bla stepped in it now…

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

RF, Renee took the day off today. She and the wifey are spending a day together!

Lozen: Xmas? xtians? Doesn’t X stand for Christ in some way somehow?

No, X doesn’t stand for Christ. X in Christmas is convenient for those who care less about the reason for the season than they do the consumerism. Either way, I’m not a “Christian,” but I’d be willing to bet that a Christian wouldn’t like being called an “xtian” any more than Christ would like to be called “X.”

Anyway, I stick by my original statement: whether it’s religion or Christ who people claim make people good people, it doesn’t.

Maybe Christ didn’t change you, but He changed me. Therefore, my statement is still true: Christ does change people. That’s not to say that He changes everybody who calls himself a Christian. But, there is absolute truth in my statement, so again I say: Christ, not religion, changes people.

Some of the best people I know are atheists and agnostics and Buddhists. None of those people think they have to be good to go to heaven. Some of the most evil people I’ve known have been the followers of jesus. They steal, they lie, they have adulterous affairs, they hate everybody else, they judge, they criticize, all the time claiming they’ve had the big changeroo experience - accepted Jesus into their life.

I don’t negate that.

Don’t you think it’s a little weird to respond to a jew that jesus changes people and makes them better?

No, not at all. He asked me a question, and I answered his question. How was the response weird? Would it be less weird for me to respond: no, Jews don’t count. Jesus just changes everyone else. Jesus loves everybody and He does indeed change people whether they’re Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, Hindu, Sikh or Christian.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

Many folks that held Lucent stock were waliking around with their chests poked out when it was $95. per share. Around a dollar now. Gotta diversify!

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

And Jack, I don’t hate Catholics but I have a serious problem with Catholicism because it teaches a false Christianity/a false Christ.

If you read Revelation 17 you will see the destruction of a false church that sits on seven hills (Rome). This is the false church that houses the anti-christ(s).

Yes, this is a BIG deal and isn’t something to be taken lightly. Sure, there are lots of false religions in the world but the Catholic church is one that claims to be the “one true Christian church” all the while leading people away from Christ and teaching doctrines that go against the teachings of the bible. I could list a hundred things that the RCC teaches that go against what’s in the bible. Praying to Mary, praying to dead Christians, purgatory, the apocrapha, the rosary, the mass, limbo, 7 sacraments, celibate priests, sex abuse scandals totalling in the BILLION$, etc….

The difference in my feelings towards Islam and Catholicism is that Islam doesn’t claim to be Christian much less claims to be THE Christian church.

The RCC takes what Jesus did for us on the cross and minimizes it and makes salvation all about YOUR actions instead of HIS actions. It twists the way of salvation into something unbiblical. Christ doesn’t transform Himself into millions of wafers for us to eat. The Mass is blasphemous and unbiblical.

Any religion that claims to be Christian and yet teaches something other than the true way of salvation through Christ offends me as a Christian.

This is the briefest answer I could come up with for you. It doesn’t even begin to cover the tip of the iceberg. There are many reasons for being against the RCC-but I don’t have the time or the room to type them all out on here. Suffice it to say I have my reasons.

I will leave it at that.

By RF

February 1, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Jack- unfortunately, the average bear out there doesn’t know what you know about retirement funds. In the ‘old days’ you put your trust in the company pension plan. It’s really only been in the last 10-15 years that pension plans have really taken a hit because of corporate management issues. I don’t think a lot of people really understand how to diversify. The other issue is that they don’t really see the benefit of small amounts each week going into a mutual fund or other account. Thirdly, most folks these days are working too hard to pay MasterCard off to save anything. We’ve become way, way to short-sighted in general, haven’t we?

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

it’s an advertisment for the financial planning industry

I am sure they contribute most to current Party politics so no surprise there. While you yourself may work in financial planning and in fact be an expert at it, many people are not. and many do not even have 401Ks so your point again? (Other than making good money yearly for the financial planners, who will buy/sell regularly just to keep their commissions up. LOL)

If the private sector had a demonstrated history of taking good care of their employee’s retirements, I could agree there would be no need for social security. But since companies will bankrupt themselves solo to rid themselves of retirement obligations, as at least one major airline did recently… My contempt rises.

enough said. we obviously disagree on Social Security. and it is MY EFFIN MONEY, make no mistake there. 5-7 percent over 45 years? repeat MY MONEY in fact I get this statement from SSA regularly. Could very well mean nothing, but since I was deprived of that income all these years, you can be sure there will be a payout. One way or another.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

I agree, I’d rather have 10 baskets with a couple of thousand in each than 1 basket with a gazillion in it!

Bla, so what about the people who DON’T plan? How would you suggest handling that if there were no more social security?

By Archie

February 1, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen originally said religion doesn’t change people then she mentioned Buddhists. I thought that was a religion. I agree that christians don’t represent well at all some times and I have said so on this blog but I have to speak up for the good christians and not let generalized statement saying that religion can’t change people go unchallenged. I am sure it would not take me long to find some evil atheists or evil agnostics because people are people. However,religion works very well for some people, I mean no one is perfect and it does help some people to change their ways.

By RF

February 1, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

bla- I wrote to Jack, but should have included you too. How do you educate the masses who don’t know anything about investing or understand the concept of future planning?

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Bla - now I have been on 401Ks for years, so I am not that concerned about SSA payout, PERSONALLY. However, the flip of that is, I have a difficult time allowing my funds to be used by some money-grubbing Wall Street coke-whores(your financial planners), who are only out to ‘take the money and run’ (As we just saw with Enron, etc, etc). and have no problem with the funds worth going down, just as long as they get their commission.

and looked what happened just yesterday with these same coke-whores over Google. Seems they point too much money into charity activities, affected their EPS, and, well, read the headlines. I think it is a mistake for people putting all their money into stocks to think it only goes UP anyway, and then these “end of the world is nigh” types over a bad day on Wall Street. Comical.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Alright “K”. I respect your opinion though I don’t agree at all.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

blahblah…how naive you are.

First off, in a large corporate run business like Enron and United, Delta, Chrystler, Teamsters (same thing happened) employees money, pensions, etc. are not under employee control but the corporate honchos oversee these trusts. It is the CEO and executives who change all liquid capital of your pension funds and exchanges it for stock—company stock. Granted, while the company sits on high water the stocks seem a good investment—but when they crash—your liquid capital dollars turns to pennies. See Delta stock as a good example. But, you dont have control over your pension—not even in a Union. Second, I am still working and still paying into SSI, so damn it IS MY MONEY. My hair aint blue—and if it was I would ask: does experience count for nothing? Third, you know, you might be really able to make enough for your retirement between 22-74 and put aside several million. But between then and now your taxes are going to skyrocket because for every you there are 1283 jerk-offs who did not save, who lost money, who had medical emergencies, who never paid into the system because they were orphaned, and countless others. You will have to pay for it—you can deny it all you want—but the worse social problems get—the more your paycheck will be spent on taking care of the reprobates and foolish. Fourth, you know that the stocks will be limited government issue. You wont be able to pick, choose to sell, hold etc. like regular stock trading. It will be like treasury bonds and savings bonds. Indeed you really wont have any control over the money at all until you are ready to retire. What happens if those stocks are tied to the dollar—and lets say current deficit is coming due—your dollar value collapses. My final point: there are 295,734,134 million people in America. A collective pool of cash always brings more revenues than individual accounts.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

If the private sector had a demonstrated history of taking good care of their employee’s retirements, I could agree there would be no need for social security. But since companies will bankrupt themselves solo to rid themselves of retirement obligations, as at least one major airline did recently… My contempt rises.

chilao - you may not have realized it, but this statement is exactly why it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to fund your retirement. enrons happen. airlines go bankrupt and skirt their pensions in bankcy court. so why do you continue to expect to depend on them? why? you know the private sector won’t take care of you, so why don’t you take care of yourself?

Could very well mean nothing, but since I was deprived of that income all these years, you can be sure there will be a payout. One way or another.

you can say that til the cows come home, that it’s your money. the truth is something totally different. your money is spent. it’s long gone. it paid for hip replacement surgery on some guy named Marvin who died six years ago. he lived in des moines, iowa.

if the gov’t decided tomorrow to raise the age where you start getting paid SS up to 80, there’s not a thing you can do about it. if you died before 80 you don’t get a cent.

so honestly, NONE of it is guaranteed. not from the gov’t. not from your employer. NOT FROM ANYBODY BUT YOU.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

jbm,

i didn’t say get rid of social security. i do think SS has a future role purely for the need for a social safety net for those that are very poor.

but i’ll answer your question with another: why aren’t personal finances taught in school? seems to me this would be an easy way to solve much of the problem. most people don’t know how to budget and don’t know how to plan for their futures. they don’t know whether they should buy vs lease a car and don’t know how to finance it. so many of these things are very basic things.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

you can say that til the cows come home, that it’s your money. the truth is something totally different. your money is spent. it’s long gone. it paid for hip replacement surgery on some guy named Marvin who died six years ago. he lived in des moines, iowa.

Renee would be cracking up over that one! LOL!

Archie as usual, well said, and I agree.

By RF

February 1, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

bla- that’s why the debate over SS rages on. We’ve been told for generations now that it’s there for ‘the people’, and I think it will survive in some form, probably privatized. But, I think it should be guaranteed, just as I think all pension funds should have very strict limits and controls to hopefully insure their longtime survival whatever the crazy execs at the top do. The Delta execs managed to hedge themselves some safe retirement money while the retired workers may get left high and dry. Why can’t SS and all pension funds be that safe?

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

chilao - i’m not a financial planner, although i do have a degree in finance and marketing. the thought of how to plan for my retirement is rather simple for me. but i don’t hold some exclusive membership to the financial planner club. anybody can learn if they want. it’s just like any other skill. i’m glad you contribute to your 401(k) and that you plan to provide for your own retirement. as far as i’m concerned, that is exactly as it should be.

personally, i don’t own many individual securities, like an enron or a google. there’s too much unsystematic (or said another way - company specific) risk in one stock versus holding a broad range of securities.

and seriously, don’t trust planners that have high turnover because they’re only trading to generate commissions for themselves instead of profits for you - but you know that.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

… why aren’t personal finances taught in school? seems to me this would be an easy way to solve much of the problem. most people don’t know how to budget and don’t know how to plan for their futures. they don’t know whether they should buy vs lease a car and don’t know how to finance it. so many of these things are very basic things.

YES!!

But why cant parents teach their kids fiscal responsibility? My mother taught me SAVE SAVE SAVE dont BUY BUY BUY! Experience taught me! Life taught me: you will never be prepared enough…

Changes to SSI are imperative!!!! Like: why is it if you divorce after 10 years and each of you re-marries and 40 years later your first spouse dies you can collect his SSI?

We need to change immigration laws so that if you legally come to America, then your family comes over, your grandfather wont be able to collect SSI.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

why aren’t personal finances taught in school? seems to me this would be an easy way to solve much of the problem. most people don’t know how to budget and don’t know how to plan for their futures. they don’t know whether they should buy vs lease a car and don’t know how to finance it. so many of these things are very basic things.

And the nail is hit on the head…

By RF

February 1, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

So how did those of us raised in families that saved money become such poor planners? Why are so many families NOT teaching their children to save? Why are we in debt up to our tuckuses when we know better? Because…we’re too dang far removed from the Great Depression. You live through that, you learn to save money and be much less materialistic. Each generation further we get from that, the worse off we are AND the more likely we are to repeat it. There’s something to think about…

By RF

February 1, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

We don’t teach personal finance because some nitwit (just insert any name and it will do) decided EVERY child in the state needs to pass algebra, regardless of IQ, etc.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Credit cards.

The demise of the American savings account.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

lyrazel:

i’m naive? please. you just spent a bunch of time typing a response against an argument i didn’t make. if you read what i wrote to chilao you’d know that i wouldn’t put much faith in big corporations to take care of you.

what you still don’t answer in your rant against large corporations is the following: when did it become the gov’ts responsibility (thru the use of my tax dollars) to take care of you, instead of your responsibility to take care of yourself? you don’t answer that question. you can’t answer that question. you avoid it like the plague.

But between then and now your taxes are going to skyrocket because for every you there are 1283 jerk-offs who did not save, who lost money, who had medical emergencies, who never paid into the system because they were orphaned, and countless others. You will have to pay for it—you can deny it all you want—but the worse social problems get—the more your paycheck will be spent on taking care of the reprobates and foolish.

you couldn’t be more right - but all those jerk-offs don’t worry about anything because they know somebody else will pay for their mistakes. we’ve trained people to believe it. which is why it will be difficult to unlearn - but it’s vital that people learn that actions have consequences and you have to take care of yourself.

secondly, since you are so prescient, and you know this will happen, you really are a greedy little grubber to not want to help out, aren’t you. it’s sad because you sound like you want it to happen. i am your sons and your daughters, and you could care less as long as you get your spiked ensure and enough hair dye to keep your hair from turning blue.

My final point: there are 295,734,134 million people in America. A collective pool of cash always brings more revenues than individual accounts.

i never made the argument for individual accounts, but if you’re SOOOOO right then why is the system broke? why are we having to increase immigration to get more bodies into the country to pay the SS and medicaid taxes? why has the system failed to pay for itself?

My hair aint blue—and if it was I would ask: does experience count for nothing?

it doesn’t mean much if you want me to fall for the same stupid trap you have for the last 35 years.

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

I believe it was Janis Ian who said: We live beyond our means, on other peoples dreams, and thats succeeding…

By Lyrazel

February 1, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

blah…ok will go back and read……maybe it was your blue hair comment, eh…

By RF

February 1, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

lyrazel- uh-hmmm, so right!!

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

parents don’t teach their kids personal finance bc they don’t know either. people borrow extra on their homes to pay for a car. gee, nothing like spending 30 years financing an asset that will only last you 7 years, but people do that all the time. people ring up big credit card debt at 21%, then tap their home equity to pay off the credit card only to go on another spending spree and rack up more debt on the credit cards. the parents don’t know any better.

By RF

February 1, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

gotta go- homework, supper, yadda-yadda. Holla at ya tomorrow!!

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

blah…ok will go back and read……maybe it was your blue hair comment, eh…

fine, your hair isn’t blue. my point remains: don’t trust your gov’t or your employer to fund your retirement. save for it yourself. if everybody expects someone else to pay for their retirement, none of us will ever retire.

By Jack

February 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Steve Winwood of Traffic: and the man in the suit has just bought a new car from the profit he made form your dreams.

Low Spark of High Heeled Boys.

(killer sax)

By Archie

February 1, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

blabla I agree with your 4:02 but not too much before it. Parents don’t know better and as a parent I am working on passing on some responsible spending habits but I have alot of work to do. I tend to agree with opinion of JBM and others when it comes to social security and people have to understand that the government is us. The government is not being asked to take care of its people but people are being asked to take care of it’s citizens via government. There’s nothing wrong with that as it just needs to be managed and that’s what you need the politicians for.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Okay, here’s the thing. I could say Isis changed me when she came into my life. “I used to be a liar, an adulterer, broke all the commandments and was a sorry person. Then I had my experience with Isis and now I always tell the truth, do not commit adultery anymore, keep all the commandments she gave us and am a wonderful person.” You can’t say she didn’t. I can’t prove she did. I’ve seen too much hypocrisy to believe being religious or saying jesus came into my life and changed me is literal truth. Maybe you are an exception JBM ;-> It was actually my living, breathing, therapist who helped me to change and not a goddess from thousands of years ago. And I don’t see how jesus could change a jew since jews don’t believe the jesus mythology at all.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Archie I mentioned buddhists in that post because buddhism to me is more an ethical system than a religion. There is no conversion experience in buddhism, yada, yada, yada.

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

archie:

fair enough, we can disagree and it won’t kill me. i’m glad you’re teaching your kids about responsible spending habits.

do you really think the gov’t is us? there’s two senators per state. there’s one rep in the house for every 750,000 people in this country. do you feel well represented? do you think they’re mostly interested in representing us, or mostly interested in getting re-elected to maintain their power? a lot of times those items are in conflict for a politician.

but let me ask you this: is it your job to take care of you, or my job to take care of you?

another thing you said i thought was interesting: The government is not being asked to take care of its people but people are being asked to take care of it’s citizens via government.

if lyrazel or chilao come to me and ask me for assistance, i have the option of telling them yes or no. when the gov’t comes to me on behalf of lyrazel and chilao, i don’t have any choice. i can’t say no, in fact i can’t say anything. hence, the gov’t isn’t asking for anything - they’re taking. that’s why in my mind there’s a big difference between one citizen asking another for assistance, and the alternative where the gov’t gets in the middle of it.

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Bla - I really have to wonder what would have happened if an Enron employee, or quite a few, actually let the company know they wanted divestiture, and only hold a small amount of Enron stock. Would they have received all kinds of pressure not to divest? Would Enron have gladly and willing made for an easy transfer of funds(or put up stumbling blocks in the way). Would it have affected their reviews and further earnings?

get my point about that? LOL

By arial

February 1, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t know anything about handling finances. My parents didn’t know so they couldn’t teach me. My ex didn’t know because his parents didn’t know and couldn’t teach him. I’ve always been poor and worked low salary jobs. Now suddenly I have $150,000 from an inheritance. I have no idea what to do. I put it in my savings acct and it’s drawing very little interest. I need help. I always thought having money would be wonderful but now it’s driving me crazy! What do I do?

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

RF - hopefully you read what i said to jbm about teaching basic personal finance in school. i would say teach it at home, but the parents don’t really know it either bc they never learned it themselves, except usually the hard way.

and i think you’re right, as people get further removed from the great depression, there’s a thought that nothing bad will ever happen to them, so why save or why have a rainy day fund. that’s insane and inviting personal calamity at the loss of a job or unexpected death in the family.

why are people in debt? some debt is healthy - not everybody can afford their houses or cars in cash, and when it comes to homes, the gov’t subsidizes debt financing through mortgage interest deductions. but people are in debt at unhealthy levels because they can’t say no. it’s self control, and not enough people have it. it’s about sacrificing some of today’s pleasure to have far more in the future and have security in knowing you’re on good footing.

By Chilao

February 1, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Arial - hire a financial planner and if you are lucky, get an honest person(harder to find nowadays in business it seems) and have them invest it in rental PROPERTY or LAND.

$150,000 will buy alot of acreage.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

but let me ask you this: is it your job to take care of you, or my job to take care of you?

Oh come on Bla! How much of what you give the gov’t do you think goes to take care of anybody except those politicians? Most of it right now is going to support a war. I can’t remember if you’re prowar or not. I don’t want my money going to pay for a war. You don’t want your money going to take care of others. Very, very, very little. There are sick people who can’t take care of themselves. There are lots of uneducated people who don’t know how to save money or invest money. Does that mean those people should end up on the street? Not to me it doesn’t.

By lozen

February 1, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Oops, don’t know where that “very, very, very little” came from. Aliens probably.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Just like New Orleans. Who’s job is it to take care of YOU? The gov’t? No-it’s YOUR job to take care of yourself and your family.

By Jack K

February 1, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

The gov’t gets enough of our money in taxes-are you gonna trust them with your retirement money???

By blablabla

February 1, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

lozen,

we’re talking about SS, not general taxes. all of my money going into SS today is being used to pay out claims, or nearly all of it.

and again, we’re talking about SS, not every poor person that ends up on the street. as i’ve said, now for the third time, i don’t have an issue with there being a safety net of some sort for the elderly that don’t have their own retirement funds.

but i notice that you didn’t answer the question. i’ll ask again: why is it my responsibility to take care of you in your golden years instead of your own?

why do you want to shirk your responsibility to yourself? it’s sad, really.

By Just Being Me

February 1, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Lozen, saying that Jesus changes people doesn’t mean that no one else does.

My daughter changed me.

As did my ex-boyfriend.

As did Christ.

That doesn’t mean that Isis didn’t change you; nor does it mean that Christ can’t change you because Isis already did…

And, as for Jews, there are many Jews who do believe in Christ. There’s one organization that comes to mind called the Jews for Jesus. Anyway, like I said, Christ can change anyone who wants to be changed, regardless of your “religious” background.

By Julia

February 2, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

Just Being Me-that was very well put!

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Thank you Julia. Good Mornin to ya!

Mornin, All! I am determined to have a good day today. (Just thought I’d say that aloud).

By Renee

February 2, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Good Morning, I’m back today! I think my bad day has already started.

~waving~ HEY JBM!!!

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Blahblah, I needed to leave. Pardon my short abrupt answer. I know this topic is important to you—so I will give my response if you wish to read it, thanks.

gov’ts responsibility (thru the use of my tax dollars) to take care of you, instead of your responsibility to take care of yourself? you don’t answer that question. you can’t answer that question. you avoid it like the plague.

The government runs on my tax dollars too, blahblah. While you have only been paying into the system a few years (no one denies your contributions) I have been paying in since before your parents entered grammar school, probably. I was raised to view people make society and society creates a culture, that the more your personal contribution to a society the better it gets. Your comments make it seem you were raised in the belief society counts for nothing except a base for an individual to take what he wants, pick and choose the services she wants and to hell with everyone else. Two contrary views.

(Bear with me I am a blowhard…)

I was of the opinion tax dollars are also spent maintaining road systems, public libraries, schools, government services that provide for the welfare of the community as a whole. In your lifetime you have not seen the poverty that was mostly eradicated in the south because of our government, but I grew up in it. What you hear of now are the feeders, that weird misconception that so many freeloaders are sucking at welfare for their livelihood, you yell and scream at such people…why how could any blue haired granny deserve MY MONEY.

if lyrazel or chilao come to me and ask me for assistance, i have the option of telling them yes or no. when the gov’t comes to me on behalf of lyrazel and chilao, i don’t have any choice. i can’t say no, in fact i can’t say anything. hence, the gov’t isn’t asking for anything - they’re taking. that’s why in my mind there’s a big difference between one citizen asking another for assistance, and the alternative where the gov’t gets in the middle of it.

To be blunt, we are supporting not welfare queens and blue haired matrons much, but the gigantic military that has become a budget onto its own. We are paying for weapon systems that have been proven not to work but will be built anyway. We are paying into massive debt run up by a government bought on by special interests, we are paying subsidies to oil companies, we are paying subsidies to ADM (the grower conglomeration disguised as Farming). We are paying subsidies to pharmaceutical companies to tell Americans what drugs they can and cannot have, to be charged beyond the price they sell to other nations—we pay this twice—once as an individual with HMO and once every year as a taxpayer your $ get spent on research and development.

We are actually paying so little of our taxes into social security and welfare programs it is ludicrous to be screeching so loudly about it. You are ignoring the fact this administration wants to allocate the money WE deposit into SSI to other programs. It wants to use that money to pay off debts accumulated by allowing mega-corporations to declare bankruptcy rather than fulfill its obligations made to its employees. We have watched as hospitals have closed and mega-jails opened to house the sick, insane along with criminals at far greater expense to taxpayers. We have seen how little our government is investing in the infrastructure of our cities despite our escalating taxes.

I do feel my government can damn well support me after 48 years of getting my taxes—because I support it with MY money. However, I would rather spend MY tax dollars making sure some dying lady has peace in her final hours not on a street by the dumpster but in a hospital bed where she can pass with dignity. I want that for me—I want that for you! Our government is not spending huge amounts on military hospital (see figures as to the cuts in VA hospital expenditures), but spending a lot on war planes, on bombs for future conflicts…I dont WANT to support THAT! but I must because I pay tax. I want to put my taxes where they will do good but our government does not allow me to choose—like it does not allow you to choose.

As for saving for my retirement, I happen to believe as you do. There must be individual responsibility financially that does not come from the government. As an independent woman raised in a society full of dependent women, I kept working because I felt an obligation to myself—that nobody would take care of me but me. I have made many investments and saved enough—why I dont waste my cash with cable TV—mainly because it can run 40-180 per month—and that adds up. I never had the perks of flashy big homes because I stayed to my budget. I bought not with credit but with cash—and I am possibly more solvent than most of the Boomer generation…with all their (way too late) financial planners and…whoever you pay to manage your wealth. I reflect more of the values of MY GENERATION than yours—and will always do so.

Now, when you are 78 and start thinking about your retirement, and you look at the pittance that you have earned in SSI for your years of hard earned labor—you too will have supported your grandparents through medicaid, your parents…and maybe only then will you start feeling better about using social services if they are around. Maybe not but I bet, if you and your spouse were lost to this world and your child a survivor you would be glad SSI survivor benefits were not cut or spent paying for new weapon systems.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

~wavin~ Hey Renee! So glad to have you back, I missed you yesterday. :-(

Walk, Timmy, Walk!

By Renee

February 2, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

ROFLMAO JBM - too funny!

I missed you too yesterday! I wish I was off again today though, but oh well :(

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Bla,

I also do not want to continue this SSA convo, we obviously look at many things quite differently, but driving in this morning I thought you would not be here, since you would be too busy carving a road to drive on. And I could also have major complaints about my petrol tax dollars being used to make roads in areas of the country I never drive in. Or the recent Bridge-to-Nowhere in Alaska. You move to Alaska, you should expect your transport to be via seaplane or sea-going vessel. But a bridge where very few people live? Yes, I know it got cancelled.

But I do not look at the government using tax dollars, especially when they have had a special tax (that 7 percent or so withheld, employer matched) for retirement ANY DIFFERENT than you obviously being late to work today, being busy carving your own road out of the wilderness. Shouldn’t you be responsible for your own road?

WHAT is the difference? I do not see any and never will.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

And for every misuse(scam) run by the SSA, I am sure there was a good citizen who got screwed by his own government. (especially when the current Iraqi war veterans are getting screwed over simple health care).

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

…you really are a greedy little grubber to not want to help out, aren’t you. it’s sad because you sound like you want it to happen. i am your sons and your daughters, and you could care less as long as you get your spiked ensure and enough hair dye to keep your hair from turning blue.

Uh, wont answer that blahblah, in truth my hair is red, its going grey by fading away. I like my wrinkles and my faded hair…and have never touched a drop of ensure except in this fictitious party I crashed btw…and as far as caring for my sons and daughters…I serve with an abused women shelter, the foodbank and teach computer use with a senior center… I had no real children in this lifetime…I was not a responsible mother-type…

Lets not quibble about which of us has selfish motives. We are all a tad selfish…I volunteer with my time, you give with your money. We are both good people. Keep your mits off my SSI and I wont have to go on welfare, ok?

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

LOL @ shouldn’t you be responsible for your own road?

That’s funny.

I won’t get into what’s right or wrong with SSA… but all I know is that in 25 years when I get ready to retire, I BETTER get every dangon penny I put into SSA, and some interest.

That’s all I know. Timmy

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

But what about those Capitol Police apologies AFTER they have screwed the citizens?

I thought it was just Sheehan, but the wife of a Republican congressman, wearing a SUPPORT OUR TROOPS shirt was held out of the State of the Union address.

“so sorry, we wrong” the scumbags say, “so sorry”.

By Renee

February 2, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the government should be responsible for our retirement, but I think we should all get the money we put into SSI at the very least (or was taken from us and put into SSI). I’m all for privitization!

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I heard that this morning, too Chilao. I felt a little better knowing that they were being equal opportunity jerks. But, it still sucks.

Timmyyyy

By Jack

February 2, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

They shouldn’t let ANYONE in that has a t-shirt or sign. One should show some respect even if they don’t agree with the presedent’s policies. She showed zero class. Her son would be embarassed.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

Personally, I wouldn’t care if it was an “I Love You, Georgie” t-shirt. A t-shirt at a State of the Union address is just plain tacky.

Timmyyyyy

By Renee

February 2, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

They shouldn’t let ANYONE in that has a t-shirt or sign

I agree, that isn’t the time or the place for that.

By anonymous

February 2, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

LYRAZEL, your 9:18 said it all. It boils down to a difference in values I think. I grew up with poverty. My grandparents on both sides were farmers at first and had to make the transition from farming to city livin’. They were uneducated; book learning was not that important if you were going to plow a field all your life. Their lives changed totally due to our industrial revolution. I do believe that we are our sister’s/brother’s keeper. Yes, people make bad choices. Yes, people make mistakes. Yes, there’s a lot of poor planning and lack of planning. I don’t mind the money I pay to support human beings who aren’t perfect and never will be. The average I.Q. is 100! You can’t make people intelligent, although you can educate them to overcome some of that. That doesn’t mean they should live in total poverty when they get old. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have health care. I do not understand the idea that SS is an entitlement program - didn’t the Bush admin. come up with that title? It ain’t gonna kill any of us to pay our SS taxes to support some little old lady who grew up in rural GA, made the mistake of dropping out of school (because everyone else in her family did that) went to work in the mill making very little money until it closed, and has nothing now except her SS!

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

didn’t the Bush admin. come up with that title

actually I think social security has been considered an ‘entitlement program’ since conception, under FDR. I was being facetious about the State of the Union syntax.

I thought Sheehan was a stoogo for showing up with a t-shirt(and this was before I actually saw it), and then learned the congressman’s wife also had shown up with a t-shirt. so realized it was not just Sheehan.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

But I do not look at the government using tax dollars, especially when they have had a special tax (that 7 percent or so withheld, employer matched) for retirement ANY DIFFERENT than you obviously being late to work today, being busy carving your own road out of the wilderness. Shouldn’t you be responsible for your own road?

chilao:

first of all, you pay all 15% of it. your employer is willing to pay you 107.5% of your salary, but pays you 100% and the gov’t 7.5%. if the gov’t wasn’t involved, you’d get that extra 7.5% the employer pays directly plus the 7.5% the gov’t takes off the top of your paycheck. so, surprise, it’s all your money.

secondly, your comparison is beyond ludicrous. do you own the land you build the road on? how do you build a road on somebody else’s property? and if it’s your property, “your road” is also known amongst most people in this country as YOUR DRIVEWAY, and yes, we’re each responsible for it for our own driveway. unless you want me to come over and pay to pave your driveway for you now, too.

if you don’t see the difference between gov’ts function to allow commerce through building roads and infrastructure versus funding your retirement, this discussion may be hopeless. there’s a gigantic difference. where do you see wealth redistribution for your retirement in the any of the documents that describe the founding of our nation? exactly nowhere.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

I have to agree it is rather difficult to plan for your retirement when you are making minimum wage in a mill and the company has no retirement program anyway. And that proverbial gold watch is probably only good for one month’s living expenses, if you even get it.

I worked in a mill for two months once, making furniture. Granted I was making piecemeal, about $8.00 an hour when the minimum wage was $1.65, but we did have many non-piecemeal employees making $1.65 an hour.

and management HATED for us to have air-nail-gun battles across the line. funnest part of the job.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

bla this discussion may be hopeless

wow, we finally agree on something. LOL

cause it sure looks like you would have a problem getting to work otherwise. You don’t own the land I guess.

And I doubt any employers would automatically increase wages 7.5 percent if they did not pay into the SSA. Some employers have a hard time keeping up with inflation. (during record banner years even)

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

lyrazel:

I was raised to view people make society and society creates a culture, that the more your personal contribution to a society the better it gets. Your comments make it seem you were raised in the belief society counts for nothing except a base for an individual to take what he wants, pick and choose the services she wants and to hell with everyone else.

lyrazel we believe similarly. however, i believe society is great because of individuals making contributions to society. society is not great simply because society is great. individual contributions are the most important thing.

We are actually paying so little of our taxes into social security and welfare programs it is ludicrous to be screeching so loudly about it. You are ignoring the fact this administration wants to allocate the money WE deposit into SSI to other programs.

wow, lyrazel, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. do a little research and you will find that what you are saying here is precisely the opposite of what is reality. in fiscal 2003, the gov’t spent 2.157 trillion.

$466B was SS $161B was medicaid $243B was medicare $184B was income security programs $56B was unemployment $60B was other health programs

that’s over half the expenditures right there in entitlement programs, and i doubt i even got them all. OVER 40% OF ALL GOV’T EXPENDITURES ARE ON SS, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. so to say we’re paying very little to SS, and other welfare programs is completely false.

i’d like to debate you, but it’s really tough when you when you operate on a different set of “believed facts” that don’t in any way resemble reality.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Hell, if the politicians had kept their paws off of the money that was paid in, there would be a whole lot more. They are like pigs at a trough. Oink, oink.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Lyzarel and anonymous: Nicely said. How sad that the basic survival needs of our most vulnerable citizens are threatened largely by the selfish creed of the priviledged — ironically those who most loudly proclaim “family values” and a special alliance with “the Lord.” Some days, it really breaks my heart to know the true nature of my neighbors.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

And I doubt any employers would automatically increase wages 7.5 percent if they did not pay into the SSA. Some employers have a hard time keeping up with inflation. (during record banner years even)

chilao, your employer is willing to pay you 107.5% of what your stated salary is bc that’s what they’re already paying to employ you.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

You are ignoring the fact this administration wants to allocate the money WE deposit into SSI to other programs.

lyrzel this has been going on for decades. since payroll taxes exceeded ss expenditures, extra cash was taken from ss to pay for pet projects (your alaskan bridge to nowhere). that’s why there never was a surplus, it was just a myth - that money got spent in other ways.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

How sad that the basic survival needs of our most vulnerable citizens are threatened largely by the selfish creed of the priviledged

kimberly, you do realize that SS gets paid to everybody, regardless of need, don’t you? your payments are based on your contributions while you worked. bill gates and warren buffet can get their payments just like the old vulnerable folks, assuming the old vulnerable folks paid into the system as they worked. but gates’ payments will be a lot higher bc he probably will have paid the max every year for several years.

By Julia

February 2, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Kimberly-your statement was very offbase and unfounded. selfish creed of the priviledged — ironically those who most loudly proclaim “family values� and a special alliance with “the Lord.

So you are making a huge assumption that: a)all the “priviledged” people are selfish b)all the priviledged selfish people are Christians

Why are you trying to paint Christians in such a negative light? Seems to me it’s the Christians that are the most unselfish and most giving of their time and money to those in need. At least the ones that I know.

I’m not saying that every person who claims to be a Christian IS one or ACTS like one (like Christ). But you’re making huge assumptions based on your dislike of all things Christian. (Or most things.)

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

your employer is willing to pay you 107.5% of what your stated salary is bc that’s what they’re already paying to employ you.

I think they are really already paying me closer to 130 percent, or more, of what I gross yearly. In some sort expense related to my privilege of enabling them to be a good productive company. LOL

I see nothing in our founding documents that relates to our government inforcing our view of democracy on cultures incapable of secular democracy, but it seems we can do that. In short, there are many functions of government unrelated to anything in our Constitution. As a result of, get this, LAWS passed. Imagine that.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Yes, bla. I am a reasonably informed citizen, not a clueless buffoon. Thanks for breaking it down for me, though. The people to which I refer are the ones who want to allow slick brokers and wall street hacks to get their mitts on what, for many, may be the only contributions toward, and security for, their vulnerable “golden years.” Not everyone is capable of maneuvering a stunning profit in stocks and mutual funds. Some folks work hard all their lives just to exist. How disgusting if some fast-talking weasel could promise them something great, convince them to sign over that money, and leave them with nothing. You are ALL still free to persue private retirement accounts that will raise your standard of living beyond the meager life of those for whom SS is their only source of bread. SHAME on them for trying to elevate the freedom to CON and steal from the less intelligent to some kind of virtuous endeavor! (BTW, Bill Gates gives more to charities every year than I’ll collect in SS my whole life, so beyond the fact that his software products are EVIL, I have no problem with him getting his little checks when he’s old.)

By Renee

February 2, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

In catching up on my reading yesterday of what I missed on the blog, I know a comment was made (I don’t remember by whom) that Christians don’t go killing people in the name of God etc like the muslims (or something to that effect).

Is it forgotten that we have extremists in every religion. David Kuresh thought he was Jesus, and was fullfiling his destiny in the name of God, many people committing violence against abortion clinics are doing that in the name of God. True all Christians are not bad, not even close, but there are bad apples, to the extreme as in the Muslim religion. There are many differences between Christianity and Muslims, however, there are similarities as well. All Muslims, even the majority, do not want to die in the name of Allah.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Julia, I said those who “MOST LOUDLY” proclaim. I didn’t say “all Christians.” The “most real” Christians I know are too busy behaving as Jesus instructed to stand up and demand privitization of social security and the elimination of entitlements for the poor. They’re not the ones trumpeting the virtues of “survivial of the fittest (in the holy name of God).” I don’t persecute Christians, just the posers, dear.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

I see nothing in our founding documents that relates to our government inforcing our view of democracy on cultures incapable of secular democracy, but it seems we can do that

chilao - come on now - of couse you won’t see anything in our founding documents concerning democracy. the reason for this should be obvious, but i guess it isn’t - the US is not a democracy but rather a republic. but we do have the right to defend ourselves and national defense is clearly outlined as a responsiblity of our gov’t - what you’re getting into now is a policy argument concerning whether or not iraq was necessary for our defense, which is a different topic altogether.

In short, there are many functions of government unrelated to anything in our Constitution. As a result of, get this, LAWS passed. Imagine that.

wrong, chilao, all the laws must be constitutional. imagine that.

By Sanhan

February 2, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Namaste, all. Have followed the thread for the past couple of days and have a couple of thoughts to add. As far as being offended by the use of X (as in Xtians) for Christ and Christians, X (or chi) is the Greek letter for ch-, which has been an accepted abbreviation for Christ for 2000 or so years. The P with the x through the bottom is a longer abbreviation for Christ that is also used. Rather than be offended, another way to think of this is that Christ has had so much influence throughout history, that language devised an abbreviation to communicate about Him and His teachings.

As far as the Social Security debate (and welfare, Medicaid, Medicare etc. debate) , as a nation, we’re only as strong as our weakest citizens. We keep talking about accountability as individuals, family, and as citizens, but we all have to learn how to do this, and thus should acknowledge the learning curve. If we keep the weak isolated, unequal, and punished for their supposed sin of weakness, regardless of whether it’s economic, health related, due to prejudice, or even because they’ve made a mistake, how does that make our nation stronger? Do scapegoats make us stronger? Do they help us focus on the real problem?

I heard an appropriate analogy on the Randi Rhodes Show (a liberal radio show that I highly recommend regardless of your political affiliation). She spoke her experience in the military, stating that while many of her fellow troops were societally undesirable, it’s important to engage and integrate them as part of the military team, since they may be what stands between success and failure and life and death.

While I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, if one compares the tenets of Christianity and Democracy, I would say that they’re really reaching for the same ideal, honoring humanity and equality by taking care of the weak among us. (This is the supposed crime of secular humanism, honoring humanity without acknowledging religion).

Anyway, to tie this together with the topic of truthfulness, we should always remember that we are responsible to speak truth to power at every level; this raises us all to our best selves, individually, culturally, and nationally.

Have missed blogging here, but have been using the time for political research and writing to Congress. Stay well. Beware who frames the argument and how it is framed.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Bla - forget it, of course laws have to be constitutional. I guess the SSA laws must have passed muster one attack after the other. If it has been even challenged, you seem to be the expert, enlighten us, please.

Or better yet, hire an attorney to challenge it as unconstitional.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Right on, San! {:->

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Good Morning! Can everyone type slower today? I have a lot of catch reading up to do between spending all day yesterday in meetings and then the dental appointment to clean and sharpen my teeth. Your help is greatly appreciated. ;)

By Jack

February 2, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Is that Sandy from upstate New York?

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

The people to which I refer are the ones who want to allow slick brokers and wall street hacks to get their mitts on what, for many, may be the only contributions toward, and security for, their vulnerable “golden years.�

kimberly, the people you speak of are deplorable. perhaps we should stop giving these wall street hacks our money. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

you don’t feel enlightened already as a result of this discussion, chilao? lol. the facts are out there if you actually want to look for them. do your own homework and enable yourself.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

When the doodoo hits the fan, paper money will be worthless just like in ‘29. Everyone should start a garden or greenhouse.

By Sanhan

February 2, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Howdy, Jack, can’t believe you remembered me, the Upstate New Yorker. It’s lovely, sunny, almost 50 degrees here, believe it or not. Hope things are good with you and yours.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Bla - I was looking for enlightenment on previous CONSTITUTIONAL challenges to SSA.

One of my brothers has not paid federal income taxes in at least 20 years, I know all the arguments. (Work with a whole bunch of anti-government/UN types as well).

But then I am not seeking to abolish social security. Seems we just got two Supreme Court Justices who like to follow legal precedent, so you might be out of luck with your constitutional challenge. But then, if it has never been challenged, sounds like a good project for you.

Seems we should be done in Iraq then, the WMD are either in Syria or buried in a bunker up in the desert around Tikrit(my view). So our national-defense issue is resolved, next stop Damascus or Tehran? Flip a coin?

just had to go read the main topic, realizing this, as normal, is WAY OFF Frey’s book. LMAO

By Scalia

February 2, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

JBM, in your 5:06 comment, you didn’t mention whether your partner has changed you or not?

Plus, you never guessed what I looked like. I felt left out of the mix.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

I don’t forget my blog buddies!

By RF

February 2, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Jack- I’ve thought the same thing. I have a feeling we’re headed for something like that, although I believe it will be a while before it happens. Kinda makes life scary, don’t it? That and one sounds like Chicken Little saying it!!—LOL

By Jack

February 2, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Sandy. Hope everything is ok in your neck of the woods!

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Scalia:

Your name throws me off, so I have a hard time getting a visual image of you. Whenever I see your name, I just picture a latino-looking supreme court justice in a black robe. LOL! (Seriously).

I wouldn’t say that my partner has changed me per se. I don’t know. Lemme think about that one a little more. I’ll get back to you.

By lozen

February 2, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Sanhan, as always the deepest, most intelligent and most spiritual words on this blog. I’ve missed you a lot!

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

chilao -

don’t confuse my argument of personal responsibility for an abolition of social security. my message is simple: be responsible for yourself and put little faith in your gov’t or your employer to support you. because there are no guarantees coming from them, your only guaranteed life savings/pension/retirement benefits are funded by you.

that said, i would love to see some changes in the current system. it is not need based, and hasn’t had the age adjusted in a very long time, if ever. the demographics that originally supported the system of several workers per retiree no longer exist. by 2015, it is expected there will be less than three workers to every retiree. by 2030 it is expected to be more like 2 to 1. it’s not about politics, it’s not about who’s money it is, it’s about math - there aren’t enough workers for all the retirees given the average life expectancy and the rapid escalation in health care costs. you have to either: increase taxes, decrease benefits, have major immigration to increase the number of workers to tax, or come up with a new program.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

The Social Security Act was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1937. activist judges, I am sure. FDR padded the bench. LOL

Saw a funny cartoon recently. Chicken at a podium, press present, beside a road with a nice white divided line down the center. He says “I invite you all here for this monumental occassion and all you guys can do is ask me one stupid question?”.

on that thought:

Q. Why did the ‘possum cross the road? A. To see if it could be done.

By lozen

February 2, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

don’t confuse my argument of personal responsibility for an abolition of social security. my message is simple: be responsible for yourself and put little faith in your gov’t or your employer to support you. because there are no guarantees coming from them, your only guaranteed life savings/pension/retirement benefits are funded by you.

I like that. I can agree with that. It’s so much easier to listen to what you say Blah, without the insults (blue hairs) that really turn me off. We are solving the problem by allowing a huge flow of emigrants into the U.S. The many children of Mexican emigrants will pay for our SS! (I just found my answer for my north ga relatives who rant and rave about illegal immigrants all the time.) They’ll be responsible for you too. I know, you’re going to turn down your big ole huge SS check and take care of yourself though. Good for you!

By Jack

February 2, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Mmmmmmmm! Possum on the half shell. Yum

By RF

February 2, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Chilao- the possum crossed the road because the chicken worked for the government and had the possum convinced that ‘everything will be okay if you cross the road’, knowing that the poor, ignorant possum didn’t stand a chance. Poor possums, always believing what the govment chickuns tell ‘em…

By lozen

February 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Sandi, this is for you. Einstein wrote to his oldest friend, Michele Besso, about the death of a friend: “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Jack - lindsaybks.com/lab/rkc/index.html offers a roadkill vehicle, cooker built into the traveling scooper. LOL

4 miles to a squirrel, 10 miles to a rabbit, 18 miles to a dog, all at 47 mph.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

RF - good one LOL

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

JBM…yesterday you said Maybe Christ didn’t change you, but He changed me. Therefore, my statement is still true: Christ does change people. That’s not to say that He changes everybody who calls himself a Christian. But, there is absolute truth in my statement, so again I say: Christ, not religion, changes people.

I know I’m picking a nit with your statement, but I don’t think that Christ changes people at all. He provides an example and calls them to change themselves for the better. God imbued us with free will to make the decision to change and by how much. To take your statement literally would mean that if I’m not changed by Christ it isn’t my fault because HE didn’t change me. I’m going to burn in Hell for all eternity because I didn’t get picked by Christ to be changed? It makes Christ sound like a kid picking a kick ball team on the playground and I know you didn’t mean to leave us with that impression.

Lozen…some of see with more than our eyes.

Bla…all very good points about SSI. The program was never intended to be the sole income source for anyone, but that is exactly the way people treat it. One of the evening news magazines (60 Minutes, I think) did a story about this topic a few years ago. During one segment they interviewed a group of wealthy seniors who lived in a high-end retirement home. Only 1 out of the 12 or so people asked agreed that since they didn’t need the money they would be willing to stop recieving checks when the total of their checks was equal to the amount they paid into the system plus interest. Most were surprised to find the payback period to be roughly 5 years or less and while they realized this impacted their progeny they still felt entitled to recieve money beyond what they had paid even though it was ‘mad money’ for most of them. One lady’s justification for continuing the checks was that she spent most of her SS check on her grandkids anyway.

Personal opinion…the larger the church or church governing structure the more likely one is to find corruption. How can anyone talk about a church family when there are 10,000 members? The church I grew up in was around 800 total members with probably half of them being active members. If you attended Church AND Sunday like my family you knew everybody in the church. It really was like a giant family and I still keep up with church gossip through my parents. Much to Mother’s dismay SHE is now a matron of the church and probably older than the matrons when we transfered to that church 28 years ago.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Wow. A dear would probably get you to the state line. LOL

By Jack

February 2, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

How do you like your possum Net?

By lozen

February 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

I am so excited! I’m reading a book about A. Einstein and I can’t believe how much his ideas about religion, god, etc. parallel with my own. I wish I’d read about him a long time ago! And maybe I should have been a physicist.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty — it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves… Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

By RF

February 2, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Net- definitely in agreement about the church size. I wonder how long the mega-church trend will last. Seems we’re in a phase now of thinking that those churches MUST be closer to God, when the opposite is most likely true.

I know you asked JBM, but I’ll throw in a little something. Nobody gets picked for the Jesus Kickball team. When a person chooses to accept his presence in his/her life, they choose to join the team and your life is forever different. I figure that’s what JBM meant by that.

How’s the partner by the way? You haven’t mentioned him in a while.

By RF

February 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jack- I hit a deer a few years back, killing the deer and totalling my car. I had to call my dad to come pick me up. As soon as he realized I was okay, he asked where the deer was. He and my brother went and got it. Some very tender steaks from that one—something about being pounded by a Pontiac might have helped!

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

lozen,

fair enough. however, it is just as insulting to me to read post after post stating that most of our money is spent on weapons systems or on foreign wars, etc. that is just plain false. anybody could spend five minutes on the subject and know that’s incorrect.

i doubt that most people on this blog knew that over 40% of federal expenditures consisted of medicare, medicaid and SS, until i showed them. over half of the expenditures are on entitlement social programs - over a trillion dollars - it’s a truly staggering and unimaginable amount. how many people here knew? if you don’t know, you can’t change anything.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Venison tastes the same whether killed by a gun or car.:)

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

thanks, net. appreciate the support.

By lozen

February 2, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Where do you get those facts Bla? I’ve seen a totally different distribution table. How can people be in such disagreement about how our tax dollars are spent? I don’t know who’s right - maybe you are. But the facts should be clear and easily available - I don’t understand.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Bla…. until i showed them Sources please? You’re right: if I don’t know, I can’t change anything.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Lozen. They don’t want it to be easy to get. There might be a revolution.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Lozen. You should read, “The Source” by James A. Michner. Good read.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

I know I’m picking a nit with your statement, but I don’t think that Christ changes people at all. He provides an example and calls them to change themselves for the better. God imbued us with free will to make the decision to change and by how much. To take your statement literally would mean that if I’m not changed by Christ it isn’t my fault because HE didn’t change me. I’m going to burn in Hell for all eternity because I didn’t get picked by Christ to be changed? It makes Christ sound like a kid picking a kick ball team on the playground and I know you didn’t mean to leave us with that impression.

Hey NetB. Glad you finally caught up! LOL. You’re right. I certainly didn’t mean to give the impression that Christ picks and chooses whom he will change. That’s definitely not what I meant, so I’m glad you pointed out that this is how it came across.

But, we still disagree. I do believe that it is Christ that changes people, and not we ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that we are saved (some translations say “changed”) by grace, not by our own works.

When we make the decision to embrace Christ, to accept Him into our hearts, then He effects change in us. He gives us the power and the strength and will to change.

That doesn’t mean that if you don’t change, it’s because Christ chose not to change you. It means that if you don’t change, it’s because you chose not to allow Christ to change you.

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Arial: One of the SAFEST ways you can hold on to your money is to not TELL people you have money. Second, given current market real-estate gives a better/safer return on your investment.

Blahblahbla… Since we cant see eye to eye lets try U.S. Military Spending Budget The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget and funding for nuclear weapons activity of the Department of Energy Budget. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.) That comes out of the OTHER budget…

This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are staggering. In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World consider the following: The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, a comparison can be made of the US Fiscal Year 2004 spending against other equivalent data: The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s combined military expenses.

The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue� states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion. The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea) The seven potential “enemies,� Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget. Some of the above statistics come from organizations such as the Center for Defense Information, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Yeah we waste your money on subsidies….

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

JBM, I’m going to be wayyyy too personal here. I don’t know if He changed me or not, but I know He gives me the love to give away… (It’s easy to love those who love US, right?) Sometimes there are people who need love who have none. Those people wind up in my path…. with some frequency. I don’t have it to give; HE stuffs it in me and says “GIVE THIS TO THAT PERSON. NOW.” (I’m a giver, not a witnesser so that’s all I’m saying.)

By Sanhan

February 2, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the kind words, Lozen. I’ve missed you, too. I miss posting here, but since I’m self-employed, I have to exercise some discipline. I have to admit though that WTW is kind of like one of those soap operas, the plot hasn’t changed much, characters and actors change just a little a bit, but the arguments seem pretty much the same. I miss the characters, though… I admire all y’all’s tenacity to stick with it; I need to put my energies elsewhere. Also, this is highly addictive.
Went cold turkey before. Is there a Blogger’s Anonymous site I can join? (Hello, my name is Sandy; it’s been several months since I blogged).

Thanks for the Einsteinian insights; it’s cool he could talk religion and science without compromising either.

Take care.

Nice chatting with you. I’ll check things out next week, between letters to Congress.

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Jack…that’s ARMADILLO on the half shell! Everyone knows that possums don’t have a shell. I prefer mine stuffed with apples, carrots, and walnuts then slow roasted. And don’t forget to make the gravy with the pan drippings to go over the mashed taters!

RF…thanks for asking about my partner. He was slowly, but surely improving over the holidays and then right after the New Year woke up one day and realized that he felt normal. No health problems since then…knock on wood.

He did call me in LA last week and started off with “I’m in the Emergency Room.” I responded with a Sweet Jesus, what’s wrong with you NOW?!, but it was the puppy not him. She wiped out running with him down the street and hurt her leg. Long story short…after 2 vet appointments and a visit with an orthopedic specialist it turns out that she sprained her knee very badly. It was a freak accident thing, but see what happens when Momma goes out of town?

The funniest thing was his totally freaking out over the X-ray of her legs. He was telling me over the phone that her leg was at this really freaky angle compared to the other and it was must making him sick to his stomach the way it looked and because it happened on his watch. Silly goose didn’t realize that it was the way she was laying on the table. I about peed my pants from laughing when I saw the picture after I got home a few days later. Abigale is still limping, but definitely much improved and I’m expecting good news after her follow up appointment tomorrow.

I agree on what you think JBM was trying to say. That’s why I started with the picking a nit statement. Sometimes the structure of our words don’t clearly convey the intended message.

Ok…as someone who grew up in a town that was all of 2 miles from one side to the other I’ve just got to pick on you about one little thing…greater Monticello area?

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

…lord help me if we start talking deficit…

By Jack

February 2, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Kimberly. Are you a red-head?

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Busted. Do you know me?

By lozen

February 2, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

What do you guys think of this story from Associated Press?

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico wants the government to apologize to a nurse for seizing her computer and investigating her for “sedition” after she criticized the Bush administration. The ACLU said Wednesday the Department of Veterans Affairs found no evidence Laura Berg used her office computer to write the critical letter. VA human resources chief Mel Hooker said in a Nov. 9 letter that his agency was obligated to investigate “any act which potentially represents sedition,” the ACLU said. A VA spokesman in Washington could not say Wednesday whether the agency had received the ACLU’s request. It seeks an apology from Hooker “to remedy the unconstitutional chilling effect on the speech of VA employees that has resulted from these intimidating tactics.” Even if Berg had used an office computer, neither that nor her criticism approached “unlawful insurrection,” said Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU. “Is the government so jealous of its power, so fearful of dissent, that it needs to threaten people who openly oppose its policies with charges of sedition?” he said.

Berg, a clinical nurse specialist, wrote a letter in September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War. She urged people to “act forcefully” to remove an administration she said played games of “vicious deceit.” She signed the letter as a private citizen, and the VA had no reason to suspect she used government resources to write it, the ACLU said. “From all appearances, the seizure of her work computer was an act of retaliation and a hardball attempt to scare Laura into silence,” the ACLU said.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

lozen,

try the office of management and budget and the us treasury department.

By RF

February 2, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Hey now, it’s bigger than, well, it’s bigger than SOME towns. Actually, it’s a lot bigger than where I grew up. The county finally took the stop light out at THE four-way in “downtown” because there wasn’t enough traffic and the rednecks kept shooting it out with BB guns!! I thought I had died and gone to redneck HELL when I started teaching here, but since I’ve had my boys I really like it- good place to raise kids so far. I miss the ‘big city’ sometimes (until we drive up and I remember how much the traffic really SUCKS!!)LOL We drove the truck ‘up to town’ to see The Nutcracker at Christmas. I felt like a big ‘ol country bumpkin trying to park the dang thing at the Georgian Terrace!! All we needed was granny in her rocker on the back to complete the picture!

Good to hear hubby and Abby are doing good. I know that had to be scary when she fell. I always handle crises well at the time and then fall apart afterwards. I still get panicky every time one of the boys has a fever. I can handle bloody cuts, but fevers scare me like crazy!! My cats and dog are as spoiled as my boys, if not worse.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

the exact source i used was an article published by the heritage foundation on 12/3/2003. the title of the article is $20,000 per Household: The Highest Level of Federal Spending Since World War II and it was written by someone named brian m. reidl.

set aside the political rambling of the article. one third of the way down there is a table that has all expenditures for that year. if you click on it, it will expand and take up the entire screen. there you will find the numbers i cited.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

No. But I think red-heads are HOT! (I’m an old troll but I have a fairly good memory when it comes to the ladies and I kinda remember you mentioning that you had a red mane) Pant, pant!!

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

lyrazel:

what is there to see eye to eye about? here’s what you said:

We are actually paying so little of our taxes into social security and welfare programs it is ludicrous to be screeching so loudly about it.

that isn’t even close to being accurate. it’s not a question of us agreeing; you blatantly state things as though they are fact that do not even remotely resemble truth.

the truth remains that we spend approximately 50% of our federal expenditures on SS, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

nobody is denying that we spend a lot on the military. did you see me post anything resembling: We are actually paying so little of our taxes into military programs that it is ludicrous to be screeching so loudly about it?

did i? of course not.

i’m not the one making ridiculously false statements and passing them off as truth, and then when confronted with reality and the magnitude of my error, turn around and change the subject from SS/welfare to defense.

By RF

February 2, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Jack’s working on inventing a new crime: blog-harrassment!

Lozen- seems rather typical of the times we’re in. Since 9/11 the lines of acceptable search and seizure have blurred way, way too much. I’m not a big ACLU fan, but I hope they pursue this one. At some point, the line between ‘suspected terrorist’ and ‘passionate citizen’ has to be redrawn or we will indeed end up like Orwell wrote. Scary thought…

By Jack

February 2, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Crime? No. All she needs to do is just say no and I will comply. I am a gentleman troll.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Blabla… set aside the political rambling of the article Um… do you only get your information from far-leaning political sources? You know, actual truth is the only thing that’s NOT subjective. Because objectivity is so rare in information flow these days, I seek a variety of sources and try to filter out the common elements.

Oh Jack…. I was trying to keep the redness a secret, but I know you see right through me. {;->

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

my fingers and head are not cooperating today. Random words come flying out in the middle of my sentences “it was must making” is supposed to be “it was making.”

Bla…I’m going to have to go with Lyrazel on the how much we’re spending thing. I believe I read somewhere that social programs account for less than 1% of total government spending. I’ll put that on the list of things to check into. I don’t disagree that changes are needed to the system, but as a nation we’re not spending all that much on our own poor.

JBM…When we make the decision to embrace Christ, to accept Him into our hearts, then He effects change in us. He gives us the power and the strength and will to change. Actually I do think we’re saying the same thing about Christ and changing. As your own statement points out there is free will in making the decision to embrace Christ. Then you go on to state what He gives us. Whether and how one uses that power, strength, and will is up to the individual. Christ doesn’t force change or do it to the person…He provides what we need in order to change ourselves. I prefer the self-empowerment view. The end result is ultimately what matters, anyway.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Trolls RULE in dark places.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Is it getting warm in here or is it just me?

By lozen

February 2, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Namaste Sandy and looking forward to hearing from you again. Jack, just read the first few pages of The Source on Amazon. Sounds very interesting. Kimberly & Jack, I used to be a redhead too! Where oh where is my boy Tim?

By RF

February 2, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

No troll lovin’ in public please- keep it under the bridge you two!! Do they make Viagra in troll doses, Jack?? ; )

By Jack K

February 2, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Kimberly-did you ever work for a car dealership? I used to know a Kimberly with long red hair.

Just Being Me-why don’t you allow Jesus to change your homosexual desires and go all the way with your conversion? What church do you attend that doesn’t see anything wrong with the gay “lifestyle”? Just curious. I’m honestly not trying to pick a fight. I just see a little confliction in the gay choice and in following Jesus. ( I think Eirick mentioned the same thing previously.)

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

thank you, kimberly for the insight. i actually listen to air america on xm every morning on my way to and from work, if you must know. mostly commercials, very little content. i enjoy the travel minute.

ah, yes, the old source argument. your source isn’t my source, so i don’t like your information. kimberly, the budget is what it is, whether the source i got the numbers from is the heritage foundation or some other organization. if the treasury department said they spent X dollars on SS, you can’t really get away with publishing something else and remain a legitmate outfit.

but go ahead and find a left-leaning organization that you like that publishes different numbers for 2003, if that would make you happy. i’ll be sure to take a look at them, but i don’t think they’ll be any different.

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

So now there aren’t ANY traffic lights. Boy…that’s quite the metropolis! If I had kids that’s just the kind of place that I’d want to be in to raise them too.

Next time you head up here to see a show at The Fox have the valet park the truck…then y’all can just sit back and laugh. Besides the atendant should be used to parking a few of those Hummers from Buckhead so a truck should be nothing.

Lozen…those kind of stories are scary. You just have to know that someone saw her name and ‘turned’ it in for investigation. That someone in the government even took it seriously is frightening let alone that it could become neighbors spying on neighbors. It is almost as if we’re moving backward in time or reliving the 20th Century in a slightly different order. Right now we’re heading for the new McCarthyism but instead of commies it’s terrorists. In the future I can see us heading skipping to a replay of the roaring 20’s in 2020 before the next Great Depression of the 2030’s.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

No need for that RF. This old building doesn’t need a new flag pole. LOL

By Jack K

February 2, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Just Being Me. I don’t want to turn this into another anti-gay/pro-gay argument. I am curious about your church however. Again, I’m sorry. We see some things differently but some things the same.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

here’s another website for you, kimberly, lozen, lyrazel.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html

look at chart S-10, there you will see the expenditures for 04, 05, budget 06 and the forecast through 2010. look at the massive growth in SS, medicare and medicaid spending over the next four years.

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Hey now…trolls need a little too sometimes! Besides loving in dark places can be fun…it takes the visual component out of it and makes you focus on the other senses. I know I prefer the full sensory experience.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

is the white house a good enough source for you folks?

not even counting any entitlement programs other than SS, medicare and medicaid, spending on those programs will go from approximately 40% of total outlays in 2003 to 46% of total outlays in 2010.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Exactly why I told JBM that I could do without sight. Feeling around in the dark can be quite fun. (snicker,snicker)

By RF

February 2, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Net- Monticello’s got a few traffic lights, granted they don’t often need them, but they have them. It’s almost eerie when I go home to visit the folks and see how little home has changed. Actually, the growth from Newton county is beginning to come our way, so it won’t be long! I like having the boys in a smaller community. I lived in Atlanta for several years, and I do miss it sometimes. Not that I’d get the chance to enjoy it much. Be glad you have a puppy. They don’t create all the dirty clothes that kids do!

I think we’ve hit a spell much like the 50’s. We’re all a little leery, with good reason. Just like the red scare then, we’re basically assuming people are terrorists or helping them here. I think they do these stupid, public raids just to keep everyone a little jumpy. You’d think with the technology we have, they’d know the difference between a terroristic threat and a ticked off citizen.

By Lyrazel

February 2, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Blah…I concede to you. Looked up budget facts and saw how large the budget is for the program just like you said. I think its money well spent, you dont. Enjoy your day.

By RF

February 2, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

gotta have a little mood lighting. It’s nice to see ‘the look’ in their eyes when you’ve gotten it right, ya know?

By Jack

February 2, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

You may have that smoke now Bla.

By Archie

February 2, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Hello, blabla I didn’t ignore or run from you but I log after about 4:15 because I am at work and sometimes you’ll see gaps in my response or postings because I am at work. Anyway where does one find information on government expenditures? I have looked on the internet with mixed results because in one place it shows defense spending greatly exceeding other spending then in another place it shows that defense spending has decreased in the last five years and is only around 17 percent of government expenditures. Since the superbowl is coming up,if I argued which qb was the best I have several places with the same statistics so then you could have a fair and logical debate because you’re looking at an agreed upon place to get your numbers. I have to switch back to the other side(work) but others have represented my viewpoint well.

By RF

February 2, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

I think he’s earned one. Tipping my hat to you for staying with it.

lyrazel- it is money well spent in general. Down here where I am, I see a LOT of poor people and some who pretend and get away with it. While I’m all for taking care of those who need it, I also see how it tends to breed an attitude of laziness and lack of motivation if one is getting help for too long. Many who could take care of themselves are choosing not to because the government gives them just enough to survive on. The challenge is to find a way to separate the truly needy from the unmotivated and greedy.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

The Steelers will win by 10.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

I think those numbers as percentages are much more meaningful when compared, as a percent of GDP, to other industrialized nations, including China and Japan, as well as than compared to third-world-peeholes, which we could very well aspire to be like, it seems.

Were those percentages available?

looks like the world ended in 2003, look at that whopping 40%. Everybody ready to send back that tax-rebate we received in 2001? the government sure needs the money. Mine is still in the bank. Wait, it is 2006. World must not have ended.

FDR should have named it something else, I think it is that word “SOCIAL” that gets everybody. LOL

By Archie

February 2, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

“The Steelers will win by 10.” I hope not Jack but man do the women up here in Columbia seem to like those Steelers. I have seen more than a couple with their Steeler shirts on at lunch time.

By RF

February 2, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Chilao— it’s the word SECURITY that gets me!!LOL Anyone feeling SECURE with it these days? Anyone…. besides you Wubya!!

By RF

February 2, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Now we know what Archie’s been up to today—checking to see who’s wearing the biggest Steelers display in town!!

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

archie,

i completely understand. i’ve spent way too much time on the blog the last two days.

i recenty posted the source that i used for the most recent stats - it was the white house budget. i just googled US federal budget, or something like that and the first link or so was the whitehouse budget.

i would surmise that the differences in iformation that you or lozen have seen or quote is due to presenting only part of the budget - discretionary spending. but not having seen what you’re looking at, i don’t know.

gov’t outlays can be broken down into two general categories, discretionary and mandatory. their names pretty much say it all. the mandatory expenditures are things like SS/medicare/medicaid where the gov’t has an obligation to pay based on a certain set of criteria.

that’s very rough description obviously, but i think you get the picture.

so when you hear quotes about something being X% of the budget, sometimes people are referring to a percentage of discretionary spending and sometimes they’re referring to the whole thing.

By Jack

February 2, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Nothing wrong with looking at the menu as long as you eat at home. :)

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question that I have a hard time getting hard figures on: How much of our defense and homeland security budget goes to Halliburton and subsidiaries thereof? And how many contracts do these companies get that come out of non-defense & homeland security budgets, such as those for re-building the gulf coast areas?

The reason I ask is that I’ve read repeatedly over the last three years how this money has been mishandled, “lost,” and is completely unaccounted for. The Pentagon repeatedly initiates audits, a piece of news that generally lasts five minutes before being buried completely. If you’re talking WASTE with our tax dollars, I think we should follow the money trail into the pockets of the rich & powerful who keep getting richer. OH! but the federal government can’t AFFORD to hire a sufficent number of auditors. Hmmmmm….

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113746003186348100.html?mod=todaysfreefeature

By Lurker

February 2, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Hey NetB, how much did the x-ray on your dog cost? I have a dog (named Abby no less) with some sort of leg injury. Was told that they needed to sedate her to take the xrays, and i am getting worried about the cost. the last basic checkup cost me $150…

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack K. Sorry for the delay. I’m trying really hard to get some work done today.

Just Being Me-why don’t you allow Jesus to change your homosexual desires and go all the way with your conversion? What church do you attend that doesn’t see anything wrong with the gay “lifestyle�? Just curious. I’m honestly not trying to pick a fight. I just see a little confliction in the gay choice and in following Jesus. ( I think Eirick mentioned the same thing previously.)

To answer your question, I wouldn’t expect Jesus to change my “homosexual desires” anymore than I’d expect him to change my hair texture or skin color. And, my “conversion” is complete. I am exactly the person He created me to be (minus a bad habit or two). I believe Christ changes the things in us that hinder us from reaching our full potential in Him. For example, those things that either prevent us from being effective witnesses to non-Christ-followers, or those things that prevent us from being prosperous, healthy, worshippers. Homosexuality does not affect my walk with Christ, nor does it affect my witness to non-Christ-followers. In some cases, it serves as a common ground. Paul said that when trying to reach the Jews, he had to become like the Jews, and when ministering to the Gentiles, he had to become like the Gentiles. Of course I’m not saying that I have to be gay to minister to gay people, but it doesn’t hurt to have something in common with the people to whom you are called to minister.

I work as a church consultant, so I pretty much attend a different church every month. My work usually requires me to attend the church I’m working for. However, I am the member of a non-denominational church here in Atlanta. If you don’t mind, I’d rather not state the name only because I don’t want to compromise my anonymity here on the blog.

While there is conflict in religion and homosexuality; and there is even conflict in most sects of Christianity and homosexuality; there is NO conflict in Jesus Christ and homosexuality. And, He’s the one I follow.

God bless you.

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

This almost sounds like the thing I was hearing in 1998 or so, over the Chinese stock market crash, which hardly seemed a blip on the radar and was invisible to me. It was a news item.

“Wall Street will be crashing soon”, “The end of the world is nigh”, etc, etc.

I work with people who get all alarmist if Wall Street drops 150 points, as it did last week over 2 companies missing their projected earnings. 150 points and it is the ‘end of the world’.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

jack,

thank you. now that we’re done debating which set of “facts” are the correct ones to use, maybe we can actually discuss the issue. sigh.

chilao,

i hand calc’d those percentages that i posted using the information. i did not see any comparisons to other countries, but my search is admittedly far from exhaustive.

the concern long term is very real, despite your humor on the subject. there just aren’t enough workers to support all the benefits being paid long term. SS payments alone are expected to increase about 20% over the next four years, and that’s before most of the boomers really hit retirement. it will only get worse.

lozen,

i have suspected the increase in immigration is in fact tied to the need for extra bodies to tax, as you alluded to. but your other question about whether or not i would keep my SS checks if i was independently wealth is a good one. i have two responses:

1) i’m not sure there will be checks for me when i reach that age; and

2) as much as it pains me to say this, the solvency of the program could be substantially enhanced if SS payments were made on a needs basis instead of paying everybody. if i have a $10,000,000 nest egg, i don’t need SS payments.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Hey Lurker, you should look into pet insurance. Banfield is one option, and Renee just told me of another one yesterday (I forget the name).

But, I had to take my dog in for an ear infection yesterday. The check up, medicine, and grooming ended up costing me $300, and as Renee pointed out - I could’ve just told them to keep her, I’ll buy a new dog for that! LOL!

By Renee

February 2, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Excellent JBM!

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Of course the Y(ONE)Kers also were expecting the ‘end of the world’, in 999 A.D.

Blah - I agree it is serious problem, and agree those making millions do not need SS, period. So what would really be ideal would be an elimination of it. That would really solve it all. Of course roaming bands of militia, with private police forces only, sounds like a good idea as well. Works in alot of countries, why should the US be any different? Think how much taxes could be cut.

Back to making your own road, that alone would drop the taxes on petrol by at least 60 cents a gallon. And no government expenditures required, all roads would be toll-roads. Utopia, here we come.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Jack K, there are a great number of gay-friendly (inclusive) churches here in Atlanta. I’d be happy to provide you with a list of a few off the top of my head, if you’d like. Or you might want to google “inclusive churches atlanta” or something like that.

By Renee

February 2, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

The other one is VIP or VPI, I can’t remember the name, Summer (my miniature daschund) was on Banfield and VPI (or VIP) Banfield was good also because when I got her fixed, they paid for most of it and I only had to pay maybe 20% of the cost and it covers check ups etc

By Chilao

February 2, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

read a hilarious piece in 1999, comparing how much we have progressed in 1000 years, comparing 999AD with 1999. I only remember a few.

wish I had saved it.

anybody see the recent PBS piece on James Madison? and his Alien and Sedition Acts?

By Renee

February 2, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Most of the churches here are “gay friendly”. Big surprise, huh, lol. But it’s good to see so many. Even though I don’t attend.

I will though, JBM.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

umm, ok, chilao.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Thank you Renee :-)

By Randy

February 2, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jesus does touch and change people, I have first hand knowledge of that. On homosexuality, I think we have to remember that homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, stealing, etc. I pretty much sin daily. Jesus loves everybody the same and that includes practicing homosexuals. When I sin, I just ask Jesus for forgiveness. He’s great and he knows we sin by nature. The objective is to try to get closer to God, by trying to sin less. Nobody’s perfect.

By Jack K

February 2, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Just Being Me-your statement of,“there is NO conflict in Jesus Christ and homosexuality” is not based on truth. You said the other day that Jesus does not care about our sexuality. However, to the woman about to be stoned He told her to “go and sin no more”. Doesn’t mean Jesus won’t love her anymore if she does sin again. But He DOES have a conflict with sin and those DO include sexual ones.

We disagree and that’s ok. But you can’t speak for Christ.

By lozen

February 2, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Bla, you would need only $10,000,000 before you’d give up your SS? Why do I think not many folks will be giving it up voluntarily? Do you think Bill Gates should not pay into SS or should he pay and just not take it?

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

i’ve never seen hard figures on halliburton. the obvious thing you can do is call investor relations and tell them you’re a shareholder. they also have public filings on the SEC through edgar, so you can look at their 10-K. most large companies are required to do segment reporting by business unit.

i don’t recall what they earned in 05, but they lost money in 04. i don’t believe, altho i could be wrong, but i don’t think the stock has performed well since the invasion of iraq, despite people pointing out/complaining about how much money is being thrown their way.

By Archie

February 2, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Chilao I liked your 3:56 post.

By Archie

February 2, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Chilao I liked your 3:56 post. I am gone.

By blablabla

February 2, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

lozen,

10mm is my number. i could sit on the interest at 5% and live off half a million pretty comfortably. for others the number may be lower. for others, it could be higher. i was simply telling you what my number is.

i think gates is entitled to what he paid in, plus interst thereon. but what we’re entitled to and what we get are rarely the same. people who are retired today and have been receiving benefits for 15 years have received far more than they ever put in, at least the principal (not including interest) of what they put in.

that doesn’t change my opinion that the whole thing is a scam, and is being misused as a political tool. it’s a ponzi scheme that no longer really works in today’s world.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Jack K, I don’t claim to speak for Christ. Please don’t ever make that assertion, that’s a pretty big one. Jesus spoke for himself. Do you know what Jesus said about homosexuality? I do. I’ll be glad to share it with you.

And, my statement that there is no conflict in Jesus Christ and homosexuality is absolutely true. Christians have a problem with homosexuality. I’ll admit that. But, if Christ does, he sure was a lot less vocal about it than his “representatives” are.

I don’t remember what context I said that Jesus doesn’t care about our sexuality, but I didn’t mean that Jesus was pleased with the woman at the well being whorish, nor did I mean that he wouldn’t care what we do with our bodies. What I meant (probably) was that Jesus is not concerned with whether we are hetero- or homosexual. I believe that the act of sexual intercourse is way more spiritual than it is physical. As such, Jesus is a lot more concerned with the matters of the heart than he is with our sexual preferences.

He’s concerned with our HEARTS… how we treat people. how we treat ourselves. how much integrity we have. honesty. meekness. gentleness. kindness. love. Those are the things we’re measured by in God’s eyes. Man looks on the outward appearances, but God looks on the heart.

By Netbanker

February 2, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Ahh…back from a nice work out. Stress relieved and making sure the muscles stay strong enough to rip off heads if I need it.

RF…I don’t know what kind of dogs you’ve had, but mine sure seem to dirty up MY clothes plenty. It also amazes me how much leaves/grass/flotsom/whatnot they can bring in from a quick trip outside to pee. Granted half of it is probably from my clothes because I think nothing of rolling around on the lawn with them. Mood lighting can be nice but when you’ve hit the mark you can hear in their voice and feel it in the way they completely relax afterward even if you can’t see their face.

Lurker…I want to say the whole visit was about $150 for an emergency room visit that included exam, x-ray, sedative, and pain killers. The orthopod is about $95.

BTW…what kind of vet do all y’all take your dogs to see? Mine is a 60 something, good ol’ boy, country doc in Pine Lake. Wonderful with animals, keeps records on 4x6 cards, and very reasonably priced. His office hours are somewhat restricted and you’ve absolutely got to know when the Bulldogs have a home game on a Saturday because the office will be closed.

Time to run off home. Abby’s not allowed to eat after 5pm today in case she needs to be sedated for more x-rays tomorrow…which I don’t think is going to be the case.

Starting off the jokes a day early with one I just got from Mother:

“Hello, is this here the Sheriff’s Office?” “Yes. What can I do for you?” “I’m calling to report my neighbor, Virgil Smith. He’s drillin’ holes in his farwood and hiding marijuana inside!” “Thank you very much for the call, sir.” The next day, the Sheriff and his deputies descend on Virgil’s house. They search the shed where the firewood is kept. Using axes, they split every piece of wood, but find no marijuana.
They sneer at Virgil and leave. The phone rings at Virgil’s house.
“Hey, Virgil! This here is Floyd. Did the Sheriff come?” “Yeah!” “Did they split yer farwood?” “Yep!” “Happy Birthday, buddy!”

By Jack K

February 2, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

JBM-Of course God looks at our hearts. But do you not know that some actions are sins and forbidden by God? Not just homosexuality-but it IS one of them.

Hey, Chuck & Randy-give me some back up.

By Just Being Me

February 2, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’ve been down this road with Chuck and Randy before. Trust me, you don’t need them for “back up.”

Don’t tell me homosexuality is a sin. Prove it to me.

Show me where Jesus denounced homosexuality as sinful. Look up the passage in its original text and then use a study reference to translate it back to English. Then come back here and prove it to me.

And, while you’re at it, some good recommended reading for people who have been misinformed as you have, is “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality,” by Daniel A. Helminiak, a heterosexual minister of the gospel.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Blabla, Halliburton lost money in ‘04 because of an asbestos settlement they had to pay out — probably after years of paying lawyers to fight it. When their accountants factored THAT against earnings, they SHOWED a loss. They still took huge chunks of our hard-earned tax dollars. It would be interesting to know exactly how much.

Jack K: No one wants to hear you try to rationalize your gay bashing. Pick a REAL cause, Dude. Whom they love is none of our business and it’s NOT OURS TO JUDGE.

By kimberly

February 2, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

BTW, Halliburton stock has more than doubled since the invasion of Iraq.

By phentermine

February 3, 2006 02:38 AM | Link to this

phentermine home.tiscali.cz:8080/phenterminebuy/ ; Thanks!

By Sanhan

February 3, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Good morning. There are two interesting opinions in the NYT about the Pope’s thoughts on God’s love and relativism, thoughts on the role of doubt in faith, and a bit about homosexuality. Worth checking out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/opinion

By Lyrazel

February 3, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Gates does not pay into SSI nor do most profoundly wealthy folks like Bush family. There is a gross income stopping point…they also dont get SSI when they retire…do they get Medicare? Um beats me why they would want the paperwork hassle in a dr office…

Jack K if god made man in his own image…then obviously god had homosexual tendencies also…eh?

Ok its Friday….

An elderly man in Florida had owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back, fixed up nice— picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some apple and peach trees. The pond was properly shaped and fixed up for swimming when it was built.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn’t been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five-gallon bucket to bring back some fruit.

As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee. As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.

He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end. One of the women shouted to him, “We’re not coming out until you leave!”

The old man frowned, “I didn’t come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked.” Holding the bucket up he said, “I’m here to feed the alligator.”

Enjoy….

By Renee

February 3, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Good one Lyrazel.

Jack K if god made man in his own image…then obviously god had homosexual tendencies also…eh?

Lol, good one!

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel-Jack K if god made man in his own image…then obviously god had homosexual tendencies also…eh?

So by your way of thinking-God has tendencies to commit all of the sins that we do??? What kind of sense does this make? He forbids certain acts that will harm us and therefore He must be inclined to commit the same acts to forbids???!!!

You do not make any sense.

So, JBM-you’re taking one man’s interpretation to justify your homosexuality? I’d listen to God instead, honey.

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

sorry-“same acts He forbids” (typo)

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Jack, please clarify. What “one man” are you referring to?

By Reader

February 3, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Patrick Buchanan article over the State of the Union address:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168

By RF

February 3, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Geez, here we go again!! Why can’t people just read the blogs for like the last six months and get over this debate??? That and admit that you think homosexuality isn’t just * Asin, it’s *THEsin. Of all the supposed sins out there, you have to keep fixating on this one. As my granny would say, “either get over it or go under it. Either way, hush up about it!”

By Renee

February 3, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

LOL. No matter the subject matter, it always goes back to homosexuality and/or abortion.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Amen RF!

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Amen, RF!!! And, I like what Granny RF said. Get over it or go under it, doggonit!!!

By Renee

February 3, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

okay, ya’ll know the rules…jokes on Friday, no discussions….

By Reader

February 3, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

But it gives my life meaning to rant and rave against the homos and baby killers. I would feel worthless otherwise.

dripping sarcasm

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Timmyyyyyyy

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Yeah, yeah, yeah….all us homos are going to hell. We know already. But since we tend to enjoy warm weather, excellent company, good music, and will have Hell decorated to the hilt in no time it’s going to be FABULOUS!

Now that I’ve gotten out my does of sarcasm for the 9am hour I’d like to point out that the gay people I know all act more like Jesus and God directed us than those who protest so loudly against them. They are kind, loving, caring, give of their time and money, reach out to others on the fringes of society, and generally live by the Golden Rule regardless of religious upbringing. Didn’t Jesus make some statement about however you treat the weakest and smallest is how you treat me? You folks are giving the Romans a run for their money!

Gay people aren’t shoving their lifestyles down anyone’s throat…it’s the obessions of the minority of religious people who won’t let us live in peace and allow us equal standing under the law so they can feel better about how much they’ve screwed up the institution of marriage and their own families. You don’t ever hear about religious conservatives protesting en masse the drive through wedding chapels in Las Vegas or denouncing Brittney Spears for her less than 3 day marriage, or Liz Taylor’s 7 marriages, or even that Ronny Reagan got a divorce from his first wife. Oh no…it’s that approximately 10% of the population that is ruining an institution and thereby destroying the families that they can’t even legally form. What a load of cow chips!

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Whew! I feel better and need to run off to a staff meeting. I’ll be ready for some jokes when I get back! Happy Friday everyone!

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Doggone, NetB. You ALWAYS hit the nail on the head, dude. Geez. Well said. ‘Nuff said. Discussion closed. The End.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

great, great comment Netb!!!!!!

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

JBM-I checked on your author Daniel Helminiak online. Very interesting. He was a Catholic priest of all things-being forced into celibacy (which is unnatural according to the bible) byt his church. Then he starts having homosexual experiences to try out his sexuality.

Here’s a direct quote from the guy:

* There came the point where the moral thing to do was to find out in a responsible way what sex is about. I did not think that was wrong. In fact, I thought God was happy that finally I got off my duff and did something. God said, “Yay! Finally you’re growing up! You’re starting to live.” Then I start to deal with being gay and coming out, getting to know what the gay scene is, and rethinking. People find that hard to believe… . I’m ordained, and a priest, and all of a sudden I’m finding out who I am.*

So much for being able to claim he is a heterosexual minister! He’s Catholic for one, he’s gay for another. We all know what Catholic priests are famous for-altar boys and heavy drinking. Not to mention the fact that the majority of them are GAY.

You can’t take THIS man’s word for anything-especially when it comes to the word of God.

Try again JBM. You can’t prove anything by Helminiak. He was trying to justify his own homosexuality. He probably was exposed to the vast homosexuality he saw through the Catholic priests.

Until you become a scholar or have God write in rock that homosexuality is acceptable in His eyes you have no place telling everyone it is. You may be misleading many many people in the process…including yourself.

Very misleading to tell people the man is hetero when he certainly is not or was not.

IMHO

By RF

February 3, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

good one Net!!

Okay, here’s one for humor:

Moses is walking down the street when he bumps into George W. Bush. “Hello” Bush says, “nice weather we’re having, huh?” Moses took one look at the president, turned, and ran away. The next day Moses is walking down the same street and there’s Bush again. He tries to talk to Moses who again runs away.

Bush is tired of this odd behavior, so the next day when Moses runs away, Bush follows him. Finally he catches him and asks what’s wrong.

Moses says, “The last time I talked to a bush I spent 40 years in the desert!”

By RF

February 3, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

So a guy walks into a bar with a set of jumper cables around his neck. The bartender gives him a look and says gruffly, “all right pal, I’ll let you stay, but don’t start anything.”

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

This is something JBM needs to read (and anyone who’s interested)concerning Helminiak and his theology. (It is lengthy but something this important/controversial can’t always be answered in a paragraph or two. Not interested-fine, just skip over it. This is mostly for JBM and her defense of Helminiak’s theories on homosexuality & the bible.)

A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak’s Gay Theology

In this age of cultural pluralism and ethical minimalism, Christians who, consistent with biblical revelation, publicly declare certain activities to be sinful have met with severe opposition. The opposition intensifies when those activities involve “consenting” individuals and do not involve outright violence. To denounce those activities is, it is thought, to violate the culture’s “absolute” and “invariant” laws of tolerance and inclusion [1]. Homosexual behavior has fast become one of those activities. Surely, it is maintained, those who oppose such a personal, voluntary practice are either “homophobics” in need of a culture lesson or religious bigots deserving scorn. This type of uncritical, emotional response has grown strong in today’s secular culture. An even more alarming issue, however, is the gain of support for this response within the Christian community. Christians themselves are, in growing numbers, sacrificing biblical truth on the altar of humanistic relativism. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that attempts have been made to justify such relativism on intellectual grounds and even on biblical grounds.

With respect to the issue of homosexuality, such an attempt has been made recently by Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak, a professor of psychology at West Georgia College and a Roman Catholic priest. In his book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality [2], and more recently during a lecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology [3], he has argued that the Christian position should be that homosexual behavior is ethically neutral, not sinful at all. Helminiak claims that the Old Testament laws prohibiting homosexual acts fall within the set of Levitical purity laws and are, therefore, not relevant for today. The Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual acts are said not to be binding today; because, like the dietary prohibitions, they were in the class of religious purity laws distinct to the Hebrew culture. It is now, according to him, perfectly reasonable for a Christian to be a homosexual.

The chief motivation for the present paper is to help concerned Christians defend the faith with increased rigor and boldness. The Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, that practicing homosexuals are outside the kingdom of Christ, that professing Christians who engage in homosexual behavior should be subject to Church discipline, and that laws which serve to punish homosexual acts and help keep homosexuality “underground” are biblical laws. We will show that “gay theologians” such as Helminiak have given Christians no reasons to abandon any aspect of such doctrines. Therefore, the authors hope that this paper will help Christians to overcome any fear of the arguments presented by individuals such as Helminiak. It is our desire to see Christians suitably equipped so that they can help convince homosexuals who claim to be Christian that they are really defying Christ. A secondary motivation of this paper is to help Christians reform the Church and society according to the Word of God. For example, we are calling Churches to return to the biblical practice of Church discipline so that, until homosexuals cease to commit homosexual acts, they are treated as being “yet in their sins” and denied church membership and admittance to the Lord’s Table. Since “gay theologians” seek to undermine all these pursuits, it is important to forcefully answer all their arguments; and this is what we have attempted to do.

In what follows, we will give a brief sketch of Helminiak’s arguments along with a critique of them. The reader is referred to his book for the full presentation of his position. It will be shown that Helminiak approaches the subject with strong presuppositions about the ultimate source of authority and that these presuppositions are clearly opposed by the Bible. That is, as he tells us “what the Bible really says,” he is standing on a worldview that does not in fact comport with the Christian worldview. In our critique of his arguments we will show examples of (1) factually inaccurate premises, (2) logically fallacious arguments, and (3) decidedly tainted objectivity in both the argumentation and in the examples he uses, evidently caused by his beliefs concerning homosexuality.

Some terms should be defined here at the outset. Helminiak believes that the term ‘homosexual’ and its derivatives denote sexual orientation; and, thus, he coins a separate term, ‘homogenital,’ to refer to same-sex acts. We will not make such an orientation-act distinction. There should be no confusion; because, except for one instance where Helminiak makes an argument based on genetic orientation, we will not be addressing the issue of orientation. We will therefore use ‘homosexual’ and its derivatives to refer to same-sex acts, but not to the concept of sexual orientation.

By What Standard? For topics such as this one, it is generally necessary to determine whether or not competing authority claims exist. Often, disputes can be shown to exist because the various camps involved simply do not agree on which claims are authoritative and on the nature of evidence required in order for a proposition to be regarded as proven. We want to understand, therefore, what does Helminiak consider to be his ultimate authority? What source determines his beliefs? That we would pose these questions may seem strange in light of the title of his book and of his years of service in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). That is to say, one might expect Helminiak’s ultimate authority to be God’s written word, the Bible, or at least the official doctrine of the RCC. However, based on the contents of his book and his lecture, such an expectation is ill-advised. Over and over again, Helminiak makes statements that neither comport with the Christian worldview as delineated in Scripture nor with the official teaching of the RCC. Although a worldview that is essentially the same as Helminiak’s has infiltrated (and adulterated) many one-time Christian churches in this century, such a worldview is not Christian in any sense.

To see the conflict between his claims about authority and those of the Bible, we can start by examining his professed belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. During the lecture, he said that he affirms this concept, and such a claim appears in his book (p. 27). The problem comes when we notice that this conflicts with a number of other claims that he has made. For example, he also said in both his lecture and in his book that he does not believe in one of the main doctrines taught in Scripture, i.e., sola Scriptura. When Scripture speaks it is the same as God speaking, and Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants us to know about Him. Scripture is both authoritative and sufficient. Helminiak writes, “As a Roman Catholic - and more importantly, a thinking person - I do not presume the Bible provides the last word on sexual ethics. In my mind, the matter is more complicated than that. Historical, cultural, philosophical, psychological, sociological, medical, spiritual and personal factors all come to bear on the matter” (pp. 13 - 14). Notice that in his mind (an authority claim?) the issue is too complicated for Scripture alone to bear. In spite of the Bible’s explicit claim as God’s word and as the ultimate authority, Helminiak does not accept it. This constitutes a presumptuous authority claim on his part - to have greater authority to tell us the scope of biblical revelation than the Bible itself does! Those things and people that are subordinate to the Bible include tradition (Mark 7:3 - 13; Galatians 1:13 - 14; Colossians 2:8, 20 - 23; I Pet. 1:18), miracles (Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3; Matthew 7:21 - 23, 24:24; Luke 16:27 - 31; II Thessalonians 2:9 - 10), prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1 - 3; 18:20 - 22; Matthew 7:21 - 23; Galatians 1:8 - 9; 2:11 - 21), angels (Galatians 1:8), and men (Isaiah 8:19 - 20; 29:13 - 14; Jeremiah 8:5 - 9; 17:5; Matthew 22:23 - 33; Mark 7:3 - 13; Acts 17:10 - 12; II Timothy 4:3 - 4; Titus 1:13 - 14). This last category, of course, includes Helminiak. Indeed, to claim that men, along with their various academic disciplines, constitute an equal source of authority is to claim that the opinions of men are equal to the words of God - an incoherent statement. (For a cogent defense of sola Scriptura, see [4].) Another example of Helminiak’s implicit denial of the inerrancy of the Bible is his statement that I Timothy was “probably not written by Paul himself” (p. 92). I Timothy 1:1, however, states that Paul is the author of the epistle. How could Helminiak believe both that the above quote is true and that the Bible is inerrant?

In a number of places, he seems to assume that the books of the Bible are nothing more than human documents. “Some suggest that the Jewish purity rules were principles of sanitation … . But this suggestion presumes more medical knowledge than the ancients had … ” (p. 49). “The book of Leviticus calls male homogenital acts an abomination. That means it was considered unclean. The early Israelites thought it was dirty. It was prohibited not because it was wrong in itself but because it offended sensitivities” (p. 51). “Thus, the early Christian church [at the Jerusalem Council] rejected a central requirement of the Jewish law [dietary laws]. Peter … had come to that same conclusion regarding clean and unclean animals” (p. 58). “Thus, [with regard to the list of sins at I Corinthians 6:9 - 10] it appears that Paul just borrowed stock lists from the culture at large … . The point is that this list of sins is not Paul’s own. It comes from some other source and reflects society at large” (pp. 92 - 93). “This approach [the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation] takes the Bible to mean, as best as can be determined, what its human authors intended to say in their own time and in their own way” (p. 107) [5].

Did Helminiak forget that the Bible is God’s word? The first two quotes assume that the laws in Leviticus originated with medically ignorant and socially prudish individuals instead of with God, as the Bible states (Leviticus 11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1; 15:1; 18:1, 30; 19:1 - 4, etc.). Has God ever been medically ignorant?

In addition it should be emphasized, in no uncertain terms, that neither Peter nor the early Christian Church rejected one word of God’s law. God told them via revelation to Christ’s Apostles that certain parts of the law prefigured Christ’s sacrifice and had therefore been abrogated by the cross (Acts 10:9 - 16, 28; Hebrews 7:11 - 10:14, etc.). This illustrates a fundamental biblical principle: what God has commanded we must assume to have continuing force until such time as God Himself says, in effect, “you no longer have to obey this commandment.” Some hermeneutical schemes insist that God must repeat in the New Testament all the commands to which He still holds us. Those who so insist are trying to impose a man-made rule on a Sovereign God! Let us understand that Paul did not affirm a democratically chosen ethical code of a now extinct culture. He affirmed the continuing force of God’s law (Acts 24:14; Galatians 1:11 - 12; Ephesians 3:2 - 5; I Corinthians 14:36 - 37; I Thessalonians 2:13; I Timothy 1:8, 11).

In light of all this, what could Helminiak possibly mean when he says that the Bible is inerrant? Fortunately, he gives us a definition-by-example:

… the historical-critical approach first asks, What is the point of the Genesis story of creation? What was the author intending to say? Well, the Bible intended to give a religion lesson, not a science lesson. The seven-day story of creation is just a way of making the point: God created the universe with wisdom, care and order. If science determines that the universe actually evolved over millions and millions of years, there is no conflict with the Bible … . But the fact that God created the universe remains as true as ever. There is no error in that teaching of Genesis (p. 28).

Apparently, according to Helminiak, all of the details can be absolutely wrong, but as long as God still made the universe, the Genesis account is inerrant. This is one of the most puzzling and elastic definitions of ‘inerrant’ imaginable. If the point of the account was only to say that “God created the universe with wisdom, care and order,” why was so much detail given? Indeed, nothing in the text hints that the account is an allegory or parable. It reads like a detailed recipe. In addition, if Helminiak is correct, what are we to make of Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12 - 21? First, Paul talks about a literal Adam, not some ape-man whose cranial capacity had yet to reach 1300 cc. Paul takes the Genesis account at face value. Moreover, he uses this “literal” reading to argue for the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. If the first part of Paul’s analogy is in fact a fictional metaphor, what are we to make of the second part of his analogy which he also assumes to be historic? Is that a metaphor as well? What sense can we make of ourselves as “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) if we are, in fact, children of primates? This is not the last time that questions concerning Helminiak’s unorthodox hermeneutical principles will arise. At any rate, Helminiak’s redefinition of ‘inerrant’ leaves it hollow and impotent. This, along with the other examples so far mentioned, gives us a good picture of the level of authority that he believes the Bible commands. That level is not very high.

The problem is further heightened when we remember that Helminiak is a professing Roman Catholic. As such, he should acknowledge that the official positions of the RCC, based on the final decisions of the pope, are infallible and should be accepted as doctrine. The RCC, however, does not mince words in proclaiming that homosexual acts are sinful:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved [6].

To be consistent with his source of authority, Helminiak should likewise condemn all homosexual acts, but this is the exact opposite of his actual stance on the matter. Thus, he has rejected the RCC as final authority in this matter, holding a position that is contrary to the RCC’s official position, which RCC communicants have vowed to accept as inerrant!

By His Standard From the previous discussion, we have seen that neither the Bible nor the RCC constitute Helminiak’s final authority. It is also clear that he puts strong emphasis on man’s scholarly endeavors concerning questions of ethics in such fields as philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Therefore, it seems quite apparent that neither the Bible nor the RCC constitute his final authority, because he is his own final authority. Helminiak has assumed the worldview that provides the basis for atheism, the “autonomous man worldview”! We are not saying that he is an atheist, but he is doing exactly what the atheist does when he rejects God, i.e., the atheist rejects God in order to be his own final authority, his own god. He has assumed that man as an autonomous agent can “objectively” approach “neutral” (and extra-biblical) evidence and find the truth by himself. Man’s mind is the highest authority. This is the oldest trick in the Book. “Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). This, however, is the very antithesis of the Christian worldview, which requires us to recognize God’s word as the highest authority and surrender unconditionally to it.

Although the previous evidence strongly supports such a conclusion, there is much more to add. On page 32, for instance, he claims, “Moreover, according to the historical-critical method, the times really do change. We cannot expect to find simple answers to contemporary questions just by reading the Bible … . Sensitive to God’s Spirit, we have to rely on our own minds and hearts to decide what the Bible requires in the situations we now face.” One wonders, what is meant by the phrase “what the Bible requires in the situations we now face” in light of the authority he gives to “our own minds and hearts”? Although Helminiak at first seems to say that the Bible plays some kind of role in determining God’s will for us, his faulty hermeneutics in fact undermine the Bible. Thus, Helminiak’s bottom line is that it is we who, in fact, determine what is right and wrong for us today. After all, the times they are a changing, and we are much more sophisticated than those poor souls of the days during which the Bible was written.

Indeed, when [social] conventions are misguided, unreasonable or oppressive, they ought to be changed … . Despite it all the important point is to recognize the difference between real wrong and mere taboo. Though it is not always easy to know the difference, we must not be hardheaded and treat as an ethical issue what is simply a matter of convention. Rather, with openness, intelligence, reasoned judgment, and good will we must continually work together to form a just, high minded and noble society (p. 54).

Here, Helminiak tells us plainly that, for our sophisticated society, ethical issues are determined by the intelligence, judgment, and good will of men. This is nothing less than the exemplar of the autonomous man worldview with respect to ethics. This is the standard of ethical authority that atheists claim after they have taken God out of the picture. It is the foundation of secular humanism, which has become so rampant in our society. The Christian worldview, on the other hand, clearly supposes that “no one is good but One, that is, God” (Luke 18:18); and, therefore, ethical norms are determined by God’s will (as delineated in His word), not by the minds and traditions of men (see the Scripture references given above). For one to support the above quote from Helminiak’s book, it is not necessary for him to be a Christian. Logically speaking in fact, one could only hold such a position if he were an atheist. A Christian cannot coherently affirm the autonomous man worldview.

In the introduction to his book he provides a definition of love couched within a discussion of sexuality. This definition will help us to further illustrate the unbiblical autonomous man assumptions at the root of Helminiak’s approach to hermeneutics.

Attached to a person’s sexuality is the capacity to feel affection, to delight in someone else, to get emotionally close to another person, to be passionately committed to him or her. Sexuality is at the core of that marvelous human experience, being in love - to be struck by the beauty of another and be drawn out of yourself, to become attached to another human being so powerfully that you easily begin measuring your life in terms of what’s good for someone else as well as for yourself (p. 18). The first sentence of this quotation reveals a clearly unbiblical mindset: that “to feel affection, to delight in someone else, to get emotionally close to another person, to be passionately committed … ” all have to do with sexuality! We have feelings such as these day by day - indeed they are common to mankind - toward our children, our families, our brothers and sisters in Christ, etc., without so much as a hint of “sexuality.” Helminiak’s concept of love has sexuality fastened to it, and he has completely stripped from it any mention of God. The irony is, according to Scripture, God is love. We can only love because God first loved us. God’s love (and Christian love, agape) is sacrificial (John 3:16; I Corinthians 13:1 - 6), God-centered, and action oriented. Helminiak’s whole concept is human centered and self-serving (what I feel, what I delight in, what emotions I feel, what “passion” I feel in commitment, etc.). Finally, God’s love means to fulfill the law of God in relationship to another person (Romans 13:8 - 10). It means to do the will of God - i.e., to obey the commandments of God (John 15:9, 10). These issues are at the core of love, not “sexuality.” Whether a Christian “feels” like loving or not does not matter. Only in the second sentence does Helminiak even hint at “what’s good for someone else” but then hastens to add, “as well as for yourself.” Another problem piled on top of this one is that even his concept of “good” is measured by feelings. The above quotation shows that Helminiak’s definition of love, far from being in conformity with the Christian worldview, reflects humanism with its autonomous-man foundation. We will see below how Helminiak’s concept of love causes him to superimpose sexuality in biblical passages where it is not at all in view.

He further echoed this anti-Christian worldview during his lecture. Toward the end of his presentation, he openly said that the professing Christians who engage in homosexual activity should use his arguments in order to, in his words, “neutralize” their opponent’s biblical interpretation. With the Bible “neutralized,” they could then get down to business. After all, he said, there are many people out there who need our help and sympathy. Some are dying (he may have been thinking about homosexual AIDS patients). He then proclaimed, “I don’t give a damn what you believe as long as you’re a good person.” The Bible, however, opposes this statement so powerfully and so thoroughly and from so many different angles that one is at a loss to explain how a professing Christian could make such a remark [7]. Therefore, before we even get to the content of his arguments, we conclude that Helminiak’s position is self-refuting; because, when it comes to the authority by which he determines truth (especially ethical truth), he has stepped out of the Christian worldview and into the autonomous man worldview.

Make no mistake. The question is not really over what the Bible says or means with respect to the issue of same-sex acts. What it says and what it means are clear. The question is over what the Bible is and how much authority it has. Once the Bible is viewed as the error-filled writings of ignorant (relative to us), socially conditioned individuals, it is not at all difficult for positions, such as the one Helminiak holds, to arise. Once the Bible is no longer viewed as having normative authority, its contents are seen through the autonomous presuppositions of the modern culture. With such a worldview used to filter its contents, it is no surprise that the Bible is viewed as teaching us principles that are in accord with modern-day humanism. If, however, the Bible is allowed to speak on its own terms, something very different arises. If the Bible is what it claims to be (i.e., God’s infallible revelation to His creation), Helminiak’s position refutes itself, and same-sex acts are indeed sinful. If the Bible is not what it claims to be and is, instead, what Helminiak assumes that it is, then Christianity is false; and, as Paul might say, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Opening Arguments Before addressing biblical texts which discuss homosexual acts, Helminiak presented a few arguments that are worth reviewing. The first one, which shall here be labeled the “natural born killers” argument, can be summarized as follows:

(S1) Scientific evidence shows that some people are born homosexual; and, indeed, sexual orientation seems to be a trait akin to height, skin color, and gender.

(S2) “According to faith, it is God who creates us … . So somehow God must be behind the fact that some people are homosexual.”

(S3) Either they (homosexuals) were made correctly or they were made “flawed.”

(S4) If God made them flawed, he would be “evil” or “playing some cruel trick.”

(S5) God cannot be evil.

Therefore,

(S6) God made them correctly.

(S7) God would not condemn those traits which he made correctly.

Therefore,

(S8) God does not condemn the trait of homosexuality, and those who claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality have misinterpreted the Bible (pp. 18 - 20).

There are several problems with this argument, so the factual problems are addressed first, followed by the logical fallacies. We begin by questioning the factuality of the premise: (S1) is stated without proof. No references are given for its support. Remember, this premise makes the claim that there is a behavioral trait that is set by genetics in the same way that physical traits, such as eye color, are set. The boldness of this claim cannot be overstated. Surely we will need much more than Helminiak’s word in order to accept this statement as true. Indeed, there are three possible options with regard to the relationship between genes and homosexual behavior: (a) genes play no role in such behavior; (b) some people, based on genetics, have a higher propensity toward such behavior; or (c) genes determine such behavior in exactly the same way that they determine eye color. Ignoring option (a), we can note that if the scientific evidence shows any consistent pattern at all (an important “if”), it shows us that option (b) is a possibility. This, however, is a far cry from (c). Moreover, if (b) were indeed the case, this would, by itself, destroy Helminiak’s argument. To use genetics at all, he needs to show that genes determine sexual behavior in the same way that they determine physical traits, not just that they influence such behavior in some way. He has not done this, nor has anyone else.

Helminiak also made the claim that “there is no credible evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.” How does he know this? The only way to prove a universal negative by empirical means is to know everything. For him to prove that there is “no credible evidence,” he would have to have examined all the evidence. Has Helminiak really investigated each and every claim of renounced homosexuality? In addition what are we to make of the qualifier “credible?” By what theory of epistemology are we to distinguish the credible from the incredible? Without more information, this argument has no force.

Even apart from these problems, the argument itself is fallacious. To begin with, the conditional of (S4) begs the question. It was claimed that if God did ‘x,’ He would be evil; but this presupposes a standard of good and evil independent of God, which Helminiak would have to prove in order to make this conditional valid. On what basis does he know that such an act would be evil? He simply assumes what he needs to prove. Moreover, such a presupposition is incoherent, because there is no ethical standard outside of God’s will that can provide the qualities that an ethical standard needs, i.e., normativity, invariance, and personality. Without the infinite, immutable, personal will of God as the standard for good and evil, we would be reduced to the incoherence of the atheist who tries to construct a normative, invariant, personal standard of ethics based on the numerous and incompatible opinions of variant and subjective men.

In addition, the entire argument is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. How does Helminiak know that God would not “make” a group of individuals who were destined to be condemned. Certainly the doctrine of predestination is offensive to man’s constant desire to have “free will,” but the Bible is clear on the matter. Israel, after all, was chosen to be God’s people before they were even born (Deuteronomy 7:6 - 8; 9:4 - 6). We Christians did not choose Christ; He chose us (John 15:16). Indeed, we cannot even believe unless God first draws us (John 6:44); because, as unbelievers, we are dead in our sins and children of wrath by nature (Ephesians 2:1 - 9). Thus, we were elected before time by His will, not by our wills or anything that we do (Romans 8:28 - 30; 9:6 - 24; Ephesians 1:4 - 6, 11 - 12; II Thessalonians 2:13 - 14; II Timothy 1:8 - 9). According to Paul, in fact,

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:10 - 24) [8]

Here, Paul is contradicting both (S4) and (S7). God hardens whom He wills, and there are certain workers of iniquity whom God hates (Psalms 5:5), who are chosen to be “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” God hardens an individual and then punishes the individual whom He hardened for His own purposes! The sovereign God will not be subject to some mere human standard of morality. To illustrate, let us suppose that we could determine that, for at least some individuals, certain criminal behaviors are a part of their “nature.” So what? It is clearly revealed that we are all sinners “by nature” (Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:9 - 12; Ephesians 2:1 - 3; I John 1:8). This is the very reason that the cross was necessary. Should we ignore what the Bible says and excuse “the natural born killer”? Such a concept is foreign to Scripture! No, the one who was born a sinner is still condemned by God for sinning. It is clear that Helminiak has failed to construct a sound argument due both to logical fallacies and unsupported claims. Furthermore, we have solid biblical support to reject his claims as inaccurate.

A second of his arguments (pp. 32 - 33) can be summarized as follows:

(D1) Today, we “know that homosexuality is a core aspect of the personality” and that homosexuals are “religious people” involved in deep-felt and “loving relationships.”

(D2) The Bible only discusses homosexual acts; it does not address the issue of homosexual orientation. A loving relationship, based on homosexual orientation, was “not a question in the minds of the biblical authors.”

Therefore,

(D3) “We cannot expect the Bible to give an answer” on such relationships.

To begin with, the “core aspect” part of (D1) is simply a repetition of (S1) above and, therefore, encounters the same problems. Without much more information, it is simply useless to Helminiak’s cause. In addition, the fact that homosexuals are religious, “loving” (his unbiblical definition), and sincere is irrelevant to his thesis. No doubt, there are many religious, “loving,” and sincere Hindus and Muslims who are nevertheless sincerely wrong. Surely there are idol worshipers and cat burglars who are both religious and “loving.” Psychological adjectives are simply irrelevant to the objective questions, “Are they correct in what they believe?” and “Are they right in what they are doing?”

In addition the argument is a non sequitur. It does not matter that the Bible fails to speak of “orientations,” because it says quite clearly that one must not engage in the act. Indeed, the argument makes much more sense if we turn it around and proclaim that, because the Bible gives a blanket condemnation of the act and does not distinguish between “casual” action and action based on “orientation,” such a distinction is irrelevant. Either way, it is condemned by the Bible’s blanket proscription. Perhaps Helminiak would reply that this is not fair, because the question of orientation was not “in the minds of the biblical authors.” Again, however, he has forgotten Who wrote the text. The biblical proscriptions did not originate with sheepherders ignorant of our brilliant, modern psychological discoveries. They were given by revelation from God (see scriptural texts already mentioned). If it were necessary that a distinction be drawn in order to focus the proscription on the guilty alone, God would have made that distinction. Indeed, that is exactly what He did throughout the Bible, where appropriate. See, for example, the distinctions made with regard to self-defense (Exodus 22:2), manslaughter (Exodus 21:12 - 13; Numbers 35:9 - 15, 22 - 28; Deuteronomy 19:3 - 7), and murder (Exodus 21:14; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16 - 21; Deuteronomy 19:11 - 13). Therefore, we conclude, using the same argument, that the Bible does give us an answer regarding modern homosexual behavior - it condemns all of it.

Genesis 19: The Sin of Sodom The first passage that Helminiak takes up is Genesis 19:1 - 11. Like a number of individuals before him, he argues that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality:

In a desert country, where Sodom lay, to stay outside exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal. So a cardinal rule of Lot’s society was to offer hospitality to travelers. The same rule is a traditional part of Semitic and Arabic cultures. This rule was so strict that no one might harm even an enemy who had been offered shelter for the night. So doing what was right, following God’s law as he understood it, Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse of the men of Sodom. To do so would have violated the law of sacred hospitality (p. 38).

Helminiak admits that there is more to the story than this when he proclaims, “When male-male rape becomes part of the story, the additional offense is sexual abuse … ” (p. 39). As he says earlier, “Allowing that the word ‘to know’ really does have sexual meaning here, what is at stake is male-male rape, not simply male-male sex” (p. 38). In addressing the hospitality argument first, we should note that what other cultures believe to be moral law is irrelevant. Lot, after all, was not some pagan who followed the law according to Baal. Further, God does not judge individuals based on their culture’s ethical code. Only biblical moral law is relevant and reflects God’s will. With this in mind, we can turn to God’s law and find that while male-male sex was an “abomination” that merited the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13), there is no “law of sacred hospitality” much less a capital punishment for inhospitality. Although this law had not yet been given in written form, the law that was “written” on Lot’s heart said essentially the same thing: homosexual behavior is an abomination. If other cultures had a different standard, they were wrong. Moreover, to think that God would annihilate an entire city because they were inhospitable, especially when such an offense is not even mentioned in the law, stretches credulity beyond all measure. Thus, we see that the hospitality argument does not hold water.

What about the examples that Helminiak gives in support of the hospitality argument? He first tells us that, “The prophet Ezekiel (16:48 - 49) states the case baldly: ‘This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.’ The sin of the Sodomites was that they refused to take in the needy travelers” (p. 39 - 40). This passage, however, does not help Helminiak’s case. The text says that they were lazy and, although they were wealthy, they did not aid the “poor and needy.” This refers to capable people who failed to show charity to the poor. God would later give the detailed charity laws which take the form of gleaning (Leviticus 19:9 - 10; Deuteronomy 23:24 - 25; 24:19 - 22), lending (Exodus 22:25 - 27; Leviticus 25:35 - 37; Deuteronomy 15:7 - 11; 23:19 - 20; 24:6, 10 - 13), tithing (Deuteronomy 14:28 - 29), and hired servitude (Leviticus 25:39 - 43). Failure to render charity to the poor is not at all the same as inhospitality to travelers. Perhaps more interesting though is the part of this passage that Helminiak did not quote. “And they [Sodom and her daughter] were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezekiel 16:50) Remember, homosexual acts are an “abomination” to the Lord (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Note also how ” … Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). This shows, along with the previous rebuttal to the hospitality argument, that the sins of Sodom were quite different from the picture that Helminiak paints.

He also quotes Matthew 10:5 - 15 to show that “there is a clear reference to rejection of God’s messengers. The parallel between the gospel and Sodom is the closed heart that rejects the stranger, the wickedness that will not welcome God’s heralds” (p. 40). This argument is severely mistaken. To begin with, rejecting God’s word is completely different from “inhospitality.” In Matthew 10, Jesus told the disciples to “go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel … . And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words … shake off the dust from your feet” (verses 6, 14). The Bible is speaking here about those who reject the gospel. “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). This is speaking of rejection of God and his message of salvation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hospitality. Moreover, the comparison between the rejection of God’s word and Sodom has nothing to do with a similarity between the two sins. The argument being made here is common in the Bible and is known as an a fortiori argument. This type of argument is used to draw conclusions from lesser situations to greater ones. The argument here is simple. If they reject the gospel, it will be worse for them than for Sodom, and everyone knows the calamity that befell Sodom. Therefore, the judgment for those who reject the gospel will be terrible indeed. The a fortiori argument does not at all show a similarity between the “sin of Sodom” and the sin of those who reject the disciples. Indeed, the angels (in the form of men) who visited Sodom were not evangelizing. There are a number of other such a fortiori arguments in Scripture which are likewise, used to start with the lesser and conclude with the greater (see, for example, Matthew 7:7 - 11; 12:9 - 12; Hebrews 10:26 - 29). Thus, not only is this passage talking about something that has no relevance to the question of hospitality, Helminiak’s argument does not show a connection between the actions of Sodom and the actions of those who reject the disciples. Indeed, that Helminiak thinks this passage supports his position in any way is certainly puzzling.

What about the rape argument, though? Rape is, after all, certainly a violation of God’s law (Deuteronomy 22:25 - 29). The passage, however, indicates that something far worse occurred there.

And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them.” So Lot … said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof” (Genesis 19:5 - 8).

If we may develop our own a fortiori argument, we know that heterosexual rape is quite sinful. Yet it would clearly be a lesser evil when compared to the wickedness of homosexual rape. Lot was attempting to substitute the sinful for the abominable. The perverse wickedness of same-sex acts is thus made manifest. Was this the only sin of Sodom? Of course not. However, as Bahnsen has pointed out,

Although a general wickedness characterized Sodom [Genesis 18:20], the fact cannot be suppressed that the Sodomites’ desire to “know” Lot’s guests is the manifest sin set forth in Genesis 19 and the specific confirmation that the city was worthy of devastation [Genesis 19:13; cf. 18:21]. This was the mark of their extreme degradation and rebellion against God [9].

The inhabitants of Sodom committed a multitude of sins. The Sodomites’ “wicked” attempt to homosexually “know” the visitors in chapter 19, however, gives us a specific and powerful reason for the city’s destruction.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 These passages clearly specify that homosexual acts merited the death penalty under the Mosaic law. In looking at Helminiak’s explanation of these passages, we shall respond to the two main conclusions that he attempts to draw. He first attempts to conclude that an act which merited the death penalty is not necessarily grievous or immoral. In trying to mitigate the seriousness of the death penalty, he first tells us that while the death penalty is severe, ” … Leviticus prescribes the same penalty for cursing one’s parents. Other sexual sins also merit the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality” (p. 44). Apparently, the fact that cursing one’s parents also merited the death penalty constitutes a reductio ad absurdum in Helminiak’s mind. Between the lines, he appears to be saying that we know that such a punishment today for this type of unimportant offense would be barbaric, so perhaps the fact that homosexual acts merited the death penalty does not really mean that they were serious offenses. This, however, would only have force if one considered actions which undermine the family structure to be a “light” matter. Since Christians should not hold such a position, his attempted reductio is not effective.

Along this same line, he next attempts to explain why adultery required the death penalty. He states that,

In ancient Israel, adultery was an offense only against the husband; it was an unlawful use of his property his woman, his wife. More than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man had paid his wife’s father a bridal price for her, and she was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property … . Similarly, if a man’s new bride was not a virgin, how sure could he be that a child born through her was his own? A “used” woman was of no value to anyone. Having sex with someone else’s woman could cause serious financial and social problems. The “theft” involved was major. In ancient Israel, that offense was serious enough to be punished by death (pp. 44 - 45).

Again, we see an attempt to mitigate the death penalty as a punishment. This attempt, however, suffers from a number of problems. To begin with, Helminiak tells us that adultery is no different from theft. He tells us that adultery was a serious problem just because it was theft of major proportions. If this were true, it would reduce the Seventh Commandment to a subsection of the Eighth Commandment. The Bible, however, clearly presents them as distinct. Additionally, with respect to the topic at hand (punishment), there is no connection between adultery and theft. In direct contradiction to Helminiak’s equation of adultery and theft, adultery merited the death of both participants (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22 - 24) while theft required the restoration of property (Exodus 22:1, 4 - 14; Leviticus 6:1 - 5). Thus, in trying to explain punishment by combining the two offenses, Helminiak has given us an explanation that is incoherent in light of the Bible’s own prescription of punishment.

Moreover, his explanation is at odds with the RCC’s position on adultery and marriage. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes many Old and New Testament passages to support its views of marriage, sexual relations, and various infidelities, not once does it mention Helminiak’s view, much less claim that it was the normal operating procedure in biblical times. The Catechism assumes that in biblical times as well as in modern times, marriage is a covenant based on the Genesis account of creation. When discussing adultery, it says nothing remotely similar to Helminiak’s account, and it even mentions that several Old Testament prophets at least indirectly likened adultery to idolatry [10]. If the RCC harbors beliefs even remotely similar to Helminiak’s position, one would not know it from their Catechism. It therefore looks like this is another instance where Helminiak has abandoned his church’s teaching in favor of his own theories. It is also apparent that his attempt to downplay the death penalty as a punishment for homosexual acts, as commanded by God, has not been successful.

Helminiak’s second and more important conclusion is that

(F1) The prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was a purity law enacted to separate Israel from her neighbors, whose homosexual acts were “associated with pagan activities, with idolatry, with Gentile identity.” (pp. 46 - 47).

(F2) Since it was not an ethical prohibition, it does not apply today.

He supports this conclusion with two arguments. He first argues in support of (F1) with the claim that the specific passages under consideration are embedded within a set of purity laws (“The Holiness Code”) teaching the Israelites to be separate from the surrounding Gentiles. Therefore, the actions spoken of (including homosexual acts) are not wrong in themselves; but they were to be avoided in that culture, because such acts were associated with unbelieving neighbors. These laws are simply purity laws, not ethical laws; thus, (F2). This argument, however, suffers from a number of fatal defects. First, it should be noted that this argument suffers from the logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc which, loosely translated, means that just because two things happen together, it does not necessarily mean that one caused the other. Just because God said “According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do … ” (Leviticus 18:3), it does not therefore follow that the laws were only made to separate the Israelites from the Gentiles. We could equally conclude that God did not want the Israelites to imitate the surrounding Gentiles because the acts of the Gentiles were immoral. In fact, we are even given confirmation of this alternative interpretation when we read,

Do not defile yourselves with any of these things [including homosexual acts]; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants … . Do not think in your heart, after the Lord your God has cast them out before you, saying, “Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land;” but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out from before you (Leviticus 18:24 - 25; Deuteronomy 9:4).

Thus, God tells us that because the former tenants did certain things, they were wicked and were punished for their iniquity. God did not tell the Israelites to avoid these actions simply because the Gentiles did them. He told the Israelites to avoid the iniquitous actions for which the Gentiles were being punished. Hence, we see that Helminiak’s suggestion is not only fallacious, it goes against the context of the passage.

If we look further at the context of the proscriptions, we see additional evidence that Helminiak is mistaken. The actions forbidden in Leviticus 18 - 20 include incest, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, idolatry, theft, withholding a worker’s wages, showing partiality, hating one’s brother, vigilantism, prostitution, using false scales and inflationary currency, and practicing divination. Are we supposed to believe that all of these actions were forbidden simply because the Gentiles did them? To be sure, there are laws in this section that are not applicable today such as those that speak of sacrificial offerings (see Hebrews 7 - 10), but they constitute a minority of the laws mentioned. It should be readily apparent, then, that Leviticus 18 - 20 contains a number of laws that are, in fact, moral laws which prohibit sinful actions, and that Helminiak’s attempt to dismiss the entire section meets with absurdity.

Yet another problem arises for Helminiak when we note that his attempt to inextricably link homosexual acts with pagan worship does not hold up. As Bahnsen has noted,

The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture homosexuality was practiced as both a religious rite and a personal sexual perversion in general; it was popular in the temple and the town, performed both religiously and hedonistically. Israel’s pagan neighbors knew both secular and sacred homosexuality, which would make two different biblical prohibitions all the more necessary for God’s will to be clearly revealed to His people. The Bible condemns the sex life of the heathen town as well as the sexual idolatry of the heathen temple [11].

Homosexuality was not simply relegated to religious worship. Israel’s neighbors engaged in such acts for worship as well as for personal pleasure. As shown above, the Bible draws detailed distinctions when they are necessary. Since the laws in Leviticus make no distinction concerning homosexual acts, we should conclude that there are no distinctions. The Biblical passages are unqualified. Homosexual acts are sinful, regardless of why they are performed.

Helminiak’s second argument in support of (F1) involves the word ‘abomination’ found in both 18:22 and 20:13. He claims that the word simply means “dirty” or “impure” and that this therefore supports his position.

“Abomination” is a translation of the word toevah. This term could also be translated “uncleanness” or “impurity” or “dirtiness.” “Taboo,” what is culturally or ritually forbidden, would be another accurate translation. The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize that another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that for man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Leviticus says it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness; it is something “dirty” (p. 52).

What are we to make of this? First, it is interesting to note that Helminiak only provides one passage to support the claim that ‘abomination’ means “unclean” or “taboo,” and as it turns out, the passage he quoted does not contain the word toevah. On page 48, he quoted Leviticus 20:25 - 26 to conclude that, “Evidently, ‘abominable’ is just another word for ‘unclean.’” The word translated ‘abomination’ in this passage, however, is not toevah but shaqats [12]. A word study that only includes one example is problematic in and of itself, but if that example does not even address the word in question, we are left with a completely irrelevant word study.

We can now look at the word toevah to determine whether we have been given the whole story. What we find is that toevah can and very often does denote something that is immoral and detestable in God’s sight. It is used at various times to denote: idols and idol worship (Deuteronomy 7:25 - 26; Jeremiah 16:18), serving other gods and human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31; 20:18; II Kings 16:3 - 4), human sacrifice, witchcraft, and sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:9 - 12), having false scales (Deuteronomy 25:16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10), lying lips (Proverbs 12:22), the ways of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9), and the proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5). Everything on this list is intrinsically immoral, not just “taboo.” II Kings 21:1 - 12 gives a list of egregious sins including idol worship, the worship of other gods, building altars to other gods in the Lord’s house, human sacrifice, and witchcraft. In this passage we find that

… he [Manasseh] did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominations [toevah] of the nations whom the Lord had cast out … . And the Lord spoke by His servants the prophets, saying, “Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations [toevah] (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols), therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle’” (2 Kings 21:2, 10 - 12).

The toevah mentioned were “evil” and “wicked,” and the judgment due for those sins would make your ears tingle! This is about as far away from “taboo” as one could get.

Proverbs contains a list of such things: “These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination [toevah] to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16 - 19). The poetic structure of the passage makes it clear that what God hates and that which is abominable to Him are synonymous. One should take note here that lying, wicked plans, murder, and sowing discord cannot be relegated to mere cultural taboos.

Additionally, one should note that toevah is used four times in Leviticus 18:26 - 30 to denote incest, adultery, human sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. Verses 26 - 28 tell us that “You [Israel] … shall not commit any of these abominations … lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” Again, we see that “taboo” does not come close to fitting the context. Israel was to avoid the actions that brought serious punishment to the Gentiles, lest they be punished also. It should, therefore, be obvious that Helminiak’s explanation of toevah is seriously mistaken and that not only is toevah often used to describe evil actions, it is used to describe evil actions with respect to homosexual acts in the passage under consideration.

Thus, we see that toevah is used a number of times to denote immorality. For Helminiak to assume that, because it is sometimes used to denote nonethical situations (notwithstanding Helminiak’s irrelevant word study, toevah is sometimes used in nonethical terms), its use with respect to homosexual acts must be nonethical, is simply to beg the question.

But what about Helminiak’s argument with respect to the word zimah? Is he right to claim that the author would have used zimah to denote sinful activity? Just as with the English language, the Hebrew language has several words that can refer to sinful activity. Indeed, we could use ‘evil,’ ‘sin,’ ‘abomination,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘unlawful,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘lewd,’ ‘licentious,’ ‘profligate,’ or ‘bad’ to refer to basically the same thing. It is true that these words are more or less applicable to certain specific situations, but if one is not trying to draw narrow technical distinctions, any of these words could be used to convey the same meaning. In addition, several of the words listed can convey ethical connotations, but need not do so exclusively. With this in mind, then, we should see that when Helminiak argues that the author should have used zimah to convey ethical connotations, he is giving us an argument from silence. It is simply fallacious to claim that because a specific word was not used, the concept related to that word was not in view. We have already seen that in many different instances, toevah carries negative ethical connotations. Therefore, the argument from silence does not even make sense. Things get more interesting however, when we note that the word zimah occurs four times in Leviticus 18 - 20. It is applied to incest at 18:17, prostitution at 19:29, and marriage, simultaneously, to a woman and her daughter at 20:14. We previously saw how Helminiak first argued in support of (F1) by claiming that the section under consideration belongs to the “Holiness Code,” and that its point was to separate Israel from its neighbors, not to identify intrinsically immoral acts. Helminiak’s word study of zimah, however, contradicts this argument. The word is applied to several actions within the section that he says carry no ethical connotations. Helminiak’s word substitution argument thus proves nothing except, perhaps, that he should be more careful with his argumentation.

The last part of his argument which addresses the word ‘abomination’ can be seen in the following quote. “In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22 is translated with the Greek word bdelygma. Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity, an uncleanness. Once again, there were other Greek words available, like anomia, meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin” (p. 52). Here again, Helminiak is mistaken. The word bdelygma is translated “abomination” in the New Testament to refer to the “abomination of desolation” spoken of in Daniel (see Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14), and probably fulfilled in 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes set up a pagan altar in the Most Holy Place, violating the first commandment in the temple. The word is also used to refer to evils that men esteem such as the love of money (Luke 16:15), lying unbelievers (Titus 1:16), the harlot of Babylon (Revelation 17:4 - 5), those who will burn in hell (Revelation 21:8), and those who will not enter the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27). It is used once as a verb to refer to idols (Romans 2:22). All of these references clearly apply to immoral actions and individuals. Therefore, Helminiak’s attempt to classify this word in strictly nonethical terms meets with failure. Once again, Helminiak assumes that words only have one meaning and that the context is irrelevant when considering that meaning. That this is patently false we have already seen. In addition, his suggestion with respect to anomia is as invalid as his suggestion with respect to zimah. Numerous words could have been used, and a number of them can be used, for both ethical and nonethical connotations. Helminiak’s argument from silence is fallacious, and his attempt to stamp words with only one definition is linguistically incorrect. In the final analysis, then, Helminiak’s arguments with respect to Leviticus 18 - 20 are all completely unsound; and, contrary to his position, we have seen that homosexual acts were forbidden because they were intrinsically immoral. We will give a more detailed treatment of Helminiak’s hermeneutical errors in the next section.

Romans 1:18 - 32 The largest chapter in his book deals with this portion of Romans 1; and during his lecture, he gave the passage even more relative weight. Helminiak’s interpretation rests upon his claim that, although the words in verses 18 - 23 and 28 - 32 really do have ethically negative connotations, the various words and phrases used in verses 24 - 27 do not. Helminiak admits that the English words in verses 24 - 27 may have negative ethical connotations, but he insists that they all either are mistranslations or have been misunderstood by everyone except “gay theologians.” The allegedly misunderstood words and phrases are ‘degrading’ or ‘dishonorable’ or ‘vile,’ ‘uncleanness,’ ‘exchanged the natural use for’ or ‘unnatural,’ ‘lust,’ and ‘shameful.’ Helminiak asserts that none of these words has ethical connotations: “Once again, the same general conclusion arises. Paul used certain words to describe male-male sex. A study of these words shows that he makes no ethical condemnation of male-male sex. He merely points out social disapproval of it” (p. 72). Helminiak goes on to say

They [words of ethical intent] occur before the section on homogenital acts, and they occur after the section on homogenital acts. But they do not occur within the section on homogenital acts … . Just as Leviticus deliberately called homogenital acts “unclean” but not sinful nor wrong, so Paul called homogenital acts socially unacceptable but not sinful nor wrong (pp. 73 - 74).

Thus, according to Helminiak, Paul uses two different classes of terms to refer to the twofold effect of idolatry (verses 18 - 23). It allegedly resulted in both social uncleanness (verses 24 - 27) and real sin (verses 28 - 32):

The structure of Paul’s argument highlights that contrast in vocabulary. Three times Paul repeats the phrase, “God gave them up.” This repetition divides his statement into different sections. Paul is arguing that, because they did not worship God, two situations resulted. Paul begins verse 24 with “Therefore God gave them up … to impurity.” This statement introduces the first effect, impurity … . [But Paul digresses, then returns and repeats] the catch phrase that structures his argument: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.” Then Paul talks of the first effect of Gentile idolatry: uncleanness in sexual matters. In verse 28 Paul moves on to the second effect. He recalls his main argument: neglect of God brought these things on the Gentiles. He begins verse 28 with “And.” Evidently, he is introducing something new. This time he goes on to talk of evil, malice and real sins … . Both the structure and the content of Paul’s argument show that he has two different things in mind: uncleanness and real wrong (pp. 75 - 76).

As one can see, this argument is fairly sophisticated. The important question, though, is whether or not it has any merit. In what follows, we will first show that his overall method begs the question and is hermeneutically unsound. We will then address the details of the argument including the vocabulary of verses 24 - 27 and the context of the entire passage (verses 18 - 32). We will then finish the review of this argument by noting a few additional problems.

The most obvious flaw of Helminiak’s hermeneutical argument is its circular logic. Basically, he defines the words in verses 24 - 27 so that they have no ethical implications; and then, in opposition to sound hermeneutics, he uses those word definitions to determine the context of the passage. The question begging takes place right at the beginning when he is defining words. As we will see shortly, while he claims that the words under consideration do not have ethical connotations, in reality they not only can have such connotations, but several of them usually do have negative ethical connotations when used in the New Testament. Thus, he not only begs the question by dogmatically assuming one set of definitions over another (as he did with toevah), in some cases the definitions he chose are only applicable in a very small portion of the usages of that word in the New Testament. Helminiak’s practice of assuming the definition up front and forcing that assumed definition to establish the meaning of the passage is not only a logical fallacy, but it is also a tortuous form of hermeneutics.

Here again, he assumes that a word can only have one meaning - his meaning. As we have already seen, this is not accurate. Words do not have inherent meaning. Instead, they have a kind of meaning-potential that is only unlocked by the context in which they are found. Therefore, the context should be used to discover the meaning of a specific word - not vice versa. For example, consider the sentence, “He said he would run for office.” The word ‘run’ has several possible definitions including “rapid physical motion,” “consorting with” as in, “He was running with the wrong crowd,” “needlessly scoring points in an athletic contest,” “becoming a contestant in a political election,” etc. We simply do not know which definition is being used until we look at the context and notice that an election is here in view. Of course, the sentence alone does not always clearly se

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Big difference between a “heterosexual minister” as you called him and a homosexual priest!

By Renee

February 3, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

OK Jack K, I feel a need to respond, although you are not directing your commments towards me.

JBM stated this to you yesterday:

Show me where Jesus denounced homosexuality as sinful. Look up the passage in its original text and then use a study reference to translate it back to English. Then come back here and prove it to me.

Do you have this information? The biblical passage stating homosexuality is a sin, not your interpretation, but the exact verbage. Furthermore, Christianity and Catholicism is a belief, which means just because you believe it, does not make it so.

Your instant derrogatory statements about Catholics Priests is very arrogant on your part. Because a Catholic said it, it can’t be true, your religion is the only true religion. Furthermore, there are many who don’t believe in Christianity, God, or anything else. Therefore, homosexuality would not be a sin to them. And you shouting it and preaching it from mountaintops, will neither change the situation, nor make them believers of this “sin”. If you deem it be sinful, don’t take part in it. Your religion and your beliefs are just that. No matter how many other people share them, they are yours and yours only. They may be your truth, to which you are entitled to believe, but not the end all of truths!

It amazes me again, and again, at all the focus on homosexuality. I don’t see people get this bent out of shape about child molesters, serial killers or rapists. These too are considered sins but when you are homosexual you have crossed the line and gone too far.

By RF

February 3, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ….oops, sorry, I fell asleep there trying to read JK’s diatribe there. Confusion does that to me.

So, should we tell him nobody read’s all that crap or just let him type until carpal tunnel’s takes over??

IT’S FRIDAY DUDE!! NOBODY CARES!

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Good one RF

thought my scroll-bar was going to run out of memory there. LOL

Secretary and her boss are travelling by train. Due to a mix up, they wind up in the same car. She finds her boss attractive but he, being professional, is trying to keep their relationship on a business level. Being a gentleman, he takes the top bunk so she will not have to climb. He was a vain man. He wore a toupee but no one knew about it. As they were falling to sleep, he felt his toupee fall off and saw it go into the bunk beneath him. He doesn’t hear any noise and figures his secretary is asleep so he reaches down and starts feeling around. He hears a voice “You’re almost there..� and then a giggle. Embarassed, he pulls his hand quickly back up. He waits a while and thinks she must be asleep now so he reaches down again and starts gingerly feeling around. His secretary is waiting and trying to help him out as much as she can (he is a man after all). He touches something soft and again hears “You’re almost there!� He pulls his hand back again and waits about an hour. he figures she finally has to be asleep by now so he reaches down and his secretary says “Ooooh! You got it!� He replies “No I don’t. Mine’s parted on the side and this one’s parted down the middle!�

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

As told to me by my International Finance instructor, who would probably get in trouble today for telling this same joke:

Professor walked into his classroom and announced to the class, “I have been asked by the Sociology Department to assist them in a survey they would like conducted across campus at 10 a.m. so there is no duplication…Okay?”

Class goes “Sure”.

Professor asks “How many of you have sex once a day or more than once a day?”.

A few people raise their hands, mostly the married people. A guy in back, usually acts asleep in class, had perked up at the mention of ‘sex’. But does not raise his hand. Professor makes the proper notation on a form.

Professor asks “How many of you have sex around 3 times a week?”

A few more hands go up, but the guy in back just starts smiling MORE.

Professor asks “How many have sex 3-4 times a month?” A few more hands go up, but the guy in back just beams more.

Professor asks “How many have sex only once a year?” The guy in back FINALLY raises his hand.

The Professor asks “You have sex only once a year but you have been smiling all of this time. WHY?”

Guy in back replies “Tonight’s the night”.

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Christians themselves are, in growing numbers, sacrificing biblical truth on the altar of humanistic relativism. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that attempts have been made to justify such relativism on intellectual grounds and even on biblical grounds.

By Billy

February 3, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jack K, that is typical of what we see every week on the blog. The Bible-thumpers come out with a huge, rambling, cut-and-pasted pile of BS in an attempt to prove their point. The only time Jesus was even mentioned was a quote where he wanted whoever to go gather up the “lost sheep”. He didn’t say one word about sexuality.

I have to ask you and any others who rant against “moral relativism” — Are all sins equal? Is stealing the same as murder in God’s eyes? Is it equated with rape? Is failure to honor your father the same thing as blowing someone’s brains out? I don’t know anyone that would say any of this is true. How is it that homosexuality is such a glaring crime against humanity/nature/God?

Moral relativism gets a bum rap. If you don’t believe in it then you should start petitioning the government to change the legal system. No more misdemeanors and felonies; there’s now only one category of crime. No more varied sentences; the only punishment is death. That sounds about right. No more moral relativism!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3593866248238036452

By RF

February 3, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Must be baptist. They’re the only ones who preach that long and think people are actually paying attention…

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Renee - good comment there. LOL

By Randy

February 3, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

I see where Bill O’Reilly has declared the Atlanta Journal and Constitution a extrememly LIBERAL newspaper and says we should boycott it(not fair and balanced). This is no new news to me, I decided about 3 years ago to stop giving the AJC any money(by buying papers or advertising). But, this does confirm by thoughts. Why would a newspaper in such a conservative state, have a liberal agenda???

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Survivor: Southern Style D!mn Reality Shows

Due to the popularity of the Survivor shows, several southern tv stations are joining together and are planning to do their own, entitled “Survivor: Southern Style.” The contestants will start in Alabama, travel over to Georgia and on to South Carolina. From there they will head up to North Carolina and over to Tennessee. They will then proceed down to Mississippi and Louisiana. Finally ending up back over in Alabama.

Each will be driving a pink Volvo with New Jersey license plates and large bumper stickers that read: I’m Gay, I’m a Vegetarian, NASCAR Sucks, Go Yankees! Smoking is for Idiots, Hillary in 2008, Deer Hunting is Murder ,and I’m Here to Consficate Your Guns! The first one that makes it back to Montgomery alive, wins.

By Randy

February 3, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

I’ll answer my own question, because the AJC has a large percentage of Homosexual people who work there(inside scoop). Or is it that they don’t care about profits and want to commit business suicide.

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

I am going to have to watch that Penn & Teller video at home…or put on headphones. LOL

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Here again, he assumes that a word can only have one meaning - his meaning. As we have already seen, this is not accurate. Words do not have inherent meaning. Instead, they have a kind of meaning-potential that is only unlocked by the context in which they are found. Therefore, the context should be used to discover the meaning of a specific word - not vice versa. For example, consider the sentence, “He said he would run for office.” The word ‘run’ has several possible definitions including “rapid physical motion,” “consorting with” as in, “He was running with the wrong crowd,” “needlessly scoring points in an athletic contest,” “becoming a contestant in a political election,” etc. We simply do not know which definition is being used until we look at the context and notice that an election is here in view. Of course, the sentence alone does not always clearly set the definition. Sometimes the paragraph or surrounding paragraphs need to be considered. At any rate, setting the precise definition of a word with the surrounding context is standard hermeneutical practice regardless of what one is reading. It is the only sound way to pinpoint a specific definition. To apply Helminiak’s method, let us say that we are physical fitness advocates. We note that the word ‘run’ many times means rapid physical motion, and office means where I work. Therefore, the sentence “He said he would run for office” means “he said he is going to move rapidly to the place where he works.” So, regardless of what the speaker really meant, we are imposing a meaning on the sentence based on a definition that we chose because we advocate physical fitness. With such a methodology, one can make Scripture say anything one pleases. As we saw above, Helminiak’s word studies are not always adequate. It is often the case that he does not mention all the occurrences of the word in question. This by itself is problematic, but one should additionally note that many of the instances he does not quote tend to contradict his thesis. Helminiak chooses for each word a definition which serves to prove his point rather than allowing the context to determine the appropriate meaning. With this, we seem to find additional confirmation of the fact that Helminiak’s presuppositions regarding the ethical character of homosexual behavior lead him to downplay evidence that does not fit his paradigm. This type of partial analysis is not an example of proper hermeneutics. In addition, he tries to draw far too much information from his word studies. Such studies are helpful in that they can give us the range of meanings that a word can convey, but they rarely give us a definitive definition. Again, the immediate context should be allowed to set the definition. This, however, is the very thing Helminiak turns inside out by using definitions that beg the question, overruling the context with his presuppositions. Thus, his entire methodology is invalid. In order to see in detail the problematic nature of his definitions, we shall review each of the words from verses 24 - 27 that appear to damage Helminiak’s position but which, he claims, have no ethical connotations. The first is ‘unnatural’ or ‘exchanged the natural use of’ (verses 26 - 27). Helminiak says that Paul used the term ‘natural’ (physin) to refer to that which is normal, ordinary, or expected. Were this true, the usages in verses 26 - 27 would refer to that which is out of the ordinary or unusual. Helminiak says that such a term has no ethical implications. When we look at the usage of the word, however, we see two slightly different meanings. It is used to refer to the very being or essence of something (Galatians 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; II Peter 1:4; 2:12). It is also used to describe a condition of being born into, from birth, or being “by nature;” it refers to who someone is (Romans 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24; Galatians 2:15; Jude 10). Admittedly, this distinction is strained. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the term does not simply mean “ordinary” or “expected.” It refers to the essence of something or what is inherent; it denotes “who he is.” Helminiak believes that his definition is supported by I Corinthians 11:14, but this is not at all apparent. In this verse, Paul argues that even “nature” shows us that men should not have long hair. His point is that long hair on men tends to blur the male-female distinction. This biological distinction is “who we are;” and, thus, it does not appear that Helminiak’s definition of ‘natural’ has any support whatsoever. To claim that it simply means “ordinary” is to give a completely inadequate and forcibly watered down definition. Interestingly, one could use Helminiak’s word substitution argument to claim that if Paul had meant “unusual,” he would have used paradoxos which, in secular Greek, refers to an unusual or unexpected event and is translated ‘strange’ at Luke 5:26. On the other hand, we do see that the term does not automatically convey ethical condemnation. As always, the context should set the full definition. Even here, Helminiak tries to conclude far too much. Based on Romans 11:21 - 24, he says, “In Paul’s understanding of the words, God himself … did what was ‘unnatural.’ God behaved in an ‘unusual way.’ If to act para physin is immoral, then God must be immoral - and that is patently absurd. Therefore, there can be no moral meaning in those Greek words for Paul” (p. 66). This is simply a glaring non sequitur. Because the term is used once without ethical content, it does not follow that the term can never have ethical content. Again, the context defines the full intent of the term. The next word, atimia, is translated ‘dishonor’ or ‘degrade’ (verse 24) and ‘vile’ or ‘shameful’ (verse 26). Helminiak claims this means “ill reputed” or “socially unacceptable,” and claims that II Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21 support this by telling us that Paul “notes that he is sometimes held in disrepute or shame because of his commitment to Christ. Evidently, then, to be in atimia is not necessarily a bad thing” (p. 71). However, if the first sentence of this quote is true, it means that Jews were applying this term to someone (Paul) whom they thought to be a religious traitor and an idolater (for worshiping Jesus). Thus, on Helminiak’s reading, we should expect such a usage to carry ethical condemnation and not simply imply “socially unacceptable.” He cites I Corinthians 11:14 again; but, as mentioned earlier, this verse is not an example of an arbitrary cultural decree. He then cites Romans 9:21 and claims that “Paul speaks of clay pots fashioned ‘for dishonor.’ That is a polite way of talking about chamber pots, something people do not consider very nice” (p. 72). This is completely incorrect and not a little puzzling. Paul here is speaking of election. Some individuals are vessels for honor (the elect such as Jacob, verse 13), and some are vessels for dishonor (the unregenerate, like Esau, verse 13; “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” verse 22). This whole passage (9:6 - 29) discusses the doctrine of predestination, and the ethical connotations of the words (including ‘dishonor’) are abundantly clear. Ironically, only on a strict “fundamentalist” reading (that which Helminiak supposedly rejects) could one deduce that the subject was unsightly clay pots. That anyone would propose such a reading is quite perplexing. Thus, this passage, added to the others mentioned, shows that the word atimia can certainly have negative ethical connotations. In addition, we can list the following verses which Helminiak never mentioned: Jesus honors his Father, but the Jews “dishonor” Jesus (John 8:49); the wicked vinedressers “shamefully” treated a servant (Mark 12:4; Luke 20:11); breaking the law “dishonors” God (Romans 2:23). In our natural state our bodies have been sown in corruption and “dishonor,” but through the resurrection, our bodies will be raised incorruptible and glorious (I Corinthians 15:43). We must first cleanse ourselves of “dishonor” before we can be useful vessels of honor, sanctified for God’s use (II Timothy 2:20). Finally, those who show partiality against the poor have “dishonored” them (James 2:6). All of these examples have clear negative ethical connotations. Some usages of atimia (see Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4; Acts 5:41; I Corinthians 4:10, II Corinthians 11:21) may have such connotations, and its usage at I Corinthians 12:23 does not. Thus, Helminiak’s argument falls short, not only because atimia often has negative ethical connotations, but it probably has such connotations in the majority of its New Testament usages. The next word, aschemosyne, refers to “shameful” or “unseemly” acts (verse 27). Again, Helminiak tells us that this word carries no moral judgment. He supports this with I Corinthians 7:36 and 12:23. With the second he is correct; but with the first, it is not at all clear that this usage is void of ethical connotations. Helminiak claims that 7:36 refers to that which is socially unacceptable, but he provides no support for such a claim. More interesting perhaps is the example he left out: I Corinthians 13:5 “Love … does not behave ‘rudely’ [or ‘unseemly’].” Thus, aschemosyne can have ethical connotations and, in fact, can refer to that which is unloving. As we will see later, the context puts this word, along with the others, in perspective. The next word, akatharsia, is translated ‘uncleanness’ (verse 24). With this word, Helminiak never argued in favor of his reading. He simply assumed that it refers to ceremonial or social impurity, again, without ethical connotations. Judging by the New Testament usage of the word, however, such an assumption is quite poor. It is used 23 times, mostly in the Gospels, to refer to “unclean” or “foul” spirits. The ethical connotations are clear. In addition, we have the following usages: the Pharisees were full of all “uncleanness” inside (Matthew 23:27); as unbelievers, we presented ourselves as slaves of “uncleanness;” but now, we should present ourselves as slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:19). Without a believing parent, a child would be “unclean” but with a believing parent, the child is holy, i.e., one in covenant with God (I Corinthians 7:14). Paul quotes Isaiah 52:11, to not touch what is “unclean,” in order to conclude, “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (II Corinthians 6:18 - 7:1). Paul mourns for those who have sinned and not repented of their “uncleanness” (II Corinthians 12:21). Among the sinful works of the flesh is “uncleanness” and those who practice this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19). Because of the blindness of their hearts and being alienated from God, unbelieving Gentiles work “uncleanness” (Ephesians 4:19). “Uncleanness” should not even be mentioned by saints, and no “unclean” person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ (Ephesians 5:3 - 5). Because of “uncleanness,” the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience (Colossians 3:5). Paul’s exhortations did not come from error or “uncleanness” (I Thessalonians 2:3). God did not call us to “uncleanness” but in holiness (I Thessalonians 4:7). Babylon the harlot was full of the “filthiness” of her fornication (Revelation 17:4). Thus, akatharsia is used over and over again with negative ethical connotations. On the other hand, it is used only three times (Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8) without moral judgment, and with these three examples the same event is in view. The use in Revelation 18:2 could go either way. It is, therefore, evident that while akatharsia may or may not imply ethical condemnation in any given usage, most New Testament examples of akatharsia do imply such condemnation. This is not at all helpful to Helminiak’s position. Although epithymia, translated ‘lust’ (verse 24), was not discussed in his book, Helminiak did mention it in his lecture. He basically said that a translation of ‘lust’ has negative connotations that are not in the word; the word really means “desire” and carries no ethical pronouncements. While the word does mean “desire,” it is not used often in the New Testament without implying ethical condemnation. Thus, it is often translated ‘lust.’ It is translated ‘desire’ (without negative ethical connotations) eleven times, ‘lust’ (with such connotations) thirty-six times, and ‘covet’ (with such connotations) three times. Further, it is translated ‘lust’ or ‘covet’ six times and is never translated ‘desire’ in the epistle to the Romans. Some examples involving a negative ethical pronouncement include Matthew 5:28; Romans 6:12; 7:7; 13:9, 14; I Timothy 6:9; II Peter 2:10; and I John 2:16, 17. The presence of this word is therefore another problem for Helminiak, since most of its usages by far imply ethical condemnation. At best, Helminiak should say that we cannot be sure until we look at the context. In Helminiak’s system of hermeneutics, this important relationship is inverted. His presuppositions color the choice of definitions that he superimposes onto the passage, and then he ascertains the context based on his predetermined word definitions. A word that Helminiak failed to mention at all is pathos, translated ‘passions’ or ‘affections.’ It is used in verse 26 and modified by the adjective ‘vile’ or ‘dishonorable’ (atimia, mentioned above). Although the word certainly can be used without condemnation, its only New Testament usages outside of Romans 1:26 carry strong ethical condemnation. It is used for “passion” that brings the wrath of God (Colossians 3:5) and for sexually immoral “passion” that brings God’s vengeance (I Thessalonians 4:5). Moreover, the use of atimia as a modifier serves to “pile up” the terms, thus adding emphasis to the degrading nature of the actions under discussion. This does not at all support a reading of ethical neutrality. The final word of this passage to be examined is orexis, translated ‘lust’ (verse 27). This word was, likewise, not discussed in Helminiak’s book but was in his lecture. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to bishops who “desire” good works (I Timothy 3:1), those who have “coveted after” (or “with greediness”) money and strayed from the faith (I Timothy 6:10), and those who “desire” a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16). Clearly then, the word can go either way. In the Romans passage, however, the word is modified to read “burned (ekkaio) in their lust.” Since “burned in their desire” is highly problematic if not incoherent, “lust” is a solid translation. Indeed, “burned in their lust” carries heavy negative ethical connotations. Yet again, we see a problem for Helminiak’s position even apart from the context of the passage. We have thus far encountered a number of words that either usually or almost always carry ethical condemnation including akatharsia, epithymia, pathos with atimia, orexis with ekkaio, and possibly atimia. The fact that all of these condemning words are used and piled on top of one another in verses 24 - 27 gives us strong reasons to see homosexuality as morally condemned based on Helminiak’s own methodology, i.e., without regard for the context. Now we turn to the structure of the passage, which leaves no doubt as to God’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. The first thing to notice is that the subjects involved do not change. The entire passage talks about one group of unrighteous individuals (verse 18). These individuals knew God; but, instead of worshiping Him (verses 21, 28), they worshiped something else (verses 23, 25). As a result, their thoughts became futile and their hearts were darkened (verse 21) leading to all manner of sin (verses 26 - 31). In addition, there is a parallel in actions. These individuals “changed” the glory of God into an image made like man (verse 22) meaning that they “exchanged” (metellaxan) the truth of God for a lie (verse 25). As a result, God gave them up to their own darkened hearts, and the women “exchanged” (metellaxan) the heterosexual act for the homosexual act (verse 26). The men did likewise. As Hays has rightly noted, “the deliberate repetition of the verb metellaxan forges a powerful rhetorical link between the rebellion against God and the ‘shameless acts’ which are themselves both evidence and consequence of that rebellion” [13]. The overall structure of the passage is just as continuous. There are individuals who have suppressed their knowledge of God and worshiped something else; thus, God has given them up to futile thoughts and darkened hearts. “Therefore God also gave them up” to their lusts, to dishonor their bodies (verse 24). “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions” such as homosexuality (verses 26 - 27). “And” since they rejected God, “God gave them over to a debased mind” (verse 28). As a result of rejecting God, He gave them over to the fruit of their darkened hearts. The continuity is plainly visible with the phrases “Therefore God also gave them up,” “For this reason God gave them up,” as well as “And … God gave them over.” There is not the slightest hint of discontinuity in the passage, much less some abrupt swing from immoral (verses 18 - 23) to ethically neutral (verses 24 - 27) and back to immoral (verses 28 - 32). Helminiak’s attempt at eliminating this continuity is completely without merit. Recall that he claimed, Three times Paul repeats the phrase, “God gave them up.” This repetition divides his statement into different sections. Paul is arguing that, because they did not worship God, two situations resulted … . [In verses 24 - 27] Paul talks of the first effect of Gentile idolatry: uncleanness in sexual matters. In verse 28 Paul moves on to the second effect. He recalls his main argument: neglect of God brought these things on the Gentiles. He begins verse 28 with “And.” Evidently, he is introducing something new. This time he goes on to talk of evil, malice and real sins (pp. 75 - 76). Nothing in this passage is coherent. First, he claims that “God gave them up” divides Paul’s statement into different sections. There are no “sections” in the text. Paul discusses what ungodly individuals do and then says, “Therefore God gave them up to … dishonor their bodies.” He then repeats the sin of idolatry and explains what it means to dishonor one’s body by saying “For this reason God gave them up to [homosexual lust, thus] receiving in themselves the penalty of their error.” He then gives us other consequences by saying “And … God gave them up to [numerous other sins].” There are no sections or discontinuities. We are told what these people did with the result that God gave them up to all manner of sin which emanated from their futile minds and darkened hearts. The claim that “And” somehow shows that Paul was introducing something new is likewise incorrect. Paul used “And” not to introduce something conceptually new but to introduce additional consequences of having a darkened heart. “For this reason, God gave them up to [one manner of sin]. And [to other sins as well].” Were we to grant Helminiak’s twin walls of separation, we would simply make nonsense out of the text. The content of his overall argument is also incoherent. It requires that, because these individuals rejected God, He gave them up to cultural taboos. In other words, these people knew God; and, with malice aforethought, they did willfully and odiously reject the sovereign Ruler of the universe. And what was their punishment? Ethically neutral cultural taboos! The suggestion that, because they rejected God and worshiped and served the creature, God gave them up to a cultural faux pas is completely beyond belief and constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of Helminiak’s position. How could someone make such a claim? Apparently, Helminiak does not think such an argument is ridiculous, because he believes that it shows that Paul was using a clever ploy designed to “sucker” the Jewish Christians. According to the summary sheet that Helminiak gave during his lecture, The first chapter of Romans is a rhetorical ploy. Paul portrays the two requirements of the Jewish Law, purity and justice. He baits the Jewish Christians in Rome by appealing to their sense of superiority in keeping the Law: they are not involved in the dirty things the Gentiles do! … . But Paul quickly turns the tables on them. Against the Jewish Christians (2:1), he argues that issues of ritual purity have no importance in Christ like circumcision, food laws, and sexual mores. Against the Gentile Christians (11:13), he argues that they owe respect to the Jews, the first to be chosen by God … . In 14:14, Paul finally comes clean on his genuine teaching about purity, ethics, and conscience. He writes, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” In sum, Paul quotes Jewish prejudice against Gentile sexual practices precisely to reject it. This quotation is seriously problematic. To begin with, we note that the claim was made that “sexual mores” were issues of ritual purity; thus, Paul argued that they have no importance in Christ. This is completely wrong and preposterous. Paul knew very well the sinfulness of adultery (Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9 - 10; Galatians 5:19 - 21), incest (I Corinthians 5:1), fornication (I Corinthians 6:9 - 10, 18; Galatians 5:19 - 21; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalonians 4:3 - 7), and lust (Romans 13:14; Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 2:1 - 3; II Timothy 2:22). The whole reason for the excommunication described in I Corinthians 5 is based on a violation of Leviticus 18:8. Thus, the claim dealing with sexual mores does not hold up to scrutiny. Moreover, Helminiak should have seen that this argument is problematic. Paul did go on to explain that the ceremonial laws addressing circumcision (Romans 3:25 - 29) and food (Romans 14:1 - 23) were no longer necessary. Indeed this was nothing new; circumcision had been discussed at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1 - 21) and, by analogy, the question of the dietary laws had also been addressed (Acts 10:9 - 16). However, neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever said that the Old Testament laws regulating sexual conduct had been abrogated. Indeed, as we just saw, Paul upheld such laws. Helminiak’s addition of “sexual mores” is wishful thinking on his part - totally without merit. Paul never argued for the neutrality of such acts; indeed, he argued against them, all the while assuming all the Old Testament proscriptions that Helminiak thinks are irrelevant cultural prejudices. Another problem can be seen with this passage when we note that Helminiak has taken 14:14 out of context. What, after all, does he think this verse entails? If he truly thinks it entails that nothing is wrong in the areas of “purity, ethics, and conscience,” then he should have no problem with rape, murder, or adultery. Clearly this is absurd, but if this is not what Helminiak thinks that the verse entails, why did he imply that its purview is so broad? When this verse is put in context, its meaning becomes clear. The verse appears in the context of Paul’s explanation of dietary habits (14:1 - 23). Paul is saying that there is no food “unclean” in itself (verse 14); but if someone thinks that a food is “unclean,” it is “unclean” for him (verse 14). Therefore, a Christian should not grieve his brother with food (verse 15). This has nothing to do with sexual behavior. Moreover, the word translated ‘unclean’ in 14:14 is not akatharsia, which almost always carries ethical condemnation, but koinos, which is also translated ‘common’ and often has nonethical and ceremonial usages. By Helminiak’s own method of word analysis, his attempt to liken the “unclean” of 14:14 to the “uncleanness” of 1:24 is unsuccessful. With respect to the passage under consideration then, we see that Helminiak took Paul’s arguments regarding circumcision and dietary laws, incorrectly connected them to Romans 1, and illegitimately attached the behavior he is defending onto the list of purity issues. One final argument concerning Romans 1 is left to examine. Here, Helminiak gives his position on why Paul chose homosexuality as the “purity issue” for his example in his Romans 1 argument instead of some other purity issue such as circumcision. Paul could not talk about clean and unclean foods because debate over foods was still splitting the Christian communities. Likewise, circumcision was still too sensitive an issue. But evidently homogenitality was not. It was an obvious point of difference, and apparently there was no argument over it. The Jews were well aware that Leviticus forbade male-male sex only as an impurity; they would not say the Gentiles were sinning because of their homogenital practices. Paul’s mention of homogenitality could let the Jewish Christians feel superior without, in anyone’s eyes, accusing the Gentile Christians of real sin. At the same time, the whole Gentile world was well aware of the Jews’ peculiar attitude toward homogenital acts. The Gentiles just chuckled and shrugged the whole thing off. They would not be offended if Paul raised that issue in his letter (pp. 81 - 82). First, we may inquire as to why Paul could not bring up the sensitive issues. Such issues were openly debated, before and after the epistle to the Romans was written. The apostles had no problem discussing circumcision at the Jerusalem Council. Paul had no problem confronting Peter as well as the Galatians when they erred concerning circumcision and separation (Galatians 1:6 - 7; 2:11 - 14; 3:1 - 4; 5:1 - 6). Paul had no problem addressing the question of food in a straightforward manner when writing to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 10:23 - 33). The fact that the other possible examples were controversial is, therefore, irrelevant. The apostles did not, and did not need to, dance around controversial issues. Moreover, the second part of the passage proves absolutely nothing. To see that this is true, simply substitute “eating certain foods” for every reference to homosexual behavior: The Jews were well aware that Leviticus forbade eating certain foods only as an impurity; they would not say the Gentiles were sinning because of their dietary practices. Paul’s mention of the dietary practices could let the Jewish Christians feel superior without, in anyone’s eyes, accusing the Gentile Christians of real sin. At the same time, the whole Gentile world was well aware of the Jews’ peculiar attitude toward the eating of certain foods. The Gentiles just chuckled and shrugged the whole thing off. They would not be offended if Paul raised that issue in his letter. It fits Helminiak’s argument just as well as homosexual sex does. One can substitute circumcision into the text as well (remember to change ‘forbade’ to ‘require’) and achieve the same result. Thus, any purity issue could be substituted into the argument and the conclusion would not change. Therefore, his whole argument is useless, because it does not make the distinctions he said were important. That is, it does not rule out dietary laws and circumcision, which was supposed to be the point of his argument. In conclusion, Helminiak’s explanation of Romans 1 is not a proper reading of the text. To begin with, a study of the words in verses 24 - 27 shows not only that they can carry ethical condemnation, it shows that a number of the words very often carry such condemnation. Further, the context of the verses (18 - 32) leaves no doubt that homosexual acts are sinful. The passage is clearly continuous, explaining that some reject God; and, as a result, He gives them up to the sinful desires of their hearts. The twin walls of separation that Helminiak tries to force on the text are completely alien. Not only does the context exclude such a construct, the construct, if applied, renders the text incoherent. In addition, Helminiak’s “rhetorical ploy” argument is without merit and, far from abrogating the laws that prohibit certain sexual actions, Paul relies on them. Finally, even Helminiak’s argument explaining why Paul would use homosexuality in Romans 1 is a failure. The fact that some issues were often debated is irrelevant, and his actual explanation does not rule out any of the other options. I Corinthians 6:9 - 10; I Timothy 1:9 - 10 In these passages, two (mostly different) lists of sins are given; and in both lists a certain Greek word, arsenokoitai, is included. This word is variously translated with terms such as ‘sodomites,’ ‘homosexuals,’ and in the King James Version with the interesting phrase ‘abusers of themselves with mankind.’ The word has received a fair amount of attention, and not a little controversy surrounds it; it is not known to have been used before Paul’s examples, and its use after those examples is comparatively rare. The question, therefore, is to what activity does this word refer? Etymologically, the word is composed of two parts arsen (male, man) and koite (bed, lying, i.e., coitus). It is thus recognized that the word refers to some type of sexual activity involving at least one male. It is often said that the word refers to homosexuals; and, therefore, Helminiak spends some time on it. To begin with, he offers us an argument that points to the alleged linguistic ambiguity of the word. “But when the two parts of the word are put together, it is not clear what the word means. Is ‘man’ to emphasize the gender of the sexual agent: male? Or is ‘man’ to indicated the object of the sexual act? That is, does arsenokoitai mean a man who has sex with others, or does it mean a man who has sex with men?” (p. 89). The first option, that the word refers to a man who has sex with others, is clearly ruled out by Scripture. Not only may a man have sex with his wife, he is commanded to do so in the proper confines of marriage (I Corinthians 7:1 - 5). Thus, the first option is not a possibility at all, and we are left with the view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexual sex. This view can also be seen from the post-Pauline usage of the word. In refuting the arguments for a definition of arsenokoitai given by John Boswell [14], whom Helminiak uses for much of his material, David Wright shows from other usages of the word that the arseno prefix does, in fact, denote the object; and, thus, the word does refer to homosexual sex [15]. In addition, Helminiak does tell us “it is likely that arsenokoitai does refer to some form of male homogenital behavior” (pp. 90 - 91), and he bases his main argument on this belief. Therefore, we can move on to his main argument. As it turns out, the origins of arsenokoitai provide a real problem for Helminiak’s position. We can see this by referring to the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In English, these verses clearly tell men not to “lie with a man as with a woman.” Helminiak agrees that these verses condemn homosexual sex in an unqualified manner. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew of 18:22 in Greek as “meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos.” The Septuagint’s rendering of 20:13 makes the connection even more apparent with “os an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.” This strongly suggests that Hellenistic Jews some time before Paul basically fused the two root words arsen and koite together to form arsenokoites from which, the plural arsenokoitai is derived. Arsenokoitai, then, refers to men who have sex with men. Notice also that the word is unqualified. It does not refer to male-male sex under certain religious or cultural conditions. It refers to male-male sex without any distinctions. This point will be important later. In addition to the above examination, we can also note that Jews before Paul’s time had taken the phrase “lies with a male” and turned it into a noun of sorts with the Hebrew construction mishkav zakur. This is the phrase used to refer to a male homosexual. As it turns out, arsenokoites is a near exact and literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The definition of arsenokoitai therefore seems sure. None of this, however, will come as a shock to Helminiak. Not only does he know the previous information, he explains it on page 91 of his book. One may wonder then why Helminiak does not see in arsenokoitai, an allusion to and reaffirmation of the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual sex. Instead, he offers an argument that he thinks will show that arsenokoitai only referred to a specific type of homosexual sex. The argument, which appears on pages 92 - 94, can be seen below: (P1) The lists of sins are not Paul’s own. (P2) Paul borrowed these lists from other sources that reflect the attitude of the culture at large. Therefore, (P3) We need to know what was happening in the culture at large to determine the specific nature of arsenokoitai. (P4) The culture at large decried male-male sex that was exploitative and abusive such as when a slave owner sexually abused his slaves. Therefore, (P5) The term, arsenokoitai condemns abusive male-male sex but not male-male sex per se. This argument is flawed at a number of points and from a number of different angles. Starting from the final conclusion and working backwards, we first note that (P5) is a non sequitur. It does not follow that, because many social commentators complained about a certain form of homosexual sex, arsenokoitai must refer to that form (especially if they used different words to refer to that specific form). There could have been several different words that referred to variations of homosexual sex and arsenokoitai could have been used as a general term. Indeed, as we saw above, arsenokoitai is etymologically unqualified. In fact, there were numerous other words that referred to qualified types of love/sex such as paiderastia (love of boys), paidophthoria (often used for seduction of boys), doulokoites (sex with slaves), klepsikoites (seeking illicit sex), etc. Arsenokoitai, however, has no such qualifications. In addition, Wright also shows that the word was used after Paul without the qualification that Helminiak seeks to place on it [16]. Thus, not only is (P5) a non sequitur, the evidence instead points toward an unqualified definition for arsenokoitai. With regard to (P4), Helminiak provides no evidence at all to support such a claim. Indeed, the claim itself is certainly dubious. Many sexual variations existed in antiquity, and most of them were disapproved of by someone. In the Roman Empire, about which Helminiak makes this remark, there were a number of disreputable sexual manifestations including homosexuality (in general), public nudity, heterosexual and homosexual prostitution, heterosexual and homosexual religious ceremonies, and so forth [17, 18]. These consensual practices are on top of the abuse of slaves, youths, prostitutes, etc. The Stoic, Platonic, and Cynic influences on the Roman culture had helped to make it fairly conservative; and, thus, denunciation came for numerous practices that were not physically abusive, including consensual homosexual sex. For Helminiak to claim that abusive sex alone was seen as unsatisfactory is simply not accurate. Further, (P3) has not been established, because (P1) and (P2) are nothing less than incoherent when propounded by a professing Christian. While an atheist might assert such a claim, a Christian could by no means assert that the Bible teaches a culturally and democratically conditioned theory of ethics. Divorced from the absolute and unchanging will of God, ethics becomes nothing more than the random electro-chemical reactions of carbon-based bags of mostly water. As Paul said in another context, it would simply be “beating the air.” Fortunately, this is not the case, because Paul did not steal his ethical pronouncements from the uninspired men around him. Paul’s lists are theopneustos, i.e., God-breathed (II Timothy 3:16). Helminiak would do well to remember that “if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I [Paul] write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (I Corinthians 14:37), and again, the list of sins in I Timothy is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust” (I Timothy 1:11). To the extent that these sins were bemoaned by others of Paul’s day, those people were simply revealing a part of the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14 - 15) that they had not suppressed (Romans 1:18). There is no culturally relative (and therefore arbitrary and irrelevant) ethic here.

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

LAST PART OF THE PAPER

So we are left with the clear judgment that this argument does not have one redeeming aspect. (P1) and (P2) are incoherent if asserted from the Christian worldview, (P4) is factually incorrect, and beyond all this, (P5) does not follow as a conclusion and in fact, the etymological and contextual evidence points against it. Arsenokoitai is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets its roots from the Septuagint’s rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex. It follows then that homosexuals are outside the kingdom of Christ. Without the life-changing power of the gospel, there is no real hope for anyone including the homosexual. Contextually, Paul treats this subject after his discussion of church discipline (I Corinthians 5). It follows that the Church must bar homosexuals from its membership and treat them as unbelievers until such time as they can say, “I was a homosexual, but I no longer am. I am now a new creature in Christ, washed and sanctified by His blood.” Church discipline is an act of Christian love, having as its main goals the restoration of the erring individual and the protection of the Church from evil influences. Such a former homosexual should be received with open arms and treated like any other Christian. Adam and Steve? Very briefly, the Adam-and-Eve-not-Adam-and-Steve argument says that since the creation account shows that God made man and woman as a complementary pair, those who advocate the ethical neutrality of same-sex acts have a problem (the force given to the conclusion will vary). In response to this, Helminiak tells us that The point [of the Genesis account] was to present a picture of our world in its sad and sinful state and to insist that this situation was not God’s doing … . Genesis makes its point by presenting a story, and the story involves an example. The example is the case that is by far the most common in human experience: the man, the woman, their relationship with one another, and the children they may beget. The biblical author merely presents the standard case within ancient Hebrew life. What better example would one use to make a point? But the story is only the vehicle for conveying the religious point. The story of Adam and Eve as such is incidental to the point (p. 101). This passage, like the ones mentioned at the beginning of this paper, assumes a rather low view of Scripture. This is simply another example of Helminiak’s belief that the Genesis account is an allegory written by culturally conditioned men who were trying to explain that which they saw around them. The problem, as we saw numerous times above, is that this basically presupposes the autonomous man worldview. It states that Scripture is the attempt by clueless ancients to explain what they saw, thus ignoring the normative Source (and force) of Scripture. On the contrary, the Genesis account does not reflect the attempt by scientifically ignorant sheepherders to explain their surroundings. It is the God-breathed account of creation, given to us, of course, by God. In it, we first find that “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male [zakar] and female [neqebah] He created them” (Genesis 1:27). It is interesting to note here that the Hebrew words refer to the biological distinctives of the two sexes. At the very beginning, we see that God created, in his image, a complementary pair of individuals. This is the standard. It is amplified later when we see that … the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” … And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [ish].” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:18 - 24). The different sexes were made as such in order to be a complementary pair of individuals who should, upon maturity, enter into the biblical institution of marriage and “become one flesh.” In this union, we have both unity and diversity. This combination of unity and diversity reflects, on the creature’s level, the unity and diversity that is the Trinity. Though homosexual relationships attempt to mimic this union, there is no diversity in such relationships, and the “unity” is artificial (not to mention physically harmful). We therefore see that the creation of mankind in His image as well as the attainment of maturity leading to a union within the institution of marriage is based on and carried out by the male-female complementary pair. This is God’s design. This is Paul’s view of “nature.” In addition, we find that the relationship between a man and his wife is explained by Christ’s relationship to the church. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word … . So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh … (Ephesians 5:22 - 29). Just as Christ and the church marry to become one (Revelation 21:2, 9 - 21), so also the man and woman marry to become one. Just as Christ and the church, through this union, are one body (Ephesians 1:22 - 23), so also the man and woman become one flesh. Just as Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18), so also the man is head of the woman. Just as Christ loved the church even unto death, so also the man should love the woman with a Christlike love. The union of male and female is thus modeled after Christ’s relationship to the church. So it is that in three very important ways (our creation in His image, maturity leading to the institution of marriage, and the analogous relationship between Christ and the church), the male-female pair is seen as the model or design. Quite frankly, anyone who supports Helminiak’s position on this matter should be furious. At the very least, a supporter of Helminiak’s position should consider the Author of the Bible to be strongly prejudiced against homosexuality. Actually this would be far too weak a conclusion. Without regard for political correctness, God has told us that this is how I made you: a complementary pair - male and female. He has told us that when these two mature, they shall bring their created distinctions together and become one in marriage. He has told us that this biblically ordained institution should emulate Christ and his bride, the church. If God’s choice of Adam and Eve (i.e., a male and a female) were merely incidental to what He was telling us in Genesis, it would make nonsense out of the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:28). Furthermore, it would make nonsense out of several other biblical events and relationships, all of which are fundamental to the Christian faith. To have Adam and Steve would fly in the face of the Creator’s design. This is a primary motivation behind the New Testament language that homosexuality is “against nature,” an “abomination,” and as such, those who practice it will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” Moreover, any attempt by man to remove the male-female distinction is met with God’s proscriptions. Men are not to dress in women’s clothing and women are not to dress in man’s (Deuteronomy 22:5). Indeed, men are not to try to look like women even in such a seemingly minor issue as hair length (see above discussion of I Corinthians 11:14). The roles of men and women in the home and in the church are distinctive, and homosexuality blurs the distinction. Examples of Biblical Homosexuality? Toward the end of his book, Helminiak mentions three stories from the Bible that he claims could be seen as positive accounts of homosexuality in the Bible. Two of them, involving what Helminiak calls “serious speculation” (p. 105), are too ridiculous to mention; to his credit, Helminiak does not try to draw any forceful conclusions from them. It appears, however, that Helminiak sees some force in the third one, and so we will address it. We will also address a story that Helminiak reviewed at length in his lecture which does not appear in his book. The first story to be reviewed is the relationship between Jonathan and David found in I and II Samuel. Helminiak’s explanation of that relationship is seen below. For example, I Samuel 18:1 - 4 recounts a striking show of affection on the part of the prince, Jonathan, toward the ruddy and handsome shepherd boy, David, newly come to the court: [quotation of I Samuel 18:1 - 4]. King Saul’s angry outburst against Jonathan in I Samuel 20:30 is also revealing: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse [i.e., David] to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” … Saul disparages Jonathan’s relationship with David. The Hebrew of this verse is ambiguous; and, following the Greek Septuagint translation, could also be rendered, “Do I not know that you are an intimate companion to the Son of Jesse?” Then, given that the words “shame” and “nakedness” are common biblical ways of talking about sex, surely the innuendo here is sexual. It appears that Saul is deriding Jonathan’s sexual liaison with David … (p. 103). To begin with, we should first note that the word for love, ahab, used in the chapter 18 passage does not inherently possess the sexual overtones that Helminiak implies. It is used variously to denote a man’s love for his wife (Genesis 24:67), a man’s love for his son (Genesis 25:28), a woman’s love for her son (Genesis 25:28), the Lord’s love for His servant (II Samuel 12:24), the Lord’s love for His people (II Chronicles 2:11), a servant’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3), all of Israel’s and Judah’s love for David (I Samuel 18:16), the love of God’s commandments (Psalms 119:47), and the wicked’s love of cursing (Psalms 109:17). While it certainly can and does refer to love between individuals who are sexually intimate, it does not, in any way, imply sexuality per se. The attempt to link the word ‘shame’ (bosheth) to sex is even more problematic. This word is rarely, in fact, used with sexual connotations and is often used without such connotations (II Chronicles 32:21; Job 8:22; Psalms 35:26; 40:15; 44:15; 69:19; 70:3; Isaiah 30:3 - 5; Jeremiah 3:24 - 25; 7:19; Habakkuk 2:10; Zephaniah 3:5, 19, etc.). It is most often used to express embarrassment, humiliation, disgrace, and dishonor without so much as a hint of sexual overtones. Helminiak’s comment with regards to the word ‘shame’ is therefore puzzling. Moving to the context of the story, we encounter beliefs that are even more problematic. Apparently, Helminiak thinks that Jonathan’s disrobing also has sexual implications. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In context, we see that Saul tried to kill David several times (18:6 - 11, 17; 19:1; 20:31), because he wanted his son Jonathan to be next in line for the crown. He knew, however, that David had already been chosen by God (16:1 - 13). Even Jonathan knew that David was to be the next king (23:16 - 17). This is why Jonathan gave David his robe, armor, and weapons. These gifts from Jonathan signified his knowledge that David was God’s chosen king. Jonathan was, in a sense, giving the crown to David, since the robe refers to kingship (15:27 - 28). Thus, the word bachar is correctly translated ‘chosen’ at 20:30; there is no ambiguity. Saul was outraged because Jonathan had recognized and “chosen” David as the next king instead of himself. Helminiak should not have stopped at verse 30. “Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die” (20:30 - 31). Thus, we see that the subject is kingship - not sexuality. Jonathan’s choice was shameful for him and his mother (according to Saul), because it meant that the crown had left him and his family line. Again, we see a truncated quote by Helminiak in order to support a tortured interpretation. It is also quite apparent, even apart from the fact that the gift of the robe was in reference to the kingship, that the fact of being unclothed often has nothing at to do with sexuality. Over and over again, we see in the Bible that someone has torn their clothes because of distress. Indeed, in the very same story, we find that, “the Spirit of God was upon him [Saul] also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he also [like the men he had sent previously] stripped off his clothes and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night” (19:23 - 24). This again just supports, from another angle, what we saw above. The story in question has nothing to do with sexuality. Instead it deals with Jonathan’s recognition and transfer of kingship to David and Saul’s outrage over Jonathan’s actions. Helminiak also quoted II Samuel 1:26 on page 104 with the insinuation that the subject is a homosexual relationship. We should note, however, that this verse falls within a song filled with imagery and metaphorical lyric. The song tells us that Saul and Jonathan were “swifter than eagles” and “stronger than lions” (1:23). Does Helminiak want to take this verse literally as well? Is beauty really slain on an altar (1:19)? Can a shield be defiled (1:21)? In addition, Jonathan is called “my brother” (1:26), but there are no familial relations to be found here. Moreover, this song was to be taught to the children of Judah (1:18). Are we to believe that David told the men to teach the children of Judah a song which makes reference to an act that God said is an abomination punishable by death? In addition, we know that the Lord looks on the heart (I Samuel 16:7); consequently, He chose David, a man after the Lord’s own heart (I Samuel 13:14). Indeed, throughout this early period of David’s life, the Lord was with him (I Samuel 16:18; 18:14). Are we really supposed to believe that someone whom the Lord was with and who was “after His own heart” was, at the same time, violating God’s law by committing an abominable act worthy of the death penalty? In the end, all that Helminiak shows from these passages is that he can force onto the text an “eroto-centric” mindset that does not recognize the ability of men to love each other in a nonsexual manner. Earlier, we saw that Helminiak’s definition of the concept of “love” has almost nothing in common with the biblical view of that concept. We saw how his definition reflects a humanistic, autonomous-man understanding, laden with sexuality at its core. With his exposition of David and Jonathan, we have an example of how this erroneous view distorts Scripture. Indeed, Helminiak’s view completely misses the main point, i.e., the sacrificial (and biblical) nature of Jonathan’s love (he gave up the crown and then died for his people); and, instead, imports an eroto-centric concept of love into the text. Finally, here we see yet another example of his smuggling autonomous-man presuppositions into his interpretation of the Bible, thus rendering that interpretation incoherent. This is certainly ironic, since the act of foisting a modern mindset onto the text is one of the very things for which he most strongly criticizes “fundamentalists.” The story that Helminiak reviewed in his lecture involved Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s slave (Matthew 8:5 - 13; Luke 7:1 - 10). Concerning this event, Helminiak made some dauntless and groundless assumptions in order to arrive at the sub-conclusion that the centurion and his servant were homosexual lovers. He then applied this sub-conclusion to the text to reach his final conclusion: (V1) Since Jesus met a homosexual, and since the Scriptures do not show that He condemned him for his sexual preference, it is almost surely the case that Jesus did not think that homosexuality is sinful. What shall we say about this? First, as was already mentioned, Helminiak’s assumptions are simply unsupported conjecture and again reflect his unbiblical concept of “love” which must have “sexuality” at its core. He pointed out that the centurion was probably wealthy, but whether or not the centurion was wealthy is irrelevant to Helminiak’s argument. He also pointed out that the slave was probably young (see below concerning the use of the Greek word pais), and that, therefore, he probably did not have high utility as a worker. In addition, he claimed that the Greek word entimos (translated ‘dear’ in Luke 7:2) means “deeply cared for.” Since one male applied this term to another male, and since the slave was probably not there for his high utility value, we allegedly have good grounds for supposing that the two were engaging in a homosexual relationship. This is quite a leap. To begin with, the fact that the slave may have been young (how young is unknown) really says nothing about his capabilities as a slave. Not all slaves, after all, were used for heavy labor. Moreover, entimos can be variously translated ‘valued,’ ‘dear,’ ‘honorable,’ or ‘precious.’ It is rendered ‘more honorable’ in Luke 14:28, ‘in esteem’ or ‘in reputation’ in Philippians 2:29, and ‘precious’ in I Peter 2:4, 6. Here again, we see Helminiak’s propensity for arbitrarily choosing the definition he likes the most. By doing this, he imports his own presuppositions into the text. Even granting that the word should be translated ‘precious’ or ‘deeply cared for’ as opposed to ‘dear,’ ‘honorable,’ or ‘valuable’ (quite an assumption), Helminiak’s argument is still a non sequitur. It is, after all, entirely possible for a male to apply such words to another male without implying anything of a sexual nature. Indeed, none of the biblical usages of the word entimos even hint at having a sexual content. Looked at from another angle, however, something ironic emerges. If we take the same method of argumentation and apply it to the very example that Helminiak uses, we must reach a conclusion that directly contradicts his position with respect to the institution of slavery. Earlier in his lecture, Helminiak mentioned that there are some people (past and present) who try to justify slavery on biblical grounds. He made it clear that he thought this position was disdainful (he likewise derides the institution of slavery on page 29 of his book by assuming that it is a “clear case” of what is wrong). In addition, Helminiak correctly notes that the text under consideration is talking about a slave and not just a child. Although the Greek word pais can refer to a child or a servant, doulos, which is also used in this story, refers only to a slave. The imprudence of Helminiak’s methodology should be evident to all. According to Helminiak’s own method of argumentation, we should reach the conclusion that (V2) Since Jesus met a slave owner, and since the Scriptures do not show that He condemned him for that practice, it is almost surely the case that Jesus did not think that slavery is sinful. So, in his exuberance to find support for his humanistic presuppositions, Helminiak adopts a methodology that would condone what he elsewhere claims to be a clearcut case of sin. Yet again, we see confirmation of the proposal mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Helminiak is not operating from a Christian worldview. His presuppositional commitment in favor of the ethical neutrality of homosexual behavior, based on the autonomous man worldview, has again led him to beg the question with respect to vocabulary and to present an argument that, even if it were sound, would contradict his (presupposed?) position on another matter. Conclusion Numerous passages have been reviewed, and some consistent themes regarding Helminiak’s beliefs and argumentation have emerged. It is clear that Helminiak’s argument, before we even get to the specific topic at hand, is self-refuting, because he does not start with the Christian worldview. He begins by tacitly assuming that the atheist is correct when he believes in his own mind as the ultimate authority. As a result, the Bible is not the final court of arbitration for ethics. In his mind (which, of course, begs the question), as “a thinking person,” numerous subjective and secular details come to bear on the matter. This is, as was noted previously, self-refuting, because one cannot pretend to explain the Christian position while standing on a worldview that is diametrically opposed to that position. Within the Christian worldview, moral law reflects God’s normative and unchanging will. He tells us what is ethical and what is not. Helminiak’s position rests on the rejection of the Christian divine command theory in favor of man’s scholarly endeavors. His position is therefore incoherent. He will not be able give us a coherent explanation concerning “what the Bible really says” about ethics until he first rejects his unbiblical presuppositions regarding the metaphysical and epistemological foundation of ethics. It is also clear that Helminiak’s more immediate assumptions regarding homosexual behavior have led him to beg the question numerous times with respect to semantic analysis. Over and over again, he dogmatically defined words in order to support his position. Often, this was accompanied by tendentious quoting of certain passages that demonstrated the definition he favored without a consideration of all the passages in which the specific word appears. Word studies should only be used to set the range of potential definitions, and all usages of the word should be noted. Moreover, contrary to Helminiak, the immediate context is always the final arbiter of a word’s definition. A number of times, we saw how Helminiak’s arguments either refuted each other, or refuted his position on other matters. From the absurd belief that the commands in Leviticus 18 - 20 were necessarily nonethical commands, to his careless use of zimah, to the ill-chosen example of the centurion slave owner, Helminiak has demonstrated that his position is a mass of inconsistencies and absurdities. We also saw many inaccurate claims made by Helminiak with respect to historical and contextual issues such as the claim that homosexual acts in the first-century Roman Empire were only decried because they were abusive, or the claim that the “vessels of dishonor” in Romans 9 were unsightly pots. Again, most of these problems can be attributed to Helminiak’s attempt to force the biblical text to agree with his presuppositions. This is not exegesis, but eisegesis. When proper hermeneutical principles are applied to the relevant passages, and when we rid those passages of Helminiak’s preconceived beliefs, it becomes clear that his view of homosexual behavior is mistaken. Such behavior is condemned without qualification in Leviticus, and this condemnation is assumed to be valid by Paul when he discusses the depravity as well as the end result of homosexual behavior. The entire Bible, in fact, presupposes that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. The creation of mankind was distinctly heterosexual, Christ’s relationship to the church is like that of a man and his wife, and the marriage union and the dominion mandate are distinctly heterosexual such that a homosexual version would make no sense. In today’s culture it has become fashionable to wave high the flags of uncritical acceptance and tolerance as moral virtues or even absolutes. The issue of homosexual behavior provides yet another example of such a mindset. The modern mindset seems to be that it is simply “mean-spirited” and “extreme” to oppose such a “loving” practice. The well is poisoned before the discussion even begins. Often, such views come from truly sincere and well-meaning individuals. This, in fact, may be one of the most difficult as well as dangerous aspects of the situation to surmount. It is easy to fool ourselves into believing that, based on our “loving” motives, our positions must be right. “How can anything that feels so right be wrong?” Even apart from the fallacious nature of such a belief, the practical danger is apparent. Like the enabling spouse who “covers for” her alcoholic husband, thus making it easier for him to drink himself into oblivion, we seem to be more than willing to put aside sound biblical principles to facilitate “good will,” to avoid being seen as boat rockers, or to avoid offending non-Christians in hopes of increasing the probability of winning them to Christ. Ultimately, as Christians, we need to ask ourselves the critical question. “Whose standard will I submit to in order to direct my life and my views?” In the end, the sincerity, kindness, and personality of those who engage in the act in question (whatever it may be) are completely irrelevant, as is our intuition concerning the level of harmlessness we believe that act entails. Will we submit to God as the only standard, or will we reject that standard in favor of our intuition, feelings, or scholarly opinions? On the question of homosexual behavior, God’s Word is crystal clear. However, our treatment would not be complete without some mention of the Christian’s responsibilities. This complex subject has been treated in the excellent book by Bahnsen [19], and we will only summarize his treatment here. Homosexual acts are inherently sinful, as taught in many ways in Scripture. Homosexuals, like all others who are unrighteous, are outside the kingdom of Christ (I Corinthians 6:9, 10). God reveals His will in the Bible, and it is our responsibility in carrying out the Great Commission to proclaim His will accurately and in love. If the accurate proclamation of what the Bible says offends someone, so be it; of course, we should be careful to never add any offense to it and never to compromise on its teaching. We cannot convert the souls of others; only God can convert the soul. However, the law of God plays a significant role in conversion (Psalm 19:7; Galatians 3:24). The power of Christ will transform any sinner who surrenders unconditionally to Him in repentance, once and for all, including homosexuals. Indeed, the gospel of Christ offers the only real hope for homosexuals. This is why Paul could say “such were some of you” and confidently proclaim that anyone who is “in Christ is a new creation.” The apostle John could add that no one who abides in Him willfully and habitually sins, sin being the transgression of the law of God (I John 3:4 - 6). This does not imply that Christians are perfect - just that sin no longer dominates their life. As incongruous with the law of God and new creation as homosexual acts are, it is unthinkable that a true Christian would ever commit such a heinous act. Certainly we would have grounds to suspect our own conversion if we continued to commit those specific sins that dominated our lives before our profession of faith, especially if they were among the sins that place one outside the kingdom of Christ or that merited the death penalty under Mosaic law (such things as murder, rape, homosexual acts, etc.). Of course, not all professing Christians really belong to Christ. Since we do not know hearts, it is our responsibility to see to it that any professing Christian who commits a homosexual act is disciplined by the Church. The most severe discipline the Church can impose is to treat the professing Christian as an unbeliever until he learns to hate his immoral behavior to the point that he renounces it. He cannot be received back into church membership or at the Lord’s Table until this issue is settled. When it is settled, then he should be received with open arms and treated like any other Christian (Matthew 18:15 - 17; I Corinthians 5). It also follows that those who teach doctrine contrary to that which is taught in Scripture must be subject to Church discipline as well. False teachers, such as “gay theologians,” are not to be tolerated in the Church. Bahnsen also considers the state’s responsibilities. While not all Christians will agree with Bahnsen’s position on this subject, his compelling arguments cannot be ignored. As we’ve seen in this study, homosexual acts fall into the category of crimes under God’s law. Since only God’s law is “perfect” (Psalm 19:7) and brings true liberty (Psalms 119:44 - 47; James 1:25; 2:12), as part of the dominion mandate Christians should be working to bring about the reformation of society, so that its laws are in conformity with Biblical law (Deuteronomy 4:6 - 8). As part of that activity, for example, Christians in every culture should be exerting pressure on civil authorities to enforce God’s law, which requires execution of capital offenders, after due process. Capital crimes under biblical law include murder, rape, adultery, child molestation, homosexual acts, etc. (Note that individuals who are not civil government officials, who attempt to “enforce” any of God’s laws by being violent aggressors against sinners, are themselves sinning.) The humanist in us may have a hard time with such strong measures, but the law of God is a delight to the new nature (Psalm 19:7 - 10; 119:16, 24, 35, 47, etc.; Romans 7:22). If one thinks that God’s laws are too harsh, he is presupposing the existence of a standard outside of God Himself. It is not our place to judge God’s law, but rather to obey it (James 4:11); God’s commandments are not burdensome to the Christian (I John 5:3). John went on to say that those who are “of God” listen to biblical doctrine; but those who are not, do not (I John 4:6). Doctrinally, if one is soft on homosexuality, willing to tolerate this act in the Church or in society, he is not in agreement with God. If one’s heart is not teachable to all that the Bible says, he has grounds for seriously questioning whether or not he belongs to Christ. How can two walk together except they be in agreement?

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Okay, Jack K. A couple of things you should know:

You seem to imply that my argument is flawed because I suggested that you read a book by an author that you deem questionable. I reiterate, my argument has absolutely nothing to do with Daniel A. Helminiak. I do not assert that Jesus is not anti-gay because of something Helminiak said. I know that Jesus is not anti-gay because I have studied Jesus and the Bible for myself. Unlike you, I don’t rely on a pastor or parent or sunday school teacher to fill my head with “knowledge.” I study for myself. Remember what Paul told Timothy about studying?

Show me where Jesus denounced homosexuality as sinful. Look up the passage in its original text and then use a study reference to translate it back to English. Then come back here and prove it to me.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

None would make it.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Randy. I agree with you concerning the AJC. To answer your question, look at the demographics in Atlanta.

J.K. is trying to ruin the blog today by clogging it up with useless stuff we won’t take the time to read. Idiot.

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Until you become a scholar or have God write in rock that homosexuality is acceptable in His eyes you have no place telling everyone it is. You may be misleading many many people in the process…including yourself.

I can say the same to you. Until you become a scholar or have God write in rock that homosexuality is not acceptable in His eyes you have no place telling everyone it isn’t. You are misleading many many people in the process…including yourself.

See how it works when you debate based on opinion, not fact? I can spit your argument right back at you. Cool, huh?

Well, like I said. Prove it. You believe God thinks it’s a sin. Prove it. Make valid claims, and then answer any and every question I pose in response to your claims.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

I asked Chuck and Lozenge to show where is the bible it specifically prohibits homosexuality. I am still waiting.

By Julia

February 3, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Excuse me, I’m a Baptist and I’m not a bad person and my church is great. (Not this stereotypical Southern Baptist-you’re going to hell-garbage that you portray!)

Can’t we stick to jokes today. It’s a sunny Friday and the weekends almost here!!!! Hooray! :)

By Renee

February 3, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

All I can say to respond to your claim that he is a homosexual ex-priest is that having a sexual experience with someone of your gender doesn’t make you homosexual any more than eating macaroni and cheese for dinner makes you a vegetarian.

LOL Too Funny

By Archie

February 3, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Let’s move on from the homosexuality thing. I asked my question weeks ago to JBM and basically I am through with it. Where are you guys going to watch the superbowl? Home or at a bar. I will watch at my relatives’ house as always.

I would have been more excited had the Colts made it.

By lozen

February 3, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Jack K, and where is it written in stone that homosexuality is a sin. The ten commandments were the only laws written on stone according to your holey book. There wasn’t even a mention of homosexuality. What is wrong with you? Are you fighting a part of yourself perhaps?

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

OMG… Okay, disregard everything I said. New question:

Jack, what is your intention? Do you really think I (or anyone else) is really going to read that? Like seriously. I’m not being sarcastic or confrontational or anything negative at all. But, do you really honestly believe that anyone is going to read that?

That was SO rude. This is a blog, dude. Provide a link to the website, or the publisher’s information or something. But, you never post a 30-page book. That is really so rude. SO RUDE. Have some etiquette.

I can’t believe you did that, man.

By RF

February 3, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Chilao- GOOD JOKE. It would be a short show. I doubt they’d make it out of Birmingham!!

Julia- you’re a nice baptist!!!

I’ll be watching the Super Bowl at my parents’ house. Dad has the big screen in his basement den, he buys the beer, mom cooks and watches the kids. Don’t get no better than that!!

By Jack

February 3, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

JBM. You’re wasting your time arguing with him. An exercise in futility. He has no class and probably no package.

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

JBM- I didn’t think you’d go to the website so I posted the rebuttal here. Sorry everyone else had to take 10 seconds to use the scroll on their mouse. It must have really RUINED your day!!! LOL

My intention was to show you that the man who wrote that book is not to be believed. He had an agenda and is not credible. Therefore, if the person is not credible then neither is his “research”.

I am studying Greek at the moment and when I get to the point I can do a good job at Greek to English interpretation I will let you know ok.

But you are still misleading the people on here into believing a particular sin is acceptable to God. It may be acceptable to YOU-but not to God. (BIG difference.)

It’s Friday and I’m through arguing with you.

(Round of applause….no more books from me-only links. I am sorry about that. ) ;)

By RF

February 3, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

JBM- you should know by now that homophobes don’t have a high enough IQ to READ the word etiquette, much less know what it means!! LOL

By God

February 3, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

I have no problem with gays. Can’t we drop the subject now?

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Typical-if you disagree with homosexuality you’re a “homophobe”. Yeah, you really told me! Good one…. ~~~shaking head, throwing hands up in the air~~~

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Jack K. you’re not through because it’s Friday, you’re through because you have been caught making allegations that you cannot prove. I asked you to prove to me that Jesus is “anti-gay” and you can’t. That’s why you’re through.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Too funny RF!!

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

No JBM-you’re wrong and I’m going to try and prove it to you. Right now I am off to the bank and to lunch though…

I will answer you later. Not that anything I show you or say to you will make ANY DIFFERENCE to you at all. Which means that no matter what-arguing with someone who’s gay about the bible and homosexuality is a waste of time. You don’t want to hear that your lifestyle is wrong and you’ll never listen to anyone-even Jesus Christ Himself.

Have a nice day!

By Renee

February 3, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Which means that no matter what-arguing with someone who’s gay about the bible and homosexuality is a waste of time.

Exactly! So please stop!

By RF

February 3, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

So, the devil gets bored one Sunday morning, and heads out of hell looking for some mishchief. He happens upon a country church in the midst of a thunderous service. The sound of the music and shouting can be heard all over. So the devil decided to go inside. The church doors fly open, a cloud of smoke, flame, and ask billow into the room and the devil himself appears.

Well, everyone screams, people dive out doors and windows, overrwrought with fear. All except for the preacher and this one old man down front who’s just a grinning.

The devil, a bit puzzled, walks down front and says to the preacher, “I expected you to be stron and not fear me. You did well.” He turns to the old man, who is still grinning, and says, “YOU. Why do you sit there grinning and unafraid of me. Don’t you know who I am??!!”

The old man says “SURE I do. Don’t you recognize me? I was married to your sister for forty-seven years!”

By Brian Curtis

February 3, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

Ahh, weekend’s coming. And with it, weekend activities.

Jack Benny: “Give me my golf clubs, fresh air, and a beautiful partner—and you can keep the clubs and the air.”

Joey Adams: “I’m a terrible person to golf with because I cheat so much. The other day I shot a hole-in-one, and I marked a zero on my scorecard.”

Erma Bombeck: “A man who watches three football games in a row should be declared legally dead. The woman who tries to the change the channel is actually dead.”

Dick Gregory: “We black people love baseball. How many other times can you shake a stick at a white man without starting a riot?”

Heywood Brown: “Football is the perfect way to get rid of your aggressions without going to jail for it.”

George Will: “Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings.”

Jim Bolton: “Forget inter-school rivalries. Basically, baseball players are smarter than football players. How many times have you seen a baseball team penalized for having too many players on the field?”

Roger Hornsby: “Golf is for suckers. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it.”

By FatMoose

February 3, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

But you are still misleading the people on here into believing a particular sin is acceptable to God. It may be acceptable to YOU-but not to God. (BIG difference.)

There is no place in the bible that refers to homosexuality as we know it.

To assert such a notion that something is a sin, as you and many others proclaim, without any concern whether you are correct or not shows you have a agenda that is rooted in cultural upbringing.

If homosexuality was a dealbreaker; I am quite confident Jesus would have mentioned it himself somewhere.

And even IF we took a stance that it is sin; it is explained very clearly that no sin is greater than any other.

Under that same notion that it is sin, there is nowhere - and quite the contrary - in the bible that says you are expected to BE sin free: That is not even possible.

One of the upmost requirements for being saved and going to heaven is to know Jesus. If you and many other are preventing that by disallowing homosexuals to participate - it seems you wear the onus.

By RF

February 3, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Jack K- you mean you’d post all that crap and you’re NOT a homophobe? OOOOOKAY, then here’s a question for you. Suppose your child had a playmate from school and asked to go his/her house. Would you let your child go knowing the playmate had a gay couple as parents?

By RF

February 3, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Polish Firefighters

One dark night outside a small town in Saskatchewan, a fire started inside the local sausage plant and in a blink it exploded into massive flames.

The alarm went out to all the fire departments from miles around.

When the volunteer fire fighters appeared on the scene, the sausage company president rushed to the fire chief and said, “All of our secret formulas are in the vault in the center of the plant. They must be saved and I will give $50,000 to the fire department that brings them out intact.”

But the roaring flames held the firefighters off. Soon more fire departments had to be called in as the situation became desperate. As the firemen arrived, the president shouted out that the offer was now $100,000 to the fire department who could bring out the company’s secret files.

From the distance, a lone siren was heard as another fire truck came into sight. It was the nearby Wakaw rural township volunteer fire department composed mainly of Polish Firefighters over the age of 65.

To everyone’s amazement, the little run-down fire engine, operated by these Polish Firefighters, passed all the newer sleek engines parked outside the plant and drove straight into the middle of the inferno.

Outside, the other firemen watched as the Polish old timers jumped off and began to fight the fire with a performance and effort never seen before. Within a short time, the Wakaw old timers had extinguished the fire and saved the secret formulas.

The grateful sausage company president joyfully announced that for such a super human feat he was upping the reward to $200,000, and walked over to personally thank each of the brave, though elderly, Polish firefighters.

The local TV news reporters rushed in after capturing the event on film asking, “What are you going to do with all that money?”

“Vell,” said Stanley Kielbasa, the 70-year-old fire chief, “da furst thing ve gonna do is fix da brakes on dat focking truck

By Jack

February 3, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

He has no package.

By lozen

February 3, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

I think Jack K is Chuck using an alias. Who else ever posted such a long, rude and useless post? Oh, well, maybe he’s Tony!

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

A group of British airmen were at the social event populated by many British lassies, between sorties.

One chap in particular kept mentioning “Focker this” and “Focker that” in telling about his flying tales, to the ladies, who were becoming visibly uncomfortable with such language.

Another pilot came over to join them and told the ladies, “Focker, it’s a type of German aircraft”.

The chap commented “Naw, these Fockers were Messershmidts”.

By The72John

February 3, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Hi folks! Haven’t had time to comment this week, as I’ve been put on as lead of a special project…don’t expect I’ll have much time period for the next 90 days, but just had to drop in on Friday.

I see last week’s winner of the “Under a Rock” award has decided to make it all about gay-bashing again. I know y’all are trying to get away from that topic, which is just fine with me. But I just need to add, for Jack “K, I’m a big-a* bigot”.

Jack - you seem to be operating under the misapprehension that everyone is really concerned about your fundamentalist interpretation of what it means to be gay. You see, Jack, I don’t really care what small-minded, relatively unintelligent, emotionally retarded and developmentaly stunted pinheads think is right or wrong. If you think that I believe that the Bible represents the word of God, then you’re out of your mind.

You see, Jack K, it’s not God that’s petty and rigid - it’s man. It’s MAN that seeks to define right and wrong in stark absolutes. As man matures and develops, he begins to realize that what seemed so black and white in the past really isn’t so black and white after all.

See, you’re still stuck in the “I need Daddy to tell me exactly what to do because I lack the ethical intelligence to figure it out for myself” stage. You’ll probably always be in that stage because, well, that’s just what happens people who imprison themselves with chains of certainty from birth on. Many of us, however, have outgrown the need for absolute rules.

The pagans - don’t get your little knickers in a twist, Christer, I find them to be superstitious and irrational, too - have it right. “Harm none, and do as ye will.”

So…the next time you decide to tell people how much God hates them, why don’t you just make sure they actually care, first, hmm?

And to answer your question - yes…you are a homophobe. You can sigh and say “typical” all you want, but the fact remains that if you intentionally discriminate against someone in whatever way based on a characteristic about that person that he or she has no control over, that causes no one any harm, then you are a bigot. It’s very simple - so simple that even a cretin like you should - eventually - be able to grasp it.

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Hee’sss baaaack. LOL

72John was out, Chuck was out Monday, our minds wandered a little there. No, not thinking you two had hooked up, concerned someone may have heard a special message from God.

Like one of my coworkers was jumping up and down with ecstasy when Eric Robert Rudolph got that cop at the abortion clinic bombing in Birmingham. He was truly in 7th Heaven there for awhile.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Rudolph should write a survival book. he made it pretty long before he was caught.

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Supposedly there are many caves up there in that area, up against ponds/lakes, that you can only enter by going underwater near the water’s edge. Wonder if he was in one. Would be 54F year-round. Once you dried off. LOL

By Jack

February 3, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Wonder what he ate?

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I’ve finally been worn down. I give up! Jack K obviously KNOWS the mind of GOD as witnessed by his statements. He has converted me to a life of straightness. What am I going to tell my partner of 14.5 years? I don’t think he’ll believe me when I tell him I’m leaving him for a toupee parted in the middle.

RF…I’ll be with you in spirit on Sunday while in front of the big screen in my basement. Of course, we’ll be having mixed drinks, paying more attention to the commercials than the game, and no home cooking from Mama. Gee, that sounds kind of gay…maybe I’d better put off that conversion until later.

By The72John

February 3, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Please don’t say “toupee with a part down the middle again”. I spat drink on my monitor.

And wow, that is the gayest sounding Super Bowl party ever…no offense :-)

I will be chugging beer and eating nachos - the way you’re SUPPOSED to do it. Geeze, am I the only gay guy with a subscription to Sports Illustrated.

By God

February 3, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

NetB, you don’t have to convert. I already said I have no problem with homosexuality.

By lozen

February 3, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

JohnK, why, if you are a good Christian, do you not follow the words of jesus himself: “Judge not lest ye be judged,� Who among you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.� Ecclesiates says, “There is a purpose to everything under heaven.� Do you not believe those words are the words of god? You use certain bible passages to support your own prejudice against homosexuals and you ignore other passages that tell you not to judge. What kind of christian are you? In quoting Romans you forget that Paul was writing to the Roman church because of all the finger pointing and back biting going on there. He was pointing out the dangers of the “holier than thou� attitude. You know that ALL are sinners under Christian beliefs.

By RF

February 3, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Save the conversion for later. The wardrobe change alone would kill you!!—LOL

By lozen

February 3, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

72John, I’ll miss you while you’re gone! Hurry back.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

NetB - the fam will miss you, you are always welcome back!

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

John, next time you’re going to be away like that, please let us know. Some of us were worried about you.

NetB, you couldn’t pull that off if you tried. LOL!

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

There is no party…we used to have a Publisher’s Clearing House Party on SB Sunday just to be different, but now they’re giving the prize away on a different date so that idea is out.

Who says chugging beer and eating nachos is the way you’re supposed to watch football? Bourbon is way better than beer if only because you don’t have to pee so darn much or frequently. You can keep the nachos….we’ll be having wings, potato skins, pizza rolls, and BBQ.

OMG..I didn’t even think about the wardrobe change! That’s it! Conversion is OFF! There is no way I’m giving up my shoes and no believable straight man is going to have 12 or more pairs of shoes. Who would have thought that Kenneth Cole and Steve Madden could save me from a mistake greater than ugly foot wear?

By The72John

February 3, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Now, for the Sugar Bowl party I made the wings from the Golden Whisk awards this year, along with some gruyere, tomato, dijon mustard and ham tartlets…

But I’m just too tired to cook for the Super Bowl this year.

And geeze, Net - enough with the shoes! This gay guy only has about 4 pairs and wears jeans pretty much all the time he’s notin the office! We’re not all fashionistas, ya know…though my apartment is VERY snappy, if I do say so myself.

I can’t believe I just said fashionista…

Nothing but love, Net - nothing but love ;-)

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

what are you trying to say JBM? That I couldn’t convert if I really wanted to?! I could probably overcome the wardrobe change thing RF pointed out provided I time the conversion with the change in seasons when I’ll be rotating the closets between summer/winter. I haven’t worked out a plan for the shoes…hmmm…well my soon-to-be ex and I do wear the same shoe size so if I attribute half of them to him and we continue to live together as roommates then I’m down to less than 8 pairs for me….geez I think you guys might be right. I’m weak!

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

for the ITers:

Top Management

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced his altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted: “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 40 and 45 degrees north latitude and between 9 and 60 degrees west longitude.”

“You must be in Information Technology,” said the balloonist. “I am,” replied the woman, “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded, “You must be in Top Management.”

“I am!” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well”, said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems.

The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault.”

By RF

February 3, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Net- it’d be all Payless and Wal-Mart buddy. That and you’d have to serve the chips from the bag! How tacky is that??

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Chilao, now THAT was good!!!!! I like that.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

LOL Chilao..

NetB, you seem to have thought this out pretty thoroughly.

By NowThatsItalian!

February 3, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Talking Italian

A bus stops and two Italian men get on. They seat themselves, and engage in animated conversation. The lady sitting behind them ignores their conversation at first, but her attention is galvanized when she hears one of the men say the following:

”Emma come first. Den I come. Two asses, they come together. I come again. Two asses, they come together again. I come again and pee twice. Then I come once-a-more.”

”You foul-mouthed swine,” retorted the lady indignantly. ”In this country we don’t talk about our sex lives in public.”

”Hey, coola down lady,” said the man. ”Imma just tella my friend howa to spella Mississippi.”

By Jack

February 3, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

ham tartlets???

By NowThatsItalian!

February 3, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Redneck Fitness

You know you’re a redneck when your stair master has an ashtray!

By NowThatsItalian!

February 3, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

A man and woman are driving…

A man and a woman are driving down the same road at the same time. As they pass each other the woman leans out the window, points and yells, “PIG! �

The man immediately leans out his window, shakes his fist and shouts back, “WITCH!”

They each continue on their way, and as the man rounds the next corner, he slams into a pig that had wandered into the middle of the road.

If only men would listen.

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Who said i was a fashionista? I just like shoes.

By RF

February 3, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

Net- just the fact that you’d have to plan the conversion tells me you couldn’t do it. One thing straight guys DON’T do is plan ANYTHING that doesn’t involve sports or sex, and they can put off sex for sports!! Most don’t own enough clothes to ever have to ‘rotate closets’. You’d also have to give up the closet to the ‘little woman’, who WOULD be allowed to have enough clothes to rotate.

Good one Chilao!

~hey Renee~~ where you been this week? haven’t heard much from ya.

By NowThatsItalian!

February 3, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Vetoed Valentine Promotions

Valentines Day is here again, and with it the perfect opportunity for marketing departments the world over to romance investors and donors with Valentine-themed promotions! Here are some that didn’t quite make it off the drawing board: Nevada State Tourism Board “Nothing Says I LOVE YOU Like Legalized Prostitution and Gambling� T-shirts, baseball caps, and coffee mugs.

Ku Klux Klan * Valentine’s Day Heart Burning, co-sponsored by Alka Seltzer

Vatican Public Relations Office * “Naughty Altar Boy� limited edition ceramic figurine

American Heart Association * Chocolate heart with marshallow-filled arteries. Simultaneously a touching token of love and a serious warning to an overweight sweetheart.

Daughters of the American Revolution * Illustrated Kama Sutra featuring George and Martha Washington. Comes with authentic period wooden dental dam.

PETA * Spray Paint a Red Heart on Joan Rivers’ Coat Competition

National Society of Organ Donors * “My Heart Belongs to You (As Soon As I’m Brain Dead)� cards.

Department of Homeland Security * Moving the Valentine’s Day National Warning System Code Red for a “High Risk of Lovin’�

By Renee

February 3, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Keeping a low profile in the corner. Finding out that I’m doomed for an eternity in Hell has been pretty depressing lol

By Julia

February 3, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

OK, here’s my first joke of the day….

One hungry Bush…

One day George W. Bush and Dick Cheney walk into a diner. A waitress walks up to them and asks if she can take their order. Bush leans close to her and says, “Honey, can I have a quickie?” The waitress is appalled and yells at the President about women’s rights and storms away.

Cheney then says to Bush, “George, its pronounced ‘quiche’.”

By The72John

February 3, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

C’mon Renee - surely this isn’t the first you’ve heard of it!

Don’t worry - we’ll all be there to keep you company.

By Jack K

February 3, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Renee-you don’t HAVE to be doomed to an eternity in Hell. You can choose otherwise or you can keep the door shut and never ask Christ into your life. Where would you rather go? Surely not to hell. If you could prevent it wouldn’t you want to?

Trying to finish a report so I don’t have much time this afternoon. I know that will deeply sadden most of you! ;)

LOL

By Julia

February 3, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Top Ten: Saddam Hussein’s Romantic Tips

By RF

February 3, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Goooood one, Julia!!

Renee- yep, gets kinda old having the same argument with people who don’t listen to anything anyway….wait, is that men or fundies who do that. OH YEAH, it’s both!! LOL

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well now RF what exactly is wrong with Payless and Wal-Mart? I have stuff from both of those establishments in my home. Oh oh…eating chips from the bag is tacky? Does that apply to all situations? We usually remove the chips from the bag for a party, but when it comes down to chip access if you can’t reach the bowl then we bag it in our house.

Just because I do the banking thing don’t think for a minute I’m stuffy or all formal. In my house the first drink is made for you…after that you’re just like family so “Ya on, ya own! If you don’t know where something is then look for it. If you don’t find it ask the closest person. If they don’t know then snoop together until you do find it, but don’t be surprised at what you might find along the way and don’t go telling everybody. Let them find that stuff on their own.”

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Renee…I’m an analyst…running scenarios and setting plans is what we do.

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Jack K., until you have proof: shut up and go work on your “report.”

By Renee

February 3, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Renee-you don’t HAVE to be doomed to an eternity in Hell. You can choose otherwise or you can keep the door shut and never ask Christ into your life. Where would you rather go? Surely not to hell. If you could prevent it wouldn’t you want to?

My earlier comment was sarcastic. I’m not going to Hell Jack, and if there is one, and I end up there, I will have plenty of good company! I can’t choose otherwise, this is me, this is who I am, this is what I was born to be, along with being incredibly beautiful, humorous, intelligent…the list goes on and on (nothing like tooting your own horn). Plus me choosing at this point in my life, would mean me going back to everyone I came out to and retracting, divorcing (yes, divorcing) my wife, and trying to force myself to be something that I’m not. My life would entail divorce court battles and being a guest on talk shows and churches, “you too can change your homosexual lifestyle”. No thanks, not for me, I’ll stay just like I am.

Personally, I’ll just take the toupee with the part down the middle!

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

A moment of silence for a passing please. Shirley missed, shirley missed.

does that mean he is not a real man? (Some may be too young to remember the Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche book. LOL)

Hilarious day, guys, I have been busting a gut.

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Renee…it’ll be like a pot luck party down there. 72J will be the one with the ham tartlets, RF will be carrying the beer, I’ll have the bourbon and wings…

Uh…RF?…we’re men. Please tell me you aren’t you saying we’re like fundies?

By Chilao

February 3, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Oh, I finally watched 1/2 of that Penn & Teller, with headphones of course. Hilarious and well-forwarded to others. LOL

By REPUBLICAN

February 3, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

For ALL you John Kerry fans out there…(and you know who you are!)

“We make jokes about it but the truth is this presidential election really offers us a choice of two well-informed, opposing positions on every issue. OK, they both belong to John Kerry, but they’re still there.” —Jay Leno

“Bush and Cheney say now they’re targeting people who can’t make up their minds, so apparently they’re trying to get John Kerry’s vote as well.” —Jay Leno

“John Kerry says the ‘W’ in George W. Bush stands for ‘Wrong.’ But he still can’t explain what John Kerry stands for.” —David Letterman

“Vice President Dick Cheney attacked John Kerry. He said that John Kerry ‘lacks deeply held convictions.’ Today Kerry shot back, he said, ‘That’s not completely true.’” —Jay Leno

“John Kerry announced a fool-proof plan to wipe out the $500 billion deficit. John Kerry has a plan, he’s going to put it on his wife’s Gold Card.” —Craig Kilborn

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

And, I’ll make some meatballs and bring playing cards and of course, my Bible! LOL

By The72John

February 3, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Oh, sorry - didn’t mean to ignore you, RealJack.

You know, tartlets - little philo pastry shells with a mixture of ham, gruyere cheese and dijon mustard, with a chunk of roma tomato on top, heated until melty and crispy.

Good stuff. Even all of my palate-challenged straight buddies liked it. Try serving tartlets to a room full of straight football fans! Well, all but one, anyway.

By REPUBLICAN

February 3, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

The 10 Funniest Quotes of Campaign 2004

10-“To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say, Don’t be economic girlie men!” —California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, at the Republican convention

9-“I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up. And some would say maybe me more so than others.” —Sen. John Kerry, during the third presidential debate

8-“People tell me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, and his great hair. I say to them, ‘How do you think I got the job?’” —Vice President Dick Cheney

7-“This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?” —Sen. Zell Miller, attacking Sen. John Kerry in his GOP convention speech

6-“If I could only go through the ducts and leap out onstage in a cape — that’s my dream.” —Ralph Nader, on crashing the presidential debates

5-“I think it was his battery.” —Sen. John Edwards, after Jay Leno asked him about Bush’s mystery bulge during the first presidential debate, which some speculated might have been a radio transmitter to feed him answers through an earpiece

4-“Maybe (Kerry) was hoping Saddam Hussein would lose the next Iraqi election.” —President Bush, on Kerry’s opposition to Bush’s invasion plan to topple Saddam, even though Kerry admitted he was a threat

3-“The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions — for tax cuts and against them, for NAFTA and against NAFTA, for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act, in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts.” –-President George W. Bush

2-“Did the training wheels fall off?” –-Sen. John Kerry, after being told by reporters that President Bush took a tumble during a bike ride

And the award for the Funniest Quote of Campaign 2004:

“I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?” —Sen. John McCain, on rumors that he might be John Kerry’s running mate

By RF

February 3, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Net- Sounds like the way we party at my house (well, except for the fact that most of the parties at my house are for those under 10y/o!!)It’s not unusual to walk into my kitchen on a Saturday afternoon and see any number of kids digging through my fridge. I definitely have to keep the ‘spirits’ up out of reach!!

I couldn’t live personally without Wal-Mart. I have to go once a month whether I need anything or not!

By Renee

February 3, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

~thinking out loud~

Wonder if any cute girls will be down there!

By Scalia

February 3, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Ah, the Super Bowl. I can drink my beer, and readjust myself during the commercials. Good times.

The Half-Time show should be boring. Why aren’t they going to have the Playboy bunnies on Fear Factor again? Who doesn’t want to watch every competition dealing with the bunnies getting wet.

I just wish that Joey Harrington and Detroit was in the Super Bowl. Gotta love Joey.

Have a good weekend, and don’t guzzle too much beer. We have to be here bright and early on Monday to exhaust the inane topic, and jump on the bash homosexuals and crucify the abortion supporters.

P.S. Why do I feel like this is the Looney Tunes cartoon where the sheep dog and the coyote clock in as friends. They battle it out until sundown, and then clock out going home as friends?

By The72John

February 3, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

I don’t know about girls, but if all the gay guys are going to be down there, there will be lots of cute guys.

Heck, they’ve probably already got Hell Circuit Parties going on…

By RF

February 3, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Net- that was directed at those men, like many I know, who have selective hearing loss, especially when it’s something important. Not to be confused with those of us who have a brain above the waist and actually use it once in a while.

Okay, that sounded just a WEE bit snippy. YEP, I’m done and over this week and ready for a little unwinding!!

Renee- sounds like Heaven would be BOOORRRING anyway!! Slide on over honey, the bench is getting crowded!

By Gazel

February 3, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Do you guys really think hell will so much fun with the flames and the demons tormenting you day and night? I doubt you’ll feel like “partying” folks.

Some things are fun to laugh about. But burning in hell isn’t one of them.

It’s about as much fun as lughing about getting raped or laughing about your child being kidnapped.

By Gazel

February 3, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

typo-I meant laughing.

By The72John

February 3, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Gazey, you have about as much imagination and sense of humor as a dead nun buried under a pile of rocks.

If you’re SO anxious to meet your Maker and bask in the light of heaven, go play in traffic.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Gazel - lighten up. Plus, just because you don’t find it funny, doesn’t mean I don’t.

If it doesn’t apply, let it fly!

Do you guys really think hell will so much fun with the flames and the demons tormenting you day and night?

Sounds like the clubs I’ve been to in Atlanta, and yes, I have had fun everytime!! Doesn’t matter once your liquored up, flames and demons work just fine (hopefully fine, well endowed, scantily clad, female demons)

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Okay, please stop talking about hell so Gazel can go back on her throne and leave us alone.

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

The thing I noticed in reading the posts today was, Jack told Renee to accept Jesus instead of going to hell. Notice how Renee responded to the post(made a decision) he made the wrong decision but he made a decision non-the-less. That’s how you know it’s(Christianity) is real, it makes people make a decision. Accept or reject. If Jack had been some other religion, Renee wouldn’t have paid any attention to the post. Actually, non-believers make me know it’s real(that along with common sense)more than believers.

By Gazel

February 3, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

sounds like Heaven would be BOOORRRING anyway

Yeah, I know what you mean. Eternal life in a place more beautiful than you can ever begin to imagine…no more tears…no more death…no more sickness & diseases…never having to say goodbye to a loved one again…not having to worry about murderers and rapists…eternal life in a truly perfect place…

Yeah, what a drag!

By RF

February 3, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Do you guys really think hell will so much fun with the flames and the demons tormenting you day and night?

Puhhhlease— after five years with my ex, that sounds like fun!!

You know, if we’re supposed to WANT to be christian, why does it always end up sounding so dang boring?

By The72John

February 3, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

That’s how you know it’s(Christianity) is real, it makes people make a decision. Accept or reject. If Jack had been some other religion, Renee wouldn’t have paid any attention to the post.

People convert FROM Christianity TO other religions every day. Sorry, thanks for playing, try again. BZZZT.

Idiot.

By True Confusion

February 3, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

omg, Gazel, you’re right! Hey guys, if you’re homosexual, go ahead and change now so you can have the opportunity to experience this wonderful miracle of a place. But remembers, no rapists, no murderers, AND NO HOMOS

By RF

February 3, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Geez, Gazel, we were joking okay? Get it—-JOKING!! Or are you not allowed to do that in your church??

Randy- You’re A-S-S-umming that Renee isn’t a believer…

why is it we make a joke and then suddenly WHAM we get hit with more Bible-thumping. Dany don’t you guys ever relax??

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

I think the key is heaven is exactly what you want, perfect harmony and hell is exactly the opposite. Some people say well if I go to hell there will be plenty of good company. That may be true but evil wouldn’t let you talk or visit with them. Evil would probably let you see them but no talking. Whatever, put you into the most misery and torment. So don’t be foolish enough to comfort yourself that hell will be OK, it surely will not be.

By True Confusion

February 3, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Get on board everyone!

By Reader

February 3, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

If you’re SO anxious to meet your Maker and bask in the light of heaven, go play in traffic.

I have always wondered how a group of people who have such a great thing going for them, once they die of course, seemed to be always so hesitant and fearful of THE END. Of course my biggest fear is one who wants to hasten it along.

By Gazel

February 3, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Fine. If you want to joke about going to hell go ahead. Knock yourself out.

They’re only jokes right.

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

John72, Congradulations on the job promotion. On converting from Christianity, it doesn’t happend, no true Christian converts to another religion. There may be some people who say that they are Christian and may even believe they are that do. But, a person who has had a true life-changing experience thru accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior will never truly convert to another religion. No need.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Randy how do you know I wouldn’t have paid attention to the post of someone of another religion?

I’m waiting…

I’m listening…

What no answer….I’m shocked!!! And Christianity is the sole reason for people making decisions??? And it’s the so called Christians that speak the loudest with the bantering, the posting of the Bible verses, the preaching…if the Catholics, Muslims or Hindus came on here, speaking to us sexually challenged people the same way, we would respond the same. Oh, I forgot, the Catholics, Muslims and Hindus are wrong.

By True Confusion

February 3, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Right!

By The72John

February 3, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

may be true but evil wouldn’t let you talk or visit with them. Evil would probably let you see them but no talking. Whatever, put you into the most misery and torment. So don’t be foolish enough to comfort yourself that hell will be OK, it surely will not be.

Mark Twain would have had a field day with this guy.

Possibly you’re missing out of the simple fact that I don’t believe in hell, particularly the firey place that first found its way into the Judeo mythos after that particular culture came into contact with the Persians. You…DO realize that the popular Western idea of Hell was stolen from the Zororastrians. Don’t you, Randy?

By Jokeday

February 3, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

by Anonymous

Someone knocked at my door. I answered it to find a well-groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first. “Hi! I’m John, and this is Mary.”

Mary said: “Hi! We’re here to invite you to come kiss Joshua’s arse.”

Me: “Pardon me? What are you talking about? Who’s Joshua, and why would I want to kiss his arse?”

John: “If you kiss Joshua’s arse, he’ll give you a million dollars; and if you don’t, he’ll kick the sh!t out of you.”

Me: “What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?”

John: “Joshua is a billionaire philanthropist. Joshua built this town. Joshua owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can’t until you kiss his arse.”

Me: “That doesn’t make any sense. Why…?”

Mary: “Who are you to question Joshua’s gift? Don’t you want a million dollars? Isn’t it worth a little kiss on the arse?”

Me: “Well maybe, if it’s legit, but…”

John: “Then come kiss Joshua’s arse with us.”

Me: “Do you kiss Joshua’s arse often?”

Mary: “Oh yes, all the time…”

Me: “And has he given you a million dollars?”

John: “Well no, you don’t actually get the money until you leave town.”

Me: “So why don’t you just leave town now?”

Mary: “You can’t leave until Joshua tells you to, or you don’t get the money, and he kicks the sh!t out of you.”

Me: “Do you know anyone who kissed Joshua’s arse, left town, and got the million dollars?”

John: “My mother kissed Joshua’s arse for years. She left town last year, and I’m sure she got the money.”

Me: “Haven’t you talked to her since then?”

John: “Of course not, Joshua doesn’t allow it.”

Me: “So what makes you think he’ll actually give you the money if you’ve never talked to anyone who got the money?”

Mary: “Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you’ll get a raise, maybe you’ll win a small lotto, maybe you’ll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street.”

Me: “What’s that got to do with Joshua?”

John: “Joshua has certain connections.’”

Me: “I’m sorry, but this sounds like some sort of freakish con game.”

John: “But it’s a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don’t kiss Joshua’s arse he’ll kick the sh!t of you.”

Me: “Maybe if I could see Joshua, talk to him, get the details straight from him…”

Mary: “No one sees Joshua, no one talks to Joshua,,, Directly.”

Me: “Then how do you kiss his arse?”

John: “Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his arse. Other times we kiss Karl’s arse, and he parsees it on.”

Me: “Who’s Karl?”

Mary: “A friend of ours. He’s Joshua’s representative. He is the one who taught us all about kissing Joshua’s arse. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.”

Me: “And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Joshua, that Joshua wanted you to kiss his arse, and that Joshua would reward you?”

John: “Oh no! Karl’s got a letter Joshua sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here’s a copy; see for yourself.”

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on “From the desk of Karl” letterhead. It listed eleven items:

Me: “This appears to be written on Karl’s letterhead.”

Mary: “Joshua used his paper.”

Me: “I have a hunch that if we checked we’d find this is Karl’s handwriting.”

John: “Of course, Joshua dictated it.”

Me: “I thought you said no one gets to see Joshua?”

Mary: “Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people.”

Me: “I thought you said he was philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh!t out of people just because they’re different?”

Mary: “It’s what Joshua wants, and Joshua’s always right.”

Me: “How do you figure that?”

Mary: “Item 7 says ‘Everything Joshua says is right.’ That’s good enough for me!”

Me: “Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.”

John: “No way! Item 5 says ‘Joshua dictated this list himself.’ Besides, item 2 says ‘Use alcohol in moderation,’ Item 4 says ‘Eat right,’ and item 8 says ‘Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.’ Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too.”

Me: “But 9 says: ‘Don’t Drink,’ which doesn’t quite go with item 2. And 6 says ‘The moon is made of green cheese,’ which is just plain wrong.”

John: “There’s no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you’ve never been to the moon, so you can’t say for sure.”

Me: “Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock…”

Mary: “But they don’t know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.”

Me: “I’m not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn’t make it cheese.”

John: “Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Joshua is always right!”

Me: “We do?”

Mary: “Of course we do, Item 5 says so.”

Me: “You’re saying Joshua’s always right because the list says so. The list is right because Joshua dictated it. And we know that Joshua dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic, no different than saying ‘Joshua’s right because he says he’s right.’”

John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding to see someone come around to Joshua’s way of thinking.”

Me: “But…oh, never mind. What’s the deal with wieners?”

Mary blushed.

John: “Wieners, in buns. No condiments. It’s Joshua’s way. Anything else is wrong.”

Me: “What if I don’t have a bun?”

John: “No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.”

Me: “No relish? No Mustard?”

Mary looked positively stricken.

John (raising his voice): “There’s no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!”

Me: “So a big pile of sauerkraut — with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?”

Mary put her fingers in her ears: “I am not listening to this. La la, la la, la la la.”

John: “That’s disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that…”

Me: “It’s good! I eat it all the time.”

Mary fainted. John caught her.

John: “Well, if I’d known you were one of those I wouldn’t have wasted my time. When Joshua kicks the sh!t out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. … I’ll kiss Joshua’s arse for you, you … you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater!”

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

I wonder how beautiful heaven would be if I had to spend eternity there without the one human being I love the most in the world.

Say the “Christians” win and all the homosexuals give up their loving partners of 20 years to go to heaven. Do you really expect them to be HAPPY????????

I guess God doesn’t really want us to be happy, he just wants us to be heterosexual.

So, let’s all just give up our partners and pretend to be heterosexual just so we can live eternal life without the one person we love the most.

Yeah, that sounds like God. Sure.

By The72John

February 3, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

On converting from Christianity, it doesn’t happend, no true Christian converts to another religion. There may be some people who say that they are Christian and may even believe they are that do. But, a person who has had a true life-changing experience thru accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior will never truly convert to another religion. No need.

This is what is know as circular reasoning. This particular logical fallacy has allowed entire generations of religious fundamentalists to keep their heads buried in the sand.

By Lozenge

February 3, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

And 72-you’re about as friendly as a grumpy old pitt bull. (And probably about as cute!) You’re just plain rude and obnoxious. Can’t you post something without including an insult in it?

Come on…you can do it if you try. Just one post without knocking down Christians for their beliefs…just one post without being RUDE to someone…

Nah, I knew it was too hard for you.

Bad show fella…bad show.

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Renee, There is an easy test, go in a crowd of strangers and start talking about different religions. The only one that will make people uneasy or if they are Christian easy is Jesus. Jesus Christ is the one that effects everybody, why do you think Christianity is outlawed in several foriegn countries. Try it.

By RF

February 3, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

J-O-K-E you know, a story the brings out laughs and/or smiles of mirth?? No, well try it sometimes. I think laughter was in the Bible wasn’t it?? Or wait, wasn’t that forbidden along with women showing their faces in public?

You know gang, part of the reason people are so quick to make jokes about the ‘evil place’ is that you guys seems WAY too serious and make it sound all but impossible to get into anyway. Who would want to work, slave, and suffer for years just so you could get to spend eternity with a bunch of folks who can’t take a joke?

LIGHTNEN UP

By Jokeday

February 3, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

guess the censors did not like a—r—s—e either, without the dashes. I knew they would not like a—s—s.

By Beelzebub

February 3, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Don’t let Randy, Jack K, and Gazelle scare you folks…hell is a wonderful place. Sure, it’s a little warm but you get used to it after awhile…and there are all the doughnuts you can eat. For more info, email us at bzbub@hellmail.com…

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Oh my lord, now they’re all coming….

Can we pleeeease get off the hell subject so they can go back to their thrones of perfection?!!!!!!!

By Jokeday

February 3, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

I’m a bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater!

By Bruce

February 3, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

A Wal-Mart store that sells husbands has just opened in Dallas, TX, where a woman may go to choose a husband from among many men. Among the instructions at the entrance, is a description of how the store operates. There are only 6 floors. It states that the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is, however, a catch….

As you open the door to any floor you may choose any man from that floor, but if you go up a floor, you cannot go back down except to exit the building.

So, a woman goes to the Wal-Mart Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads:

Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

The second floor sign reads:

Floor 2 - These men have jobs and love kids.

The third floor sign reads:

Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love kids, and are extremely good-looking.

“Wow,” she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads:

Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and they help with the housework.”Oh, mercy me!” she exclaims, “I can hardly stand it!” Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads:

Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have strong romantic inclinations.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the Sign reads:

Floor 6 - You are visitor 3,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.

Thank you for shopping Wal-Mart’s Husband Store

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

I would really like to have a meeting with Chuck, Zack, Randy, Lozenge and Gazel.

Seriously (no kidding, no sarcasm).

By RF

February 3, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

oops, meant to say that Heaven sounds all but impossible to get into anyway. Pardon the confusion—I have a hard time keeping up with which place I’m talking about since they both sound pretty miserable…

By Renee

February 3, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

No thanks Randy. Not important to me. Too busy preparing for my eternity in Hell with my flames and fine female demons.

HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!! SIZZLIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRACKLIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s Hell!

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

I’ll tell you exactly why Jesus Christ effects people, everybodys conscience and spirit is drawn to it. They here the name(when used with respect) and they realize that they need to take care of that area of their immortal life. Then their minds and flesh fights against it. They start saying things just like many of you here have said, well I don’t need Jesus now, I have plenty of time before I die(although no one is guaranteed tomorrow). Or some people have convinced themselves, I’ll have to give up something to be a Christian(actually when you become a Christian you don’t give up anything, you just don’t need those crutches anymore). Some people who really are in la-la land, have convinced themselves that God doesn’t exist. That one really baffles me, as the universe didn’t create itself in the beginning(every how long ago it came into existance). It makes logical sense that a Creator exists and he would make himself known, life does have meaning.

By Randy

February 3, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

I’m a broken record…

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Indeed you are, Randy.

By Jokeday

February 3, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

I’m a broken record…

First step to recovery: recognition. Good job.

By Renee

February 3, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Broken records run the risk of being cast in hell!

By Netbanker

February 3, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Have a great weekend everyone! Off to the airport to pick up my best friend for a weekend of drinking, smoking, laughing, and catching up on life.

By The72John

February 3, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

I’m only as friendly to others as they are to me, ThroatDrop. Y’all try talking to others without being superior, moralistic, self-righteous prigs and telling everyone they’re going to hell, and maybe I’ll try not insulting you like the stuff off the bottom of my shoe that you are.

Just one little post, CoughDrop. Can you do it?

Nah, I didn’t think so.

Bad fanatic, BAD.

By Jack

February 3, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Now you made me hungry!

By Julia

February 3, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Who would want to work, slave, and suffer for years just so you could get to spend eternity with a bunch of folks who can’t take a joke?

Work, slave and suffer??? I don’t know what religion you’re talking about but it’s not Christianity.

And I can certainly take a joke. Don’t really like to joke about going to hell though. (But that’s just me.)

By AnaBaptistNot

February 3, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Okay, which one of you AntiBaptists did it?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/03/alabama.churchfires/index.html

By RF

February 3, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Julia- just exaggerating a LITTLE for effect. I actually do know some happy christians, like yourself, but there are quite a few who just seem very, very unhappy.

Anways, I’m out of here for the weekend. Have a good one all!!!

By Renee

February 3, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Ok I’m gone for a weekend of fun and homosexual activities. See ya Monday! Be safe everyone!

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Oooh, homosexual activities?!!!! I wanna come with you, I get no activities… :-(

By Julia

February 3, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

RF-I understand that and I’m not upset about the jokes-really doesn’t bother me.

If the people you know are unhappy then maybe they have personal problems like everyone else. Maybe they’ve drifted away from their faith. Maybe they’re depressed. We are human-regardless of faith and everyone can get down from time to time and let day to day problems get the best of us. It’s called being human.

No matter what anyone else leads you to believe-Christians aren’t perfect…just forgiven.

By Julia

February 3, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

I’m also out of here for the weekend. Hope everyone has a good one.

FYI-I hear more talk of “hell” on this forum than I ever have at church. Not that it’s never mentioned mind you-but you guys have my church beat by a landslide!

Stay safe.

By lozen

February 3, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.�

Coretta Scott King, April 1, 1998, at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

By Just Being Me

February 3, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

I guess Lozenge and others will say that Mrs. King gets to burn in hell for that stance.

By lozen

February 3, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

72John, you’re kidding. You know Randy doesn’t know anything about any religion other than fundie christianity. He would be afraid to know anything about other religions. And with his inability to think, debate, or see any other viewpoint than his own, he would come up with some circular, totally inane ideas about religion if he did. Poor Randy. Bless his heart.