AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > February > 09 > Entry
Should religious figures ever be portrayed controversially?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Heads are rolling, but thankfully, not literally. Recently fired newspaper editor Jacques Lefranc took the fall for taking a stand. He joined other editors across Europe when he published controversial editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as part of an ongoing battle between the European Press — determined to defend their rights — and the Muslim world, determined to impose their religious views.
Lefranc wasn’t fired because his colleagues wrung their hands in embarrassment over their editor’s insensitivity. Invective cartoons run every day, in every country, without the four-alarm-fire now rampant across Europe. Lefranc was fired because of fear, the fear of a Muslim world with a troubling reputation for carrying out gruesome threats. This reputation isn’t without foundation: Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh was killed after releasing a documentary about the abuse of Muslim women; murderous riots ignited after a Nigerian journalist mused about Muhammad marrying a Miss World contestant; and let’s not forget about the death threats made against author Salman Rushdie after he published “The Satanic Verses.”
This sort of controversy isn’t unfamiliar to Americans. Martin Scorcese’s film, “The Last Temptation of Christ” incited theater patron protests. “The Book of Daniel,” was a short-lived television drama because of advertiser disapproval. And numerous depictions of Christ have been part of an American debate for years, with varying degrees of outrage and an even greater degree of artistic license. But none of these resulted in extreme violence. Most of the time, anyway, Americans expect to take the lumps that come with free speech, which includes how people choose to express themselves. It would be naïve to think we could restrict public discourse on religious figures without infringing artistic expression. Anything short of uncensored free expression would result in a global gag order.
“If you believe in the rights granted by the First Amendment you sometimes find yourself defending bad art, poor taste and despicable people,” explains Sue Greenberg, the Executive Director of a St. Louis-based service organization which supports artistic expression. “This task is even more difficult when the offensive work incites violence. But it’s important to acknowledge that standards and tastes vary. A robust debate is always preferable to censorship because it is designed to promote the marketplace of ideas. Ideas are just that — ideas. Allowing everyone to express their ideas freely treats everyone fairly.”
Rebuttal
Many seem not to understand the difference between inappropriate suppression of free speech, and simply showing old-fashioned respect for others’ deeply held religious beliefs. Saint Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians comes to mind: “‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is beneficial.” (HCSB) Sure, we have the right to freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean it’s always good to mock the beliefs of others. Disagreement and even careful satire: fine. But “robust debate” is only possible when disagreement is conducted with civility, not via mean-spirited attacks.
In the U.S., the indignant response to the ultra-disrespectful NBC show The Book of Daniel spoke volumes. Family groups like the American Family Association (AFA) demonstrated that we just don’t want Jesus portrayed as a spineless spirit, or people of faith mocked as dysfunctional, pill-popping, sleep-around hypocrites. While some will unfortunately fit those descriptions, most are tired of the exception being portrayed as the rule. Thankfully, advertisers listened. When you’ve got no audience — or worse, angry backlash against sponsors — you’ve got no show.
The Muslim world’s cartoon-sparked outrage is in many ways just a much more intense (if more destructive) version of that backlash. I asked Randy Sharp, AFA’s Special Projects Director his opinion of our debate question in light of both events. Via email, he provided an interesting perspective:
“Because our doctrine preserves for us the freedom to do that which is loathsome or offensive to others, it is not wise to engage in it without great forethought. And when that action becomes a concerted assault purposely directed toward the core beliefs of another, the attacker is subject to become the attacked. Not by the government, but by the aggressed. It is often more prudent to engage in public debate on a platform of civility, rather than in the streets, where the innocent become the victims of unmediated hate.”
The current uproar is ironic, since the anti-Muslim cartoons were tame compared to how the Muslim press portrays Jewish figures. And Diane is correct that European media shouldn’t cave to pressure out of fear. It would be far better for all sides to implement — from the beginning — the schoolyard axiom that you can disagree without being disagreeable.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By xanax bar what is
February 13, 2006 04:03 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://pidorovtut.net/xanax/xanax_nimh.html Thanks.
By candide
February 13, 2006 07:01 AM | Link to this
Of course religious figures should be ridiculed. Religion is a serious mental disorder and those that start it are either knaves or fools, or both.
If people will not respond to reason only satire and ridicule can work to turn them away from stupid religiosity.
By candide
February 13, 2006 07:19 AM | Link to this
The Georgia General Assembly is preparing legislation allowing the Bible to be taught in school. Georgia does not have teachers equipped to teach this. They will simply give the students standard Baptist-like nonsense about having a personal relationship with Jesus, offending Jews, Catholics, and others. Law suits will ensue and all hell will break loose. These teachers are afraid to teach evolution, how will they teach the bible from a scientific perspective? They won’t. Beware, ye scribes and pharisees!
Separation of church and state is not adequate. We need to uproot religion and make it illegal.
By Brian Curtis
February 13, 2006 07:40 AM | Link to this
I’m starting the timer to see how long it takes for this to become a rant about homosexuality and/or abortion. 40 minutes and counting….
By Chilao
February 13, 2006 07:43 AM | Link to this
My readings of the cancellation of The Book of Daniel showed it was cancelled due to low ratings, and low ratings equals no advertisers. If it had had better ratings, advertisers would have climbed on board, regardless of any controversy. And Friday night certainly not the best time to start a controversial show, rating-wise. But nowhere do you read that the Hollywood agenda casued its cancellation, due to choosing a bad night, Friday night. While I enjoyed the show, I mentioned before I did not think the writing itself was anything special and did not expect it to last anyway.
What an incendiary topic. The reaction in the Islamic world indicates they are incapable of anything remotely close to what we in the west call Secular Democracy.
I read Islamic leaders in Denmark itself expected the government to order the newspapers not to run the cartoons, which mean they miss the concept of a FreePress.
To quote a Nigerian cleric, back when the young lady got sentenced to being stoned to death, for a pregnancy, obviously adulterous: “Secularism is not an Islamic concept”. I missed where the father of the child got sentenced to death as well.
And the outrage is over cartoons not even published in the Western press, but merely taken to the Islamic world by rabble-rousing clerics. Of course the primitive masses bought it, sounds familiar actually. LOL
But anti-Jesus and anti-Jewish cartoons are common in the Islamic press so are we really bowing to mob-rule hypocrisy?
I do not agree with the Nazi/KKK types who got that permit to demonstrate in Skokie, IL awhile back. But we run a slippery slope when some ‘governing body’ determines what is protected free-speech and what is not.
By Chilao
February 13, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this
Chuck - do research on the Ethiopian Highlands Christian church, some of the oldest Christians, in fact they are so geographically isolated, they consider themselves some of the purest Christians, less changed by outside influences. Their holy day was on the Jewish Sabbath well into the 17th-century, until westerners came down and straightened them out. You did support my view that so much of it is “man said….” with that justification for changing the Holy Day. Thanks.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
The “Book of Daniel” show was cancelled because we Christians boycotted it. With the majority of people in the USA being Christian(approx 85%), we can and should decide what shows make it here and which ones don’t. Get rid of garbage shows like the “Book of Daniel” and let’s keep this country strong with strong Christian beliefs.
By Renee
February 13, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
Morning everyone!!
Brian, you got my first laugh of the day. (I’m counting too, I can guarantee it won’t be long).
Having said that, this topic, in my opinion, is ridiculous. Of course religious figure can be portrayed controversially. What gives them exemption from this?
By Randy
February 13, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
As far a being respectful of religious figures, I think we should be. You don’t see we Christians making fun of the atheists and they are really the ones in the dark. Imagine believing the universe created itself out of thin air (in the beginning), without help of a creator. I guess the atheists are waiting around for a couple of million dollars to just appear out of thin air in their hands. Insanity. One thing about it, the Muslims will kill you if you make fun of Mohammad, but Jesus because he is the real deal, wants us to be peaceful in this area.
By candide
February 13, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
Jesus, the real deal? According to Albert Schweitzer he was a Jewish apocalyptic who went to his death thinking God would save him and Israel, neither of which happened. Thus Jesus was a well-meaning deluded fool — like all those who follow him now.
Incidentally, Muslims do not have anti-Jesus cartoons since they regard him as a prophet. They do, however, have vicious anti-Jewish cartoons.
By Mara
February 13, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
Randy, Why is believing that the universe came into being (as opposed to any kind of “creation”) through natural and understandable cosmology any wackier than believing that some big ol’ invisible guy living in the clouds with a bunch of winged slaves just one day waved his appendages and ‘voila’, the infinite universe, all the planets, all life forms, and one single sentient human (remember Adam had to ask God to create him a mate, since it musta slipped Gods mind that all the other lifeforms came in dual genders…). The one isn’t any more rediculous than the other. Atheists don’t accept the idea that any “god” exists. Religionists don’t accept the idea that they could possibly be wrong about any aspect of “god”. The best possible median is being an Agnostic, like I am. At the very least, I can truthfully say…”I don’t know.” Thus avoiding tha annoying arrogance of either extreme. As for free speech and religeon…of course religeous figures can be mocked. Just because one holds something sacred doesn’t mean it should be shielded from critical or disrespectful portrayal. Ask any sci-fi geek about being mocked for diefying Gene Rodenberry.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this
Wow you really have it figured out Candide. Jesus went to the cross to take the sins of the world yours and mine. On the cross Jesus said “it is done” meaning he did his job, so all we have to do is accept him. As far a Schweitzer goes, he is just a man and we ain’t in heaven yet(so there are going to be some non-believers here on earth). If everyone was a believer we would all be robots and that would defeat God’s purpose. God only wants the strong, just like any thing done in this world, only the ones who think they can, only the ones who have faith are successful in anything that is done successfully. To accomplish anything here on earth, you first must have the strength and faith to believe it can be done. Same principal.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
Being an atheist is the most ignorant thing I can think of. My argument of a creator creating the universe in the beginning, cannot be denied by any reasonable, logically thinking person. If is absolute 100% the only possible conclusion.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Being an agnostic is just about as bad as being an atheist. Things don’t appear out of thin air without help. Unless you are watching a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat. An eternal being has to exist, you just don’t know him, probably not your fault(bad influences of ignorant people growing up)???
By The72John
February 13, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
The “Book of Daniel� show was cancelled because we Christians boycotted it. With the majority of people in the USA being Christian(approx 85%), we can and should decide what shows make it here and which ones don’t. Get rid of garbage shows like the “Book of Daniel� and let’s keep this country strong with strong Christian beliefs.
Scary. Randy, you would REALLY be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia…it’s not Christian, but it is a theocracy, where you would be protected from all those evil secularists.
I’ll wager you never watched a single episode of the program you are talking about. Your reaction is typical of the knee-jerk “My preacher said it so it must be true” religious conservative. Before you comment on, well, anything, you ought to at least have some experience with it.
And Randy, matter does spontaneously arise. It’s observed all the time along the event horizon of a black hole. Your attempts to suggest that because a man-made object does not spontaneously appear that the universe of necessity has a creator is absolutely specious. Of course.
As to the topic: Absolutely, the West should have no objections to satirical depictions of religious figures. However, we can’t expect societies unready to accept freedom of thought to react in the same way we do. I was encouraged to see the Danish newspaper offer to print the holocaust cartoons simultaneously with the Iranian newspaper - they put their journalistic freedom where the mouth was - but thought it was irresponsible for papers to continue to print the cartoons once the violence had begun. These people were obviously simply trying to sell papers.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
I’m not going to be liking this topic.
But, thanks for yet one more great opportunity for all the holier-than-thou Christians to show how Christ-like they aren’t.
Just what we all needed on a Monday morning…
By Lyrazel
February 13, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
I loved the headlines covering the story: Cartoon Violence Spreads Across Middle East! Thousands Injured in Cartoon Bloodshed!
I guess people were being told by their religious leaders to protest defamatory cartoons. Take it out on the streets and yell all ye men of faith! and there they were all these men with fervent passions bent on getting in good with god, men who probably never could read a Danish newspaper or had ever seen one, were being paid a handful of kudos or coins by their leaders in the same way Imelda Marcos paid thousands of people to cheer her candidacy…why even the poor in America will stand in a chicken costume in the middle of winter for a way to make rent and get food in their kids belly to pass out flyers… Make it good for TV and wont those satan-worshiping westerners wet their pants in fear and Allah will reward you…uh yeah. Rewards. God is always rewarding gods chosen and the interpretations of holy scripture have made the place where 3 religions have their holiest sites a place of killing, war and hate that is old as the religions invented there.
As long as these devout Muslims are battling for god—why should they care if they bite the hand of international aid that feeds them? Danes were really hip and liberal about International Aid… ouch! Conflict of interest—how can you keep your hands out for international aid and justify burning the embassy?
God. Evil Satan countries gives billions in Aid…but the devout are only thinking of Gods Rewards…this credit card plan that gets you in with the upstairs dude so your sins while living goes unnoticed. You add points doing what you are told by religions leaders…*you will be rewarded with heaven if you fight this war…tithe this money…never drink…never drive on Sabbath…its like with this reward plan we can always justify putting a bullet in anyone who does not believe what we believe…and thats what god wants…
Long ago news Eric Severide (sp) a reporter stationed in Germany before the victory of Hitlers political party said: You can tell a nation is doomed when it starts burning its books
Maybe its not so bad. Canada banned Dudley Do-Right as being defamatory against RCMP and Canadians…gee whiz…its still banned.
By The72John
February 13, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
How ironic - I was just thinking that you were the most ignorant thing I could think of.
By Mara
February 13, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Randy, please explain how God came into being if not from “thin air”. If God exists, and has eternally existed, why then couldn’t the universe also be eternal in the same sense? What you opine is neither truth nor lie. It is what you believe to be true. That neither proves nor disproves that “God” exists, merely that you believe he exists. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence, either for or against, the existance of God. And blind faith isn’t really evidence of anything except an unwillingness to accept that one might just possibly be mistaken.
As I said, no wackier that believing in unicorns and dragons. Or “string theory” for that matter.
By Sanhan
February 13, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Randy, after 9/11, according to Jesus, what should the Christian response have been? Righteous anger and seeking justice for those who perpetrated the heinous crime? Or attacking an uninvolved sovereign nation with sketchy and questionable evidence that it was a threat? Or turning the other cheek, which would have been the peaceful thing to do?
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Geez, Candide - you didn’t have to call us fools. It’s too early in the morning for namecalling.
By Renee
February 13, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I thought that was a bit much too…I think Randy has joined in the name calling too, subsequently John has gotten riled up, and it’s only 9:28 am.
By Sanhan
February 13, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
Forgot to mention that Jesus said “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me.” Are you calling Jesus insane or ignorant? Not a very peaceful response.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
In other news, this morning on GA-400, there was a brand new (well, at least 2004 or better) Volkswagen Jetta on fire. The entire car was engulfed in flames; it was pretty scary. It’s no wonder the car didn’t just explode. The driver made it out. Saw him about 1/4 mile away from the car talking on his cell phone.
What a way to start off your work week.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
God didn’t come into being, he has always existed or he wouldn’t be God. DA! Where are you people from???
By Brian Curtis
February 13, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Randy, you’re a funny guy. I thought the hypocrisy of “You don’t see we Christians making fun of the atheists” was particularly touching, especially when you went on to make fun of them in the very same sentence.
You can never resist sneering at the ignorance of anyone who doesn’t believe as you do. And then you wonder why people aren’t flocking to follow your example. (head shaking)
By Randy
February 13, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry I don’t mean to call anybody names(unlike 72John) but a creator existing and creating everything is so simple, it’s just common sense.
By Brian Curtis
February 13, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Ahh, the ‘common sense’ argument that you fall back on every time someone engages you in any sort of discussion. It’s amazing how “common sense” can mean “refusal to think” in the wrong hands….
I’m curious, Randy: Does your combination of contempt and name-calling EVER work in reaching people with your faith? Is it really an effective message to say “I can’t believe you people are dumb enough not to be Christians! What are you, stupid? Jesus is all about LOVE, you ignorant morons! If you can’t see that, you’re just hopelessly retarded!”
By Randy
February 13, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Actually I doubt we are going to reach many people here on this site and influence them in the right way, reguardless of what I or any other Christian says. People come into a site like this with a preset belief system and are going to argue their belief system until they are red in the face. Most have structured their lifestyle around that belief system and it would take a major change in their heart to have any effect. I can’t make that change occur, Jesus is the only one I know of, that is that powerful.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Randy, as a fellow believer, I’m hoping perhaps you can receive this from me a little better than you’ll receive it from a non-believer: a creator existing and creating everything is not “so simple” or “just common sense.”
In fact, it’s everything but common sense. If it were just common sense, all atheists would be a bunch of ignorant idiots. On the contrary, many atheists (at least one of which, I know personally) are very intelligent people. Therefore, it’s a little small-minded to suggest that it’s common sense to believe in a creator.
Additionally, your explanation eliminates the need for faith. If it’s common sense, then why would we need to have faith to believe?
To me, God and His creation, His abilities, His power, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence makes NO sense to me. But, I believe because of my faith, my experience with Him. Not because it’s a story that’s so obvious and simple to believe.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
LOL @ hopelessly retarded.
Randy, you may not be able to make that change occur but you can certainly be the light that people are attracted to. Jesus didn’t commission you to change people; but He did call you to be fishers of men. And, if that’s what you’re attempting, you might want to try a different bait. You catch more flies with honey, dear.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Plus, I’m not a patience person, if you are so self-centered and selfish that you don’t want to believe in God, you take the consquences. I’m sure Jesus is alot more patience, he would have to be. That’s what I like, non-Christians think that just because I’m a Christian, I’m suppose to be patience and nice and understanding. I’m not Jesus, that is not part of my personality makeup and I’m not perfect. Only Jesus is.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
JBM, you are right, I’ll go do some work.
By Renee
February 13, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Actually I doubt we are going to reach many people here on this site and influence them in the right way, reguardless of what I or any other Christian says. People come into a site like this with a preset belief system and are going to argue their belief system until they are red in the face. Most have structured their lifestyle around that belief system and it would take a major change in their heart to have any effect.
Wouldn’t this statement apply to you as well. Do you not come onto the site with a preset belief system, and do you not argue your belief until you are red in the face. I don’t think any atheists are trying to push their beliefs on you though. They just want to be respected for their beliefs, whatever they might be. If you know Jesus, good for you, everbody does not know Jesus or care to, no matter how ridiculous that may seem to be. That’s the beauty of the United States. Freedom of religion, or lack thereof.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Okay, I wouldn’t even know where to start with all the grammatical flaws and poor sentence structure in my 9:45. I’m not fixing it, either. Just excuse me, please. Got carried away. LOL
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
That’s what I like, non-Christians think that just because I’m a Christian, I’m suppose to be patience and nice and understanding.
Uhhhhhh YEAH?!!!!! Non-Christians do expect you to be patient and nice and understanding. Aren’t those called “fruits of the spirit”? The proof that you have the spirit of Christ? If I understand Gal. 5:21-22 correctly, a person who is filled with the spirit possesses these pesky little qualities, so yeah, we have every right to expect you to be patient and nice and understanding.
And, we have every right to call you on it when you’re NOT.
By Randy
February 13, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Last thing, here on this site it frustrating to me. It’s similar to when by daughter was 4 or 5 years old and I would tell her 2 + 2 = 4 and she wouldn’t understand. No, 2 + 2 = 4, not 5. Only problem here is some of these people are in their thirties and forties. My belief system has been completely thought thru many times.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Randy, the difference is that 2+2=4 can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. God’s existence cannot.
By BetterQuestion
February 13, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Why do people of faith, Muslims, Christians, and more, get so upset and offended when someone, in this case a newspaper cartoon or even a TV show, does something that goes against that faith?
I have always thought it was an indication of insecurity about their chosen faith.
By BrotherB
February 13, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Of course we should be able to satirize, mock, etc. Time to grow up. That said, I would like to see some suggestions for art names in line with “P** Christ”. My suggestions: “P** the Koran” “Muhammad(P** be upon him)” Brother B
By BrotherB
February 13, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
PS, Tender crowd here. I did not type P**, I spelled it out. Brother B
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Anybody figure out what BrotherB’s “p—” is supposed to be?
By The72John
February 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
It’s p-i-s-s.
By Renee
February 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Peace??? lol
By The72John
February 13, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
He’s refering to a piece of artwork, though some people might debate its artistic merit, myself included, that was very controversial several years ago. It was a photograph (I believe) of a jar of urine with a crucifix suspended in it…it may have been the actual jar, I don’t remember.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Thanks, John. Was that the same artist who did the feces on the Virgin Mary or somebody that caused all that ruckus with the Catholics?
That’s really nice. Urine in a jar. Quite artistic.
By Mara
February 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
I believe if Brother B wants to produce an artistic peice such as P* Christ, more power to him. If he wants, like Sinead O’Conner, to tear to peices a picture of a popular pope, go right ahead. If he wants to do an installation peice of an effigy of Mohammad sourrounded by elephant dung (ala Ofili’s “Virgin Mary”) then sure, why not? Will it upset some people? Probably. But then, isn’t art one of the few mediums that specifically attempts to challenge the viewer, to try and show the world in a different way? Art, especially offensive or contraversial art, conveys a message, a challenge to view the world a bit different. In this it is exacly like “free speech”. And free speech can be upsetting (right Randy?). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have it. After all, everything that comes out of Ann Coulters pie-hole offends me, but I’m not saying she shouldn’t be allowed to speak. (Just ignore her, I say!) Nor does it mean I’m gonna go out and burn down the homes of Republican stalwarts. IMO the contraversy isn’t whether we should mock religeous figures, but instead how the religous communities shoud protest when we do.
By joan
February 13, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
We live in a free country and should be able to say anything we want without fear of mayhem, murder, burning, or looting. There is just no excuse in the world for that kind of behaviour.
By The72John
February 13, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
The problem is, we can’t expect non-Western, non-secular societies to react like a Western, secular society would.
There is a time when Christians would have reacted just as violently to such depictions as Muslims and there are Americans who react almost as violently towards flag burning.
If we just shake our heads and say “poor misguided religious nuts” then we have failed, once again, to try and understand WHY our conflict in the Middle East is what it is. If we continue to look at that region through the lens of Western expectations, we will NEVER find a resolution to this problem.
By Joe
February 13, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Tyranny of the Majority, Randy? Thomas Jefferson would have loved you—or not.
That said, I believe that free speech is extremely important. I also believe that we should strive to respect the beliefs of others, and when we DON’T respect them, we should be prepared for the reprecussions.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Very well said, John.
By Mara
February 13, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
“poor misguided religious nuts”!! hahahahahah!!! Be it the ones frothing at the mouth in front of Terri Shiavos nursing home, or the ones burning the Danish embassy…the poor misguided religious nuts! Sorry, I just liked the phrase.
By The72John
February 13, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
The outbursts in the Middle East are indicative of more than just religious fervor - they are a clear sign of the RAGE that people in that part of the world feel towards Westerners.
Why, is the question. Yes, the mullahs and aytolahs are responsible to much of the fury-whipping, but that’s just another symptom. For people to respond with such anger, there has to be an underlying cause. Until we grasp that underlying cause, there won’t be a peaceful solution in our future.
The reason that Palestinians overwhelmingly elected a violent part such as Hammas to power, the reason that so many young men and women are willing to join organizations like Al-Qaeda, the reason that hundreds and hundreds of people are rioting over cartoons…maybe there’s a link, hmm? Maybe we should try to solve that riddle rather than treating the symptoms.
By lozen
February 13, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Randy, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Your simple-minded, circular arguments for your faith amaze me. It’s so obvious you don’t know how to think. It’s not possible to debate you because you can’t debate. You embarrass yourself on this blog over and over with your ignorance and nobody will ever follow anything that you promote. Give up. Get yourself right with Jesus and leave leading the sheep to jesus to people who are more intelligent and more christ-like than you will ever be.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
but john, a lot of these non-western, non-secular muslims are living in western style republics/democracies in europe. we saw the riots in france last year, we see “honor killings” in germany occurring all-too frequently, and now this. these things are happening in western countries that have welcomed muslim immigrants to their countries, many of whom have deliberately chosen not to integrate themselves into the surrounding culture and live by rule of law.
i agree that we shouldn’t expect non-westerners to react like westerners when challenged with things they might find objectionable. but the original violence was sparked in a western society by muslims living in that western nation. i don’t expect them to react the same way i would or you would, but i expect them to abide by the rule of law if they live here, or in the UK, denmark, france, etc., regardless of their religious background.
my tolerance for their intolerance is waning, quickly.
By lozen
February 13, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
jShanti says, “Many seem not to understand the difference between inappropriate suppression of free speech, and simply showing old-fashioned respect for others’ deeply held religious beliefs.” How about others’ deeply felt attraction to the same sex, Shanti? White woman speaks with forked tongue!
By The72John
February 13, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
I think “welcomed muslim immigrants” is a little gratuitous, don’t you, Bla? Try “grudingly allowed the inhabitants of regions colonized by Europe in the golden age of colonization to live amongst those who originally conquered them”, instead.
Western Europe has not been very welcoming of its Muslim immigrants. In fact, they have gone far beyond what even I consider an appropriate separation of church and state to discriminate against muslims. More than one EU country has introduced laws banning head scarves or other outward displays of religious garb.
No, Europe has hardly accepted its muslim population with open arms.
By lozen
February 13, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Mara, ditto on Ann Coulter. I read a little of her stuff and have to wonder what world she lives in. Everything that ever went wrong, anywhere, to anybody, is because of something the “liberals” did. She’s a nut case.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
fine, but 1) for a bunch of people who are so unwelcome, they sure are moving there in droves, and 2) who really cares if europe makes them feel warm and fuzzy for moving there, they still live in those countries and should live by the rule of law, right? or should we sophisticated westerners look at our muslim neighbors and perpetuate the belief that they’re incapable of tolerance the way we are bc they’re muslim? “look at those crazy muslims, they’re at it again”. should we have one set of expectations for westerners living in a western society and another set of expectations for muslims living in a western society? i sure hope not.
By candide
February 13, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
More obscene than cartoons about religion is religion itself. Take Christianity (you take it!): a God condemns mankind to hell because the ancestress and ancestor ate an apple he had forbidden them. He then sends someone called his son, an ordinary person raised to divinity by wiley clerics, to die so that his blood can redeem those already condemned. This is sado-masochistic fantasy of the most depraved kind. A Christian should be ashamed to admit believing something even a child would find offensive and absurd.
As Voltaire said: ecrasons l’infame. (Let us crush that infamy.)
By lozen
February 13, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Hey 72John, we don’t want to see the big picture, now do we? It’s a little too complicated and might make it harder to kill them. They’re wrong and we’re right. They deserve to die for what they do to us. We don’t do anything bad to them! It’s all their fault. That keeps things simpler, ya know.
By Scalia
February 13, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Top of the morning to you scalawags!:)
Ah, yeah, here we go with religion being argued whether it is true or not.
By lozen
February 13, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
candide, indeed! What would our world be like if, instead of a statue of a martyred, bloody jesus hanging in front of every church and being made the big hero for dying, we had a mother giving birth teaching us on that deep level to praise life rather than death?
By lozen
February 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Anybody got any jokes yet about Cheney - the man doesn’t know who to shoot at home either?
By FatMoose
February 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Actually I doubt we are going to reach many people here on this site and influence them in the right way, reguardless of what I or any other Christian says. People come into a site like this with a preset belief system and are going to argue their belief system until they are red in the face. Most have structured their lifestyle around that belief system and it would take a major change in their heart to have any effect. I can’t make that change occur, Jesus is the only one I know of, that is that powerful.
This describes you Randy/chuck/etc better than other (secular) people on the blog.
Plus, I’m not a patience person, if you are so self-centered and selfish that you don’t want to believe in God, you take the consquences. I’m sure Jesus is alot more patience, he would have to be. That’s what I like, non-Christians think that just because I’m a Christian, I’m suppose to be patience and nice and understanding. I’m not Jesus, that is not part of my personality makeup and I’m not perfect. Only Jesus is.
So, what we have here is a christian that sins (judges others, does not love others as does self…etc); and does not repent that sin; and if he does repent, he performs it again anyways knowingly - and justifies all this by saying it “is not part of my personality makeup.”
Sounds no different than what he judges gays for. Concentrate on the beam in your eye man!
By FatMoose
February 13, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Had to post this:
Randy/chuck/etc, even the darn pope can understand that there are layers that are not common sense and can confuse people like you - and those layers are not necc mutually exclusive either. But, to understand them you cannot stay ignorant and oppose reality based on dogma - and even the pope is trying to reel you in.
“VATICAN CITY - Science made such rapid progress in the 20th century that people may sometimes be confused about how the Christian faith can still be compatible with it, Pope Benedict XVI said Friday.
But science and religion are not opposed to each other and Christians should not be afraid to try to understand how they complement each other in explaining the mystery of life on Earth, he told the Vatican’s doctrinal department.”
By Elane
February 13, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Europe expelled the same group of people in 1492. It appears it will once again be necessary, since too many failed to remember history and are therefore doomed to repeat it.
Last time, a monolithic Christian church expelled the Muslims for not conforming to Christian doctrine. The Jews were caught up in the same net. However, in the 21st century, secular thinking rules Europe, but the standards of freedom and individual rights are distilled from Judeo-Christianity! The Europeans are just starting to figure this out. I worry that the US is headed, well-intentioned though it may be, toward an unthinking endorsement of theocracy. We need to be very, very careful. If not, we may be surprised to see our society end up in the dirt, while Europe experiences a second Renaissance.
By The72John
February 13, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
If the world were perfect, bla, things might work the way you want. Any ethnic group could move to a new country and immediately fit in - not only would they instantly assimilate into the culture, but the new culture would instantly accept them. Doesn’t happen.
So, instead of self-righteously waggling our fingers and saying “shame, shame”, or standing like the substitute teacher in the unruly class shouting vainly “hey, you kids shouldn’t be doing that!”, shouldn’t we be trying to solve the problem?
Ignoring the fact the the riots sparked by the depcition of Muhammed as a terrorist have primarily occured in Middle Eastern countries and NOT European ones, do you actually think that riots occur just because those rioting were just bad people? Did the Watts riots occur just because the perpetrators were hooligans? Did the King riots, or the rioting in Concord, NC ten years ago? Or were there causes behind them?
I’m not a fan of riots - I was actually in Salisbury, NC during the Concord riots, 10 minutes down the road, and I was in LA the day the OJ verdict was rendered. I realize there was no rioting on that day, but there was incredible tension in the city leading up to it out of fear of what MIGHT happen. But I would rather find solutions that work and lead to a better society than I would simply try to lay blame while the problems continue.
By War Eagle
February 13, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
RANDY! This country was founded to get awayfrom the radical Church of England-it was not founded to be a CHRISTIAN country but a free country to practice religion and not a country of a particular religion. Therefore, the US, under the Bill of Rights/Preamble or perhpas the Constitution (some important paper), cannot be deemed a nation of one particular religion. This is another reason why Muslims live under a dictatorship and not in the free world-they would not know how to conduct themselves. They don’t know how to take a joke-most of them live in a country where religion is shoved down their throat 24/7 and they have no comedy club. The press has no freedom-just the government garbage paper. If we would kidnap their jihadists and behead them in the name of jesus-that would get their attnetnion fast. As one person said-kill them all and let God sort them out.
By PoliticalMan
February 13, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
They used to run snake-oil salesmen out of town when it was found out that their bottles of magical cures were mostly booze, some roots, and this and that.
I wonder when religious salesmen will get run out of town. Religion is pure nonsense. It deserves ridicule. But it can be a problem keeping out of the way of the snake-oil drinkers.
By Roger
February 13, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
I agree that we should not publish cartoons of Mohammad simply to anger Muslims—but WE (the U.S.) didn’t; yet the demonstrations are largely aimed at us. Therefore, they are not about what we have done, but who we are. And that I adamantly will not agree to change. Moreover, the riots make this news—one of the purposes of a riot. Since it is news, we deserve to know just what the fuss is all about. And our beloved AJC won’t print them—out of “respect”. Bull. Out of fear. I plan to cancel my subscription.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
john,
i have no idea why people riot. i don’t know what kind of mental midgetry is required to be ticked off and then go blow up things bc of it. i can’t blow up my neighbor’s car when my team wins the stanley cup, the super bowl, or when some mullah flushes a few pages of the bible down his commode. (think chris rock - “this movie’s so good, i gotta bust a cap in the screen”) maybe it’s bc they’re bad people, maybe it’s just bc they’re brainwashed. maybe it’s just bc there are idiots in the world. i don’t know, i’m not wired that way. i look at it for what it is: unnecessary, childish behavior that doesn’t further their goals and generally leaves all involved worse off than when they started.
i grant you that most of the muslim uproar occurs in the mid-east and not europe, principally bc that’s where all the muslims are.
but when i look at muslim populations living in europe, by and large, they aren’t assimilating. they don’t want to assimilate. they want to bring their brand of theocratic intolerance with them from the mid-east to europe, taking advantage of western tolerance. they’re already working on solving the problem, as they see it, john. you’re not muslim; they want you dead or converted. when you say “let’s solve the problem”, that’s their solution. it’s the same mentality you despise so much on this blog with chuck and randy - you can’t argue with the religious fanatic. you can’t debate him/her. facts, reasoning and logic don’t matter. kill or convert the infidel - until that message is changed and islam is no longer hijacked by the clerics preaching that message, a “solution” is going to be really tough to come by. you don’t have peace just bc one side puts their bombs down. they have to put their bombs down too.
By Eirik
February 13, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
72John,
I’m surprised that you are so sympathetic towards muslim european immigrants considering they have been responsible for the most violence against gays in nations like Holland. All of Europe is becoming more enlighted, yet these “visitors” want to enforce their morality on their host country. They beat up gay couples in otherwise gay-friendly Amsterdam…they vandalize the “little mermaid” statue because it offends their medieval view of women, and they murder a dutch politician who has the guts to call them what they are..violent. Why should they be welcomed? And given the global response to a stupid piece of animation I would call it naive to say the violence is just from a “few bad apples”.
By Eirik
February 13, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Correction…stupid cartoon…it of couse isn’t animated.
By Netbanker
February 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
BLA…I was reading somewhere recently about this topic and a sociologist advised that it generally takes 75 years for any immigrant population to fully assimilate. I suggest that our own waves of Irish and Italian immigration would prove this to be true.
Lozen..Thank you for clearing up the meaning of Shaunti’s name. I always suspected it was something along those lines. I enjoy finding out what names mean…I told someone in my office that my dog’s name, Abigale, is from ancient celtic meaning ‘energetic whirlwind of royal proportions’ and was derived from the Picts. The pictish translation is “stubborn, warrier princess full of love and kisses.”
Roger…Excellent point about how the U.S. has been tied to the controversy even though our news outlets didn’t print the cartoons nor are we even the country where they originated. This leads me to believe that the majority of the outrage is fabricated and meant to be a diversion for the population so they won’t focus on how poorly their own countries are run or how they suffer at the hands of their leaders. It is the same tactic that our own politicians use to focus Americans on the ‘threat of Gay Marriage’ so we won’t pay attention to the fact that our government is creating the perfect fiscal storm (deficit spending, reducing taxes further, HUGE wave of retirees coming, etc.) that could destroy our country, for example.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
net,
as usual, you make a good and fair point on the time necessary for an immigrant population to assimilate into its host country. remember though that the london bombers were all born in the UK and most were second and third generation in that country. by all reasoning, relations between the UK and their muslim population should be improving, not disintegrating. the same should be true for the rest of europe.
it’s one thing to bring your culture with you and meld it to the host culture, as our immigrant populations did. it’s something different to cordon yourself off, minimize contact with the host culture and do nothing to assimilate oneself into one’s new surroundings.
By RF
February 13, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Net- good point, as usual. Like most things, given time assimilation will happen. Both sides adapt in that case. America proves it can be done and is being done. I’m with you on the point that the uproar is just another excuse to ‘blame the west’. How long have we put up with ugly cartoons about the US? I remember seeing videos of a middle-eastern group burning a model of Uncle Sam in effigy once. Noone here rioted over that.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 13, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Why do we blast each other over opinions and beliefs, particularly in this country? Nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything you don’t want to believe. So then why is it neccessary to blast each other if one person is religious and the other is not? None of us know with empirical certainty what happens when death ends this life, so what is there to argue?
By FatMoose
February 13, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
None of us know with empirical certainty what happens when death ends this life, so what is there to argue?
Unfortunately there are a handfull of people that insist that they do know with certainty and leave no room for other opinions.
By DLS
February 13, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
I just took a break and read some of this blog: other then not agreeing with almost everyone let me ask this question… Most of you state in Christian beliefs, which Christian belief? >>>>>>>>>> Baptist; Southern Baptist, Presbyterian; Lutheran; Catholic; Catholic Orthodox; Greece Orthodox; Russian Orthodox; Ukrainian Orthodox; Eastern Orthodox; Latter-day Saints; Harri Krishna; Methodist; Fundamentalists; Messianic Judaism; Pentecostal; Christian Science; Adventist; on and on and on
The second Question is if you have read the first two books of Genesis, they contradict themselves on the “Religious� interpretation of creation (hint the order of the creation) – How do you explain that?
By Scalia
February 13, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
The 72John, Buffy would take out Wonder-Woman. But could Buffy beat the Bride, Beatrix Kiddo, from Kill Bill 1 and 2?
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 13, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
DLS - if you don’t believe, why do you care?
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
so who walks out of the steel cage death match of zena, WW and buffy? no weapons, just what you normally wear.
how bored am i, and it’s only monday!
By FatMoose
February 13, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
DLS,
They cannot hear logical posts - at best, you will get a reply that twists your question into a form they can deal with.
We ran into this in a number of areas, as with the bible stating that insects have four legs.
And an example of the reply we get is a cut/paste job from a site that explains how all the animals could fit in Noahs Arc; INCLUDING the dinasaurs!!!
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 13, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - I got your point but I had to smile at your comment for the sole reason that there is no lack of varying opinions around here! Haha!
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 13, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Bla - clearly Zena..the other two just aren’t mean enough. Xena could make an alligator cry and cower in fear
By DLS
February 13, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
WatchingRomeBurn
You assume (and you know what that means)
By Pequod
February 13, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
I would challenge Ms. Feldhahn’s claim that “respect for religious belief” lies outside of free speech and would like to broaden the issue a little.
Respect is owed to individual human beings, all human beings, but it should not automatically extend to their belief systems. Religions may be more than belief sytstems, indeed they are, but religious doctrines have for too long enjoyed a privileged status, off limits from rational criticism, or satirical treatment in this culture. Instead they should be treated as other belief systems, whether they be scientific, economic, or political, and just as open to public questioning and comment as any other in a free, open, and democratic society.
Here in the United States, in fact over and over again in Ms. Feldhan’s columns, we see religion used as the basis for political policies, ethical conclusions, and recommendations that affect all citizens. Yet, when one questions the use of religion to ground public policy, it is considered beyond the pale. Suddenly one is insensitive and out of line. Why? Why should issues regarding abortion, the teaching of evolutionary theory, the moral status of stem cell research, the status of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, and others all be connected with religion and yet religion remain beyond criticism or justification?
And, the respect demanded by religious people, is often not extended to non-religious people. Let me offer one example from this very newspaper in a letter to the editor published in the Faith and Values Section, August 24, 2002:
I have come to hate atheists. They are always attacking Christian belief. They are hopeless cynics. Existence is a struggle between faith and nonbelief, and the atheists are enemies of belief.
At the very least, atheists should be scorned for being part of the earthly realm of evil. May these agents of Satan burn in hell. The God-based Constitution should not apply to this criminally correct trash.”
Would a letter in which such contempt for others in the words “hate,� “hopeless cynics,� “enemies,� “scorned,� “agents of Satan,� “burn in hell,� “criminally correct trash,� who “should not be protected by the Constitution,� even been considered if these words referred to virtually any other group in this society? Would this newspaper, which I subscribe to, read, and in general, value and defend against detractors, have published that letter if the word “Muslims� or “Jews� or “Hindus� been substituted for “atheists�? I think everyone should agree that it flew right under the radar screen of the editors and that fact is revelatory of the general status of nonbelievers in this culture.
The broader issue here is an end to double standards. If religion is being used for political purposes in ways which affect everyone, then others have every right to question that use and demand public justifications, not merely religious ones.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Bla, unquestionably WW.
And, how’s Mrs. Bla doing these days?
By Lyrazel
February 13, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
So are people now as bored of the Cartoon Violence as we are? The protests have abated…people have gone home? My guess is there is a shortage of virgins to serve at the eternal buffet to die for this cause.
By DLS
February 13, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Let me tell you a story – I am a Jew that moved into Forsyth County about 7 years ago. Our family has a tradition of doing all holidays and inviting anyone in the neighborhood, work and friends that have no where else to go for that holiday.
When we moved into the sub-division and went to the pool for the first time and were asked where our church home was and told them that we didn’t have one because we went to synagogue. The first thing out of this person’s mouth was “We never met a Jew before� to make this a short story they and others have come to our house for both Christian and Jews holidays… They learned that there is really no basic differences in our beliefs and customs and now look forward to Passover and the Seder (the Christian last supper) and Rosh Hashanah (a new years celebration) and our Christmas dinner.
If we take time to learn each others customs we will find out that we all start with the same core beliefs and that we are more alike then different – It is those that think their beliefs are the only beliefs and those that are fanatical to the extreme right of left of their religious beliefs that cause most of the problems we face today.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 13, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
DLS - Thank you for eloquently making the point I was hoping to draw out.
By Van
February 13, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Sane people do show a tolerance or indulgence towards someone elses faith, regardless of what that faith is.
People without a moral(religious) bases for their lives do not understand this.
Then there are the extremes. There are folks who think nothing of insulting or degrading someone elses belief, whether it is in art or satire.
People who live by the “Golden Rule” would not take up rocks and torchs causing destruction and death. We may protest, we may write to the editor and we might even help bring down a TV series we consider in bad taste.
BTW, for those that are ignorant of the Golder Rule -
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So, based on that, I would ask the athiests and agnostics to indulge me in my faith and I will indulge them in their lack of faith.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
i agree, jbm, i’m a big believer in WW as well. call me old school if you will.
mrs. bla is doing pretty well. thanks so much for asking. i say pretty well bc she’s handling her nausea like a trouper, although unfortunately she suffers mostly from evening sickness, not morning sickness. this is a bit of a cramp on our lifestyle since when i get home every nite and she’s usually feeling lousy - most of the time i’m seeing her outside of weekends she’s not feeling too well. but she’s taken well to reading all the literature she can get her hands on, reads her pregnancy books and is really excited about this whole process. she’s doing a great job of managing her diet and making sure she’s getting lots of protein and all the other things a growing little one needs.
on the flip side, though, all the information has her hyper-analyzing her body and anything she feels. i can only assume this is due to this being her first pregnancy and not really understanding everything that’s going on. no less than 20 times a day she asks me if i think the baby is ok, if everything is going to be alright, etc. sometimes she winds herself up way too tight over any little passage that she reads, that she felt a twinge and something calamitous is around the corner. we’re trying to fight the temptation to let herself (and me) get waaaaay too stressed out about little things that we ultimately can’t really control going on inside of her.
on the more humorous side, i generally cook two meals a nite - the first is the one she thinks she wants, which i generally eat after she’s had four bites and decided she doesn’t want it anymore, and the second is generally what ends up being what she eats. when we order in, we pick two different things that she likes so she can eat whichever one suits her more once it arrives while i eat the other. other than that, life is calm since i tend to a few more of the household chores and put her to bed pretty early to save her energy.
By Renee
February 13, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Wow bla!!!! Good luck all will be fine!!!!!!
By Renee
February 13, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Morals and religion do not go hand in hand. An aetheist can be abundant with morals whereas a claiming to be devout Christian can have none.
By Just Being Me
February 13, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Wow, Bla! Sounds like you’re being a trooper too! Although I wouldn’t be foolish enough to compare the two, pregnancy is hard on men too. Just keep being there for her, and enjoy every minute of the pregnancy (even the minutes where she swears that the weird feeling must mean the baby’s arm is uncomfortable or something nutty like that! LOL).
By The72John
February 13, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Eirik, I’m opposed to stereotyping of populations in general. Education and socio-economic status have as much to do with tolerance as anything. Sure, religious upbringing is going to have something to do with it, but social conditions contribute far more to destructive behavior than anything.
C’mon people - Buffy would totally kick Xena AND The Bride’s butts. She’s the SLAYER, duh!
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
i’m just trying to do the little things that will make her day easier, like household chores or fixing dinner. it’s obviously much more of a strange change for her, but there are definitely areas where i’m having to help more than my usual. and i never drink any wine in the evening until after she goes to bed so as not to rub it in or tempt her. i’ve watched more gauntlet with her and Next! than i care to admit instead of watching college basketball or poker with the buddies. but it’s all easy stuff and a small price for me to keep her happy, healthy, rested and non-stressed. i surprised her this past week bc i’d read more in her pregnancy book than she had. i figure the least i can do is understand what’s going on with her body so that i can figure out ways to help. plus, the more i know, the more patient and understanding i can be when she goes nutty on me. i had my first oddball trip to the grocery store this weekend for an assortment of random items. i laughed to myself as i left.
what i’m finding is that it requires patience and understanding more than anything. understanding i can handle, patience is going to be tricky for me. lol.
and i have realized that i am now the only rational, non-hormonal person in the house. well, me and the dogs.
By blablabla
February 13, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
C’mon people - Buffy would totally kick Xena AND The Bride’s butts. She’s the SLAYER, duh!
you love buffy, don’t you?
By Randy
February 13, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Would Candide be “Norman” come back from the dead??? When I make a decision on a subject, such as Christianity. I look and see that if I were to be wrong, can I live(or in this case be dead) with the conclusion if I were to be wrong(I’m not). But we will play as if I am. If I am wrong, nothing happends to me, I just die and life has no meaning. Can the Non-Christians live(or be dead) with the situation if they are wrong. If they are wrong, the go to Hell, for eternity??? Some people have tried to put a spin on hell as if it is not horrifying, but it surely is. Torture beyond belief. Your worse nightmare times 100 million. See my position is a win/win, the non-Christian is a lose/lose.
By Van
February 13, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Renee,
Yes, you are right, it was just a reference -
Morals: 2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct
Most modes of conduct are based on religious, or other guidelines of behavior.
Personally, I do not believe a true atheist can have morals, just good behavior. Without a guide to base the morals on, how could a true atheist be moral? Without a sense of right or wrong(who is to say what is right or wrong?), what is to limit personal bad habits? It is hard enough to curb impulses with a religious upbringing.
By 74dog
February 13, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
are there any normal people in here? The question was shouldreligious figures ever be portrayed controversially. If it is deserving, yes. Case in point: Jimmy Swaggert,Money hawking televangelist, getting caught in a cheap motel room with a pair of hookers,or the whole Jim and Tammy Faye thing. Likewise the mad mullahs of the millitant end of Islam are begging for carricature. In addition, their onwn efforts to suppress free speech in the West led directly to the cartoons in question. That said the final word is this: generally speaking , reasonable people should respect the deeply held and/or religious beliefs of others-I recall something like “do unto others…” But noneof this trumps basic human rights (and constutional over here) like freedom of speech and religion. No matter how offensive to anyone it may be. That person has the right to ignore, criticize , boycott or express his displeasure in any peaceful and legal way. When in doubt, your right stops where my nose starts.
By Netbanker
February 13, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
I just have to comment on this because I haven’t seen anyone else do it, but when I read the phrase Cartoon Violence I form this mental image of Bugs Bunny type ‘violence’ where no one really gets hurt and there are word bubbles/graphics with POW and BLAM in them along with sound effects.
By RF
February 13, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Net- I always loved seeing what happened to Elmer, and one of my favorites was Tom and Jerry- Poor Tom always got the bad end of that. Now that was cartoon violence—funny and non-political.
By FatMoose
February 13, 2006 05:13 PM | Link to this
Randy,
If you are wrong about your assertions regarding the bible: “But we will play as if I am. If I am wrong, nothing happends to me, I just die and life has no meaning.” is not the result - you burning in hell for changing and sidetracking others that would have found the light, yet did not bc of your assertions; as well as your hatefull words/actions towards others that is based on a failed realization of god.
It would also mean all your judgement would be judged in itself…but by what jesus actually taught - and not your human translation.
See - it is not simply a christian/non-christian world out here. And there are a lot of christians that think you and chuck have it DEAD WRONG, not that we have it right en todo, just that you are definately wrong.
It is quite easy to dis-prove something vs proving it - hence why the scientific approach is used.
By Netbanker
February 13, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this
Randy…the whole concept of Hell for all eternity is one that just doesn’t jive with the message of a loving God in your religion. God is referred to as ‘The Father.’ Any father is right to punish his children when they do wrong for the purpose of teaching them the correct behavior. Only an egotistical maniac would condem a child to eternal punishment BEFORE they’ve done something wrong and have a zero tolerance policy that NEVER provides a opportunity for redemption once they did screw up.
By candide
February 14, 2006 07:07 AM | Link to this
Netbanker: good for you, you have identified the sado-masochistic core of Christianity.
By candide
February 14, 2006 07:18 AM | Link to this
While the Old Testament is full of blood and guts, it is not sado-masochistic. It is the New Testament which contains all the sado-masochistic elements which offend both reason and common sense. The NT writers — Paul, John, etc. — were very sick men.
By Scalia
February 14, 2006 07:18 AM | Link to this
Good morning, vagabonds. How is everybody doing? Are we going to continue debating religion?
As for whether Buffy, Xena, the Bride, or WW would come out on top, I’m going to give it my SLAYER. Buffy rocks.
By Lyrazel
February 14, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this
I have been reading around the web and keep finding articles that many of the inflammatory cartoons were a., not concerning Mohammed at all, b., used by Imam to insight violence, c., some not Danish, and Danish published long ago in October and only rioted on now…
So this cartoon violence is what? Faith following the loudest, or faith at all?
By Pequod
February 14, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
Van,
You wrote, “I would ask the athiests and agnostics to indulge me in my faith and I will indulge them in their lack of faith.�
That’s fine, if religion gives meaning, intelligibility, and coherence to your life, I respect that, but you fail to show that “indulgence� or respect that you ask for in remarks like this one, which show little or no reflection on these issues at all:
“I do not believe a true atheist can have morals, just good behavior. Without a guide to base the morals on, how could a true atheist be moral? Without a sense of right or wrong(who is to say what is right or wrong?), what is to limit personal bad habits? It is hard enough to curb impulses with a religious upbringing.�
First, there is a history of ethics in philosophy going back to Aristotle, in which non-religious justifications for ethics and ethical behavior are offered. The problem is that most religious people are too comfortable (dare one say at least occasionally smug) to consider them, examine them rigorously, or even become aware of them. The first work exclusively devoted to ethics, by Aristotle, is primarily concerned explaining how people become ethical persons and it features little reference to religion. (Although Thomas Aquinas borrowed extensively from it in shoring up the lack of resources in Catholicism.)
So, those religious people who would refuse to recognize as adequately justified any moral beliefs not derived from knowledge of or about God, would have to refute the whole vast ranged of argument s put by Kant, Hume, and all others who ever proposed a non-religious basis for ethics. But I don’t need reference to God to know that murder is wrong or to care about the well-being of my friends, family, and fellow citizen, and it is nothing but arrogance to assert to the contrary.
Second, another point that seems to escape most religious people is that if one bases ethics in religion, you have only pushed the need for justification or providing a basis for ethics back a step, because now you need a justification for religion, God, and all the rest of it. (And that is a considerable burden of proof if you take it seriously.) If you say faith, then frankly, that is no justification at all. Justifying something consists in giving evidence or reason for accepting something. Why should anyone consider themselves subject to the “faith� of another? One cannot expect a Muslim to accept an ethical conclusion grounded in the New Testament, or a Christian to accept an ethical claim based on the Koran, or a non-believer to be ethically bound by either one of them. Not unless you give a serious, compelling argument for adhering to one of these religions.
Third, If it is held that religion is the source of ethics then which of the sacred texts do we use? How do we establish the credibility of one versus the other? Which religion and which texts do we use? If religious belief is not to be based upon a mere accident of birth, namely which culture one is born into or which religion one happened to brought up in, then we need an argument for privileging one religion over another. Otherwise, it is an arbitrary choice, contingent upon one’s accidental circumstances.
Someone who was familiar with the history of ethics and philosophy in general, Albert Einstein had a answer to your, rather arrogant assertion:
”A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” [New York Times Magazine, 09/11/1930]
Again, respect is due to persons, individual human beings. It is time that religion and the attempts of religious people to arrogate morality and human decency to themselves alone, is challenged. Religion doesn’t and never deserved a free pass because of “respect” any more than evolutionary theory or Keynesian economic, or any other belief.
By Brian Curtis
February 14, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Pequod: Excellent point. I agree that Van seems to be making sweeping assumptions about agnostic and atheist ethics without any real attempt to understand them.
Van, I know it seems incredible to you, but it IS possible to develop a system of morality and principles without the threat of divine punishment to hold over people’s heads. Such concepts have been around since Ancient Greece at least.
By Lisa Venable
February 14, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this
You really missed the point in my mind. I don’t believe the press has to “respect religious views” and if they criticize Christians who participate in newsworthy crime, injustice or violence in the name of Christianity the media helps Christians like me who have ethics and values. However, the press has the responsibility to name and criticize muslim people who commit injustice, violence and intolerance in the name of their religion or religious beliefs. I believe this violent protest by muslim people has a “chilling effect” on equal news criticism. If the media is afraid of criticizing violent muslims for fear of retribution then there will be no “truth” in media only criticism of easy targets, like Christians. This is what the muslims want, they are always demanding apologies from the press and feel entitled to control the media. I do not see moderate muslims criticizing the violent response and they also are “demanding apologies.” The cartoons portray muslims as violent. If they are not, they should embrace peace and peaceful protests. But all we hear about is “fatwas” and “death to those who criticize muslims”. The media really misses the boat with this VERY BIG distinction. The media does not have to fear for their lives when they criticize Christians and the TRUTH is be honest about that. The media is not being fair here they are being swayed by the violence and threat of violence. It works!
By BumperSticker
February 14, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
“Poacher for President? HUH”
By Van
February 14, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
Pequod, finaly, some one that can make a point.
Regarding the ancient greeks and thier ethics. The Spartan soldier was a full time soldier, not like today, where it might be a 9 to 5 job. If a Spartan wanted to marry, he had to provide for his wife. As a soldier he was provided with his room and board and nothing else, and a wife was not provided for.
To make ends meet, it was the practice for the soldier to steal goods and other items from those he met in battle(and whereever he could) and sell them. This was tolerated unless he was caught. To them the crime was not the stealing, but in being caught. This is a great example for the young folks of today.
Regarding you thoughts on which sacred text to follow? That belongs to the individual. The majority of world religions hae some moral standard that they live by. The we have the hedonist, where happiness is the sole or chief good in life. regardless of the source, whether it is sex, drugs or rock and roll.
In real life a persons religion is a personal and private matter. I would rather live in a neighborhood full of many religions and therefore moral people, then an intown neighborhood full of amoral folks.
But then again, it is my opinion.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Interestingly enough, the last American Religous Identification Survey noted that the number of Americans self identifying as “Christian” was around 89% in 1990. By 2001, that percentage had fallen to 77% (with evangelicals being a mere 7% of the population…) What is the fastest growing belief system? Wicca.
Christians (as a whole) are admittedly the largest religious population in America, but what is the second largest group of people? Yup. The eeeeeeeville seculars. Just an FYI.
By True Confusion
February 14, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Religion is not morality. Each religion offers its own set of moral behaviors and attitudes. But so does any belief system. Just because Jesus or Allah is not behind each moral code does not nullify those codes.
By FatMoose
February 14, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Pequod, finaly, some one that can make a point.
And your response is to restate your position, remaining ignorant to what he - and others - posted. Which is that there is no arguement that morals are birthed soley from religion - but moreover there is proof of morals in the absence of religion.
And as far as “The(n) we have the hedonist, where happiness is the sole or chief good in life. regardless of the source, whether it is sex, drugs or rock and roll.” Which was accepted by christianity until paul condemmed all joy that did not come directly from praising the lord, NOT jesus.
For example, the seven “deadly” sins are not in the bible, and are followed out of dogma that was created from spin-offs and again NOT what jesus said.
By The72John
February 14, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Those who depend on religion to provide their morality are LESS moral than those who do not. They behave in a certain way out of fear of punishment, not because they believe in doing the right thing for the right reasons.
If you need an outside source to tell you that your actions are right or wrong, then you don’t have a particularly strong sense of ethics.
It is laughable to suggest that religious people are more ethical than non-religious people in light of the many, many ethical transgressions committed on a daily basis by so-called “Christians”.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
HEY! Don’t be dissin’ on the rock ‘n’ roll, now dude. I might start rioting in the streets! There have always been sex and drugs. It was ROCK & ROLL that brought it all together into something beautiful, man… sniff sniff
By True Confusion
February 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Let’s take JBM, as an example (if I may - and this is just my opinion). Just from reading her entries, I would surmise that she is person with strong and yet loving convictions. I don’t know if there is a higher power, but through her faith, JBM believes it. And when I hear about people being changed by the spirit, I can imagine JBM. I believe that someone who is truly open to being changed probably has loving convictions outside of her faith as well. I doubt that her faith gave her the morals she has, but rather that her faith illuminates them. Then, we can take the fundies on this blog as an example. If I heard “changed by the spirit” in the same sentence as some of them, I would think “what spirit would do that?” I don’t see loving convictions, I see fear of consequences. That is not moral, that is fear of hell. That is good behavior.
By RF
February 14, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
kimberly—ever seen “Dazed and Confused”? Anthem of the rock-n-roll seventies! Oh those were the days…
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Never saw Dazed and Confused, but know both the song and the feeling well. Was a but a child in the 70’s, but I have to say, after seening Robert Plant in The Song Remains the Same concert movie, um…. my innocence was gone. sigh
Is this the “immorality” of which earlier thumpers wrote? ‘Cause I have to say, I’ve never started a war, killed or robbed anyone, campaigned to deny anyone equal rights, molested anyone without a prior verbal request, promised lil’ ol’ widows a fast train to heaven if they sent me cash, nor circumvented legal loopholes to steal someone else’s retirement funds.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
i keep getting older and they stay the same age.
allright, allright.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
kimberly, how could you never have seen dazed and confused? that’s your assignment for this weekend - you gotta see it. you’ll love the soundtrack.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
May I suggest “This is Spinal Tap” for extra credit?
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
and to tie them all together, Dude, Where’s my Car.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Haha! Spinal Tap RULES. Also saw the Woodstock movie. Pretty cool. Why does “Peace & Love” get such a bad rap these days? What part of “Make love not war!” can anyone possibly find offensive? Seriously… Can someone enlighten me?
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Make love not war
as evidenced by the boycotts Donald Wildmon starts, it is better to have people blown up, cut in half, beheaded, burned, and all the other things you can do to terminate a life, then it is to have something related to sexuality or the creation of life.
dunno why, you would have to ask him or his ilk. His whole group got Blockbuster to not carry any NC-17 films. Have not been in a Blockbuster since.
By Eirik
February 14, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
RF,
Are you a Neil Young fan? He’s got a new rockumentary coming out about his life.
Spinal Tap is hilarious…and the music is actually pretty good…it was the first of the satirical documentaries by Chris Guest (“Waiting for Guffman”, “Best in Show”, “Mighty Wind”)
The best scene is where Harry Shearer’s character is stuck in his space pod on stage..
Interesting comment about Wicca…the philosophy is basically to love the earth, find joy in your life and do no harm…seems pretty easy to me.
By The72John
February 14, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Hasn’t Blockbuster changed that policy? I’ve seen some pretty explicit indie films and such there.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Blockbuster changed the policy, after years with it? poor financial performance will do that to you, I guess. LOL
I did not really matter to me since I saw them first run, usually. Just the point of whose butt you want to be kissing, won’t be getting my business. And Blockbuster bowed to Wildmon for a long time.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Not in my neighborhood! They never have anything by Pedro Almodovar….
By Jack
February 14, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
I could have went to Woodstock but choose to work instead. Boy was that a mistake!
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Pedro Almodovar - one of my faves, KIKA, HighHeels, AllABoutMyMother, Matador, wow. LOL Tie me up/Tie Me Down I think was him as well, that early Antonio Banderas.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
I can still get teary-eyed watching that “Think of Me” as Parades sings on stage, and her daughter/Abril hears it on the radio. dayum
By The72John
February 14, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
What’s really funny is that Spinal Tap actually tours, and that the “opening act” for their shows is often the three-man folk group from “A Mighty Wind”. Of course, they’re all the same people, but, hey!
By Jack
February 14, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
On the subject at hand….the Muslims are just using the cartoons as an excuse to riot. Do the Jews an Christians riot when their higher power is shown in less than a good light? What is good for the goose……
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
I think if the Islamic world does not like the secularisation of the west and the freedom of the press we have, they can stay in their repressive Islamic countries and cause a revolution there, where it belongs anyway.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
“Think of Me” is in the movie HighHeels.
NPR’s sunday morning show, about religion, which I heard this weekend because I was out driving somewhere, had a segment about French soup kitchens and complaints about them using pork in the soups. And the argument “Pork is a French National Dish” was not going over well with the complainers, who saw it as an insult to Muslim soup kitchen ‘customers’.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Eirick, I touched on Wicca in my search for enlightenment. The thing that I liked most about it is that it isn’t what one would actually call “organized” religion. You can just as devoutly worship alone as worship with a group. And there’s only one commandment…”An if ye do no harm, do as ye will.” Unfortunately I have difficulty suspending my skepticism….
By RF
February 14, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
bla- I agree that kimberly HAS to see Dazed this weekend. A must see for anyone who loves rock-n-roll—“me and my loser friends are going to get Aerosmith tickets…Top priority of the summer!” My favorite line is “wipe that face off your head B*&$%!” Man, I’m hearing ‘Slow Ride’ in my head now!! Rent it kimberly, you’ll love it!
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
I’ll bet my neighborhood Blockbuster doesn’t have it. As stated earlier, if the movie isn’t about murder, death, decapitiation, car chases, and explosions, then it’s not “family” enough for my suburban area. I’ll check, though.
Heh… Slowwwww Riiiiide
By FatMoose
February 14, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Have any of you seen “Decline of western civilization: The Metal Years?”
It is a real documentary on playing in clubs and trying to make it big during the big-hair days - quite the downer in spots since r&r is not always pretty; but is another must see.
Good stuff to offset the slapstick of previous mentioned movies - and a neat peek inside the real life of the r&r lifestyle.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
FatMoose, if I want a buzz kill, I’ll read the news of the day. The state of twenty-first century America is quite the downer for some of us who remember freedom, peace, and hope, and a time when we believed in our people, our nation, and what we stood for, or so we thought. Rock & Roll numbs the pain if you play it loud enough. (So does Antonio Banderas… {;->)
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Oxford American had a piece on Johnny Winter recently. And I had to dig out Johnny Winter Live:AND doing Good Morning Little Schoolgirl, Jumpin Jack Flash and more. I thought my walls were going to Jericho. LOL
and it was misfiled, took me a minute, a panic minute. two Winters, then amy winehouse, then the Winter I wanted.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
I have that problem at my very rural south Movie Gallery. Campy teen girl movies or major blood and guts stuff.
Netflix is starting to look real good, but I have yet to sign up.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Now I can’t get “Frankenstein” out of my head.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
That was Edgar wasn’t it? Can’t get it out anyway.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
They’re brothers, I think.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Happy “V” Day Kim. :)
By Pequod
February 14, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Van,
Thanks for the respectful reply. I appreciate very much a response that doesn’t begin with name calling.
Athens was the source of much of our Western intellectual tradition, and though Aristotle was Macedonian, he studied and founded his school in Athens. Sparta is an interesting contrast, as a military polis, it contributed almost nothing to Western intellectual life and frankly its practices are irrelevant to any argument about how to justify or ground ethics.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Edgar and Johnny are brothers, and yes, Frankenstein is Edgar. Saw him and Rick Derringer once. One of my Winters mentioned is Edgar and Johnny. It has Tobacco Road.
By RF
February 14, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Chilao- I hear you dude. I’m south too- in what would be a one horse town, but the horse died from laziness!! Netflix is the way to go. Once you try it a couple of times, it’s easy to do.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
I heart Jack… {;->
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
RF - some friends do it and a sister just signed up (again)for it. I declined before since I may rent once a month. But if it is 9.95 a month and the two DVDs rent for 8.80, well, you can see where that thought is headed. LOL
do three Netflix DVDs a month and I am coming out ahead.
By The72John
February 14, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
There was a recent article citing an invisible change in Netflix’s rental agreement. Apparently the “all you can watch” claim is a bunch of bull…if they think you’re watching too many movies, they slow your delivery time by days to keep you from cutting into their profits.
Yay, corporate deception!
By Mara
February 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Chilao, you’ll be better off if you only rent a couple movies per month. Netflix penalized those who rent many movies by using some kind of weighted equation to decide who gets priority for new release or very popular titles. If you rent a lot, you go to the back of the reservation line for your next rental.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
72John/Mara - interesting for sure. and thanks. I am hard pressed, time-wise, to even see 4 movies a month, aside from cinema runs (I think most movies are designed to see BIG SCREEN) and if it is something I really want to see, I will make every effort to see big-screen, my recent Brokeback/Spear/NewWorld good examples. But I would mostly be wanting to rent the old odd-ball stuff that I missed first run anyway. Seems I can decline even longer. LOL
NetBank, before I forget, hilarious comment on “Cartoon Violence” yesterday. Kabam, Pow, etc.
By lozen
February 14, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Hey everybody, Happy Valentine’s Day!
Pequod, welcome, welcome. Glad you’re here.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 14, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
A friend of mine does the NetFlix thing and loves it. Does anyone have any experience with the Blockbuster online equivalent?
By Proteus
February 14, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Jesus taught love, compassion, and forgiveness. Why don’t any Christians practice his teachings? All I see from the Christian side is ignorance and intolerance.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
kimberly,
dazed is one of my all-time personal favorites. matthew mcconaughey’s character is great. and ben affleck gets the treatment every high school jerk deserves. we used to play a drinking game where everyone would have to drink everytime the main freshman character touches his face (which is about every 5 seconds). definitely go rent it, RF and i wouldn’t steer you wrong on this one.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Proteus. You weren’t looking hard enough.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Proteus, there are plenty of Christians who practice the teachings of Christ. You don’t hear from them the way you hear from the “others,” that’s all. The REAL Christians are too busy caring about the sick, poor, and meek, to organize anti-gay legislation, or to go around telling everybody just why they’re going to Hay-ull. Please don’t lump everyone in together. We don’t all suck.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
mrs. bla often sends nasty emails to netflix about getting movies more quickly. it’s one of her hobbies when she’s feeling under the weather. they’ve definitely slowed down their delivery since we signed up about two years ago - it’s been noticeable.
eventually i could see movies being like itunes where you pay a buck or two and you get to download the movie and have it forever.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Whoa whoa whoa whoa…. Matthew McConaugh-HEYYYYYYYYY is in that movie? Dude, I am SO watching it this weekend! pant pant
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
kimberly, umm, yeah. he’s in it. there’s a lot of people you’d recognize in the movie. joey lauren adams is in it as well.
MITCH KRAMER. that’s the name of the character who’s always touching his face. i knew i’d remember it.
By RF
February 14, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
bla- he’s the one always grabbing the bridge of his nose. ‘bout drove me crazy! I loved it when his buddy’s mom opened the door and threatened to shoot Ben Affleck’s character.
kimberly- he’s in there but he has this totally 70’s hairdo and doesn’t look like himself at all! He’s funny in it though.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Proteus - I know many fine Christians, they are sometimes hard to directly identity, since they are actually behaving like Christians, without all the horn-tooting and Bible-thumping about how great they are as Christians, or how terrible everybody who thinks differently than them are, since those ‘others’ are non-Christian.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Proteus, I’d like to share with you my very favorite James Madison quote ” During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
And he said that was back in the good ol’ days before libruls with their immorality and anti-christian bigotry took over the world and put us on the path straight to hell. (/snark)
By Archie
February 14, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Right on Kimberly for your 1:45 pm post. I wasn’t going to post on this week’s topic but I will just answer yes to the topic question.”Americans expect to take the lumps that come with free speech, which includes how people choose to express themselves.” That is a true statement Diane.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
joey lauren adams
now I am going to have to see it again. yowser! Anyone see the original Chasing Amy or something like that?
five words from her. something about that lisp.
By mike
February 14, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Religious charachters are controvercial to begin with. I mean we are talking about fictious beings that never exsisted but some people aren’t bright enough to realize they are being lead blindly because they need to beleive in something..
Back to the point. We live in America and this is free country that means we can speak, write or even draw what we want. I realize you liberals prefer that not to be the case but it is and has been the case since this country was founded. People why are we discussing this? Because of the cartoon that was drawn of the “sacred mohammed”. Give me a break, there are no AJC blogs when cnn shows muslims burning the american flag. We should be talking about how we retaliate the next time a muslim desecrates our flag. I don’t care if we hurt their feelings nor do i care about their feelings.
Remember 9/11 and the muslims terrorists who caused it.
By Scalia
February 14, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
I love Joey Lauren Adams. Chasing Amy was a cool movie. “Fingercuffs” hahaha!!! Jason Lee is hilarious in that movie.
Kimberly, yes, see Dazed and Confused. Matthew Mcconaughey in tight 70s fashion jeans. Oh yeah.
Parker Posey is in it, too. She’s one of my favorite guest stars on Will and Grace. She was great as Darlene, Jack’s boss.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
(sigh) and we were doing so well without Andy, er, I mean without “mike”.
By mike
February 14, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
What your doing is called thread hijacking which is generally frowned upon on the internet. If you don’t want to discuss the topic at hand move on to another website that discusses how you enjoy sitting in front of a tv letting your brain rot away.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
IMO political correctness is a contributing factor in the downfall of this great country.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 14, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Religious characters are controversial to begin with. I mean we are talking about fictitious beings that never existed but some people aren’t bright enough to realize they are being lead blindly because they need to believe in something.. (spelling errors corrected)
Thanks for the broad sweeping statement with little to no foundation. Regardless of what you believe, and certainly you have the freedom to believe anything you like, your statement is a bit presumptuous.
Mara, I agree, I was enjoying reading the well made points, even the ones I don’t agree with. It was nice to see intelligent debate.
By The72John
February 14, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Hi Mike. Since you’re new to the blog, I really don’t think you should be telling us what is and isn’t ok to talk about, do you?
We’ve been here a while, and we’ll be here long after you’ve crawled back into whatever hole you crawled out of.
So, either be civil and respect the community and particular rules that have devloped inside this blog, or shut up and go away.
KKTHXBBFN.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
i didn’t know i was letting myself rot by watching tv. quite the contrary, i generally find joey lauren adams to be quite stimulating.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Since posters here are in somewhat of an agreement about there sometimes being thought other than the topic subject, it cannot be considered ‘hijacking’.
When you get more blog experience under your belt, you will understand that better. LOL
It really looks like someone is back with a play-nice mandate from ajc. LMAO
By Renee
February 14, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Wow John, lol. Hello everyone, been out of touch today…busy day at work, but I don’t know much about Dazed and Confused either. I guess I’ll be in and out as time permits.
Did you all hear that Cheney’s shooting victim has now had a heart attack. This is after the White House took the position today that they would attack the situation with humor. Too funny (not hahahaha funny, but irony funny).
Happy Valentines to everyone, esp John, Net, Jack, JBM, Kimberly, bla, and I know I left out names (not intentionally, I’m just a scatterbrain today).
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
KKTHXBBFN.
?? you’ll have to translate for me, john, i’m not a professional blogger.
By RF
February 14, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
That’s like telling a friend you have to get off the phone because they have dared to digress from the original topic of discussion. Loosen up!
Parker Posey was the perfect stuckup cheerleader in Dazed. I loved her drunk scenes!
By lozen
February 14, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Mike, it was a handful of muslims who hi-jacked the planes just as it’s a handful of christians who hi-jack this blog and the headlines. That handful of muslims don’t represent ALL muslims and that handful of christians don’t represent ALL christians.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
And Mike, remember Oklahoma City and the Christian anti-American-government terrorist who caused it? Or Eric Rudolph, the Christian terrorist who bombed the ‘96 Olympics, an abortion clinic, and a nightclub? A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what their religion. You’re such a tool. As if it wasn’t liberals screaming about government censorship and intrustion and the “conservatives” that are infringing on my right to be left alone. Jerk. A twenty-first century “conservative” trying to act like the Bill-of-Rights and the Constitution mean anything to them is about as believable as Cruella DeVille pretending she like puppies.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
BLa - I could be wrong, but I interpreted that as “Ok, thanks, bye-bye for now”
but I’m no pro either so John might have meant otherwise
By The72John
February 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
It’s actually gamer lingo, Bla - something like “Ok, thanks, bye bye for now!”
Not to be confused with ZOMGWTFBBQPWND!!! or ZOMGLAZERGUNSPEWPEWPEW!!!
Sometimes I think I need to play less World of Warcraft.
By Mara
February 14, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Sorry, folks. Didn’t mean to mess the civility of the forum, but Mike annoyed me. I’m done now. All vented out, so to speak. And apologies to any common sense conservatives who may not have ID’d themselves as such.
By Paul
February 14, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
I have only had the opportunity to review a few of the comments here, but the most important ultimate issue is the truth. There must be free discussion of the differing opinions, ranging from atheism to Biblical Christianity in order to discern the truth. The Muslim religion seems intent on suppressing any discussion because some people may realize or decide that Islam is not the truth. There are many different opinions related in all of the comments made here, but only one of them can be true. It is the greatest duty of man to know the truth of his relationship with him and his Creator. It is unconscionable to prevent other people from freely exercising their ability to look for truth, and this is what most “religions” and other dictatorships specialize in. One of the strengths of America is that people are free to decide truth for themselves. This does not mean that each person decides truth independently, but rather that they are free to find the truth as it actually exists, in the inspired words of the Bible KJV 1611. Every man or woman has full freedom to accept or reject the truth, and the truth of Jesus Christ and his revelation will stand on its own merits. The basic fear within the Muslim community is that their “truth” may fall on its own merits, and so they seek to force others to stop thinking and stop seeking. My greatest wish is that all participants here may come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and that they may do so freely, without coercion or violence. Yes, many people who take the name of “Christian” are not actually Christians and act just like the Muslims and many of the other world religions do. I encourage each listener here to ask the Lord for wisdom, even the atheists who don’t believe in Him. I was once an atheist drug dealer who came to know Jesus Christ through his Word, and now I have peace and salvation, not because of who I am but because of who He is. Let the search for truth begin!
By mike
February 14, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
The72John,
John, I have been on the internet long before AOL made it easy for you ignorant know it alls to get access to the internet. I have been using the internet and blogs/message boards on BBS systems before the internet even exsisted. It’s a long standing rule to stay on topic clearly you have trouble grasping this concept. The global rules of the internet and internet etiquette have and will superceede your we have been total screw ups forever why stop now theory. We appreciate you not responding and allowing the topic to get back on track. Thanks!
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
No need for an apology Mara. Morons do that to people.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Jack, you said IMO political correctness is a contributing factor in the downfall of this great country. Can you be more specific? I’m interested to know what you mean. How has PC made us worse and not better?
As an old-school free-speecher, I think it’s vitally important to our nation to protect the right to express our beliefs, short of the “fire in the theater” business. So I am opposed to censorship on that basis. On the other hand, I think it’s GOOD that we [some of us], as a society, have evolved past the common public use of racial slurs that were prevalent in our grandparent’s and even our parent’s time. While I don’t think the government should pass a law banning the use of a word, I DO think we benefit [ALL of us] by living more respectfully of the differences in those around us. Do you agree or disagree?
By mike
February 14, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
lozen,
Have you read or researched the curan (i know i spelled that wrong). It preeches that if you find someone that isn’t muslim that it’s ok to use force or a jihad to convert them. That is not a peacefull religion. It’s a religion based on war which is why the middle east has been at war for decades.
By WatchingRomeBurn
February 14, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Mike, if the lack of “staying on topic” bothers you so much, then why do you stay? With your long standing knowledge of the internet, AOL, BBS, etc., surely you would be able to find another, nay, several other blogs more to your liking?
By The72John
February 14, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Apparently you haven’t been around long enough to learn other things, like punctuation and sentence structure, or even coherent thought!
Now, let me make this easy on you. If you don’t like the occasional digression of topic or exploration of concepts or ideas sparked by the original discussion of the first topic, then this blog isn’t for you. Unlike you, we have been posting on this blog for a long time, and while we welcome new “regulars”, we neither appreciate nor tolerate self-centered boobs who decide that because they’ve discovered a new blog they get to dictate what everyone else talks about.
Please - feel free to set up your own blog where you can dictate content at will. However, if you wish to contribute to THIS blog, then you have two choices. You can participate in the spirit of conversation shared by the regulars, or you can be dismissed as an arrogant, loud-mouthed, relatively ignorant and utterly pompous little toad that is doomed to be roundly ignored by the rest of us, no matter what kind of tripe it spouts.
Now. You let us know which choice you’re going to make…personally, I’m betting you lack the brains or good manners to pick option a, so I’m looking forward to further ridiculing and then ignoring you.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
For example: When the 11th Circuit said “under God” was unconstitutional. We wouldn’t want to offend Atheists. Teachers being asked not to use red to grade papers, might offend the intelligence challenged. Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. ETC.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
don’t worry john, i won’t confuse them. lol.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
We should all get along but the minority should not dictate what the majority does.
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Obviously per Mike’s expert internet protocol experience, blogs evolve. who knew? LOL
guess he knows all about gopher.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
I don’t have much problem tolerating self-centered boobs. LOL
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
BTW….Happy Valentine’s Day everyone!
By The72John
February 14, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
But Jack - that’s exactly why the country was founded…the minority was fleeing opression by the majority.
And really, it’s not about dictating what people do. No one forced business to say happy holidays - they chose to do it.
Tyranny of the Majority is a very scary thing, Jack. Don’t welcome it.
By mike
February 14, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
The72John,
Thanks for the response John, Glad you were able to follow the simple instructions of staying on the topic which is “Should religious figures ever be portrayed controversially?”. Certainly you realize the name calling is rather childish and doesn’t really keep with the “spirit of the blog” as you say. I am also sure that even you can understand that talking about who is cute on the daily soaps or the latest movies out in theathers really doesn’t relate again the blogs title “Should religious figures ever be portrayed controversially?”. I have setup plenty of blogs, website, chats and what ever else from time to time I don’t need another. I have been on this site for many years so no need to use the “regulars” approach with me.
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
If we could ever get John and NetB to disagree on something that would be quite a debate. Could probably sell tickets to that one!
By Kim Stewart
February 14, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Actually I have to agree with Mike. I wish ya’ll would stay on topic.
By RF
February 14, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Same to ya Net—big plans for the evening??
I’m hoping to go home and raid the boys’ candy bags from school personally. One of the perks of having younguns!!
Blogs EVOLVE? I always thought this one DEvolved into a keyboard wrestling match between the fundies and realists!!
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
I’m not talking mob rule. That would not be good.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Hmm… Okay the “under God” was added in the fifties, wasn’t it? So it wasn’t original to the pledge. Even so, I don’t have a problem with it. As for that guy in CA who sued because HE had a problem with it, I’m wondering why he doesn’t have something more important upon which to expend his energies. It appears both sides of the scale can whip up a big to-do about a non-issue. I mean, in a sense, making someone say the pledge is unconstitutional, but all they have to do is NOT say it.
As for the red ink and “happy holidays,” more non-issues spouted by the “news” media as issues, while they fail to bring us REAL news (like HEY, where’s the missing $9 billion, or why are there 10,000 FEMA trailers in Arkansas?) No one forced me or anyone I know to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. The ONLY place I heard this “controversy” was in the manufactured outrage of the O’Reilly cult. My holiday was NOT affected. Was yours?
So, since these non-issues don’t really affect anything beyond the public screechings of those who need to screech, I have to ask again how being PC has contributed to our “downfall?” Seriously. (‘Cause I can think of a LOT of things that I perceive to be contributing to our collective downfall.) Don’t you think life is BETTER when we willingly, or under peer pressure, choose to respect the differences of others?
By Renee
February 14, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Anyone who visits this blog knows we NEVER stay on topic. And if anyone would like to stay on topic, or not stay on topic they should have the right to do so. You have a choice to respond or not to respond.
By RF
February 14, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Jack- anytime the majority rules, everyone else considers it mob rule. Just one of those things.
I don’t see anything wrong with some sensitivity, but sometimes I think being PC doesn’t really help a person. Truth can be harsh but it can also be the motivator for positive change. As a teacher, I see this everyday and it is a difficult balance to maintain.
By The72John
February 14, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
It’s easier to whine about people not doing what you want them to do than to meaningful contributions.
Personally, I’m glad the little twit took option b. It’s SO much for fun to be insulting to people when it’s obvious that they are stupid.
By RF
February 14, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
HEY Renee— you left me off your valentine’s list, but that’s awight, I gotcha!! lol Wouldn’t this just be tooooo boring if we stayed on topic all the time. OMG no more jokes on Friday- that’s just not right!!
By WTF
February 14, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
And Kim Stewart’s contribution to the topic at hand is?
waiting, waiting, waiting
By Jack
February 14, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
They should be non-issues but they add up. While we should respect the differences in others, we need not go to extremes. Look at the last election. Non-issues tend to p** people who vote off.
By Renee
February 14, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
RF - I’m sooooo sorry….I did…and I have a special heart just for you xxooxxoo
Yeah, looking forward to Friday jokes gets me through the week….we absolutely cannot stay on topic on Fridays.
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Mara..* A twenty-first century “conservativeâ€? trying to act like the Bill-of-Rights and the Constitution mean anything to them is about as believable as Cruella DeVille pretending she like puppies.* ROFLMAO…thanks! I REALLY needed that laughter induced endorphin pick me up.
Mike…I’m curious about why you seem to believe that liberals are against the 1st Amendment. What is the reasoning behind that thought? Given the actions of the current administration and the RNC in terms of suppressing dissent by attacking the character of anyone who questions a policy or the administration and restricting the locations of peaceful protestors so that they are not seen by our leaders or withholding information germane to federal investigations by claiming executive privilege the target of your scorn would appear to be misplaced.
RF…you know WAY too much about that movie…have you been hanging out with the 9th graders too much? And what did the boys do for/give you for V Day?
JACK…HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…the intelligence challenged…hehehhehehehehehehehehe….you are SO going to get me in trouble for laughing out loud. I completely get your point though. We’re really doing a very poor job preparing our children for the real world by protecting them from failure. The kids I know are not stupid and they see through much of the crap. What I hear from them is that by not wanting to hurt the feelings of the lowest on the scale you dimish the accomplishments and hard work of those who performed best. It would be akin to everyone who competes at the Olympics getting a copper medal because we wouldn’t want the person who finished last to feel bad or less than the person who worked hard to finish first.
By RF
February 14, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Renee- some folks just need to lighten up, don’t they?? Or light up, whichever makes them relax better!!—LOL I’ve had a bit too much sugar today and I’m feeling a little silly like you today!!
By Archie
February 14, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
I agree with Kimberly about the PC thing,Jack. Kimberly did a very good job of explaining her reasons and those are the same reasons I thought of for obvious reasons. Kimberly’s 3:37 make my points me. I have a friend that made the same statement Jack made but he’s just conservative for the sake of being conservative as he has no deep understanding of what he’s saying. He is a black person so you’d think he would understand how much words matter in the big picture but nope, he’s too busy trying to be Mr. Conservative rather than Mr. Common Sense. How many guys are going to buy their wives pots for Valentine’s Day? How many guys will write that pots are a good romantic gift on this blog? I won’t because I know that words and actions mean something. You can’t insult someone then hide behind the Limbaughish-attitude about being PC. Some things are just best left unsaid and if you say certain things be prepared for the reaction.
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Thanks RF…no plans. I got my ‘gift’ last night when I arrived home after working late to find that my hubby had cooked dinner. He HATES everything to do with cooking with every fiber of his being so it really meant a great deal and I appreciated it far more than the glass of wine I was handed as soon as I took off my coat. I figure that new 26’ LCD HDTV that I mounted on the wall in the den 3 weeks ago is HIS gift for Valentine’s and the upcoming birthday next month.
By DLS
February 14, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Query:
Jesus lived his entire life Kosher - and the only thing I have seen or read that changed that philosophy was a dream that either Peter or Paul had – Jesus only asked that you do one thing in remembrance of him and nothing about changing the laws of Judaism – just a thought to ponder.
Second thought (sick-humor) how many cartons would it take to have enough riots to wipe out all radicals
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Jack, I agree with you. I am still astounded by the non-issues that brought people out to vote… and that one so wrong even made it on the ballot here in Georgia. It’s a sad commentary on how easily led people are — one of MY top nominees for the downfall of our country. With regard to schools, as the parent of SMART kids, I’m all for pushing forward with their opportunities. If education were a higher priority, which I think it should be (nominee #2) then we would have more options for the kids who can’t compete with mine in advanced math classes. By celebrating differences, instead of belittling them, we can show that not everyone is good at every thing, and these “academic low-performers” might be directed to discover what they CAN do instead of what they can’t. Not by giving them an A, but by showing them there’s so much more in the world they can learn and do…. IMO.
By blablabla
February 14, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
i’m off early today - i’ll probably go home and cook mrs. bla multiple valentine dinners in the hopes that one of them doesn’t irritate her evening sickness. ha. happy valentine’s day to all.
i’ll be back tomorrow to very much enjoy not discussing the topic tomorrow. good nite.
By Renee
February 14, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
LOL RF, silly is good….people do need to lighten up. Net, I would agree, that DEFINITELY qualifies as a Valentines/Birthday/Xmas gift!!
(oops, I’m off topic again, lol)
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Oops that’s 26”…the den isn’t THAT big.
Archie…pots as a gift are blunt force weapons unless the reciever specifically asked for them because they enjoy cooking a great deal.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
I think he meant “pot” which is generally considered to be a form of “flowers,” and certainy WAY better than chocolate! {;->
By The72John
February 14, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
gasp at Kimberly suggesting anything about illegal drug use…why…I…never…really! I mean it…I…never…inhaled (cough)
By lozen
February 14, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Jack, being the PC’er that I am, I never call sikh’s “rag heads” or italians “wops”. I’m sorry you don’t like it. I know a lot of people who aren’t pc at all. i saw a man wish a chinese woman “merry xmas” at the mall! I thought that was amazing. She said, “happy holidays” to him. Saying “happy holidays” simply recognizes that the person you are speaking to just might be Jewish. They could be Wiccan or Buddhist or Hindu (all of those religions have quite large groups of people here in the U.S.) and those groups don’t celebrate chrismas. People who oppose “under god” in the pledge do so because their children are a captive audience in a school room and/or they are atheists, agnostics, wiccans,etc, do not believe in a god and/or do believe in separation of church and state. It was not part of the original pledge anyway. If you need any further instruction please don’t hesitate to ask ;-)
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Going further off topic, I just saw that in the swim suit addition of SI there is going to be the debut of a $30MM diamond bikini. How uncomfortable and useless a garment! Who in their right mind would want clothing completely covered in thousands of shiny, cut rocks with the pointy part aimed at the wearer?!
By RF
February 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Net- that definitely covers several holidays!! I want the 56” big screen my dad has. His NEIGHBORS can see that thing!!
kimberly—you are SO my new blog friend!! I’m hoping our ed. leaders will come back to reality and realize we need to be offering more opportunities for our kids who can’t succeed in college prep. classes. The message is clearly sent that they aren’t worthy because they can’t do the academic work. It’s a shame. I teach remedial reading, and I spend sooooo much time just trying to help my kids understand that they CAN succeed and can find a successful career.
By FatMoose
February 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Hijacking Threads is a forum rule - and in that venue is accurate bc you can start your own THREAD instead of clogging someone elses with non-topic info.
This is a BLOG - which has no “threads,” and hence NO hijacking of said threads.
You do not make much sense for someone so internet inclined - and hostile on first appearence to boot;) People are going to like you around here - especially zack et al. They have stringent-black/white-inane rules they like to enforce on others too.
By lozen
February 14, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Oh, that’s what Archie meant! My goodness! Kimberly are you kidding? It couldn’t be that kind of pots! How could anyone be upset about getting pots like that?
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…let’s not dismiss the chocolate….it goes well with “flowers” because it covers the munchy food group of sweet. Now a truly thoughtful person would make sure to cover the other groups (crunchy, salty, and moist) with their gift .
By lozen
February 14, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Welcome to Mara, “..A twenty-first century “conservativeâ€? trying to act like the Bill-of-Rights and the Constitution mean anything to them is about as believable as Cruella DeVille pretending she likes puppies.” Yes that is very, very good. Happy to have you here too.
By RF
February 14, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Net- uh-oh, now the blog topic police will get you!!
Diamond bikini- that just sounds downright painful!
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
why…I…never…really! I mean it…I…never…
OnTopicTraditionalists: please note: off topic follows (disclaimer):
that sounded like the start of Jimi’s EXP.
pots are those things you keep plants/shrubs in, sit on the decks in the summer. LOL
By RF
February 14, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Net- Waffle House is the best for the munchies. Covers all the necessaries!
By Ray
February 14, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Of course religious figures should be portrayed controversially, as well as religious followers. Religion (mainly monotheism) is the most destructive thing that mankind has ever invented (we didn’t invent Stalin) and has been the biggest impedance to progress for the past 2000 years. Religion, especially the Christian Church, is not only responsible for so much death and destruction throughout history, but is a major cause of mental disorders. A few thousand years of religion conflicting with millions of years of evolution is bound to cause problems. Have you noticed that most of the people who have lost their minds and are speaking on the streets or public transit are talking about god?
More than likely, if you grow up in a Muslim country, you will be Muslim. If you grow up in a Christian country, you will be Christian. If you grow up in a Buddhist country, you’ll be Buddhist. But if your I.Q. is higher than your shoe size and you study the history of religion, you’ll become an atheist. If you then feel you can still work to make the world a better place, you’ll be a secular humanist. Each of us can do our part, but overall, the world will not become a better place until religion goes away. Just think, if instead of spending several hours on Sunday gathering with other Christians to complaining about sin, evolution, non-Christians, etc., everyone actually spent those hours working with Habitat for Humanity, the homeless, the abused, the elderly; wouldn’t that make the world just a little bit better?
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen Roberts
See: [www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/more.php]
By Chilao
February 14, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Only back to pick up that disclaimer/note I just did so I can save in a file, would hate to have to key it everytime.
By kimberly
February 14, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
RF, yay for your students! I’ve done some adult literacy tutoring as well. One girl got through 11th grade and couldn’t read! WTF? A society full of successful, productive people begins with EDUCATION! Why are people so stingy when it comes to something so important? HELLO? You people without kids — who will be providing the goods and services you consume in your golden years? TODAY’S KIDS, that’s who!
By RF
February 14, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
kimberly- the cyclical nature of poverty combined with lower expectations for minorities is how kids can get so far without reading. I’m amazed that with all the testing we do now, some kids can still slip through. The toughest battle we face is to find a way to break the poverty cycle and change the mindset of children. OMG don’t get me started!! (climbing DOWN off of soapbox)…
By Jack
February 14, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
” I have a friend that made the same statement Jack made but he’s just conservative for the sake of being conservative as he has no deep understanding of what he’s saying. He is a black person so you’d think he would understand how much words matter in the big picture but nope, he’s too busy trying to be Mr. Conservative rather than Mr. Common Sense.”
Bite Me Archie.
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
RF…don’t sell yourself short with just 56”. My grandfather-in-law (if we were actually allowed to marry) gave us a 65” 7 years ago after we finished the basement. You can watch TV from the hot tub outside!
One size fits all education makes about as much sense as zero tolerance policies given the current expectations. I see this as similar to the non-discrimination regs on lending about 12 years back when I was in the mortgage business. My company’s approach was to recognize that while ALL customers needed to achieve the same level of understanding of the process and disclosures that they all had a different knowledge levels when the came in the door. That effectively meant that far more effort was required on the part of employees to help some people across the finish line than others.
Our current educational approach would seem to indicate that our leaders have this wacky idea that all students enter a grade at the same level of performance and all have the same capacity for learning. I submit that this approach actually de-motivates large numbers of students (hence the 30% drop out rate of high school students nationwide) by teaching them that they are stupid rather than showing them that they are smart or accomplished in other ways. The magnet schools of today very much mirror the high schools of the 1950’s in which each school specialized (polytech, vocational, college prep).
By RF
February 14, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Problem is Net, what do we little ‘one horse towns’ do? I’d love to have magnet schools again, and I think eventually that’s where we’re headed. I’m convinced that the ultimate goal of NCLB is educational vouchers, which will bring about magnets again. Of course, we have to also get back to funding career (vocational) programs fully again. They’ve endured funding cuts over and over again in recent decades.
By Netbanker
February 14, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
I am a weekly supporter of Waffle House. I look at it as a civic duty since WH was started in my current home town. And thank you for pointing out a food group I forgot…greasy. Which is not to be confused with moist although they are close.
Well RF…for one thing I think y’all need to breed some more horses…seriously though my high school had various tracks within the same building. So while some of us were in AP Math other kids were taking auto shop, or accounting 1, or music theory and composition, or graphic arts. The teachers of non-college prep classes were shared by several high schools in the county. We also had some arrangements with the nearest community college to cover some of those classes and bussed the students if an appropriate facility wasn’t available at the high school or it was easier to send students from multiple schools to a single facility. We had work release in which students only attended school in the morning for core classes and then had internships with local businesses in the afternoons.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 07:29 AM | Link to this
I hear the terms EVANGELICALS, BIBLE-THUMPERS, and FUNDAMENTALISTS used by many on this site and in the news. Let’s look at why these terms are used. The secular people realize that they cannot group all Christians in one category and win, there are simply to many of us(85%) at last count. So, they say to themselves, let’s DIVIDE AND TRY TO CONQUERE. They realize that if they can take a Christian person and tell them about evangelicals, that that will work on that person so they don’t want to be “to harsh, or stand out”. That’s human nature. So if they call us names as mentioned before, that might lead to us not bringing up our faith in public. They have been largely successful in much of Europe and now europe is on the verge of economic and moral collapse. So when they call us names(and you can call me anything you want, hit me with your best shot)we Christians need to know exactly what is going on. They are trying to divide and conquere. Some good news, I met with my softball team last night, of the girls I have coached over the last 8 or 9 years(hundreds of girls)approximately 90% go to church. God is still alive and well in the great Christian nation of the US of A.
By Brian Curtis
February 15, 2006 07:36 AM | Link to this
Yep, God is alive and well…
Despite your best efforts to drag his name through the mud.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this
Where do you arrive at your statistics for 85%. And I don’t think any atheists or nonbelievers, are trying to change you or bring the Christians down.
By Archie
February 15, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
Yesterday when I said pots I meant pots as in pots and pans. How many guys bought their wives pots and pans for a gift? I was making a point about being PC and how what you do can send the wrong message so you really have to care about what you say and do. I gave my mom a cooking gift and she let me have it. The point is that not everyone sees the world the way you do and rather than take the Limbaughish attitude that anything you say should be okay, it is better to understand people and respect their differences. Women are different from men and sometimes we men say the wrong thing at the wrong time,but that does not mean we can’t ever tell it like it is. I wish academics would change the term politically correct to sensitivity-trained because that’s what the country needs. The country needs to know what words mean to certain people and why there’s so much reaction to certain sayings.
By Lyrazel
February 15, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
Excuse me Randy, but the word evangelical and fundamentalist are terms used by christians to describe their sect of worship—hence many churches have the word evangelical/fundamentalist following their names. It describes christian church sect that is not orthodox nor traditional protestant. As for bible thumper—the word dates back to the pastor hitting his bible against the lectern to wake the congregations or enthusiastically compliment a passage—also was used in the 1800 to describe them who were on streets preaching—so its NOT in any way shape or form a new word created by leftists to brand the christian industry of religion with derogatory slurs but an old tile used by christians to describe christians. The church you praise in is probably evangelical and fundamentalist in its core philosophy. So is anyone actually degrading or just using a vocabulary already adopted to your sect?
We use Netfilcks and have deliveries 3-4 times a week with unlimited plan. Perhaps with pop films/new releases/there is a backlog but so far we have gotten everything we ordered without hair pulling excessive waits and conditions=unlimited. Love it.
My bubba bought me a cubic zircona bikini at WalMart @ 29.95! I am looking for diamond studded mud flaps for my bubbas birthday any suggestions?
By Randy
February 15, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
The 85% comes from the surveys done by several news organizations(ABC, FOX ). On if non-believers and atheists are trying to bring us down, look at hollywood, the movie “Passion of the Christ” does 375 million in the USA alone and hardly gets recognized at the Oscars, Brokeback Mt, which has done 60 million gets all these nominations.(But hollywood doesn’t have an AGENDA) Jesus effects people, some who have accepted him, he gives comfort, others who have rejected him, he annoys. He effects everybody, the ones he annoys are annoyed because they haven’t got right with the creator of the universe. I also, think that some non-believers think that since 9-11 that religious people do violent things, that’s not what Christ wants us to do. We Christians do believe that you reap what you sew. So we will defend our families and country(which is what Bush is doing in Iraq). Also, we believe that people must take the consequences of their decisions(if you reject Jesus your whole life, you pay the price). So maybe that’s how we justify war. Besides the fact that the bible says that there will always be “war and rumors of war” throughout time. Plus, I would rather fight Iraquis in Iraq vs. in Atlanta.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
I’ve been going to church since birth(except 15 years in my 20’s and early 30’s) and I never heard these terms evangelicals or fundamentalist ever before I heard them a few years back by the liberal media. We don’t refer to ourselves as any of these terms, non-believers use these terms to try to divide us and as a defense mechanism. If you can call somebody a name you can fight off their influences. If you don’t believe me, look at kids growing up in school, preppies call the gothic people weird’o and gothic have a wish not to be preppie. Many examples of this.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Randy thinks that it is those eeeeeeville secularists that divide Christians into sub-groups but that’s not really accurate. Even he says “They realize that if they can take a Christian person and tell them about evangelicals,…”HUH? Take a christian and tell them about evangelicals? Aren’t evangelicals christians? Did you not just seperate out the “evangelical” from the “christian”? Of course you did. That’s because there really are different flavors of Christian. For example, Methodists, Lutherin and mainstream Episcopals have no problem with homosexuals. Evangelical Baptist, Pentacostals, and other fundamentalsits would prefer to burn them at the stake, or at the very least, lock them back up in the closet. It seems to me that “respect” is a two-way street. I don’t necesssarily respect most Christians beliefs because Christians don’t see a need to respect what I believe.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Randy - you are full of crap since I attended a service at a church in Maryland last fall that had EVANGELICAL in its church NAME.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
“reap what you sew”? HAHAHAHAHA!!! Those darn homophones strike again, making the wise seem foolish and the foolish seem more so.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
As far as my church being fundamentalist/evangelical, maybe so. However, I have been to probably 30 or 40 different churches in my lifetime and they all preached the same message(no difference)you must accept Jesus as your lord and savior to go to heaven. Actually, I went to Hawaii 2 years ago on vacation and we went to church there and they preached the same message I heard growing up(most of these 30-40 churches were non-demoninational churches or protestent). The message is consistent and they have the message right. There are alot of people who know the truth, it doesn’t vary that much.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Christian percentage of population in 1990 was 88.3%. In 2001 it was 79.8%. Likewise the atheist population in 1990 was 8.4% whereas in 2001 it was 15%. Arguably you could say because of 9/11, people turned away from their faith, but I would say 9/11 would bring true believers closer to their faith.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
What do you believe Mara?? I sure that there are churchs that refer to themselves as evangelicals, I never heard it growing up, really only found out what it means(the good news) probably 6 months ago, watching Rick Warren on Larry King.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Good stats Renee. And the second largest belief system in the US…non-believers! Theoretically, if the number of people who ascribe to Christianity keeps dropping at the same rate (approx. .9% per year) it’ll only take a few decades to reduce them to minority status!
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Randy, I was a Baptist for many years, of my own choosing, as no one in my family was religious. But when they met for their convention, some 60,000 strong, coming together to define strategy (for winning souls to Christ, I’d imagine), and all they came away with was a campaign to boycott Disney because they offer insurance benefits to same-sex partners, I was like, UM, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That’s the BEST they could do, at 60,000 strong? From that day forward I was no longer a “Baptist.” So if you want to know who’s driving the Christians away from the churches, it’s not Hollywood, IT’S THE HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCHES.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Renee, your statistics are from 2001, 5 years ago the ABC and Fox polls are from late 2005. I think 9-11 divided this country more than ever, some people came closer to god, some said that a religion caused 9-11, therefore, religion is bad. Non-believers are second in percentage at about (9%). People are taking sides, good or evil, where they know it or not. But, that is what God wants us to do, DECIDE WHO YOU WILL FOLLOW.
By Sanhan
February 15, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Randy, I don’t distinguish groups of Christians to divide and and conquer, I do it to differentiate and define those categories that people have chosen for themselves, to acknowledge that there is a broad spectrum of Christianity.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that those who embrace fundamentalism believe in the apocolypse, and thus are concerned about where they will spend eternity after the world is destroyed. This fear- based dogma leaves little room for hope and sows the seeds of fear, harvesting distrust, separation, and indifference.
My objection to fundamentalist thinking is that it insists that God and humans are hopelessly separated, and that our fates are determined by something outside ourselves. It does not engage the individual as an developing entity whose goal is to merge with all that is and will ever be, and leaves little room for adaptation, growth, and provides few opportunities for redemption both on this planet and beyond.
My own personal fascination with paradox moves beyond what is commonly accepted, that God needs our love for his fulfillment and we should thus dedicate our lives versus the idea that a small kind word or deed among humans can be redemptive and change the course of destruction.
I’ve learned (the hard way) that approaching another with a sense of having “the spiritual goods” and eagerness to prove it always ends badly. If I approach another openly to see what I can learn from them, I almost always come away with a point of view I had never known before. A little internal humility goes a long way. Humiliation rarely works miracles.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, for your Mara, the trend has reversed. A higher percentage of people are coming to Christ, if you notice the trend approximately 90% in 1990, 78% in 2001 then back to 85% in 2005. We Christians are so much more powerful now than even 5 years ago, we are more organized, better music(have you heard the great Christian music lately, excellent) and there are over 1200 mega-churches in the USA today. I go to one and if you don’t get there early, you won’t get a seat(2,500)seats filled most of the time to capacity(numerous services weekly). People want to go to church,(they realize a creator exists)and they want to feel closer to him. Churches made mistakes in the past and were slow to change their ways, but are changing to get current with the times. The philosophy is change the method, but not the message or mission.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
I’ve learned (the hard way) that approaching another with a sense of having “the spiritual goodsâ€? and eagerness to prove it always ends badly. Sanhan, you’re SO right! As an unmarried woman who (ugh, shoot me now) dates men, this is what I’ve learned: The men who say “My faith is very important to me” are six times more likely to screw me over in a non-Christian way, and four times less likely to treat me as they want to be treated, than men who don’t presume to understand everything in the universe. Also, they’re the most perverse behind closed doors. Seriously. NOT kidding.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
I did indicate that my statistics were from 2001. I don’t know what statistics you have but per the most recent American Religious Identification Survey, the Christian population is 77%, out of a total organized relIgion population of 81%. I can give you the link(s) if you like to view them yourself. But it shouldn’t matter if you are the only Christian. If your faith and love for Jesus is that strong, then nobody elses faith or lack of faith should matter to you.
By RF
February 15, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Randy- I’m a born-again christian, but I hesitate to call myself ‘christian’ these days, because of the hateful way so many christians today talk about others. Without knowing it, many fervent, committed believers and giving God a bad name by their words and deeds. Many, not all, but many have become mean-spirited and all but refuse to associate with any but their own. So many seem to have chosen homosexuality as ‘the sin’ of today, and would legislatively restrict their every move. In general, the message christians send today is one of intolerance and the absolute conviction that everyone who isn’t like them, whether saved or not, is going straight to hell. There’s an overall message of anger, contempt, and intolerance coming from churches today. There are exceptions, but they seem to be few. Nothing personal dude, just letting you know the overall impression many are giving. They make the church seem unhappy, and definitely NOT a place one would desire to be.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Sanhan, I have no idea what a fundamentalist believes, I have been called one from time to time on this site, but no one has ever said “hey we are fundamentalists and here is what we believe”. The church and churches I go to and have gone to believe in the “Holy Bible” nothing more, nothing less. To be totally honest with you, I have a small problem with races that are mixed(black and white especially), I brought that up with my pastor a few years back and he said “there is nothing in the bible about it, so it is OK”. So I try to adhere to the bible. I do like african-american people, I feel that there are going to be many of them in heaven and I really appreciate how they stand up for Jesus.
By RF
February 15, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
high-five kimberly!! Been there, done that, left them too!!
By Jack
February 15, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Borrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnnnng!
Kim. Set rules for those that court you. You have what they want. Ff they don’t behave, kick them to the curb.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Randy, I believe that ….I don’t know. I have no problem saying that I don’t know if there is a god, and I don’t know that there isn’t. That’s it. The only tenet of my belief? Be excellent to each other, and party on dude.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Okay that explains everything. Megachurches (which are filled with people who don’t want to or cannot think for themselves). And Randy, your comment on not like black and white people, is that of God??? You had to check with your pastor to see if that is in the Bible?? Hilarious!!! Friggin hilarious!!! So all your megachurch leader had to tell you, was that yes it is in bible and furthermore the bible says physically attack everyone in an interracial relationship and you would be like OK….
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
RF, I think you are listening to the liberal media(which does have a Agenda against Christians). You are not listening to the Christian message, which is the Bible is right, God loves the homosexuals as much as we Christians, but that is not a healthy lifestyle. It’s hedonism, it defines your whole life, no matter what a homosexual does, he or she will always be known as “they we a homosexual. I don’t want to be know my whole life as he was a hetrosexual, I want to be said, he was a nice guy, family man, good Christian man, a little stern at times, if he felt someone needed that. But, a good guy overall. I don’t have a problem with the current Christian leadership, If they make one mistake, the liberal media jumps all over it and no one is perfect.
By candide
February 15, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
What about the poor believers in sacrificing children to their gods? They don’t get no respect.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Randy, regarding your 8:56, Jesus doesn’t annoy people. It’s his representatives that annoy people.
Good morning, everyone and belated Happy Valentine’s Day.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
To be totally honest with you, I have a small problem with races that are mixed(black and white especially), I brought that up with my pastor a few years back and he said “there is nothing in the bible about it, so it is OK�. So I try to adhere to the bible. I do like african-american people, I feel that there are going to be many of them in heaven and I really appreciate how they stand up for Jesus.
Randy is a liberal progressive, who could have guessed? LOL. I assume he means inter-racial worshipping, but not inter-racial marriage.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Randy. You are beyond hope. Bless your heart.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Randy, I’d like to invite you to my “church” this Saturday night, perhaps you’d like to get a different view, a deeper perspective…
By Renee
February 15, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
LOL Chilao
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Okay, that is enough humor for the day. LMAO whew!
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Renee, get over this thing that Christians can’t think for themselves. The last church I went to, there were 5 or 6 nuclear scientists that went there and were devout Christians. The average income there was probably 150K a year and many were millionaires, most everyone was college educated(attendance was approximately 3,500) weekly. Do you honestly believe we don’t think for ourselves??? With all the negative press the liberal media throws at us. We have mostly all thought it through and came to the same conclusion “the universe didn’t appear out of thin air in the beginning”. We are not stupid, we have just had a life changing expericence that can’t be denied thru Jesus Christ. We know it REAL! I’m not a believer, I’m a KNOWER.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
African-Americans are very welcome to worship with me. I fact, I would give my life for a African-American Christian, if need be.
By Brian Curtis
February 15, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
.. And we’ve got a confirmed time!
The religious-zealots’ bashing of homosexuals officially kicked in at 9:45 a.m., Wednesday. (Courtesy of Randy.)
That’s just over two days into the topic—longer than I predicted, but as inevitable as the tides.
Congratulations, Randy! You’re our Religious Nut of the Week! Take two Bibles out of petty cash and pat yourself on the back. It wouldn’t be the Woman-to-Woman forum without raving, arrogant nuts like you screeching about gays and abortion every week.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
What about a Jew Randy? Would you give your life for a Jew? What about a baby that hadn’t been baptized, would you give your life for it?
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Randy, your 9:37 is the last straw for me. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that at best, you just don’t know what being Christ-like is really about. But, if you have a problem with black and white relationships, and you call yourself a Christian, and you need a pastor to tell you that it’s okay… you’re a much worse person than I thought.
I’ve got some names for you, but I’m going to try to hold my tongue (fingers) today.
By Randy
February 15, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Jack, If I hadn’t had a life changing experience thru Jesus Christ(accepted him as lord and savior), I would think just like you do. In fact, my brother who is a devout Christian and I were talking a few months back and we both agreed. If we hadn’t accepted Jesus, we would be the biggest atheists in the world. Like in the saying believe only half what you see and nothing you hear. But, fortunately God was good to us and brought us into his kingdom and let us see the light, or I would never have thought it through(arrogance).
By Randy
February 15, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
JBM, Sorry, just being honest.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Okay, who wants to explain to Randy that his 9:55 statement not only demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the words of Christ, but also just drove six or seven hundred people away from Christianity?
By RF
February 15, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Actually Randy, I’m basing that on what I’ve heard in three baptist churches I attended over several years. Two very strongly preached ‘blame the gays’, one had a little softer wording, but the pastor used many sermons and openly blamed homosexuals for the state of the world. I have baptist friends who alllll are extremely homophobic.
As to your comment about what to be known as—do you think homosexuals wear a label? Many, many are just what you hope to be- nice, God-fearing people who help others and live a Christ-like life. You’d never know most of them. It’s not like they go around shouting it from the rooftops and terrorizing impressionable children.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
I am NOT an atheist thank you.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
College educated does not mean you think for yourself. It merely means you went to a college and learned what they taught you. Which is very similar to church in many ways. Based upon your comments, I think you have made the assumption that I am an aetheist. If this is in fact, your assumption, you are incorrect. I do believe in God, however, I do not buy the theological and biblical teachings of a church. I use my logic and common sense, as well as my belief to guide my relationship with God.
Additionally, you say that homosexuality is hedonism is absurd. You appear to have parrotted that from somewhere (probably your megachurch leader or whatever). Hedonism is a part of life, and additionally it is referenced in the Bible (1 COR 15:32).
he·don·ism (hÄ“d’n-Äz’É™m) n. Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
This is not a description of homosexuality.
Additionally earlier you expressed concern over Passion of the Christ making $327 million (I didn’t scroll up to get the exact figures) and Brokeback Mountain making $60 million, generally speaking the blockbusters at the Box Office are not the main contendors at the Oscars. Star Wars, Jurassic Park, ET, all of these were money makers but were not Oscar Winners (at least for best actor etc, Star Wars may have won for sound, but I’m not sure offhand).
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Okay, I’m about an inch away from standing up and calling “Bulls—t!” Randy may be pulling our leg. First, his spelling is indicative of a higher level of intelligence than his wording. For example, “In fact, my brother who is a devout Christian and I were talking a few months back and we both agreed. If we hadn’t accepted Jesus, we would be the biggest atheists in the world.” Break that statement down for a minute. “If we didn’t like cheeseburgers and steak so much, we’d be vegetarians!” Does that ALMOST sound like something you’d hear one of the correspondents on The Daily Show say? Hmmm….. And the whole comment on mixing the races? I’m finding that hard to swallow. Does anyone else think he’s yanking our chain?
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
No, I’m not racist. I have plenty of colored friends. In fact, I just had my African-American neighbor over for dinner a while back… my daughter has one of ‘em in her class. Our first nanny was colored, naw, I’m not racist. I love col— I mean, African-Americans
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
In addition to your post Renee, Brokeback Mountain only played at about 10% of the theatres that Passion did, if you were to extrapolate, then Brokeback would have made, what, $600 million? I think the receipts from the movie would have been a LOT higher had it been permitted to be seen at as many theatres as Passion did…who’s censoring who here?
By Mara
February 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
speaking of “Brokeback Mountain”…did y’all read the article about Willie doing a song about gay cowboys?! I’m not much for country music, but that’s one I have to hear.
By RF
February 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Renee- haven’t you noticed yet that underneath it all, the most ‘devoted’ of would- be “christians” seem to have the idea that homosexuality is hedonistic. They honestly believe that homosexuals are sex-maniacs who cannot possibly be believers because all they think about is sex. I swear, I want to just pop some folks sometimes for how easily they buy into so many stereotypes.
I wonder if Randy’s megachurch is integrated… I suspect not.
By blablabla
February 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Randy,
do you realize how ignorant and small-minded you sound when you say things like “i like african-american people, and some of them will be in heaven with me”? clearly not.
i don’t care what your income level or education level is, if you have to ask your pastor if interracial relationships are OK, or if they’re mentioned in the bible, you: A) don’t know your bible too well, and B) aren’t doing too much thinking for yourself.
as a christian, i appreciate your willingness to try to spread the good news of jesus christ. but you’re a terribly flawed messenger who repeatedly fails to understand his audience. so stop. just please stop. try another venue or at a minimum try another approach with people. because you don’t get it, you don’t communicate well and you are doing more harm than good. you think you’re doing the right thing, but you’re not.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
I’m with you, Kimberly.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Wow…I mean…wow.
Well, thanks Randy, for the entertainment.
Ok - shameless plug for me - guess who’s B’day it is today! ;-)
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
What about a baby that hadn’t been baptized, would you give your life for it?
Talk about stoking the fires. You are probably aware most Protestant denominations do not baptize babies. It waits until the child is old enough to make the correct decision, the correct decision being to be able to join the adults in the wafer/wine (body) thing, and even do the ‘foot washing’ thing, conveniently everyone just out of the shower. Lots of cultural pressure to ‘baptize’ at 12 or so. And of course you get ostrazized if you wish to not be baptized. Obviously not old enough to make the correct decision. But babies? Too good.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
You are probably aware most Protestant denominations do not baptize babies
Actually Chilao, being Jewish, I was not aware of that. Thank you for that bit of enlightenment, so to speak :)
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
As if this debate can’t get anymore animated and our old buddy Norman (code mane candide) is back adding absolutely nothing to a discussion that going absolutely nowhere. Thanks for the help Normy. All the fundamentalists nuts on the right and all the pinko commie bastards on the left please. Sorry I’m late everybody. This aught to be fun. Seriously though, can someone explain the comment about religious groups not thinking for themselves? I understand the premise; I would like to know more about what you think actually happens when someone is a member of a church.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Kimberly…your posts have been right on point!!! Too funny.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Happy Birthday to you. Happy Birthday to you. Ha-pee Brrrrthday dear Jahhhhhwn…happy birthday to you. And men-eeeee more! ;^)
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
speaking of Brokeback, I caught some of that three-cowboy American Idol thing last night but turned my head just as they displayed the movie name for the three, what was it? (something) Mountain, they were doing a Brokeback satire for the three LOUSY/BOOTED cowboys.
By RF
February 15, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you…(be glad you can’t hear me singing—it ain’t pretty!lol)
Enjoy it dude!!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe you people are even encouraging Randy.
Bla, you “appreciate his willingness to spread Christ’s word?” Just because the man claims to be a Christian does not make him admirable.
Randy has shown today that he is beyond ignorant-but-well-meaning. As far as I can tell, he is a reprehensible human being with NO redeeming qualities. Just because he wants to “spread the word of Christ” doesn’t change the fact that his oozing hatred for everything non-Christian makes him a horrible human being.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Happy Birthday John. Have many more!
By Renee
February 15, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Happy Birthday John.
RF, I know, but I feel like I need to set these misconceptions and stereotypes straight (no pun intended).
Excellent post bla.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
HBD, 72John.
By RF
February 15, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Renee- and the baptists want to set you straight (full pun intended). LOL
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Well said, Blabla.
Happy Birthday, John!!!!! Enjoy your day!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
And what, exactly, will you add, Boscoe? More cut-and-past fatwahs…oh, excuse me…papal encyclicals?
Actually, stick around…rigid Catholicism is a perfect example of Church groups not thinking for themselves.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Thanks Renee. BTW, I am straight, and shamefully hedonistic. I mean, it’s not my only guiding principle, but it’s totally there. {;->
By Blaize
February 15, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I used to work for the restaurant inspection division of DeKalb County Health Department. You do not want to eat at Waffle House.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Pant, pant!
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Hehehehehe @ that pun.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Come on John, everybody has at least one redeeming quality (I hope), Happy Birthday, BTW, or as they say in my native Israel, Yom Huledet Same’ach!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Oh, and thanks all ;-)
Sorry for the shameless plug :-)
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Jewish and Proud - The way I understand it is Protestant children who die young will automatically go to heaven since they never had the opportunity to reject Christ, being too young to decide. Means it may be overrun with rug-rats. (j/k)
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Happy Birf’day, Dude! It’s all downhill from 30, so don’t waste a minute!
By Renee
February 15, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
LOL RF - too funny.
ROFL Kimberly!!
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
If need be to make my point John, I will. Since you’ve taken the first swing birthday boy please elaborate on why Catholicism is the perfect example.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Boscoe is ready for the fight.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Because, Boscoe, a few thinkers not withstanding, you rely on the words of one person to tell you what to believe. Your entire denomination is mired in DOGMA and CANON LAW that tells you EXACTLY what, how, and when to think.
The Church has had intelligent men among it, but even they think WITHIN the rigid limitations allowed.
Your responses to past topics are absolutely indicative of this mindset. You are almost completely incapable of posting anything that is not cut-and-pasted from a Catholic thought website that TELLS you what your response should be.
You are a regurgitator of the highest order. Just like Chuck, the other obsessive fundy.
By Archie
February 15, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
“Randy has shown today that he is beyond ignorant-but-well-meaning”
I agree with that statement. My goodness we just read last week where a woman had an affair with her pastor for 14 years so there seems to be no bounds to un-thinking people. Randy deserves the pounding that the other bloggers are giving him.
By True Confusion
February 15, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
African-Americans are very welcome to worship with me. I fact, I would give my life for a African-American Christian, if need be.
If put in a situation where you actually had the opportunity to save a life, would you really ask first whether the person is Christian? I heard a story about a man who took his son and the son’s best friend to the beach. There was a strong wave that pulled both under. The father made the choice to save not his own son, who was a Christian, but the friend, who did not attend church or belief in God. Why? The father believed his son would be in heaven, but could not live thinking he could have saved someone from hell but didn’t. Well, that sacrificial deed brought the young boy to the church and he later became a reverend. This is just a story I have heard, but it’s a nice lesson.
By Blaize
February 15, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
I wonder where I could find a group of atheists/agnostics who have to get together every Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wed evening to jump up and down together while yelling “We know we’re right. We know them other people is wrong. We know there is no god. There is no god! There is no god! We know, we know there is no god.” And then sing about it for another 30 minutes “Jesus isn’t, this I know. For my brain tells me so.” Then have a preacher get up and yell at us for another 20 minutes about how if we don’t renounce god and jesus and try to convert everybody we meet to atheism or agnosticism we will be punished somehow. Oh, there isn’t any. I wonder why atheists and agnostics don’t need the brainwashing on a constant basis to believe what they believe.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
OK, Boscoe. I’ll bite. The reason there is a perception that Christians (and other Abrahamic religions) don’t think for themselves is because their most prevalent argument for bigotry, intolerance, and repression tends to be the simplistic “Because the Bible says so…” or the even more arrogant “Because that’s what God wants…” (as if anyone can say with any certainty exactly what god wants!) The implication is that because it’s in the Bible (a book written a couple thousand years ago, with multiple re-writes through translation) that means that’s that. What you’re told by your spiritual leader is what is. No thought required.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Good point true confusion. I just had this visual of a burning building, only black people inside, a man runs in to save them, but is asking them first if they are Christians, lol.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Blaize, if we were allowed to give karma points for comments, yours would get top score! Well said.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Consider that religions like Budhism ENCOURAGE questioning and seeking, while fundamentalist Christianity actively punishes it…need we say more.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Very well John, for you, since it is your birthday, ….What aspect of life isn’t like that? There are rules and laws whether in business or society that direct one’s behavior. Does that mean anyone who works within these guidelines are incapable of lucid thought? No, not at all, people determine solutions to all sorts of problems with a given set of limits. I live my life based upon the limits or requirements of being a Catholic. They don’t tell me how or what to do with every single problem I run into in my life it’s up to me to figure it out.
By RF
February 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
If you have to ask if someone else is a christian before you save him, then you should be wondering if YOU are, in fact, a christian.
True- I remember that story. Made me get goosebumps just thinking about it.
Renee- too funny- except I think the only ones still in that building would be the white guys worrying about who was or wasn’t christian. LOL
By Archie
February 15, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
I would like to say to Blaize that belief in God is not logical it is based on faith thus that’s why things are done over and over again. Christianity is not a bad thing except when you see it practiced the way Randy does. I believe that not killing,not stealing,not lying, honoring thy parents,not chasing down someone else’s spouse, not tearing down the temple(your body), are all good things. You can be good person with great moral values and not be a christian but some of us choose incorporate the two and we are still imperfect. There are alot of christian folk that just don’t understand that Jesus is not prejudice and you can’t be if you are a christian because God created everything,everything, so no one is better because of their skin color. I’m sorry but a lot of folk just can’t get past that. It is illogical to love God who created everything and yet feel superior to another human being or have hatred based on skin color— it simply does not match up with the faith christians are supposed to have. Heck we don’t even know what God looks like. To Blaize I would say going to church weekly is necessary because the world brainwashes us as people especially here in the USA to think we are superior to everyone else. You have cliques within fraternities and sororities based on how much money or position a person has. Being a christian is like being a ball player in the sense that you need to practice so much to stay good at it and you still make mistakes in the game of life.
By hahahaha
February 15, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
If you have to ask if someone else is a christian before you save him, then you should be wondering if YOU are, in fact, a christian.
Excellent, RF, you get a standing ovation and an AMEN for that one!!!!
By blablabla
February 15, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
john,
happy birthday, dude. and i hope you have many more.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Attempting to justify philosophical rigidity by citing limitations placed on people in other areas of their life is hardly a valid comparison. Society provides limitations on behavior to protect the individual.
Dogma forces limitations on thought to protect the power base of the dogmatic authority.
Here’s the basic difference. Assume your dogma says that “People who wear blue clothes are evil”. A dogmatic individual meets someone wearing blue and assumes that person is bad. A non-dogmatic person judges the person on his actions and behavior.
Sorry, but any church, organization, group, whatever, that relies on the word of ONE MAN to tell them what is and isn’t correct is not capable of free thought.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
See Jim Jones and David Koresh
By RF
February 15, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Problem is, a great number of people draw satisfaction from being in a strict environment run by one individual (I’m talking about cults here, not the US and Bush—LOL) Seriously though, people often draw security from rigid structures, and thus are more likely to ‘drink the Kool-Aid’ if that what is required. It amazes me how much BS people agree to and honestly believe because someone in charge ‘says so’.
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Randy…open your ears. What RF said about perceived message versus intended message is very important and on target.
You really p** me off by stating God loves the homosexuals as much as we Christians, but that is not a healthy lifestyle. It’s hedonism, it defines your whole life, no matter what a homosexual does, he or she will always be known as “they we a homosexual. Who are you exactly to tell ME that my life is hedonisticor that being gay defines my WHOLE life when you have no freaking idea how I define myself or how I live my life?!!!!! You have no clue…with whom I share my heart does NOT define WHO I am. It may define a facet of who I am, but I and every gay person is far more than a single facet…evey you Randy are more as a total human being than just a hard-headed christian man. RF is gay, but from what I know of him on here he is first and foremost a Dad. JBM is a mother and church consultant. Renee is a mother of a frustrating teen stuck in New England. Gay isn’t primarily how homosexuals identify themselves as an individual. It is the label YOU (and Christians as a whole) place on us as the most important one. We are not human, parents, sons, daughters, siblings, teachers, socials workers, church consultants, friends, coaches, volunteers to you. One part of who we are is that we emotionally bond with members of our same sex and that is all you will focus on rather than see us a more than that. Dehumanizing people by focusing on a sole trait of who they are is the classic tactic of those who spread hate.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Very true, RF. VERY true.
By blablabla
February 15, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
RF - it is easier to follow instructions than to think critically for oneself and examine things.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
NetB, breathe Hon. I think “Randy” was yanking our chain. He hasn’t posted since I called BS. Yes there are ignoramuses that think that way, but you’re safely among thinking humans now. {:-> The haters do their drive-by and prove nothing. Joke ‘em if they can’t take a f—-, right?
By True Confusion
February 15, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
In real life a persons religion is a personal and private matter. I would rather live in a neighborhood full of many religions and therefore moral people, then an intown neighborhood full of amoral folks.
The above statement was made yesterday by Van. Also stated was the fact that atheists cannot be moral, they can just have “good behavior”. I’m sorry to have to resort to the ol’ cut and paste, but I feel one of my previous posts needs to be restated, since we are slipping into the religious=good, non-religious=bad debate again:
Let’s take JBM, as an example (if I may - and this is just my opinion). Just from reading her entries, I would surmise that she is person with strong and yet loving convictions. I don’t know if there is a higher power, but through her faith, JBM believes it. And when I hear about people being changed by the spirit, I can imagine JBM. I believe that someone who is truly open to being changed probably has loving convictions outside of her faith as well. I doubt that her faith gave her the morals she has, but rather that her faith illuminates them. Then, we can take the fundies on this blog as an example. If I heard “changed by the spirit� in the same sentence as some of them, I would think “what spirit would do that?� I don’t see loving convictions, I see fear of consequences. That is not moral, that is fear of hell. That is good behavior.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Amen, Net, and I’m not even religious (or for that matter gay). LOL
That whole eat-the-apple thing someone mentioned recently. It was not over “eating the apple”, it had to do with being inquisitive and defying authority, that is why mankind was doomed. And think about it, a sheep leaves the herd, they run into coyotes, leopards, wolves, etc. So it was important for a cohesive society to have everyone like sheep. Which we hear alot about when we are in church. Aspiring to be like sheep.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, I don’t think that Randy was joking. His past posts would suggest that he is, in fact, a complete idiot.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
LOL RF…that 11:15 post was mine…I didn’t realize that I put that as my name lol…
Ok, what rock have I been under??? I didn’t realize RF was family???? That just further proves Net’s point.
As usual excellent point Net!! Excellent point!!
By Sanhan
February 15, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Randy, attending as many churches as you have, and been called fundamentalist as often as you have, you never thought to find out what it means or if your current church is in that category? Whether that qualifies as not thinking for oneself, I’ll leave to you, but it definitely shows a lack of curiosity…
When I encounter that type of hostility, I’m not so foolish as to think it’s my critics that are always wrong.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
RF gay. Scalia a man. Well at least I know who the red-headed fox is on this blog.
By lozen
February 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
72John, so you say it’s your birthday. Well, happy birthday to ya!
By Renee
February 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
good post true confusion!
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
72J…I’ll bite…who’s birthday is it beyond Galileo, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Seymore, Matt Groening, and Chris Farley?
Now that I’m slightly more calm, Randy…the feedback you are getting from this group reinforces the idea that perceived message is more important than intended message. I think your message is well intended and your heart is in the right place, but the delivery could use some improvement. The choice is now yours…you will either dismiss other’s comments as bashing/anti-Christian OR you can use them as constructive criticism on how to improve.
By RF
February 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Net- take a breath!! I wondered when you’d pop in and read that crap! Randy just shows what so many I could name honestly believe. Scary, isn’t it?
By The72John
February 15, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Aw, Net!
Well, that’s some MOSTLY good company, I guess!
By lozen
February 15, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Chilao, It was not over “eating the appleâ€?, it had to do with being inquisitive and defying authority, that is why mankind was doomed. Good comment and absolutely right. Whoever wrote the tale of the apple was making the point that we humans always have to obey authority and not be inquisitive. And that sucks. Check out Chuck, Randy and Boscoe. They are all total unthinking supporters of Bush and his war. It doesn’t matter that more and more people are coming out of the bushes ;-) to tell that Bush’s puppet masters were determined to have a war against Iraq even before Jr. was elected prez. They do not question their leader and they do not question their god. It goes hand in hand and that’s why I am not a christian and why I think it’s very bad for people to be indoctrinated with any religion that teaches them not to be inquisitive and to always obey authority.
By FatMoose
February 15, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Randy,
Renee, get over this thing that Christians can’t think for themselves.
If you could in fact think for your self, you would not have had to ask a preacher about the morality of inter-racial marriages!
This proves that you have simply inherited a lifestyle/culture without any cognitive thought or choice in the matter liek so many others. It also shows that your inability to read and understand the bible is without bounds; since you could not recognise that there is nothing about race/marriage not being ok.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
In all fairness to Randy, I think that in the past he has said he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
What I got out of the apple episode in the bible is that it shows the fact that man, no matter what he has will always want what he can not have. How true.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Wow. I kinda thought RF was fam, but wasn’t completely sure.
As for Randy, last week or the week before, he seemed open to constructive criticism, and seemed to acknowledge that his method was getting in the way of his message. But, after his idiotic comments this week, I guess he has no intention of changing his ways… just like Chuck. He can’t see the forest for the trees.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen - I came out of the womb a goat, what can I say. It happens. LOL
By RF
February 15, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Jack- that’s partly the reason why so many take money from an already stretched budget to play the lottery.
By RF
February 15, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
JBM- that’s because the preacher says ‘ignore the forest, it’s sinful!!’
It’s not like I’m practicing family, you know what I’m saying… hey, my life proves we aren’t hedonistic. You actually have to be DOING something to be hedonistic!! LOL Net’s right- I’m too busy being Superdad to have time for anything else these days.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Society provides limitations on behavior to protect the individual. That’s true John. Dogma forces limitations on thought to protect the power base of the dogmatic authority. Here’s the basic difference. Assume your dogma says that “People who wear blue clothes are evilâ€?. A dogmatic individual meets someone wearing blue and assumes that person is bad. A non-dogmatic person judges the person on his actions and behavior. That’s simplistic John, you’re implying that a Dogma that states that people who wear blue is there to protect a power base and that is not the case. A dogma is understood to be a truth pertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. The purpose of religion is to obtain salvation. Religion, broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God. If I make the decision to accept this religion then I must abide by the dogmas it subscribes to me, but nobody tells me I must subscribe to any particular religion or any religion at all…the decision is mine, and mine alone. Much along the lines of somebody who chooses to become or remain a citizen of any state, they must abide by the laws that state subscribes or risk removal…â€?theyâ€? have an affect on your behavior if you wish to remain part of the state, but “theyâ€? don’t think for you. I think that is a valid comparison. Sorry, but any church, organization, group, whatever, that relies on the word of ONE MAN to tell them what is and isn’t correct is not capable of free thought. Which ONE Man are you referring to? Regardless, it is my choice to participate or not…nobody forced me to. They don’t tell me what to think.
By lozen
February 15, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Blaise, loved your post. I lost a good friend to that kind of church. Every other word out of her mouth is “jesus.” She isn’t a stupid woman. She’s an educated woman. She was never the most stable person, however. I guess it was growing up in that fundamentalist church that got her. One brother was a preacher. She was having a hard time in her life and that was the only thing she had to fall back on.
I get angry with Randy because he does represent the mind set of a lot of ignorant people. But most of the time I just feel sorry for him. He’s so silly. He can’t debate. He’s very limited in his outlook and his communication skills. He’s so rigid in his thinking and knows nothing about religion (even his own), and other people. The post about how he doesn’t want to be seen as a heterosexual but as more than that is so… so… what can you call it except ignorant? It has never, ever occurred to him that’s just what homosexuals want too! Oh, but he does know what god thinks about them, doesn’t he? He does know what will happen to them when they die, doesn’t he? He’s just not a very smart man. His beliefs are based on fear. And he thinks he’s going to gather the sheep for the lord? Pleeeeeeeease!
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Oh, so you don’t have to worry about burning in hell anyway, RF, since you’re not practicing family! LOL! Make sure Chuck knows that, so he can remove you from his hell-bound list.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Randy, I just read Lozen’s post and I want to encourage you to please read II Timothy 2:15 if you get a chance today.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you’re absolutely right. Why Jerry…excuse me..Mr. Falwell and the Conservative Right cops made a personnel visit to my house and gave me a signed list of what I’m allowed, or not allowed to believe in. Here’s a short version.
Bush and the War OK Check * Evolution Not OK* Check Alternate lifestyles Not OK Check
WOW, that sure is a load off my mind…Good thing for Mr. Falwell, what a guy…He told me to believe that too Lozen. You should check it out lozen..there’s a secret hand shake and a monthly bulletin with updates to the OK and NOT OK lists. It’s not to late to join….and I hear you can get an autographed picture too….zowwie!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Bush and the War OK Check * Evolution Not OK Check Alternate lifestyles Not OK Check
WOW, that sure is a load off my mind…Good thing for Mr. Falwell, what a guy…He told me to believe that too Lozen. You should check it out lozen..there’s a secret hand shake and a monthly bulletin with updates to the OK and NOT OK lists. It’s not to late to join….and I hear you can get an autographed picture too….zowwie!*
Umm…and how does this not jive with conservative religion today? There ARE “checklists” of what its OK and not OK to support. They even tried to make judges fill out their little questionaire to determine how well they fit in with fundamentalist theology.
And my definition earlier was RIGHT ON, boscoe. It’s what we see every single day. If you don’t fit CONDITION A then you must be PERSON TYPE X. Why? Because the church, or in your case the Church SAYS you are.
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
John..DO NOT listen to Kimberly on that it’s all downhill after 30 (sorry, Kimberly, but I’m heading for pre-40 in a month…AKA 39). Personally, my 30’s have been FANTASTIC!!
Technically speaking a group can not think. The individual members can think alike (or not), but there is always a leader or leadership who sets the tone and message. Worship services (I’m referring to all religions so I’m open to p issing off everyone equally) isn’t so much a dialog between pastor/priest and congregation as it is a press conference for God with a message being PUSHED to the congregation. Any dialog/discussion that takes place would be during Sunday School or meetings.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Hey, I’m 34 - I’m not feeling the downhill thing at all!
By RF
February 15, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
JBM- yes, I breathed a healthy sigh of relief after Chunk cleared that one up for me!!—LOL I just have to find a trustable babysitter (I’m sooooo paranoid about that) so that maybe I can join the hell-bound ranks. Been a while!! LOLOL
I’m with Net- the thirties are when life levels out and really becomes fun! I don’t think a person is really fully grown up until the thirties.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO @ practicing family!!! That is funny
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Okay, SOME things are better after 30 (um.. like reaching the heights of passion, so to speak — for girls anyway.) And it IS nice to reach an age of “I don’t give a s—t what you think of me.” That’s very liberating. I was referring to how you’ll wake up sometimes and something hurts, and you think, “Hey, I didn’t even USE that last night. Why does it hurt?” Still, as an old lady pushing 40, I have to say that eating well makes a huge difference. Corn syrup solids, hydroginated oils, and anything deep fried in a dirty vat will begin to affect your innards, though they once were made of steel. And I can still keep up with my younger friends for a night of drinking, but it takes me four days to recover! Never stop working out, and always wear solid support!
By lozen
February 15, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Netbanker! Worship services (I’m referring to all religions so I’m open to p issing off everyone equally) isn’t so much a dialog between pastor/priest and congregation as it is a press conference for God with a message being PUSHED to the congregation. The form and expression of organized religion is so patriarchal and authoritarian I can’t even sit through a more liberal church service anymore. I like the Society of Friends service (for anyone who doesn’t know they sit in silence waiting to hear the message from above) until the same five or six people feel called to emote the message they get every week! I particularly like sitting in meditation. I don’t mind sitting in a group and sharing thoughts. It is so egotistical for one person to get up there every week and talk at everyone else IMO.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Can I wait until 39 to be “grown up”? Sounds really unpleasant.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Kimberly you are SO on point! My 30’s definitely gave me the viewpoint of “I don’t give a hoot what anyone does or does not think about me” (except my child). Waking up sometimes, so much hurts, and going out to drink or hang with the friends takes a preparation period as well as a recuperation period!!
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Point of order…I WAS breathing…it may have been on the verge of hyperventilation, but I was breathing. I just don’t have much tolerance for someone who has not ever walked in MY shoes (and y’all know how much I LOVE shoes..hehe) telling me how I think, what I want, how I live my life, how I define myself.
But RF…practice makes perfect! Don’t forget to put yourself sometimes and to recharge your batteries. ALL parents need a break from the kids…that is why God invented grandparents as well as summer camp. Besides, the kids will grow up one day and you don’t want the old skills to be TOO rusty.
Happy Birthday John! You do have some pretty good company…particularly Matt Groening, IMO.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Oh and I don’t know how many times I’ve been to the store and seen something that catches my eye, and I’m like I haven’t had that in years, and then I eat or drink it, and I understand why I haven’t had it in years. I have lost compatibility. I tried chocolate milk after many, many years…that was a mistake!!!!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Acutally, I’m very partial to the high church Episcopal service. I was raised that way, but it’s really perfect from my perspective…you get all the great music, all the beautiful architecture, along with the pagentry and trappings of the Catholic service but there’s no guilt, no berating, and no obsessing with people and their sex lives.
Plus we get wine during and after.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
NetB, most of us are opposed to someone telling us those things. I get it too, sometimes even from “friends.” I’m like, “Don’t think you know what it’s like to be ME, when clearly, you’re NOT ME!”
Strangely, some people WANT to have it all explained and dictated to them by a greater “authority.” Why do y’all think that is? I don’t get it.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
what was that old saw about the Episcopal church being “Catholic lite”? All the pagentry but only half the guilt? :^)
By Jack
February 15, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
My body doesn’t like tequila much these days. When you get older, you want to drink the good stuff to prevent hangovers. Sex has never been better. Quality beats quantity. (long as she is happy!) I have to tone down my workouts. I used to go in and work out til I couldn’t lift my arms. Couple of bouts of tendenitis taught me that I don’t need to kill myself in the gym although it is hard not to do a few extra reps whan a female is around!
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Ooooooooo muscles…. Love ‘em!
By RF
February 15, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m barely across the big 40 mark, so I can definitely attest to the lack of tolerance. Food is okay, but the drink gets me for a few days after!! I can’t take the rotgut of my college days anymore!! Gotta have the good stuff!
Net- I do sometimes get to be first. My parents keep them for me, so I do get out and about occasionally. I’m just this totally addicted parent. I thought I’d never have kids, so I am all into it. I don’t miss a minute of life on my own, let me tell you. I’m hoping to get some ‘me’ time soon though!
John- don’t ever ‘grow-up’ and quit living. Your body will tell you when it’s time to slow down a bit (or at least avoid the cheap stuff!!)
Mara- tooooo funny! I’ve heard that one too! I’ve heard it called ‘catholic-lite’.
By RF
February 15, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Renee- get the lowfat milk and Nestle’s Quik. Tastes pretty good and doesn’t get the lactose tolerance level over the line.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
I’m very partial to the high church Episcopal service. I was raised that way, So then John you are not capable of free thought? Because your religion relies on the word of ONE MAN to tell them what is and isn’t. Your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury. You were raised based upon rules dictated by big Sam….how are we different? It’s what we see every single day. If you don’t fit CONDITION A then you must be PERSON TYPE X. Psychologists do the same thing John.
By Renee
February 15, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
RF - what’s funny, is I’m far from lactose intolerant. I drink milk like crazy. But the chocolate milk….less than compatible to say the least. Maybe I will try Nestle’s Quik though, or maybe I should just hang up the towel, it’s over, done deal LOL
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
services (I’m referring to all religions so I’m open to p issing off everyone equally) isn’t so much a dialog between pastor/priest and congregation as it is a press conference for God with a message being PUSHED to the congregation
Sorry Netbanker but that’s not true of all religions. Worship at my synagogue is very much a give and take with Torah readings being discussed amongst the Rabbi, Cantor and congregation…please, I don’t wanna be lumped in with Randy and his ilk! :)
By candide
February 15, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Christians thinking for themselves, you ask?
Were they able to think for themselves they would not have become Christians.
Ecrasons l’infame!
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
okay, Candide, none of that there fancy talkin’ on this here blog. You might leave some of folks behind!! LOL
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I think for myself, and I decided to follow Christ.
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
That name reminds me of a yeast infection.
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Oooooh, Renee, you better hope you’re not reacting to the chocolate! Try to imagine what life would be like not being able to have chocolate!! That would be like…well…like being Chuck!! LOLOL
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Worship services (I’m referring to all religions so I’m open to p** off everyone equally) isn’t so much a dialog between pastor/priest and congregation as it is a press conference for God with a message being PUSHED to the congregation. Any dialog/discussion that takes place would be during Sunday School or meetings. Netbanker nobody pushes me into that seat every Sunday. What difference does it make if the dialog is a one way lesson?
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Sorry Boscoe, but you’re incorrect. Anglican tradition is not hierarchical in the way that the Catholic faith is. There are no papal decrees, edicts, encyclicals, speaking ex cathedra, or any of the other dictatorial tools used by the Pope.
The Archbishop of Canterbury in the titular head of the Anglican Communion, but he advises only. Each individual group acts with a great degree of autonomy, through all levels and there is no requirement to adhere to any absolutist Papal nonsense.
Plus, we were really only talking about which service I liked, not which belief system I adhered to. Good effort at making comparisons where none exist. Nice try. No dice.
By Lauren
February 15, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Truthfully, those who believe Christians just go on believing what they are and nothing else are wrong. I’m almost 16 years old, went to public schools, now going to a private one. I’ve studied evolution before, now at a private school we’ve had the opportunity to study evolution-based beliefs and facts and creation-based beliefs and facts. I know both sides, and I can see, when knowin both sides and not being ignorant abou neither, that one is truthful and the other is not. Personally, before you go on and crash a religion after what you just believe, what you’ve grown up with, or what you’ve heard… I say you go and study it before you go on with what you’ve heard, or what you believe.
Well, on what I know: I’ve found evolution in that matter has too many “holes” in it. If you think about say… that ape theory, about humans being evolved from a monkey. Why don’t we still evolve from an ape? It does not connect with how things are now. Yeah we “EVOLVED”, but what about new species and all… why haven’t they evolved from something else, in that same matter? Now, take the Christian belief, yeah, its easy to believe that humans can be a relative of the ape family, but think of it like this: say a car campany like Ford. You can tell that a car is a Ford because of the way its created, right? Every Ford is somewhat created smilarly because it is created by the same people, or creator. We are similar to apes and other animals in that matter because we are created by the same GOD. Therefor, there must be a God.
Evolution is just a belief for those to have another reason God doesn’t exist. No, we can’t see God, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. If I were to look at you, would I be able to see something like your brain or lungs? That’s basically Christianity. God lives within us spiritually, he lives in the heavens, he lives on earth. Yes, the human mind can’t quite process that without getting confused. But God is God. We’re only human and it is natural to start believing in things we can only see, but you got to believe there is more than what you can just see.
Evolution is based on chance, as in living your life without direction and where you live after life. At least Christianity has a path, and a chance after death. Do you want to go on living and believing by chance? What are the chances of sitting on a surf board on the sea where a huge wave comes in and you say, “I’m going to go by chance. I’m going to ride this wave.”, unless knowing how to surf? If you want to learn how to surf you go to someone who knows how to surf, just like Christianity; If you want to learn about life you go to God. Christianity gives us the foundation for life. That foundation is Jesus. Or, you can live by chance and allow all that is in life hit you like a wave. Do yu want a chioce in life? Or do you want someone to help control it?
The Jesus part is just another plan God had for us. I won’t get into detail, because you can go and research the Bible like any wise person and study it instead of ridicule it. I know a lot of people tend to ignore it, too. Jesus was sent to earth to spread the word of God, and rid of the sin the world had been filled with. Jesus died on the cross from people who did not believe, like some of you, or people who wanted to see him dead because of what he did that had gone against what they believed, ect. Jesus died because that was also God’s will. In dying, Jesus washed away the sins on earth.
“God loved the world that he gave his only son, that who so ever believes in him shall not perish and have ever lasting life.”
That pretty much summarizes it. So, take a chance of the huge wave, or go and learn “how to surf”.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Tell me Lauren, has your fine Christ…er…PRIVATE school taught you what a STRAWMAN argument is?
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
John, then why is there a split between Anglican factions due to Bishop Robinson? One group wants you to think one way, the other the opposite. That doesn’t sound to free thinking or free from control. There are no papal decrees, edicts, encyclicals, speaking ex cathedra, or any of the other dictatorial tools used by the Pope You still didn’t answer the question how that limits my ability to think for myself?
By lozen
February 15, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
72John, some Episcopalians are great but even they have their fundamentalist nuts. I was so disappointed when I worked at an episcopal church and ran into the nutty ones who don’t think gays should be ordained priests (and there are so many gay priests) don’t think women should be ordained, etc. The assistant “father” at that church left to become part of some “intolerant” authoritarian sect that would not ordain women. The funny thing is, he was quite womanly himself.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Leave her alone John. Not fair. Too young.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, if you can think for yourself, then please, show us. However, since every argument about any topic of substance in which you have participated has consisted largely of you, as I said earlier, cutting-and-pasting the writings of various pieces of Catholic dogma, I can only assume that YOU, personally, are incapable of thinking for yourself.
And the split over Bishop Robinson is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a church without a single, controling hierarchical figure.
Now, if we were Catholics, there would be a Pope in Avignon about now. There’s not. And lo and behold, many of the churchs that opposed the ordination are STILL in the Episcopal Church.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Lozen, have you stopped and asked yourself why the women that are part of that “Intolerant Authoritarian sect” would remain there? You have the world all figured out yet people keep doing the opposite of what you’ve grown to distrust and dislike.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
sigh
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
I disagree, Jack. I think it’s fair for John to debate Lauren’s assertions since she openly stated her opinion (and did so on a subject we weren’t even discussing). She opened herself up to challenge, so she gets what she gets.
I just hope John remembers that she’s young.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Ditto JBM
If you can’t stand the heat, don’t start the fire…
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
So it is ok to use a nuclear device against a fawn?
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
I know you were salivating & looking forward to the kill. Go for it if you must but it won’t be that satisfying.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
And the split over Bishop Robinson is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a church without a single, controling hierarchical figure. Now, if we were Catholics, there would be a Pope in Avignon about now. There’s not. And lo and behold, many of the churchs that opposed the ordination are STILL in the Episcopal Church. John, they haven’t left the Episcopal Church because the Archbishop of Canterbury WON’T let them succeed. How much more mindless can you get when someone says you CAN’T leave and you actually believe them?
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Yes, proceed gingerly with the child, please. My aunts told me that when I was a teenager, I told them (my agnostic relatives) that they were going to hay-ull. I don’t remember this, most likely because it was before my ACTUAL VISIT to hell at the tender age of 21. You don’t come back the same, you know…
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Did you here about that group that wants to make Thurgood marshall a Saint? I almost sprayed milk from my nose.
By Blaize
February 15, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Lauren honey, you’re 16 and I’m 50ish. I’ve studied this religion thing a lot longer than you have. Let me tell it to you straight: There is no evidence that there is a Yahweh (god) any more than there’s evidence there is a Zeus or an Allah. Never has been and never will be. So this is where faith comes in. Faith is the determination that you will believe things that make absolutely no sense in any way and you’ll believe it even though you know it makes no sense because you get something out of doing that. Maybe you are afraid of dying so you want to assuage your fear by believing you will not really die but have another life in heaven. Maybe you don’t feel confident enough to set your own rules for living your life so you need someone to set them for you. Maybe you don’t feel loved by anyone so you want to believe jesus loves you. Creation science is not a science. Evolution may have holes but it is a science. You are being brainwashed into believing something is a science when it isn’t and your entire life and your life’s basis in reality will suffer from being brainwashed. I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I don’t believe in Yahweh (or Zeus or Allah). I am not afraid of dying. I know whatever happens it’ll be okay. Everyone has to do it. Are you being taught that god is love? I hope so.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
If she responds, I promise that I will be nice. I’ll act as if she’s my own 16 year old neice.
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
jack- what, are you trying to say John has a temper??NOOOOOO, really?
Most 16yr. olds are hardly fawns these days. I could not have a daughter. I’d have to lock her away somewhere for the teenage years!
Go gently John, there’s hope for the young ones!
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Actually, Boscoe, there are some churches who have left.
Those that disagree but aren’t leaving aren’t leaving because the Diocese owns their property. They are free to go whenever they choose, but they can’t keep their building. They choose to remain.
And again, the Archbishop of Canterbury exerts no direct authority over the Episcopal Church in the US.
However, you are once again confusing preference for a particular order of service with adhering to a belief structure. I like the music. The language is pretty. I also enjoy Seneca’s Oedipus but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and commit bloody murder. How are you having a hard time with this concept?
In case you haven’t noticed, I think that pretty much ALL organized religion promotes rigidity of thought, so you aren’t really making any points here.
By Scalia
February 15, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
JBM…that’s funny about the candida. That’s how I have been pronouncing it.
Sorry Jack, I didn’t mean to disappoint you.
RF—I must have missed the part about you being family. That’s what’s up.
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Actually, I’m just impressed a 16yr. old could write that much. I’m looking at a bunch of 14yr.olds who think a five sentence paragraph is punishment!
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
No disappointment Scalia. Just goes to show you can’t trust what you picture in your head as reality. LONG AS KIM DOESN”T COME OUT AND SAY SHE’S A MAN I’LL BE OK.
By lozen
February 15, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, please read Blaize’s response to Lauren for the reasons I believe women go along with a church that teaches them they must be subservient to men, refuses to allow them to have any power because they don’t have p*** (only men can be priests!). The church couldn’t survive without women and their free labor, their bake sales and their laundering of the vestments! They do it for the same reasons you do it, because they’ve been brainwashed into believing they have to do it or they’ll be damned.
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Scalia- I guess I never really said. I seldom get into labeling people, so I don’t tend to announce my own (except for the religion thing here lately which gets my blood boiling).
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Uh, Jack. There’s a little something I’ve been meaning to tell you. Uh, Uh….
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
I like the music. The language is pretty. I also enjoy Seneca’s Oedipus but that doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and commit bloody murder. John what does you commiting murder have to do with unthinking mindless people of the Church? There are no papal decrees, edicts, encyclicals, speaking ex cathedra, or any of the other dictatorial tools used by the Pope You still didn’t answer the question how that limits my ability to think for myself?
By Jack
February 15, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
They don’t do it because of fear of being damned. They do it because it helps the church and any points you can make with the big guy upstairs makes a shorter ride to Heaven.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
I thought she should get an “A” for the small paper. at least it did not appear to be a cut/paste job.
otherwise did not feel like commenting. echoes of mike running through my head, guess he off to police another ‘thread’. did not want to get into ‘genetic adaptations’ and those pesky sulphur-based organisms forming today along deep-ocean hydro-thermal vents. Probably not discussed in Private science classes. LOL
there’s a marine institute in FL, between Vero Beach and Ft Pierce. wealth of scientific information there. Harbor something or other. been there twice. Give great lectures. plus they do marine aquaculture.
By RF
February 15, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
jack—it’s a scary world out from under that bridge, isn’t it?
By The72John
February 15, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Why does anyone in a situation that we would deem untenable willingly continue in that situation? To even ask such a question indicates a profound lack of understanding of human nature OR history.
Look around - there’s probably an example a a few cubicles away, or right next door, or in the apartment downstairs…people who are in terrible conditions who don’t leave them, either because they believe they deserve it, because they don’t know any better…
How ignorant it is to ask why women who live in a society that subjugates them don’t “just leave.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
They do it for the same reasons you do it, because they’ve been brainwashed into believing they have to do it or they’ll be damned. That’s it? That’s why there are about 1 BILLION Catholics? Because they were all brainwashed? The rest of the world is having one hell of a time and the Catholics are ALL brainwashed into sacrafice and guilt? You’re a bloody genuis lozen.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
I see I need to simplify for you, Boscoe.
A) You responded to my statement about liking a particular service by assuming that I was also an adherent to the beliefs of the church. I was merely expressing my aesthetic appreciation for the service. I have explained this, yet you remain either too thick or too stubborn to indicate that this explanation has sunken in. Now, please listen carefully - just because I like the text and such of the service does not mean I belive it. Hence the reference to Seneca’s Oedipus, a PLAY that has a lot of gore in it…see the connection now, Boscoe…the play is well-written but I’m not going to kill anyone…the service is pretty but I don’t believe everything it suggests…
These aren’t hard concepts. Perhaps you are just too literal to understand.
B) Whenever pressed, you resort to quoting those encyclicals, editcs, etc. as absolute fact. That, Boscoe, is why I say YOU can not think for yourself. Whenever your argument starts to slip away you bury yourself in a morass of cut-and-paste dogma that would give a Jesuit scholar a headache.
Comprende?
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
I’ve seen quite a bit. I doubt that I would be anything but delighted to rest my eyes upon her. Green eyes, red hair. Man it is getting warm in here. Where’s my water?
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Ignorant!? John you fool, these women aren’t housebound agoraphobics. They don’t suffer from a condition. They not oppressed either. They’ve CHOOSEN to be there, for the same reason I’ve CHOOSEN to be there because it’s what works best for me. You have the gaul to categorize them with a mental condition?
By The72John
February 15, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Actually, I was categorizing YOU as ignorant, Boscoe.
I understand why you have basic problems with arguments. You have basic reading comprehension problems. Either that, or you intentionally misconstrue everything that anyone else writes so that you can react in the sophmoric fasion observed in your last post.
Let’s take a poll…did everyone ELSE understand what I was saying?
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Jack, that wasn’t me at 2:56. Somebody needs a time out for impersonating a redhead. To put your mind at ease, Dear, you can buy ‘em, but you can’t buy ‘em like these. {;->
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
I never understood why some women stay and allow their spouse to abuse them over and over and don’t leave. They won’t leave even when no children are involved. Let him go to sleep and crush his skull with a cast iron skillet. Tell Dad. If I was 80 and my daughter said her man was hitting her, I might spend my last days in jail but he wouldn’t touch her again. I guarrrrrrannnnnteeeee!
By lozen
February 15, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
It just amazes me how easy it is to brainwash kids.
“You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want her to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy get created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know all your energy, every vibration, every BTU of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. And you’ll want the physicist to explain that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you’re just less orderly. Amen.” Aaron Freeman, broadcast on NPR June l, 2005
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
ENOUGH!! I can’t take it any more. Boscoe…it’s C-h-o-s-e-n, dear. One “chooses” or has “chosen”. In fact, choosen isn’t even a real word. sheesh. And you want us to take you seriously…
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Whenever pressed, you resort to quoting those encyclicals, editcs, etc. as absolute fact. That, Boscoe, is why I say YOU can not think for yourself. Whenever your argument starts to slip away you bury yourself in a morass of cut-and-paste dogma that would give a Jesuit scholar a headache. I don’t believe I have cut and pasted anything today John and have managed to answer your questions just the same. Yet it is typical of you John to resort to insults, and STILL you aviod the question I’ve repeated over and over again. How does the hierarchical form of the Catholic Church prevent me from thinking freely?
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Thank you Mara. And look how easy it was for you to fall for it Lozen.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
And a ‘gaul’ is a French person. One is amazed at your gall…
By lozen
February 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Hallelujah, brother 72john. I understood it! Boscoe do you know how many Muslims there are in the world? Whatever the number, it’s the fastest growing religion. They must be doing something right if numbers is the big proof!
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
That’s why there are about 1 BILLION Catholics I am not going to comment on brainwashed or not, but I think it is VERY VERY INTERESTING that MOST PEOPLE end up/stay in the religion or even denomination in which they were raised.
yeah, we got it, 72John. Obviously you liking an Episcopalian(sp?) service, due to heritage familiarity, makes you one. (j/k)
By RF
February 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
John- gotcha dude! Made sense to me.
Boscoe- uhhhmm, I think that was lozen who commented about the women, not John.
I happen to have been in a church that got into a HUGE legal debate over the role of women in the church! PUHLEAAASE!! They actually wouldn’t let a woman teach grown men in sunday school because it “wasn’t biblical”. I was waiting any day for them to start making the gals wear head covers and bring out the punch bowls of Kool-Aid…seriously, this was a mainstream baptist church. What was really sad was how many of the women went along with it!!
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Someone please tell Mara that we kicked the grammar and speling police off this blog long ago.
By Brian Curtis
February 15, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Lauren: Are you even familiar with what evolutionary theory SAYS? Or are you just parroting what you’ve heard without bothering to learn anything about biological science at all? (Starting from the assumption that “people turn to science because they’re afraid of Jesus,� or similar nonsense.)
Lauren, I’ll give you basic intro to science so you can revise your comments. Here goes:
*Evolution, and science in general, say NOTHING about any gods, one way or the other. There’s no mention of God in evolution for the same reason he’s not mentioned in the Pythagorean Theorem or the blueprints for your house; it’s a separate, unrelated topic.
*Evolution has never once claimed that “human evolved from monkeys.� However, that opinion underlies a HECK of a lot of uninformed objections to, and complaints about, evolutionary theory. It’s called a straw-man argument: criticizing what isn’t there.
There is no conflict between understanding biological processes and believing that a God was responsible for designing and/or guiding them. None. Plenty of biologists who understand evolution are religious; plenty of nonreligious people don’t know the first thing about biology. Again, the two topics are *completely unrelated.
“Living your life without direction and purposeâ€?… Evolution has NOTHING to say about how people should live their lives, any more than the theory of gravitation does. Science describes how things work, not “what it means in the grand scheme of thingsâ€? or “how it SHOULD be.â€? Errors like that—trying to apply science to sociology—led to follies like eugenics and social Darwinism.
*Do I want a choice in life? You betcha—which is exactly why I DON’T ask someone else to control it, even if that someone is as nifty as Jesus. What does that have to do with evolution?
I’m being polite here, Lauren, because you’re young and you apparently don’t know enough about what you’re claiming to criticize. If you want to find out what evolutionary theory is REALLY about—-and it’s not about dethroning Jesus or making claims about the “meaningless randomness of life�—-you could start by reading the FAQs at www.talkorigins.org.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
I give up…I poll the jury. Does anyone but Boscoe NOT see where I have answered his question more than once? Does anyone but Boscoe NOT understand what I’ve written?
Anyone else find me vague or non-specific?
Or is it just him?
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
I’m curious and sorta bored with comparing theological thought, so here’s a segue… If some stranger, kinda scruffy and dirty, came knocking on your door with some specious story about how his god said that he should come live with you…would you take him in? Anyone?
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Plenty of room under the bridge. Little breezy & loud though.
By RF
February 15, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Ooooooh Mara, gooood question. I’ll answer later after I’ve prayed to see what MY god says I should do ;-)
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
72J, I’m feeling it. I sometimes watch romantic movies (no more than one per calendar year!) “50 first dates” was a beautiful sweet one, but that in no way indicates that I believe in that “true love” crap. So YES, ich verstehe dass.
By Boscoe
February 15, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
John you haven’t answered that question. If you have show me where. Secondly, I don’t care if you are an Episcopal you made a comparison between the Catholic hierarchy and the Episcopal hierarchy that was my contention.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Why was I reminded of Joan Osborne’s What if God was One of Us just now. a very religious person she is, Catholic.
RF beat me to it, I would have to check with my gods, might be different answer than his(scruffy hustler’s) gods. LOL
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Oh I love it when you speak German. Beat me.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Uh…no…I didn’t make a comparison between the hierarchies until YOU brought it up. I have also addressed this, more than once.
And I have also answered your other question, more than once.
I understand your tactic now - you just repeat your question over and over until the other person gets so frustrated that they quit arguing, then you chalk that up as a victory.
So, Boscoe, I’m not going to play anymore. You’re beginning to bore me. Why am I not surprised.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
BC- don’t refer that girl to some website that will cause her to get kicked out of her Private/Elitist school. LOL
I can see the school’s network admin stomping down the hall already, Principal in tow.
(joking, btw)
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Mara, can he cook, clean, fix up my disaster of a landscape, and still last all night? ‘Cause a shave, haircut, and new suit can fix the scruffy part…
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
When Jesus does come back. He will probably be labeled a loon and sent off with the men in white coats. (unless he does something miraculous, and he doesn’t do that)
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
I love that song! The idea of “god” wandering around the city looking like a bag lady…fabulous. That’d be one in the eye for the holier-than-thou Republicans who keep ripping the funding for shelters, soup kitchens, and other social safety-net programs.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
But he is obviously demented, going up to peoples’ houses and telling them to put him up, on God’s orders. LOL
By lozen
February 15, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
We’re all brainwashed all the time. If my parents told me the sky is red from the day I was born and they made me go to a church where the teachers and priest told me the sky is red, I would believe the sky is red. If all those people also told me only evil devil-worshippers believe the sky is blue and they’re all going to burn in hell, that would reinforce the lesson real good. Then if they said if I ever questioned that the sky is red I would displease god and go to hell, I would be afraid to even wonder if those people who say the sky is blue might be right. See what I mean Boscoe?
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
kimberly, I guess that’d be something you’d have to ask him yourself (about the cleaning stuff). And I agree that a bath and some nice clothes could indeed produce results close to miraculous! LOL (did you see the Beauty and the Geek make-over episode?!)
And Jack - he’d also be labled a freakin’ pinko commie librul by folks like Andy et al.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Lozen. The sky is red. Where have you been? (joking of course)
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Actually, I remember having a similar experience. (Had been blocking that out, Mara!!!) He was “the man” for me. God was putting him in charge of my life. He knew that I needed him to tell me what to do, to put my affairs in order, and to beat me into submission if I dared to blaspheme. Crazy SOB. British. Still lamenting the fall of the empire, which, of course, was sanctioned by God to make the rest of the world Christian. WHOA… now I’m going to have nightmares.
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Chilao, how long do you suppose it’d be before somebody called the cops on him?!
By FatMoose
February 15, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
You still didn’t answer the question how that limits my ability to think for myself?
You cannot distinguish more subtle layers than BLACK AND WHITE (christians and non-christians.)
I am a christian that calls you out regarding your judging/lofty attitude that is clearly regarded by jesus as low. You want to claim you KNOW what the bible states - yet exhibit none of those qualities (love, acceptance, tolerence).
You are what the bible WARNS people about; using the bible and gods word to further and spread your own bigit nature.
By RF
February 15, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
unfortunately for you kimberly, most men who meet those criteria are interested in other men who meet those criteria…
By The72John
February 15, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Mara, please! I’ve read some of the insanity that goes on with that guy and his cronies on the Lukovich blog. Their BEST discussions make our WORST discussions seem civil. Please don’t invoke their name and risk summoning their unwelcome presence to our relatively freak-free ‘blog.
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Heh heh… on the bright side, being British, the thought my cooking was GREAT! Hahahaha!
By Mara
February 15, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Ugh. Sorry to bring up bad memories kimberly. At least my experience was with a dog-kickin’, beer-drinking, camero-drivin’ a*hole…the kind you’d expect to be an abuser. Live and learn, baby. Live and learn. Unfortunately I have nothing to blame religious *my skepticism on except cold-eyed logic.
OK quittin’ time. Talk to y’all tomorrow. Peace-n-love
By Just Being Me
February 15, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
John, I understood you quite clearly.
Mara, my answer is heck no.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
He blew it. Dumb Brit. He did bath everyday I hope.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Mara - before they opened the door to find out what he wanted?
this is funny: I was a groomsman/usher at a Catholic wedding a few years ago. All these ‘sweet young things’ (okay, maybe some were in their 30/s but..LOL) were getting ushered in. And everyone did this little curtsy at the pew entrance. Now I am a faily attractive guy, in a tux even, I thought they were being flirtatious with the curtsy as a way of saying ‘Thanks for the escort’. Coming to find out it was a Catholic thing, bowing before the Cross before sitting down. I had no idea. (hilarious).
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 15, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Mara, can he cook, clean, fix up my disaster of a landscape, and still last all night?
Kimberly, you set your standards WAY too low. :)
By lozen
February 15, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
On this date in 1564, Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa, Italy. Galileo was appointed professor of mathematics at the University of Padua, where he lectured for 18 years. Galileo pioneered the experimental scientific method, building a thermoscope, constructing a geometrical and military compass, and building an improved telescope. His observations of the satellites of Jupiter, sunspots, mountains and valleys on the moon made him a celebrity, but his Copernican views were investigated and condemned by the Church. Diplomatically seeking Church permission, he published “The Assayer,” describing his scientific method, which was tactfully dedicated to the pope (1723). It took Galileo nearly two years to persuade the church to permit him to publish “Dialogue on the two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican” (1632), in which he wrote about impetus, momentum and gravity. The Holy Office banned the book, summoning the frail scientist to Rome for trial. Galileo was ordered to abjure his theory and was condemned to house arrest for the rest of his life. Three hundred and fifty years after his death, the Catholic Church “forgave” Galileo. D. 1642.
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
John, I’m sorry to confirm that all statements written by others above about what happens to your body seem to be true from my experiences. Party recovery DOES take longer, caffeine starts to affect you at night, and you don’t tolerate foods the way you used to. And I HATE that last part. I really enjoy spicy foods, but jalepenos just kill me anymore.
Renee….I feel you on the Chocolate Milk. My partner has suddenly returned to that and I don’t mind the taste so much as the texture. 2% CM is way more thick than 2% regular milk.
Kimberly…I wonder if being told what to do isn’t sometimes a symptom of being intelligent and a leader in one’s business. This seems antithetical, but in my own life my partner sometimes complains that I need to take more initiative in our personal lives to plan get togethers with friends or activites. I agree that I could do that more, but in my daily life at work I’m constantly setting up and conducting meetings, I’m the one making the big decisions, setting direction for the product line, determining strategies, putting together action plans to address issues. All day long I communicate and plan and organize…at the end of the day I just don’t want to do it at home even though those activities also need to occur in that part of my life. Where I’m going with this example is I wonder if leaders in thought in their field aren’t worn out and willing to follow in another part of their life.
By Jack
February 15, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
OK. A QUART of Nesquick and a dozen Krispy-Kream donuts! All in one sitting.
By Concerned
February 15, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Why is this man who lived and died several hundred years ago, called “the propet” by the news media.
He is NOT “the” prophet. He is a deceased man whose name was Muhammed who is worshipped by the Islamic people.
Why are the Muslims outraged by poorly drawn cartoons when they cut people’s heads off, sever the hands of victims, shout “death to America” and their women are covered head to toe in bedsheet looking material?
The women are treated worse than animals.
Why should we, who have fought so hard for our freedoms, allow these barbaric, terrorists to tell us what we can or cannot publish in our free presses?
They cannot impose their religion on America.
We will not stand for it.
This information on the Islamic prophet is very disturbing:
“The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.” published by Ali Sina of FaithFreedom.org .
By kimberly
February 15, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
NetB, you nailed it. Those of us who have to be responsible all day long at work, and many of us, for a house, bills, kids, pets, etc… We long for someone to take that burden from some part of us. I don’t know what it’s like for you, but as a woman, there is that innate biological sense that it would all be okay if there were a man there being strong, being in charge…. sigh Doesn’t happen though. {:-<
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Lauren…did your school attempt to teach that evolution and creation are NOT at odds? Evolution does not attempt to answer the question of how it all got here, but what has happened since life began. Evolution starts AFTER creation happened. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. I’d also be interested in the creation FACTS you mention.
I’m trying to play catch up so you’ve probably already covered all that and a whole lot more.
By RF
February 15, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
jack- Oh Yeah!! Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be able to even think about moving for at least an hour, not to mention the obvious affect on the blood sugar and cholesterol!!
kimberly- glad to see you gave the brit the boot (kinda cute play on words there!). Noone should have to endure that, but many do.
Net- it is thicker, and kinda gross if you ask me. My boys love it and beg for it at the store. Just makes me nauseous thinking about it!
You do have to let the leadership go at home. I can guide a room or bus full of teenagers or adults all day long, but I can’t decide what to cook for supper some nights. I think leaders are often very impressionable ‘off the clock’ because they just plain get tired of being the leader.
By The72John
February 15, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
He is NOT “the� prophet. He is a deceased man whose name was Muhammed who is worshipped by the Islamic people.
Always good to meet someone else who is convinced he knows the absolute truth.
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, my point about being preached at instead of mentally engaged during worship (aside from shul which I learned today is a place of discussion rather than preaching) was in relation to the question of whether religious GROUPS are thinking or not. Being in the seat voluntarily doesn’t change that a message is being sent and received without any discussion between the sender and receiver to allow questions, clarification, validation that the received message was what the sender even intended.
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
it is Harbor Branch Oceanographic:
http://www.hboi.edu/divisions.html
real neat place.
By FatMoose
February 15, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
Do you do any reef keeping(salt h2o aquariums)?
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…I was thinking the same thing you were…basically does he look like he’ll clean up good and what are his (ahem) other assets?
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Please don’t invoke their name and risk summoning their unwelcome presence to our relatively freak-free ‘blog.’
Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
LMAO, Chilao! From now on I’ll never be able to attend another mass and not think of the Catholic Curtsy instead of genulflection
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
FM - no, not at all, been only into freshwater tanks the past three years or so. that (marine) gets real real complicated and precarious. LOL
By Chilao
February 15, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Genuflection learned a new word, so that is what it is called. I forgot (and forgot to mention), they also did the cross at the same time. LOL
By FatMoose
February 15, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
that (marine) gets real real complicated and precarious.
Naw - that is the myth; all species of salt water need the exact same parameters (not including amout of light). Unlike freshwater species, which varies greatly. And, the substrate takes care of your pH, nitrate cycle (all the way to completion). You only need to do partial water changes - which you ave to with a freshwater too - yet salt is less often.
It is more expensive, but the enjoyment of having a nearly complete ecosystem (macro plankton and all) is worth it. Plu, you can get a nan-cube setup now for about $200-300.
By Netbanker
February 15, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
I don’t know what it’s like for you, but as a woman, there is that innate biological sense that it would all be okay if there were a man there being strong, being in charge…. sigh Doesn’t happen though. {:-<
My goodness, Kimberly be careful what you wish for or think you’re missing out on!! Oh sure, they’re all strong and in charge and ever so reassuring and THEN you realize that thjere is a fine line between that and stubborn, ever present, control freak. Besides most of them aren’t capable of actually DOING anything practical like finding the hamper, recognizing that the machine NEXT to the blessed sink is where the dirty dishes go, making something to eat for someone other than themself while leaving sh it all over the kitchen counter, running a vacuum cleaner or cleaning a toilet and heaven forbid they should catch a cold!! The bigger they are the bigger the baby when they don’t feel well.
By lozen
February 15, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
Mara, can he cook, clean, fix up my disaster of a landscape, and still last all night? Kimberly you are a hoot!
By candide
February 16, 2006 07:02 AM | Link to this
The Los Angeles Times reports that the Indians of the New World have no middle eastern DNA, as claimed by the Book of Mormon. Do you think the Mormon Church should apologize for fraud? No, the Christian Churches have never apologized for basing their faith on Paul of Tarsus who never met Jesus and for rejecting the followers of Jesus led by his brother James of Jerusalem who kne the most about Jesus. Fraud is fraud.
I wish I could draw cartoons.
Ecrasons l’infame!
By Mara
February 16, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Candide, did you hear about the old guy in Italy who sued his village priest for asserting that “Yes, Jesus was a real person…”? His complaint was that the Catholic Church had perpetuated a fraud based on impersonation (jesus was really some guy named John of Gamala) and abuse of popular credulity. In other words, he says the Catholic Church made it all up for power and money and that anecdotal evidence of his existance doesn’t meed the legal requirement of “fact”. Don’t know how it turned out, but the Pope does live in Rome…
By Van
February 16, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
Mara ,
The case was thrown out as frivolous. The atheist may be sued for slander
By candide
February 16, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
Mara: of course that Italian court threw the suit out, since Jesus was a real person. That fellow should have sued on other grounds, not that there was no Jesus but that he was not anything like what the New Testament claims. But in Italy it would not get anywhere: they still have crucifixes on the walls of all courtrooms in Italy. Yes, the Pope lives there.
By candide
February 16, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Lozen: your facts about Galileo are correct, but you need to add the following. Galileo had a lot of friends among the clergy but the Jesuits, who thought they were the intellectual and scientific elite, were jealous of him, a layman, for trying to discuss the questions of cosmology. He was not particularly humble either, claiming that he has as much right as anyone else, even Jesuits, to interpret the Scriptures. So the struggle was not just science vs. religion; it was a struggle over authority. Galileo, although a Catholic, was taking a dangerously Protestant-like view of the bible, something to be individually interpreted. Curiously, Protestants being biblical literalists more than Catholics, tended to oppose the Copernican view of things more than Catholics.
But the lesson to be learned is simple: the Catholic Church will compromise with almost anything so long as its basic claim is not contested. That is why I agree with Voltaire: let’s crush that infamous thing (by which he sometimes meant the Catholic Church and sometimes simply Christianity itself)>
By candide
February 16, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Listen here! Boscoe is a member of that secret conspiracy Opus Dei which wants to restore the Inquisition, overthrow secular authority, and make Catholicism compulsory. Don’t listen to him.
But do ask him this: why are those reading the DaVinci Code so overwhelmingly Catholics? It is because Catholics know more than anyone deep down that the dogmas of their church are baloney. They have always suspected the priests of putting one over and the Da Vinci Code, while pure fiction, gives them a chance to indulge their suspicions. When the movie comes out all hell will break loose. Let’s hope it drown the entire Catholic fantasy for good.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
It is so nice when a person hates another because of their religion. How refreshing!
By Laura Bishop
February 16, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
www.TeachingMoments.com
Parents helping parents raise happy, caring and responsible children.
Who Stole Your Day?
Thanks to Carole Hale, St Louis, MO for sharing her Teaching Moment idea.
Every day has the potential to be a good, and in some cases, a great day for you. Few of us get up in the morning thinking that we want this to be a bad day. Yet in many cases the day turns that way because of a person, an event or because we worry something in the future.
This Teaching Moment is about those small events that throw you off balance and negatively impact your day.
What stole your day? Was it a boss, an unruly child, the erratic driver on the way to work, not getting the �B� you expected on the history paper, a discourteous server at lunch, etc.
Every day there are numerous people or events that can prevent us from having a good day – if we let them. The key is not letting them “steal your day.�
In most cases we can not control these life experiences, but we can control how we react to them. Lao-Tzu, a Chinese Philosopher said: “He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty.�
Question for discussion:  Discuss the pluses and minus of your day with your family. Be specific  Discuss with your family something that almost “stole your day.� Describe the event and how you handled it.
 Do you notice a pattern? Are there particular people or events that seem to always steal your day? Say, the drive to work, the bus to school, and the neighbor’s barking dog? etc. Discuss.
Suggestions for implementation:  Do your- family members have suggestions on how you could have handled a particular situation? Keep it positive. This is a learning experience for everyone in the family. The idea is to share positive ways to keep you positive and focused on what is really important.  Make this a fun discussion stimulating experience for everyone.
 Learn to accept others. They may be having a bad day for any number of reasons. Take a couple of deep breathes and say to yourself: “I’m not going to let this steal my day.�
We hope you have found this Teaching Moment helpful. Please visit our website www.TeachingMoments.com for additional easy-to-implement parenting ideas.
Contact: Laura Bishop Accent On Success® St Louis, MO, USA Laura@AccentOnSuccess.com
By Mara
February 16, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Jack - the “hate” that comes out is not necessarily because of anothers religion as it might be because of how a person practices that religion. I know a lot of Christians that I like immensly, but I also know quite a few who just ruffle my feathers with their smug, arrogant, and holier-than-thou hypocrisy.
Van - thanks for the info. As I said, I didn’t know how it ended. Now I do, and I can’t say as I’m surprise at the verdict.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
I don’t know who stole my day, but I do know who stole 15 seconds of my life with an advertisement on the blog!
Jack, methinks Norman is back.
By Mara
February 16, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Hey John. I e-mailed her and told her she was the one who “stole my day”. %$#&;#! spam!
By Boscoe
February 16, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Norman, you wish you could draw cartoons? You ARE a cartoon. John, you answered the question by saying I cut and paste therefore I don’t think. Alas, I do cut and paste to prove a point but to prove a point I would have to know which text to cut and paste which btw, I do, to save time and energy by copying text of somebody more versed in a subject than I, so that it can be better explained to someone of limited capacity such as yourself. And I’m sorry but you brought up the hierarchical differences between the two. See your post 2:08 pm. lozen, the red and blue sky thing is really simplistic. The Church Mass, at least the ones I attend, are NOT reduced to pointing out that everyone who performs a certain action is evil. Netbanker, I’m hoping this will answer your comment as well; The Mass is rather a lesson or explanation of Christ’s life or some requirement of the Church. Take Love for example. Love is a complicated issue. Everybody has questions about Love especially when they find themselves in a situation that causes confusion about what the right thing to do is. There is a time and place to discuss these things just not during the Mass. Lozen has an issue with the Church concerning a woman’s role in it. Do you think that the issues/questions she raises about it are never, or have never been asked by those women that belong to the Church? Of course they have and they continue to get asked. Because some women have accepted the answers given does not imply the inability to think, or the even sillier notion that everybody is brain washed.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
I was not surprised that case got thrown out in Italy, there OBVIOUSLY was a Jesus of Nazareth long ago.
But if he was truly the Jewish Messiah is a whole other ballgame. LOL
FatMoose - thanks for the marine update, things have come a long ways since I first researched. My dad had marine tanks when I was a kid as well. My more immediate problem is temperature control since I could never maintain below 80F in the summer. I would very much like to go marine however.
By rememberingCivilization
February 16, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
The current uproar is ironic, since the anti-Muslim cartoons were tame compared to how the Muslim press portrays Jewish figures.
Ironic?
“Indignant response” vs. murderous violence
what is exceptable to the muslim religion is killing others in the name of their religion.
You may not disagree with them.
The press tippytoes around that fact.
By Mara
February 16, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA!!! Just got a reply to that e-mail saying something on the order of “Oooh! I’m so sorry! I’m such a technological neophyte that I thought I was just asking the forum leaders if I could spam their posters. I don’t know *anything about blogs…” Sure. Whatever.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Lol - Boscoe thinks that I’M the one with limited capacity. Good job, Boscoe…seems you were the only one yesterday who didn’t understand anything I wrote.
I have to give you credit - you’re the first person I’ve ever seen who tried to use superior intellect as a justification for plagarism. Let me know when the Wizard gives you your brain, OK?
And seriously…have you made a point yet about the hierarchical differences between the two churches? I’m still not exactly sure where you’re going with that one…I guess it’s more of your fingers-in-your-ears-round-and-round-we-go style of “arguing”.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Mara - actually the two columnists bio’s used to have their ajc emails on the bio page, however, if you click on the bio link now, (well a few days ago), it pops down to this box. and it fills up the screen so you would not know there were comments above. they may changed that a few weeks ago when someone posted several times here, but it was really private email to Diane, something about the Christians Scientists and the power of prayer.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Mara - of course the two columnists may have simply tired of receiving hate mail or lust mail.
By rememberingCivilization
February 16, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
“and simply showing old-fashioned respect for others”
My jaw hit the floor at this statement. I still can’t pull it off the floor. The media has reviled any and everything that doesn’t fit their political agenda and that includes common decency and respect. Religion to the media was a lightening rod for scorn. Oh, I’m sorry, was that just christianity? (yes, which on occassion has deserved scorn, but rarely for doing anything everyone else doesn’t do)
Old fashioned respect for others in the general public went out with Bart Simpson’s advent.
Why, to the liberal press, are violent muslim killers and rampaging destroyers deserving respect? When good old Pat Robertson steps in it with one of his silly statements, you haul him off for execution. For saying something stupid.
PLEASE tell me why violent pillaging murderers are deserving of my old fashioned respect?
They were cartoons, and not even funny or well drawn or particularly clever. Just lame assaults. But the problem is, emboldend by the lack reaction to their violent demands, they will become more emboldend still.
Does fear make you write such a chickens__t post?
Maybe Coca-cola could buy them some sensitivity training classes?
By Renee
February 16, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
I can understand any entity and/or person not doing something out of fear.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
The media is vulture scum. IMO
By Jack
February 16, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
More PC:
Illegal Aliens = Undocumented Immigrants Islamic Terrorists = Islamic Militants
By candide
February 16, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
The Mormon embarrassment about claiming Israelites went to the New World some two thousand five hundred years ago is like the Herbert W. Armstrong group of phonies in Pasadena who claim to be British Israelites, the true Israelites who were the ten lost tribes. They claim they ended up in Britain.
They all seem to forget that the ten lost tribes did not literally disappear; they just were conquered, carried off, and stopped being Jews.
What is really important is that the British Israelites were the model for the Christian Identity movement, claiming that the Jews are not Israelites. This is just another form of anti-semitism.
Of course Christianity in any of its versions is basically anti-semitic.
Yes, I am a nutcase. I want all these evil religionists destroyed so that peace, harmony, love and joy can prevail. Let’s start by blowing up churches — not little wooden structures in Alabama (after all they need their fried chicken) but the Vatican itself. Perhaps Boscoe can be persuaded to save his blighted soul by helping to destroy the Whore of Babylon on the Vatican Hill.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
sigh…if it’s not one thing, it’s a norman.
By Netbanker
February 16, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Two things come to mind over the name Norman. 1. Bates (speaks for itself) 2. Katherine Hepburn’s line in On Golden Pond “The loons, Norman! The loons!” Neither is indicative of mental stability…not that I’m making a statement on Norman’s mental capacity.
Boscoe There is a time and place to discuss these things just not during the Mass. Wouldn’t the mass BE a good place for some controlled discussion? In a former position one of my roles was that of trainer. One principle of adult learning is that it must be interactive. In school (regardless of it being Kindergarten or Grad School) a lesson is presented and then the students have exercises or a discussion to ensure that the lesson is internalized and remembered in the future. If the point of the mass is to provide a lesson then wouldn’t it make sense to follow the general principles of learning to ensure the parishioners are actually getting the message instead of just tuning out during the homily?
Remembering…some interesting points that are well taken. It seems that the Muslims can dish it out, but not take it. What happened to “An eye for an eye?” If that is what they truly believe (and it would seem that they do based on their own press and actions) then why the outrage when they get poked in the eye?
By Brian Curtis
February 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, here’s what John is trying to tell you: Cutting and pasting what someone else said is not thinking for yourself. No, the act of CHOOSING whose words to cut-and-paste does not qualify as independent thinking… Limbaugh and Coulter fans do that all the time, for example, and no one would accuse them of having a thought in their empty little heads.
“Me too� is not independent thinking, no matter what Cheney says in his press conferences.
I believe the point that John is making is this: If you base your life decisions or opinions on what someone else says—in this case, what a church doctrine claims is The Truth—then you’re not making your own decisions. You’re just saying “me too� when someone in authority makes a statement. That’s not the same as thinking for yourself.
Considering multiple sources with conflicting viewpoints-—that’s one way to form a sensible opinion. Doing your own research, or relying on facts and logic—-those are other ways. But just parroting what a pope or minister or mullah says? Nope; not even close. That’s indoctrination and preaching, but it’s not thinking.
Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. (When you HAVE evidence, it’s called “knowledge.�) Faith is not the same as rational thought. Plenty of religious people may well be rational thinkers as well… but the ‘faith’ part of their lives is entirely separate from that.
By RF
February 16, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Net- we have to remember the role of the church in early European society. It was a method of keeping the huddled masses in fear and awe of the church, God, and the King (which were all entertwined anyway). Many churches today use a version of this fear-inducing control because it works. As ‘enlightened’ as we are today, people still fall for the gripping fear of religion. As much as it would improve the quality of the message and teaching in church, I doubt many pastors would be willing to give up that control to allow debate and discussion. Creflo’s folks might realize how stupid it was to buy him a Bentley! (shaking my head in disbelief…)
By lozen
February 16, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Interesting interview last evening on religion in Africa. It was on “Speaking of Faith” on NPR. African woman being interviewed grew up trying to sort out the christian concepts she was taught by missionaries with old african religion of her grandmother. She was schooled in England and theology is her specialty. She is a christian but it’s a very different christianity and incorporates the teachings of the Shona of africa. She said it was easy for africans to accept christianity because it parellels their old religion in 1. belief in a god (they see it as same as belief in ancestors) 2. they already believed in a life after death. There was always a female principle in african religion and they’ve incorporated that into their version of christianity. Mari is the wife of god, and god speaks through her to the people. There are more christians in africa than any other continent now, but it is not the christianity practiced here.
By Clint
February 16, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
I just love how judgemental some Christians are. They demand respect, yet bash others who ask for the same. It’s pathetic.
By lozen
February 16, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
RF you are so right. It is (and always has been) fear, fear, fear. I was afraid for a long time as a young adult to question religion because I was told over and over that “we must accept what we’re told and god doesn’t like it and will punish you if you question him or the bible.” I am so glad I was able to overcome that fear. I still wonder why I wasn’t taken in by “jesus loves me.” I felt so unloved growing up. It would have been wonderful to feel loved. But what good is it to be loved by some Hebrew Rabbi who died over 2000 years ago? I wanted to be loved by someone who could talk to me, hug me, be there for me - you know a real flesh and blood person!
By Boscoe
February 16, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, I understand what you’re saying about adult learning. Perhaps I have not chosen (Thanks Mara) my worlds carefully…the purpose of the Mass is the worship of God. People go to Mass to worship God, to give reverence to God, etc. etc. During part of the Mass God “speaks” to us via the Biblical readings for the day. Well, just as in your corporate job when the CEO speaks people tend remain silent; during the Mass when God “speaks” people keep a silent reverence. There is a time to discuss the context of the lesson just not during the Mass where it is essential to keep a reverence. Brian,If you base your life decisions or opinions on what someone else says—in this case, what a church doctrine claims is The Truth—then you’re not making your own decisions. Why not? If I’m basing my life decisions upon this faith then I am making my own decisions, whether YOU agree with this faith or not, is irrelevant and does not eliminate this as logical thought. Faith according to the dictionary is allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) complete trust (BTW, what do you put complete trust into – is that not similar?)* 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs. John, Brian, this definition is a clear example of a *cut and paste. I could, as you assert, use my own words to define faith but the result would be a long and tiresome diatribe over my choice of words, hence I have chosen (thanks Mara) to cut and Paste directly from the source so that I can express MY viewpoint as clearly as possible. Other than that - thanks for talking!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Oh no, we wouldn’t want Boscoe to be long and tiresome, would we. Horrors.
By Boscoe
February 16, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
RF, we have to remember the role of the church in early European society. It was a method of keeping the huddled masses in fear and awe of the church, God, and the King (which were all entertwined* (OOOH, I hope Mara doesn’t see this)* anyway*. RF, what text book or teacher did you put your faith in for this information? Lozen, is it the Church’s responsibility to love you or your parents? If you felt unloved as a child I would suspect the latter, which goes a long way to explain why you are the way you are today.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
The blog has “blogged down” I will visit back when the topic of discussion is not religion. Give it a break already.
By RF
February 16, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Bozo—I mean Boscoe—high school history texts document the use of the church by the government and vice versa…DUH If you read it, Henry VIII separated from the catholic church and formed the Anglican church so he could have permission to divorce. Talk about mixing church and state!
Don’t bother responding with some sarcastic meandering. All you achieve is making yourself appear more foolish and completely destroy your ‘witness’. I’m a born-again believer, and a history buff. I wasn’t attacking anyone’s faith, I was just pointing out one interesting piece of history. That’s all—I’m not downing God here. Somebody wake me if there’s anything interesting to discuss this afternoon. I’m bored now…
By Randy
February 16, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
My apologies to anyone I offended yesterday morning. Don’t look at me when judging other Christians(I ain’t got no sense). Everyone have a great day.
By candide
February 16, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Vel, Jacek, the topic vas religion, no?
By Mara
February 16, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
I know how annoying “cut-n-paste” jobs are, but I was over at Andrew Sullivans (conservative)website and noted this entry…”The Concerned Women for America are now publishing articles by writers whose primary identification is with Christian Reconstructionists. The writer is clearly a follower of R.J. Rushdoony, a central figure in Reconstructionism. He backs anti-blasphemy laws. Reconstructionists are people who want to abandon the Constitution and institute Old Testament Biblical law - stoning adulterers, executing homosexuals, etc. We’re often told that the religious right are not theocrats. But CWFA is a mainstream part of the religious right. And if the reconstructionists are not theocrats, who on earth is?”
For anyone not familiar with the reconstructionist movement, Reconstructionists aren’t shy about what exactly it is they are pursuing: “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,� Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.�
OK. Cut n paste is done. These folks are the type of “Christian” that gives the rest of us the heebie-jeebies. They epitomize why so many people believe Christians would have no compunction forcing us to bow to their god, were we not protected by the law.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
No apologies necessary Randy. Your opinion counts just like everyone elses.
By Renee
February 16, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
The topics is ALWAYS
By Renee
February 16, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
The topics is ALWAYS religion, even when the topic is not RELIGION!!!
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
cartoon compliments of USNews and World Report, Feb 20, 2006 issue:
on topic:
http://www.pixpond.com/1/qw6ywb.jpg
By Boscoe
February 16, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
RF,I wasn’t attacking anyone’s faith Yes…you were! And that’s my point. You attack someone else’s faith using faith of your own. You believe everything you read? When you get right down to it;it’s only about what you do or don’t beleive.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
When you get right down to it;it’s only about what you do or don’t beleive.
Yup, things like historical evidence, original source documents, etc. are absolutely meaningless. It’s all about what you believe or don’t believe.
I believe that’s called “fantasy world”, isn’t it?
It’s pure folly to debate historical events with someone who, as I remember, once defended the Inquisition as an absolutely reasonable weapon in the battle against heresy, and denied that violence of any sort took place during said Inquisition.
By Scalia
February 16, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Jeez, have we not exhausted the topic of religion? Now, I understand why people don’t discuss religion and/or politics. This is also the reason why most people turn to mindless drivel like reality t.v. (I love my Project Runway. Heidi Klum is the hottest woman to come out of Germany.), and nonsense like that. It becomes redundant and tedious.
I’ll be glad when world baseball rolls around. At least that will be entertaining.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
I was more discussing the folly of treating history like post-modernist literature, but I can do world baseball.
Who else thinks its a meaningless competition without Cuba’s team competing?
By chuck
February 16, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Well, well, well. I thought that I sensed my name being taken in vain yesterday and surprise surprise…it was. I have apparently missed all of the fun this week. I can’t believe that the discussion turned to…gasp…religion. Things have been hectic this week to say the least, but I had to find time to read the blog last night after church and even laughed out loud a couple of times, and it’s not even Friday.
As usual, 72john got it all wrong. Boscoe was exactly right about a few things. Christians make a free choice to FOLLOW CHRIST. Nobody twisted my arm, nobody coerced me. When my children CHOSE to follow Christ, THEY CAME TO ME, both at fairly young ages (5 and 7) and told me they wanted to accept Christ. I have nieces and nephews who also grew up in Chritian homes who made the decision much later. Now I have no idea what kind of groups you belong to john, but I assume if you were to join an organization, it is because you believe what they believe and have the same goals and purposes. Of course I don’t expect you to understand that concept because I don’t think ANY group would meet your standard because NOBODY is as smart as you. After all you do have a degree in…what was it? Oh yeah Theater!!!! I’m sure that prepared you to be an expert on EVERY Subject. I guess it also made you the drama queen that you are today.
I can’t believe that ya’ll just figured out that RF was gay. How many “Oh, my god“‘s and comments about Bea Arthur does it take? Sheesh.
By Scalia
February 16, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
I thought that Cuba was competiting.
But the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Japan, and the US are going to rock.
I was watching ESPN yesterday, and they think that the D.R. and the US are going to be the top two.
By GeeZis
February 16, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Hey gang,
Regardless of what all the know-it-all, stick-in-the-mud, pundits say, I really do have a sense of humor and certainly enjoy a good laugh. I really liked that goofy Book of Daniel show. I mean when I’m just hanging out changing water and stuff, I like off-beat entertainment, especially on a Friday night. I mean lets face it, television has been in kind of a rut ever since they canceled Wagon Train.
And the pictures of the prophet that are causing all the ruckus? Really, get over yourselves. You ought to see the one I have of him with the Mickey Mouse ears. Ha! What a hoot!
See ya Sunday!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Oh look, Chuck-the-schmuck reared his ugly little head again…and oh look, he’s ridiculing me again because I’m gay! Wow, good one Chuck…how many hours did it take you to come up with “Drama queen”, hmm?
Yes, Schmuck, I do have a degree in theatre, but I also have a SECOND bachelor’s degree in business and finance as well as a Master’s degree in business. So much for criticizing my educational background…what mail-order (laugh) education degree were YOU working on, again? You know that real PhDs laugh at EdDs behind their backs, right?
As usual, you’re making irrational strawman arguments as if what you’re talking about is what we were arguing about. No one DOUBTS, Chuck, that you belong to your nazi church because you share their goose-stepping, hate-mongering quasi-murderous tendancies. Of COURSE you join groups that you share a value system with, Eric Rudolph-in-training.
The POINT, Chuck, is that by adhering to a set of beliefs that are clearly invalidated by empirical observation, you are showing the world how just plain STUPID you are for continuing to believe your primitive nonsense.
Moron.
By Just Being Me
February 16, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
LOL@ GeeZis
By chuck
February 16, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
You’d think with all the homosapiens on this blog that the gaydar would be working a little better.
Randy, you little weanie. Take a little heat from the reprobates and then give in. You didn’t say ANYTHING that was offensive. The plain truth of the matter is that these folks will TAKE OFFENSE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY IF IT DOESN’T TOE THEIR LITTLE PARTY LINE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Talk about NAZIS.
What middle age white boy in the South DIDN’T grow up with some prejudice. What middle aged Black boy DIDN’T. I know you are too young to remember this JBM, but it was the FIGHT for Civil Rights. Most of us had some UN training to do.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
I think you have political correctness confused with decent, respectful treatment, Schmuck.
I understand how you have a problem with this. In your twisted little evil scum-sucking mind you think you SHOULD be able to abuse people who aren’t “perfect” little Christians like you…just like the SS thought it SHOULD be able to kill jews.
Hurry up and sign up for Iraq, Chuck. There’s a bullet out there with your skull’s name on it.
By kimberly
February 16, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Chuck, my “gaydar” is embarrassingly low. Know why? ‘Cause I don’t PRESUME to know what other people do behind closed doors, nor is it any of my business whom they love. Hence, I’m always the last to know… or care. I don’t judge people the way YOU do. Who was it that said, “Judge not?” Or did He say, “Go forth and find people to judge?” How did that part go again, teacher?
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck’s bible has replaced “Love thy neighbor” with “Beat the heck out of thy neighbor if he be the least bit different from ye”.
Chuck is probably the best argument for abortion EVER.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Your right Chuck that was a weenie move. Nobody’s giving in.
By Just Being Me
February 16, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Chuck, did you mean to use the word “homosapiens”?
By kimberly
February 16, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Pop Quiz: Who can tell us what Matthew 7:11 says? Anyone? Anyone?
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Hate-filled Ignorant Bigots of the world, untie! You tell ‘em Randy.
Hey, I sense a Klan Meeting coming on!
Is that a burning cross I smell, or are Randy and Chuck trying to have original thoughts again?
By Just Being Me
February 16, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
And one last thing. You cannot compare a middle aged white boy’s prejudices to a middle aged black boy’s prejudices. One is with cause and one is completely unjustifiable. Further, the issue is not that he had prejudices, but that as an adult he would need to seek the counsel of another person to tell him whether it’s okay or not.
That alone demonstrates a lack of the love of God in one’s heart.
By OffAWebsite
February 16, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Chuck— how can you dare call yourself a saved Christian and make such a blatantly stereotypical remark? Don’t give me that crap about ‘everyone else does it’. You just proved once again that a man can claim to be led by Christ, but actually can have a very forked tongue. What a moron!!!
Boscoe, I mean BOZO—HELLO, read what I said!! I simply stated what I read in a history book. I didn’t ask, and don’t care, you fool, what you think or believe. My faith comes from my heart, not from a book or what another human tells me. I think for myself—you should try it sometimes. No, you’d rather spout useless stuff on a blog and TRY to attack people. All you do is come across as a crass idiot. Go home and pray for wisdom—you ain’t got none now!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Oh, forgot about that one…well, Chuck says Randy said nothing wrong, so I guess that means Chuck is opposed to “inter-racial” (now, that’s a meaningless word) relationships, too.
Shock.
By Renee
February 16, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
hmmmm…maybe we never cared what RF does in HIS bedroom, maybe we just liked him for WHO he is!!!!!!
Nobody’s on here trying to scope out all the gays but you Chuck!
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Go get ‘im kimberly. He’s such a fine, upstanding christian fellow, isn’t he?
Hey chuck—what does Bea Arthur have to do with anything???I’m confused!
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Renee- he’s scared there are so many—gasp G-A-Y-S out there, he’ll be attacked!!
Keep counting Chuck, they’re everywhere!!!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Obviously, Chuck received a “How to ID the queers” pamphlet from his Kirkefuhrer, and the Bea Arthur thing was one of the signs used to identify “them”.
By kimberly
February 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Ooops. I read the website wrong. It’s Matthew 7:1 and 7:2: Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgement you judge, so you shall be judged. And with what measure you dish it out, so it shall be dished unto you.
There, I translated a bit for ya. You’re welcome! {;->
By Renee
February 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO John….too funny…
The drama queen quip must have been in there too.
Chapter 5
Names to call a gay man when he makes you mad.
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
JBM- Chuck’s true colors show through. Now we find out he’s bigoted AND homophobic. Who’d a thunk it?
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
John—LOLOLkirkefuhrer—good one!! I spit all over my keyboard on that one!
By Jack
February 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Scalia. I agree about Heidi.
Kim. I think it said,”Oh thank Heaven for 7/11” Heehee.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Aunt Bea call the man!
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
had jbm or renee or john or RF or Net or brian not posted on the blog that they are gay, i would never have known. and it’s not for a lack of gaydar on my part, since i live in the morningside/highland area that is full of gay people.
rather, i just accept their opinions and positions for what they are, whether i agree with them some of the time, all of the time or none of the time. outside of people making a political issue out of sexuality, it plays a de minimis role in political ideas and concepts. the incessant digs and comments about who does what to whom behind closed doors is so old and tired. seriously, chuck and randy, you guys need to get over it. they’re real people who are gay and they’re not going away and they’re not going into hiding about their sexuality. it’s high time you figured out a civilized way to live with them without resorting to name calling, bashing and all of the “you’re going to hell”isms that are constantly being thrown around. it does nothing to further civil discourse or improve mutual respect between people of different backgrounds and lifestyles.
is there anything else we can discuss other than homosexuality vs religion?
By The72John
February 16, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Thanks RF - I was kinda proud of that one myself :-)
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
I saw that episode just the other night Jack. I loved it when she and Opie were carting all that meat down the street with all the dogs following them. “call the man, Aunt Bea, just CALL the man.”
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
I thought it was interracial worship. LMAO
By RF
February 16, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
bla- speaking of something else, how’s mrs. bla these days? Still puking in the morning? Did you do a nice dinner for Valentine’s for her?
By Jack
February 16, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
That’s my favorite episode.
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
mrs bla had a checkup yesterday. things are progressing well. she’s mostly sick in the evening, which is a pain since that’s when i’m home from work. i thought i was going to have to cook for v-day, but forgot that she’d made reservations at a cool restaurant down the street from our house. she actually felt pretty well almost throughout the entire meal, so it was pretty enjoyable. if it hadn’t been for the eavesdropping couple sitting next to us, it would have been perfect.
we always seem to be sitting next to a group of eavesdroppers. i’m sorry, but i don’t have that interesting a life, at least i don’t think so, but we always seem to attract extra ears. anybody else noticing more of that these days?
By Renee
February 16, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Brian too….I really must come out from under my rock or I really don’t pay attention.
Chuck, pass me your pamphlet when you are through.
By Renee
February 16, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
bla I think that is one of the rules of the blog, homosexuality or religion MUST be the topic, if the topic is not one of the two, the thread must be hijacked and converted to either one or both…LOL
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
You don’t need to borrow it, Renee, I’m sure you can find it on his pet “answersingenesis” website. Like everything else he posts.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
No not interracial worship, just interracial marriage. We need to say something to get to get 72John to say something hateful. He is such a nice person.
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
sigh, you’re probably right, renee. i guess that’s why i post more when we’re actually discussing a political topic and less when we’re discussing sex and religion. i personally enjoy the political discussions we have on this blog bc i enjoy challenging other opinions and having my own challenged by intelligent people of differing backgrounds and viewpoints.
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Renee- pass it to me when you finish. I’ve been thumbing through my copy of “How to be Stereotypically Gay So All the Radicals Will Know You” handbook, and I just can’t find the chapter on Bea Arthur. I just know I missed it somewhere, and I soooo want to make sure I get it all right!! (Rolling of eyes understood here) LOLOL
By Just Being Me
February 16, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Bla, that was me eavesdropping. LOL
And, thanks for your 3:47. It was great and well said.
Renee, yeah, I didn’t know about Brian either. Is that a fact or an error, Bla?
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
You know, Randy, it’s really funny when you accuse me of being not nice.
Do you not understand that if YOU did not come on the blog and attack ME, that I would have absolutely no problem with you? Do you not understand that if CHUCK did not come on this blog and make every post an attack on gay people whether the topic warrants or not, that I would not have a personal problem with him?
You have a lot of gall, but you know what - I’ll admit that when it comes to people who attack me first, I have no compunctions about NOT being nice back.
The day you realize that it is YOUR behavior, YOUR intolerance, YOUR preaching that causes some people to hate you, then you will be one step closer to intellectual maturity.
Until then, every time you come on here telling us how evil we all are, you can expect to get my verbal fist in your face.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Yea. it is hard to get to get John to say something hateful.
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
i thought brian said he was gay at some point. i could be wrong. if so, i apologize, brian. i guess that validates my point that i really don’t pay attention to the sexuality of the blogger, but rather the contents of their post.
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
bla- good to hear she’s progressing normally. That first trimester is such a nerve wracking time.
JBM- I figure if you’re eavesdropping, noone will notice. You’re far too cool to lean over or stare!
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
72John reminds me of the Muslims burning and murdering people because of the cartoon done by the Danes. Hateful and never any remorse. He is dangerous, the rest of us give our opinion, but we aren’t going to do anything physical. Talk about crazy.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Lol - keep ‘em coming Randy…tell me why I’m crazy!
Did you say I was supposed to be remorseful? Why? Are you remorseful for being a homophobic bigot? Didn’t think so!
You are the hater…I am the hated…see, it’s OK for me to dislike you, becuase YOU are the root of the problem.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
She is welcome to lean over. Long as I am behind her!
By Renee
February 16, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO RF!!!!!!!! There actually isn’t a chapter on Bea Arthur, it’s a paragraph in the middle of Chapter 4 - Celebrities that gay people identify with. She’s mentioned at the end of the chapter, after Cher, Patti, and Tina Turner…LOL..
See RF you have me acting silly now!
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
OKAY, can anyone else tell it’s a full-moon week??
Randy- if you don’t want the dog to bite you, don’t walk into the yard and call him…John’s no more harmful than anyone else spouting junk on here. Admit it—you enjoy the argument as much as he does, or you’d quit posting. It’s all good!!
By Jack
February 16, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
I’m guilty of threatening people who make me angry on the blog. Always feel bad when I do so I stopped. better to laugh instead.
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
thanks, RF. i believe everything is normal at this point. you’re right, the first trimester is very strange. i’d like to fast-forward a few months so that we’re past the threat of miscarriage and can just get excited about the baby instead of constantly worrying about something going wrong.
By JimCarey
February 16, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Hi,
I’m not sure that I understand how it is that “right thinking” people could boycott a relatively harmless television show like Book of Daniel, because they didn’t like the characterization of Jesus as laid back, and easy going. Especially when they flocked to the theaters and paid good money to see my portrayal of God as a greedy letch, shamelessly humping Jennifer Anniston.
What an odd standard
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Renee- THAT’S right!! I remember now… I just got so flustered by chapter three about ‘How to dress to look gay’. I just don’t own enough shoes ( sorry Net) or have enough swish in the hip to make it work! LOLOL
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
72John, I don’t hate anybody. I may not respect some people as much as others. I’m not homophobic either, I just don’t approve of their chosen lifestyle. You seem very unhappy and wanting to take it out on me and Chuck, which is OK. We are not your problem, you lifestyle choice is never going to make you really happy. It may work for a while and you may try to convince yourself it will, but in the longrun you will never be really happy. Sorry.
By Jack
February 16, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
My 4:14 was crass. Sorry if I offended. (I did mean it though.)
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
You mean if I love Tina Turner……? (and I do). Burn that book, burn that book. LOL
By lozen
February 16, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Bla, you’re probably going to end up in the second edition of the book that quotes “things overheard in public conversations.” The first edition is all about things overheard in NYC. The best one I’ve heard is the one about the two sorority girls in a vegetarian hotdog place. One asks, “Is a vegetarian hotdog really better for you that a regular hotdog?” Her friend answers, “Maybe not but I’d rather eat a plant stamen than a pig anus.”
By Renee
February 16, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Make sure you have the latest edition RF. There have been a lot of complaints from the Radicals that some gays are using the 2000 edition and ~gasp~ some are even using the 1990 edition.
The entire womens edition gets me flustered. I can’t seem to get with the haircuts and my combat boots (wait the combat boots are from the 1990 edition).
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Randy, I’m going to say this very slowly, so that it will sink it…the only thing that makes being gay a pain sometimes, is people…like…you.
But thanks for yet another of your ignorant pronouncements about something you know absolutely nothing about.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Lozen - I heard that on NPR this morning, sounded like an interesting book. Guy(author/collector of ‘overheards’) was impressed she knew what a plant stamen was.
By blablabla
February 16, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
nice, lozen. i see the jokes are starting on thurs afternoon. trust me, though, i doubt either of us said anything as humorous as your sorority girls.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Some of you guys hate Christians so much, what do you do when someone you know dies??? Do you go to their funeral at a Church??? There was a 15 year old who goes to my daughters school and our church that died from a car wreck. If your child dies, how do you handle it??? I seen funeral services of people who didn’t go to church and those people acted as if they didn’t have any idea that people can die. In total shock.
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Don’t worry, Chilao, it’s just one part of the bigger picture. It’s hard to explain, so just borrow Renee’s copy when she’s finished. Now if you find yourself staying up at night to catch episodes of “Golden Girls” on Lifetime, you might want to start worrying a little…
By Renee
February 16, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Some of you guys hate Christians so much, what do you do when someone you know dies??? Do you go to their funeral at a Church??? There was a 15 year old who goes to my daughters school and our church that died from a car wreck. If your child dies, how do you handle it??? I seen funeral services of people who didn’t go to church and those people acted as if they didn’t have any idea that people can die. In total shock.
What????? This makes no sense, the paragraph, sentence structure, thought process. Back to the drawing board Randy.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Could someone translate the Randy into English?
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
72John, See look at your last post, I don’t call you ignorant. I didn’t say let me say this slowly. When you say things like these, do you think it makes what you say more important. Where I come from calling people names, means that they have a better point than you do. Think about it, people don’t start calling people names until the other person is getting the better of them. So I want to thank you for the name calling and letting me know that what I’m saying is really sinking in.
By Renee
February 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO RF!!!!!! hahahaha…stop…my stomach hurts.
By lozen
February 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Randy, you are such a pompous, holier-than-thou, a-s-s. How can you just go on and on with your superiority complex and you’re egotistical idea that you know what makes another person happy? The higher power made 72John just the way he is. You are such a friggin’ silly little idiot.
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Renee- let go of the nineties edition. The hairdos alone were just WRONG (except Bea Arthur and Tina of course!!—LOL) I still can’t believe ‘ol Schmuck came out with such a stereotype!!LOL I read the other day that they’re going to start a paperback update every six months so we can ALL stay abreast of what society expects us to look like. Do you know anyone who could teach me the wrist thing?? I just can’t seem to make that work for me!! LOLOL Okay, I gotta quit—you’re such a bad influence!!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Randy, does it make you feel better about yourself to believe that I hate Christians? Is it easier to make assumptions like that rather than acknowledge that it is not Christians that I hate, but people like you who happen to be Christian…it is your intolerance that I hate, not your religion.
Christianity is not flawed - the people who practice it are. Or at least can be.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Now if you find yourself staying up at night to catch episodes of “Golden Girls� on Lifetime, you might want to start worrying a little
Good point, if I stayed up late to watch ANY TV, and a sit-com to boot and then Golden Girls, yes I would be concerned. LOL
funny about that, my parents were visiting once, (I was raised in a NO TV household), we went to the zoo, Bette Davis sponsored the Bactrian Camel and she was there, my dad had to interrupt her to let her know how much he enjoyed The Golden Girls.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
I not writing a thesis. I need to elaborate on the 15 year old dying, all the Christians need to pray for the family, has to be hard on them. As far as my other point, if someone I knew died and he was say buddist, I wouldn’t go to his funeral.
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
hey Renee- how you’d do with chapter 7— you know, the one where you’re supposed to spit, grab your crotch, and punch your partner in the arm all the time? That has to be hard, what with all your giggling and stuff!!
I’m still digging through chapter 5 on interior decorating—it’s soooo hard to keep the silk and taffeta in the living room clean with kids!!!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Actually, Randy, I call you names because I find you to be a pathetic, despicable human being who isn’t worthy of being treated decently. You are not worth my civility.
By Just Being Me
February 16, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Randy, your 4:30 reminded me to ask you: did you ever get around to reading II Timothy 2:15 as I suggested yesterday?
By RF
February 16, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’m seriously going to quit and go home now. BYYYYYYEEEE! (Renee— did I get that right?? I still can’t get the wrist thing like the pictures in the book, and I’m not sure I said it with enough nasal whine!)
Okay, seriously, I’m going home now. I promise. Noooooo more stereotype jokes today, NOPE, not doing it, not doing it. I’ll just get my autographed picture of Bea and go home now!!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
The fact that you wouldn’t attend the funeral of someone who was of a different faith than your own is more a sign of your own lack of human decency than anything else.
If someone I cared about passed away, it really wouldn’t matter what their religion was…I would go to their funeral. The fact that you would NOT is just further proof that you are human waste.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Iozen, Sorry I can’t take anyone with that name serious. If I had any chance to take you serious, you ended that with your “way out in space, weirdo” posts. You are probably just on the verge of insanity/sanity.
By noah
February 16, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Randy, go get in the closet and start praying for a brain!
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
I can’t take anyone seriously who doesn’t know how to use adverbs.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
See the problem is there are to many people who are normal in this world, to need a friend who is buddist=nuts. One of my best friends was an atheist(after many e-mails he saw that that was stupid) but we really don’t have much in common. Would I go to his funeral? Probably not, why honor someone who is that blind.
By noah
February 16, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
“I not writing a thesis.” Why wouldn’t you go to a buddhist funeral Randy - afraid some “buddha” might rub off on you?
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
I’m am glad 72John calls me names, if he didn’t that would mean I was somewhat like him. I WOULDN’T WANT TO BE ANYTHING LIKE HIM, NOTHING ABOUT HIM IS HONORABLE, SHOWS CHARACTER ETC. A TRUE LOSER.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
See, here is where Randy confirms that he is an ignorant, backwater hick.
Randy…do you understand that Bhuddism not only has over a billion adherents but that it predates Christianity by more than half a millenia?
Why in the world would you suggest that a Bhuddist is not normal?
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Who names their kid Noah???
By Jack
February 16, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Lozen is quite sane and much wiser than thee.
By The72John
February 16, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
You’re so right, Randy. You are the soul of character. I’ll try to be more like you…you know, I’ll condemn interracial relationships and refuse to be friends with people of different religions.
You are SUCH a great person.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
I would go to the funeral for a ‘friend’ who had died out of respect for the friend, regardless of that person’s chosen religion. Of course I would not go just because everyone else expected me to go, if I either did not like the person, or had never met them personally.
I have been to many funerals out of respect for the deceased, not because I believed in that person’s religion, if they had one.
By Randy
February 16, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
What are you 72John??? A wimpy little sissy that attacks people on sites, because you have no real courage. You are a Clown.
By Chilao
February 16, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Parents who read the Bible name their kids Noah, etc. every kid in my family(siblings) is a Bible name.
on that thought, who names their kids after horny Brits? (joking)
kidding around, going to have some good jokes tomorrow. LOL
By lozen
February 16, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
Randy is such a shining example of a christian isn’t he? Doesn’t he make you just want to run out and get saved and go to his church?
By Randy
February 17, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
There you go again Iozen with one of your left-field weirdo posts. Wow you are really out there in la-la land.
By Brian Curtis
February 17, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
BBB, Renee: I see I missed a lot!
No, I’m not gay, but I haven’t made an issue of my sexuality one way or the other. And since I’m staunchly pro-gay rights, I guess it’s understandable to assume I’m part of the oppressed rather than the oppressor.
No harm done. Jokes, anyone?
By Randy
February 17, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
Joke told by a 8 year old on my last cruise. Why didn’t the skeleton cross the road??? He didn’t have any guts.
By Just Being Me
February 17, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
Okay, how did the other topic get up? And, let’s get the jokes started!!!!!
Randy is such a shining example of a christian isn’t he? Doesn’t he make you just want to run out and get saved and go to his church?
Hahahaha!!!! ROFLMBO!!
By chuck
February 17, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
RF, they are STEREOTYPES for a reason. Look back at your posts. If they aren’t a walking billboard that you are gay I’ll eat my computer. All the “girlfriend” this and that, “Oh my god”…What kind of men do you hear saying those things? Not to mention Yours and Tim’s discussion of the Golden Girls.
As you may recall also, EVERBODY on this blog thought you were a woman until you specifically stated otherwise. I don’t know why you are so offended. Aren’t you “loud and proud”?
BTW, I’m sure you haven’t used any stereotypes when you referred to me….NOOOOOOOO.
By Brian Curtis
February 17, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
Another undead joke:
There was this haunted house on the outskirts of the town that everyone avoided. But an enterprising journalist decided to get the scoop of the day by photographing the fearsome phantom. When he entered the house, armed with only his camera, the ghost descended upon him, clanking chains and all.
He told the ghost “I mean you no harm - I just want to take your picture!” The ghost was quite happy at this chance to make the headlines - he posed for a number of ghostly shots.
The happy journalist rushed back to his dark room, and began developing the photos. Unfortunately, they turned out to be black and underexposed.
Moral: The spirit was willing, but the flash was weak.
By RF
February 17, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Chuck- Welllll, apparently I’ve totally annoyed you for some reason this week. Find the posts where I talked about Golden Girls and post ‘em here for me. Apparently you have a better memory than I do. Not that I didn’t like the show, but I seriously don’t remember any discussions of it with Tim. Must make you happy to add another hash mark on your “I knew they were” chart. Whatever dude….
And BTW, I never said I was offended by anyone…well except for your ilk and their dripping ‘come to Jeeeesus campaign’. I haven’t the first bit of concern what anyone “thought” I was. Actually, it was rather funny to read if you must know.
Go home and pray for understanding and ask God if your words are good with him. I’m sure he’s really pleased by your conduct.
BTW- stereotypes dom, in fact, exist for a reason. Care to know which one you prove?
By chuck
February 17, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Top Ten Inventions By Blonds The waterproof towel Solar-powered flash light Submarine screen door A book on how to read Inflatable dart board A dictionary index Ejector seat in a helicopter Powdered water Pedal-powered wheelchair Waterproof tea bags
By chuck
February 17, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
I’m not annoyed with you RF. I was just pointing out the obvious to some of the lame brains on this blog.
I was not trying to offend you, but some of the posts you made were just obvious to me and I couldn’t figure out why the vast gay-wing majority on this board had not recognized your obvious gay-eity. If being called gay offends you, I’m sorry for calling you that. As you may have noticed a couple of weeks ago, I am fairly insightful when it comes to reading other people.
I also think you were intentionally trying to hide the fact in some of our first conversations on the Bible’s view on homosexuality. You can think whatever you want to about me, but I know that deep down in your heart that you see that your chosen lifestyle and the Bible are at odds and you aren’t sure how to deal with that. So instead of seeking like you were in the beginning, you started lashing out at me. That’s cool. As you may have noticed…I’m used to that and it doesn’t bother me at all. I just keep plugging away.
JBM, you may have noticed that I said some of us had to UN trained. That occurred for me decades ago. I have no bigoted bones in my body. I understood Randy to be talking about that in the PAST TENSE. Either way it is not easy to overcome a lifetime of learned cultural bias and prejudice. Even many of Jesus’ closest disciples were bigoted against gentiles and Samaritans until Jesus showed them their error. It’s great that as a “minister” you showed such compassion at his obvious struggle with that issue.
Kimmie, I loved your use of the hypocrite when refering to the Southern Baptist Convention…in case you hadn’t realized it, a person is a hypocrite when SAYING one thing and DOING another. The Bible consitently says that homosexuality is sin. The SBC has consistently said that it agrees with the Bible. The decision to boycott Disney based on their decision to support a sinful lifestyle is CONSISTENT, not hypocritical.
By RF
February 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Ooooookay, I’m so glad you cleared that up for me, Chuck. I just really had no idea I was hiding and in denial (it really is almost laughable). The problem is, I don’t live up to the stereotypes-you’d never guess if I was next door to you right now. Now I know that means I’m in denial. WHEW- thanks Dr. Freud for explaining my life. Now I know what do with the rainbow flag they sent me—I’ll wear it and wave it as I go down the sidewalk so noone will be confused. I’m not, or at least I wasn’t until now…
Your presumptions about people are indeed amusing. Don’t worry about offending. YOu managed that once, and it had nothing to do with my lifestyle. You can call any ‘ol name you want to if it makes you happy. As I’ve said before, I respect your dogmatic stand, even if I do think you’re wrong.
I’m going now for the weekend. Have a good one!
By Blogpolice
February 17, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
hey, you guys need to move over to the new woman to woman blog. It’s too much trouble for me to have to go back and forth…pleaaaase?